(no subject)
Apr. 13th, 2010 09:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tj_roweI just did the 'Party Matcher' 'game' on the BBC website, and it gave me 66% Labour, 64% Lib Dem, and 60% Tory. Still not sure who I'm going to vote for - and it looks like the race in my head is comparable to the one for the whole country - close. I probably won't know who I'm going to vote for until |I have the bit of paper and pen in my hand, and even once I'm on my way home I'll probably be wondering whether I went for the right one.
I guess there's the York Outer one fairly soon as well - if I wrangle it right, I could just have the effect of voting against one party.
But anyway, I am making a livejournal post because, as usual, something annoyed me.
One of the questions was this:
I stronglysupport/oppose reducing the amount of government spending on social security payments to the unemployed or disabled
Labour answers: oppose
Supporting quotes: Yvette Cooper, Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: "Our Labour government will never turn its back on those hit by recession or global crisis. We know unemployment hurts. Unemployment scars. That’s why we are putting an extra £5bn into jobs and training."
Another supporting quote: "Labour has made families with disabled children a priority, with a total of £770 million in new funding for local authorities and primary care trusts to support disabled children and their families, to transform short break services, and to improve disabled children’s services and children’s palliative care."
Dudes, way to have quotes that don't answer the question. Oh, wait: It makes sense if we assume that no-one cares about disabled adults. Not being able to work is a ~lifestyle choice~, didn't you know?
Fuckers.
The Lim Dems (aparently) oppose spending more on welfare stuff - but the quote 'supporting' this just says about how they want to give young people the chance of three months work experience paid for by the govenment rather than the company.
Apparently the only welfare-related things we agree on are 'more houses' and 'WTH marriage-tax-break, Tories?', and a fair amount of the rest is either 'Tamar doesn't care' or 'Hi, I'm Nick Clegg and I'm just going to summarise what those other two guys just said for you'.
Quote: "Our aim is to help as many as possible of those who have incapacities, but who are capable of at least some work, into jobs...People whose disabilities make it impossible for them to work will continue to receive unconditional support, but will be able to access support services on a voluntary basis."
It can't be any worse than what Labour is currently doing, I guess. I'm sure they'll manage to prove that wrong if they get in, though...
Quote: "We expect to see an initial, one-off reduction in the number of out of work benefit claimants as a result of the introduction of tougher sanctions and conditions."
Told you so.
Quote: Our plans provide a much more comprehensive programme of support for jobseekers. But they also mean that those who refuse to participate in the return to work process will no longer receive out of work benefits. We will ensure that people participate fully by introducing mandatory conditions and time limits."
I bet this means a lot of trying to trip up the Jobseeking folks with unexpected red tape. Did you not read about the compulsory meeting in the micro-print?! No money for you! They want people so terrifed of tripping up and going hungry that they'll do whatever the government tells them.
The NHS: Tories say 'give it more money, stop setting stupid targets such that it's focussed on hitting the targets (or making it seem that they've been hit) rather than actually improving things', Labour say 'give it more money, but menace it about exactly how the money is spent', Lib Dems see a gap in the market and say 'stop giving it money, but also stop giving it stupid targets'; or rather 'stop giving it especial money and prioritising it over everything else'.
Slightly related, me and my mum visited my Nan earlier, I won a disagreement - she argued that there was no such thing as being unable to work, bringing up an example of a seven year old with no legs who was going to be in a race to raise money for some charity or other, and I said something along the lines of how for most physical impairments, there are adaptions available and most of society understands these adaptions and why they're neccessary. For mental, neurological and painful conditions, not only does society have no idea what's going on with you, it has no idea what to do about it, and if you do have an adaption that works, society has the sneaking suspicion that you're Doing It Wrong - if you need what is seen as an excessive amount of rest to function, society reckons that you don't really need it (even though the 'extra' rest is as much an adaption as a wheelchair or pair of glasses), or if you take medicine (especially if that medicine is *gasp!* precription painkillers!)... well.
