campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

[BigTom]

A sad reminder that in 2009 15% of NEETs (18-25yrs old and Not in Education, Employent or Training) die within ten years (which I assume means before they are 35 - I can't access the TES article: Top mandarin: 15% of Neets die within 10 years)

I'd imagine that figure has got even worse as a result of cuts, especially youth service and careers support advice services at council levels. It will skyrocket as a result of this cut. It's obscene.

also NoXion that middle quote is a lie anyway because anyone in low pay can claim housing benefit, tapered off as you earn, but really anyone in work has the same options as someone on benefits (caveat being that travel and childcare costs can more than wipeout the tapered gain you make coming off benefits so it may be true in some cases).
The protection of vulnerable people will be bullshit, care leavers will probably be explicitly exempted but I bet everything else goes into a discretionary fund which will be way too small to cover the people who can't stay at home because of abusive relationships or similar.

 

[NoXion]

A sad reminder that in 2009 15% of NEETs (18-25yrs old and Not in Education, Employent or Training) die within ten years (which I assume means before they are 35 - I can't access the TES article: Top mandarin: 15% of Neets die within 10 years)

I'd imagine that figure has got even worse as a result of cuts, especially youth service and careers support advice services at council levels. It will skyrocket as a result of this cut. It's obscene.

also NoXion that middle quote is a lie anyway because anyone in low pay can claim housing benefit, tapered off as you earn, but really anyone in work has the same options as someone on benefits (caveat being that travel and childcare costs can more than wipeout the tapered gain you make coming off benefits so it may be true in some cases).
The protection of vulnerable people will be bullshit, care leavers will probably be explicitly exempted but I bet everything else goes into a discretionary fund which will be way too small to cover the people who can't stay at home because of abusive relationships or similar.

Jesus suffering fuck. That makes me feel like I dodged a bullet, as I was in that category for few a years around that time.

 

[Jackobi]

This paves the way for abolishing JSA too, leaving no option for under 21s except for one of the new 3 million 'apprenticeships' making sandwiches, stacking boxes or some equally mundane 'training' for fuck all money.

 

[StoneRoad]

Pardon me if I sound cynical, but these "apprenticeships" seem only to be preparation for working on the "zero hours contracts" so beloved of many companies, which have reached record levels.
There are exceptions to this exploitive behaviour ... but examples are few and far between.

Zero hours contracts reach record levels - BBC News

 

[purenarcotic]

I'm unclear on the exemption about those in Temp Acomm - is that existing young people or new people making an application?

 

[Smoking kills]

I'm unclear on the exemption about those in Temp Acomm - is that existing young people or new people making an application?

Precisely. Throw "migrating onto U.C." into the mix, with the "changes" in Housing Benefit and Council tax systems and stand back.

 

[passenger]

.

 

[chainsawjob]

Scotland getting it right again, countering the wrongs.

£58m to be spent in Scotland to help plug UK Government welfare cuts

 

[Ergo Proxy]

Revealed: every benefit cut to hit Liverpool families since Tories elected

 

[BigTom]

DWP’s fit-to-work tests ‘cause permanent damage to mental health’, study finds

in depth study / interviews with 30 people with pre-existing mental health problems that had the wca.

 

[treelover]

Have your say in the development of Labour policy

Social security and pensions for all

Living standards and wages have come under great pressure and the Government’s changes to social security have added to that pressure. While it’s welcome that the number of people in work has increased in recent years, this is not the experience in all parts of the country and for all population groups. On top of these labour market inequalities, millions of British workers are struggling to make ends meet because, even if they are in work, the jobs they have are too often insecure and low paid.


Job insecurity and low pay have increased under the Conservative Government. One in five employees in Britain are now stuck in low-paid jobs and more than six million workers are paid below the Living Wage, nearly a quarter of all employees. Meanwhile, there are nearly a million workers employed on a zero-hours contract, more than four million people in insecure work and many part-time workers, the vast majority of whom are women, need to increase their current hours of work in order to get by.


Over recent years, the debate around social security has been falsely characterised as ‘strivers versus skivers’. Labour wants to bring an end to this divisive rhetoric and build popular support for Britain’s system of social security, which, like the National Health Service, is there for us all when we need it.


To achieve that, social security needs to work for people of all ages and backgrounds, including for those with di erent requirements employed on di erent types of contracts and who may nd it more di cult to access work. It needs to ensure pensioners can retire with dignity and that future generations of pensioners are encouraged and supported to save for their retirement, building on automatic enrolment.


We want to see Britain’s system of social security made fairer, particularly in respect of the Government’s sanctions regime and Work Capability Assessments as well as their accelerated increases to women’s state pension age and to changes to the work allowances of Universal Credit.

Labour are doing public consultations inc social security.

 

[MNB]

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm sick of seeing people say "why doesn't someone do something" (yes, I know actually some people are, but y'know...).

Let's do something. I'm in south London. What I'd like to see is ideas for tactics/strategy on this thread and to arrange an initial meeting.

Anyone up for it? Or am I pissing in the wind?

We're too young to vote but old enough to care so this is what we did :

 

[Libertad]

Fair play to you MNB

 

[babyishcare]

An alternative way to sing the Bob Seeger song "Against the Wind", especially if it's 3:00 a.m., and you're drunk.
Piss in the wind, keep pissing into the wind.

 

[Who PhD]

Have your say in the development of Labour policy



Labour are doing public consultations inc social security.

