Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Any Tories care to defend this? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't seen a story so far where other factors haven't had a huge impact on how the person died. A lot of these people were already mentally ill and doctors or coroners say the cut in benefits 'triggered' them - I don't know how familiar you are with mental health, but 'triggers' are not the cause of the death in that case. Anorexic people for example are 'triggered' by people talking about what diet they are on, and this can cause their illness to get worse, but that's the illness - it's not the fault of the person talking about their diet. It's still the fault of the mental illness itself, and anyone with mental health issues can be triggered by various things. Someone who has depression, with one of the most common symptoms being a feeling of helplessness or like there's no way out, will obviously find a cut in their benefits more sensitive than someone who is not depressed. They may be triggered by having their benefits cut, but their illness has killed them, not the benefits cut.

    And some of them like take David Clapson in that article: "They included David Clapson, 59, a former soldier from Stevenage. He was a diabetic who was found dead in his home last July after his benefits were slashed and he did not apply for hardship payments." Why didn't he? Take some responsibility for yourself if you're on welfare, people aren't going to come round ladling it out to you.

    So far I haven't seen a single news story that has convinced me of a direct correlation between benefit cuts and death. There are always other factors or mental illness involved.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    I'm going to tell you why you're wrong:

    I am on ESA.

    1. I pay for my bus and train fares
    2. I get free prescriptions but if I were not disabled I wouldn't need the meds anyway so...
    3. Free healthcare is available to everyone in this country
    4. I pay for my food
    5. I get some housing benefit, I pay for the rest and some council tax
    6. I pay for my gas, electricity and water
    7. What support?
    8. What other perks?
    Then why do we pay for it if you don't need it?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  David-Cameron.jpg
Views: 40
Size:  197.0 KB
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Then why do we pay for it if you don't need it?
    What do you think YOU are paying for that I don't need?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    If I remember correctly pensions are over £70 billion/year and constitute around 50% of welfare spending. ESA is less than £5 billion. Care to explain how I am completely wrong?

    Any changes to pensions would hit middled aged professionals as its their future state pensions that will be reduced or their retirement age pushed back.
    It's proportional! There are more old people than there are on regular benefits. And you know why we give old people pensions? Because a majority have worked their arses off. You are wrong about welfare spending. In entirety it is almost 698 billion. It makes up 10% maximum. Also ESA is not the only benefits, overall we spend over 40 billion in benefits. Stop drawing up stats which support your argument and ignoring the truth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    What do you think YOU are paying for that I don't need?
    Stop changing the question. You have just claimed you pay for almost everything you need. Why do you need benefits then?

    And I do acknowledge you are disabled, and as such should get benefits for that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dopesmoker)
    if you're in the 20% tax bracket and voted for the Tories, you f***ed up big time
    Considering tax credits haven't been cut and over a million have been taken out of income tax, your username seems highly appropriate for your viewpoint.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Figures circa 2012
    Sources: Guardian, Telegraph, DWP

    Spend:
    State pensions: £74bn
    ESA: £3.6bn

    Caseload:
    State pensions: 9.2m
    ESA: 2.3m

    Per claimant:
    State pensions: £8,065
    ESA: £1,565

    Remember everyone, never trust a Tory. They'll lie about anything.
    I referred to ESA as a single argument point. But see my answer to Quintax.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Stop changing the question. You have just claimed you pay for almost everything you need. Why do you need benefits then?

    And I do acknowledge you are disabled, and as such should get benefits for that.
    WTF? The poster I replied to said that people on ESA got all that stuff free and then were given their ESA. When I say 'I pay for...' I mean 'I pay for... with my ESA.'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    I have hated the lords since day 1. Whether they vote in favour or against the government (Labour or Tory) is a spit in the face of democracy. Like the EU cabinet, they are nothing more than unelected privileged elitists. I have and always will oppose the idea of the lords, no matter the situation.
    But it's okay when Cameron and the Conservatives try and stuff it full of their puppets in order for their legislation to pass?

    Take Andrew Lloyd Webber, who despite having not bothered to vote for the past 2 years (as a member of the HoL), suddenly found himself in London voting with the Government for the Tax Credits cuts in October 2015.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    WTF? The poster I replied to said that people on ESA got all that stuff free and then were given their ESA. When I say 'I pay for...' I mean 'I pay for... with my ESA.'
    Ohhhhhh. Apologies. I didn't realise. To be honest my issues isn't with benefits. It's with the way it is shared out
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    That is the lowest rate, most earn far more than that and on top of that they are all eligible for free travel, prescriptions, healthcare, food, housing, energy, support and many other perks. Do not play the victim card. 100 quid including free everything is a dream for many many people
    No we were on benefit during hard time. We got much much less. And we are a family of 6, head of household: a self employed single mum.

    Yes they are meagre. And it's a *****y life. I'm talking from experience.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    But it's okay when Cameron and the Conservatives try and stuff it full of their puppets in order for their legislation to pass?

    Take Andrew Lloyd Webber, who despite having not bothered to vote for the past 2 years (as a member of the HoL), suddenly found himself in London voting with the Government for the Tax Credits cuts in October 2015.
    No it is not ok. The lords should be scrapped, every Tory, Labour and Liberal democrat who sits in there. Even if it was on a policy I supported I would still oppose their ruling as democratic process sits in my top 3 most important policies (which is why I have always been opposed to the idea of the EU and the lords), you will never find support from me to the lords.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    I haven't seen a story so far where other factors haven't had a huge impact on how the person died. A lot of these people were already mentally ill and doctors or coroners say the cut in benefits 'triggered' them - I don't know how familiar you are with mental health, but 'triggers' are not the cause of the death in that case. Anorexic people for example are 'triggered' by people talking about what diet they are on, and this can cause their illness to get worse, but that's the illness - it's not the fault of the person talking about their diet. It's still the fault of the mental illness itself, and anyone with mental health issues can be triggered by various things. Someone who has depression, with one of the most common symptoms being a feeling of helplessness or like there's no way out, will obviously find a cut in their benefits more sensitive than someone who is not depressed. They may be triggered by having their benefits cut, but their illness has killed them, not the benefits cut.

