Human Rights Act to Apply to Benefit Claimants Too Sick To Work

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.

Why is this idea important?

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.

Prohibition of drugs causes crime, de-criminalise them!

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

target the right people

The genuinely ill should not be subject to benefit cuts – rather, we should look at the mothers who have many children but don't know the fathers, the many-member families in large houses paid-for by the state, parents who claim for children who live abroad.

Why is this idea important?

The genuinely ill should not be subject to benefit cuts – rather, we should look at the mothers who have many children but don't know the fathers, the many-member families in large houses paid-for by the state, parents who claim for children who live abroad.

Remove obstructive DWP rules on CTX and other in-work benefits

 

The idea that I am proposing is that the Government should take the advice of the 2006-07 Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee Report and review Council Tax benefits and the tapering off of all in-work benefits. The research has been done. The Report has been published. It’s available on-line on www.parliament.uk. Look at it again and give us back our freedom to go to work.

Millions of people in this country literally cannot afford to go to work because the DWP sets Council Tax benefits (or rebates) at such a low level. Many of the people on low incomes will not benefit at all from the recently announced raising of their income tax threshold because whatever they are given with one hand will be taken away by the other in reduced council tax benefit, (and, if applicable, reduced housing benefit too.) Their poverty will be perpetuated. Yet a Parliamentary Committee investigated CTX benefits and urged the Government to review these DWP rules as a matter of urgency three years ago.

In May 2007 a cross-party Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, chaired by Dr Phyllis Starkey, launched an enquiry into CTX benefit. This followed the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. Expert evidence and advice was given by several organisations, including the New Policy Institute, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and London Councils.

The Committee published its Report in August 2007. Paragraph 3 of its conclusions and recommendations finds that: “The council benefit taper, and its interaction with other parts of the tax and benefit system, can act as a disincentive to work. We recommend that the Government address this issue with some urgency and recognise the detrimental effects of the council tax benefit taper in its work on welfare reform.”

This recommendation was cross-referenced to Para. 17 of their Report which stated: “Sir Michael pointed out in his report on local government that the issue of work incentives is much wider than that of council tax reform. We Agree. Any reform is best considered in the context of wider welfare reform policy, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. As the Institute of Revenues Ratings and Valuations argued, a Government review of the council tax benefit taper is long overdue but the issue has been largely ignored by Government for some 20 years.”

And how does this translate into the reality of people’s lives? It means that benefits are tapered off so steeply that the amount people gain when taking on a minimum wage or part time job is so little that it doesn’t even cover the cost of transport to work. They are even worse off than living on benefits and cannot improve their lives by working. DWP regulations on Council Tax rebates prevent people from earning their living, and create difficulties for potential employers trying to take on new staff. It also prevents many people who, for various reasons such as poor health or new parenthood, can only work part time, from taking on a job, because they become liable for Council Tax before they even start paying income tax! So they have to remain on benefits even though, with a fairer CTX rebate system, they could work and be less of a burden on the state.

The Government Response to the Parliamentary Committee’s Report was published on 15 October 2007. The DWP dismissed the Report’s recommendation on the grounds that it was not affordable and that the only route for the poor to improve their lot was through the labour market. Yet the report had gone into great detail about how the poor were unable to improve their lot through the labour market because of the obstacles placed in their way by the DWP! This circularity of thought resulted in no progress in welfare reform and public money spent on this enquiry was spun into a vortex down the drain.

Governments pontificate about “the poor” as if they were a separate species or as idle creatures who must be bullied and cajoled into working. Or they talk about social mobility as a means to remove poverty, but we cannot all be, for example, lawyers, bankers or politicians. Here’s a really simple solution to the problem of poverty: pay people enough to live on. Reward them for working. Those who work in low status jobs are providing essential services for the rest of society. This is about recognising and rewarding their contribution and allowing them to live a decent life.  If employers cannot afford to pay a living wage to their employees then state subsidies become a necessity.

