Happy New Year from the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne

I feel the Tory members of the cabinet must have had a very jolly Christmas playing with their new board game, “Cuts to the Benefits for the Sick and Vulnerable” This came to mind when the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Right Honourable, not my words, George Osborne announced cuts to the Benefit system of £25,000,000,000 (£25 billion). Actually, when all the figures are collated it is over £60 billion.  

To quote George Osborne, he said "We’ve got to make more cuts £17 billion this coming year, £20 billion next year and over £25 billion further across the two years after. That’s more than £60 billion in total." The Telegraph

 Mr. Osborne said that 2014 will be "the year of hard truths" and that "Britain faces a choice".  The Government is on course to borrow £111 billion this year, almost double the £60 billion it was forecast to borrow when Mr. Osborne took office in 2010.  The national debt will hit £1.2 trillion by April, and is due to carry on rising, hitting £1.5 trillion by 2018. It means the Treasury is spending £50 billion a year on debt interest to Britain’s lenders. The BBC

What irritates me is so far, although I may have missed it, no-one either when interviewing the Chancellor or reporting this very important news challenges these figures and by how he came to them. I can imagine George, his friends and colleagues playing this game after a very good lunch quaffing the after dinner Brandy and cigars as they pull out a card with a figure on it, say £17 billion and deciding where it should go in the cuts to the benefits. Just like picking up a card of “Chance” in Monopoly and laughing at the choice.

A friend of mine is a carer for his brother who has severe mental health problems. Every time the Tory led Government announces cut backs or decide to revise the benefit system he fears the worst for his brother and himself. I feel they, the government, have no conception of how many people, through no fault of their own or by their choice, are doing their best to live a life as best they can.  

Not happy to celebrate over the festivities with this he decides to come up with another great wheeze this one concerning people Under 25s. The Chancellor full of “bon homme” decides he wishes to remove housing benefit from the Under-25s.   It is estimated that this will only save about £50 million after the people such as parents, victims of domestic abuse and similar are taking into account.   

Department of Work and Pensions figures show that 351,678 people under the age of 25 claim housing benefit at a cost of £1.8bn. Of these 55.6% are parents, which mean the cuts would not apply to them. Osborne's plan would therefore produce savings of £827.4m in this area. But Whitehall sources suggested this figure could be reduced to as low as £50m once other groups among the under-25s, such as victims of domestic violence, are excluded from housing benefit cuts. "It is laughable that you can get anywhere near £12bn in cuts this way," one source said.

Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread, which represents single parents, said: “Almost half of under-25s supported by housing benefit are single parent families with young children, for whom moving in with mum and dad simply isn’t an option.”

Alison Worsley, deputy director of strategy at Barnardo’s, said: “Any proposal to remove housing benefits from all under-25s risks leaving some of this country’s most vulnerable people stranded. We must not forget that many disadvantaged young people starting out in the world simply do not have a family that they can turn to.”

Once again I can see why the Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated that the Tory Party “is no longer the nasty party but the caring party.”

McTaggart

N.B.   1, 000,000,0000, (1 billion) = one thousand million.

In the U.K. a billion, (1,000,000,0000,) used to be one million million and some people still use it today.

Important Advice for the Atos Medical Examination: Beware the warm smile and the gentle voice!

I was at the SHP blog workshop on Friday when a conversation began about the Atos medical examination and about the assessment procedure. One of the participants in the conversation had recently been for a medical examination she had taken a friend to observe the procedure. Her friend began taking notes at which point the examiner told the person to stop as it is not allowed.

That was wrong.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO EAT

I get £102.00 a week and most of that goes on bills.  I am left with £7.00 to last me two weeks for food. It has got to the point where I have to go to charities to be able to eat to live. I feel ashamed and humiliated that I have to do this but I have no choice.

 I suffer from anxiety, panic attacks, and arthritis, and this situation and pressure the government is putting me under is giving me a lot stress and therefore making my illness worse to the point where my doctor has increased my medication.

I have lived in my home for years and it is our family home.  I have a two bedroom maisonette and I am currently paying bedroom tax that brings me into poverty.

