The emergency fund for low income familes facing emergencies is to be stopped

First topic message reminder :


Government to stop funding for low-income families facing emergencies
Department for Work and Pensions to cut £180m support; Children's Society alarmed at 'blow to critical safety net'

A £180m-a-year hardship fund providing emergency help for low-income families who suffer sudden financial crisis as a result of domestic violence, ill-health or natural disaster such as flooding is to be scrapped, it has emerged.

Technical documents released just before Christmas suggest the Department for Work and Pensions plans to cut its cash allocation to local authority welfare assistance schemes in 15 months' time.

Charities warned this would lead to a postcode lottery in local welfare help and trigger a rise in the number of people becoming dependent on loan sharks or charitable support, such as food banks.

Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children's Society, said the removal of government funding for local crisis schemes was alarming. "This is yet another blow to what was once a critical safety net for families facing such unpredictable emergencies and disasters as flooding, or simply running out of money to buy food for their children or feed the electricity meter.

"We urgently need a clear commitment from government to provide local authorities with sustainable funding to support families facing an unexpected financial crisis. Without this, many more families will be forced to turn to food banks, or to use loan sharks or high-cost money lenders."

Local welfare assistance schemes were set up in 152 local authorities in England in April, after the old, nationally administered social fund was "localised" as part of the Welfare Reform Act.

The schemes are comprised of two elements – crisis support, which is designed to help penniless people with vital short-term expenses such as food or clothes; and community care grants, which would help people in severe crisis obtain basic living essentials such as beds and cooking equipment.

The ending of the £180m funding stream in April 2015 is likely to lead to a sporadic provision of crisis help because some councils, which have no statutory duty to provide local welfare, might decide to close their schemes altogether.

A DWP spokeswoman confirmed that it would no longer fund the schemes after 2014-15, saying that future arrangements were a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

Although the DWP had always made it clear there were no guarantees of funding after 2014-15, it had promised to review the progress of the schemes before taking a decision on future funding.

It confirmed to the Guardian on Friday that it would carry out the planned progress review of local schemes in the next few months, but it would be up to councils and the DCLG to act on its findings.

The DWP has always claimed the fund was ineffectively targeted, and that councils are best placed to judge how much to allocate to local crisis welfare provision.

A spokeswoman for the DCLG said that from 2015 local welfare is to be funded from local authority general funds.

Though some councils will continue to fund some kind of local crisis fund, many will decide they can no longer afford it. In November, Nottinghamshire county council proposed to scrap its £2.1m welfare scheme in April as part of a £151m cuts programme.

Local welfare schemes have proved controversial because most councils have refused to give out cash loans, which were available under the social fund, but have instead provided "in kind" support in the form of food vouchers, and referrals to food banks.

Many councils have set strict eligibility criteria – many exclude applicants who have received benefit sanctions, while others refuse to help low-paid working families – meaning that many applicants have been turned away.

A recent survey suggested the harsh criteria meant many councils had massively underspent their funds so far this year despite evidence of huge demand.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/03/government-stops-emergency-funds-low-income-families

Can I suggest that every low income family just shoots themselves and saves the Government the bother of trying to find all these ways to make their lives hell.

Costa wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Because they could.

Has this got anything to do with what you are talking about Sphinx?

The Department for Work and Pensions pays local councils an administration grant based on the numbers of new claims and overall case-load; as well as various other cost factor adjustments to take into account the relative staff and accommodation costs. The level of Administration Grant awarded is announced annually by the Department for Work and Pensions.


Local Services Support Grant

From 2013, local councils will be able to decide how most of their grants from central government should be spent in their area. The only exceptions are schools funding and the new public health grant. The new Local Services Support Grant is a single grant paid by central government to individual councils to help support and protect local services. Councils can decide themselves how they wish to use it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-local-authorities-more-control-over-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

Costs for councils to administer HB is supplied separately from support grants and is indeed being cut for the next financial year.

I'm not sure how she thought it could be used for anything else.

Money for HB comes from a huge multi stream payment from central government that covers shit loads of things and doesnt cover shit loads of others.

For example with housing benefit the actual payment origin is the stream from central government but the wages of the people who process claims and make the payments etc is at least partially met by the council tax revenue stream (honestly it is more twisted than medusas locks).

