Theresa May was confronted over disability benefit cuts yesterday, during a rare encounter with ordinary people. Cathy Mohan, who lives in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, berated the Prime Minister over cuts to service and social security for people with learning disabilities.
Watch the encounter here.
Tim Farron said:
Theresa May has shown she just doesn’t care about people like Cathy who are seeing their benefits slashed and prices rise.
Instead of addressing concerns over learning disabilities – she tried to change the subject to mental health.
Theresa May isn’t listening and is taking people for granted.
People don’t have to settle for this cold, mean-spirited vision of Britain.
A better future is available. The Liberal Democrats will stand up against a bad Brexit deal that will cost jobs and push up prices, and we will reverse Conservative cuts to benefits for people not fit for work.
If you think Cathy deserves a Member of Parliament who will speak up for her, you might wish to help Layla Moran win Oxford West and Abingdon.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Searching for PC Bodger
Covid, measurement and public health
Application made for 15 large events at Ludlow Castle over coming summers
Latest general election voting intention opinion polls
Dundee West Church Christmas Concert tomorrow! #dundeewestend
Simon R
Paul Holmes
Mary Fulton
8 Comments
I see the Lib Dems are falling down into the `emotional correctness` trap. This is a jungian trap that assumes that everyone is an extroverted feeler (like Tim) and sets up a hierarchy of response with that as its summit and judges others accordingly.
May is an ISTJ personality type – obviously something her detractors have a go at as it’s below average in the population with females compared to males. As it seems odd her response is seen as `uncaring`. It assumes that ISTJs are uncaring because they don’t show their care in societally understandable ways. Tim is an ESFP personality type so loves to go out gladhanding while Corbyn i imagine is INTP/ENTP (?) the most difficult to `read` of the three.
“we will reverse Conservative cuts to benefits for people not fit for work”
There were far more cuts to “benefits for people not fit for work” under the coalition government. Is Tim going to reverse those? I wonder if this has been costed?
Maybe she cares, but the policy for which she most explicitly demands a mandate is to leave the single market and the customs union. Her direction will inevitably reduce Britain’s growth rate relative to what it would be were we to remain. It may even lead to recession.
We are well on the way there with industrial output having fallen and the trade balance having widened over the first quarter. Inflation has risen to an unexpected high of 2.7% whilst the CIPD, the professional body for HR managers, predicts wage increases over the forthcoming year to be a mere 1%. The euphoria of debt-fuelled spending is fizzling out faced with the reality of maxed-out credit cards
People are already getting poorer and there will simply not be the money available to improve public services. Expressing care means nothing if you are deliberately driving the nation into poverty.
Far from being ‘strong and stable’, the conservatives are morphing into a
Miasma of Mediocraty in everything they try to do.
Any claims they make depend on others to execute with, of course insufficient funds, leaving the third parties to take the blame and being labelled as incompetant.
The NHS IT crisis is a perfect example of the consequences of the way ‘the plan’ falls apart.
The Southern Railway debacle is purely down to the Government pushing an agenda which Southern squirm around trying to operate a service. Believe me, railwaymen take great pride in operating a good service.
On BBC SouthEast news last night, the Lewes MP (Cons) put the blame on to Network Rail, (nationalized of course) having been blocked by Central Office from any critical statements following the complete ceasation of the train service to Seaford.
‘Don’t blame us’ the Miasma whinged.
I believe there has been a freedom of information requestion that shows there are targets to uphold mandatory reconsideration decisions: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/402400/response/978248/attach/html/2/FOI%201740%20response.pdf.html
What a system where the aim is to back up the decision maker rather than get the decision right. What a system where those who don’t press on with the appeal will never know what an independent review of the evidence has to say – especially those with mental health or learning disabilities who may not want to go through the stress. What a system where there is a waste of time and money going from ESA to jsa and potentially back to ESA again due to the flaws in Mr process.
John ,
Could we have that in either English or some other actual language which at least someone on here as a reader might actually understand !
Tim in his emotions is someone I can understand ,even when, as on Brexit ,mine are more reserved, they are not on a range of very important issues or policies , like disability benefit cuts, where I feel it tremendously , and applaud Tim !
@ Lorenzo “Could we have that in either English or some other actual language which at least someone on here as a reader might actually understand !”
You could offer to translate it for him, Lorenzo. We’d all enjoy the outcome.
For myself, I find Jung’s use of arch-types a bit illiberal, given our belief in the importance of the individual.
Some might say (not me) it’s first year Uni psychobabble……others, even the (very) odd history prof has claimed that the two world wars were triggered off by the Prussian system of early potty training.
Thank you DJ for the link which states that one of the two targets for those carrying out mandatory reconsiderations for benefit decisions is to uphold 80% of the original decisions. This is terrible and shows that the DWP is not interested in making the correct decision. This is why so many decisions are overturned by tribunals rather than by the DWP carrying out is duty to reconsider the original decision fairly. How does a government department get way with ignoring British values?