After the point was made, the conversation moved onto the flaws which my family imagines Steve must have, and how he'll never get a job because he has long hair and a beard. -_-;;
--
Comments on the quiz, the qestions/answers, the argument with my Nan, and stupid things that all the party-people have said more than welcome. I'll set comments to default to screened - mention in the comment if you don't want it unscreened - though screened comments are automatically unscreened when replied to, so I'll reply by PM if you tell me not to unscreen.
I guess there's the York Outer one fairly soon as well - if I wrangle it right, I could just have the effect of voting against one party.
But anyway, I am making a livejournal post because, as usual, something annoyed me.
One of the questions was this:
I strongly
Labour answers: oppose
Supporting quotes: Yvette Cooper, Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: "Our Labour government will never turn its back on those hit by recession or global crisis. We know unemployment hurts. Unemployment scars. That’s why we are putting an extra £5bn into jobs and training."
Another supporting quote: "Labour has made families with disabled children a priority, with a total of £770 million in new funding for local authorities and primary care trusts to support disabled children and their families, to transform short break services, and to improve disabled children’s services and children’s palliative care."
Dudes, way to have quotes that don't answer the question. Oh, wait: It makes sense if we assume that no-one cares about disabled adults. Not being able to work is a ~lifestyle choice~, didn't you know?
Fuckers.
The Lim Dems (aparently) oppose spending more on welfare stuff - but the quote 'supporting' this just says about how they want to give young people the chance of three months work experience paid for by the govenment rather than the company.
Apparently the only welfare-related things we agree on are 'more houses' and 'WTH marriage-tax-break, Tories?', and a fair amount of the rest is either 'Tamar doesn't care' or 'Hi, I'm Nick Clegg and I'm just going to summarise what those other two guys just said for you'.
Quote: "Our aim is to help as many as possible of those who have incapacities, but who are capable of at least some work, into jobs...People whose disabilities make it impossible for them to work will continue to receive unconditional support, but will be able to access support services on a voluntary basis."
It can't be any worse than what Labour is currently doing, I guess. I'm sure they'll manage to prove that wrong if they get in, though...
Quote: "We expect to see an initial, one-off reduction in the number of out of work benefit claimants as a result of the introduction of tougher sanctions and conditions."
Told you so.
Quote: Our plans provide a much more comprehensive programme of support for jobseekers. But they also mean that those who refuse to participate in the return to work process will no longer receive out of work benefits. We will ensure that people participate fully by introducing mandatory conditions and time limits."
I bet this means a lot of trying to trip up the Jobseeking folks with unexpected red tape. Did you not read about the compulsory meeting in the micro-print?! No money for you! They want people so terrifed of tripping up and going hungry that they'll do whatever the government tells them.
The NHS: Tories say 'give it more money, stop setting stupid targets such that it's focussed on hitting the targets (or making it seem that they've been hit) rather than actually improving things', Labour say 'give it more money, but menace it about exactly how the money is spent', Lib Dems see a gap in the market and say 'stop giving it money, but also stop giving it stupid targets'; or rather 'stop giving it especial money and prioritising it over everything else'.
Slightly related, me and my mum visited my Nan earlier, I won a disagreement - she argued that there was no such thing as being unable to work, bringing up an example of a seven year old with no legs who was going to be in a race to raise money for some charity or other, and I said something along the lines of how for most physical impairments, there are adaptions available and most of society understands these adaptions and why they're neccessary. For mental, neurological and painful conditions, not only does society have no idea what's going on with you, it has no idea what to do about it, and if you do have an adaption that works, society has the sneaking suspicion that you're Doing It Wrong - if you need what is seen as an excessive amount of rest to function, society reckons that you don't really need it (even though the 'extra' rest is as much an adaption as a wheelchair or pair of glasses), or if you take medicine (especially if that medicine is *gasp!* precription painkillers!)... well.
After the point was made, the conversation moved onto the flaws which my family imagines Steve must have, and how he'll never get a job because he has long hair and a beard. -_-;;
--
Comments on the quiz, the qestions/answers, the argument with my Nan, and stupid things that all the party-people have said more than welcome. I'll set comments to default to screened - mention in the comment if you don't want it unscreened - though screened comments are automatically unscreened when replied to, so I'll reply by PM if you tell me not to unscreen.
