Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Councils Will Slash Emergency Welfare Schemes If Ministers Cut £175M Grant

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/06/councils-slash-emergency-welfare-schemes-government-cuts

Almost three-quarters of local authorities will abandon or scale back welfare schemes designed to provide emergency help for England’s most vulnerable citizens from next April because of government funding cuts, ministers have been warned.

Tens of thousands of people – including victims of domestic violence, care-leavers, homeless people and low-income families in crisis for a range of reasons from flooding and fire to benefit sanctions – will receive little or no state help as a result.

One in six councils say they would be unable to afford to run a crisis safety net scheme at all if the government presses ahead with plans to cancel its £175m a year local welfare grant from next year, effectively wrecking a cornerstone of the coalition’s welfare reforms just two years after it was introduced.

Many vulnerable people would be forced to turn to food banks and loan sharks as a consequence, say campaigners, while the removal of crisis help from vulnerable families would lead to costly interventions further down the line, such as child protection orders or homelessness.

Luckily no council is prepared to sacrifice welfare payments to council executives. The vulnerable will be sacrifice to make a political point about austerity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/06/councils-slash-emergency-welfare-schemes-government-cuts

Luckily no council is prepared to sacrifice welfare payments to council executives. The vulnerable will be sacrifice to make a political point about austerity.

Friend of ours works at the local council at the department of "children sports activities". We could easily cut the whole department and nothing would really happen. Schools/parents/charities can easilly pick up this area.

Edited by Damik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/06/councils-slash-emergency-welfare-schemes-government-cuts

Luckily no council is prepared to sacrifice welfare payments to council executives. The vulnerable will be sacrifice to make a political point about austerity.

Ok, sorry for coming over all Daily Mail but here it is; There is a homeless hostel near me. It is full of "vulnerable" women or families (many of them ethnic minorities) with 4 or 5 kids who don't work but were expecting a council house for being overcrowded. Unfortunately for them the Tories said that they could be placed in the private rental sector rather than given a big council house and they couldn't pay the rent (or didn't) so they are classed as homeless. Most of these families were also receiving much more than £500 per week in benefits which were slashed by the benefit cap (which meant they couldn't pay their rent). The hostels are normally outside the cap so local taxpayers council tax is used to keep them in local hostels which costs the council a fortune (that or expensive hotels). I know this is probably uncharitable of me but I think it is a waste of taxpayers money to keep people who couldn't naturally afford to stay in London (except via benefits) in London at any cost. It also means that people in work who don't receive benefits have to compete with those people for rental properties which is totally unfair because not only are they receiving benefits to pay their rent but those benefits come from the taxes of workers who they are competing with. I honestly think that although it is sad, they simply have to move out of London just like many non-benefit recipients do when they can no longer afford to live here. There is no god-given right to live, unemployed in the most expensive city on earth whilst costing the country a fortune in benefits.

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of ours works at the local council at the department of "children sports activities".

There's a whole b**** great quango called "Sports England" whose sole purpose seems to be to justify its own existence and budget. And that's not even a recent phenomenon: the exercise in self-justification that first brought them to my attention goes back to 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many in the council management see the budget as theirs to spend as they wish.

Indeed, they seem to prioritise the ability to spend over the needs of the people they were charged to help, with the argument that if they werent there, the people wouldnt get any help.

so the number one priority is to actually be there, THEN they can help.

It is clear then, the spending priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child benefit needs to be capped at 2 kids for a start. There is no valid reason in this day and age to have more than 2. They're not going to have to go down the pit to support the family (or perhaps they're needed to bring in more benefits) and they're not needed as insurance in case some of the others die off.

The nasty party can't even tackle this low-hanging fruit, so what hope is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sorry for coming over all Daily Mail but here it is; There is a homeless hostel near me. It is full of "vulnerable" women or families (many of them ethnic minorities) with 4 or 5 kids who don't work but were expecting a council house for being overcrowded. Unfortunately for them the Tories said that they could be placed in the private rental sector rather than given a big council house and they couldn't pay the rent (or didn't) so they are classed as homeless. Most of these families were also receiving much more than £500 per week in benefits which were slashed by the benefit cap (which meant they couldn't pay their rent). The hostels are normally outside the cap so local taxpayers council tax is used to keep them in local hostels which costs the council a fortune (that or expensive hotels). I know this is probably uncharitable of me but I think it is a waste of taxpayers money to keep people who couldn't naturally afford to stay in London (except via benefits) in London at any cost. It also means that people in work who don't receive benefits have to compete with those people for rental properties which is totally unfair because not only are they receiving benefits to pay their rent but those benefits come from the taxes of workers who they are competing with. I honestly think that although it is sad, they simply have to move out of London just like many non-benefit recipients do when they can no longer afford to live here. There is no god-given right to live, unemployed in the most expensive city on earth whilst costing the country a fortune in benefits.

I agree 100% if we stopped doing that housing in London would be a lot cheaper and fairer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to a dramatisation of the diary of Samuel Pepes.

It is 1667 and the navy,( for whom Pepes works) is under attack from the dutch.

Pepes, seeing defeat for the English, sends his wife and father to the countryside to bury his Gold and cash. £1300 of it.

