DWP and select committees

There is an argument that recent select committees and over sight committees provide very clear statements of the current situation regarding all benefits and contract. In most cases the evidence is damning
I question why this evidence cannot be more effectively used by claiments within the appeals process or in the legal processes.
This would possibly lead to reviews that would make improvements to a system.
I have spend some time taking the key points out of these committee meetings . Think about the implications
If Practitioners are damning and statements indicate the issues then there are grounds for the use of the statements

Providers expose the challenges of the Work Programme

Assessment is critical to obtaining results. A 4 mins assessment is not sufficient time to put information together.
Time set aside for advisers at DWP i clearly not enough and reduces the effectiveness.
The handover time is a challenge. co-ordinations is seen as a weakness.
Loan parents safeguards are seen as critical. Their well being.
Job centre plus are not well briefed on homelessness. This can mean communication failures. lost letters and sanction issues.
The committee's highlight that the infrastructure set up for programmes have weaknesses.
Clarity at DWP is clearly needed. Staff need to be fully briefed so claiments know the options and can make informed decisions.
One Provider states they are less than keen to promote. If the Providers are concerned about the promotion of the Work Programme. They are asked as to what changes need to be made. The referals are not occcuring with sufficient information. Esa claiments are worth more than the jsa as the Esa claiments require more support
Self employed people can get their leaflets produced under Work Programme.
Large numbers of in appropriate referalls Work Capability assessments need to be looked at.
Sanctions are seen as not positive. If the assessment is wrong and the questions are not asked the Sanctions are then a barrier.

A Template Letter to send to your MP or Lord about Welfare Card

A Template Letter to send to your MP or Lord about Welfare Card

ADDRESS

ADDRESS1

ADDRESS2

COUNTY

POSTCODE

EMAIL:

DATE

Dear Enter MP/Peers name here

I am writing to ask you to vote against the Introduction of Welfare Cards for those on Welfare in UK. While this is illegal at present (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217101/Iain-Duncan-Smith-No-booze-smart-cards-benefit-claimants-spend-handouts-drugs-alcohol.html), I hope you will be as horrified as claimants are to see the Private Members Bill tabled By MP Alec Shelbrooke.

The arguments for this bill are discriminatory, and will only induce further stigmatisation of claimants leading to a failure to the ‘right to live’ (Article 8 & Article 14 HRA) as others in the UK currently enjoy who are employed. It also will lead to further rises in Crime particularly Hate Crime towards those on benefits.

While the government could argue it is the exception of ‘the economic welfare of the country’ this scheme would cost the taxpayer huge amounts of taxpayers’ money to implement and is NOT value for money. Many claimants who have paid into the welfare state over their years of work life who have found themselves out of work or sick and disabled is social engineering, forcing them to buy goods from government sanctioned suppliers when in many cases goods can be bought cheaper elsewhere. Just for the record flat screen TV’s are the only kind of TV we can buy since analogue ones were deemed bad for environment, and under the forced Digital Switchover many were given Sky boxes or  BT Vision, Virgin at a small discount of the original cost of a TV Package, so this is another untruth being bandied about by media and government ministers alike.

This will prevent claimants from ie; enjoying a family meal, buying birthday cards & presents, having a social life like meeting a friend for coffee or going to the pub for an odd drink with friends, buying petrol to get to see friends/ family members not living locally and medical appointments at hospitals and access to public transport.

This is a National disgrace and outrage that the state should dictate a person’s life for some, while majority UK enjoy all the freedoms afforded to them given the UK does not have the social issues many other countries face.

I feel the introduction of this will reflect badly around the world that the UK which prides itself on fairness and justice, to oppress it citizens like this based on a false ideology of ‘Scroungers & Skivers’.

I hope you will vote against this bill to stop anymore hardship falling on those who have the misfortune to be unable to work or find employment, and god forbid you fall into a position in life where you are in a claimants shoes.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/centrelink-begin-welfare-ban-on-booze-tobacco/story-e6freuy9-1226415044967

http://australia.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/Australian-Welfare-Payments-go-Plastic-1265.php

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-14-no-discrimination.php

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-8-right-to-a-private-and-family-life.php

Yours Faithfully

'Millions of low-income households' face council tax rise

Example of increase in annual payments for 'band B' house

Council scheme*	Single adult (Part-time), no children	Single parent (Part-time) with children	Single parent (full-time) with children in childcare	Single parent (part-time) with children in childcare	Couple (one full-time earner) with children
Type 1	£96	£96	£96	£96	£96
Type 2	£225	£225	£225	£225	£225
Type 3	£255	£446	£577	£577	£304
*The effect of new council tax support schemes was analysed by the Resolution Foundation and placed in four categories: type 1 (no change), type 2 (moderate increase), type 3 (large increase) and type 4(severe increase). An explanation of their method is available here:http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/media/downloads/No_Clear_Benefit.pdf All ADDING UP TO A CONCERNING TIME FOR THOSE ON LOWER INCOMES The 1% cap seems to apply as an income but not on ,most outgoings. Taking more into poverty

Universal Job Match-How to Register

The Universal Job Match is the U.K Goverment's latest approach to assisting or monitoring the Job seekers and assisting them in finding work. With computers located at most Job Centres throughout the country the burden of proof of search for work is now heading into the Job Seekers
Yet on Social media there is no indication as to how Job Seekers should discover how to use the system.
I recorded this film as a contribution to support those using onthedole.com. cjss.org and Benefits2work.com
I feel that if new systems are put into place they should be matched by those with an understanding contributing in a open learning option.
Clearly the system will be used in a Job Search Audit by DWP and the Job Seeker. It will into the Job Seekers agreement . However there could be an argument that if you haven't had the training then you may not understand how to use it. I set up 1 site in respect of that.

work programme-realities-real story

The reality is that it is a good way of buying time for Government stats. If you look at the stories on Youtube it is clear Fudging is the name of game.
Definitions are clearly the game that is payed. The long term result is often the challenge in the climate
31% at May 2013 is a very unlikely target unless the system is changed.
Being below profile is clearly an issue.
July 13 is clearly a date that is highlighted.
The providers are going to hit a barrier. Performance requires increase by all Providers. But the economy is a massive problem with the statistics .

Reality wise is the system is clearly a failure and new excuses will have to be made in the coming months.
There is a time buying situation here. Probably a new announcement
Mrs Margaret Hodge asks the Bust question. clearly Robert Devereux states they expect the Providers to go Bust.
Third Party support is clearly not happening according to DWP evaluation. This is not featured as the failure by the government department
Creaming and Parking is regularly going on Margaret Hodge the Chair stated Mr Devereux is responsible for this as the Government issuer of contracts.
However you do not see him dragged through like IDS
IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGES
It is likely that the government does not expect to achieve. nd it is easier to be negative about claiments rather than work with them. Clearly the evaulation is that negative targeting of the claiment is easier.than putting the required resource in the area.

Ed Miliband points raised in the Commoms are correct. Whilst the stats are looking good on unemployment the Jan 2013 announcements do not cover the retail cuts

Lithuanian part time worker

The reality wise is she has worked in the UK. has the skills and may well be offered the work. she speaks fluent english The catch 22 is that the Benefit system does have catch 22's What are your views?