My children stay overnight frequently to care for me. I have grand children that stay regularly and furniture that I have built up over years to make it a home and to move would be mentally and emotional torture for me, as I have put a lot of love and memories into my home. All my furniture would be left behind because they would not fit into a one bedroom and I would be Isolated as my family would not be able to stay with me.

The government have taken money from the taxpayers to buy nuclear weapons and new transport which we don’t need. We also paid for Margaret Thatcher’s funeral: who is going to pay for our funerals? I cannot afford to and have spoke to a lot of people who feel the same.  

by Theresa K

The Tory Nasty Party are back: Lord Freud and the Bedroom Tax

I could not believe what I was hearing on the B.B.C.  Radio Five Live Victoria Derbyshire morning programme in a discussion with Lord Freud and Radio Five listeners about the imminent new Under Occupancy Act, otherwise infamously known as the Bedroom Tax. This tax comes into effect on Monday 1^st April 2013.

The Bedroom Tax is where people who have a spare bedroom and are on a benefit will have their housing benefit cut.

Lord Freud was asked specific questions by listeners regarding how the tax would affect them.

One had a son in the army and wanted to keep his bedroom for when the son was on leave so he felt he had a home to come back to. Another had separated from his wife and the 3 children stayed with him at the weekend, the school holidays and at other times.  Another had disabilities that affected his breathing and he had to use an oxygen tank and other apparatus to help him breathe. He had to sleep with his head raised on the bed so he slept in a separate room from his wife so they could both sleep without him disturbing her from the noise of the oxygen and his sleeping position in the bed. Another had a daughter going to university.

Lord Freud did not answer the specific questions asked by people on the phone but choose to give the bog standard Government answer such as “difficult times, times of austerity” we need to reform the system to stop the scroungers, [my words], living in luxury (?) with too many rooms that they don’t need.

Here is the solution that Lord Freud gave to the tenants:

To the father who has his children stay at the weekends and various other nights Lord Freud said: “He should move to a one bedroom house then buy a sofa bed so the 3 children could sleep in the living room.”

To the parents of the student at university he said; “Why don’t you take in a lodger.” So what does the daughter do when she returns home for a weekend visit and during the holidays? Sleep with the lodger? Obviously he is not aware that as a student living in student accommodation it is classed as temporary accommodation. The man with breathing and other medical problems he ignored.

It beggars belief that this Lord of the realm, who is the Prime Minister David Cameron’s Under Secretary of State (Lords) for the Department of Work and Pensions, who between January 2008 and February 2009 acted as an advisor on welfare reform to the U.K. government, is ignorant of the tenancy law; that he does not know that under the tenancy agreement between a tenant and the local council or housing association it is illegal to sublet any part of the accommodation. Yet here he is happily telling people to break the conditions of their tenancy agreement.  

Apart from Lord Freud’s lack of knowledge regarding tenancy agreements, I feel it shows the arrogance of members of the Tory party to tell people to say “It is alright, just take in a lodger”. Problem solved, easy peasy. 

Say it did happen. First of all it would lead to complications on any welfare payment they receive whether they are working or not.  Probably any welfare benefit they get would be cut or stopped including their rent and council tax payments. Would the tax man have interest in this extra income?

What about insurance cover? Many insurance companies will not insure you or the house if you have a lodger, or the premium is very expensive. What happens when the offspring comes home from University and the Army? Do they sleep in the living room or the bathroom? Do you want a lodger in your house using all the facilities?

This is rich coming from a man who owns two large houses. One, a country mansion in Kent, which is believed to be one of the oldest in England, has eight bedrooms. The other is a £1.9 million four bedroom house in Highgate, London that he shares with his wife. So that is a total of 12 bedrooms for two people which of eight are only used at weekends, holidays or for entertaining on special occasions.

What a hypocrite Lord Freud is. A man who owns two homes with twelve bedrooms for two people is plunging over 100,000 people into poverty, causing them extreme anxiety and leading to their illnesses becoming acute. 

Is this not a form of “ethnic cleansing,” this time done on a socio-economic scale rather than a race or religious doctrine?

