The LibDems have sold all their principles and deserve nothing from the public. Yes, we should be focusing on the Tories but sometimes I feel even more upset at the LDs: we expect this crap from the Tories, not from them. The way they have gone silent not only on this, not only on civil liberties, but also on the plight of the sick/disabled is shocking. Danny Alexander used to champion the rights of disabled people and fight against ATOS’ and the DWP’s WCA. Of course, since he entered government, the only thing he has said about the disabled is that we have to share most of the pain because we require so much from the government.

And the so-called “party of Civil Liberties” now requires delegates going to their conference to send their passport and a large amount of personal data to be “vetted” by the cops before they can get a conference pass. Of course, instead of saying “no, we won’t do this” they now say “there was no other way”.

Lying, opportunistic, morally bankrupt charlatans who would sell their own children for more ministerial cars.

Relatedly, it might be worth drawing attention to this article – in the Standard’s property section – which says that 90% of housing benefit claimants in Kensington & Chelsea will be leaving the borough when the cap comes in next April:

http://es.homesandproperty.co.uk/property_news/news/caponrentalallowancesinkensingtonchelsea.html

@Douglas

This going silent on civil liberties you mention. Would it include scrapping ID cards, scrapping the ContactPoint database, ending child detention, reducing detention without trial and reforming control orders?

Also @2

With regards to conference it is a complete lie to say that attendees are required to send their passports and large amounts of personal info in. There is a requirement to send in your passport number but nothing more. However, I do disagree with this as do a large chunk of the party. And as you would know if you had spent more than a few seconds looking into the matter.

P.S.

We’ve also scrapped chauffeur driven cars for every minister. Instead there’s now a much smaller motor pool which is shared by all government ministers. Get your facts right.

Oh, sorry my facts about ministerial cars was wrong. I’m just a simple disabled person who your government (like the last Labour one) is attacking and treating as scum.

BTW, on ID cards, did you not read in the Telegraph this week that the Tories want to bring them back? And, again on civil liberties, why so quiet on police brutality at protests, why so quiet on pre-crime arrests before the Royal Wedding, what about the plain clothes “snatch squad” on the day of the wedding itself? Control Orders – mainly the same thing with a few changes and a new name.

And what do you have to say about your party being the champion of sick/disabled people before May 2010 and now silence and attacks on us since coming into government? What do you have to say about the disabled people who have committed suicide due to your new policies?

Quite frankly, your party is now as big a disappointment to people like me as New Labour was. Like them you are now unprincipled, slimy, opportunistic in-it-for-themselves, disabled-hating, poor-crushing charlatans.

Douglas,

I’m just a simple disabled person who your government (like the last Labour one) is attacking and treating as scum.

Either you need to realise no-one is a ‘simple person’ – we are all individuals (and not accepting this allows the government bureaucracy to treat you as a number) – or you are putting this in for effect. Hopefully the first one, because the second one is a bit of an argument killer.

on ID cards, did you not read in the Telegraph this week that the Tories want to bring them back?

Please cite. The article I read was a guess. ISTM the ‘plan’ amounts to a single user identity for all government websites, nothing more.

ukliberty,

Please cite. The article I read was a guess. ISTM the ‘plan’ amounts to a single user identity for all government websites, nothing more.

Which already exists to a certain degree on the site you use for DVLA things (I forget its name), so is hardly a new idea.

Right, ok, maybe I am wrong about the ID Cards, but it is still another aspect of the surveillance state IMO. And you indeed have been quiet, as a party, about violent police tactics, heavy-handedness, the pre-crime arrests and plain clothes snatch squads.

And calling myself “simple” was being sarcastic.

My point about the sick/disabled still stands. We are being vilified in the press. Disabled hate crime and attacks on disabled people are up as reported in the Observer. There have been suicides due to your welfare changes. People like myself are living in fear. Read the recent post here on LC by Sue Marsh.

