How wonderful that the Minister has now agreed to the Earl of Listowel’s amendment giving young people in foster care the right to stay with their foster family until the age of 21. This is a listening, compassionate government indeed.
I would not use the word or give credence to the notion of this government being ‘compassionate’ in any context. The reverse seen in their actions as they take against the poorest in society by the housing subsidy penalty, creating hatred of the disabled, penalizing those who have no work and removing benefits paid for collectively in our taxes under the libelous statement of those receiving same being undeserving.
Shelter tells us 80,000 children have been turfed out of their family home into homelessness this Christmas. Much of it due to the policies of this government. An utter disgrace for any administration to adopt or manufacture.
A DISABLED single mum and her teenage son say they have been forced to cancel Christmas after the so-called bedroom tax cost them nearly £1,000.
Lisa Taylor agreed to downsize to a two-bedroom flat in Quenington Close, Warndon, Worcester, from her three-bedroom flat in Rose Avenue, Tolladine, where she had lived for a decade because of the tax or “spare room subsidy”.
=============
So no arguments about there not being properties to down size to.
=============
Since the bedroom tax was brought in she can no longer afford to buy her son a PlayStation 4 for Christmas.
=============
Spare rooms on benefits. PlayStation 4 on benefits.
maude elwes
05/12/2013 at 11:50 am
@LB@
The correct name given by government for the so called ‘bedroom tax’ is,
‘under-occupancy penalty.’
Which I feel should be challenged under the law. An under-occupancy ‘penalty’ changes the meaning of ‘bedroom tax’ or ‘spare room subsidy’ to something far more sinister indeed. The word ‘penalty’ has a definition indicating punishment.
A punishment by law or authority for a crime or offense committed.
A forfeit for an offense
A disadvantage or painful consequence resulting from an action or condition.
People in social housing are allocated their dwelling as seen on application and the law they entered their residence under granted them the right to reside as tenants within that allocated space on an assured basis. To subsequently ‘punish’ such individuals for taking up residence and becoming a tenant by administering a penalty for no crime committed must surely be unlawful.
Court of Human Rights ruling should be sought. Which is why this government wants out of the jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act. There to defend us all against a government that is oppressive. If my memory serves me well, the USA does not subscribe to Human Rights Laws either. And we being hand in fist with them would naturally follow suit. Hence our connection to China being so welcome by this leader of ours. No Human Rights obligations.
Add to that the breaking of government contracts after taxing people under false pretenses, as in altering the pension age to 70, has to also be unlawful?
People have to make choices about what they can afford. We have had to do this many times in our family when money has been extremely tight. No-one should expect other taxpayers to subsidise their life choices through benefits.
maude elwes
05/12/2013 at 1:23 pm
Then, Baroness Perry,
If you feel that tax payers should not expect others to subsidise their ‘life choices’ through benefits, why has government pretended this was what the collective funds paid in though National Insurance and various other levies on the earnings of the citizens is there to do?
Now, I notice you have cleverly used the term ‘their life choices,’ when you clearly know full well no one makes a ‘life choice’ of disability, homelessness, physical and mental illness, redundancy, or a wage to low to live on. As well as many other life changes bestowed on individuals through fate and not choice. And why the insurance paid into a collective government fund, promised for social security or welfare, is taken from source leading the people who pay into this fund to believe that they can expect a duty of care as a result of their willingly accepting a duty to donate.
If you feel that a government no longer has this duty toward their citizens then surely their collective taxes should be immediately stopped until they are advised what the money taken from them is now to go toward. Example, to spell out ‘exactly’ what that means to each individual prior to a general election after which such changes can be imposed.
Especially when those who earn the highest amount and those who have the biggest business income pay so little if any at all.
I think you would find you and your team mates would be out on their ear very rapidly indeed should the truth be known by all and the House of Lords was run on the basis of a Democracy with an elected chamber rather than by hereditary and appointment..
