I expect they need to have their benefits cut ‘in the national interest’.

Has there ever been a more sickening excuse to attack people?
I lost count of how many times I heard it being trotted out yesterday alone.
I want to vomit on anybody who uses it now.

Benefits are so complicated now. I guess there needs to be one benefit for health-related matters (whether completely unemployed or employed but needing supports), one for temporary unemployment, and one for long term unemployment. Any more than this and it starts to get complicated. So I imagine the disability one should cover these children, and it should not leave them disadvantaged.

Always nice to see those tory family values being so well supported.

Have the lousy lie Dems got no shame?

Apparently not if you saw the pathetic and spineless performance from Paddy Ashdown on newsnight last night. If ever there was an example of a politician who stands for nothing that was it. The tories will soon have no need of their lie dem patsy partners.

I’d feel more sympathy for this one if there was not the problem of ‘disabled’ children also getting the money – and this is one I can speak confidently about (a child of a friend had a successful operation to cure a disability, which has worked, but because they have the original condition they still receive the disability money – despite the fact that said child has no disability at the moment, and if the operation works as expected (it is relatively recent, so there is an if) will not be affected by it again – and if they are, surely that is when the disability money could kick in.

If there is a limited pot of money, maybe actually narrowing the funding to children who have very real and expensive needs might have been a better technique? It seems a bit odd funding say effective treatment on the NHS and still providing the disability allowance…

@4 I’m sure your one specific anecdote which includes state-of-the-art experimental treatment for a single condition, also counts for all the other various conditions and illnesses that can be suffered and of course justifies this decision…

Watchman @ 4

I’d feel more sympathy for this

I very much doubt it.

#4
“…maybe actually narrowing the funding to children who have very real and expensive needs might have been a better technique?
- To go with the right-wing propaganda about the deserving and undeserving poor – we have deserving and undeserving chemo-therapy cancer patients, and now deserving and undeserving disabled children.

Rich tax-cheats and executives in the City of London are always deserving, no matter how parasitical they are on the rest of society, goes without saying

@ Watchman

“If there is a limited pot of money, maybe actually narrowing the funding to children who have very real and expensive needs might have been a better technique?”

Well, yes, if that’s possible. But I’ve yet to hear anyone propose an actual workable solution that would perfectly (or even near-perfectly) sort people based on how deserving they were of support, while weeding out fake claims, and not ending up more expensive than just giving people the benefit of the doubt.

That’s the problem with politics around disability benefit. Those in favour of cutting (and I’m not talking about you personally) tend to base their rhetoric around scroungers, and then let you fill in the resulting Argument From Perfection for yourself: allowing scroungers to get away with it is imperfect, therefore we need to design a system that prioritises catching or cutting off said scroungers.

In reality, any system like this will be open to exploitation, and risks diverting money to honest but borderline cases that would be better spent if spread among people with more serious conditions. But the question is, which is worse? Letting more scroungers get away with it, or letting more genuinely needy people suffer? Obviously this isn’t a straight dicotomy, as any solution involves striking a balance, but I know which side I’d err on.

@ 7

“Rich tax-cheats and executives in the City of London are always deserving, no matter how parasitical they are on the rest of society, goes without saying”

Um, can you point to what Watchman has said to suggest that?

They have to make cuts so they can have more tax payers money to throw at the great casino that the bankers play everyday.

Cameron has said that protecting the rich bankers is in the national interests. In fact, according to Cameron the bankers are the ONLY national interest.

“There is still all to play for, but sadly disabled children just fought the last stage of their fight. And lost.”
With the greatest respect, this is the most over-oxgenated hyperbole on this subject I have read this week. No children will be killed and eaten, or thrown to the wolves. Most of them will get more, some will get less.The criteria are being tweaked a bit. Big deal.

i bet cam’s billionaire bribemasters are dancing on his son’s grave…

“i bet cam’s billionaire bribemasters are dancing on his son’s grave…”

And for that comment you can and will burn in hell. Along with those who tried to say that Ivan’s problems were a result of an STD (no, really, this was tried).

@11

You haven’t follow this have you? Nor did you click the links. The criteria is a separate issue. Here they are simply slashing top-up payments for children on the lower-rate of DLA Care and/or Mobility. Your only basis for saying that most children will get more is that Maria Miller has claimed it. So far Miller has not presented any evidence to show this is true, which goes for pretty much everything that comes out her mouth. Have you read their laughable impact assessments for every policy in the Welfare Reform Bill?

