" his government's cuts will cause the deaths of some of the most vulnerable disabled people and
will condemn countless others to isolation and poverty."

" Willetts, surprisingly, did not counter the claim, but merely said that causing the deaths of disabled
people "is not a government policy."

Is this simply a problem of language and logic? Why MERELY? Why "SURPRISINGLY"?

If X says "choice A will result in B" and Y replies "the reasons for choosing A have nothing to do with INTENDING to cause B" therre is no contradiction. Y's reasons for choosing A are of course in disregard of the consequence B but that doesn't mean that was in any way a reason for choosing A.

Take this simple example. You choose to share your food with starving person X instead of starving person Y. Would you argue that this means you INTEND Y to starve?

STOP --- I am by no means making the claim that the government doesn't have a policy to intentionally harm the disabled. Just that no valid case is being made by showing that governmental choices have that effect. You'd need to dig deeper. And you can't begin by assuming that cuts aren't necessary (even if you believe that, since claims about motivation of another's choices depend on what the other person believes). So you have to argue why something else (that you specify) should have been cut instead.

> "the reasons for choosing A have nothing to do with INTENDING to cause B" therre is no contradiction.

True to an extent, but if choosing A is likely to cause B there is still a moral, and often legal, aspect. It's like the difference between murder (where there is intention), and manslaughter (where there is no intention). It's not just about intention, it's about responsibility for the affect of your actions (something the Tories are quite keen on, so they say).

> You choose to share your food with starving person X instead of starving person Y. Would you argue that this means you INTEND Y to starve?

Again, true to an extent. But a false analogy in the circumstances of cuts to people with disabilities. I believe a better analogy would be:
You choose to share your food with well-fed person X instead of starving person Y. Whilst you may not have intended for person Y to starve, do you accept you could have chosen a path that would have prevented this?

> And you can't begin by assuming that cuts aren't necessary (even if you believe that, since claims about motivation of another's choices depend on what the other person believes).
As I said, it's not just about their motivation; it's also about the likely consequences of their actions. And why is it not allowed to assume that you cannot question another person's beliefs. Nonetheless, I'll play the game ...

> So you have to argue why something else (that you specify) should have been cut instead.
Trident, military spending (more than has been the case), PFI repayments. That lot should more than do it.