<% ballot="41755" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

It is utterly wrong to cut disability benefits from those who cannot have steady employment for medical reasons.
Michael S. Cheetham, United States

We have two disabled daughters one has been awarded DLA the other we are at the tribunal stage and we are finding that due to possible government pressure they are being told to refuse any new claims unless absolutely desparately needed so much for care in the community more like fend for your self and pray.
Mr & Mrs Trumens, UK

How is this supposed to benefit the UK workforce? Surely this will discriminate more against those disabled employees that are fully capable of doing a professional job but will be prized out of a job due to the cuts.
Probably the system by which disability benefit is allocated should be reviewed in order to weed out those falsifying claims. This would be a much more rational option. Tighter controls, not tighter budgets. I thought that the government was for people investment.
Richard Keith, Scotland

I'm shocked that the government can even contemplate reducing, taxing or means testing Incapacity benefit, Disability Living allowance or Attendance Allowance.
David Jones, Wales

It's always going to be an emotive issue but reform is desperately needed. I know of one family where both parents are registered blind yet they still get a car allowance. The effect is that their able bodied son gets a new Volvo every two years. That can't be justified. It should be rememebered that one person's benefit is anothers tax bill.
Steve Chilvers, UK

I rely on my disability benefits to hold down my job. Cut my benefits and I lose my job.
Kevin Elliott, UK

Unpleasant as it may appear, it is essential that ALL areas of public spending are reviewed to achieve the greatest degree of cost saving possible. A re-evaluation of priorities and more targetted spending is what is required in the modern era.
The tax burden cannot increase significantly as it would force us into an economic black hole(inflation, spiralling costs, wage claims etc.), yet there is a perception that the government should provide better and better services. The only way to square the circle is to target the available cash better - means testing, and tailoring spending more accurately is the only way forward.
I do not see why any group should see themselves as immune from this requirement. If the disabled are immune, why not war veterans, pensioners, orphans, middle aged white males (no one cares for them now do they?) the list is endless.
Jon, UK

By definition, disabled people are disadvantaged in the workplace. If an employer has a choice between two equally qualified candidates for a job, which will he take on - the healthy one or the disabled one who may have to take extended time off for medical treatment etc?
For this reason, there has to be a benefit safety net for those who will not find work in the brave new world of 'welfare to work.'
David Blunkett was absolutely right to say that the process will not succeed until there are jobs for the disabled. That will require a fundamental change in attitudes among employers, and so far I've seen no indication of how Blair and Harman intend to achieve this particular miracle.
Graham Parker, UK

The government should be looking at ways of reducing fraud rather than targeting legitimate claimants. There's far too much emphasis placed upon cost savings at the expense of the needy.
Nigel Wright, England

Taking money away from those who are abusing the system and giving it to those who really need it is the object of the exercise, not to take money from genuine claiments.
David Ross, England

I agree there needs to be a review of benefits. The government message should be that benefits will not be cut. The fear that benefits may be cut or stopped altogether must be causing a fair amount of stress and in turn unnecessary ill health. The government needs to do a better job or reassuring disabled people. They are the most vunerable and the government must be mad to target them.
Sue Webb, Coventry, UK

How can anyone who lives in a civilised society justify cutting benefits to disabled people?
Julia Knight, UK

It is quite distressing to see a Labour Government testing the waters for a cut in benefits to some of the most vulnerable people in society.
I commend those in the Commons on the Labour benches who are opposing these truly sickening policies (as in the the Lone Parent Benefit vote), not all of whom are on the far left but include many in the centre Mr Blair claims as his own.
I really fear that some in the Labour Party are realizing that in the their joy and enthusiasm to see a Labour Government elected again, they have received in "New Labour" a modernized version of Thatcherism.
Credit to people like Ken Livingstone who predicted this outcome long before (although he goes to far to the left for me, he does know, unlike some in the government, what the Labour Party has stood for.
Brian Delaney, USA

With the current system, the honest are getting poorer by becoming victims while the dishonest are getting richer and powerful. If reforms are not introduced, problems will continue to get serious with time.
If the government does not introduce a foolproof anti-fraud system, these cuts would backfire whereby the needy will be inclined to join the fraudsters to make easy money.
It would be wiser for the government to take billions from the rich rather than millions from the poor. The other big advantage would be that these rich claimants (fraudsters) would not complain the way the poor do.
Y.K.Raja, UK

Genuinely severely disabled people should be supported to an even higher level than at present. Far too many people with relatively minor disabilites are able to use it as an excuse to be supported by the State. Benefits for these people should be greatly reduced or withdrawn entirely.
M. Eagle, UK

A review of the system needs to be done, not a review of the amount payed to individuals. It took me one year to get any payments, I have lung damage which means I now have to be on oxygen 24 hours a day, where as if I was an alcoholic I would have had nearly an automatic payment, how about using some of this money to rehab alcoholics instead of paying for them to drink.
M.Callaway, UK