But the DWP has recently decided once more that tapering off these in-work benefits more gradually was still not affordable. Surely it’s more cost-effective for the State to support those in low-paid jobs with adequate in-work benefits than it is to leave people stagnating in long term unemployment, with all the costly social problems that that entails.  In-work benefits are cheaper than unemployment benefits. Cut costs. Reduce our dependence on the state. Restore our freedom to go to work. Enable employers to take on more staff. These DWP regulations are unnecessary and illiberal. Change them. Spread the burden of Council Tax fairly so people can go out and earn their living.

Why is this idea important?

 

The idea that I am proposing is that the Government should take the advice of the 2006-07 Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee Report and review Council Tax benefits and the tapering off of all in-work benefits. The research has been done. The Report has been published. It’s available on-line on www.parliament.uk. Look at it again and give us back our freedom to go to work.

Millions of people in this country literally cannot afford to go to work because the DWP sets Council Tax benefits (or rebates) at such a low level. Many of the people on low incomes will not benefit at all from the recently announced raising of their income tax threshold because whatever they are given with one hand will be taken away by the other in reduced council tax benefit, (and, if applicable, reduced housing benefit too.) Their poverty will be perpetuated. Yet a Parliamentary Committee investigated CTX benefits and urged the Government to review these DWP rules as a matter of urgency three years ago.

In May 2007 a cross-party Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, chaired by Dr Phyllis Starkey, launched an enquiry into CTX benefit. This followed the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. Expert evidence and advice was given by several organisations, including the New Policy Institute, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and London Councils.

The Committee published its Report in August 2007. Paragraph 3 of its conclusions and recommendations finds that: “The council benefit taper, and its interaction with other parts of the tax and benefit system, can act as a disincentive to work. We recommend that the Government address this issue with some urgency and recognise the detrimental effects of the council tax benefit taper in its work on welfare reform.”

This recommendation was cross-referenced to Para. 17 of their Report which stated: “Sir Michael pointed out in his report on local government that the issue of work incentives is much wider than that of council tax reform. We Agree. Any reform is best considered in the context of wider welfare reform policy, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. As the Institute of Revenues Ratings and Valuations argued, a Government review of the council tax benefit taper is long overdue but the issue has been largely ignored by Government for some 20 years.”

And how does this translate into the reality of people’s lives? It means that benefits are tapered off so steeply that the amount people gain when taking on a minimum wage or part time job is so little that it doesn’t even cover the cost of transport to work. They are even worse off than living on benefits and cannot improve their lives by working. DWP regulations on Council Tax rebates prevent people from earning their living, and create difficulties for potential employers trying to take on new staff. It also prevents many people who, for various reasons such as poor health or new parenthood, can only work part time, from taking on a job, because they become liable for Council Tax before they even start paying income tax! So they have to remain on benefits even though, with a fairer CTX rebate system, they could work and be less of a burden on the state.

The Government Response to the Parliamentary Committee’s Report was published on 15 October 2007. The DWP dismissed the Report’s recommendation on the grounds that it was not affordable and that the only route for the poor to improve their lot was through the labour market. Yet the report had gone into great detail about how the poor were unable to improve their lot through the labour market because of the obstacles placed in their way by the DWP! This circularity of thought resulted in no progress in welfare reform and public money spent on this enquiry was spun into a vortex down the drain.

Governments pontificate about “the poor” as if they were a separate species or as idle creatures who must be bullied and cajoled into working. Or they talk about social mobility as a means to remove poverty, but we cannot all be, for example, lawyers, bankers or politicians. Here’s a really simple solution to the problem of poverty: pay people enough to live on. Reward them for working. Those who work in low status jobs are providing essential services for the rest of society. This is about recognising and rewarding their contribution and allowing them to live a decent life.  If employers cannot afford to pay a living wage to their employees then state subsidies become a necessity.