Just to show this multi-millionaire’s arrogance and lack of feeling for the working class communities, vulnerable and people with mental or physical problems, Lord Freud stated in an interview with The House magazine, "We've got the circumstances now where... people who are poorer should be prepared to take the biggest risks - they've got least to lose."

The Tory “Nasty Party” is back with a vengeance.

McTaggart

Happy New Year? It was until the Tory-led coalition once again began its attack on the poorly paid

It was until the Tory-led coalition once again began its attack on the poorly paid.

In fact the attack on the low wage earner and the people on benefits began just after Christmas with the right wing Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne demanding that the National State Welfare budget be cut by £10 billion. Where did that figure come from? Was it just plucked out of the air as a good “sound bite” figure to ensure the headlines would follow in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail?

I have not seen any figures to justify this claim that it is £10 billion that needs to be cut from the Welfare budget. It appears to tally with the Tory led coalition aim to cut the loan deficit.

I am also astonished, as far as I have seen/heard at the way the media such as the BBC television and radio channels, Channel 4 or the ITV news have never crossed examined the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne on how he came to this conclusion.  Just a thought, I find it a wee bit strange that you never see George Osborne give interviews. Is that due to his past performances in live interviews and gaffe blown comments?

On Tuesday 8^th January 2013 the House of Commons voted to restrict any rise of benefits of working age to 1% over the next 3 years. This included Working Tax Credits, a payment by the taxpayer to boost the pay of low-paid workers rather than have the worker being paid a living wage by the large companies who make billion of pounds profit to pay their shareholders a large dividend at the tax payer’s expense.

When I say shareholders I am not talking about the person in the street who may have a few shares in a company but the very large global companies listed on the London, New York and the Tokyo stock exchange which make billions of pounds/dollars profit every year.

--McTaggart

A Keen Jobseeker's Story

One of our bloggers would like to share with Unheard Holler a complaint she is making about the long, difficult experience she has had as a Jobseeker.

There’s lots of details below about the mental distress she has suffered, what she calls the ‘incompetence’ of JobCentre staff, the debt she has got into following repeated, ‘unfair’ sanctions and miscommunications.

Read on to find out the reality of being a keen, dedicated Jobseeker...

To Whom It May Concern

I write to you to raise a complaint on the treatment I have received from both Job Centre Plus and Prospects staff whilst I have been on the work programme.

I have been on the work programme since June 2011, to date I am yet to be assisted to locate suitable employment or training opportunities to increase my chances of employment via the job centre and the work programme. I have been deeply dissatisfied with the treatment I have received from staff at both Job centre plus and Prospects my reasons are detailed below.

· I was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and had provided a letter from the home office to confirm this at the start of the work programme in June 2011. I also advised my JSA advisor that I had a letter confirming my indefinite leave to remain status but was never asked to provide this information and instead was placed on a sanction in July 2012.

· I was never advised reason for the sanction or how this could be appealed until I requested a letter be sent detailing the reason for the sanction. This was sent on the 21/08/2012 over a month since the sanction was put in place.

· Following a meeting with a JSA advisor and Job Centre Plus manager it was established that the job centre advisor had made a note on the system“claimant not looking for work” and raised a sanction.

· On the 21/09/2012 a letter of appeal was made this included copies of indefinite leave to remain letter from the home office, letters from the home office confirming they were looking into an application for a duplicate passport, and a copy of my sign on book that documented my efforts to search and apply for jobs on a weekly basis.

· The manager advised that this would be looked into and a decision made within 1 week from the 21/09/2012.

· No decision was made until the 19/10/2012 following meeting with another Job Centre Plus manager. The information presented in the appeal on the 21/09/2012 was presented again to the Job Centre manager and he recommended the sanction be lifted and a back payment was made for £923 the following week. The manager advised this sanction was raised following a miscommunication.

· It has established during the above meeting with the Job Centre Plus manager that another sanctioned had been applied for failure to apply for two jobs, yet no letter had been sent to confirm this and was first aware of this whilst in the meeting with the Job Centre Plus manager.

· Following a phone call to DWP I was advised the sanction would be lifted on the 07/11/2012.

During my time with the work programme my IT and literacy skills have not been addressed. Despite requesting help to locate training, to improve my chances of employment opportunities I am yet to have these needs met.