    And some of them like take David Clapson in that article: "They included David Clapson, 59, a former soldier from Stevenage. He was a diabetic who was found dead in his home last July after his benefits were slashed and he did not apply for hardship payments." Why didn't he? Take some responsibility for yourself if you're on welfare, people aren't going to come round ladling it out to you.

    So far I haven't seen a single news story that has convinced me of a direct correlation between benefit cuts and death. There are always other factors or mental illness involved.
    You seem to be stringing up a strawman there.

    Of course you won't see any news story about benefit cuts killing anybody because benefit cuts is not a physical entity. It doesn't morph itself into a rock and smash you over the head with it, although I understand it is metaphorically similar.

    The taking away of benefits leads to instability and it is this instability, which can manifest itself in various ways, which leads to the loss of life.


    Take the example of Luke Loy, who suffered from schizo and was on benefits for over 20 years, when soon after his benefits were cut, decided to kill himself.



    You want to support a policy that leads to people killing themselves? Own up to the effects instead of living in denial.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    No it is not ok. The lords should be scrapped, every Tory, Labour and Liberal democrat who sits in there. Even if it was on a policy I supported I would still oppose their ruling as democratic process sits in my top 3 most important policies (which is why I have always been opposed to the idea of the EU and the lords), you will never find support from me to the lords.
    If the HoL is to be scrapped, what should replace it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The guys hilarious, people get these disability payments at a higher rate than the unemployed for a simple reason.

    They can't work!

    Why can't you get that through your head?

    Unemployment benefit is supposed to keep you alive whilst looking for work to put it bluntly.

    Pensions and disability benefits are supposed to be so you can live your life as full as you can.

    It's all about the principal of who can and can't work


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    If the HoL is to be scrapped, what should replace it?
    Why should it be replaced? The HoL has the power to overrule policy, I don't think that is right. Only elected bodies dictate policy. Independent bodies have the right to assess policy and make a request for any recommedned changes, but as far as changing policy, no independent body should have that power. It contradicts the whole purpose of a democracy. If we do not like the Tories, we vote them out, simple. That's how democracy works. Not a body which is fixed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    This is subjective depending on what use you consider the lords to be. I believe a democratically elected government (based on a system democratically voted for in a referendum a few years ago) should have the policy they proposed passed in government. Since no one voted for the representatives of the lords they have no right to dictate the policy of a democratic system of governence.
    But that's ill-considered. What you have ended up advocating is that we don't need Parliament whatsoever - we just give Cameron personally dictatorial powers for a five-year term. After all, he won the election, so what business does anyone have in obstructing him? Right?

    Basically, the only reason these Lords defeats matter is because it invites the Commons to think again. The Lords aren't vetoing - they are highlighting. If the Commons re-reviews and insists it is content, then the Lords, usually, concedes. If the Commons backs down, it's always because the Government feels it doesn't have support in the Commons to overrule the Lords. So there's nothing undemocratic occurring here.

    I don't see any ramifications of removing the lords. Please list them. There are many functional governments managing just fine without an unelected body.
    They tend to be quite small countries though. When they get to be as large and as complex the UK, a second chamber is generally needed.

    Seeing as the Commons has a very bad habit of passing poor legislation, it's necessary for the Upper House to sort out their mess. I encourage you to look at the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for some rich examples.

    On the topic of the EU, apart from our representatives in the EU parliament (which are a minority and vastly different to the many europhiles present), that is as far as it goes. The EU cabinet set up by Junker and has him select which countries govern via a representative, what policy areas. He had the British representative govern the climate change and energy policy for example.
    I have no idea what you're on about. A 'representative' makes us govern a policy area? What?

    It gets better. We have EU funded bodies like the EU liberal and social democrats party which goes round pushing a biased EU agenda around the EU. There is an in-proportionate share of power among the nations. Take Camerons proposals to limit benefits for migrants, snubbed by almost all states. The second Germany (or more precisely Merkel) proposes the same exact policy, no one bats an eyelid and it is ok. You will most likely dismiss this for whatever reason but most see it for what it is. Germany has influence far greater than any other EU nation. What Merkel says is the rule of law. The EU is by far one of the most undemocratic systems, this is even recognised by the left and right, so not merely a one party stance on the issue.
    You're right, I will dismiss it, because it's nonsense. But I can't be bothered to write a wall of text and waste my night.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    Why should it be replaced? The HoL has the power to overrule policy, I don't think that is right. Only elected bodies dictate policy. Independent bodies have the right to assess policy and make a request for any recommedned changes, but as far as changing policy, no independent body should have that power. It contradicts the whole purpose of a democracy. If we do not like the Tories, we vote them out, simple. That's how democracy works. Not a body which is fixed.
    For a person that seems to sing the praises of democracy, you do sure seem rather ignorant on the vital components that ensures checks and balances that enables democracy to flourish and bounds to be not overstepped.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    For a person that seems to sing the praises of democracy, you do sure seem rather ignorant on the vital components that ensures checks and balances that enables democracy to flourish and bounds to be not overstepped.
    Please elaborate?

    (If you are referring to the FPTP system as an example that was settled in a democratic referendum in which AV lost. Even though I am against FPTP on a personal note, I support the will of the people)

    Say the people vote to stay in the EU, I will hate it and be angry admittedly but I will accept it, retract from my eurosceptic standpoint and leave it at that
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.