While UC will result in some reductions to the central revenue fund it will not reduce by the full cost to the council of HB and the crisis budget was never going to be as high as the rent budget. Also there are changes to other areas including disablility funding again meaning changes to both incoming revenue streams and outgoing costs.

Pretty much all of these changes are part of the "slashing public spending" headlines to do with removing duplication and waste (surely I am not the only one who thinks it ridiculous that to get benefits a person has to fill in one form at the jobcentre then go and fill in another form at the council that asks exactly the same questions as the one at the job centre, followed by possibly another form asking the same questions again to get tax credits) and the announcement that a certain funding stream is being discontinued does not necessarily mean that payments made from that stream are being discontinued.

What this comes down to at base is whether the person who has been robbed of all their money or flooded out or whatever disaster it is will still get help. So far I have seen no evidence that they will not get help just evidence that the money will come from different a different source.

Sassy wrote:I'm not sure how she thought it could be used for anything else.

Whose "she" the cats mother   

sphinx wrote:Money for HB comes from a huge multi stream payment from central government that covers shit loads of things and doesnt cover shit loads of others.

For example with housing benefit the actual payment origin is the stream from central government but the wages of the people who process claims and make the payments etc is at least partially met by the council tax revenue stream (honestly it is more twisted than medusas locks).

While UC will result in some reductions to the central revenue fund it will not reduce by the full cost to the council of HB and the crisis budget was never going to be as high as the rent budget.  Also there are changes to other areas including disablility funding again meaning changes to both incoming revenue streams and outgoing costs.  

Pretty much all of these changes are part of the "slashing public spending" headlines to do with removing duplication and waste (surely I am not the only one who thinks it ridiculous that to get benefits a person has to fill in one form at the jobcentre then go and fill in another form at the council that asks exactly the same questions as the one at the job centre, followed by possibly another form asking the same questions again to get tax credits) and the announcement that a certain funding stream is being discontinued does not necessarily mean that payments made from that stream are being discontinued.

What this comes down to at base is whether the person who has been robbed of all their money or flooded out or whatever disaster it is will still get help.  So far I have seen no evidence that they will not get help just evidence that the money will come from different a different source.

The money that they get for housing benefit they have to account for. If they are not paying housing benefit, they won't get that money.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:Money for HB comes from a huge multi stream payment from central government that covers shit loads of things and doesnt cover shit loads of others.

For example with housing benefit the actual payment origin is the stream from central government but the wages of the people who process claims and make the payments etc is at least partially met by the council tax revenue stream (honestly it is more twisted than medusas locks).

While UC will result in some reductions to the central revenue fund it will not reduce by the full cost to the council of HB and the crisis budget was never going to be as high as the rent budget.  Also there are changes to other areas including disablility funding again meaning changes to both incoming revenue streams and outgoing costs.  

Pretty much all of these changes are part of the "slashing public spending" headlines to do with removing duplication and waste (surely I am not the only one who thinks it ridiculous that to get benefits a person has to fill in one form at the jobcentre then go and fill in another form at the council that asks exactly the same questions as the one at the job centre, followed by possibly another form asking the same questions again to get tax credits) and the announcement that a certain funding stream is being discontinued does not necessarily mean that payments made from that stream are being discontinued.

What this comes down to at base is whether the person who has been robbed of all their money or flooded out or whatever disaster it is will still get help.  So far I have seen no evidence that they will not get help just evidence that the money will come from different a different source.

The money that they get for housing benefit they have to account for.   If they are not paying housing benefit, they won't get that money.

But they will still have the money that was paying the wages and resources of the people who administered the HB. Including the wages of the accountant that was responsible for accounting for the HB payments.

How do you know there will not be other work for them to do, plus an accountant for a council deals with a lot of other things that HB.   In any case, that isn't what you said.   You specifically said they could use the HB money.

Also, councils have had to cut back on really essential things, like old people's homes, so the money they pay people who administer HB will be a drop in the ocean.

Sassy wrote:How do you know there will not be other work for them to do, plus an accountant for a council deals with a lot of other things that HB.   In any case, that isn't what you said.   You specifically said they could use the HB money.