Democracy starts with explaining the changes government plans in full and what that will mean to the British citizen when it occurs.
Another example of this would be explaining in full to the voter what leaving Europe would really mean to their lives and how not having access to the court of Human Rights would affect them on a personal level.
LordBlagger
05/12/2013 at 3:53 pm
They have a duty of care. However, that’s for the minimum required, and not for nice to haves.
Take pensions, the debate of the day in the Lords.
We however are being set up that even if you have paid in, its welfare and you don’t get.
Remember too that the state pension is a small fraction of the value of the money contributed. The rest has been looted for other things and themselves by lots of members of the Lords when they were in the Commons.
The solution as I keep pointing out to you is to get rid of the lords, and save lots of money by replacing that with referenda by proxy.
At 500 million over a parliamentary term, there’s the source of cash. However you will have to convince the electorate that they should subsidise people so they can buy new Xboxes and have spare rooms, instead of keeping their own money. Good luck with that one.
Gareth Howell
05/12/2013 at 6:01 pm
” know full well no one makes a ‘life choice’ of disability, homelessness, physical and mental illness, redundancy, or a wage to low to live on”
This is regrettably untrue, but difficult to verify either way.
Medical opinion is that theories of probability, play quite a large part in disability and illness…. or even a wage too low to live on.
Impossible that choice is the only fact of disability would be measured as 0.
Certainty that choice is the only fact measured as 1
Anything between 0-1.
I was confronted by these facts after a life changing physical injury and considering the vast numbers who present with a similarly broken leg, had to accept a measure, say of 0.3 as the measure of deliberation in what was a serious accident.
Thoroughgoing self harm would measure as 1.00
If I, or anybody, were not there, when an accident happened,
then the measure would be zero 0, obviously enough.
Maude’s statement is too glib itself to be accurate, although her comments are interesting.
maude elwes
06/12/2013 at 12:50 pm
@LB:
You are missing the gist on the so called bedroom tax, which is referred to by government as an under occupancy ‘penalty.’ There would, of course, be variables, but, lets take this one. A couple or person ten years ago was allocated a two bedroom council house as they had two children of the same sex at the time. Therefore two bedrooms was deemed right for their needs.
Now, however, the children have grown up and left home in order to study or work. The couple are left with one spare bedroom as a result.
At the time they were allocated the house, they were granted a secure or assured tenancy contract, because they were eligible for that bedroom. They have not cheated and have paid their rent on time for the last ten years. They were not advised when allocated that once their lives changed, as the State knew it would, they would face a ‘penalty’ or ‘punishment’ because of it. They had no idea they would be expected to vacate their residence or alternatively, be forced to pay a regular ongoing ‘fine’ they simply cannot afford, for continuing to live in their home.
Now, through a perverse government change, that legally allocated house is considered to have one bedroom too many for their current needs. Under law, the contract they entered into gave them the right to reside securely. Nevertheless, they now have to face a ‘penalty’ for changes that were obvious when applying and must have been expected. The result being they are treated like criminals by being subjected to cruel and inhuman ‘punishment’ by forcing them to pay this fine, or, face homelessness as a result of their change in circumstances. This is insanity. And must be ‘unlawful.’
And here is a deliberate government punishment of a person who is trying to survive. Has paid his tax and was expecting a duty of care he was sold an government insurance policy to cover.
At the time they were allocated the house, they were granted a secure or assured tenancy contract, because they were eligible for that bedroom
=========
And the condition on that tenancy? Yep, they pay the rent that they agreed to.
Nothing has changed. If they pay the rent, they continue to enjoy the place.
There’s no fine. It’s just that their income has dropped.
So like anyone else in the world, they need to move to a more affordable place.
After all, its fair that other people aren’t pushed into poverty to bail them out.
Insurance policy? You’re having a laugh.
You still won’t tell us whether you think a 7,000 bn welfare debt can be paid and if so how?
Annual increase in pensions that are owed – 734 bn
Total taxes 600 bn
Just wait Maude, its going to be far far worse.
