Every time the government of a country with 65+ million citizens change any policy, even the most obscure one, people die. Statistically that’s just the way it is with that many people.
I’m not saying 4000 is insignificant, I’m just saying the government can’t be paralysed from making decisions.
They could make decisions that actually benefit people for one.
And I would love a source that shows any policy change kills people. Sounds like ripe bullshit to me.
Yes, hold on, I’ll go and find my list of every policy reviewed against how many people it will kill.
Of course that doesn’t exist.
My point is that if you make the slightest statistical change, when you multiply it by 65 million, you’ll get something happening.
Change how much fertiliser farmers are allowed to wash into stream by a millionth; give slightly more to councils to fix potholes; change what day of the week pensions are paid out; change the frequency with which airports have to check for moisture in their fuel depots; allow a new type of plastic to be used to reline leaky drainage pipes running under old buildings; change the percentage that side windows in cars are allowed to be darkened etc etc.
I’ll give you a concrete example; in many countries ibuprofen isn’t allowed to be bought over the counter, but only after a consultation with a pharmacist. That’s because if may cause as adverse reaction if your stomach lining is affected by other medicines or illness. This kills people. Yet we happily keep buying it over the counter because it’s convenient and works better than paracetamol.
Should we move ibuprofen behind a pharmacist consultation?
Everything is a trade off when you’re dealing with 65 million people.
I don’t understand how this can happen through them losing £300 when the triple lock is set to increase by ~£700 this year.
Costs in genral have gone uk by way more then 700 a year.
For those renting Rent alone will be higher the. That. And housing benifit etc is means tested the same way this is now.
That said. As I have said elaewhere in the thread.
If this payment is the dif between life and death. Then this is clearly not the issue. But the level of means testing. And media history of negativity to claiming benifits is.
This isn’t gonna be the last time their own research comes back to bite them, they’ve had 14 years of pot shots at the conservatives.
Far easier to be the opposition and criticise, rather than deal with the reality and make the tough decisions.
As opposed to the conservatives, who just connive and scam and destroy public services. Labour have been in power for a couple of months, and have twelve years of the worst government imaginable to try to correct. The utter incompetence, corruption and mismanagement of the conservatives have left them with a multi-billion deficit to try to correct, I’d be shocked if they got everything right in trying to steer that sinking ship
be honest with yourselves.
If £200 a year on fuel bills. Is the difference between them dying or living. The issue is not really that £200.
The issue is one of 2 very clear things.
1st to few pensioners entitled to pension benefits not claiming.
Something the government is trying to solve. But 50 years of media negativity towards benefits claimants has a lot to do with that. Many of these people grew old under constant negativity towards needing welfare.
2nd, the level pension benefits are paid out at is far too low.
While, it truly bothers me that labour has not insisted on resolving that issue at the same time as means testing a benefit that clearly goes to people who are not in need. £200 a year is not nearly enough to make a huge difference here. Given the numbers. 4 to 6k a year of extra income before these benefits are capped is more the number. Especially when you consider for those renting. Housing benefit is linked to the same means test. The last few years of rent rises will outweigh that 200 a year hugely.
Can I ‘yes, and’ that with the point that simply giving more money to poor people is now pretty well established to be good for both them and the economy
Agreed.
Unfortunatly politics is not that simple.
Simply giving money requires convincing voters. Or 5 years from now. Everyone will vote the arseholes again.
This is the main issue. Cobvincing voters to actually support a plan.
The left as a whole is far to devided. Even the slightedt disagreement seems to split tjhe vote. Where as stopping the left is all it takes to pull the right together.
Unfortunatly under fptp such splits are unelectable. And with such splits. Any other voting system aint gonna happen.
It’s an issue. All I can say is that change has to come from within, and for me that means being more willing to “march with” lefties I don’t always agree with, as long as there’s something important we do agree about. If someone’s a bit tank-ish, I’ll gladly shake their hand when it comes to voting for proportional representation, for example.
Nods. Sounds lime a logical approch.
May start that myself. Just difficult with my disability. To get to.most marches.
This is the tough decision.