But the DWP has recently decided once more that tapering off these in-work benefits more gradually was still not affordable. Surely it’s more cost-effective for the State to support those in low-paid jobs with adequate in-work benefits than it is to leave people stagnating in long term unemployment, with all the costly social problems that that entails.  In-work benefits are cheaper than unemployment benefits. Cut costs. Reduce our dependence on the state. Restore our freedom to go to work. Enable employers to take on more staff. These DWP regulations are unnecessary and illiberal. Change them. Spread the burden of Council Tax fairly so people can go out and earn their living.

Free Universities – Pay students – Freedom

Scrap university fees and pay students so that they do not start their carreers in debt – it is like slavery in a modern form. Look at the Scandinvaian systems where all education is FREE and each student is paid a minimum amount every month to cover basis living cost. University places are limited and you have to earn your place there by a points system and not like here where drop out rates are high!! 

 

The current system is just a total unnesseary layer of bureacarcy where students from less well off families have to prove their inability to pay – or you have a young man or woman who has wealthy parents but who are not willing to pay what does this young person do – total independance is important and society should encurage FREEDOM and EQUALITY but with an obligation to society for the education one has received.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap university fees and pay students so that they do not start their carreers in debt – it is like slavery in a modern form. Look at the Scandinvaian systems where all education is FREE and each student is paid a minimum amount every month to cover basis living cost. University places are limited and you have to earn your place there by a points system and not like here where drop out rates are high!! 

 

The current system is just a total unnesseary layer of bureacarcy where students from less well off families have to prove their inability to pay – or you have a young man or woman who has wealthy parents but who are not willing to pay what does this young person do – total independance is important and society should encurage FREEDOM and EQUALITY but with an obligation to society for the education one has received.

Better Democratic Rights for Jobseekers

To restore freedom Britain to Britain's unemployed by making New Deal IAP more flexible and  less fascist, because no one should be dictated to.  Especially when it happens to be CDG which stands for Career Development Group but does not develop careers.

The flexibility should be that where an unemployed person such as myself has already made provision for training (such as the AAT qualification as in my case) should therefore not be forced to attend these stupid idiotic new deal IAP schemes -route training as they have cheeek to call it. Because I have my own route back to work and it is the AAT qualification..

Why is this idea important?

To restore freedom Britain to Britain's unemployed by making New Deal IAP more flexible and  less fascist, because no one should be dictated to.  Especially when it happens to be CDG which stands for Career Development Group but does not develop careers.

The flexibility should be that where an unemployed person such as myself has already made provision for training (such as the AAT qualification as in my case) should therefore not be forced to attend these stupid idiotic new deal IAP schemes -route training as they have cheeek to call it. Because I have my own route back to work and it is the AAT qualification..

£45 per week maximum housing benefit.

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Issue a Card for Benefits (no Cash)

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

Why is this idea important?

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

No befefits for Working Immigrants

The UK appears to be the destination of many immigrants and refugees.  We obviously appear to have streets paved in gold.  The UK should make it clear that this is not a country of free hand out, thus converting the ‘grass is greener’ perception into ‘there is no grass’.  

Each of the following categories should be considered in the debate on British Citizenship.

 

  1. British Citizens: Those who are British Citizens and have the right to live and work and obtain benefits in UK
  2. Working Residents: Those who have the right to work and live in UK but should not be entitled to any UK provided benefits for at least five years after contributing to the UK tax and National Insurance funds.  Even then, they are not British Citizens and should be denied certain rights (eg housing provided by the state and state benefits as well as the right to vote). A Child of a Working Resident born in UK does not become a British Citizen as a right.
  3. Visitors: Those who have the right to be in UK on a short term visa (holiday makers, students, etc) but who should have no rights to any state benefit.
  4. Illegal Entrants:  Those who have no right to be in UK at all but are here illegally.  When discovered, they should be transferred back to their own Country immediately.

