Bolitics The New Condem Government

[chrisp65]

 

 

I must have missed the law change where certain  people got prevented from buying a stamp or having an internet connection

The bit you seem to miss is the part about needing to pay £20,000. The application process is open to all. It's the £20k that many will find more of a problem.

Which takes us back to the question why it is in any respect a reasonable use of public money to pay artificially high interest rates to those least in need of the extra payments.

And of course the only sensible answer is, it's not.

 

 

Lots of left-leaning institutions concerned with the welfare of the elderly have pointed to low interest rates as being a cause of pensioner poverty, and this is a measure designed to alleviate that.

 

 

A retired couple can invest up to £40,000 jointly. The higher 4% interest is only available on a 3 year bond with interest paid annually and it cannot be drawn down as income in the interim.

 

So, all those poor pensioners struggling to pay the bills, problem solved! Just stick £40k away for 3 years without touching it and jobs a good 'un.

 

I know some already comfortably off pensioners will probably also access this scheme, but hey, that'll probably just lead to trickle down anyway, so win win.

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

I must have missed the law change where certain  people got prevented from buying a stamp or having an internet connection

The bit you seem to miss is the part about needing to pay £20,000. The application process is open to all. It's the £20k that many will find more of a problem.

Which takes us back to the question why it is in any respect a reasonable use of public money to pay artificially high interest rates to those least in need of the extra payments.

And of course the only sensible answer is, it's not.

 

 

Lots of left-leaning institutions concerned with the welfare of the elderly have pointed to low interest rates as being a cause of pensioner poverty, and this is a measure designed to alleviate that.

 

 

A retired couple can invest up to £40,000 jointly. The higher 4% interest is only available on a 3 year bond with interest paid annually and it cannot be drawn down as income in the interim.

 

So, all those poor pensioners struggling to pay the bills, problem solved! Just stick £40k away for 3 years without touching it and jobs a good 'un.

 

I know some already comfortably off pensioners will probably also access this scheme, but hey, that'll probably just lead to trickle down anyway, so win win.

 

 

the NSI website talks about £500 as the minimum investment  , so I'm not sure where this £20k figure is coming from ??

[chrisp65]

yes, you can invest £500 for 1 year but at the reduced interest rate of 2.8%

 

or to put it another way, £14 after not touching your money for a year 

 

I'm not sure £14 with a 12 month wait for it is going to make or break someone's circumstances

[tonyh29]

yes, you can invest £500 for 1 year but at the reduced interest rate of 2.8%

 

or to put it another way, £14 after not touching your money for a year 

 

I'm not sure £14 with a 12 month wait for it is going to make or break someone's circumstances

 

so you admit the OP (and yourself ) were in effect misleading everyone then 

[chrisp65]

yep

[peterms]

the NSI website talks about £500 as the minimum investment  , so I'm not sure where this £20k figure is coming from ??

The £20k is the maximum that each individual can put in, ie £10k for each type of bond.

[tonyh29]

 

the NSI website talks about £500 as the minimum investment  , so I'm not sure where this £20k figure is coming from ??

The £20k is the maximum that each individual can put in, ie £10k for each type of bond.

 

 

 

yeah I got that bit ... that bit that puzzled me was where you seem to have changed this to being the minimum entry level 

 

 

 

 

I must have missed the law change where certain  people got prevented from buying a stamp or having an internet connection

The bit you seem to miss is the part about needing to pay £20,000. The application process is open to all. It's the £20k that many will find more of a problem.

Which takes us back to the question why it is in any respect a reasonable use of public money to pay artificially high interest rates to those least in need of the extra payments.

And of course the only sensible answer is, it's not.

 

[chrisp65]

For me, it's the oddity of offering a savings plan to people perceived as 'struggling' - and there's a whole conversation to be had there anyway.

 

To get any real benefit from the plan, to do better than getting £14 interest after a year, or £1.17 a month that you can't access until month 12, you need to invest a substantial amount. But if you have a substantial amount available to invest, in what way are you struggling?

 

Why should a relatively wealthy pensioner have access to an interest rate 'hard working' types don't? 

 

It just has the feel of a plan that allows people with money to make a bit more money. Not automatically a bad thing. But just don't try and sell it as something it isn't. Somebody struggling to make ends meet or worried about their future with good reason due to a lack of income will not be helped in any way by this scheme.

 

Wealthier, older people will be helped. How do we think they might be voting in a few months time?

[tonyh29]

For me, it's the oddity of offering a savings plan to people perceived as 'struggling' - and there's a whole conversation to be had there anyway.