The fact remains that you promised to look after and care for disabled and sick people and you are doing the opposite. The most vulnerable section of society, like always, is the first group to be attacked in an economic crisis. You campaigned, in May 2010, on a platform to the left of Labour which included protecting the most vulnerable. The opposite is now happening. And I don’t want to hear any “we’re in a coalition” excuses. You should find your balls and tell the Tories you will not stand for this. But you won’t because.

We sick/disabled DO feel as if we are being treated as scum. Your government has released many wrong and misleading figures, so much so that Lord Freud apologised for this (though it wasn’t really covered).

Until you start to actually care about those you promised to protect, most people like me will always think of you as New Labour mark 2. Like I said: we expect this crap from the Tories, but never in a million years did I think LDs would go along with putting the largest proportion of cuts onto sick/disabled people. But that is exactly what you’re doing.

I also notice Mr. Burstow, LD minister for care, has been a bit silent in the past few days. How very brave of him!

Should have read: “But you won’t because you like the power more than standing up for those who actually voted for you.”

@8

I don’t agree with what this government is doing to disabled people which is why at the spring conference we passed a motion for the mobility allowance to be protected.

But I wasn’t talking about disabilities, I was talking about the utter nonsense you uttered about civil liberties. When it comes to civil liberties this government is the best I’ve ever lived under so stop repeating falsehoods.

Also @8

As far as our manifesto went it was not to the left of Labour. Nor was it to the right of the Conservatives. It was a liberal manifesto and unfortunately for simplistic statements, liberalism doesn’t fit in to the mindless left-right dynamic.

So Simon Hughes has given up looking for his conscience then?

He was looking for it on the student loan fiasco, now this. I guess he has not got round to health yet.

@10: So you have nothing to say about “pre-crime” arrests? Kettling of students, teenagers and even disabled people who protested ATOS? Happy with the large and ever growing database of peaceful activists being labeled “domestic extremists”? Happy with the FIT squad? Do you have no problem with the unaccountable power of ACPO?

You motion passed at conference only protects a small section of disabled people and the government is still planning on implementing it. So again,I ask: how do you feel about your government’s policies which have led to suicides? Why do you see fit to belong to a party who attacks the weakest in society? How do you feel about dropping your commitment to disabled people once you got into power? How do you feel being in a party who is happy to put the largest percentage of cuts onto the backs of the sick/disabled?

See, I used to belong to Labour but I left because they lost their humanity and care for people like me. As a sick person myself they disgusted me and I turned to the LDs. I have this thing called principles, unlike slimeballs such as Danny Alexander who campaigned for disabled people while in opposition and then decided to never mention it again.

Also, why has Care Minister Mr. Burstow been so silent this week with the anti-disabled violence and torture we saw on Panorama?

And further, why do people get outraged when pensioners have to choose between heating and food, but expect the sick/disabled to make the same choice and be happy about it as well?

GWP @ 2,3 et al.

Your Party cannot claim credit for scraping ID cards. This was a Tory pledge as well (they did keep this pledge). Had they won the election, they would have been scrapped anyway.

As for children being detained, fair enough, but you have not exactly stopped the little girl being deported to her death yet, have you? Do that and come back and crow then.

Regarding Douglas’ issue regarding the disabled, well we can all gauge how seriously your motion on Mobility was taken by the leadership, everyone knows how hard it is to jettison such pledges. People like Douglas and Sue Marsh are not interested in ‘motions’, ‘pledges’ or other political stuff. Can you really think their very real fears for their future will be placated by a motion carried at spring conference? Is that a bit ‘Life of Brian’, pythonesque?

George, I do not believe for a second that you are a bad man, I don’t mean that to sound patronising, but I am genuine in that. You are not a bad man, but you have to admit that your Party are at least complicit in some really reprehensible things. To ruthlessly attack some of the weakest members of society, including people who are profoundly disabled? I cannot believe everything you think you have won was worth cutting the incomes of people who will never have any realistic hope of ever working again.