Oh and here’s the selectively outraged Mr Worstall, come to be selectively outraged. I wonder though, is it more Ivan Cameron or the bit about the billionaires that stirs your sentiment? Not seen you give the slightest crap about disabled people before, children or not.

@11

With the greatest respect, I suggest you institute a search for your humanity as you appear to have lost it.

Not the only story ignored by the Guardian and the BBC recently.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8939276/Mercy-for-the-drunk-Muslim-girl-gang-who-attacked-woman.html

Cover-up?

@ Tim Worstal, it it interesting you use a pseudo christian reference to express your outrage. my comment is based on the fact that money was no object when Cameron looked after his son, yet he has no problem in denying that for others, and the sole beneficiaries of this policy are the super rich he pals around with!
i have family members and friends with disabled kids who will find life harder still because of his 1%er policies. what does the bible have to say about that??

and why are outrageous soudbites/straplines to describe exactly how offensive and horrifying this policy is beyond the pale for you, when 1%ers get away with that day in, day out??

and lets not forget, another tory has been linked recently with NAZI uniforms & sloganeering in a French restaurant. what did the nazis do, and what happens to government policy after this?

you are not really Christian, maybe you are über-crischun, like the rightwing 1%ers in america who claim to be Christian because they go to church on sunday!

Tim – I think Hell should be reserved for the sort of person who has a disabled child, but is still quite happy to inflict suffering on other families with disabled people providing they, unlike him, are poor. To prize the money out of these family’s hands and give it to his banker friends. That takes a very despicable sort of individual, a person with absolutely no moral fibre whatsoever.

@Daz

You are filth.

Although I know you feel ashamed.

There is no doubt that ‘call me the bankers friend’ did use his disabled child to con people into believing that he would protect the NHS.

So to see him sticking it to other parents of disabled children who are not lucky enough to be married to a wealthy woman whose family owns great chunks of Scotland is vomit inducing. Never mind , I’m sure Nick Clegg and his Lie Dems will get right on it………Oh wait

@16

It’s a local news story. As always, the tripe newspapers trawl the local press all over the country to find something they can twist into a national one. There is no more reason to give nationwide publicity to that particular assault than there is the hundreds reported in local press every day.

@16 & 19, tory or edl?? look in a mirror and say filth
you try to distract with bog-standard rightwing trolling – fail

@Mason Dixon, i agree!

Tim W @ 13

And for that comment you can and will burn in hell.

Do you really think that, Tim? No doubt those that believe that Down’s Syndrome kids should take pay cuts to keep their jobs will supply the kindling.

Along with those who tried to say that Ivan’s problems were a result of an STD (no, really, this was tried).

Hang on though Tim, is it possible that it is true? I genuinely do not know if that is possible; I am not familiar with poor Ivan’s condition and whether it was consistent with the consequences of either of his parents having an STI.

You might find such speculation distasteful, but that kind of moralising goes on all the time among the Tory Party and their allies in the papers.

Stand in front of a baying mob of Tories and say the words ‘NHS should pay for gastric bands for fat paitents’ and see how far you get.

I personally would not pursue such a line of enquiry, but I find it hypocritical for people to lay the boot into disabled people for lifestyle choices at every opportunity to suddenly suffer a fit of vapours at the thought that one or both Camerons may have brought more to the marriage bed than mere high expectations.

Christ, guys. The point is you leave the kid out of it. It doesn’t matter whether or not Cameron’s worse, and I’m not arguing the point: it’s simply not cool to drag the man’s child into the conversation as a smug rhetorical remark.

@ 17 Daz

“and lets not forget, another tory has been linked recently with NAZI uniforms & sloganeering in a French restaurant. what did the nazis do, and what happens to government policy after this?”

Let me guess: Tory party decides to base 2015 manifesto on a costume somebody wore sometime, converts to Nazi Party of Britain? Wow, plausible.

24 And as if by magic our concern troll turns up to say ” can’t we all just get along.”

Call me Dave dragged his son into his greenwash rebranding , so he started it.

I do not understand why Tories are so fascinated by Nazi uniforms, particularly SS Totenkopf and Totenkopfverbande ones. You never seem to hear of parties where they’re dressed as Fallschirmjager or Wehrmacht. Maybe its because the SS uniform managed to make sad freaks like Himmler and Heydrich feel like ubermensch. You never hear of socialists going to parties dressed in Red Army unifroms, or maybe I just don’t get invited to those sort of parties.