 

To get any real benefit from the plan, to do better than getting £14 interest after a year, or £1.17 a month that you can't access until month 12, you need to invest a substantial amount. But if you have a substantial amount available to invest, in what way are you struggling?

 

Why should a relatively wealthy pensioner have access to an interest rate 'hard working' types don't? 

 

It just has the feel of a plan that allows people with money to make a bit more money. Not automatically a bad thing. But just don't try and sell it as something it isn't. Somebody struggling to make ends meet or worried about their future with good reason due to a lack of income will not be helped in any way by this scheme.

 

Wealthier, older people will be helped. How do we think they might be voting in a few months time?

 

 

**Sterotype alert  ** isn't everyone over the age of 60 a daily Mail reading racist   .. so I guess the answer is UKIP

 

 

If Northern rock taught us anything it's that old people like security  .. seeing as these bonds are government backed  , this means old people  don't have to queue outside a bank for the weekend with a Thermos flask and Princess salmon paste sandwiches in order to have their money withdrawn 5 seconds after the bank opens on Monday morning the second they hear a bit of bad news  

 

so i reckon even Mrs Miggins with just £500 to invest will sign up

[peterms]

yeah I got that bit ... that bit that puzzled me was where you seem to have changed this to being the minimum entry level

The average spend so far is about £10k. I think you'll find that there aren't many who take it up at the minimum level.

The issue is that those who have money that they can afford not to touch for a year or three years are being given a handout funded by the rest of us, though they are the people who least need it. Those who most need a bit more money are unlikely even to have the minimum £500 that they can afford to tie up for years.

For those of a conservative bent, there is also the point about the state distorting the market, and adding to the deficit and the national debt. But oddly, the Mail and Telegraph seem to be celebrating this particular piece of market-rigging state intervention.

[tonyh29]

 

yeah I got that bit ... that bit that puzzled me was where you seem to have changed this to being the minimum entry level

The average spend so far is about £10k. I think you'll find that there aren't many who take it up at the minimum level.

The issue is that those who have money that they can afford not to touch for a year or three years are being given a handout funded by the rest of us, though they are the people who least need it. Those who most need a bit more money are unlikely even to have the minimum £500 that they can afford to tie up for years.

For those of a conservative bent, there is also the point about the state distorting the market, and adding to the deficit and the national debt. But oddly, the Mail and Telegraph seem to be celebrating this particular piece of market-rigging state intervention.

 

 

Ah so you reported as fact something that wasn't true based on an assumption  ....

 

( you know , you could just admit you bent the truth a little and we can end this and move onto the next instalment of  "Twitter incorrectly says....   "  )

[peterms]

yeah I got that bit ... that bit that puzzled me was where you seem to have changed this to being the minimum entry level

The average spend so far is about £10k. I think you'll find that there aren't many who take it up at the minimum level.

The issue is that those who have money that they can afford not to touch for a year or three years are being given a handout funded by the rest of us, though they are the people who least need it. Those who most need a bit more money are unlikely even to have the minimum £500 that they can afford to tie up for years.

For those of a conservative bent, there is also the point about the state distorting the market, and adding to the deficit and the national debt. But oddly, the Mail and Telegraph seem to be celebrating this particular piece of market-rigging state intervention.

 

Ah so you reported as fact something that wasn't true based on an assumption  ....

 

( you know , you could just admit you bent the truth a little and we can end this and move onto the next instalment of  "Twitter incorrectly says....   "  )

That's pretty desperate, even by your standards, Tony. (Insert emoticon here).

Would you like to move on to the the larger question of the share of wealth of the wealth accumulators (or " creators", as they fancifully call themselves)?

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

yeah I got that bit ... that bit that puzzled me was where you seem to have changed this to being the minimum entry level

The average spend so far is about £10k. I think you'll find that there aren't many who take it up at the minimum level.

The issue is that those who have money that they can afford not to touch for a year or three years are being given a handout funded by the rest of us, though they are the people who least need it. Those who most need a bit more money are unlikely even to have the minimum £500 that they can afford to tie up for years.

For those of a conservative bent, there is also the point about the state distorting the market, and adding to the deficit and the national debt. But oddly, the Mail and Telegraph seem to be celebrating this particular piece of market-rigging state intervention.

 

Ah so you reported as fact something that wasn't true based on an assumption  ....

 

( you know , you could just admit you bent the truth a little and we can end this and move onto the next instalment of  "Twitter incorrectly says....   "  )

That's pretty desperate, even by your standards, Tony. (Insert emoticon here).

