Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Strontium]

Let's say her family aren't involved (mine aren't). So she gets in agency carers at around £12ph. The idea of ILF is to keep people out of residential care or sheltered housing which would cost considerably more. I thought promoting independence and saving money would actually be things you'd approve of? With regard to family. Her sister probably has a house and family of her own and perhaps can't afford to care for somebody for free. Could you afford to give up work and care for a relative for nothing?

 

 

Well, I don't know, that's why I'm asking questions. Isn't that why people ask questions, or is everyone so cool these days that they can't admit to gaps in their knowledge?

 

I remember my mother giving up work and caring for her children for nothing, and getting no help from the government for it (outside of child benefit). I do know I personally would feel deeply uncomfortable taking money from a relative for helping them out, but maybe that's just me.

[Gym Beglin]

In my mind, I've got a kind of Giles cartoon of the Coalition 'cutting' away at a fatty leg, until they cut too deep and it severs an artery.

 

I thank you.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Well, I don't know, that's why I'm asking questions. Isn't that why people ask questions, or is everyone so cool these days that they can't admit to gaps in their knowledge?

 

I remember my mother giving up work and caring for her children for nothing, and getting no help from the government for it (outside of child benefit). I do know I personally would feel deeply uncomfortable taking money from a relative for helping them out, but maybe that's just me.

 

No, it isn't just you; there's many millions of people all around the country who do exactly that. However, there's a few thousand people who pay a proportion of their ILF to pay family members to help them out. The rationale behind this is, for example, that those people are not left out of pocket when they take a couple of ours off of work in order to pick-up laundry, drive it to the launderette, pay to use the service and then take it back.

 

In turn, this allows the recipient of the benefit - and God forbid people actually benefit from benefits - to retain some form independence and dignity without costing the government loads of money for professional carers.

 

I think the reason people get a bit touchy is because you seem so pissed off at people who receive benefits. You seem pissed off at Labour for paying these people money. You seem really annoyed that you have to contribute towards it.

[L19red]

SD do you have the same sort of objections to carers allowance? I dont know much about this particular benefit (ILA) but at first glance it seems a flexible way of providing appropriate support to those that need it rather than a black and white set of conditions and an all or nothing benefit.

[Fugitive]

The two main political parties in Liverpool are to unite to tackle the £100m government funding cut the city faces over the next two years.

 

Ruling Labour and the recently usurped Liberal Democrats are planning to devise a joint budget and "put aside" any politics.

 

"We are facing the biggest challenge in our history, it's like a war time spirit," deputy leader Paul Brant said.

 

Lib Dem leader, Warren Bradley, agreed: "We need to protect the vulnerable."

 

The two party leaders have agreed in principle to work together on the budget, and Mr Bradley expects this to be ratified by his cabinet on Friday morning.

 

In the wake of the grant cuts from central government on Monday, the council said it is the worst-hit city in the country.

 

Mr Brant said: "In the normal run of events, a good bit of political banter and shouting between parties - and we certainly get that in Liverpool - would be a good thing because it's healthy to examine the policies.

 

'Savage cuts'

 

"However, we are facing an unprecedented challenge, I don't think Liverpool has seen anything as bad as this since 1945.

 

"We need to put aside our party differences and work together. We have a very tight budget, the council is going to decrease massively in size and we have less than five weeks to decide on the cuts."

 

The budget will be agreed on 13 February.

In May, Labour took control of the council after a 12-year Lib Dem rule. It has the majority and both sides are keen to stress the new found unity is not a coalition.

 

Mr Bradley added: "An easier option would have been to remain in opposition and point score in these difficult times.

 

"But we have to work together to bring about the best resolution for the city and put all our thoughts together.

 

"The vulnerable need to be protected from these savage cuts."

[Section_31]

The whole thing is rushed, half-arsed and ill-conceived. You can't go around just brushing away PCTs on a whim and handing cash to GPs, or dismantling the state's forensic science apparatus and handing it over to the private sector. Where are the studies? The conferences? Where is the debate? It's like some private sector madman has just walked into Number 10 and gone wild with the fountain pen. Worrying, scary times ahead.