Meanwhile, the sailors his department is supposed to arrange payment for the service in the previous naval war, are starving on the streets.

Nothing changes it appears...the clerks get their pay, the workers actually starve. and in 1667, they actually starved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sport England is committed to helping people and communities across the country create sporting habits for life.

This means investing in organisations and projects that will get more people playing sport and creating opportunities for people to excel at their chosen sport.

They should get in touch with the England footie team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of ours works at the local council at the department of "children sports activities". We could easily cut the whole department and nothing would really happen. Schools/parents/charities can easilly pick up this area.

I remember seeing local council leaflets about 'gentle bike rides for women' - free, with a nice kind council escort in case you were feeling wobbly.

Around the same time there were questionnaires saying cuts had to be made, and would we prefer them to cut a) children's services, b] old people's services, c) libraries?

No d) frills like gentle bike rides and all the other stuff councils never used to do.

Of course they had already decided they wanted to cut libraries and had framed the question to get the answer they wanted.

Edited by Mrs Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sorry for coming over all Daily Mail but here it is; There is a homeless hostel near me. It is full of "vulnerable" women or families (many of them ethnic minorities) with 4 or 5 kids who don't work but were expecting a council house for being overcrowded. Unfortunately for them the Tories said that they could be placed in the private rental sector rather than given a big council house and they couldn't pay the rent (or didn't) so they are classed as homeless. Most of these families were also receiving much more than £500 per week in benefits which were slashed by the benefit cap (which meant they couldn't pay their rent). The hostels are normally outside the cap so local taxpayers council tax is used to keep them in local hostels which costs the council a fortune (that or expensive hotels). I know this is probably uncharitable of me but I think it is a waste of taxpayers money to keep people who couldn't naturally afford to stay in London (except via benefits) in London at any cost. It also means that people in work who don't receive benefits have to compete with those people for rental properties which is totally unfair because not only are they receiving benefits to pay their rent but those benefits come from the taxes of workers who they are competing with. I honestly think that although it is sad, they simply have to move out of London just like many non-benefit recipients do when they can no longer afford to live here. There is no god-given right to live, unemployed in the most expensive city on earth whilst costing the country a fortune in benefits.

+1

Totally perverse situation.

My 61 year old mum( still working age for 3 more years) is a case in point, she gets full housing benefit of £500 a monthy as well as council tax reduction ,she lives in a one bedroom housing association bungalow with a decent garden, whilst i pay £625 a month for a tiny one bedroom flat out of my own pocket.

What a bizarre country where someone can live rent free in a much much nicer place whilst other suckers are done out of their earned income to live in worse accomodation. My mum is aware of my feelings but at the end of the day she didnt make the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing local council leaflets about 'gentle bike rides for women' - free, with a nice kind council escort in case you were feeling wobbly.

Around the same time there were questionnaires saying cuts had to be made, and would we prefer them to cut a) children's services, b] old people's services, c) libraries?

No d) frills like gentle bike rides and all the other stuff councils never used to do.

Of course they had already decided they wanted to cut libraries and had framed the question to get the answer they wanted.

I volunteer for the council Work Clubs.

Maybe there were volunteers running the gentle rides.

True, that there is a Council person involved, but in our case it is no more than a few hours per week and is part of the Community Development group.

However any leaflets, press releases etc are all handled by a whole raft of council people whose job it is to protect the image of the council...the last leaflet led to our staff member being hauled over the coals as the logo was on the right rather than the left of the page...that led to at least three meetings involving our staff member and every increasing ranks as this "issue" passed up the line. Our staff member is now going on a refresher course for council PR policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that employment revolving around and dependent on things like the position of a spam leaflet logo. Most of the leaflets will get a glance at best and go straight in the bin for the tip.

No wonder UK growth is so high and the economy is recovering so fast.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that employment revolving around and dependent on things like the position of a spam leaflet logo. Most of the leaflets will get a glance at best and go straight in the bin for the tip.

No wonder UK growth is so high and the economy is recovering so fast.

This particular leaflet was on a A4 sheet telling of the Local Work clubs, and they were opening new one.

I suggested in a previous meeting, that maybe, in order to attract the local unemployed, they could call the local radio station to get a piece on air.

My council worker was in fact "qualified" to make the request to the station. The station were keen to do it and turned up before the opening day, at the donated site and met with my worker who did the interview, explained what the clubs were for and handed over the leaflet, which she had done at home.

It appears the real offence was that the "official" radio voice of the council should have been there to "supervise".

This is control freakery in the extreme in my view, and shows a complete lack of trust in "media qualified" member of their own staff.

The radio article went out, I havent heard it, but really, what could possibly have gone wrong...it was "free" advertising on mass media about a good cause to help the local unemployed.

