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.

Work Programme Is Failing Disabled People, Says Government Adviser

Posted by wns_adminOn October 08, 20130 Comment






11

This article titled “Work Programme is failing disabled people, says government adviser” was written by Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor, for theguardian.com on Tuesday 8th October 2013 06.00 UTC

Ministers should rethink the expensive support given to disabled people to find paid work as flagship employment schemes are failing the most vulnerable in society, according to a government adviser on disability.

Liz Sayce, the head of Disability Rights UK, says schemes such as the Work Programme, which cost hundreds of millions of pounds each year, are failing disabled people. Sayce argues that they should be replaced by more bespoke approaches “shaped by disabled people and employers, to achieve better career outcomes”.

According to the data released last month, more than 93% of disabled people on the Work Programme are failing to find long-term work. Just 6.8% of those referred to the programme in the latest three months have found long-term work.

Sayce, author of a key report to ministers that controversially advocated the closure of Remploy factories, which provided work for disabled people, described the Work Programme as “a non-work programme – at best it is heading for an 88% failure rate with people on out-of-work disability benefits. Some providers do very good work, but perverse incentives stop them spreading it. Disabled people want to play a more central role, working with employers, to secure job and career opportunities and use their talents, to the benefit of everyone.”

The charity also produced a report which surveyed 500 disabled people and found a gap between disabled people’s needs and the response from the Work Programme. For example, having a mentor who faces similar barriers can be invaluable but only 12% had been offered this, while 46% of respondents would like it.

The report, entitled Taking Control of Employment Support, calls for disabled people to have far more opportunities to gain experience and skills through work, “rather than endless ‘work preparation’. This could include work trials, work placements, traineeships, internships and apprenticeships”. The charity says placements could be paid for through personalised budgets – in essence taking disabled claimants out of the Work Programme and using the cash to fund disability employment advisers, employers and disabled people planning the support needed for the individual to get and keep the job.

“The Work Programme is projected to cost £3-5bn over five years, yet is not working for a core group: people living with disability or long-term health conditions. It is time to cut out the middleman, releasing the money that is presently being wasted and transferring control of employment support to those who know how it can be used best – disabled people and employers.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “Previous schemes didn’t do enough for disabled people and those on sickness benefits, which is why we introduced the Work Programme to give tailored support to address individual barriers to work. Thousands of the hardest to help people have already found lasting work through the scheme.

“More generally we have protected the budget for disability employment services and recently kickstarted a two-year advertising campaign to support business to become more confident at recruiting disabled people as sometimes employer attitudes can be a barrier to work.”


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Camoron caught telling lies to parliament and the Nation again. This is now the 6th time he has beeen caught. Nobody in recent history as that track record.

Letter to David Cameron on marriage tax allowance - Chris Leslie


Chris Leslie MP, Labour’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has today written to David Cameron asking him to correct the record following his comments on Marriage Transferable Tax Allowance.

The full text of the letter is below:

Dear Prime Minister,

Today at Prime Minister’s Questions, in answer to a question from my colleague Tom Harris MP, you said that “all married couples paying basic rate tax will benefit” from your proposed Marriage Transferable Tax Allowance:

“What I can confirm is that all married couples paying basic rate tax will benefit from this move.”
David Cameron, Prime Minister’s Questions, 9 October 2013

As you ought to have known, this is absolutely false. HM Treasury’s own explanation of the policy confirms this:

“The policy benefits married couples, including same sex married couples and civil partners where one is a basic rate taxpayer (earns below £42,285 in 2015 to 2016) and one has unused personal allowance.”
HM Treasury, 30 September 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/marriage-transferable-tax-allowance-announced-by-government

In other words, all married couples where both partners are paying tax at the basic rate will not benefit from the policy. And as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, only 31 per cent of married couples will benefit from this policy.

