Posts Tagged ‘Government’

This is brilliant…..

http://

FM  🙂

Advertisements

Our government over the last two weeks have been handed the Truth And Lies Report, signed by some 43 Bishops, the  House Of Lords have asked parliament to look again at their proposals regarding the nations budget and even financial experts have told George Osborne that his budget proposals are unworkable…….

And still parliament are not listening to the church, the Lords or financial experts…..don’t you think that it is time for a vote of no-confidence in our current government????

If your small bedroom is 70 sq m or less it is classed as a BOXROOM.

Therefore it cannot be charged bedroom tax, this is listed under The Housing Act 1985, section 326. Please use this, do not take any excuses from the council as The Housing Act 1985 cannot be changed by law.

Hopefully this will help some people, but it could work the other way, ie, with a landlord claiming its a 2 bed flat and the Housing Benefit not paying the total amount of rent because the 2nd bedroom is not big enough to class it as a bedroom.

The act also says; The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner in which the floor area of a room is to be ascertained. Also regulations say for housing benefit the rental agreement counts so if you have been renting a 3 bed house for 6 years its 3 beds house regardless of size.

However, general consenseus is; the Metre-age  thing is only applicable to issues of overcrowding, not housing benefit payments . As I mentioned above, it’s the housing association which determines if a property is 1 , 2, or 3 bedroomed. Seemingly one council redetermined the amount of rooms in some properties to help some tenants, but it was their choice to do so. And can’t remember which one it was.

The government are always saying that “Lessons have been learnt!” However, never for the benefit of the people (us), I’d bet that by the time our 12 yr old son grows up and moves out, that loophole will be firmly closed!!!! (His bedroom is a boxroom!)…..They’ll twist the law to suit them, coz they are the law, and they have almost complete impunity to their misdeeds……Our war disabled veterans that have served in the middle east can’t even get benefits;as shown on Dispatches last week, he should never have had to appeal to be awarded his benefit. I thought IDS was ex-army, yet he shows no compassion towards his comrades, who have fought or are still fighting, for our country…Okay……ranting done!!!

Please see this link for more info: http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2013/03/bedroom-tax-but-what-is-a-bedroom/


F.M. 

Mobile Phone Cover

Mobile Phone Cover

Coffee Cup

Coffee Cup

Hip Flask

Hip Flask

Pendant

Pendant

What is with all these quips? Eh, isn’t enough, enough? It’s like a ploy to brainwash everybody! 

The following is quoted from Wikipedia:

Keep Calm and Carry On was a propaganda poster produced by the British government in 1939 during the beginning of the Second World War, intended to raise the morale of the British public in the aftermath of widely predicted mass air attacks on major cities. It had only limited distribution with no public display, and thus was little known. The poster was rediscovered in 2000 and has been re-issued by a number of private companies and used as the decorative theme for a range of products. It was believed there were only two known surviving examples of the poster outside government archives until a collection of 15 originals was brought in to the Antiques Roadshow in 2012 by the daughter of an ex-Royal Observer Corps member.

And the following is from the Daily Mail:

Dave, you’re sleepwalking into Britain’s gravest crisis since World War II

By SIMON HEFFER

PUBLISHED: 23:25, 11 May 2012 | UPDATED: 15:30, 14 May 2012

As widely predicted, a vacuous Queen’s Speech this week^^ avoided the main issues affecting this country.

This was partly because the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats find it very hard to agree on policies, but also because the Prime Minister is short on ideas and, embarrassingly for the leader of the Conservative Party, is not really a Conservative.

When asked about the Government’s plans, therefore, for the next 12 months, the line trotted out by loyal ministers is that governing does not just mean new legislation. Indeed, it does not.

Circumstance: If the economy was in a more stable state, then this paper could have found much to applaud in Wednesday's Queen's Speech
Disappointing: The contents of the Queen’s Speech suggested that the Prime Minister is woefully short of ideas

Perhaps, instead, our rulers should simply sit around, reflecting on the joys of power — rather than doing something useful for the country, such as repealing damaging laws, or passing ones that might be beneficial.

