Two posters that have gone on social media this morning, starting with this:
And followed up with this:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Those affected by the eligibility changes will be mostly left in poverty. Wishing they were in work isn’t a solution. If they outlined a means to claim disability related support against gross earnings, they could more seriously claim to support getting disabled people into work. Or they could have a taper on earnings so those few earning enough get a bit less so the cuts are more progressive. The proposed cuts are regressive, and fail to understand the support they’re cutting may be necessary for some of those affected to have the support the need to work.
Much to agree with
HEALTHCARE
NOT
WARFARE!!!!
Could some of the rest have received funds from people who are ‘Labour in name only’ – and maybe not Labour at all?
This is just populism.
Labour has picked on a group of people society would like to see out of the way, whom are underrepresented in our advertising and portrayals of the ‘perfect life’.
There is of course a lot more going on though – it would not surprise me if the current system was being abused either. Abuse or not though, there is always a tendency to overreact to such abuse and make it a ‘moral crusade’ which is ridiculous given the amount of abuse of the tax system that is tolerated and even encouraged as well as the corruption in parliament itself.
Finally, a bunch of over paid, already well-heeled politicians married to rich people, getting back handers from donors etc., and have them cast a judgement like this is akin to a bunch of lepers judging a beauty contest. It is distinctly inappropriate.
Shameful.
If a system is being abused you take steps to deal with the abuse, you don’t penalise everyone who uses the system. Currently the government is taking legal action to recover money paid to a supplier of unusable PPE. they aren’t demanding every PPE supplier repay their payments.
System abuse is an excuse to cover the government taking money from those who need it most and who may not survive this cruelty.
Benefit abuse really is just a small percentage of desperate people scratching about for pennies to try to improve on a meagre existence.
They align themselves though, and who can blame them, with those much higher up the food chain who are much better placed to game the system, the effects of which are far more insidious and damaging (circa £30bn in Covid fraud alone). These fraudsters will, no doubt, be the same individuals that stigmatise the ‘undeserving poor’ for taking ‘tax payers money’.
Benefit abusers are wrong but if I were the one charged with improving the morals and examples set in this country I wouldn’t be starting with them.
PSR referred to “a bunch of over paid, already well-heeled politicians married to rich people, getting back handers from donors etc….”
These backhanders result from one of the sharpest tools in the neoliberal toolbox: Lobbying. Outside of Westminster “lobbying” is called Bribery and Corruption. It’s an offence in the UK (and many other nations) and, if it occurs in Councils, the NHS, other public bodies as well as the wider commercial economy it can be punished by heavy fines and/or jail sentences. But we have a special exclusion provision for our politicians: they get a free pass for accepting a bribe to facilitate a lobbyist’s plans (regardless of whether these plans may be in the state’s interest or not – e.g. selling off the NHS) provided it’s logged in Parliamentary records. And that’s before we consider the secretive world of off-shore banking as a destination for secret inducements.
Why do we put up with this distortion of the law and why are the mainstream media (with the exception of Private Eye) silent about it? In 1999/2000 I was working in Switzerland, which at the time had no laws against bribery & corruption, which explains why so many global bodies (e.g. FIFA etc) were head-quartered there. Switzerland brought in anti-corruption legislation from 2000 on and suddenly court cases involving powerful individuals started popping up in world news, and people going to jail. There’s no logic to the UK lobbying scandal: it’s corruption by any definition of the word, so why do we tolerate it here? More to the point why aren’t Starmer, Streeting etc and trainloads of Tories in jail?
KTPC!
(KeepThePostersComing!)
KUTGW!
These appeared inmmy head as I work this morning – although it required a little work to get them on screen.
Into the political “mix” today:
Corbyn launching a new “party” … except he isn’t calling it a party.
https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/corbyn-set-to-launch-a-new-political
Alan Story, THE LEFT LANE .
I absolutely love the posters and will keep posting them on my own fb page, but I think they ought to have a link to your blog embedded, so that people can find your work if the poster intrigues them.
For those interested, Politico today had this comment: ” New number-crunching from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found there are seven people claiming health-related universal credit in Britain for each available job opening. It’s evidence like this which helps explain the size and breadth of the looming rebellion. “The numbers are one thing,” one MP said. “But the broad selection signing this amendment is nationwide and from different sides of the party, including people you would never expect to see on the list.”
Also, thank you for the Chat GPT prompt for producing letters to MPs. I have never had a problem with writing my own letters, but your template simplified the process immensely. It works not only for your blog posts but also for well-reasoned arguments elsewhere. Really appreciated.
Thanks
The poster is being redesigned
But can you build a link into one? How?
PIP is nothing to do with “work”. It is a non-work related benefit paid to people who are disabled to cover (some of) the extra costs incurred by disability. PIP actually keeps disabled people in work – 55% of people on PIP are in work. That is because PIP is used to pay for assistance not provided by the NHS or local councils. Mobility scooters; electric wheelchairs; increased fuel bills from: vital heating, adjustable chairs and beds; incontinence pads not provided; medication boxes; taxis to work; taxis to medical appointments….. I could go on ad infinitum. Take PIP away, and thousands of disabled people will LOSE their jobs, not get jobs.
The rate of fraud/abuse, according to the Govt website, is zero. Zero. The fraud figure is from Universal Credit. Zero fraud in PIP.
Disgustingly, the Government (in the impossible to find small print) intends to make this a Money Bill. That means that if the Bill is voted through on Tuesday, it will go straight into law (after Royal Assent). No Committee Stage; no line by line scrutiny in the Lords – nothing.
The Government obviously decided on this a long time ago. In the Green Paper – which is an absolute shambles, btw – it became perfectly clear that the “evidence” was cherry picked to suit the purpose. That is policy based evidence, not evidence based policy. The genuine evidence, provided by academics, social scientists, social economists, the BMJ, the Trussell Trust, the Resolution Foundation, Disability Consortia AND the fact that since a U.N. investigation in 2016, the UK has been in contravention of three Articles in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The most recent follow up report in 2024 from the U.N. said that the UK’s welfare policies had actually meant the UK had actually regressed. These proposed reforms will make matters considerably worse.
The RF assesses that nearly 400,000 people – twice the Government’s assessment – will be forced into poverty. Another 700,000 will be pushed further into absolute poverty.
WTAF is Starmer thinking of? He’s threatening rebels with deselection at the next election if they vote against the Bill in Tuesday. I spoke to an MP this morning who said clearly and very bitterly that he didn’t really care about deselection, because this iteration of Labour was not a Party that he any longer wanted to represent.
See the post I have just put up, and thank you.
Thanks very much, Richard.