During my visits to the job centre, I was made to feel like a second class citizen. I often felt like I was being spoken to like something on the bottom of the staff’s shoe. Advisors never ensured I had a good understanding of what I was required to do. I would often get confused in sessions with advisors and relied on the assistance of my support worker to ensure I understood the content of the meetings with JSA advisors.

Due to the issues I have had in the past with the Job Centre Plus it was recommended by a Job Centre Manager that I attend all work programme and Job Centre sessions with my support worker. However when I requested my support worker be present at my next work programme meeting it was refused by the Prospects manager, I was aware my advisor contacted Prospects to discuss my sanction and action plan but Prospect staff were not forthcoming and I can only assume that Prospects do not approve of clients receiving support from other agencies.

This left me feeling extremely frustrated and annoyed that the manager of Prospects was denying my right to have my needs met by allowing my support worker to be present to ensure I had a full understanding of my role in my action plan with the work programme advisor and to advocate on my behalf ensuring my voice was heard in the action plan and the action plan was been completed.

I have no faith or assurance in Job Centre Plus or the Work Programme. I fear my benefits can be cut at any moment for no good reason.

Staff ignore me or show me attitude when attending the Job Centre. Once whilst in the Job Centre completing a job search I over heard a manager gossiping about me to an advisor in relation to my right to work in the UK.

During my sanction I felt I was going throw a mental breakdown and visited my GP about my state of mind, consequently I was advised that my cholesterol was high and was offered counselling.

I borrowed money from family members, which caused an already difficult domestic situation to become worse and put me at greater risk. Eventually my family ignored my calls for help, and I succumbed to pressure to take out a high rate cash loan, in order to cover fulfilments to my council tax and rent as I was being threatened with court action.

Whilst on my sanction I had to walk to all appointments, job interviews, as I was without money and often without food, but as I feared there would be further consequences to my benefits so I persevered with the walking. The constant walking has consequently caused health problems to my feet.

I have been on an action plan with the Work Programme for over a year and I have received more comprehensive support from my support work in aiding me to be in a better position to obtain work which include attend ETE workshops, locating suitable training opportunities, as well as emotional support around the sanction and dealing with job centre and work programme advisors.

The key points that I would like to make in this complaint are:

- I have not received basic support to prepare for work.

- I attended every single appointment and fulfilled job search requirements whilst on sanction.

- I was sanctioned unfairly, through Job Centre Plus staff incompetence.

- I did not receive communication of either sanction to my benefits.

- The sanction which was applied incorrectly was only corrected because I and my support worker challenged the sanction.

- My lack of knowledge of what I am entitled to and lack of confidence to challenge staff means I rely on my support worker and this was denied by Prospect staff.

- I was left with large debt following my sanction.

- My mental state was hugely affected by events that followed from the sanction to my benefits.

Signed,

 

A Keen Jobseeker

 

 

Being on ESA doesn't exactly lend itself to going to the theatre

Kate Grace

Being on ESA doesn’t exactly lend itself to going to the theatre. So, it came as a welcome surprise to be invited to go to see a play at the King’s Head Theatre in Islington with other SHPers.

When we arrived at this north London fringe venue the friendly bar staff even offered us a complimentary lime and soda which certainly helped with feeling less awkward amongst the fee-paying, hard-drinking hipsters who’d come to see David K. O’Hara’s new play The Upstairs Room.

The set lent itself perfectly to what was billed as An Apocalyptic Love Story. With a couple of old sofas and  just a curtain to protect one’s privacy in the toilet department, we were effectively locked in a bleak attic with an end-of- the-world soundtrack adding to the ambiguity of what was happening outside this godforsaken garret that time forgot.

The plot, such as it was, involved Gordon, an American writer, paying good money to be protected from “them” before he could be smuggled out of London to the safety of the US.

 

With forged papers, meagre rations, a sneering hotel manager, a volatile daughter and a mystery blonde for love interest, The Upstairs Room was like an evening of Kafka meets Anne Frank.  An atmospheric, intelligently written play that compelled its audience to imagine how past and present relationships can so easily can get mixed up.

