Found this whilst ....

Hmmm

Thinking on the promises of parties...

This Lady Jayne found some alarming thoughts.

Wonders what you think on her thoughts too.. I couldnt possibly guess YOUR thoughts or really duplex what Jayne wrote so here it is linky >>>   Parties Plans post-2015/

More thoughts on fairness.

I was thinking on fairness as I quite often do and give you this..

In the Uk the average salary is £26500 pa , even though we know this is distorted average due to some very high city salaries. I won't explore that. I'll take that average as a comparator.

Then look at MP . CURRENT BASIC SALARY BEING £67060 pa , rising to £74000 from 2015.

And think.

Non MP on average salary ...
Most have to find their transport, food , child care and many things from that salary.

Many of what average salaried people have to find from salary are not having to be found by MPs who get those items many times covered by Expenses.

And yet they have £40560 more money than those on average salary. Rising soon.

When you look at that.... Is it fair?

one is too many

Trigger Warning.

The list accessed through click is a list of people no longer with us.

It appears that each one is a welfare related death, as people are calling deaths that appear related to changes to benefits or welfare.

May they  all RIP

twishort.com/0x9gc

Means Tests are controversial.

I collected my thoughts currently...


IDS SAYS WANTS TO MEANS TEST DISABILITY BENEFITS. We must ask how? How many that claim are well off enough to have reduced or no awards due to financial status? And those people, have they applied/ Been awarded? Would those possibly mythical not needy people have put themselves through the application processes? And how much is reasonable income? Because if the means test is to be designed to slice into a strata that has need then that's wrong at all levels. Can you see what I'm saying? It's a populist statement to say we will check they actually financially need award. But from a wrong footing is disastrously dangerous.

Means test is there across unemployment. Maximum savings, hours worked , ancillary income. Yes precedent embedded.

In PRINCIPLE it has precedent. In principle if done right there can't be objection. Devil in the detail. I know this may sound very strange. But the whole post war creation of welfare system was based on means. Without detail of proposal be careful.

Confusingly by driving away from means test you weaken the basis of the whole net.


So to conclude.. Means testing is confronted by many, yet is an important core to current welfare system as a whole.
How do you know need without assessing means?
But means should be set fairly, not on basis of "they get too much," or "how can we save money" which I suspect current proposal includes both.

Hope this makes some sense.
I'm not prepared to comment further on means test to disability benefits at this time as these are current thoughts.

where did I put that 6p?

When you hear the media state figures or stats it's always worth remembering what is put to you is for impact.

Think...

"Prices only up 3%"

This three per cent makes more difference the less money a person has.

Say an item costs 2 quid and it goes up 3% that's 6p.
But if you compare impact to someone with a tenner against impact of someone with a hundred quid. The relative impact gets visible. Then compare that to impact on someone with a grand.
There's even less impact.

This basic thing may sound easy,

Relative impact is very important.

That's how you arrive at other measures that are important , like...

How much of your income goes on food...

Example someone with a grand spend 20 quid. And then someone with a hundred quid spend 20 .

See that?

Why am I explaining so simply?

Because then I can start talking in terms of this basic seemingly simple impact understanding...

And then say that is where the more difficult analysis of regressiveness.

"We will introduce a fair uniform tax of 30%" could be said by a party.
Now how is that fair..

It isn't.
Flat income tax rate is regressive in impact.

Other regressives are VAT. There are more.


So see?

Now where did I put that 6p?

National Scandal? If not why not?

Sent 13th Aug...