They better do it quickly then1

 

[treelover]

The Big Questions, Series 10: Episode 15

Great discussion on welfare 'reform' on BBC The Big Questions today, Katy Pickett's(The Spirit Level) attack on the reforms was fantastic, the defence by the ex Duncan Smith/Centre for Social justice acolyte was chilling, he sound like an 19th C workhouse defender.

 

[Who PhD]

The Big Questions, Series 10: Episode 15

Great discussion on welfare 'reform' on BBC The Big Questions today, Katy Pickett's(The Spirit Level) attack on the reforms was fantastic, the defence by the ex Duncan Smith/Centre for Social justice acolyte was chilling, he sound like an 19th C workhouse defender.

I see the Henry Jackson society seems to have a permanent seat on this programme.

As does one of the Hitchens clan (this is a complete assumptoin, I've no idea if Dan is any relation to that odious goblin who's never off the BBC despite moaning about it all the time).

I thought Katy Pickett, whom I had never heard of before, was very impressive. One can only hope she will be listened to by the audience in Toryland.

That guy who worked for IDS' think tank said he was once upon a time on the rock and roll and then got the gig making policy with the Demon of Chingford. Somehow I doubt that.

 

[treelover]

Yes, i thought their (HJS) M.O was just foreign policy, but it seems its right wing welfare policy as well, need to keep an eye on them.

 

[BigTom]

Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion (MPSE) 2016

This latest annual report from the New Policy Institute brings together the most recent data to present a comprehensive picture of poverty in the UK. - See more at: Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion (MPSE) 2016

Joseph Rowntree Foundation commission, at work so not looked at it, just saw a tweet which said of 44,000 JSA sanction reviews, 41,000 were overturned - I'm assuming that means appeals which is a shocking rate of sanctions being overturned.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion (MPSE) 2016



Joseph Rowntree Foundation commission, at work so not looked at it, just saw a tweet which said of 44,000 JSA sanction reviews, 41,000 were overturned - I'm assuming that means appeals which is a shocking rate of sanctions being overturned.

What we tend to forget, in our rage at such injustice, is that the sanctions regime was designed to save money. Pay someone 48 weeks of dole instead of 52 weeks, and whether they get their money reinstated or not, a saving has been made. It's sick and disgusting, but worth bearing in mind, as is the fact that a minority of people sanctioned will sign off entirely.

 

[NoXion]

What we tend to forget, in our rage at such injustice, is that the sanctions regime was designed to save money. Pay someone 48 weeks of dole instead of 52 weeks, and whether they get their money reinstated or not, a saving has been made. It's sick and disgusting, but worth bearing in mind, as is the fact that a minority of people sanctioned will sign off entirely.

How does that work then? If a sanctioned is overturned, does the claimant not then get the money for that period for which they were sanctioned? Because even if the costs of administrating sanctions and appeals are ignored, it's not exactly saving money if 93% of the time still gets paid out later anyway, is it? Adding in the costs of administration seems likely to wipe out any savings made even in the event of a minority signing off.

I think the purpose behind this kind of crap is just to make the process of starting and maintaining a claim as difficult as they think they can get away with. Like austerity in general, the way its done now actually costs more money than if they were to just do it properly in the first place.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How does that work then? If a sanctioned is overturned, does the claimant not then get the money for that period for which they were sanctioned? Because even if the costs of administrating sanctions and appeals are ignored, it's not exactly saving money if 93% of the time still gets paid out later anyway, is it? Adding in the costs of administration seems likely to wipe out any savings made even in the event of a minority signing off.

I think the purpose behind this kind of crap is just to make the process of starting and maintaining a claim as difficult as they think they can get away with. Like austerity in general, the way its done now actually costs more money than if they were to just do it properly in the first place.

It's usually very difficult/bordering on impossible to get a back-claim validated for the first couple of weeks of a sanction, not least because many people don't appeal straight away, but take advice first.

Also, bear in mind that because a sanction means that Housing Benefit is automatically stopped (and any CT concession), and most people don't find out about it, or make a "nil income" claim for a couple of weeks, that savings are made there too (HB/LHA and CTB are rarely backdated fully).

 

[BigTom]

Also lots of people don't appeal their sanction. More about harassing people to sign off entirely imo

 

[ViolentPanda]

Also lots of people don't appeal their sanction. More about harassing people to sign off entirely imo

Sadly true about not appealing.

 

[crossthebreeze]

Thought i'd add the videos made by DPAC fir the election. Please share them widely.

 

[crossthebreeze]

 

[crossthebreeze]

 

[crossthebreeze]

 

[teqniq]

The judge who ruled Tory policy causes 'real misery for no good purpose' just proved why they have to go

The last paragraph:

The Conservative Government is a shambles, lacking leadership, floundering towards a deal with a bigoted party of climate change deniers, and yet cracking on with their agenda of fiscal absurdity and rampant social cruelty. The ruling on the benefits cap should only be the beginning. They have twisted and gouged at this country for long enough. They have to go.

 

[Who PhD]

But they won't go. David Gauke is another carbon copy expenses-trousering tory bootboy. Just like the last 3. He will press the big red button in the DWP hQ marked 'legal team' and this judgement will be sent spooling back into the bureacracy like your favourite mix-tape in your favourite walkman. Nothng will change under the Tories. Even if Corbyn gets in the same tinpot fascists on the front line will still be there, enjoying their ability ot abuse the hierarchy of power that will continue because that structure isn't going anywhere.

Or the tories will retrofit the legislation like superman flyuing back in time to save lois lane.