Labour Leadership

[JohnL]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, you'll know they're serious about "balancing

> the books" when they do something about pensions,

> which are about half of the welfare budget, or

> 5-6% GDP. That's the demographic timebomb ???? was

> talking about, although UK is probably better off

> than other European countries, what with lots of

> immigration and high birth rates.

I know pension costs are huge - but I really don't want

to see people having money pulled from them at the end

of their lives.

on another note ...

Someone on twitter just said universal credit is called

universal cred by IDS's civil servants - as theres no IT

in it :)

[miga]

I want to see the prosperity and quality of life of the West in 1960s and 1970s, with jobs for life, affordable housing, free University education etc. etc., but you know, history and that.

[ratty]

Over one third of benefit reliant households will be at imminent risk of homelessness once Universal Credit begins in Southwark, Lambeth and Lewisham.

[miga]

What is "imminent risk of homelessness" and how was this figure arrived at? Not questioning what you're saying, but would like to read the report this came from for context and explanation of terms.

[ratty]

It has not come from a report but the task force set up to look at the impact. Imminent risk of homelessness means errrrr imminent risk of homelessness. Ie rent arrears likely to be grounds for eviction, landlords informing clients that they will evict as payments no longer able to go straight to them, family budgets over stretched.

When findings are published I'll be happy to send them on if I get authority to do so. At the moment DWP are refusing to discuss this. So much for open government eh?

[miga]

I thought Universal Credit was about the method of distribution, not the amount. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea to just get the one payment rather than multiple different forms of benefit, all of which must be managed separately? Is the worry that money that's not specifically for housing will get used elsewhere by recipients? Or is the worry about changing conditions and eligibility for welfare which might dovetail with UC?

[Blah Blah]

The worry is that vulnerable tenants will not pay the rent. But it all gets complicated when things like bedroom tax are factored in and what happens too if a claimant is sanctioned? In that situation the only money they'll be receiving is the HB payment, and it's not hard to see why people with no money to live on will use the rent money instead. 63% of those sanctioned btw have mental health conditions. They are often people in the Work Related Action Group of ESA, so there is an acknowledgement that they have problems and yet the same harsh rules that apply to JSA recipients apply.

The latest figures show the number of ESA claimants is up. Government policy is making already vulnerable people more ill and at the same time the resources to treat people are stagnating and being cut in many areas. There is so much denial from the DWP. A while back IDS stated that people who refused therapy would lose their benefits. Does IDS even know that NHS waiting lists for psychotherapy are around a year long? And that those sessions are rationed and in many cases are not over a long enough period to effectively treat patients?

I just despair sometimes at ignorance of government.

[ratty]

Blah Blah is correct and concise.

UC is an unmitigated disaster and will deliberately cause misery!

[aquarius moon]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The worry is that vulnerable tenants will not pay

> the rent. But it all gets complicated when things

> like bedroom tax are factored in and what happens

> too if a claimant is sanctioned? In that situation

> the only money they'll be receiving is the HB

> payment, and it's not hard to see why people with

> no money to live on will use the rent money

> instead. 63% of those sanctioned btw have mental

> health conditions. They are often people in the

> Work Related Action Group of ESA, so there is an

> acknowledgement that they have problems and yet

> the same harsh rules that apply to JSA recipients

> apply.

>

> The latest figures show the number of ESA

> claimants is up. Government policy is making

> already vulnerable people more ill and at the same

> time the resources to treat people are stagnating

> and being cut in many areas. There is so much

> denial from the DWP. A while back IDS stated that

> people who refused therapy would lose their

> benefits. Does IDS even know that NHS waiting

> lists for psychotherapy are around a year long?

> And that those sessions are rationed and in many

> cases are not over a long enough period to

> effectively treat patients?

>

> I just despair sometimes at ignorance of

> government.

Excellent post.

[JohnL]

Today's Corbyn idea seems to be all female carriages on trains.

Response from the public (on Sky) didn't seem good.

I like the fact that Corbyn comes up with ideas.

[Jah Lush]

That idea is at least two years old and it wasn't originally Corbyn's. And the 'story' only says "could" and "talks of consultation" and "pilot studies." Just more crap from the Tory press.

[ratty]

They really are running scared! Makes me think JC is the only choice!

(I've already voted for him)

[miga]

I get the general criticisms against benefits sanctions, bedroom tax and so on, but the only specific criticism on UC so far has been that some people will struggle to manage their rent money if it's not paid directly to the landlord. I get that, some people struggle with debt or addiction, but to call UC an unmitigated failure on that basis seems a bit OTT. Some people on benefits looking to get back into work would welcome not having the admin overhead of cancelling several types of benefit when they go into work, with their various different timelines and then doing the same when they dip below the threshold again two months later. I'd worry more about the technical implementation of UC, given the horrible track record on IT projects by big government bureaucracy, to be honest.

[Blah Blah]

They don't have to cancel several benefits though. The DWP inform HB and CT if there is a change of circumstances. And the reason for seperate applications has always been that some beneifts are independent of others and/or means tested. The form will still ask all the questions that three forms before asked.

The other thing is that LAs directly took care of HB for claimants. This is important because the level of delay and incompetance experienced by many trying to deal with the DWP is not experienced with LAs in processing HB.

