Chloe mentioned all of us in Parliament

[wendy]

look toward the end were Chloe speaks

I recently met with carers and I hosted a web chat on Friday for a forum called Chill 4 Us. I spoke online with carers who, day in and day out, give up their time to care for others. Their passion on this issue was clear and powerful. None of them wants to lose DLA and AA because they need and appreciate them greatly as cash benefits. Sadly, however, I got the impression that the only chance they have to say that is through such virtual forums-we were there tapping away. That is one of the difficulties in this debate. It can be very constricting for people who need us to take the subject seriously and treat it with respect and maturity. Quite simply, living with the kind of care needs for which DLA and AA cater is hard and can be expensive. They are needs-based benefits. It is one small piece of help that society can give, so it should hardly be controversial to say, "Let's not abolish something that the elderly, disabled or ill need and value."
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... ley#g171.0

[maureenho]

[wendy]

[graham]

[graham]

[ians1]

The motion was not carried, ie they will still try to remove AA/DLA from people who get it now, even though they say there will be no "cash losers".

Notice the 39 rats:-

Labour Party
Anderson, Janet
Austin, John
Berry, Roger
Burgon, Colin
Caton, Martin
Clark, Katy
Cook, Frank
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, David
Cryer, Ann
Dean, Janet
Drew, David
Etherington, Bill
Fisher, Mark
Gerrard, Neil
Godsiff, Roger
Grogan, John
Heyes, David
Hoey, Kate
Howells, Kim
Iddon, Brian
Illsley, Eric
Jenkins, Brian
Kaufman, Gerald
McDonnell, John
McGovern, Jim
Meale, Alan
Owen, Albert
Prosser, Gwyn
Roy, Lindsay
Simpson, Alan
Singh, Marsha
Taylor, David
Truswell, Paul
Vis, Rudi
Wareing, Robert N
Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek

These are the Labour turncoats who signed EDM 1 earlier but then voted it down in effect because this motion was put before the house by a Tory.

Wonderful people you can really trust, not.

ian

[graham]

[ians1]

Well judging by the fact the Tories voted for the EDM in effect, they would seem to be saying that using benefits to fund future care is not appropriate.  So if they did get in at the next election they would most likely scrap the White Paper that is to follow on from this.

The trouble is that people tend to change their minds so easily because the Labour middle classes are so easily lead, particularly when tax cuts are mentioned.  

I think that we are very likely to see a slim Labour majority or a hung parliament, not a huge Tory victory, but obviously I may be wrong. 

The Tories do things like support Fox hunting and huge tax giveaways for the idle rich which immediately puts peoples backs up, so they don't necessarily appeal to everyone.

ian

[ians1]

But Chloe made a good attempt to persuade them and chill played a part in putting the thoughts in her mind to launch such an impassioned argument.

[ians1]

What they actually voted on:-

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2 ) ), That the proposed words be there added.

Question agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2) ) .

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Government's proposals to create the National Care Service, the first national, universal, entitlement-based system for care and support in England; notes that the proposals will deliver real benefits to people including wider provision of prevention services, a single needs assessment across England and information, guidance and advice for all; recognises that in 20 years' time, 1.5 million more people will have care and support needs, whilst the number of people aged over 85 will have doubled; further notes that around 400,000 people will benefit from enactment of the Personal Care at Home Bill, which contains no proposed changes to disability benefits; acknowledges that the Government is considering responses to the Big Care Debate consultation before any decisions are made between a range of options for the National Care Service; understands that changes to disability living allowance for under-65s as part of the introduction of a National Care Service have been ruled out; and welcomes the reassurance that, if disability benefits for older people were to be reformed as part of the National Care Service, those receiving the affected benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support.

Which you will see leaves it open to the government to remove DLA/AA at some point in the future for new claimants.  And for existing claimants you will get "an equivalent level of support"  but not necessarily any money!

ian

[ians1]

This was as opposed to the original EDM (Early Day Motion):-

That this House recognises the vital support that attendance allowance and disability living allowance provide for people with disabilities; notes that these benefits are intended to meet the additional costs of living with an impairment or long-term health condition; further notes with concern that approximately 2.87 million people in the UK who receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance are not eligible for social care services; acknowledges that some 20,000 individuals have petitioned the Prime Minister and many more have petitioned individual hon. and right hon. Members to ensure that these benefits are secured; welcomes the Government's announcement that disability living allowance for people under 65 years will not be scrapped; and urges the Government to ensure that attendance allowance and disability living allowance for people aged 65 years and over are secured and not abolished as part of any future reform of the social care system.

ian

[ians1]

Just a pity that those 39 Labour MPs that had originally signed the latter statement then went on to do an about turn to fall in line with the government as they opposed this (Tory) question put before Parliament.

If they had had the strength of their convictions in supporting the EDM then they should have voted for the EDM to be adopted in full and not amended as it turned out to be.

But well done Chloe again for voicing our concerns.

Its also a pity folk like Anne McGuire are just not getting it:-

As I have said, I believe that genuine discussions must take place with the organisations that represent the needs and ambitions of disabled people. Let me say this to the Government, and I say it with the utmost respect to my colleagues. I welcomed the Secretary of State's comments about cash support, but the Government know that disability benefits, including attendance allowance, are valued and that any proposed changes should be seen in the context of improving the lives of disabled and older people in the future-I recognise that we are talking about the future.

How about, God forbid Anne, "discussions" actually WITH disabled people and their Carers and not just "organisations that represent " ?

Sorry, that would lead to inconvenient things like the truth leaking out...

ian

[ians1]

The other point was most disabled and their Carers have only one ambition, to get through the current day...

ian

[wendy]

[ians1]

[graham]

[ians1]

[wendy]

[ians1]

[wendy]

[ians1]

[ians1]

In that speech that Chloe made such a good contribution to there was this gem from Ann McGuire:-

"...let me explain that there is no independence for an elderly person living on attendance allowance in a local authority that does not see social care as one of its funding priorities. That is not about independence, it does not provide choice and it certainly does not give control. As for my friends in voluntary organisations such as Carers UK and the many others that have been mentioned, I have the utmost respect for them, but I think they know in their heart of hearts that we must have a genuine discussion about how to deal with the demographic time-bomb and the social care time-bomb that we all face. I understand exactly why they are advancing some of the arguments that we have heard today, but they need to become part of the ongoing discussion about how we can reform the system. Even the best of the voluntary organisations need to respond..."


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... -08a.180.0

There is no independence when ALL of the funding is coming from the local authority!

ian

[ians1]

She also said

"The bad news is that although Mr. Lansley, who opened for the Conservative Opposition, said that there was a need for consensus, he then went on to scaremonger about the so-called attempt by a Labour Government to take away disability benefits from nearly 3 million people in Britain. Frankly, that is a disgraceful way to come at the subject, because the reform of social care is an important matter for all of us."

I think she would be scared if all she had to live on was benefits instead of the expenses!

ian

[wendy]

from 2009

[Misspears]

tha22222