My mother had her hairdresser round the house the day before she succumbed to her cancer because she fully intended to be going out that weekend, however you miss the point entirely - we, the taxpayer, paid handsomely for a private company to assess everyone on any sort of disability benefit in order to sort out the hundreds of thousands of shirkers that we had been promised were hiding behind fake illnesses, what they did in order to generate the numbers to justify the propaganda was tick the "fit to work" boxes for people with diagnosed terminal illnesses who then went on to prove their diagnosis correct by dying.

As if an employee with 2 million other unemployed to pick from would choose the one who has already been medically diagnosed as ready to die, anytime now, I mean, its hardly worth the bloody paperwork is it ?

Of course its not the first time in recent history that a regime has used the dying to work until they literally expire...

Yet another in a lengthening list...

rlhttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefit-cuts-blind-man-committed-2965375#.Ur6V1aPxVTK.twitterrl


Yes its The Daily Mirror and yes you'd expect it to take an anti-government stance, but extract the relevent details from the rhetoric and you have a story of a mentally ill person able to support himself in social housing whilst on a small weekly allowance provided by the taxpayer, the sort of thing that Margaret Thatcher was thinking of when she instigated the breaking up of the mental health institutions for "Care in the community", in fact the person in this story is a testament to the way that that policy should work when applied correctly.

Withdraw that support and this is the result.

We live in a very cruel society.

This is factually incorrect.

None of the major parties "promised ... NHS privatisation". Thus nobody voted for it.

Indeed, one of the "major parties" spent a lot of money on a huge poster campaign promising to cut the deficit and not the NHS.

And its leader stated: "There will be no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS".

This rlhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/iain-duncan-smith-tories-useful-idiotrl pretty much sums up IDS for me, along with Gove he is the patsy, the fall guy for the governing party, defending what is sometimes indefensible with what are sometimes outright lies, taking the flak for what were always going to be distasteful economic policies, they are not experts in their office and neither do they need to be, their job is simply to keep David Cameron and George Osborne in a job and untouched by criticism and in that they are doing a damn fine job, the last couple of paragraphs in that article say everything you need to know.

they proved they didn't know what they were doing when they announced the removal of the Harrier from the Navy and Air Force as well as are only aircraft carrier as a way of saving money.

Newsnight exposed him some 11 years ago about his lying about his qualifications on his CV and his employment. It just proves that leopards really do not change their spots.

It does seem to be quite endemic in the tory party

You know, I was going to make some remark about the planned replacement aircraft carriers and not havign any aircraft to place on them and so searched for an up to date story on their construction...

...and found this

rlhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24833555rl

Very interesting and informative until you reach the very last couple of paragraphs and this one in particular...




And thats where you stop, and read it again, and sit and stare at the screen open-mouthed as you wonder what sort of fookwits we have in charge of our civil service when they "failed to factor in inflation AND VAT".

Failed to include VAT ?

WTF ?????????

I'm not missing any point, but you carry on patronising. Do I qualify as being unable to work as my condition, being alive, is terminal? Should we just make a law that companies aren't allowed to employ people with cancer in case they do die? What about non terminal HIV/Aids? MS? You know, just to be on the safe side?

From each manifesto, I won't say which, you can guess. And if you can spot the differences you win a shiny ha'penny.
1.


2.

3.


I like the last one best, very, very carefully mentioning staff co-ops, and in no way mentioning "independent" providers. Doesn't quite say private providers will be outlawed though. Just that they won't get the perceived favourable bias that they did under the Labour Party.

Manifestos are great reads, you have to really read every sentence, it's truly a testament to our population that each voter takes the time to read each one to make an informed decision.