I may mock, but it may actually be a good thing that the decks are thus cleared. Because the way things are going in Europe there could be a political and economic crisis later this year on a scale not seen since World War II.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2143230/David-Cameron-walking-biggest-crisis-World-War-II.html#ixzz2LlRhCb4p
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

PMQs 19_12_12 _ Pat’s Petition and Victorian Britain in the 21st Century…

Commons Hansard for PMQ’s 19/12/12

PMQ‘s regarding Pat’s Petition

Q4. [134213] Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I have in my hand a genuine suicide note from a constituent of mine who, sadly, took his own life after he was informed that he was no longer entitled to employment and support allowance and disability benefits. Across the UK, more than 1,000 people have died only months after being told to find work. This is 2012—we are supposed to be a civilised society. We should be looking after disabled citizens in the UK. Will the Prime Minister listen to the 62,000 people who have signed Pat’s petition and please finally order an assessment of all changes hitting disabled people in this country?

The Prime Minister: I will look very carefully at the very tragic case that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House. Everyone’s thoughts will go out to that person’s family because of what has happened to them.

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the actual money that we are putting into disability benefits over the coming years is going up, not down. I think that everybody knows and accepts that we need to have a review of disability benefits. Some people have been stuck on these benefits and not been reviewed for year after year after year. That is the view of the disability charities and it is the view of the Government as well.

********************************************************************************************

With respect to the issue introduced by Ian Lavery MP; I too am sorry for the tragic loss of that family’s loved one, and all other families affected by these types of tragedies. So, Mr Cameron is going to look very carefully at the very tragic case that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the house; that’s very ‘nice’ of him, however, that’s just one case; what about the other 1,000 people that have all died, only months after being told to find work.

Stuck on these benefits,… stuck on these benefits…..we have been stuck with our disabilities our whole life, Cameron clearly hasn’t got a clue!

************************************************************************************

PMQ’s regarding Unemployment has dropped another 60,000 people….BUT???

Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): As we approach Christmas, will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating the fact that there are more people in employment this Christmas than ever before in this nation’s great history?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. After all, the Leader of the Opposition said back in January that unemployment would go up. That was his prediction—he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that. The fact is that unemployment has come down, employment has gone up and we have seen a record fall in youth unemployment in the last quarter. All of those things are welcome, particularly as we are seeing growth

19 Dec 2012 : Column 846

in the private sector, because everyone knows that we have to have a rebalancing of our economy whereby we shed some jobs in the public sector but grow the private sector, and that is what is happening.

PMQ’s regarding Victorian Britain in the 21st Century

Q5. [134214] Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. [ Interruption . ] People realise, now, that the Prime Minister has a Dickensian vision for the UK: grandeur for the few, workhouse for the many. Why is he limiting welfare benefits for parents caring for adults with disabilities? Could we have an explanation from Ebenezer?

The Prime Minister: I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is probably a case of merry Christmas and happy speaking opportunities in the new year.

************************************************************************************************

FM

The Prime Minister David Cameron said during PMQ‘s on Wed 19/12/12 that, unemployment has dropped by another 60,000 people…….BUT???

“What happens if a claimant’s JSA is stopped?

If the claimant’s JSA is stopped because they have failed to meet their responsibilities, they must still attend the Jobcentre for their fortnightly jobsearch review, and attend any appointments to avoid losing benefit for a longer period.”

Copied from  http://www.dwp.gov.uk/adviser/updates/changes-to-contribution/#stop

 

However, I was wondering whether or not, those that are having their benefits sanctioned are counted in the numbers used for the statistics quoted by David Cameron. If their benefits are being sanctioned then they are not in receipt of any benefit payment, therefore, not in receipt of benefit, thus adding to the number of those no longer claiming benefit. Therefore, it would look like more people are in work as benefit claimant numbers have gone down.

He may well be cooking the books, so to speak, with regards to the unemployment statistics!