7. joe kane

Rich tax-cheats and executives in the City of London are always deserving, no matter how parasitical they are on the rest of society, goes without saying

You name for me one single tax cheat and I will agree with you about measures that should be taken. The fact is that these “tax cheats” are a figment of your imagination and you probably got the idea from the deluded Richard Murphy.

British people still pay their taxes. By and large honestly.

8. Chaise Guevara

But I’ve yet to hear anyone propose an actual workable solution that would perfectly (or even near-perfectly) sort people based on how deserving they were of support, while weeding out fake claims, and not ending up more expensive than just giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Then the system will die. Because there is no fixed number of people who can claim benefits. The system worked, and to the extent it still works, works, because most people did not claim. Most people were honest and saw welfare as for the needy. Now people are far more demanding. They are less likely to support themselves. They are more likely to see welfare dependency as a valid life style choice. They will claim when they do not really need it. They will seek out medical opinions to support their lies. You only need to look at the explosion of people on Disability to see that there is no limit to the number of people who could claim. The system cannot work if it cannot sort out the genuine from the fake. The system does not do that at the moment. That is even without starting to consider people’s behavioural changes. Welfare is morally corrupting. Look around modern Britain.

In reality, any system like this will be open to exploitation, and risks diverting money to honest but borderline cases that would be better spent if spread among people with more serious conditions. But the question is, which is worse? Letting more scroungers get away with it, or letting more genuinely needy people suffer? Obviously this isn’t a straight dicotomy, as any solution involves striking a balance, but I know which side I’d err on.

Except, as I said, that is not the right dichotomy. The choice is between allowing a system that is giving money to an ever larger group of claimants – many of whom are not deserving – or trying to tighten up the system. Because of our open borders we have a nearly infinite number of people who could be claiming. So which is worse – more and more people claiming on less and less genuine grounds (plus more and more people changing their behaviour so they do have genuine grounds) or some effort at tightening up the system?

It doesn’t matter as the system will collapse in the end no matter what we do. But we could try to prolong it just a little by kicking some people off.

27. Schmidt

You never hear of socialists going to parties dressed in Red Army unifroms, or maybe I just don’t get invited to those sort of parties.

That is because the Left openly embraces people who wore Red Army uniforms and worse. Compass’s political and ethical direction is given by Zygmunt Bauman for instance. A leading light of the British Left. What did the good doctor Bauman do during the war? Well according to Wikipedia:

Bauman went on to serve in the Soviet-controlled Polish First Army, working as a political education instructor and taking part in the battles of Kolberg (now Ko?obrzeg) and Berlin. In May 1945 he was awarded the Military Cross of Valour.

In an interview in The Guardian, Bauman confirmed that he had been a committed communist during and after World War II and had never made a secret of it. He admitted, however, that joining the military intelligence service at age 19 was a mistake even though he had a “dull” desk-job and did not remember informing on anyone.[2]

So there you have it. As long as the Left embraces and honours someone who served in the Communist equivalent of the Waffen SS and Militice they have no grounds for criticising anyone for dressing in any way they like. The odd Tory nutjob may dress as an SS officer, but they do not embrace them as friends.

@23

It’s not about bringing his child into it, so much as his treatment of that child versus his treatment of others.

Look at this way, if a politician used his influence to get his child off a drug’s charge while espousing a “lock all drug users” policy, you wouldn’t say “don’t bring his child into it” if he was criticised for it.

That Cameron is pushing policies that will harm disabled children, despite his personal experience, says something about the man’s lack of empathy.

@7 – joe kane

This is just an example of your usual dishonest posting.

I suppose readers should be relieved that for once you’re not posting the usual racist and murderous rants that you are known for, although why are you appearing to stick up for disabled children when you are happy to dismiss racial abuse, proven in a Scottish court.

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/student-in-scotland-found-guilty-of-racially-abusing-a-jewish-student/

Perhaps you’d care to indicate if those disabled children would be included if they were Jewish?

@ 26 Sally

“And as if by magic our concern troll turns up to say ” can’t we all just get along.””

Yes, Sally, obviously only a troll would care about human decency.

@ 28 SMFS

“Then the system will die.

[...I miss the good old days, people was decent back then, beer were a penny a pint etc...]