> Hi Sir Gerald
>
> Many thanks for your correspondence of the 12th August.
>
> I have just read with dismay that sanctions on sick and disabled people - removing money they are entitled to for erroneous and sometimes ludicrous reasons- has increased unacceptedly.
>
> Sanctions for disabled and sick on ESA have risen by 346% (compared to the same quarter last year), new DWP figures have shown.
>
> Mr Iain Duncan Smith says this is returning fairness.
>
> In all fairness, it appears to be abhorrent.
>
> I do note that the coalition appear to have accepted albeit in intent, the Wednesbury Principle - I think this negates their holding any acceptance of this principle.
>
> Now is this a DWP questions item to raise? Or a Prime Ministers Question Time issue to be raised? Or both?
>
> It is in the nations interest that the current government is called on its appalling treatment of vulnerable citizens as often and as strongly as possible.
>
> I hope you will ad this to the considerable quiver of arrows existing, and ask when are the archers of truth, such as yourself, going to release their bowstrings and let fly?
>
>
>
> Many Thanks
>

And of course my MP directly approached IDS

I was sent copy of the reply to this from IDS to my MP .. As follows....

28th august 2014

Dear Gerald

Thank you for your letter of 15 th august on behalf of .... Redacted.... Regarding Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) .

We do not sanction ESA claimants for not finding work and do not require them to apply for or take up specific jobs. Sanctions are only imposed where a claimant does not engage with the support on offer which is designed to improve their chances of finding or preparing for work. Sanctions only occur in a  small minority of cases and in any month, only around 1 per cent of ESA claimants are sanctioned.

We know sanctions play an important role in this system. Department for Work and Pensions research suggests that the majority of ESA claimants, around 61 per cent , say they are more likely to follow the rules due to threat of a sanction. Sanctions are there to drive compliance and it is right that Work Coaches set requirements that will help to move claimants towards work.

Evidence shows that work and work-related activity is good for disabled people and people with health conditions. The Government does not believe it is right for the majority of ESA claimants, those in the Work-Related Activity Group, to be able to remain on benefits indefinitely. It is important that people who are capable of moving towards employment are not left to spend years written off by the benefits system. In the current fiscal climate, the Government needs to review the balance between contributions paid and unlimited entitlement to support.

The numbers of ESA claimants referred to the Work Programme have increased over the last two years by more than 60 per cent and, as such, we would expect to see a consequential increase in sanction referrals as more people join the Programme. In addition Providers are increasing the support on offer to ESA claimants to help them to improve their confidence and skills to help them move closer to work. With this increased support claimants will be expected to take part in more activity, which must be reasonable given the claimant's circumstances.

I can assure ... Redacted... that we would not sanction vulnerable claimants, such as those with learning difficulties or mental health conditions, without making every effort to contact them or their carer/healthcare professional first.

A claimant's medical circumstances are taken into account when considering requiring them to undertake a specific activity. Claimants are encouraged to discuss the impact of their condition on their support needs, and specialist advisers are well-placed to understand and reflect the needs of claimants to help them successfully moved towards employment.

We have put safeguards in place to support potentially vulnerable people. For example, good reason provision and appeal rights, an ability to waive and defer any requirements and reminders to claimants of when appointments are due. Claimants will not be sanctioned if they have good reason for failing to meet their requirements.

Finally, it should be noted that we have introduced hardship payments to prevent destitution as a consequence of sanctions. This is to ensure that ESA claimants in greatest need receive the right level of financial support to prevent them suffering hardship. Claimants who meet the criteria for a hardship payment will receive 60 poet cent of the personal amount for a single person. We have set the level at 60 per cent because claimants will already be in receipt of the work-related activity component and any premiums during the period of the sanction.

The Rt  Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS.

NOW DID THAT ANSWER MY QUESTION OR SIDE STEP? HMMMM.
PICK APART WHAT HE SAID AT YOUR LEISURE.

Shenanigans. And stuff..

It may have come to your attention in the past that I've mentioned my illnesses...

Well also since 6 th of July
I've had a broken femur and several broken bones in foot.

The recovery phase is the most frustrating thing I can think of as it's eclipsing everything I do.

I'm off wheelchair, away from airboot and under hospital physio instruction.
And crutches.

And when they said 6 to 8 weeks in a&e ..... I knew somehow they were probably talking only of bone knitting estimate.

The cost of this to me has made several bills late or unpaid. Taxis aren't cheap on limited budget.