FM

Image

We are raising more money for the rich

            Edward Miliband:
I must say, I have heard everything when the boy from the Bullingdon club lectures people on bullying. Absolutely extraordinary. Have you wrecked a restaurant recently?The Prime Minister does not want to talk about the facts, but let us give him another one. He is hitting working families, and the richest people in our society will get a massive tax cut next April—an average of £107,000 each for people earning over £1 million. Is he the only person left in the country who cannot see the fundamental injustice of giving huge tax cuts to the richest while punishing those in work on the lowest pay?
            The Prime Minister:
The tax take for the richest under this Government will be higher in every year than it was for any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in government. He has obviously got a short memory, because I explained to him last week that under his plans for the 50p tax rate, millionaires paid £7 billion less in tax than they did previously. The point of raising taxes is to pay for public services. We are raising more money for the rich, but where he is really so profoundly wrong is in the choice that he has decided to make. The facts are these: over the last five years, people in work have seen their incomes go up by 10%, and people out of work have seen their incomes go up by 20%. At a time when people accept a pay freeze we should not be massively increasing benefits massively, yet that is what he wants to do. A party that is not serious about controlling welfare is not serious about controlling the deficit either.
            Edward Miliband:
From the first part of his answer, it seems the Prime Minister is claiming to be Robin Hood; I really do not think that is going to work. He is not taking from the richest and giving to everybody else. Didn’t the Business Secretary give it away in what he said about the autumn statement? He said:“what happened was some of their donors,”—we know who he is talking about—“very wealthy people, stamped their feet”,so the Conservatives scrapped the mansion tax and went ahead with the 50p tax cut. They look after their friends—the people on their Christmas card list.Meanwhile, they hit people they never meet, and whose lives they will never understand.
            For the full article please got to Commons Hansard at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121212/debtext/121212-0001.htm#12121240000011

Or watch it here, at approx 38mins in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pfs6b/Daily_Politics_12_12_2012/

It seems to me that no one, including the news, picked up on that sentence that Mr Cameron said…..

Thanks for reading!

FM

If the government want to cut the social security bill, then the government should stop paying top-ups to low wages and make employers pay a decent minimum wage. Why should the taxpayers have to top-up wages through paying into the system, when if public sector and private sector companies and employers paid a proper wage the taxes could be better used to heal the British economy. Instead, people on a low wage have to claim benefits to top-up their wages.

Once again it is the private sector that are raking in the money by being wage-shy, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

We are being made to pay for the irresponsible behaviour of our chancellor, with our taxes; and he still believes that his way is the right way.

Our great nation was built on the strength of a nations pride, and will be destroyed by ‘one’ man’s pride, George Osborne‘s.

In the aftermath the only thing that we’ll hear from our government is “Lessons have been learnt!” When will our government learn from the mistakes of the past?

P.S.

Max Keiser said on RT (Russia Today) on Sky channel 512 & 518
“If Britain seriously wants to increase GDP then they need to increase the minimum wage, in fact double the minimum wage!”

2 hours ago

Lord Bach
Lord Bach said he was particularly concerned about the impact on disabled people

The government has been defeated by 201 to 191 in the House of Lords over plans to restrict legal aid.

Peers backed a motion by Labour’s Lord Bach accusing ministers of failing to honour a previous commitment on access to help in welfare cases.

Lord Bach said claimants appealing against a ruling on their welfare benefits would get no legal aid at the start of their case.

Ministers rejected the accusation and said no more concessions could be made.

Peers voted against the government on a piece of secondary legislation stemming from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, which was passed earlier this year.

Former Labour minister Lord Bach said the government had failed to honour an earlier commitment by former Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke to allow support in “point of law” cases at the first-tier tribunal level – the first stage of the tribunal process.

He said he was particularly concerned about the impact on disabled people making their initial appeal against a decision by the Department for Work and Pensions on their benefit entitlement.

‘Highest priority’

“No government, whatever its colour, should be allowed to get away with this. An undertaking to Parliament must be kept,” Lord Bach said.

Liberal Democrat Baroness Doocey, who backed the motion, warned: “The government’s present proposals will be catastrophic for many thousands of people.”

She said ministers had not “honoured either the spirit or the letter” of its commitment.

“The conditions it has laid down for legal aid to be available require so many planets to be in conjunction that in practice it is doubtful that the vast majority of claimants could ever meet them.”

Justice Minister Lord McNally said the government had listened but any further concessions would “affect the fundamental objectives” of plans to cut costs – the government wants to save £350m a year on legal aid by 2015.

The Lib Dem peer said: “Having listened carefully to the arguments we agreed to make available legal aid for advice and assistance for welfare benefit appeals on a point of law in the upper tribunal.

“In addition we agreed to make legal aid available for advice, assistance and representation for welfare benefit onward appeals in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

“At no point in progressing our… reforms did we say it is our intention for all first-tier welfare benefit appeals to receive legal aid.

“The government’s position throughout has been that in these economic times we need to target legal aid at cases of the highest priority and where it is needed most.”

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20588876?post_id=1321193785_514850055206664