The system cannot work if it cannot sort out the genuine from the fake. ”

Yep, this is the exact fallacious argument from perfection I was talking about. The system can and does work. Incredibly negative projections based on your personal prejudices and desires aside, there’s no reason to assume that it won’t work in the future. Providing for all deserving cases along with a few greedy spongers is, in fact, a sustainable system.

“So which is worse – more and more people claiming on less and less genuine grounds (plus more and more people changing their behaviour so they do have genuine grounds) or some effort at tightening up the system?”

Not enough information. I at least tried to present the negatives of both sides instead of handwaving away the problems of using my preferred system. The above is just a rephrase with the bit that you find politically inconvenient removed.

@27 – Schmidt

Not just Tories. Don’t forget Ed Ball’s, the hapless Labour shadow chancellor, was quite partial to wearing his Nazi costume.

“The Right Honourable Edward Balls was educated at a five-hundred-year-old elite school for boys where fees run to £10,000 a year. Like many privileged public school boys he went to Oxford University where he joined an exclusive drinking society and partied his time away dressed in Nazi uniform.”

It also mentions fiddling £65000 from a questionable charity, the £33 he claimed for poppies after sending British troops to their deaths and all his other housing shenanigans.

Ed Balls having fun in his Nazi uniform with all those other public schoolboy toffs is about 1 minute in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7HYqkBvtHk

32. Chaise Guevara

Yep, this is the exact fallacious argument from perfection I was talking about. The system can and does work. Incredibly negative projections based on your personal prejudices and desires aside, there’s no reason to assume that it won’t work in the future. Providing for all deserving cases along with a few greedy spongers is, in fact, a sustainable system.

Except it is not. It is willful ignorance to claim it is. The system does work. For now. We agree. But the number of claimants is growing. The system cannot match that growth. At some point we will have to stop. It does not take an incredibly negative projection. You can just look and see. You just have to look at the declining number of workers in Britain along with the explosion in the number of people who claim.

It is true that providing for most (we will never match all) deserving cases along with some greedy spongers is perfectly sustainable. But that is not likely to continue to be the case. As can be seen by the explosion in spongers. As can be seen in the massive change in behaviour that brings ever more people within the ambit of the claims system. The system cannot keep the number of greedy spongers low enough for the system to work without some sort of quality control. This is not rocket science. Nor do I see how you can deny it. If you offer people bucket loads of cash, or even quite moderate amounts, they will claim it if they can. If they need to modify their behaviour to claim it, some will. More will engage in behaviours they would not otherwise do in full knowledge that the financial consequences to themselves will be small or even positive. No system of benefits has lasted for long. We have done quite well in the circumstances. But there is no reason to think the system is indefinitely sustainable and every reason to think otherwise.

@ Schmidt, Anon E Mouse

My mate went to a fancy dress party as Hitler once. He has since shown very little inclination to invade Poland. Perhaps we could all stop using irrelevant details from people’s private lives to smear the politicians we dislike? Try something really radical like, I dunno, actually talking about their respective policies?

@ 25 Chaise, much more plausible that they would lurch ever deeper into the puritan pit, yet the end result for disabled kids would be the same – a grave.

@ 36

That one IS plausible, I agree.

the real greedy scroungers are at the top!

benefits go in one hand, out the other. housing benefit to landlord, landlord to banker. disability allowances to companies that provide help or sell equipment, company to banker etc

do you see a pattern there, especially when said bankers put the money in offshore tax havens – unless they decide to trickle down on us!

and given the kind of puritan propaganda about the rest of us, that trickle down is laced with uric acid.

@ 34 SMFS

“Except it is not. It is willful ignorance to claim it is. The system does work. For now. We agree. But the number of claimants is growing. The system cannot match that growth. At some point we will have to stop. It does not take an incredibly negative projection. You can just look and see. You just have to look at the declining number of workers in Britain along with the explosion in the number of people who claim. ”

OK, show me the figures, the predictions, and the rationale linking the first to the second.

“The system cannot keep the number of greedy spongers low enough for the system to work without some sort of quality control. This is not rocket science. Nor do I see how you can deny it. ”

Who’s denying it? I’m not advocating a system of giving benefits to anyone who requests it, no questions asked.

@35 – Chaise Guevara

How can you call it smearing after the numerous “Tory Toffs” campaign run by The Labour Party?