UC might make bureacratic sense but there are downsides to it. People in part time work and in receipt of any kind of benefit will be treated like the fully unemployed. They will have to prove they are looking for more work (a job of up to 35 hours per week), attend interviews etc or risk losing their benefits. This is going to affect a lot of working single parents for example, who work part time to fit around their children.

There are issues to this beyond just money management and rent payment.

[bawdy-nan]

Likewise UC for self-employment / freelance and fluctuating income will be extremely difficult. At the moment tax credits (and housing benefit) take account of annual earnings for self-employed earners. UC rules will assume a 35 hr p/w minimum wage even when not earned that week / month and will not allow for fluctuations in income. As more and more people "choose" or have to work outside of traditional employment structures (like, you know, a regular salary) this is a real problem. If it is deemed that you're not earning "enough" you will be treated as unemployed and made to look for work or do more work. You won't be able to make a new claim for UC if you are already self-employed.

Also - earnings must be reported monthly and in that month if your expenses exceed tour receipts, tough, you'll be assumed to have earned a minimum monthly amount based on minimum wage. If the next month your receipts bunch together, again, tough, you can't offset expenses incurred if they don't occur in the same month. As with employed people a consideration for tax and ni will be made but ONLY actual amounts paid in that month. As self-employed people pay their tax and NI in arrears and based on their annual accounts this means, essentially, that for benefits purposes self-employed people will be treated as if their gross earnings are their net, unlike the employed.

Benefits like child tax credits and housing benefit are mostly paid to those who are working and those who are low paid. Most self-employed people are low paid as well as being without sick pay, holiday pay and other employment protections they will now be largely excluded from in-work benefits.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/universal-credit-for-the-self-employed

UC roll out in London boroughs starts in November this year. It will be "interesting" to see how that pans out given that according to the stats: most "new jobs" in the "growing economy" are self-employed, most self-employed people live in London; most self-employed people earn less than their employed counterparts.

[????]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That idea is at least two years old and it wasn't

> originally Corbyn's. And the 'story' only says

> "could" and "talks of consultation" and "pilot

> studies." Just more crap from the Tory press.

Corybyn reported in the Independent as a potential policy and the criticism reported is from the other Labour candidates ....filthy Tories that they all are I know.

[Blah Blah]

Indeed Bawdy-nan. They have moved from a system that accounted for the diversity in employment status to one that tries to make one size fit all. They do this consciously. There is plenty of evidence now (and data, that the DWP refuses to publish, even when ordered to do so by the ICO) that their 'reforms' are causing great hardship and destitution. And now they are going after people who are working and low paid too. And yet we have to wait four years to see the living wage that is recommended NOW. Who knows what the recommendation will be in four years and that's if there are any more low paid workers or unemployed living in London.

[Jah Lush]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > That idea is at least two years old and it

> wasn't

> > originally Corbyn's. And the 'story' only says

> > "could" and "talks of consultation" and "pilot

> > studies." Just more crap from the Tory press.

>

>

> Corybyn reported in the Independent as a potential

> policy and the criticism reported is from the

> other Labour candidates ....filthy Tories that

> they all are I know.

From Jezza -

"I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome." What? A politician who wants to listen to voters views and then open up the discussion to see if a possible policy was wanted by the public? Good grief! We wouldn't want that, now would we?"

Last year, Claire Perry, a Conservative junior transport minister, said the idea of women-only carriages was interesting, but it does not appear to have been taken forward by her department.

But if someone like Corbyn suggests such a thing he's a fecking loony lefty with silly ideas.

[Blah Blah]

I wonder if the women only carriage idea was more to do with creating an environment that some women would feel safer travelling in, esp late at night? Whilst it's probably not a practical idea (which might explain it not being pursued), it's not a silly idea either when thought of in those terms. Someone somewhere considered there to be a need to think about addressing.

Totally agree though on the hypocracy of who likes an idea!

[uncleglen]

Pervs will find a way- at least there is cctv on the train

[Jeremy]

Not sure why it's not practical, they do it in India. (although admittedly the problem there is on a different level). TBH I have no idea why this whole thing is so controversial... he only said he'd do it if women wanted it...

[Blah Blah]

Not practical in terms of enforcement, unless it's the carriage next to the driver. It's not a controversial idea at all. It's only a media bias that is making it into something because they are determined to terrify the electorate as much as possible about a Corbyn leadership.

[????]

THE CRITICISM HAS COME FROM HIS RIVALS FOR THE LEADERSHIP FFS. Not the corporate Tory media Zzzzzzzz whole world is going mad everyone, even people I see as normal are trotting out this narrative. Thank god in reality Social Media doesn't reflect actual reality, normal people are far cleverer than the twtish memes of social media.

[Jah Lush]

New Labour Blairites amount to same thing for me.

Anyway *Fingers in ears la la la la la la* not listening to Quids.

[????]

No one likes listening to reality jah, certainly not the lefty echo chamber which you now seem part of.pass your stuff round social media to each other..... the Tories were gonna get absolutely slaughtered on there back in April. Russell Brands intervention was 'game changing' according to Owen Jones and boy did that do the rounds on Twitter Facebook even the EDF etc etc. personally I believe Corybn will be a disaster for the Labour Party, so I wish you all the very best. Best quote I've seen at a Norwich rally for Corbymania "we haven't had this many people at a lAbour hustings since Michael Foot in 1983" you,re all just talking to each other......