[dennis tooth]

The whole thing is rushed, half-arsed and ill-conceived. You can't go around just brushing away PCTs on a whim and handing cash to GPs, or dismantling the state's forensic science apparatus and handing it over to the private sector. Where are the studies? The conferences? Where is the debate? It's like some private sector madman has just walked into Number 10 and gone wild with the fountain pen. Worrying, scary times ahead.

 

Mate its madness, it's being handed over alright, docs are mostly in the arms of the pharmacuetical industry. This is privatisation through the back door and most people arent aware of it. Hopefully people will get wind and they won't be sending their kids to protest it will be the people themselves but so far theres been no red light from the media, they are pushing it under the carpet for the most part right now. They are doing that with a lot of the stuff the government are doing.

[dennis tooth]

Will parliament spot the real problem with legal aid cuts?

Paul_Rumley.JPG

Tuesday 14 December 2010 by Paul Rumley

 

As shown in president Linda Lee’s excellent summary piece it is clear that the government has a simple arithmetical problem (over and above the deficit itself). The debate on legal aid today in parliament will have to address a sum that does not add up.

 

Legal aids cuts + Jackson/Young review = access to justice disaster.

 

This problem is especially pronounced for clinical negligence claims.

 

As with all good disaster movies however, it is first necessary to set the scene with some general points which bear repetition with each and every MP in the country who is going to be involved in the debates on this issue.

 

First, it does seem to me that the coalition government – despite being in its infancy – already risks repeating the very mistakes it criticised in the Labour government for when in opposition, namely not listening, not understanding, and picking on supposedly weak targets in carrying policy into effect on this issue. Does the government appreciate that there is a ‘double whammy’ hit of both the cuts and the Jackson/Young proposals on access to justice? Is this a case of those who understand the law and constitution become lawyers, and those who don’t become MPs and ministers?

 

Secondly, it seems clear to everyone except the Ministry of Justice, that there is no point in having a justice system if we as citizens have no practical access to it – that would be a breach of the fundamental constitutional basis for any state, that we as citizens give up our individual rights to the state in return for a way of enforcing those, that is, the justice system. Indeed, access to justice is not just part of David Cameron’s ‘big society’, but in fact is a marker of what I have always known as a civilised society.

 

Thirdly, European law is quite clear that in order to comply with their obligations, member states must have effective and independent justice systems, and only within the last two weeks the European Justice Commissioner has signaled a very clear intention to introduce minimum levels of legal aid provision which all states – including the UK – will have to adhere to. Our government is clearly swimming against the tide upon this issue generally, and risks successful challenges under domestic and/or European law (note to government: rather ironically, any judicial review of these decisions will likely have to be paid for out of legal aid funds).

 

And finally, what can we now expect of a ‘consultation’ – which the present government would do well to remember became a by-word for rubber-stamping exercises under the last government – from a government whose health and safety adviser, Lord Young, can confirm there is no such thing as a compensation culture in this country, only a perception of one, and then perpetuate that myth by referencing all proposals for legal reform under the report headings ‘compensation culture’?

 

Applying that background specifically to the proposal to withdraw legal aid from all clinical negligence claims, produces the following more specific points.

 

Crucially, to solve a problem you must first have a problem – in clinical negligence cases, as per the government figures standing behind the green paper, the success rates for clinical negligence cases has increased to 91%. Therefore on the basis that legal aid funds only pay for unsuccessful cases, clearly we as lawyers are doing a better job at pursuing meritorious cases and so driving down the costs to the legal aid fund. Add to that the average costs of unsuccessful cases have decreased 69%, and one may wonder what the problem is the government has with funding clinical negligence cases via legal aid.

 

Following on from the above, the problem the government has – in many different respects – is that it funds the NHS, which sometimes injures people negligently, legal aid may fund their case and then the government has to pay the compensation. If you make it practically impossible for patients to sue the NHS by withdrawing funding, you in effect as a government/NHS put yourself above the law. There seems to be an inherent conflict of interests for the government, and therefore abuse of power situation to be created, which no-one appears to have yet focused on, opening up further avenues for successful challenge under domestic and European law.