Why do you think Balls is proposing that pensions are welfare and that the middle class and rich get no pension. What do you think they will do as a consequence?
Yep, they will vote for the likes of the BNP and UKIP so long as they agree to shaft your clients. They will want something for the millions they have lost.
maude elwes
10/12/2013 at 7:26 am
It doesn’t matter how you want to shape it LB it is a penalty. A punishment. And if what you say in your opening line is accurate, they can stay if they pay, well that’s typical of this crew we have now isn’t it. If you make enough you are deserving, but, if you are exploited because of your inconsequential position, then you are of the sewer.
However, this leads further, what this government has done is, to those who are poor but can manage to go without on food or heat, then the rent increase is alarming. As you add, they will have to get out or be robbed. And their home will be taken over by the baby makers everyone spouts should not be tolerated. Those who either arrive here with a brood the size of Queen Victoria, or, those who make a living out of breeding will be fanned in their droves forcing the lowest paid to foot their bill. And who created this mess, well government of course. Blair and his crew who pay sweet nothing.
LordBlagger
10/12/2013 at 1:12 pm
Nope. It’s socialism. Each according to their needs.
There is no need for a spare bedroom, so the socialists will stop the subsidy.
Of course, they can always go and get a job…. Just a thought.
==========
to those who are poor but can manage to go without on food or heat
==========
You’ve seen nothing yet. There’s that 8 trillion debt that’s going up at 850 bn a year. You go very quite and won’t talk about it. Total taxes, 600 bn. Spending 722 bn.
So its going to go bust.
That’s socialism for you. The sort you advocate. They have taken the money, built up the debt. Hide the debt, and they can’t pay. Not as you put it, because they don’t want to. Simply because they can’t.
So that’s why Ed Balls is talking about pensions = welfare, plus a welfare cap. He’s planning to make people destitute. Very simply, he’s got no choice.
So you’re attitude is childish. You want the sweets and you want them now. Most people in the UK do. However, you then have to put up with the consequences.
You and others ate the sweets in past, and now the consequence is that you can’t have a spare bedroom, or a pension, or heating, or spend more than 20 quid a week on food, ….
Gareth Howell
07/12/2013 at 1:04 pm
The ‘fate’ that Maude describes is a probability of 1.00 in other words, a complete certainty.
Probability is a huge subject, on which the business the City of London is based, about which I have been made aware, Maude is deeply learned, so it is rather surprising that she knows not the difference between Zero and One.
maude elwes
10/12/2013 at 7:31 am
I’m assuming you are talking of dress size, GH: 1 or 0 is not as good as double 00 is it? At least not if you are a cat walk frequenter. That will teach you how learned I am. Will it not?
Gareth Howell
08/12/2013 at 11:16 am
The loophole may be with the slightly handicapped 18 year old being able to stay with their foster parents and the foster parents being able to claim various benefits that they would otherwise be unable to do, or for the fostered 18-21yr old to make claims backed up by the “parent”.
The temptation for the fosterers to exagerate the handicap of “their” child for the sake of a maintained pay packet might not be insubstantial.
I don’t know whether the Benefits side issues have been examined or not. Professional foster parents who take on foster children with handicaps, are a rare and fine breed of person, but they may be tempted to extend their powers.
maude elwes
10/12/2013 at 7:52 am
My God, words fail me. The Foster Parents of disabled children are looking to cheat the system, GH. You do take the cake.
The state cheats foster parents all the time, one way or another, Lying about the condition of the placement or the capability of the child they are asking a place for. Lying about the payment they may or may not be entitled to. Ruining families and making their very existence a misery from start to finish. How we manage to find anyone to take this on is an enigma.
Isn’t it the Catholic Church who finds people with the heart to do this? The ones that had to close down as they could not bring themselves to place needy children with homosexual couples. I wonder if this section are top of the queue for the disabled the same way they are for others?