And the deterioration of tidy in the flat? That's a said thing. It has gone.
Everything is structured for can I reach it? Do I need it? And if I've used it do I need to put it away or would that mean difficulty when needed again?

Fatigue? Yes from the illnesses. Also the drain of pain from injury is shattering.

Do people see all this? No.

Why?

They see crutches. And me. When out. And that's at a highly planned mission each time. More so than normally.
They see the interfaced determination. Not the difficulties.

Why am I touring in writing what most ill or injured people know?
Probably because people need reminder, as often they sit in the "I'm alright jack" zone. .

And after saying everything and yet nothing, I close.

*grabs coffee *,*swallows painkiller*

Excuse my rambling.

The Importance Of Being Earnest,, or Sammy, Sue, Steve, John, Jules,Or Bob..

Will you sign ALL 17 petitions on this link? Thats up to you. I cant tell you to. I'd like it if you did. BUT. Virtual Gherkin has ALWAYS been about individual voices, and making as many voices heard as possible, and enabling everyone to HAVE a voice, and if you have the energy write or email your MP about any of these issues raised in this link. And , If you can, do face to face and TALK about these issues. Which ever way you use your voice, I encourage that. Jules . Heres the link

17 petitions in one link

I have always said Voice is important.

So if you COULD do more than sign, your voice MATTERS .

So another Arrow to Opposition's Quiver?

So - seeing latest sanctions figures, I wrote again, to my MP...

Many thanks for your correspondence of the 12th August. 

I have just read with dismay that sanctions on sick and disabled people - removing money they are entitled to for erroneous and sometimes ludicrous reasons- has increased unacceptedly.

Sanctions for disabled and sick on ESA have risen by 346% (compared to the same quarter last year), new DWP figures have shown. 

Mr Iain Duncan Smith says this is returning fairness. 

In all fairness, it appears to be abhorrent. 

I do note that the coalition appear to have accepted albeit in intent, the Wednesbury Principle - I think this negates their holding any acceptance of this principle. 

Now is this a DWP questions item to raise? Or a Prime Ministers Question Time issue to be raised? Or both? 

It is in the nations interest that the current government is called on its appalling treatment of vulnerable citizens as often and as strongly as possible.

I hope you will ad this to the considerable quiver of arrows existing, and ask when are the archers of truth, such as yourself, going to release their bowstrings and let fly? 

Car Insurance in Blue Badge Parking

Myself and Adam Lotun were both researching this .

From our findings:

Greater Manchester Police said : Unauthorised Blue Badge Parking users were still insured, but breaking traffic regulations.

More interestingly Adam had response that indicated   If you use a blue badge bay unintitled your insurance wont pay for any third party damage to your car you have to seek it from the third party it seems..which was the direction of both of our enquiries... but....

"Answer: If the car was damaged by a Third Party when parked in a disabled parking bay, with or without displaying a blue badge, then the responsibility and liability still remains with the Third Party. The parking issue would be a matter for the local council."

So there is no difference in insurance with or without badge.

Thanks to Fish Insurance, GMP (via twitter) , and Disabledmotoring.org

Where I Write to my MP about Parliament Bar Subsidies

email to my MP 11th August.

Hello , etc, etc

---

Today it is revealed the subsidy to parliament bars costs £6million.

In times of austerity, which to be frank I think is pure ideology, however thats another issue entirely, in times of austerity a subsidy of this nature and at such a cost seems diametrically opposed to the message being sent to the public of "all in it together" .

Will you agree this point at least? And at best put to the House that this figure is disgracefully distanced from sharing any burden the nation faces... and there must be better use of six million pounds? I'm sure you can find examples of better use of such a significant sum.

It should be stopped. 

Thank you etc etc .

UPDATE:
He repled 12th August, salient extract...

"With regard to bars in the Houses of Parliament, I have never used them, This is not because I am a teetotaller, but because I have enough to do with work when I am in the House of Commons. I do not believe that this subsidy is necessary or, indeed, desirable"

I wish there were more Sir Geralds.