 

The discussion seems to be concentrated on getting as many people into potential ‘British Citizens’ status.  The emphasis should be on controlling those who are in UK as Working Residents and limiting their rights while resident in UK, setting very stringent rules and controls on permitting people to move from Working Residents to British Citizen. This should be an extreme privilege.

 

The discussion should be on the privileges that are given/not given to those living here under Working Residents and what happens if the person breaks the basic conditions of the privilege of being permitted to work and live in UK (eg enforced departure for anyone committing a criminal act).  The privileges for Working Residents should be extremely limited.  They should not be entitled to State aid of any form (eg housing, benefit, out-of-work benefit and free health treatment).  They should not have the Right to Vote.  No immigrant should be permitted to stay if he commits a criminal act while in the UK and this should take priority over an Individuals Human Rights or Appeal Courts.  Society should have more Rights than the individual.

Immigrants should only be admitted if we have a need for their skills or admitted as a student – I appreciate EU citizens may need different rules if UK takes no action to cancel existing EU rules.

 

This is not going to be an easy task but it should be possible to manage if, say, National Insurance Numbers are allocated so that Working Residents can be sorted from British Citizens.

Why is this idea important?

The UK appears to be the destination of many immigrants and refugees.  We obviously appear to have streets paved in gold.  The UK should make it clear that this is not a country of free hand out, thus converting the ‘grass is greener’ perception into ‘there is no grass’.  

Each of the following categories should be considered in the debate on British Citizenship.

 

  1. British Citizens: Those who are British Citizens and have the right to live and work and obtain benefits in UK
  2. Working Residents: Those who have the right to work and live in UK but should not be entitled to any UK provided benefits for at least five years after contributing to the UK tax and National Insurance funds.  Even then, they are not British Citizens and should be denied certain rights (eg housing provided by the state and state benefits as well as the right to vote). A Child of a Working Resident born in UK does not become a British Citizen as a right.
  3. Visitors: Those who have the right to be in UK on a short term visa (holiday makers, students, etc) but who should have no rights to any state benefit.
  4. Illegal Entrants:  Those who have no right to be in UK at all but are here illegally.  When discovered, they should be transferred back to their own Country immediately.

 

The discussion seems to be concentrated on getting as many people into potential ‘British Citizens’ status.  The emphasis should be on controlling those who are in UK as Working Residents and limiting their rights while resident in UK, setting very stringent rules and controls on permitting people to move from Working Residents to British Citizen. This should be an extreme privilege.

 

The discussion should be on the privileges that are given/not given to those living here under Working Residents and what happens if the person breaks the basic conditions of the privilege of being permitted to work and live in UK (eg enforced departure for anyone committing a criminal act).  The privileges for Working Residents should be extremely limited.  They should not be entitled to State aid of any form (eg housing, benefit, out-of-work benefit and free health treatment).  They should not have the Right to Vote.  No immigrant should be permitted to stay if he commits a criminal act while in the UK and this should take priority over an Individuals Human Rights or Appeal Courts.  Society should have more Rights than the individual.

Immigrants should only be admitted if we have a need for their skills or admitted as a student – I appreciate EU citizens may need different rules if UK takes no action to cancel existing EU rules.

 

This is not going to be an easy task but it should be possible to manage if, say, National Insurance Numbers are allocated so that Working Residents can be sorted from British Citizens.

Winter fuel allowance

Count how many ederly people are in care homes throughout the uk. Why do they receive the winter fuel allowance because as a care home owner I keep them all warm. I pay the extra bills. My residents do not pay a penny more during the winter or in harder winters either. If someone in government counted the number of privately funded people in care and worked out how much money is going into the fuel payments for them it would rund into hundreds of thousands.

Why is this idea important?

Count how many ederly people are in care homes throughout the uk. Why do they receive the winter fuel allowance because as a care home owner I keep them all warm. I pay the extra bills. My residents do not pay a penny more during the winter or in harder winters either. If someone in government counted the number of privately funded people in care and worked out how much money is going into the fuel payments for them it would rund into hundreds of thousands.