Then we are not to mention the cost to have these babes, or, others,, institutionalised being far, far more expensive without the same quality of care. So, surely if FP’s make an extra £50 we are all still well in on the financial front.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/childrenandfamilies.html
I would not use the word or give credence to the notion of this government being ‘compassionate’ in any context. The reverse seen in their actions as they take against the poorest in society by the housing subsidy penalty, creating hatred of the disabled, penalizing those who have no work and removing benefits paid for collectively in our taxes under the libelous statement of those receiving same being undeserving.
Shelter tells us 80,000 children have been turfed out of their family home into homelessness this Christmas. Much of it due to the policies of this government. An utter disgrace for any administration to adopt or manufacture.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/12/02/shelter-unveils-campaign-highlight-homelessness-over-christmas
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk…
A DISABLED single mum and her teenage son say they have been forced to cancel Christmas after the so-called bedroom tax cost them nearly £1,000.
Lisa Taylor agreed to downsize to a two-bedroom flat in Quenington Close, Warndon, Worcester, from her three-bedroom flat in Rose Avenue, Tolladine, where she had lived for a decade because of the tax or “spare room subsidy”.
=============
So no arguments about there not being properties to down size to.
=============
Since the bedroom tax was brought in she can no longer afford to buy her son a PlayStation 4 for Christmas.
=============
Spare rooms on benefits. PlayStation 4 on benefits.
@LB@
The correct name given by government for the so called ‘bedroom tax’ is,
‘under-occupancy penalty.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_2012
Which I feel should be challenged under the law. An under-occupancy ‘penalty’ changes the meaning of ‘bedroom tax’ or ‘spare room subsidy’ to something far more sinister indeed. The word ‘penalty’ has a definition indicating punishment.
A punishment by law or authority for a crime or offense committed.
A forfeit for an offense
A disadvantage or painful consequence resulting from an action or condition.
People in social housing are allocated their dwelling as seen on application and the law they entered their residence under granted them the right to reside as tenants within that allocated space on an assured basis. To subsequently ‘punish’ such individuals for taking up residence and becoming a tenant by administering a penalty for no crime committed must surely be unlawful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/penalty
Court of Human Rights ruling should be sought. Which is why this government wants out of the jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act. There to defend us all against a government that is oppressive. If my memory serves me well, the USA does not subscribe to Human Rights Laws either. And we being hand in fist with them would naturally follow suit. Hence our connection to China being so welcome by this leader of ours. No Human Rights obligations.
Add to that the breaking of government contracts after taxing people under false pretenses, as in altering the pension age to 70, has to also be unlawful?
http://welfarenewsservice.com/benefit-cuts-threaten-disabled-tenants-independent-living-rights/
And
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9641766/Child-benefit-cuts-may-be-illegal.html
People have to make choices about what they can afford. We have had to do this many times in our family when money has been extremely tight. No-one should expect other taxpayers to subsidise their life choices through benefits.
Then, Baroness Perry,
If you feel that tax payers should not expect others to subsidise their ‘life choices’ through benefits, why has government pretended this was what the collective funds paid in though National Insurance and various other levies on the earnings of the citizens is there to do?
Now, I notice you have cleverly used the term ‘their life choices,’ when you clearly know full well no one makes a ‘life choice’ of disability, homelessness, physical and mental illness, redundancy, or a wage to low to live on. As well as many other life changes bestowed on individuals through fate and not choice. And why the insurance paid into a collective government fund, promised for social security or welfare, is taken from source leading the people who pay into this fund to believe that they can expect a duty of care as a result of their willingly accepting a duty to donate.
If you feel that a government no longer has this duty toward their citizens then surely their collective taxes should be immediately stopped until they are advised what the money taken from them is now to go toward. Example, to spell out ‘exactly’ what that means to each individual prior to a general election after which such changes can be imposed.
Especially when those who earn the highest amount and those who have the biggest business income pay so little if any at all.
