I am not affliated with, or support, any party or organisation. I am me. Please dont label me because I obviously disagree with your own views. This might come across as hypocritical, and maybe it is. But sometimes people's intentions need to be unmasked.

One person (keldas) hit the nail on the head in this thread. im not always good at putting into words what I think and feel. I am not going into any details about my personal life but I have a vested interest in the outcome of this situation and know someone who is in hell due to illness and the government simply dont care and want to force them into work. When they are targetting people like this due to their cuts, it makes my blood boil.

I stand by what I said, even though my post was made in anger. I still am angry. This anger will not subside unless George Osborne and the rest of his government DO THE RIGHT THING BY THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION for once in their miserable lives.

It is completely WRONG the way they treat us. We give them their positions, we pay their wages, yet they refuse to appreciate this.

Originally posted by Firefly_
know someone who is in hell due to illness and the government simply dont care and want to force them into work. When they are targeting people like this due to their cuts, it makes my blood boil.

Rest assured this policy is for the best for your sick friend as well as the country, for if they are truly sadly incapacitated they will likely see a rise in their payments, due to the shaking out of the system all the scroungers that are not 'entitled' to this tax payed fund.

If however, they are capable of working and are claiming incapacity then sorry yes they should get out there and do some work like the rest of us!!

Korg.

Hmmm... When have we heard this anti-scrounger rhetoric before? Seems I've been hearing it all my politically aware life (since early 80s). There are 2 times which stand out as particularly sustained & vociferous: just before the recession of the late 80s &, poured on even thicker, just before the recession of the early 90s.
We've just found out that the Treasury expect massive unemployment, a revelation which Cameron failed miserably to respond to at today's PMQs, instead inadvertantly revealing conclusively something a lot of us suspected, ie that the Office for Budget Responsibility is the new statistics spinning machine.
Past history of rising unemployment, prediction of the same & the same rhetoric: a scientist would say there's a correllation there that bears scrutiny. I'd say that neo-con monetarist economic policy is demonstrably a failure &, since you cannot polish a turd, any hybrid versions of it are also doomed. The question then is why do politicians of the right & (pseudo) left persist with these ideas?
Is it all down to (1) the global elites controlling everything in a deliberate (explicit) conspiracy in their favour? Is it (2) an implicit conspiracy whereby individuals acting in their own interest only also create the environment whereby those of similar means also prosper, but as a by-product? Is it that (3) the way economics has been taught for several decades fundamentally misunderstands what "the market" actually is & the function of work in society?
Personally, I suspect about 1/2 of it is a dynamic combination of 1 & 2, about 1/3 3 & the rest is down to inherent conservatism (small c), ie politicians just do not dare try really new ideas.
Let's not forget however that, regardless of economic conditions, many Conservatives (big C) want to dismantle the welfare state & even those who recognise society cannot afford the crime that would result, realise that minimum benefits create the environment whereby people must accept low wages. This is actually a self-defeating policy. (more>)

(cont.)
The reason the UK's benefits bill is so large is not because of a few £million that a few cheats manage to blag between them, nor is it even because of the number of unemployed. The number of pensioners & the length of time we now survive to claim a pension is a major cost, but far more important is that, in comparison to the cost of living (particularly housing & fuel), UK wages are so low that many working families could not look after their children well enough for those children to gain much from school, without a top up from state benefits. So what do we want, a draconian attitude to those who have children & lose the skilled job they are trained for? Some kind of Chinese style state intervention to discourage people from having children they cannot afford (which the Chinese are now regretting)?
How about higher wages? More money in peoples' pockets creates the demand for goods & services: this is the majority of the market. The share price of companies, the desire of those with capital to make a profit from investment & the bloated financial sector are at best parts of the supply side only, at worst parasitical.
A serious problem in the UK is that we have so few industries that can employ skilled workers these days & unskilled service jobs can only exist & be paid well if plenty of people have money to spend. Its no use for a govt to simply increase the minimum wage then, we need more skilled jobs, ie manufacturing, world class IT etc. How do we get that then? Investment from capital & global corporations? That is the current thinking. However, why should anyone invest in a country where the population have little disposable income? Only if the govt make it attractive for them to do so... ah, bummer! That doesn't gel with neo-con monetarist policies.