Low-hanging Fruit Pete. Nothing personal.
Current Affairs The Conservative Party
- Thread starter Ashtonian
- Start date
- Status
Low-hanging Fruit Pete. Nothing personal.
Just a bit of Jolly Spiffing Banter , old bean . He has a face I would never tire of punching . Whopper .
* As a sidenote . My lad , on a night out last summer , got chatting to a homeless fella on his way home . Gave him £20 for a night in a shelter and breakfast . Which of the two has the most CLASS ?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I bet that's the only time your lad has given you money........
James Brokenshire, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Trust me, more out of his depth than Niasse ever was.
And a scum bag.
Trust me, more out of his depth than Niasse ever was.
And a scum bag.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Since Cameron only apologised because of the damning report (which was instigated by the Liverpool fans' shaming of the Labour government complicity in the cover-up [may Jack Straw rot in a special Leppings Lane themed Hell] and Andy Burnham's subsequent insistence, I hardly think the Tories deserve any credit. Good God, man.
He has no concept, nor concern, of the mechanics of politics here. His concern is securing Arlene's votes if it comes down to it to Westminster.
He speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to Brexit and even tried to reclaim Lough Foyle.
Madness. His advisors have a job on.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
I never said they should. Just said that she was Home Secretary when the last govt fessed up.
But has he got a boiler yet?
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Why, we're you worried none of us knew?
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Homelessness expected to rise further as Government scraps housing benefit for young people
Charities warned of dire consequences despite exemptions
Getty Images
More jobless youngers could be made to live on the streets as the Government moves ahead with plans to end housing support payments for under-21s.
The cut, which will apply to new Universal Credit claims made after April 1, was first announced by David Cameron and included in the Conservatives’ 2015 manifesto.
Despite calls by homelessness charities for Theresa May to break with her predecessor drop the policy, on Friday officials published secondary legislation to go ahead with the plans, while most MPs were at home in their constituencies.
Charities have pointed out that the plan will save almost no money and could drive up homelessness, and disproportionately affect LGBT people or those estranged from their families. Ms May previously promised to build a “country that works for everyone” and has ditched some policies supported by Mr Cameron.
Recent research by Heriot-Watt University found that once exemptions were included the policy would save just £3.3 million pounds. Researchers calculated that just 140 young people would have to be made homeless by the change for knock-on costs to mean the policy actually cost taxpayers more money overall.
Research by Housing charity Shelter reported earlier this found that five households are now being made homeless every hour.
A series of exemptions included in the legislation include people classed as vulnerable, families, and those who have been in work for at least six months prior to claiming – as well as those working at least 16 hours a week.
Roger Harding, director of campaigns, policy and communications at Shelter, warned that despite the exemptions “tampering with this vital safety net will result in more young people being left to fend for themselves on the streets”.
“The option of being able to live with your parents is not one that is open to everyone. These cuts will affect those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in desperately difficult situations,” he said.
“Whether these young people are escaping an abusive household or thrown out because of their sexuality, they’ll now have the added, sometimes impossible, burden of having to prove they can’t go home. If they can’t, their only option may be to sleep rough.”
Paul Noblet, of homelessness charity Centrepoint, said that the “ill-judged policy” risked forcing “thousands of young people on to the streets”.
“The government’s plans could both cost the tax payer more money than it saves and force more young people into homelessness,” he added.
Labour’s shadow Secretary of State for Housing John Healey said the policy would make homelessness worse.
“This disgraceful cut to housing support will leave thousands of young people with nowhere to go. Many could end up on the streets,” he warned.
“These young people are old enough to fight for their country but, in Theresa May’s Britain, not old enough to get the same help with housing costs as everyone else.
“Ministers would do well to remember that the shameful doubling of rough sleeping since 2010 is a direct result of decisions they have made. With this decision they will make the scandal of rising homelessness worse still.”
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron branded the cut “shameful” and suggested those without family to turn to would be worst hit.
“These cuts are an utter disgrace. Many of our most vulnerable young people rely on housing benefit for a roof over their head, especially if they have no family to turn to,” he said.
“Without this funding there will be a rise in young people forced to live on the streets and living at risk of physical and emotional abuse. This is a shameful decision by a heartless Conservative Government.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions suggested that the cut to support was actually good for young people.
“We want to make sure that 18 to 21-year-olds do not slip straight into a life on benefits, which is why we are helping young people get the training, skills and experience they need to move into a job and build a career,” the spokesperson said.
“This government is delivering on its commitment to ensure young people in the benefit system face the same choices as young people who work but may not be able to afford to leave home.
“We know that personal circumstances will differ so we have worked closely with charities and the housing sector to develop a fair and robust set of exemptions to protect the most vulnerable young people.”
Charities warned of dire consequences despite exemptions
- Jon Stone Political Correspondent
Getty Images
More jobless youngers could be made to live on the streets as the Government moves ahead with plans to end housing support payments for under-21s.
The cut, which will apply to new Universal Credit claims made after April 1, was first announced by David Cameron and included in the Conservatives’ 2015 manifesto.
Despite calls by homelessness charities for Theresa May to break with her predecessor drop the policy, on Friday officials published secondary legislation to go ahead with the plans, while most MPs were at home in their constituencies.
Charities have pointed out that the plan will save almost no money and could drive up homelessness, and disproportionately affect LGBT people or those estranged from their families. Ms May previously promised to build a “country that works for everyone” and has ditched some policies supported by Mr Cameron.