George, what did the disabled do deserve this punishment?

@Jim

Well, a motion matters because conference is sovereign on policy, unlike the conferences of other parties which are mainly talking shops which serve no purpose other than a place for (shadow) cabinet members to announce policy.

As for the treatment of the welfare, I disagree with it fundamentally. And it makes me sick that this kind of thing is continuing to happen under this government. And when I get the chance I’ll try and bring it up with my party’s MPs. But this is not a Liberal Democrat government. It is a Conservative one. We have gotten good things in certain areas, and are mitigating the tories in others and overall I feel that the good outweighs the bad but that does not change the fact that, with a government composed mainly of tories, bad things will happen and there is little I can do about it other than to keep going to conference to ensure that, whenever internal elections happen, I’ll be able to vote for more compassionate candidates so that our MPs will be less likely to let this kind of thing happen.

In the meantime I sign petitions, send emails, talk to other members to try and persuade them and do everything else that an ordinary citizen can do to change things. This does not amount to much but it partially salves my conscience.

At the end of the day though, the party is MY party. It belongs to members like myself and I will not leave it and let those who are happy with the way things are take control.

And of course I am very pleased with some of the achievements as well. I’m pleased that we’re doing things that no other party would ever have done (with the possible exception of the Greens). And if I want to see more of those things done it helps to applaud them.

I won’t defend everything the government’s doing but nor will I stand by and see ignorant, unfair and false accusations flung at the party, my party, by people who would not be complaining at all if Labour were in power and doing the same thing. If people like Douglas wish to blame us where blame is due then they should also have the honesty to give credit where credit is due.

@13

“So you have nothing to say about “pre-crime” arrests? Kettling of students, teenagers and even disabled people who protested ATOS?”

Which just goes to show how little you know about me. I protested at Millbank. I criticised the way police treated demonstrators at later protests. If you bother to glance through my blog you will see several posts criticising the police and other government agencies for behaving in an authoritarian manner.

But funnily enough, it’s not physically possible for me to mention everything bad the government has done every time I write a comment. Your whataboutery is very disingenuous. All I ever said on this thread was that your accusations on civil liberties were unjust.

It doesn’t make it any more right but the kettling of protesters, the “pre-crime” arrests and all the rest would be happening with a Labour government (or a Tory one for that matter) so here we have not made a difference either way. However, where we have made a difference (such as the fact that child detention is now abolished) it has always been for the better.

@George:

I have nothing left to say apart from the fact that I used to see Labour as MY party like you see the LDs. But there comes a time where one has to say “enough!” and put your principles first. Which is why I left Labour and won’t join them until they change drastically. Not only because of their welfare policies, but also because of Iraq, civil liberties and their worship of the City.

The fact remains that the Coalition has done NO good for people like me who are too ill to work. You’ve done the opposite. Your MPs could at least have the courage to speak out, loudly, about issues like this. But I don’t see that happening. The fact remains that sick and disabled people face the largest amount of cuts of any group in society.

I could never bring myself to stay in a party who takes part in not only treating the weakest in society as expendable, but stays quiet while they know it is happening. I even feel it is worse to stay quiet when one knows a tragedy is happening. The silence of the LibDems, when they used to shout the loudest about protecting the vulnerable, is almost worse than what the Tories and Labour planned to do: they, at least, were upfront & honest about it.

Your party simply solicited my vote, promising to protect people like me and campaigning on a “Vote LibDem to keep the Tories out!” platform here in Manchester. You took my vote, a vote given to you based on trust, and took that trust and threw it in my face. I will not listen to excuses about “we are in a coalition”. So what? Being in a coalition does not prevent LibDems from speaking out against, for example, the Tories’ anti-disabled policies, does it? Not only have you gone quiet about it, you’ve gone ALONG with it. And the replies from your welfare minister Mr. Webb do nothing but parrot Tory talking points about making “tough decisions” and there being “no money left”. So there’s an area where you have “made a difference” – just not a good one like you claim.