Help for 16 – 21 year old’s seeking work

Allow youngsters on the dole to be able to accept short time work for say 6 weeks, to be able to get back on the dole when that work dries up, without having to wait the customry 26 weeks or whatever the period is now.    It may mean that they are given a job at the end of the 6 weeks ( or whatever time), but because they are penalised for taking short time work they are scared to go off the dole for short periods.
 

Why is this idea important?

Allow youngsters on the dole to be able to accept short time work for say 6 weeks, to be able to get back on the dole when that work dries up, without having to wait the customry 26 weeks or whatever the period is now.    It may mean that they are given a job at the end of the 6 weeks ( or whatever time), but because they are penalised for taking short time work they are scared to go off the dole for short periods.
 

Financial Help for Victims of Proven Domestic Violence

People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

The Social Invention:
Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

Why is this idea important?

People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

The Social Invention:
Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

Extend Invalid Care Allowance to Pensioners

Currently, when a carer is in receipt of the State Pension, they lose their exising Invalid Care Allowance. This anomaly is most unfair and has existed for many years. Making ICA available to over 60s or 65s would help in the ongoing battle over disability.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, when a carer is in receipt of the State Pension, they lose their exising Invalid Care Allowance. This anomaly is most unfair and has existed for many years. Making ICA available to over 60s or 65s would help in the ongoing battle over disability.

Reform the Pensions System

To replace the existing State Pension with a single pension payable from age 70, of at least £10,000 a year payable tax-free.

To reform private pensions legislation to remove the Lifetime Allowance, decrease the Annual Allowance to £50,000, limit tax relief to 10% of all contributions, remove Pension Commencement Lump Sum restrictions, to make provision to make all withdrawals from pensions free of Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax, and to make provision to make all monies inside pensions free from Inheritance Tax.

Why is this idea important?

To replace the existing State Pension with a single pension payable from age 70, of at least £10,000 a year payable tax-free.

To reform private pensions legislation to remove the Lifetime Allowance, decrease the Annual Allowance to £50,000, limit tax relief to 10% of all contributions, remove Pension Commencement Lump Sum restrictions, to make provision to make all withdrawals from pensions free of Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax, and to make provision to make all monies inside pensions free from Inheritance Tax.

Financial aid for pensioners emergencies

I am a pensioner and recently I was woken in the night by running water, the problem was a leak that had developed inside my boiler, I have been trying to get help to get this repaired, my insurance company have told me that the boiler is not covered on my policy. so now I am stuck with no water as I have had to turn it off at the main, the point I am trying to make is that trying to get help with this, because the financial cost is high, is so difficult and long winded, I only have my state pension, which is topped up with pension credit, so I do not have access to large sums of money,we are barely able to eat or drink because of the high cost of bills, so when an emergency like this happens its a living nightmare for us to resolve. It would be nice to be able have a department for emergencies that require immediate attention, I hate to think what we would have done had this happened in the middle of the last winter,i do not think we would have survived. may I add that I am still without water and no heating.

Why is this idea important?

I am a pensioner and recently I was woken in the night by running water, the problem was a leak that had developed inside my boiler, I have been trying to get help to get this repaired, my insurance company have told me that the boiler is not covered on my policy. so now I am stuck with no water as I have had to turn it off at the main, the point I am trying to make is that trying to get help with this, because the financial cost is high, is so difficult and long winded, I only have my state pension, which is topped up with pension credit, so I do not have access to large sums of money,we are barely able to eat or drink because of the high cost of bills, so when an emergency like this happens its a living nightmare for us to resolve. It would be nice to be able have a department for emergencies that require immediate attention, I hate to think what we would have done had this happened in the middle of the last winter,i do not think we would have survived. may I add that I am still without water and no heating.

New Law: All Local Councils To Check Immigrants Documents With Source

Over the last thirty years millions of immigrants have entered the UK some with forged passports and "permanent residency visas".

