Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 16:35:30 GMT 7
I won't be bothering with LNP emails, as they will never get my vote ever in my existence.
I will seek out ones from my area like Gai Brodtmann, Katy Gallagher, Andrew Leigh and interstate Ill aim for Lambie, contact any greens you also can too.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 4, 2016 16:48:48 GMT 7
I think it's possible we'll see another election, sooner rather than later, and, as Banjo pointed out, it's about prompting the major party analysts to consider our voting power and the possible consequences of targeting us. Frankly, I want both parties to leave us alone and that's why they both got emails. The LNP need not know they'll never get my vote.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 5, 2016 13:26:55 GMT 7
Draft letter for the senators sycksyde mentioned, or whomever you prefer. Tinker with as desired.
Dear Senator
I am a Disability Support Pensioner, and a member of a forum which has been closely monitoring the election and the swing against the major parties.
You would be aware that Disability Support Pensioners represent some 800,000 votes and that, given the major parties’ attacks on Disability Support Pensioners, our votes may well have influenced the election outcome.
Of utmost importance to our members now is acquiring your response to these three (3) questions:
(1) Do you intend to support the LNP’s pre-election promise – a promise the ALP did not reject when we approached them – to review/reassess 90,000 Disability Support Pensioners?
(2) What is your policy in relation to the portability of pensions, particularly eligibility requirements for unlimited portability?
(3) What is your policy in relation to the introduction of the “welfare card” (cashless debit card)?
I look forward to receiving your responses to the abovelisted three (3) questions.
Yours faithfully
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 5, 2016 15:14:46 GMT 7
"one of over a thousand members" sounds better than "one of"
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 5, 2016 15:17:49 GMT 7
Sure does. I wish all the guests would join, too.
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Jul 5, 2016 17:01:50 GMT 7
How's this for a starter? Dear.... I think I speak on behalf of most of the 800,000 Disability Support Pensioners and the thousands who were refused the pension since 2013 when I say that if your staff are working on the reasons for the swing against the major parties in this election then they may need to look at the number of votes we represent.
With reassessments looming for many more they look at a lifetime on NewStart in the clutches of the Job Centres who have no interest in finding jobs that are not there. There are few jobs for well people, the disabled have no chance.
Instead of grandstanding about savings, budget repair and the unsustainability of the DSP you need to offer real alternatives to people you refuse the pension to or have thrown off by reassessment procedures. I speak to both parties here.
Feel free to ignore this letter, if another election is held I suspect that you will not pick up one extra vote from us unless we see some real compassion for people in our position. Maybe then we will have your attention.
I like it Banjo, well done. Maybe add after the Job Centres the amount of Job Centres that failed in the star ratings on the Employment site. .... Job Centres of whom 2,608 of 2,905 are failing to attain their key outcomes
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Jul 5, 2016 17:06:47 GMT 7
Draft letter for the senators sycksyde mentioned, or whomever you prefer. Tinker with as desired. Dear Senator I am a Disability Support Pensioner, and a member of a forum which has been closely monitoring the election and the swing against the major parties. You would be aware that Disability Support Pensioners represent some 800,000 votes and that, given the major parties’ attacks on Disability Support Pensioners, our votes may well have influenced the election outcome. Of utmost importance to our members now is acquiring your response to these three (3) questions: (1) Do you intend to support the LNP’s pre-election promise – a promise the ALP did not reject when we approached them – to review/reassess 90,000 Disability Support Pensioners? (2) What is your policy in relation to the portability of pensions, particularly eligibility requirements for unlimited portability? (3) What is your policy in relation to the introduction of the “welfare card” (cashless debit card)? I look forward to receiving your responses to the abovelisted three (3) questions. Yours faithfully Nice Murphy Can you add something about us Pensioners with Impairments floundering on Newstart that can't get onto Disability Support ?
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Jul 5, 2016 17:08:53 GMT 7
I have my own letter ready to go. I won't post it as it is 4 pages long. I just need a list of people to send it to when and if they are ever elected.
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jul 5, 2016 18:05:08 GMT 7
I appreciate the level of anxiety the threat to review 90,000 DSP recipients and I do not for an instance put down concerns. BUT Given that, theoretically, all DSP recipients are subject to review is there any advantage in mentioning the hypothetically 90,000. I think it was more about seeming to do something. I agree with 2 and 3 murphy and krystal has highlighted a point that also needs canvassing. AND I like your letter.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 5, 2016 18:32:55 GMT 7
I think I've misled you...while I mention the forum as a means of bolstering the text's impact, for practical purposes this isn't a letter I'm sending on the forum's behalf, but rather a sample folks can choose to send to the senators mentioned earlier in the thread, or whomever you like.
This isn't me backing away from sending it: when I'm at a computer tomorrow rather than a phablet (don't ask) I'll certainly send this or a version of it off to those senators.
I reproduce it here for others to use, tinker with or trash.
I do think that these or similar questions are more likely to receive a response if they are sent by more than one person.
Denis, I tend to agree about the 90,000. I'm more interested in the algorithm DSS refuses to be transparent about.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 6, 2016 6:56:43 GMT 7
We could add something about being called bludgers and rorters by the Liberals media shills as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 7:54:59 GMT 7
I appreciate the level of anxiety the threat to review 90,000 DSP recipients and I do not for an instance put down concerns. BUT Given that, theoretically, all DSP recipients are subject to review is there any advantage in mentioning the hypothetically 90,000. I think it was more about seeming to do something. I agree with 2 and 3 murphy and krystal has highlighted a point that also needs canvassing. AND I like your letter. Yes there is a purpose to it. Its because the 90000 will be older ones subject to the same review process the Under 35's undertook in a specific measure ''targeted reviews''.- Targeted reviews are policy driven so yes its extremely important. Not all reviews are the same but policy driven ones are targeted with purpose. To not mention it means you are not letting them know what you're concerned about and you stated in first sentence the anxiety about it so yes it has advantage to be mentioned since while human services says no legislation is required, it does not take appropriation bill requiring passage into account.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 6, 2016 8:45:35 GMT 7
I think all of this can be mentioned. Add a sentence here and a question there, depending on your personal focus. I also think it will produce better results by being kept brief. The longer an email, the less likely a reader will read the whole text.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 6, 2016 8:59:33 GMT 7
I've made a couple of comments based on this to online newspaper articles. A letter to the editor of a national daily may be an idea as well.
I would say that the shakers and movers of both parties will be doing a lot of reading this week.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jul 6, 2016 18:03:56 GMT 7
and can you add that all those on dsp especially, are fuming at the person who coined the phrase "WORKING AGE PAYMENT", that has caught on with every mongrel who uses it. There is no such thing and it only infers everyone on welfare is a bludger.
|
|