If people like you had any courage and principles, you’d leave the party like those of us who left Labour when they betrayed us. But courage isn’t something LibDems have much of these days.

So I ask again: how can you stay in a party that is putting the greatest burden of cuts onto the sick and disabled?

Also, @George, I do not know you but I do not think you’re bad person at all. I just don’t understand how someone can remain in a party who is treating the weakest in society as a “problem”. I couldn’t do it myself.

@18

If I had been in the Labour party I would have left. The simple reason for that being that in Labour there is nothing an ordinary member can do to change policy. As a Lib Dem, however, there is plenty I can do to change policy.

For example, child detention was something scarcely anybody knew about. But a party member wrote a motion and brought it to conference and as a result it became party policy. Now that policy has been enacted in government. All because of one party member. That could not have happened in Labour or the Conservatives. And that’s why I’m remaining in the party. Because I do have the ability to change things here but I wouldn’t if I were on the outside shouting in the wilderness.

GWP @ 16

Fair play, George, thanks for the reply.

A couple of further points, if I may?

1) Words on greenhouse gases, but nothing more and nothing to indicate that the coalition has any intention of changing anytime soon? The Tory front bench say some of the right things but hamstrung by its memembership.

2) What kind of feedback are you getting with regard to ATOS from activists and MPs?

Please, George, honestly. From the Labour people I know in real life there seems to be a lot of private grief but publicly the front bench appear reluctant to dig too deep, largely because this was a Labour baby and it will be thrown back in their face (quite rightly, to an extent).

Back bench MPs are getting reports of gross misconduct, but are powerless to make headlines. Not too much sympathy in the PLP because the target demographic are all too happy with the situation.

A friend of my mothers is nearing the end of her life. Her son is autistic and is built like the proverbial brick shithouse. He is perfectly fit, but has the mental capacity of a ten year old. He cannot hold any information in his head for longer than a few seconds and has the concentration of a flea. Unfortunately, when he gets frustrated, he gets stroppy and aggressive, all of which means he is unable to hold down a job and was declared ‘fit for work in September last year. Of course, he cannot even go to an interview without his mother, far less a job. He has had his ‘unemployment benefit’ suspended for the second time when he appeared to turn aggressive at a job placement. His mother’s pension cannot stretch that far.

Although, he is declared ‘fit for work’ his ability to learn has not changed one iota. He does not need ‘tough love’ he cannot attain any more mental ability under any circumstance.

She is facing death and it fearful of her son, who she thinks will be in prison days after her death. I believe she is right.

This is why I hate the coalition, George. They appear to have abandoned this elderly woman and have vowed to defend the incomes of the richest people on the planet instead.

@20

1. Green Investment Bank, legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions more than any other country in the world, home insulation loans, feed in tarrifs, scrapping HIPs but keeping the energy efficiency certificate and all the rest of the green deal. This isn’t yet the greenest government ever but it’s certainly getting there.

2. ATOS is currently being discussed in a Lib Dem facebook group at the moment and I’ve yet to see anyone happy with it.

And that case you mentioned is tragic, it truly is. But it’s not the only one. There are dozens like that and will continue to be so just as there were under the last government. However, if you’re willing to help me I’ll try and do something about it. I don’t know much about the ins and outs of disability assessments but if you help me draft a motion on it I will submit it to conference and try and get all the conference reps I know to support it. How does that sound?

GWP @ 21

Green investment bank :- I hope you are right with that, but again the devil is in the detail. My big fear is that will suffer from a being used to provide a bit of greenwash and/or provide cheap investments for things that companies should be forced to do as a matter of course.