Local councils do not check back with immmigration department whether these 'residency visas' are genuine – they just photocopy them and stick them in a filing cabinet. Housing benefit is then paid out to that immigrant.

Likewise with the 'dole' office, no check backs are made of either visa or pasport.

I would like to see a law to compell all authorities to have to check the status with immigration first before giving either 'dole' or housing benefit. Also – check back all documents still not checked for the last ten years that are still in their filing cabinets. I feel sure this will save billions of pounds paid out in the future as well as getting back what we have paid out already by fraud.

Other countries such as USA, Australia and New Zealand check every document with source, why don't we? You would not get a taxpayer dollar in any of those countries with false documents. We have been too soft.

 

p.s. This website is too slow to load pages – what are you paying for hosting?
 

Why is this idea important?

Over the last thirty years millions of immigrants have entered the UK some with forged passports and "permanent residency visas".

Local councils do not check back with immmigration department whether these 'residency visas' are genuine – they just photocopy them and stick them in a filing cabinet. Housing benefit is then paid out to that immigrant.

Likewise with the 'dole' office, no check backs are made of either visa or pasport.

I would like to see a law to compell all authorities to have to check the status with immigration first before giving either 'dole' or housing benefit. Also – check back all documents still not checked for the last ten years that are still in their filing cabinets. I feel sure this will save billions of pounds paid out in the future as well as getting back what we have paid out already by fraud.

Other countries such as USA, Australia and New Zealand check every document with source, why don't we? You would not get a taxpayer dollar in any of those countries with false documents. We have been too soft.

 

p.s. This website is too slow to load pages – what are you paying for hosting?
 

Abolish the weekly £30 paid to encourage some kids to go to school

Abolish the £30 payment made to some over 16s on a weekly basis to encourage them to go to school or college.  This is a total waste of governent money.  All kids would happily accept a 'no questions asked' payment of £30 per week and it is not encouraging any spirit of enterprise whatsoever.  It simply serves as a financial bribe paid to those who would otherwise drop out of education altogether. 

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the £30 payment made to some over 16s on a weekly basis to encourage them to go to school or college.  This is a total waste of governent money.  All kids would happily accept a 'no questions asked' payment of £30 per week and it is not encouraging any spirit of enterprise whatsoever.  It simply serves as a financial bribe paid to those who would otherwise drop out of education altogether. 

Simplify benefits

Freedom would be enhanced if most benefits were replaced by a "citizen's income" as described at http://www.citizensincome.org.

This would be a fixed weekly or monthly payment (possibly depending on age) paid to every resident citizen (and possibly other legal residents), and would replace a plethora of benefits, tax credits and similar schemes (e.g. Job Seeker's Allowance, Child Benefit, the personal tax allowance, State Pension, student maintenance loans). It would provide a sum of money to everyone, rich or poor, that would provide at least a significant contribution to that needed for a basic standard of living.

Why is this idea important?

Freedom would be enhanced if most benefits were replaced by a "citizen's income" as described at http://www.citizensincome.org.

This would be a fixed weekly or monthly payment (possibly depending on age) paid to every resident citizen (and possibly other legal residents), and would replace a plethora of benefits, tax credits and similar schemes (e.g. Job Seeker's Allowance, Child Benefit, the personal tax allowance, State Pension, student maintenance loans). It would provide a sum of money to everyone, rich or poor, that would provide at least a significant contribution to that needed for a basic standard of living.

Ration Books for those on Benefits

Give people on benefits ration books for food, they can either be used in all supermarkets, or better still the government could set up there own stores alongside job centres instead of handing out money ,re name it food support, instead of income support, Vouchers can be issued for gas, electric , and rent. If there are children in the household the ration book can include a leisure centre voucher for a free swim a week keeping children active. why give people an income when they do nothing to earn it. We have to start making life tuff for those claiming income support, You should not be able to afford luxuries when you dont work for it.

Why is this idea important?