Most importantly, cutting legal aid for clinical negligence cases will affect the most vulnerable of claimants in clinical negligence – severely disabled children, the bereaved, children generally and those who lack mental capacity. This cannot be part of the coalition government’s stated plan to protect the most vulnerable from its cuts?

 

Buried deep within the impact assessments attached to the green paper – which are cunningly not stored on-line with the green paper itself – are the figures behind the cuts. In terms of clinical negligence work, the net cost, that is presumably of unsuccessful cases, to the Legal Services Commission in 2008/09 (the figures the government quotes) was £17m. It cannot be that anyone has looked at that aspect of the impact assessment and done a proper cost/benefit analysis. If the costs are access to justice for some of the most vulnerable in Society who have been injured by the negligence of the State/the NHS with the potential political and constitutional costs of that, and the saving is £17m or 0.7% of the total legal aid budget of £2.3bn to contribute 0.01% to the £150bn deficit, surely that cannot be worth it? Is the government only looking at bald numbers and not the implications of those?

 

In summary it would appear that the government either does not understand the combined implications of the legal aid cuts and Jackson/Young review in regard to conditional free agreements and access to justice, or it does not care. They can either cut legal aid or tamper with CFAs, but if access to justice is to prevail as it must, they cannot do both.

 

Either the government does not understand the true implications of its proposals to cut legal aid for clinical negligence (and other) cases, or it does not want to listen when this is pointed out – or most dangerously it neither understands nor wants to listen.

 

For us as a profession, now is the time for us to stand up for access to justice, on the firm basis that in fact the government needs us more than we need them. Without us and an effective justice system, they erode the very democracy which puts them into power, and keeps them there. If we do that, and educate the general public, they will also have the voice to fight these cuts and lay bear the truth behind the oft quoted spin of the ‘compensation culture’ and ‘self-serving lawyers’. We are simply the servants of our clients and the justice system, just as MPs and ministers are servants of the people.

 

As Lord Neuberger MR aptly reminded the government only a few weeks ago – the justice system is the third branch of Government, and therefore in terms of their proposals the other two branches, the executive and legislature, should proceed cautiously if they are to avoid the same perils that beset the last government. In Not Listening/Understanding v Déjà Vu [2010] Court of Public Opinion & Constitutional Niceties – the jury’s still out.

 

 

 

Seems there will be no real legal recourse for the privatised NHS either.

 

Crafty. Like Nick Buchanon.

[lifetime fan]

No, it isn't just you; there's many millions of people all around the country who do exactly that. However, there's a few thousand people who pay a proportion of their ILF to pay family members to help them out. The rationale behind this is, for example, that those people are not left out of pocket when they take a couple of ours off of work in order to pick-up laundry, drive it to the launderette, pay to use the service and then take it back.

 

In turn, this allows the recipient of the benefit - and God forbid people actually benefit from benefits - to retain some form independence and dignity without costing the government loads of money for professional carers.

 

I think the reason people get a bit touchy is because you seem so pissed off at people who receive benefits. You seem pissed off at Labour for paying these people money. You seem really annoyed that you have to contribute towards it.

 

I've worked with countless people who have both been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and been informal patients in hospital costing the tax payer anywhere between £5-7.5 thousand pounds a week.

 

With the right support they can be cared for at a reduced cost. Giving the person an individual budget can reduce this cost much further.

 

My partner is the nation wide Self Directed Support co-ordinator for the National Autistic Society the work she and many others have done reduces the cost from government and thus the tax payer.

 

One lad we both worked with was costing over six thousand pound a week to care for, with the right support identified by both professionals and just as importantly his family and friends he now has an individual budget that costs less than two thousand five hundred pound a week.

 

Out of his budget he bought himself an iphone which allows him to go out in the community on his own, he now presents at conferences to help others and earn himself a few quid and he employs his brother for a few hours a week to help him with more difficult social experiences.