Legally binding targets:- Meh 13 years of New Labour have taught me how seriously targets are taken. Far too easy to manipulate figures to reach ‘targets’ even when it is palpably obvious that things are as bad as ever. The NHS and crime stats being two examples. I can see a lot of our emissions being outsourced (see the post across) and called a victory. This may be the ‘greenest Government ever’ but that is damming it with faint praise in my book. As I said, let us judge this Government when high-speed rail links are completed and mass transit schemes replace road building.

I am not having a go at you here, I admire your enthusiasm, but I hope you are gloating at your success against my cynicism in a couple of years time.

Don’t get me wrong; I am all too aware of the fact that my mother’s friend’s story is merely one of several thousand. Lots of people appear to be going through hell at the moment. I will certainly pass on your offer of support to my mother the next time I see her. You will understand if she is somewhat sceptical of the amount of support we could offer her?

The wider issue is that there is no natural course of action to take. In theory, there is a whole plethora of options and appeals, but bringing up an autistic child has probably left her not the most confident or articulate person in the World. Not that makes much of a difference, because the same kind of people with the same mindset hear the appeals.

Apparently, she was told that her son’s aggression was the result of her failure to bring up her son with boundaries and she ‘should teach him some manners’. This was a person who was supposed to be judging a client’s medical condition and the capacity to work. Someone who could not comprehend the concept of an autistic person or learning difficulties was actually in charge of assessing mental health!

Although helpful, we point is we shouldn’t need special pleading. I cannot believe the system in place was designed with such a flaw passing through ‘fit for purpose’ tests. If a fully grown adult who cannot be left alone in the same room as a three bar fire is passed ‘fit for work’, I cannot see how that can be ‘an error of judgement’, or a false positive or whatever jargon we wish to use, that is clearly a fundamental characteristic of the system. This isn’t about individual cases, this is a root and branch pruning that needs done.

Last point before bedtime. The Lib Dems are very keen to use the terms ‘Labour’s debt’, ‘Labour’s deficit’ to describe the mess left by the bankers, so why not use the term ‘Labour’s shambles of a work assessment system’ and use it to beat Labour over the head with?

Simon Hughes in two-faced, forked tongued shocker! Who’d have thunk it?

I’m confused, Sunny; Simon Hughes says that he has ensured that there will be no national change from secure to flexible tenancies, and that Council will retain control over whether there will be a change within their own areas.

Southwark Council has said that Housing Associations (which haven’t been able to grant new secure tenancies for over 20 years) can grant flexible tenancies.

So where’s the contradiction; how does Southwark’s claim bear upon the truth of Hughes’s statement at all?

Not surprising really because he is now rubbing shoulders with the Tories.

The LDs really are covering themselves in glory…to think I used to have some respect for Hughes…yet more lies, static and white noise.

If there was a country I’d like to be, it would be Weston-Super-Mare!

@All:

I’m still confused (see #24); where is the lie? Or is Sunny equivocating (deliberately or otherwise) between “secure tenancies” strictly so-called (ie the form of tenancy with security of tenure that Councils grant) and “tenancies with security” (ie including the assured tenancies that are the only tenancies with security that RSLs have been able to grant to new tenants since 1988).

It seems clear that Hughes was using the term “secure tenancies” in the former sense – since that is the sense in which anyone who knows anything about housing law would use it, and he definitely knows something about housing law.

GWP: Would it include scrapping ID cards, scrapping the ContactPoint database, ending child detention, reducing detention without trial and reforming control orders?

Ending child detention? Rubbish. It’s lip-service. The government are ending it at Yarls Wood, but are also creating new centres where families will be held prior to deportation. If you think that none of them will be judged as flight risks and so be detained under lock and key, you are crazy.

Reforming Control Order? Yes, so much so that they have a new name! But otherwise, not so much, not that wouldn’t happen anyway.

And who needs a secure tenancy when you don’t need an ID card (even if you need to be on an ID-card style database in order to access government services)? Civil liberties are not an alternative to decent housing policy.