Would you like to move on to the the larger question of the share of wealth of the wealth accumulators (or " creators", as they fancifully call themselves)?

 

 

sigh ..  at least I have standards  ... I'll take being called desperate as a compliment  coming from the master who made his figures up though  ..you are George Osborne  and I claim my £5

 

 

but yeah , sure we can move on to the share of wealth ..pluck some figures out of thin air and then I'll debunk them

Edited January 20, 2015 by tonyh29

[Eames]

**Inhales deeply**

 

I love the smell of middle aged testerone at lunchtime. 

[snowychap]

Even more social rented homes lost in 2014 than in 2013

Statistics published just before Christmas show that the loss of housing let at social rents is speeding up, says CIH policy adviser John Perry.

housing estateIn the year ending April 2013 the stock of social rented homes in England fell by 19,189 dwellings - and the fall in the year to April 2014 was more than twice this, at 43,850 homes. Over the last two years, just over 63,000 homes have been lost to social renting, of which the majority (just over 36,000) have been housing association homes. You can read more on our analysis on theguardian.com today.

The UK Housing Review 2015, due out soon, will analyse the reasons for this decline, which occurs even though over the last two years more than 28,000 new social rented properties have been built. How can the stock fall so sharply when new homes are being added to it? There are two main reasons and several minor ones.

For local authorities, the biggest single factor is right to buy, with over 17,000 sales in the two years. Transfers of stock to housing associations, which in the past has accounted for much of the decline in social renting by councils, have been at negligible levels in these two years. Although local authorities maintain their new build programmes, where these include replacements for right to buy properties the new houses have to be let at higher Affordable Rents (AR).

For housing associations, the biggest loss of social rented housing occurs because properties are being ‘converted’ (or re-let) at Affordable Rent, or sometimes sold, to provide extra income to fund new development. The estimated number of conversions or sales over the period 2011-15 (the life of the current Affordable Homes Programme - AHP) is over 75,000.

As well as the decline in social rented housing, there is also the lost opportunity to add to the stock as resources are diverted to building homes at higher Affordable Rents. In the past two years, 26,720 new AR properties were built under the AHP, homes which – with higher subsidy – could have been let at genuinely affordable rents.

Social rented homes are being replaced by new ones that, outside London, are let at 79% of market rents and in London at 65% of market rents (giving average monthly Affordable Rents of just under £500 outside London and £800 in the capital). While in some regions like the North East, Affordable Rents are only a little more than one-third higher than social rents, in London the ‘premium’ is more than two-thirds. Despite this, the profile of tenants getting lettings in the two parts of the sector is similar, putting extra pressure on the housing benefit bill.

On present trends, the record loss of social rented homes in the year to April 2014 will be exceeded in the current year, as right to buy and conversions accelerate and new build for social rent declines still further. By April 2015, we can safely predict that over 120,000 homes will have been lost to social renting over the three years in which the government’s Affordable Rents programme was being fully implemented.

CIH is calling on political parties to recognise the urgent need for more homes, but at the same time to ensure that a significant proportion are available at genuinely affordable rents. Far from the stock of social rented homes declining, we need to see an increase, catering for the huge number of households on low incomes who not only can’t afford to buy but also can’t afford to pay market (or near-market) rents. Affordable Rent certainly has a role to play in a balanced housing system, but not at the expense of social rent. We’d also like to see the government reviewing right to buy discounts and the way the receipts are used to make sure that all homes sold through the scheme are replaced on a genuine ‘one for one’ basis.

[peterms]

Bevan had it right. Lower than vermin.

Let's shit on the unemployed
 

 

Jobcentre bosses set up “hit squads” to target benefit claimants for sanctions and put pressure on them to sign off the dole, according to evidence presented to an inquiry by MPs.

 

The written statement, by a former jobcentre official, John Longden, says frontline staff were ordered to “agitate and inconvenience” customers so they fell foul of the rules, enabling staff to stop their benefits payments.

 

Staff who failed to meet sanctions targets each month were threatened with disciplinary action, he claims...

 

Ministers introduced tighter rules for claiming benefits in October 2012, saying sanctions were a “last resort” that would encourage claimants to “engage” with jobcentres. However, critics say jobcentres are increasingly neglecting to help claimants find jobs and are instead focusing on finding ways to impose financial penalties on them.

Longden claims that staff used several tricks to set up claimants. On several occasions jobcentre advisers purposefully booked job appointments without informing the claimant, ensuring they could be sanctioned when they failed to attend.

