Coming to a computer screen near you, the final degrading step that a person who is already ground down by the benefits system in the UK has to undergo.
I have been poked, prodded, lied about, forced to travel near enough 200 miles to fight my case and now I'm called for a Work Focussed Interview. This is an interview that will most probably be carried out between me and a twenty-something slip of a girl (or man) who has had one job in their life, other than a paper-round while still at school.
The idea of this interview is to tell me that I should be doing this, that and the other to find a job where the employer will not employ me, or if they do, they will most probably ask me to leave after a week because of my disability. I mean, what employer wants an employee that has trouble concentrating in the morning and has trouble staying awake in the afternoon, needs to get out of a normal chair after about 15-20 minutes to loosen his knee joints, can hardly climb stairs (and so is a fire hazard), cannot lift his hands above his head and cannot stand for more than a few minutes.
Yet this is the indignity I have to face on Tuesday. I have to pray that I can park near the DWP office on the other side of town and that they do not want me to go upstairs to an interview room. On top of all this, I have to hope that I do not do, or say, the wrong thing and have the DWP "sanction" me. For those outside the UK, this is where the Department for Works and Pensions arbitrarily decide that I have breached their rules and stop all of my benefits. Not some of my benefits, we are talking, for a first offence (supposedly), all of my benefits. This will mean that my wife and I will have no money for food, heating or light, but we will owe our landlord £200 for the two weeks of rent that will not be paid, if not more if the council do not restart the payments after the fortnight.
The standard working period for the DWP is a fortnight, as, in the past, unemployed people had to sign on for their benefit and then get paid this often. This is not a problem for the clerks in their centrally heated offices who can mark off two weeks on a calendar easily enough. For businesses and banks this is unworkable. It seems that direct debits and the like can only be paid monthly, that is, on the same date every month, days do not come into it unless the 14th falls on a weekend, in which case it used to be paid on the Monday following.
Now, I think to normal people, the problem will be becoming obvious, some months have five weeks in them, in fact, the only month that is an exact four week period is a non-leap year February. So, although the 14th of January is on a Tuesday this year, it is not an even number of weeks from the 14th of February, and so on and so on. This means that budgeting on benefits is an amazing feat of accounting, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer needed to do it, he would fail unless, as he does, he had a large bank balance in the black.
So, the Minister for Works and Pensions has decided to bring in a system whereby benefits claimants will be paid monthly. It has already cost £50M of lost money already to prepare the system to do it, but it doesn't work. So will future sanctions be for a minimum of a month?
The government, which, yet again, has been caught in a PR lie, is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public by making every claimant guilty of "shirking" and cheating the system by use of the media. This government by Upper Class Twits who only have the needs of themselves and their own classmates from Public School or University in mind. These cheats who started by preventing themselves being voted out in the first days of their filling the seats of power with a bunch of sycophantic cronies who are all filling jobs for which they have little or any qualification for.
The people are getting fed up with the austerity package they are being forced to undergo - pay rises capped to 1% while MPs vote themselves a massive pay rise; high paid people get tax cuts in their favour; power companies raise prices by 3% and train companies raise fares by 6%. There will come a time when the people can take no more hypocrisy.
Showing posts with label Statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statistics. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 January 2014
Monday, 11 March 2013
No Ta! I want None Of The Above
In the 1995 film "Brewster's Millions", Montgomery Brewster, played, in this incarnation by Richard Pryor, gets an idea to waste money by running for public office. He is so fed up with the corruption that fuels the other contestants he launches his campaign to "Vote None of the Above"!
It is too late, in the film, to have the ballot sheets reprinted, so, thanks to an American voting law, the electorate is allowed to write on the sheet the party they want to vote for - NONE OF THE ABOVE.
At the conclusion of the election, even though Monty has resigned from the campaign, the electorate have responded with a massive majority for "None of the Above".
Would this work in the United Kingdom? Without a charismatic leader to take the peoples imaginations and spin them through myriad hoops, could the electorate get off their backsides and vote None of the Above?
The electorate in this country are disenchanted with the politicians that we have. One bunch is doing all they can for their mates in big business, so that when they retire from politics they will have a lucrative consultants fee; the other lot lining the pockets of their rich mates so that they will employ them in a consultancy position in their big businesses and pay them a large retainer. Which lot do we, the people want? None of the Above!
If the country, full of apathetic voters, like the mother of the Downs Syndrome child shown on the news in the run up to the Eastleigh by-election showed, people do not vote because they get cardboard cutouts of the last lot in if they vote for the other lot. As soon as candidates become MPs they seem to forget about their constituents and focus on their bank balance, squeezing expenses, getting paid their £1000 a week. What do we the grass-roots voters want - None of the Above!
