Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Guardian Newspaper.


Welfare cuts: rich pickings ahead for the loan sharks

The shift to "cashless" local crisis welfare provision has turned social security entitlements into foodbank handouts, and will push low income families to high credit lenders, a study finds


Will the abolition of the Social Fund, the source of emergency crisis support for most vulnerable families, push more people into the arms of loan sharks?

The short answer is, we don't know yet for sure, though comprehensive new research from The Children's Society suggests key elements are in place to ensure this is precisely what will happen.

As I've reported before, the replacement of the social fund with 150 local authority-led "local welfare asssistance" schemes in April marks a huge shift in emphasis from entitlement to cash welfare (in the form of crisis loans and grants) to discretionary "in-kind" support, in the form of food stamps, food bank referrals and charity clothes and furniture.

There were two elements to the social fund: crisis loans, which were typically small £50 loans repayable against future benefit payments; and the community grant, which offered emergency grants of around £1,000 to vulnerable people to buy beds, cookers and other essentials.

These cash-based supports have now largely disappeared under local welfare. The Children's Society survey found that 62% of English councils were no longer providing interest free cash loans. In addition, two-thirds state that no cash assistance is available, and 15% say cash help (in the form of grants) will only be offered in exceptional circumstances.

A huge irony, given the Government's professed desire to target social security support on "hard working families" is that in many cases low income households, who may have previously accessed crisis loans (perhaps because of delays in being paid by their employer) will be now unable to access support.

According to the Children's Society, 25% of local authority welfare schemes now exclude families where an adult is in work. The society's policy advisor, Dr Sam Royston, explained:


Working families are really pummelled by this. And they are the ones most likely to be going to high interest lenders


But its not just the working poor. Here's an example of a typical crisis loan applicant, provided in a 2011 report by the Department of Work and Pensions:


Mr G is a 43 year old married Jobseeker, and he has an 18 month old son. He applied for a crisis loan of £50 to help him buy food and pay for fuel for 4 days. He had received his usual fortnightly Jobseeker's Allowance but 4 days before his next payment of benefit was due his son had become unwell suddenly and had to go into hospital. Mr G lives in a semi-rural area with no car and as there was no public transport, and the hospital was unwilling to provide hospital transport, Mr G had to pay for a taxi to and from the hospital. This spent the final £50 of his benefit, which the family would normally expect to have lasted them for food until the next benefit payday.


Under most new local welfare schemes, Mr G - who you might agree appears to have a very sound case for emergency social security support - will be now most likely reliant on charity. He may recieve a referral to a food bank, or food voucher, in lieu of his families nutritional needs. But in the absence of cash, there appears to be no facility to help him put petrol in the car to get him to the hospital. This again, perhaps, is where the loan shark steps in.

Here's another example, this time a real life one, which I wrote about last month. A homeless 62-year old woman, Dawn Martin, was refused help to find housing by Isle of Wight council. It passed her on to the local welfare assistance scheme. Although what she needed was a cash loan to put down as a deposit on a room, the council was unable to help. Instead it offered her a voucher with which she could buy:


A tent


The council subsequently relented after a local media outcry, and Martin now has somewhere to live. But the absurdity of offering a tent is enshrined in the policy, and again, the likelihood of vulnerable recipients becoming reliant on high cost credit lenders increases.

This example demonstrates a profound problem with cashless welfare: it is hugely inflexible. It makes it very difficult to meet the actual needs of those who require it, and it can be hugely stigmatising.

The Children's Society notes:


It is a concern that in many cases a system of cash loans for households in need have become hand-outs of food or second hand furniture. Whilst in some circumstances such "in-kind" support may be very helpful, this fundamentally changes the nature of the support offered, taking it from a means of accessing interest free loans and community grants, to something closer to charitable hand-outs.


The Children's Society reports that the majority of authorities will still offer support for rent in advance, but many won't. This creates a postcode lottery. But even if your council does provide rent advances you may not qualify, even if you are in poverty and acute crisis, if the council considers that you can borrow the money from family, friends or get a grant from a local hardship charity.

It is easy to blame councils for the absurdities of the system. To be fair to them, they had very little time to draw up local welfare schemes and received only a fraction of the money previously available for crisis help. The Children's Society points out that funding for emergency support has reduced by 46% since 2010. Local welfare is, we must remind ourselves, a Coalition vision.

Ministers appears to think the local welfare schemes are working well, three months in. The work and pensions minister Lord Freud recently declared that the schemes had "landed well," though he did not elucidate on what he meant by this, or the evidence for this assertion.