I think you would find you and your team mates would be out on their ear very rapidly indeed should the truth be known by all and the House of Lords was run on the basis of a Democracy with an elected chamber rather than by hereditary and appointment..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG9wCSrTbXs
Our Health Service
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ywP8wjfOx4
Democracy starts with explaining the changes government plans in full and what that will mean to the British citizen when it occurs.
Another example of this would be explaining in full to the voter what leaving Europe would really mean to their lives and how not having access to the court of Human Rights would affect them on a personal level.
They have a duty of care. However, that’s for the minimum required, and not for nice to haves.
Take pensions, the debate of the day in the Lords.
We however are being set up that even if you have paid in, its welfare and you don’t get.
Remember too that the state pension is a small fraction of the value of the money contributed. The rest has been looted for other things and themselves by lots of members of the Lords when they were in the Commons.
The solution as I keep pointing out to you is to get rid of the lords, and save lots of money by replacing that with referenda by proxy.
At 500 million over a parliamentary term, there’s the source of cash. However you will have to convince the electorate that they should subsidise people so they can buy new Xboxes and have spare rooms, instead of keeping their own money. Good luck with that one.
” know full well no one makes a ‘life choice’ of disability, homelessness, physical and mental illness, redundancy, or a wage to low to live on”
This is regrettably untrue, but difficult to verify either way.
Medical opinion is that theories of probability, play quite a large part in disability and illness…. or even a wage too low to live on.
Impossible that choice is the only fact of disability would be measured as 0.
Certainty that choice is the only fact measured as 1
Anything between 0-1.
I was confronted by these facts after a life changing physical injury and considering the vast numbers who present with a similarly broken leg, had to accept a measure, say of 0.3 as the measure of deliberation in what was a serious accident.
Thoroughgoing self harm would measure as 1.00
If I, or anybody, were not there, when an accident happened,
then the measure would be zero 0, obviously enough.
Maude’s statement is too glib itself to be accurate, although her comments are interesting.
@LB:
You are missing the gist on the so called bedroom tax, which is referred to by government as an under occupancy ‘penalty.’ There would, of course, be variables, but, lets take this one. A couple or person ten years ago was allocated a two bedroom council house as they had two children of the same sex at the time. Therefore two bedrooms was deemed right for their needs.
Now, however, the children have grown up and left home in order to study or work. The couple are left with one spare bedroom as a result.
At the time they were allocated the house, they were granted a secure or assured tenancy contract, because they were eligible for that bedroom. They have not cheated and have paid their rent on time for the last ten years. They were not advised when allocated that once their lives changed, as the State knew it would, they would face a ‘penalty’ or ‘punishment’ because of it. They had no idea they would be expected to vacate their residence or alternatively, be forced to pay a regular ongoing ‘fine’ they simply cannot afford, for continuing to live in their home.
Now, through a perverse government change, that legally allocated house is considered to have one bedroom too many for their current needs. Under law, the contract they entered into gave them the right to reside securely. Nevertheless, they now have to face a ‘penalty’ for changes that were obvious when applying and must have been expected. The result being they are treated like criminals by being subjected to cruel and inhuman ‘punishment’ by forcing them to pay this fine, or, face homelessness as a result of their change in circumstances. This is insanity. And must be ‘unlawful.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeQjbkJA014
And here is a deliberate government punishment of a person who is trying to survive. Has paid his tax and was expecting a duty of care he was sold an government insurance policy to cover.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjhhCrpqhCM
At the time they were allocated the house, they were granted a secure or assured tenancy contract, because they were eligible for that bedroom
=========
And the condition on that tenancy? Yep, they pay the rent that they agreed to.
Nothing has changed. If they pay the rent, they continue to enjoy the place.
There’s no fine. It’s just that their income has dropped.
So like anyone else in the world, they need to move to a more affordable place.
After all, its fair that other people aren’t pushed into poverty to bail them out.
Insurance policy? You’re having a laugh.
You still won’t tell us whether you think a 7,000 bn welfare debt can be paid and if so how?