We want no apathy, we want people to use their vote, to elect a government that can make this country "Great" again, we are fed up of living in Britain, we want it to be Great Britain again. We don't want these sycophantic university brats who have had little or no experience of life outside Public School and politics running our country, we want, nay need people who know what they are doing.
Do we want a history student in charge of the Exchequer? Do we want a soldier in charge of Benefits and Pensions? Do we want a TV presenter representing the disabled? Do we want a director of a house building company in charge of the Armed Forces? No, we want None of the Above.
Although the Registration of Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) (Amendment) Order 2005 stipulates that no political party can be registered in the UK under the name "None of the Above", there is no legislation against a person changing their name by deed poll and appearing on the ballot paper as "None Of the Above". This does, however, bring about problems of order on the ballot paper as "Above, None of the" would be at the top of the paper, not the bottom! If the candidate was to change their name to "Of The Above None" they would end up in the middle.
My thought, although there can be no political party named "None of the Above", does this exclude the option being given on the ballot? Does this preclude the option of voicing one's dissent to the political system?
I believe that a wake up call should be sent to the political parties of the United Kingdom that the time has come to stop thinking of themselves and start thinking of the well-being of the country and the people in it. As John F. Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country".
I believe that a vote of no-confidence, not only in the Government, but also the political parties and their politicians is needed. At the next by-election for a Constituency Seat at Westminster, or, if it comes first, a General Election, the electorate should, in all decency, spoil their ballot papers with the words "None of the Above".
So, to vote None of the Above, do not stay sat in your house on election day, this just says you are apathetic and lazy, you do not want to take part in the election process. Get up, get out of your house, go to the polling station and vote - "None of the Above".
Then, to highlight the choice of people in your constituency, send a letter to the returning officer of your constituency asking how many spoiled papers were spoiled with "None of the Above". (This may be better being asked in advance of the day, so that they have a chance to set up the count for it.) Ask your local paper to enquire how many papers were spoiled in this manner and if the constituency had in fact elected "None of the Above".
If the movement to vote "None of the Above" were to become prominent enough, it might be that the returning officers would look for this statistic to be included in their returns. It might be that rather than using half-truths or manipulations of the truth, that Members of Parliament would again earn the right to be called "Honourable", an appellation that makes me laugh when I hear "The honourable member for Chingford and Woodford Green" mentioned.
So please, remember, when you are called to vote, get out of your house, go to the polling station and vote -
It is too late, in the film, to have the ballot sheets reprinted, so, thanks to an American voting law, the electorate is allowed to write on the sheet the party they want to vote for - NONE OF THE ABOVE.
At the conclusion of the election, even though Monty has resigned from the campaign, the electorate have responded with a massive majority for "None of the Above".
Would this work in the United Kingdom? Without a charismatic leader to take the peoples imaginations and spin them through myriad hoops, could the electorate get off their backsides and vote None of the Above?
The electorate in this country are disenchanted with the politicians that we have. One bunch is doing all they can for their mates in big business, so that when they retire from politics they will have a lucrative consultants fee; the other lot lining the pockets of their rich mates so that they will employ them in a consultancy position in their big businesses and pay them a large retainer. Which lot do we, the people want? None of the Above!
If the country, full of apathetic voters, like the mother of the Downs Syndrome child shown on the news in the run up to the Eastleigh by-election showed, people do not vote because they get cardboard cutouts of the last lot in if they vote for the other lot. As soon as candidates become MPs they seem to forget about their constituents and focus on their bank balance, squeezing expenses, getting paid their £1000 a week. What do we the grass-roots voters want - None of the Above!
We want no apathy, we want people to use their vote, to elect a government that can make this country "Great" again, we are fed up of living in Britain, we want it to be Great Britain again. We don't want these sycophantic university brats who have had little or no experience of life outside Public School and politics running our country, we want, nay need people who know what they are doing.
Do we want a history student in charge of the Exchequer? Do we want a soldier in charge of Benefits and Pensions? Do we want a TV presenter representing the disabled? Do we want a director of a house building company in charge of the Armed Forces? No, we want None of the Above.
Although the Registration of Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) (Amendment) Order 2005 stipulates that no political party can be registered in the UK under the name "None of the Above", there is no legislation against a person changing their name by deed poll and appearing on the ballot paper as "None Of the Above". This does, however, bring about problems of order on the ballot paper as "Above, None of the" would be at the top of the paper, not the bottom! If the candidate was to change their name to "Of The Above None" they would end up in the middle.
My thought, although there can be no political party named "None of the Above", does this exclude the option being given on the ballot? Does this preclude the option of voicing one's dissent to the political system?