The society has drawn up a list of recomendations to improve the system. As it stands, the risk is that local welfare may increase debt, hardship, and relaince on loan sharks. The timing could not be worse. As Matthew Reed, the society's chief executive, says:


Families are at risk of becoming the casualties of government changes to the social fund. These could blight the lives of the most vulnerable and come at a time when other major reforms to the welfare system risk making families more reliant on emergency support.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/jul/18/local-welfare-cuts-rich-pickings-for-loan-sharks

Britain needs millions more immigrants to reduce strain of ageing population

Britain may need millions more immigrants over the next 50 years to reduce the "unsustainable" pressure that the ageing population is putting on the economy, the official forecaster has said.




By Steven Swinford, Senior Political Correspondent
1:19PM BST 17 Jul 2013
Comments1157 Comments
The Office for Budget Responsibility said that spending on the state pension, social care and healthcare will rise from 14 per cent of Britain's GDP to almost a fifth.

The report found that allowing more than 140,000 immigrants into Britain a year, equivalent to 6million people, would help increase the overall number of people who are in work and improve public finances.

Its analysis suggests that Britain's borrowing as a propotion of GDP would rise to 99 per cent if there is a steady flow of immigrants. If there was a complete ban on immigrants, borrowing would rise to 174 per cent of GDP.

David Cameron has pledged to reduce the levels of immigration into Britain to "tens of thousands" during this Parliament. Last year the number of immigrants dropped by 89,000 to 153,000.

The report says: "Our analysis shows that overall migration has a positive impact on the sustainability of the public finances over our 50 year horizon.


more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10185342/Britain-needs-millions-more-immigrants-to-reduce-strain-of-ageing-population.html

Proof Here

goldfinger- 17 Jul 2013 20:07 - 27353 of 27408

Hays posted.......

Haystack - 17 Jul 2013 19:41 - 27351 of 27357
ESA has nothing to do with being self employed.............ends.

Hes lied through his teeth. Its their above for EVERYONE to see, he says "ESA (Employment Support Allowance) has nothing to do with being self employed.

Now lets have him either apologise or leave the thread in disgrace. It couldnt be clearer. Hes lied and betrayed the trust of posters on here who take for granted a certain amount of honesty from fellow posters.

He is nothing more than a scumster liar.

Leave the thread, go elsewhere liar.

Caught out red handed.

Proof above Haystack

ESA has nothing to do with self employed. It is a benefit that applies to ALL people.

From 27 October 2008 Employment and Support Allowance replaced Incapacity Benefit and Income Support paid on incapacity grounds for new customers.

As you can see the change was made under Labour and NOT by IDS as good finger suggested.

Gf
wrong again as usual. Post 27407 is still there. Maybe you have filtered it. Here it is

Haystack- 18 Jul 2013 12:46 - 27407 of 27412

A self employed person can claim ESA, although it is not specifically for self employed. It is universal and applies to everyone. However a self employed person has a raft of benefits that can be claimed. It is those that we were talking about. Sickness was never mentioned. A self employed person can claim pretty much all the same benefits as an employed person. Goldfinger was just trying to muddy the waters as he usually does when he is found to be wrong.

LOL you couldnt make it up.

So self employed arent included in ALL PEOPLE.

Hes trying to wriggle out of it again even though their is enough evidence above to prosecute him.

Its pathetic and feeble, look Haystack just FO.

Filtered for life along with cynic. Im not exchanging debate with scumster liars.

Gf
You really are crazy. How can you take it all so seriously. Go and lie down in a dark room.

You have already said that you have filtered me. How have you managed to read my posts then?

Maybe you should have your medication checked more regularly.

Fishfinger referring to Haystack as being a liar? Why do the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

Let us not forget that this is the loony toon who has counts his age in doggy years, felt Robert Maxwell's collar when he was barely out of nappies, claims to have been one of the Tory party's biggest donors, claims to be a multi-millionaire economist/accountant with an outdoor swimming pool (yet lives in some northern sh!t-pit where the sun doesn't shine and Google Maps suggest none of the houses have outdoor swimming pools) and, to boot, used to be a boxing champion who used to play for Man Utd and won three world wars single-handedly.

the only true post on here is this CAMERON IS A LIAR

And we are so honoured to have his company.

immigration
jobless
nhs
crime
all lies and figures corrupt
this gov is a gov of scum .

Don't forget that one of his relatives is a famous cricketer and his mum knew Harold Wilson or something like that.