When Labour’s deputy leader, the countess Toff Harriet Harman, refuses to condemn these sorts of comments why shouldn’t people who dislike hypocrisy do the same?

When the Labour candidate for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner, did his Nazi salute towards the Tories where was your condemnation then Chaise?

What about the time Labour smeared Michal Kaminski to link him to the Tories with a pack of lies about his Nazi past? Where was your condemnation then Chaise?

Where were you when Labour were sucking up to murderous dictators overseas like Gadaffi and had the cheek to call the Tories “The Nasty Party”?

Where were you when the Sun Newspaper was ripped up and spat on at the Labour conference yet the most successful Labour leader in history, Tony Blair was Godfather to one of the owners children?

It seems to me that the likes of Ed Miliband who has never done a single days work in his life and his first “employer” Harriet Harman who was educated at the same school as George Osbourne yet allows “Eton” toff smears in her party without complaint and Ed Balls with his toff background as well do not represent the working man.

The fact is both parties are full of professional politicians but to not bring up people’s pasts when the party they are in criticise their opponents for the very same thing is just hypocritical and typical Labour I’m afraid….

@38 – Daz

I agree. All these benefits going to greedy landlords stinks.

What’s even more annoying is the government green taxes the poor and pensioners to pay for wind farms on wealthy landowners land.

A transfer of money from the poor to the rich as usual…

” But the number of claimants is growing. The system cannot match that growth. At some point we will have to stop”

You are correct that the number of people with chronic conditions is likely to grow as a result of advances in medicine and improved treatments that mean conditions that were previously fatal become treatable. It then does logically follow that we need to have a discussion on how we are going to deal with that as a country, with the implication that the existing system of using welfare payments will become increasingly unaffordable.

It does not follow that the way to tackle this is to slash the entitlements for people accross the board, with the net result being at best people become trapped in their homes and are unable to participate in society – such a move becomes economically self-defeating anyway as people who are supported to lead independent lives tend to contribute more to the economy over time anyway. That this is the only option on the table is evidence of at best the lack of creativity amongst the right, and lack of understanding of what disability is.

Pretty much everyone with an understanding of disability that goes beyond crude stereotypes knows that a great deal fo disability is social. That is the real disabling factors are not so much the physical limitations a medical problem can create, but by the disabling structure of wider society. A simple example; if all shops have wheelchair ramps then having to use a wheelchair becomes less of a problem than if none do.

Another example; our society regards most jobs and types of employment as things where a person is physically required to be in a location between certain hours – typically 9 to 5 in an office, and to focus their efforts on the job in hand. This self-evidently means people with conditions where the symptoms fluctuate (you have good days and bad days), which means most chronic conditions, find it difficult to secure employment, even though they may have the skills necessary. A society that wanted to include disabled people would be thinking about how to redefine what employment is, and to explore ways that they would be able to use the talents this increasing group of people by tackling barriers to employment. Which inevtiably means greater understanding and less discrimination.

It does not mean removing people’s life support system and assuming the magic adam smith fairy dust will automatically mean these people get jobs. It does not mean removing support from children that enables them to acquire skills. It does not mean labelling people who need support scroungers. And It does not mean preventing efforts to tackle discrimination as part of an agenda of ‘standing up to political correctness’ or whatever.

@ 40 Anon E Mouse

Excuse me, you seem to have somehow confused me with the Labour Party.

But sure, I’m “hypocritical” for consistently disliking this sort of thing regardless of who does it, while you’re not despite the fact that you bemoan this behaviour while engaging in it yourself.

Riiiggghhht….

@ 28, SMFS, how about Sir Phillip Greed, he used a soft loan from RBS, bribed execs at Arcadia Group PLC to buy it, claimed there was a gaping black hole in the pension fund, when bought, he evicerated those pension funds, engorged himself on the entrails (£1.2 billion worth of entrails) then placed all of it in his wife’s account, because she was domiciled in the tax evaders paradise Monaco – oh and imposed his personal debt, said soft loan on Arcadia Group…

…by strange coincidence, Arcadia Group is underperforming on the high street compared to other high street shops. No surprise there. when you take from people you either make them angry or depressed – the first step to demoralising & demotivating them.

@43 – Chaise Guevara

“Excuse me, you seem to have somehow confused me with the Labour Party.”

You just sound like an apologist for them. Bet you voted Labour at the last election as well. For the first time in my life I didn’t.

Well?