Recent research by Heriot-Watt University found that once exemptions were included the policy would save just £3.3 million pounds. Researchers calculated that just 140 young people would have to be made homeless by the change for knock-on costs to mean the policy actually cost taxpayers more money overall.
Research by Housing charity Shelter reported earlier this found that five households are now being made homeless every hour.
A series of exemptions included in the legislation include people classed as vulnerable, families, and those who have been in work for at least six months prior to claiming – as well as those working at least 16 hours a week.
Roger Harding, director of campaigns, policy and communications at Shelter, warned that despite the exemptions “tampering with this vital safety net will result in more young people being left to fend for themselves on the streets”.
“The option of being able to live with your parents is not one that is open to everyone. These cuts will affect those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in desperately difficult situations,” he said.
“Whether these young people are escaping an abusive household or thrown out because of their sexuality, they’ll now have the added, sometimes impossible, burden of having to prove they can’t go home. If they can’t, their only option may be to sleep rough.”
Paul Noblet, of homelessness charity Centrepoint, said that the “ill-judged policy” risked forcing “thousands of young people on to the streets”.
“The government’s plans could both cost the tax payer more money than it saves and force more young people into homelessness,” he added.
Labour’s shadow Secretary of State for Housing John Healey said the policy would make homelessness worse.
“This disgraceful cut to housing support will leave thousands of young people with nowhere to go. Many could end up on the streets,” he warned.
“These young people are old enough to fight for their country but, in Theresa May’s Britain, not old enough to get the same help with housing costs as everyone else.
“Ministers would do well to remember that the shameful doubling of rough sleeping since 2010 is a direct result of decisions they have made. With this decision they will make the scandal of rising homelessness worse still.”
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron branded the cut “shameful” and suggested those without family to turn to would be worst hit.
“These cuts are an utter disgrace. Many of our most vulnerable young people rely on housing benefit for a roof over their head, especially if they have no family to turn to,” he said.
“Without this funding there will be a rise in young people forced to live on the streets and living at risk of physical and emotional abuse. This is a shameful decision by a heartless Conservative Government.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions suggested that the cut to support was actually good for young people.
“We want to make sure that 18 to 21-year-olds do not slip straight into a life on benefits, which is why we are helping young people get the training, skills and experience they need to move into a job and build a career,” the spokesperson said.
“This government is delivering on its commitment to ensure young people in the benefit system face the same choices as young people who work but may not be able to afford to leave home.
“We know that personal circumstances will differ so we have worked closely with charities and the housing sector to develop a fair and robust set of exemptions to protect the most vulnerable young people.”
A new low:
https://www.theguardian.com/society...st-to-life-as-single-parents?CMP=share_btn_tw
A Conservative minister has defended a decision to reduce benefits paid to widows and widowers with young children by claiming the old system risked stopping people from “readjusting” to life as a single parent.
Richard Harrington claimed that a societal shift in which women were more likely to work meant it was right to reduce the time over which payments were made. He also defended not extending the payments to unmarried but cohabiting couples by saying it might be too upsetting for them to provide evidence that they lived together.
Labour’s Stella Creasy accused the minister of using “justifications that sound like something from the dark ages” in a parliamentary debate over reforms to the widowed parent’s allowance – which is being renamed the bereavement support payment.
Government changes mean that from 6 April, bereaved parents will only receive payments for 18 months. Previously the payment lasted until children were 16 years old. The payment is based on the deceased spouse’s national insurance contribution and the maximum amount is £112.55 a week.
The benefit will also not be extended to include couples who are cohabiting but unmarried.
Creasy asked Harrington how the government could justify not paying the money for unmarried couples. Harrington claimed such a change would be expensive and complex to administer, adding: “Having to prove cohabitation could be a lengthy, complex process, which could cause distress at a time of bereavement.” Pushed by the Labour MP on what had driven the decision to time-limit the benefit, he said 18 months was seen as the “most critical short-term time”.
“I hope the honourable lady will agree that the old system could be unfair and complex, and could act as a trap preventing people from readjusting,” he added, claiming that the allowances were first brought into place in 1925.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...st-to-life-as-single-parents?CMP=share_btn_tw
A Conservative minister has defended a decision to reduce benefits paid to widows and widowers with young children by claiming the old system risked stopping people from “readjusting” to life as a single parent.
Richard Harrington claimed that a societal shift in which women were more likely to work meant it was right to reduce the time over which payments were made. He also defended not extending the payments to unmarried but cohabiting couples by saying it might be too upsetting for them to provide evidence that they lived together.
Labour’s Stella Creasy accused the minister of using “justifications that sound like something from the dark ages” in a parliamentary debate over reforms to the widowed parent’s allowance – which is being renamed the bereavement support payment.
Government changes mean that from 6 April, bereaved parents will only receive payments for 18 months. Previously the payment lasted until children were 16 years old. The payment is based on the deceased spouse’s national insurance contribution and the maximum amount is £112.55 a week.
The benefit will also not be extended to include couples who are cohabiting but unmarried.
Creasy asked Harrington how the government could justify not paying the money for unmarried couples. Harrington claimed such a change would be expensive and complex to administer, adding: “Having to prove cohabitation could be a lengthy, complex process, which could cause distress at a time of bereavement.” Pushed by the Labour MP on what had driven the decision to time-limit the benefit, he said 18 months was seen as the “most critical short-term time”.
“I hope the honourable lady will agree that the old system could be unfair and complex, and could act as a trap preventing people from readjusting,” he added, claiming that the allowances were first brought into place in 1925.
- Status