I suppose Goldfinger is a modern day 'boy's own' hero. He is probably equivalent to this guy

George Eyston

He held several hundred speed records, 348 mph in 1938, he got the Military Cross, he was a deep sea diver, inventor, Olympic class sailor, took part in two French Grand Prix, Power boat racer, went to Trinity College Cambridge, Seagrave Trophy, OBE, Legion d'honneur, Held motor engineering patents, motorbike racing etc.

Lynton Crosby: the questions Cameron needs to answer


Five days after the government postponed the introduction of plain cigarette packaging, the Tories' campaign strategist remains the story.
By George Eaton Published 17 July 2013 9:08

Lynton Crosby, who was recently appointed as the Conservatives' election campaign manager after running Boris Johnson's re-election campaign.

When Lynton Crosby was named as the Conservatives' campaign strategist last November, former Tory donor and deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft wrote in a 'helpful' memo to the Australian:


Finally, I know you understand as much as anyone that it’s never a good thing when the adviser is the story. That being the case, I’m sure you’ll get on with the job and stay out of the limelight.

While Crosby certainly has got on with the job, to the benefit of the Tories' poll ratings, he has become the story. Five days after the government announced that it had postponed plans to introduce plain cigarette packaging, the questions over Crosby's influence on the decision keep coming. On last night's Newsnight, Jeremy Hunt said that Crosby, whose company's clients include tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris, had never lobbied him or David Cameron "on issues to do with public health" and that it was a "whole area he is not allowed to touch", adding: "It is quite right he shouldn't because his company has clients in that area."

But unfortunately for the Tories, these reponses only invite further scrutiny. With the publication of the government's lobbying bill today, Ed Miliband and Labour have a chance to challenge Cameron on the subject at today's PMQs, the final session before the summer recess. Here are some questions they might want to ask.

Did you ask to see a list of Crosby's clients before hiring him?

If, as Hunt suggests, Crosby's business interests could create a conflict of interest, it is reasonable to challenge Cameron on whether he asked to see a list of his clients before employing him last November. A government spokesman admitted at the weekend that Cameron had been "unaware" that his strategist worked for Philip Morris but refused to say whether the Prime Minister had seen a list of Crosby Textor clients.

Have you ever discussed alcohol or tobacco policy with Crosby?

To date, Cameron has merely said that Crosby has never "lobbied" him, refusing to deny that the pair have discussed government policy on alcohol and tobacco. Here's how he responded to two questions from Labour MPs on the subject.

Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): I wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 May and I have not yet received a reply. May I ask him now whether he has had any discussions with Lynton Crosby about the standard packaging of cigarettes or the minimum price of a unit of alcohol—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that Lynton Crosby has never lobbied me on anything.

Hansard, 19 June 2013, column 891

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Further to the question that the Prime Minister failed to answer last week, can he confirm that he has never had a conversation with Lynton Crosby about alcohol pricing or cigarettes? The question is not “Has he been lobbied?”, but “Has he had that conversation?”

The Prime Minister: As I said last week, I have never been lobbied by Lynton Crosby about anything.

Hansard, 26 June 2013, column 297

Did Crosby's advice to "get the barnacles off the boat" include plain cigarette packaging?

The line from Conservative chairman Grant Shapps is that "Crosby advises the Conservative Party on political strategy; he doesn't advise on policy" but as he well knows, the distinction is not always a clear one. While it's unlikely that Crosby was so careless as to lobby Cameron directly on tobacco policy, he is known to have advised him to "get the barnacles off the boat". By this, the hard-nosed Australian is said to mean dispensing with extraneous measures that distract the government from voters' core concerns: the economy, immigration, education and welfare reform. Were plain cigarette packaging and minimum alcohol pricing (both of which were dropped from the Queen's Speech) among those he had in mind?

Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who has campaigned for both measures, suggested last night that it was "simply untrue" to claim that Crosby had no influence on policy.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/lynton-crosby-questions-cameron-needs-answer

Sarah Wollaston MP ✔ @drwollastonmp

I've seen how election strategists drive current policy & simply untrue to suggest otherwise. It's why we must know who else pays them
11:51 PM - 18 Jul 2013

Cameron seems to have done the right thing in delaying plain packets for cigarettes until the Australian experience is clear. There are major legal challenges to the system there. We don't want to go down that road until we see the way is clear.

allegedly johnny wardle, but before your time for sure hays!

He was playing when I was a kid.