Thought-provoking? Certainly. A Hollywood ending with songs from the shows? What do you think?

 

The real beauty though was how good it felt to get out of the usual Friday night routine to go to live theatre. So thanks SHP for the invite.



How Much Does Love Cost?

£20,000 says Theresa May, Home Secretary

From the 9th June 2012 a new rule came into force where anyone marrying a person from outside the U.K. or European Union will have to be earning at least £20,000 a year or emigrate. If the foreigner has a child then the earnings have to be at least £30,000 a year.

This is an attack once again on the low paid. 

The £20,000 a year figure works out at £9.62 per hour, which is £3.43 above the minimum wage for people aged 21 and over and £4.64 for an 18 to 20 year old.

The Tory-led coalition government wants to change the immigration rules to prevent lower-paid Britons from bringing in husbands or wives who they feel will be dependent on state benefits as soon as they arrive in the UK. Where is the evidence of this?

It again shows that the Tories feel that the people from the lower working class only live on state benefits and everything they do is aimed at claiming more money from state funds. How did the Prime Minister David Cameron, the Home Secretary Theresa May and the Coalition Cabinet decide on these figures?

The rules will particularly hit the low paid British workers such as nurses, cleaners, lower grade civil servants,  shop workers, office assistants and restaurant staff as well as part-time teachers and nurses who will no longer have the same right as their wealthier neighbours to choose whom they wish to marry, settle and have children with.

It is estimated that 46% of British workers earn less than £20,000 a year and 20% earn £10,000 a year or less:  

After years of working and paying taxes without ever claiming benefits people will find that they will be penalised because they have met a person, fallen in love and wish to marry but are deemed too poor to do so by the Eton-led millionaire coalition government.

Again the lower paid are an easy target for the Tories to strut, preen and crow that they are in control of lowering immigration to please the so called people of “Middle England” and the readers of the  Daily Mail and Daily Express.

So please remember the next time you go abroad or meet someone in this country from a country outside the U.K. or the European Union, do not fall in love unless you earn “lots o’ Lolly”.

McTaggart

Council Tax Benefit Changes 2013

How many people know about the change in the way Council Tax Benefit is going to be paid from April 2013?

From April 2013 Council Tax Benefit (CTB) will be re-named Council Tax Support, (CTS), and payments will become the responsibility of the local authority. The Council Tax budget will also be cut by 10 to 15% and will be paid from a “pot” system rather than a CTS budget fund. This means that the local authority will have to take into account every person who is eligible for a CTS payment and decide how much a person may receive in benefit.

Excluded from this are people of pension age and over.

For example a local council which has a CTS budget of say £10 million has to first pay the people of pension age and over, which may come to £2 million leaving only £8 million left for everyone else applying for CTS.  

The main bulk of people that are going to be affected by this change are those of a working age i.e. those below the pension age. If you fall into the working age bracket the amount of help you receive under the CTS scheme may be less than you currently receive on the current Council Tax Benefit scheme. 

The new system may mean that people who currently receive a full CTB payment will have their payment reduced and possibly have to pay 10 – 20% of their Council Tax.

This will inevitably lead to pushing people further into poverty and debt. (There is currently about 1 in 4 adults living below the poverty line, 13 million approx., and 1 in 3 children about 4 million). 

I feel this will lead to higher crime, a possible increase in the sex trade and a greater use of illegal drugs.  One benefactor may be the “One Stop” or “Pay Day” loan shops that are currently increasing in number in the local High street. These loan “sharks” charge very high interest rates, it is reported as much as 800% Annual Percentage Rate (A.P.R.).

McTaggart   

TUC Anti- Austerity March Saturday 20th October 2012 London

Are you going to be at the Anti-Austerity march leaving from the Embankment, London at 12.00 p.m.to Hyde Park?

If not, why not?

There will thousands of people from all over U.K. arriving by coach, train and motor car to demonstrate against the Tory led Coalition government austerity cuts and the Tory dogma that it is the poorest who have to suffer for their austerity programme to work.