 

Claimants would be set unreasonable job search targets, referred for jobs for which they were clearly unsuited, or ordered to sign on every day in the hope they would fail in a task, miss an appointment or be late.

 

“The aim was to find an opportunity to make a referral to the decision maker [an official who decides whether to sanction a claimant] with the possibility of getting the customer sanctioned...

 

Now here's an interesting turn of phrase from the DWP.  Smith's favourite phrase, no less.

 

 

 

A DWP spokesman said: “Mr Longden’s allegations were thoroughly investigated and no evidence was found to substantiate them. Furthermore, the people named in the allegations strongly refute them.

 

“The reality is, sanctions are a necessary part of the benefits system but they are used as a last resort in a tiny minority of cases where people don’t play by the rules. Jobcentre Plus advisers work hard every day to help people into work. There are no targets for sanctions.”

 

Which left me wondering, does this word removed write the press releases, do the tame press office toady to him by using his favourite phrase, or is there a subversive Trot in there who is intentionally sending up the sad sack of shit?

 

Oh, and for those who believe in reincarnation:

 

[tonyh29]

That IDS reincarnation gag is from Dec 2013 ... Guess it's not just Fritz being resurrected

Edited January 22, 2015 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

A DWP spokesman said: “Mr Longden’s allegations were thoroughly investigated and no evidence was found to substantiate them. Furthermore, the people named in the allegations strongly refute them.

 

“The reality is, sanctions are a necessary part of the benefits system but they are used as a last resort in a tiny minority of cases where people don’t play by the rules. Jobcentre Plus advisers work hard every day to help people into work. There are no targets for sanctions.”

A last resort in a tiny minority of cases...

I know this, too, is from The Grauniad but it is also taken from the paper by those academics (and doesn't appear to be refuted by the DWP):

The Oxford-based research showed that between June 2011 and March 2014, more than 1.9m sanctions were imposed on people receiving jobseeker’s allowance...

The above stat is said to be about JSA claimants only. So that wouldn't include ESA claimants (if the 1.9m is only JSA).

[mockingbird_franklin]

Bevan had it right. Lower than vermin.

Let's shit on the unemployed

 

 

Jobcentre bosses set up “hit squads” to target benefit claimants for sanctions and put pressure on them to sign off the dole, according to evidence presented to an inquiry by MPs.

 

The written statement, by a former jobcentre official, John Longden, says frontline staff were ordered to “agitate and inconvenience” customers so they fell foul of the rules, enabling staff to stop their benefits payments.

 

Staff who failed to meet sanctions targets each month were threatened with disciplinary action, he claims...

 

Ministers introduced tighter rules for claiming benefits in October 2012, saying sanctions were a “last resort” that would encourage claimants to “engage” with jobcentres. However, critics say jobcentres are increasingly neglecting to help claimants find jobs and are instead focusing on finding ways to impose financial penalties on them.

Longden claims that staff used several tricks to set up claimants. On several occasions jobcentre advisers purposefully booked job appointments without informing the claimant, ensuring they could be sanctioned when they failed to attend.

 

Claimants would be set unreasonable job search targets, referred for jobs for which they were clearly unsuited, or ordered to sign on every day in the hope they would fail in a task, miss an appointment or be late.

 

“The aim was to find an opportunity to make a referral to the decision maker [an official who decides whether to sanction a claimant] with the possibility of getting the customer sanctioned...

 

Now here's an interesting turn of phrase from the DWP.  Smith's favourite phrase, no less.

 

 

 

A DWP spokesman said: “Mr Longden’s allegations were thoroughly investigated and no evidence was found to substantiate them. Furthermore, the people named in the allegations strongly refute them.

 

“The reality is, sanctions are a necessary part of the benefits system but they are used as a last resort in a tiny minority of cases where people don’t play by the rules. Jobcentre Plus advisers work hard every day to help people into work. There are no targets for sanctions.”

 

Which left me wondering, does this word removed write the press releases, do the tame press office toady to him by using his favourite phrase, or is there a subversive Trot in there who is intentionally sending up the sad sack of shit?

 

Oh, and for those who believe in reincarnation:

 

Not just the unemployed. lets shit on the sick and disabled too.

[villa4europe]

them lot running the country cant organise a tv debate...

 

cameron is pulling a blinder here, if it was the 3 of them, or even the 4, then there was a danger wallace or even worse farage could get a big wave of publicity, they've diluted the waters, cameron doesnt have to stand out to win IMO he just has to make sure no one else does