 

Last year he gave back over ten thousand pound from his individual budget to the tax payer as he'd used his money wisely, improved his independence, improved his quality of life, started earning money so he received less benefits and started to contribute taxes.

 

A real success story.

 

But never mind Stronts, you complain about him employing his brother when you patently know fuck all about this subject.

 

Troll.

[Strontium]

One lad we both worked with was costing over six thousand pound a week to care for, with the right support identified by both professionals and just as importantly his family and friends he now has an individual budget that costs less than two thousand five hundred pound a week.

 

 

What does the taxpayer get for their £130 grand a year, then? Because that is a quite astonishing amount of money just to care for one person.

 

And the only troll around here is you. You're the one trying to make this dicussion about posters rather than posts. Piss off with your horrible personal jibes.

[lifetime fan]

What does the taxpayer get for their £130 grand a year, then? Because that is a quite astonishing amount of money just to care for one person.

 

And the only troll around here is you. You're the one trying to make this dicussion about posters rather than posts. Piss off with your horrible personal jibes.

 

How the fuck is this about posters?

 

I would have shown any poster writing the shite you did that they were talking bollocks, regardless of political inclination.

 

I gave you a very good but not uncommon example of someone employing a family member using tax payers money but it actually costing the tax payer less for their overall care.

 

But of course you'd have to ignore that bit wouldn't you as it doesn't fit in with your ignorant post earlier in the thread.

 

As for what a £130 thousand pound covers try, rent, utility bills, food, transport costs, a social life oh and yeah before I forget care staff.

 

You know the ones supporting him, helping him live a more independent life and not cost over 6 thousand a week to the tax payer.

[cochcaer]

I receive this: Direct Payments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They're quite strict on how money is spent and you have to produce yearly accounts.

[lifetime fan]

I receive this: Direct Payments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They're quite strict on how money is spent and you have to produce yearly accounts.

 

It is far from a piss up fund that is for sure.

 

Several local authorities, including Labour run administrations are now attempting to not acknowledge indicative budgets despite it being the law.

 

I expect a 'review' from the coalition.

[Strontium]

I think the reason people get a bit touchy is because you seem so pissed off at people who receive benefits. You seem pissed off at Labour for paying these people money. You seem really annoyed that you have to contribute towards it.

 

 

I don't begrudge anyone who is in genuine need, it's the culture of entitlement some people have which I object to. It's not something I would even confine to those on benefits; we have hundreds of youngsters rioting because other people aren't going to pay for their higher education.

 

When did other people's money become something that people thought they had a divine right to?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't begrudge anyone who is in genuine need, it's the culture of entitlement some people have which I object to. It's not something I would even confine to those on benefits; we have hundreds of youngsters rioting because other people aren't going to pay for their higher education.

 

That wasn't your original gripe here, SD. You were complaining at what we'd become under Labour, and about this woman receiving money to pay a family member to help her live an independent life. You've not really acknowledged any of the counter arguments - the conservative ILF introduction, the cost of professional care, the reasons why (on occasion) families need some money for the time and care provided, nor the questions raised about the Liberal view of independence. Rather decided to change direction and point fingers at those who think they're entitled and to students.

 

I don't want to turn this thread into another debate about tuition fees and whether they're right or wrong to protest, but you've stated you believe they should have free education, and support a party that want to abolish it, yet you're now turning around and say they're wrong to protest based on that perceived entitlement.

 

When did other people's money become something that people thought they had a divine right to?

 

I'd wager it was about the time you managed to convinced yourself that it actually is 'other people's money'. It really is hearsay though, this 'entitlement' argument you're now raising, isn't it? It's like something out of the Daily Mail.

 

You seem to have a very narrow perspective on everything. I genuinely feel like your line of argument stems from your introvert perspective and sense of aggrievement about other people - who you appear to feel are less worthy than you - taking something that you worked for. That's fine if you look at it on the basis of right this second, where no future or past exists.

[Strontium]

That wasn't your original gripe here, SD. You were complaining at what we'd become under Labour, and about this woman receiving money to pay a family member to help her live an independent life.