It seems to me that the membership awareness was the last thing on the councils mind, it was the impression they were keen to control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sorry for coming over all Daily Mail but here it is; There is a homeless hostel near me. It is full of "vulnerable" women or families (many of them ethnic minorities) with 4 or 5 kids who don't work but were expecting a council house for being overcrowded. Unfortunately for them the Tories said that they could be placed in the private rental sector rather than given a big council house and they couldn't pay the rent (or didn't) so they are classed as homeless. Most of these families were also receiving much more than £500 per week in benefits which were slashed by the benefit cap (which meant they couldn't pay their rent). The hostels are normally outside the cap so local taxpayers council tax is used to keep them in local hostels which costs the council a fortune (that or expensive hotels). I know this is probably uncharitable of me but I think it is a waste of taxpayers money to keep people who couldn't naturally afford to stay in London (except via benefits) in London at any cost. It also means that people in work who don't receive benefits have to compete with those people for rental properties which is totally unfair because not only are they receiving benefits to pay their rent but those benefits come from the taxes of workers who they are competing with. I honestly think that although it is sad, they simply have to move out of London just like many non-benefit recipients do when they can no longer afford to live here. There is no god-given right to live, unemployed in the most expensive city on earth whilst costing the country a fortune in benefits.

Putting my NIMBY hat on - London can keep them. If they really need 'cleansing' from London then send them ALL to the Isles of Sheppey and rename it to The Ghetto.

The rest of the country doesn't want these troubled families causing trouble in their area and generally making the place look untidy <_<

I think areas of Kent such as Hastings, Folkestone and Margate seem to be setting the trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting my NIMBY hat on - London can keep them. If they really need 'cleansing' from London then send them ALL to the Isles of Sheppey and rename it to The Ghetto.

The rest of the country doesn't want these troubled families causing trouble in their area and generally making the place look untidy <_<

I think areas of Kent such as Hastings, Folkestone and Margate seem to be setting the trend.

Maybe Birmingham or Bradford :P will do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to a dramatisation of the diary of Samuel Pepes.

It is 1667 and the navy,( for whom Pepes works) is under attack from the dutch.

Pepes, seeing defeat for the English, sends his wife and father to the countryside to bury his Gold and cash. £1300 of it.

Meanwhile, the sailors his department is supposed to arrange payment for the service in the previous naval war, are starving on the streets.

Nothing changes it appears...the clerks get their pay, the workers actually starve. and in 1667, they actually starved.

I hope he took better care of his gold than he did his Parmesan cheese. Didn't he bury that and forget where it was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I volunteer for the council Work Clubs.

Maybe there were volunteers running the gentle rides.

True, that there is a Council person involved, but in our case it is no more than a few hours per week and is part of the Community Development group.

However any leaflets, press releases etc are all handled by a whole raft of council people whose job it is to protect the image of the council...the last leaflet led to our staff member being hauled over the coals as the logo was on the right rather than the left of the page...that led to at least three meetings involving our staff member and every increasing ranks as this "issue" passed up the line. Our staff member is now going on a refresher course for council PR policy.

Another council 'frill' I particularly 'enjoyed' was a pile of full colour leaflets in the library about Not Drinking And Driving At Christmas. It contained lots of helpful advice about delicious non-alcoholic cocktails to enjoy instead of booze. Presumably it never occurred to whoever dreamed this up to help justify their salary, that the sort of people who are going to drink and drive are hardly likely to be influenced by nice helpful leaflets from the council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another council 'frill' I particularly 'enjoyed' was a pile of full colour leaflets in the library about Not Drinking And Driving At Christmas.

You still have a library?

Kirklees set to close 24 of its 26 libraries
Situation is 'only the worst in a succession of similar cuts throughout the country', say campaigners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still have a library?

Kirklees set to close 24 of its 26 libraries
Situation is 'only the worst in a succession of similar cuts throughout the country', say campaigners

Comments from the article;

255DegreesSouth

I live within Kirklees (North). Kirklees councillors are proposing to increase council tax by 1.6%. My bin collection is reduced to being emptied twice a month, the street lights are out late at night, the local roads still have massive potholes from 2 years ago, my local swimming pool and gym are to close, the bottle recycling has stopped and now my local library is to close. Why am I paying so much?

and a reply

Glycon 255DegreesSouth

From today's Huddersfield Daily Examiner:

Kirklees Council is advertising for a new director with a salary up to £121,000
Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting my NIMBY hat on - London can keep them. If they really need 'cleansing' from London then send them ALL to the Isles of Sheppey and rename it to The Ghetto.

The rest of the country doesn't want these troubled families causing trouble in their area and generally making the place look untidy <_<

I think areas of Kent such as Hastings, Folkestone and Margate seem to be setting the trend.

Fair point though - why should the rest of the country have London's problems dumped on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got one they can cut all the electoral services departments to the bone. Instead of continually mailing everyone on a monthly/3 monthly basis depending on where you live, how about leaving it up to people to register themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still have a library?

url]

The council did try to close it (small local branch) but there was a massive protest, with personal support from our LD MP, which was a bit ironic since the council was LD (leader so anxious to close it was banged up not so long ago for having kiddie porn on his computer. Massive Schadenfreude moment for me.). The library is very well used, inc. by a lot of families with young children, so they could not use their favourite argument that 'nobody but a few old people' use it. Very far from the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40pc rise in directors salaries in Labour council but still pleading poverty. No reduction in vanity projects, PR Sept or councillors/expenses though. I vote for no-one any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.