@ 45 Anon E Mouse

“You just sound like an apologist for them.”

I didn’t realise that a dislike of childish ad homs was a Labour specialty.

“Bet you voted Labour at the last election as well. For the first time in my life I didn’t.

Well?”

Nope. I’ve never voted Labour, as it happens. So: explain to me again why I’m a hypocrite and an apologist for the Labour Party?

Well?

@46 – Chaise Guevara

It is not possible to articulate an opinion on the Labour position on this or that because they refuse to state what position they hold.

It’s not new. I still don’t know what Gordon Brown’s favourite biscuit is or what cuts Labour would have made if they were in government.

So in absence of any position, such as whether they would or wouldn’t have worked on that European deal last week, people are unable to decide if the idea does or doesn’t have merit.

To act as if there is a Labour position on important issues is to essentially credit them more than they currently deserve and feels like the actions of an apologist to me.

It also seems worthy of criticism particularly when they are not condemned for their outrageous remarks which are essentially the same as that they object to themselves…

@ 47 Anon E Mouse

“To act as if there is a Labour position on important issues is to essentially credit them more than they currently deserve and feels like the actions of an apologist to me.”

Firstly, I’m not sure I actually did that. Secondly, you really should have said from the start that you were defining “Labour apologist” as “anyone who says that Labour takes a position on anything important”. I have this weird habit of interpreting words based on normal usage…

…No. It’s pretty clear that you bizarrely assumed I was supporting Labour on this issue, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, and now you’re heaving the goalposts across the pitch because you haven’t got the decency to admit you were wrong as a simple matter of fact.

“It also seems worthy of criticism particularly when they are not condemned for their outrageous remarks which are essentially the same as that they object to themselves…”

Who are you actually talking about? Who, in the context of your sentence, is not condemning Labour in such a way that invites criticism? And can I get a straight answer to a straight question this time, instead of goalpost-shifting and weasel words?

@48 – Chaise Guevara

I don’t do weasel words – if I’m wrong then I’m wrong.

You were the one that mentioned the fact that I had commented on something that someone had done in their past, namely the wearing of a Nazi uniform and my point, like a party calling someone else nasty when they themselves have sucked up to murderous dictators overseas is that hypocrisy stinks.

Finally I stand by what I said regarding debate here. It is not credible to argue on behalf of the Labour Party when they are led by a hopeless leader who is incapable of articulating and defending a position.

What is Labour’s position on Europe or what cuts would they make in these times of austerity?

That’s why I called you an apologist for Labour assuming, incorrectly it appears, that anyone supporting a party incapable of supporting itself had to be apologist.

I stand corrected and apologise for my inaccurate description of your position…

@ 49

I’m not supporting Labour on this. I would choose them over the Tories, but that’s because their previous record, scarred as it may be, is a lot better than what the Tories are doing now. I agree that they’re not doing themselves any favours by refusing to present a complete alternative to the Conservatives’ cuts.

But nowhere on this thread have I supported Labour, which was why I was annoyed by your decision to hold me accountable for Labour’s follies. Regarding the wearing of Nazi uniforms, it would be a bit silly of me to defend/excuse Ed Balls while condemning whatsisface, the Tory who’s in hot water about it now.

I reiterate what I said to you and Schmidt @35: whether or not a public figure has at some point worn a Nazi uniform for high jinks during a private occasion has nothing to do with their abilities and policies as a politician, regardless of whose side they’re on, and people who try to make a big deal out of these “transgressions” are using an ad hominem instead of making any relevant points.

My ex-wife is on the brink of ‘getting fired’ from her jobs and going back on benefits, because she physically cannot work enough hours to make enough money to get by.

Our daughter is mentally disabled, and overwhelmingly dependant on her mother.

This drop in support may well be enough to just make life financially impossible, and there’s a limit to how much I’m capable of propping them up.

We can’t tax the banks more though, because they might get upset.

As a mother of two one whom is disabled is disgusted that family’s are being treated this way. My son is 6 still in nappies to get the care required for him I travel to 3 different hospitals. The cuts are just a kick in the teeth. David Cameron should be aware first hand how hard and expensive it is to care for a disabled child. Shame on this goverment. When will all this end we have people that generally need help then we have people that are claiming benefits When they don’t need them and keep popping out kids. How about sterilizing the ones that are on bnefits but just keep on having kids that everyone else pays for surely that would save some money! Rant over