 

 

"Complaining" is a bit strong, "questioning" is more like it.

 

You've not really acknowledged any of the counter arguments...

 

 

I don't have any gripe about them, that's why, they are reasonable arguments.

 

Rather decided to change direction and point fingers at those who think they're entitled and to students.

 

 

I see the sense of entitlement as something that grew under the Labour government.

 

you've stated you believe they should have free education, and support a party that want to abolish it, yet you're now turning around and say they're wrong to protest based on that perceived entitlement.

 

 

I believe in free education, but at the same time, I reserve the right to frown upon anyone who utilises violence to try to get it.

 

I'd wager it was about the time you managed to convinced yourself that it actually is 'other people's money'. It really is hearsay though, this 'entitlement' argument you're now raising, isn't it? It's like something out of the Daily Mail.

 

 

You're a taxpayer, I guess. When was the last time someone on benefits thanked you for sustaining their lifestyle?

 

I genuinely feel like your line of argument stems from your introvert perspective and sense of aggrievement about other people - who you appear to feel are less worthy than you - taking something that you worked for. That's fine if you look at it on the basis of right this second, where no future or past exists.

 

 

Some people are more worthy than others, there's no getting away from that.

[lifetime fan]

Am I reading that article right - the government is giving that woman £200 a week to pay her own sister to help her out O_o

 

Is this what it's come to under Labour, that my taxes are going to bribe people to help members of their own family who they should be fucking helping anyway?!

 

"Complaining" is a bit strong, "questioning" is more like it.

 

Yes, questioning it was what you were doing wasn't it...

 

 

Care to take back your ignorant and ill informed post yet?

[Fugitive]

Strontium Dog voted for the angry worm (Cobra) against the mighty Kouprey. This should tell you all that the Kouprey is the better contender.

 

Vote Kouprey.

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/gf-general-forum/97425-gfat-vi-round-1-kouprey-vs-asian-cobra.html

[cochcaer]

I expect a 'review' from the coalition.

 

It's coming, they're called 'Personal budgets'. I spoke to my social worker and they're like DP (ooeerr) but have more flexibility and less accounting. You are given x amount and spend it how you wish; more independence but also scope to spend it on non-essentials. The current system is a tad rigid but under the new one I can see irresponsible people blowing it.

[Cardie]

When did other people's money become something that people thought they had a divine right to?

 

They're only claiming what they're entitled to. You had no problem with it when your mate was paying his boyfriend rent.

[lifetime fan]

It's coming, they're called 'Personal budgets'. I spoke to my social worker and they're like DP (ooeerr) but have more flexibility and less accounting. You are given x amount and spend it how you wish; more independence but also scope to spend it on non-essentials. The current system is a tad rigid but under the new one I can see irresponsible people blowing it.

 

An indicative budget is based on assessed need, which is a legal requirement. However authorities are now saying we won't accept your assessed need, although we assessed it, we can't afford that so will only give you this amount.

[lifetime fan]

They're only claiming what they're entitled to. You had no problem with it when your mate was paying his boyfriend rent.

 

Although he wasn't entitled to it and it was illegal.

[Cardie]

 

Although he wasn't entitled to it and it was illegal.

 

Not according to the Party of the people, bastions of change and a new grown up politics.

 

Turns out they ate as corrupt as the rest of them, including clegg who enjoyed all the perks of being a euro mp

[L19red]

Care to take back your ignorant and ill informed post yet?

 

why would you want that? Its much more interesting to read the justifications given to backup such a weak debating position. NN in particular is playing a blinder today.

[cochcaer]

You're a taxpayer, I guess. When was the last time someone on benefits thanked you for sustaining their lifestyle?

 

What is the 'lifestyle'? In the 80s I was able-bodied and looked on as a hooligan as I supported Liverpool and in the Noughties I'm a benefit cheat because some twat feigns illness. Both annoyed me immensely but you can't stop people tarring you with the same brush. Whatever picture you have of disability it's no flippin fun time. I thought £27 on a YTS was a shite state of affairs but in hindsight they were the halcyon days.