Later, in a response to a point of order from Ed Balls MP, you said that the married couples’ allowance “is available to every basic rate taxpayer”:

"The point is the married couples’ allowance is available to every basic rate taxpayer."
David Cameron, Prime Minister’s Questions, 9 October 2013

This is clearly an absurd claim to make. The Marriage Transferable Tax Allowance is only available to basic rate taxpayers whose partners have unused personal allowance. According to HM Treasury, just four million married couples in this situation will benefit – compared to 8.9 million married couples where there is a basic rate taxpayer:

“Over four million couples will benefit from the Transferable Tax Allowance, including 15,000 couples in civil partnerships.”
HM Treasury, 30 September 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/marriage-transferable-tax-allowance-announced-by-government

I would be grateful if you could correct the record, and confirm the following:

• Not all married couples paying basic rate tax will benefit from the Marriage Transferable Tax Allowance.
• Most married couples will not benefit from the Marriage Transferable Tax Allowance.
• The Marriage Transferable Tax Allowance is not available to every basic rate taxpayer.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Leslie MP
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Ends

David Cameron today accused Ed Miliband of 'wanting to live in a Marxist universe' as the two leaders clashed over how to tackle crippling energy bills.

The Prime Minister accused the Labour leader of wanting to impose state control on markets while increasing costs for families with extra green levies

A serial liar for sure is Camoron, I just cant believe he is that incompetent.

State controls on markets, thats rich what about the mortgage market which is surely heading for boom and bust.

Ed Miliband in power 'like a turbine on a windless day'

It is astounding that people are falling for the opposition leader’s Wonga-like offer, writes Boris Johnson.

I don’t think I have ever told you about my last official meeting with Ed Miliband. I must have somehow blanked it out, as one of those experiences that is just too harrowing to relate. It took place a few years ago, and my City Hall team was very excited in the run-up. We had an absolute corker of a plan, you see. We had the spreadsheets, the data, the options – and all we really needed was for Government to get behind it, and make sure that London got its fair share of the funding.

We were going to launch a huge drive to improve the energy efficiency in the capital’s homes. We were going to hit all sorts of nails pretty smartly on the head: we were going to cut CO₂ emissions, and thereby stop the polar bears from plopping off the ice floes. We were going to cut NO₂ emissions from our noisome old boilers, and so improve air quality. We were going to help get thousands of people into work as retro-fitters – people who went around helping to insulate homes.

As I told my team during the preparations, Britain might be lagging in some respects, but once our programme was under way we would certainly not be lagging in lagging. Above all, we were going to achieve the number one objective of the scheme: we were going to help cut the cost of heating people’s homes and help stabilise fuel bills.

I was interested in the plan as a way of helping the planet and helping people in tough times. As for Ed – well, it was, frankly, a bit disheartening. He wasn’t remotely interested. He didn’t want to talk about retro-fitting and, as I gabbled away about a new legion of “boiler bunnies” bouncing up to your door, I was aware that a deep tranquillity had settled on the minister.

He didn’t want to talk about cutting the cost of living. He just wanted to trade jokes about the forthcoming general election; and as one of my team put it later: “He was only vaguely in command of his brief and had no interest in achieving anything.” We wrote a long and optimistic follow-up letter, hoping that perhaps he had been taking it in. Nada. Not a peep.

So now that he is in opposition, and struggling with his ratings, I find it rather incredible that he can seriously pretend to want to do something for the hard-pressed energy consumers in this country, and I find it astounding that so many people are falling for his Wonga-like offer.

He says he will imitate the catastrophic policies of the emperor Diocletian, by imposing a price freeze on energy bills for the 20 months succeeding the election. And, er, then what? Well, then the energy companies will of course recoup their losses by whacking the prices jaggedly upwards again.

In the meantime, the Labour government would have achieved all sorts of undesirable outcomes. By their meddling jiggery-pokery, they will send out the worst possible message to anyone thinking of investing in this country, or buying shares in British businesses.

Worse still, perhaps, he will trigger all sorts of perverse behaviour by the companies – none of which is likely to be in the interests of the consumer. The energy companies will sullenly cut costs by laying off staff – so that you spend even longer waiting for a human being to answer the phone, and have to wait in all day for a repair man to come.