Why not make better use of limited resources by tackling fraud. Many people obtain disability, income support, housing benefit, and other benefits and don't qualify for them, or are working at the same time as claiming income support. What about reducing the red-tape bureaucracy at local and central government ...
Fayaz Khan, UK

It just underlines the government's inexperience and incompetence that this proposal ever entered the public arena.
Alan Grant, UK

There needs to be some sort of disability benefit and the current system needs to be reformed. However the disabled, like any other group of people, should not be expected to be treated equally and given extra help.
Michael Nolan, United Kingdom

It all depends which benefits are cut and how. Any compassionate society must provide for those who are genuinely unable to provide for themselves but we do seem to take it to extremes. In Britain today, over 10% of the working population receives some kind of disability benefit. It is hard to imagine that so many people are disabled to the extent that they cannot provide for themselves. That said, there seems to be a tendancy to lump everyone with any level of disability into a sort of sub-class called 'the disabled', who must be looked after. These people, however, are ordinary human beings who for the most part would like the chance to make a useful contribution to society just like everyone else. What they need is not charity, pity or state handouts but a society where they are given an equal chance to get work and provide for themselves. Even the label we give them - disabled - is demeaning. For goodness' sake, let's treat them as the individual, intelligent human beings they actually are rather than this pitied sub-class!
Neil Tonks, UK

Justifications for the cutting of benefits to the disabled tend to ring hollow when there are so many other areas that can and should be considered first. The disabled community is not seen as having enough political clout to defend their piece of the funding pie.
Todd L. Gilbert, USA

I myself suffer from Usher Syndrome, which means I am profoundly deaf and blind. Having this benefit has made an enormous difference to my life and has meant that I am able to live my life far more independently than would otherwise be the case. For example, I use my DLA to pay for transport, such as taxies, and pay for carers to help me to shop and get around. I also need supervision to keep an eye through the night on my baby son and me if my partner becomes ill. Even the current level of benefit does not really cover the extra costs I face due to my sight loss. I, and other blind, deaf/blind and partially sighted people I know would face real difficulties if these benefits were taken away or cut.
Mr M K Styles,England

Certainly cut benefits to those that do not need them, redistribute the savings to ensure that those genuinely in need recieve all that they require. If this means means testing must be set up then so be it. The scroungers must not be allowed to carry on robbing the needy.
M. Brimcombe, UK

Being disabled, I am obviously going to say no to the cuts! However, I have some very valid reasons for this view. Being partially sighted, I am pretty much unable to read bus numbers and monitors at places like train stations, even when using visual aids. So, I need benefits to help pay for taxis in places I am not familiar with. The benefits I receive also help with the costs of lenses, solutions and glasses. Although I have a job, I still find it very difficult to afford these items, and am therefore hoping that the Government will come to their senses and tax people who can afford it - like the rich...
Dominic Brown, England

Disability benefits should be reviewed with all other benefits and allowances with the objective of protecting the truely needy and saving money that can can be then used for eduction and other public services.
Brian Sprosen, UK

Although costs probably need to come down, those in real need should not fall through the cracks.
Mr Lee Caligusa,USA

I think Tony Blair is right to look at reforming the benefits system. It is clearly in need of reform. On the other hand, cutting allowances in real terms for disabled people would clearly be unjust. The whole system of benefits needs to be considered rather than just one element of it. Scrapping universal child allowances, for example, would release funds for other areas. Many people I know with children say they don't need the children's allowances.
John Weldon, UK

It would be terribly unfair for disabled people to have their allowances cut. The government should look to other areas to make savings.
Jane Whitechurch, Bristol, UK

My Father and Mother live in UK. My Father suffered an Epilepsy attack some years ago, and now relies on his pension and mobility allowance after being made redundant by his employers any cut would hurt both of them, to an extent I wouldn't like to imagine.
Brian Havers, Kenya

There appears to be a trend in politics in the Western world that indicates that political parties come to power with certain hidden agendas that are only implemented when the "honeymoon" is over. There is nothing democratic in a government expousing certain policies during the election only to reveal other conflicting policies after they attain power. We in Ontario have experienced the same ruthless arbitrary budget/benefit cutting after the Progressive Conservatives settled in. They have only recently introduced reduced subsidies to the municipalities, which in effect forces the municipalities to either reduce spending or raise realty taxes. Politicians on the municipal level have the same aversion to reducing expenditures as their Fed/Prov counterparts, consequently this ultimately burdens the taxpayer with additional taxes that are not based, as Federal and Provincial taxes are, on the individual's ability to pay. How democratic is that? If we allow politicians to be able to position themselves to be above the law then we are leaving ourselves open to what must have confronted the German populace in the early thirties, and we all know what came to pass.
J.G. Pierpoint, Canada

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©