Give people on benefits ration books for food, they can either be used in all supermarkets, or better still the government could set up there own stores alongside job centres instead of handing out money ,re name it food support, instead of income support, Vouchers can be issued for gas, electric , and rent. If there are children in the household the ration book can include a leisure centre voucher for a free swim a week keeping children active. why give people an income when they do nothing to earn it. We have to start making life tuff for those claiming income support, You should not be able to afford luxuries when you dont work for it.

stop those on benefits getting lazy or losing self respect

so there are those who think it is their 'right' to unemployment benefits.  yes if you have paid your fair share of TAX and NI.  

those on unemployment benefit should, say 2 to 3 days a week, work in their local hospitals, be it cleaning, help in the cafe or if their qualifications allow, reception/office or part of the medical team.  

work for their local council for these days doing anything.. gardening, manning phones, office etc..

in a nutshell, work those few days in the public sector where there will eventually  be cuts.

For those who want to work will have something to get up for in the morning, keep their pride, keep their minds active and could lead to a permanent employment, give ideas for them to perhaps move into a different field or just give ideas for those who have no ideas.

it think it paramount that this should form part of qualifying for benefits for those who cannot be bothered to look for work and never have worked and perhaps it will help them turn over a leaf and start respecting themselves and others.

there are jobs out there, may be not enough for everyone, but one particular programme proved that although the British may moan that foreigners have stolen their jobs, it seems that this is not the case.  I laughed at how lazy the English were and gave up too easily and some could not even be bothered to turn up or were late.  this is typical.  we need to stop this.

I am British born but not English.  i am in a position to pick employees and have found time and again that generally the English seriously lack in everything compared to 'foreigners'.  It is sad to say that the English are far behind with their own language and basic maths.  I have even on a few occasions employed English just to balance out the staff and give them a chance to prove themselves but each time I have been let down.  I even have given them a few chances to improve and they promised it would not happen again, but it does.

Why is this idea important?

so there are those who think it is their 'right' to unemployment benefits.  yes if you have paid your fair share of TAX and NI.  

those on unemployment benefit should, say 2 to 3 days a week, work in their local hospitals, be it cleaning, help in the cafe or if their qualifications allow, reception/office or part of the medical team.  

work for their local council for these days doing anything.. gardening, manning phones, office etc..

in a nutshell, work those few days in the public sector where there will eventually  be cuts.

For those who want to work will have something to get up for in the morning, keep their pride, keep their minds active and could lead to a permanent employment, give ideas for them to perhaps move into a different field or just give ideas for those who have no ideas.

it think it paramount that this should form part of qualifying for benefits for those who cannot be bothered to look for work and never have worked and perhaps it will help them turn over a leaf and start respecting themselves and others.

there are jobs out there, may be not enough for everyone, but one particular programme proved that although the British may moan that foreigners have stolen their jobs, it seems that this is not the case.  I laughed at how lazy the English were and gave up too easily and some could not even be bothered to turn up or were late.  this is typical.  we need to stop this.

I am British born but not English.  i am in a position to pick employees and have found time and again that generally the English seriously lack in everything compared to 'foreigners'.  It is sad to say that the English are far behind with their own language and basic maths.  I have even on a few occasions employed English just to balance out the staff and give them a chance to prove themselves but each time I have been let down.  I even have given them a few chances to improve and they promised it would not happen again, but it does.

Cut FREE boilers and central heating installations

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

Reforming the Benefits system

Britain is over burderened with too many people, claiming the wrong type of benefits, the reason for this is that Job centre workers, are not properly trained and just hand out what they feel is applicable, we need each job centre worker, to take on specific cases and see those through to completion, as some one who has had to recently claimed benefits, it is so frustrating to have to repeat yourself over and over again to different people, having to produce the same evidence to so many different people and departments, and never speaking to the same person twice.