I believe that a wake up call should be sent to the political parties of the United Kingdom that the time has come to stop thinking of themselves and start thinking of the well-being of the country and the people in it. As John F. Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country".
I believe that a vote of no-confidence, not only in the Government, but also the political parties and their politicians is needed. At the next by-election for a Constituency Seat at Westminster, or, if it comes first, a General Election, the electorate should, in all decency, spoil their ballot papers with the words "None of the Above".
So, to vote None of the Above, do not stay sat in your house on election day, this just says you are apathetic and lazy, you do not want to take part in the election process. Get up, get out of your house, go to the polling station and vote - "None of the Above".
Then, to highlight the choice of people in your constituency, send a letter to the returning officer of your constituency asking how many spoiled papers were spoiled with "None of the Above". (This may be better being asked in advance of the day, so that they have a chance to set up the count for it.) Ask your local paper to enquire how many papers were spoiled in this manner and if the constituency had in fact elected "None of the Above".
If the movement to vote "None of the Above" were to become prominent enough, it might be that the returning officers would look for this statistic to be included in their returns. It might be that rather than using half-truths or manipulations of the truth, that Members of Parliament would again earn the right to be called "Honourable", an appellation that makes me laugh when I hear "The honourable member for Chingford and Woodford Green" mentioned.
So please, remember, when you are called to vote, get out of your house, go to the polling station and vote -
NONE OF THE ABOVE!
Friday, 4 January 2013
Foot in Mouth Syndrome
We've all done it, opened
our mouths before putting our brain into gear. I've done it plenty of times
myself, both vocally and online, it's very easy to do. The big thing is, I'm
not a minister in the Government, and they should know better than to spurt out
idiotic comments anywhere near journalists or in the house where it is
reported.
What has Iain Duncan Smith
gone and done now? The minister for the Department of Work and Pensions has
only gone and said that ...
"Figures
... show jobless benefits rose 20% in the last five years, compared with an
average 12% rise in private sector pay."
So, here comes the
mathematics lesson.
Your basic pay (using the minimum wage and a working week of 35 hours) is £216.65
So 12% raise on this is £26 per week.
Personal Allowance rate is £71
And 20% of £71 is £14.20 pw;
Who has the bigger rise?
OK, I will allow that full rate High Care and Mobility components give you £131.50 and a 20% rise of that is £26.30 but this is a 20% average rise.
As Leonard H. Courtney, (1832-1918), later Lord Courtney, said in a speech in
After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, "Lies - damn lies - and statistics," still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of.
So let's look at the real figures. I got so locked in to all the Minister's 8%s
(the difference between Wages and Benefits, the 8% Working Tax increase that he quoted as 58% and the 8% of Foreign Claimants that were fraudulent) that I used 8 years not 5.
I looked around the net for
four sets of figures, and rather than using percentages alone, I thought I'd
add in the ACTUAL cash difference in each case.
The results are amazing and
do, sort of, bear out his figures, the average wage rose by 13% and benefit
rose by 28% (politicians always round up anything over 0.5 and down if it's under). However, and here's the big shock, the Pound In Your Pocket change was five and a half times MORE for the worker than the "Scrounger". In fact, their money went up by the total of what the benefit claimant gets a year.
| 2004 | 2012 | £ Change | % Change | |||
| Average Wage | £25,780.00 | £ 29,157.00 | £ 3,377.00 | 13.10% | (a) | |
| Benefit | £ 2,299.41 | £ 2,936.25 | £ 636.84 | 27.70% | (b) |
(a) Figures from www.ons.gov.uk
|
(b) Figures from www.ifs.org.uk
So then we look at the other BIG winners over the past eight years, the Members of Parliament themselves. I know "Call Me Dave" has made them take an actual pay cut this year, but I have this strange feeling they can afford it!
For, in the past eight years the basic backbencher has had their income from the House raised by £8,273, two and a half times that of the average worker! Even the percentage is higher at 14%.
The thing you really need to sit down for is ... the honourable(?) member for Woodford Green and Chingford, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith has had a pay rise of ... wait for it ... ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR PERCENT!!!!!!
| 2004 | 2012 | £ Change | % Change | |||
| MP | £57,485.00 | £ 65,758.00 | £ 8,273.00 | 14.39% | (c) | |
| Iain Duncan Smith | £57,485.00 | £134,565.00 | £ 77,080.00 | 134.09% | (c) |
(c) Figures from www.parliament.uk
Seventy Seven Thousand pounds per year increase! That's two and a half times the average workers gross pay in a rise! Kettles being called black by certain pots methinks!
Now I know we are struggling for money in the country, but hang on a minute Mr George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave "strivers" a tax cut (before capping their Working Tax Credit), I thought the idea was to make money, not throw it out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)