They will seize the opportunity to go slow on the investment that this country so desperately needs. According to Ofgem, there is an increasing risk of brown-outs – about one chance in four – and we are in the absurd position of having to ask some of our more energy-intensive industries to cut production in peak times.

And whose fault is that? Who was sitting there, luxuriating at the Department of Energy and Climate Change? It was Ed Miliband, whose sole discernible contribution was to continue the pointless desecration of the moors and dales and valleys of this country with wind farms. There they stand – wrecking some of the most gorgeous views in the world and producing derisible quantities of energy. He totally flunked his main task, which was to get on with building the new nuclear reactors that this country needs. Why do the French have lower energy bills than the British? Because 80 per cent of their needs are supplied by nuclear power. They are laughing at us.

Yes, we need to help bring down the costs of living – but you do that by investment, not by attacking the private sector companies that are indispensable to that investment. We need to help people with the cost of housing; but that means building hundreds of thousands of homes – homes for sale, for affordable rent, for private rent. But you won’t get developers risking their cash to build, if they are told they are vulnerable to Mugabe-style expropriations and a new mansion tax.

We need new transport infrastructure – and that means a government with boldness and vision, such as the one led by David Cameron and the Conservatives, not a Labour government that can’t make its mind up on the crucial challenges facing the country. Ed Miliband is against the third runway at Heathrow; Ed Balls is for it, even though it would be environmentally catastrophic and politically undeliverable.

We need a government with the guts to go for the real solution that will let this country compete with our neighbours – and help British business and consumers to fly to more destinations.

I know how hard it is to fight against a Labour Party that dishonestly pretends it can cut your costs. I’ve done it; and I know that in the end people see through the con. The public will go for the party with vision and ambition and sheer courage to take the big long-term decisions that will boost Britain’s competitiveness, cut costs and improve the standard of living for everyone.

What would Ed do if we were mad enough to put him back into office? What he did last time. Sit like a panda masticating bean shoots, or like a turbine inert on a windless day.

Hays,

Perhaps, he recognised you as a prat.

Yep a tax evading prat.

Makes me wonder though what tax evasion can you take on selling bottles of pop.

Fat Dave didnt go down well today at PMqs.

Labour snatch another 2% points...............

electionista‏@electionista
UK - YouGov/Sun poll: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP10%

Depends on how many. Coca-Cola does pretty well.

Mikibland gets worse every PMQs.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh beuty theyr all over Camoron on twitter now after another porkie....

ex Belardinelli‏@abelardinelli5m
RT @JBeattieMirror: On marriage tax bluster, don't forget Cameron has form when it comes to telling whoppers at PMQs .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-three-lies-in-30-287770

Boris for PM

Twitter attracts the loonies like gf.

Fat Dave didnt go down well today at PMqs.

And what about slimey Ball's , sorry I ment slim ball's, if he was looking in one of those funny mirror's

Hays and camp followers,

Just in case you wish to boast about recovery :

The ONS said industrial output fell by 1.1% in August, surprising analysts who had expected an increase.

The pound fell 0.9% against the dollar to $1.5942 and dropped 0.4% against the euro to 1.17980 euros.

Also, the con party's recovery seems to have feet planted in sand ie. another con.




Osborne has strangled the economy and now is a busted flush.

=====


VOTE UKIP

now for something a bit more interesting and topical .....

should e-cigarettes have the same strictures attaching as tobacco ones?

in my opinion, yes very much so
e-cigarettes convey exactly the same image as their tobacco cousins
i cannot think of a single good reason why e-cigarettes should be deemed acceptable other than in "pariah-land"

Hi cyners were have you been all day, haystack as been pining for you.

He felt isolated without your support.

Fred talk of % rates rising in the US today will start alarm bells ringing here.

evening tosspot ... was playing in a charity golf event .... anyway, you know i almost never respond to your (tiresome and perpetual) political postings