it is not always the fault of people that they are unemployed or disabled, but there are those elements in society that abuse the system, and are allowed to do so, because of the shambolic mess the job centres are in, staff do not know individual claimants, and tend to lump every one in the same category, which at times can be extremely insulting and quite soul destroying.

why is it that people can continue to churn out children and expect the state to keep paying for them, my idea is, that after two children there will be no more child allowance and no extra benefits of any kind, people need to take responsibility for there own off spring.

further more, those teenagers that have never worked, and get themselves pregnant as a way of staying out of work, should not be given any benefits of any kind as they have not contributed to the system. I know this is hard line, but I am sick of walking round town and seeing 15-18 year old girls wheeling their kids around in brand new prams/buggies that ordinary hardworking families cannot afford.

On the matter of disability benefits, the person should be dealt with by one caseworker, who they get to know and gets to know them and their individual problems this way I feel is the best way of weeding out false claimants, and its just common sense.

I do not believe that any one who is entering in to this country should be automatically entitled to benefits, and NHS system. A two year qualifying period, where by the person pays tax continuously should be applied be fore any access to benefits should be given, this is not a raciest view, but pure common sense, when at the moment, anyone granted the right to live in this country can then bring in relatives for treatment, and even claim child benefit for children residing in their own country.

 

Why is this idea important?

Britain is over burderened with too many people, claiming the wrong type of benefits, the reason for this is that Job centre workers, are not properly trained and just hand out what they feel is applicable, we need each job centre worker, to take on specific cases and see those through to completion, as some one who has had to recently claimed benefits, it is so frustrating to have to repeat yourself over and over again to different people, having to produce the same evidence to so many different people and departments, and never speaking to the same person twice.

it is not always the fault of people that they are unemployed or disabled, but there are those elements in society that abuse the system, and are allowed to do so, because of the shambolic mess the job centres are in, staff do not know individual claimants, and tend to lump every one in the same category, which at times can be extremely insulting and quite soul destroying.

why is it that people can continue to churn out children and expect the state to keep paying for them, my idea is, that after two children there will be no more child allowance and no extra benefits of any kind, people need to take responsibility for there own off spring.

further more, those teenagers that have never worked, and get themselves pregnant as a way of staying out of work, should not be given any benefits of any kind as they have not contributed to the system. I know this is hard line, but I am sick of walking round town and seeing 15-18 year old girls wheeling their kids around in brand new prams/buggies that ordinary hardworking families cannot afford.

On the matter of disability benefits, the person should be dealt with by one caseworker, who they get to know and gets to know them and their individual problems this way I feel is the best way of weeding out false claimants, and its just common sense.

I do not believe that any one who is entering in to this country should be automatically entitled to benefits, and NHS system. A two year qualifying period, where by the person pays tax continuously should be applied be fore any access to benefits should be given, this is not a raciest view, but pure common sense, when at the moment, anyone granted the right to live in this country can then bring in relatives for treatment, and even claim child benefit for children residing in their own country.

 

End the Warm Front system of awarding money to people on low incomes, because the scheme is not fit for purpose

To end the Warm Front scheme and instead target some of the substantial amounts of money saved to each Benefit Office to enable people on low incomes to request funding for fuel efficiency savings to their homes such as;

  • Installation of insulation
  • Installation of porch
  • Installation of double glazing
  • Replacement of boiler
  • Installation of solar panels/wind turbines
  • Installation of draft-proofing

Rather than money paid direct to claimants, the money would be paid directly to the business undertaking the works. This would see stimulation for the local economy, builders etc.

Why is this idea important?

To end the Warm Front scheme and instead target some of the substantial amounts of money saved to each Benefit Office to enable people on low incomes to request funding for fuel efficiency savings to their homes such as;

  • Installation of insulation
  • Installation of porch
  • Installation of double glazing
  • Replacement of boiler
  • Installation of solar panels/wind turbines
  • Installation of draft-proofing

Rather than money paid direct to claimants, the money would be paid directly to the business undertaking the works. This would see stimulation for the local economy, builders etc.