Five things Iain Duncan Smith doesn't want you to know about the benefit cap


Including why an out-of-work family is never better off than an in-work family, why it will cost more than it saves and why it will increase homelessness.
By George Eaton Published 15 July 2013 8:35


Iain Duncan Smith has been touring the studios this morning, rather unpleasantly referring to people "being capped". The policy which he's promoting - the benefit cap of £26,000 - is introduced nationally today (after being piloted in Bromley, Croydon, Enfield and Haringey) and is one of the coalition's most popular. A YouGov poll published in April found that 79 per cent of people, including 71 per cent of Labour voters, support the cap, with just 12 per cent opposed. But while politically astute, the cap may be the most flawed of all of the coalition’s welfare measures. Here are five reasons why.

1. An out-of-work family is never better off than an in-work family

The claim on which the policy rests - that a non-working family can be better off than a working one - is a myth since it takes no account of the benefits that an in-work family can claim to increase their income. For instance, a couple with four children earning £26,000 after tax and with rent and council tax liabilities of £400 a week is entitled to around £15,000 a year in housing benefit and council tax support, £3,146 in child benefit and more than £4,000 in tax credits.

Were the cap based on the average income (as opposed to average earnings) of a working family, it would be set at a significantly higher level of £31,500. The suggestion that the welfare system "rewards" worklessness isn’t true; families are already better off in employment. Thus, the two central arguments for the policy - that it will improve work incentives and end the "unfairness" of out-of-work families receiving more than their in-work equivalents - fall down.

(And it will hit in-work families too)

Incidentally, and contrary to ministers' rhetoric, the cap will hit in-work as well as out-of-work families. A single person must be working at least 16 hours a week and a couple at least 24 hours a week (with one member working at least 16 hours) to avoid the cap.

2. It will punish large families and increase child poverty

The cap applies regardless of family size, breaking the link between need and benefits. As a result, most out-of-work families with four children and all those with five or more will be pushed into poverty (defined as having an income below 60 per cent of the median income for families of a similar size). Duncan Smith has claimed that “"at] £26,000 a year it's very difficult to believe that families will be plunged into poverty" but his own department’s figures show that the poverty threshold for a non-working family with four children, at least two of whom are over 14, is £26,566 - £566 above the cap. The government's Impact Assessment found that 52 per cent of those families affected have four or more children.

By applying the policy retrospectively, the government has chosen to penalise families for having children on the reasonable assumption that existing levels of support would be maintained. While a childless couple who have never worked will be able to claim benefits as before (provided they do not exceed the cap), a large family that falls on hard times will now suffer a dramatic loss of income. It was this that led the House of Lords to vote in favour of an amendment by Church of England bishops to exclude child benefit from the cap (which would halve the number of families affected) but the defeat was subsequently overturned by the government in the Commons.

The DWP has released no official estimate of the likely increase in child poverty but a leaked government analysis suggested around 100,000 would fall below the threshold once the cap is introduced.

3. It will likely cost more than it saves

For all the political attention devoted to it, the cap is expected to save just £110m a year, barely a rounding error in the £201bn benefits bill. But even these savings could be wiped out due to the cost to local authorities of homelessness and housing families in temporary accommodation. As a leaked letter from Eric Pickles’s office to David Cameron stated, the measure "does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost. In addition Local Authorities will have to calculate and administer reduced Housing Benefit to keep within the cap and this will mean both demands on resource and difficult handling locally."

4. It will increase homelessness and do nothing to address the housing crisis

Most of those who fall foul of the cap do so because of the amount they receive in housing benefit (or, more accurately, landlord subsidy) in order to pay their rent. At £23.8bn, the housing benefit bill, which now accounts for more than a tenth of the welfare budget, is far too high but rather than tackling the root of the problem by building more affordable housing, the government has chosen to punish families unable to afford reasonable accommodation without state support.

The cap will increase homelessness by 40,000 and force councils to relocate families hundreds of miles away, disrupting their children's education and reducing employment opportunities (by requiring them to live in an area where they have no history of working).

5. It will encourage family break-up

Duncan Smith talks passionately of his desire to reduce family breakdown but the cap will serve to encourage it. As Simon Hughes has pointed out, the measure creates "a financial incentive to be apart" since parents who live separately and divide the residency of their children between them will be able to claim up to £1,000 a week in benefits, while a couple living together will only be able to claim £500.

Follow The Staggers on Twitter: @TheStaggers

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/five-things-iain-duncan-smith-doesnt-want-you-know-about-benefit-cap
.