There is definitely a hollow ring to the Prime Minister David Cameron’s slogan “that we are all in it together”. Little or no pay rises cuts to social welfare funding and changes to how benefits such as Housing Benefit will be paid whilst cutting the tax threshold that the highest earners in the country have to pay.

The disabled, sick and the terminally ill being passed as fit for work by a biased and disgraceful medical assessment procedure.

Cuts to the N.H.S. budget meaning less staff, ward closures and worst of all hospital closures.  This week it was announced in several counties in England that ambulance stations will be closed in local areas and main “hubs” will replace them. This will mean an ambulance travelling many miles further to an emergency taking a longer tome which is often crucial in saving a person’s life.

Let us make it clear to the Government that we, the people are very unhappy with this Government’s policy on the economy and their programme for austerity cuts.

Join the march on Saturday 20th October at 12.00 p.m. at the Embankment London.

Remember, “We are many but they are few”.

Council Tax Benefit Changes 2013

How many people know about the change in the way Council Tax is going to be paid from April 2013?

From April 2013 Council Tax Benefit (C.T.B.) will be re-named Council Tax Support and payments will become the responsibility of the local authority. The Council Tax budget will also be cut by around 10% and will be paid from a “pot” system rather than a general budget fund. This means that the local authority have to take into account every person who is eligible for a Council Tax Support (C.T.S.) payment and decide how much a person may receive in benefit.

Excluded from this are people of pension age and over.

For example a local council which has a C.T.S. budget of say, £10 million has to first pay the people of pension age and over, which may come to £2 million leaving only £8 million left for everyone else applying for Council tax benefit.

It was Just an Oversight

Recently, a mother of a disabled child was prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions for not declaring earnings she received whilst claiming benefit. One could say the mother was 'on the fiddle'.

It was a part time job cleaning a pub for 10 hours a week to help her provide the extras needed for her disabled child.

The mother said it was an oversight and had intended to declare the earnings but just never got around to it. She had offered to repay the money she had received in benefit.

The mother was ordered to repay the money, which she had already offered to do, and was given a suspended prison sentence. The mother was spared a custodial sentence only because she had a disabled child and the child would probably have been taken into care.

“It was an oversight”, said Baroness Warsi after being caught fiddling her House of Lords expenses.

The good Baroness was claiming £165.50 a night for a room she never paid any money for! Baroness Warsi claims (?!!!) she only stayed there twice a week for 6 weeks. That amounts to £1,986.

Not just that, the person, her friend, whom she pleads she paid the rent money to, was living there rent-free.

Why should anyone pay rent money to a friend who is living there rent-free? Either he is ripping her off or there was no money paid, apart from the Tax Payer paying the Tory Party Co-Chairperson. Remember 'we are all in this together', preaches Baroness Warsi at every opportunity she can get.

The good Baroness is quoted saying: “Due to an oversight, for which I take full responsibility, the flat was not included on the Register of Lords’ Interests when its value and the rent received came to exceed the thresholds for disclosure.”

An oversight?

This is the woman who is Co-Chairperson of the Tory Party, the leading party of the coalition in government, who attends meetings at the highest level and steers the Tory party policies.

As yet no action has been taken against the good Baroness, either by the authorities or by the Prime Minister, David Cameron. He has decided there is no case to answer, no inquiry to be held, and defiantly no resignation.

The Baroness admits to the fiddle but as far as the good “Lady” is concerned that is the matter finished with.

No investigation, no charges brought, and defiantly no disciplinary action by the Prime Minister, he who promised to rid the House of Commons of sleaze and corruption, the Tory party or Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.

Compare this to the case of the mother with a disabled child, who was earning about £50.00 a week to help provide for herself and her disabled child. Who was hauled through the court system, photographed, D.N.A. samples taken and finger printed, and now has a criminal record. Spent months not knowing of her or her child’s future, as she may have been sent to prison.

This is a person who would be labeled by the good Baroness Warsi as a “scrounger” and “benefit fiddler”.

The £1,986.00 that the Baroness claimed probably illegally would take the mother working as a cleaner, at £50.00 a week, approximately 40 weeks, that is 10 months, to earn.

Can anyone see the comparison and discrepancies in the two cases of fiddling the tax payer?

McTaggart