Annual increase in pensions that are owed – 734 bn
Total taxes 600 bn
Just wait Maude, its going to be far far worse.
Why do you think Balls is proposing that pensions are welfare and that the middle class and rich get no pension. What do you think they will do as a consequence?
Yep, they will vote for the likes of the BNP and UKIP so long as they agree to shaft your clients. They will want something for the millions they have lost.
It doesn’t matter how you want to shape it LB it is a penalty. A punishment. And if what you say in your opening line is accurate, they can stay if they pay, well that’s typical of this crew we have now isn’t it. If you make enough you are deserving, but, if you are exploited because of your inconsequential position, then you are of the sewer.
However, this leads further, what this government has done is, to those who are poor but can manage to go without on food or heat, then the rent increase is alarming. As you add, they will have to get out or be robbed. And their home will be taken over by the baby makers everyone spouts should not be tolerated. Those who either arrive here with a brood the size of Queen Victoria, or, those who make a living out of breeding will be fanned in their droves forcing the lowest paid to foot their bill. And who created this mess, well government of course. Blair and his crew who pay sweet nothing.
Nope. It’s socialism. Each according to their needs.
There is no need for a spare bedroom, so the socialists will stop the subsidy.
Of course, they can always go and get a job…. Just a thought.
==========
to those who are poor but can manage to go without on food or heat
==========
You’ve seen nothing yet. There’s that 8 trillion debt that’s going up at 850 bn a year. You go very quite and won’t talk about it. Total taxes, 600 bn. Spending 722 bn.
So its going to go bust.
That’s socialism for you. The sort you advocate. They have taken the money, built up the debt. Hide the debt, and they can’t pay. Not as you put it, because they don’t want to. Simply because they can’t.
So that’s why Ed Balls is talking about pensions = welfare, plus a welfare cap. He’s planning to make people destitute. Very simply, he’s got no choice.
So you’re attitude is childish. You want the sweets and you want them now. Most people in the UK do. However, you then have to put up with the consequences.
You and others ate the sweets in past, and now the consequence is that you can’t have a spare bedroom, or a pension, or heating, or spend more than 20 quid a week on food, ….
The ‘fate’ that Maude describes is a probability of 1.00 in other words, a complete certainty.
Probability is a huge subject, on which the business the City of London is based, about which I have been made aware, Maude is deeply learned, so it is rather surprising that she knows not the difference between Zero and One.
I’m assuming you are talking of dress size, GH: 1 or 0 is not as good as double 00 is it? At least not if you are a cat walk frequenter. That will teach you how learned I am. Will it not?
The loophole may be with the slightly handicapped 18 year old being able to stay with their foster parents and the foster parents being able to claim various benefits that they would otherwise be unable to do, or for the fostered 18-21yr old to make claims backed up by the “parent”.
The temptation for the fosterers to exagerate the handicap of “their” child for the sake of a maintained pay packet might not be insubstantial.
I don’t know whether the Benefits side issues have been examined or not. Professional foster parents who take on foster children with handicaps, are a rare and fine breed of person, but they may be tempted to extend their powers.
My God, words fail me. The Foster Parents of disabled children are looking to cheat the system, GH. You do take the cake.
The state cheats foster parents all the time, one way or another, Lying about the condition of the placement or the capability of the child they are asking a place for. Lying about the payment they may or may not be entitled to. Ruining families and making their very existence a misery from start to finish. How we manage to find anyone to take this on is an enigma.
Isn’t it the Catholic Church who finds people with the heart to do this? The ones that had to close down as they could not bring themselves to place needy children with homosexual couples. I wonder if this section are top of the queue for the disabled the same way they are for others?
Then we are not to mention the cost to have these babes, or, others,, institutionalised being far, far more expensive without the same quality of care. So, surely if FP’s make an extra £50 we are all still well in on the financial front.
http://www.catholic-care.org.uk/who_we_are/history.php