Also, councils have had to cut back on really essential things, like old people's homes, so the money they pay people who administer HB will be a drop in the ocean.

Councils are not having to cut back on essentials they are choosing to cut back on essentials in order to keep the non essentials. They are happy to pay someone 90% of people have never heard of a couple of thousand to switch on Christmas lights but sorry home helps have to be cut.

The brutal fact is the money is there - people just have to vote in a council who will spend it where it should be spent and not used to buy a new mayoral limousine.

I am sorry I do not believe that the solution to local excess spending it the provision of more central money.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

The money that they get for housing benefit they have to account for.   If they are not paying housing benefit, they won't get that money.

But they will still have the money that was paying the wages and resources of the people who administered the HB.  Including the wages of the accountant that was responsible for accounting for the HB payments.

The NAO have produced a report that shows that the government have not taken into account the additional costs that councils will have to bear in administering the welfare reforms so there will be no savings on wages.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But they will still have the money that was paying the wages and resources of the people who administered the HB.  Including the wages of the accountant that was responsible for accounting for the HB payments.

The NAO have produced a report that shows that the government have not taken into account the additional costs that councils will have to bear in administering the welfare reforms so there will be no savings on wages.

Frankly, the Government have taken jack shit into account.

for you sphinx just so you cant pretend to have not seen it

well well. at last a fiure on costs and from old IDS himself...it (the bedroom tax) will save 1 billion

hmmm...INCOME tax receipts were 156billion in 2011-12 (this from the tax office stats)
so it will save each tax payer 1/156th of his total tax bill erm thats 0.64% thats 64 pence per £100 paid in tax

OMG we're all going to be rich( this of course ignores tax from all other sources such as vat duty etc so the real figure is much much less)

EDIT with full figures ...All taxes were 543 billion in 20011-12 so the saving is 1/543 or 0.185% thats 18.5pence per £100 spent in taxes of all kinds by the tax payer...and dont forget those on benefits DO pay tax...vat duty etc....

you couldnt make it up could you, so much unnecessary misery for so little


AND still the fact that the whole thing is nothing but a scam is not challenged

COME ON......the R/W is sacred of the truth ...remember cognitive dissonance...

the benefit bill (less pensions) is insignificant in terms of govt spending......PROVE ME WRONG....YOU CANT

OK I concede the government should not be doing anything to lower the benefits bill because its a small bill   

I am obviously the only sick/disabled person in the country who has been delighted to find the government has not actually written me off but is finally offering me help and encouragement to move back into work.

Golly aren't I stupid.

That sphinx is disingenious and no answer the two issues are at best only marginally connected, and moreover you dont help and encourage anyone by destroying their lives, causing them to commit suicide etc.
It is possible to help and encourage people in a positive and non hate filled manner...YOUR idea of encouragement is more like tyhe slavers whip than the civilised helping hand.

moreover, not only is the benefit bill small ..IT IS INSIGNIFICANT

Couldn't agree with you more Grumpy.

Look I am the one directly affected by these changed and I am sick of people telling how awful they are when I am seeing my life and prospects improve.

Every story I see of destroyed lives leaves me thinking "that was unnecessary because there was such and such an option open"

Maybe its me - I always look for opportunity while others just see change as bad as unsurvivable.

Yes, but you are not paying bedroom tax, and you are not having your benefit taken away and told you are fit for work when you are not.

Why are so people desperate not to work - working is good fun and good for you and the country.

Just do it!

here you go then sphinx

a couple with earnings him 20,000 pa
her 20,000 pa

own but mortgaged on their home, all the usual bills etc

he gets permanently disabled through NO ONES FAULT...

at present he would get DLA ESA etc etc etc...

so they survive have to cut back a bit but at least he still has some income


ALONG COMES U/C

sorry mate....you cant have ANYTHING

you have a JOINT INCOME over £16,000 you will have to become soley dependant upon your wife


WOW...what a great way to encourage some one what a great way to give a disabled person their independance


and all to save .......18.5p per £100

sick, twisted and evil.....and you have fallen for it......

BigAndy9 wrote:Why are so people desperate not to work - working is good fun and good for you and the country.

Just do it!

No answer big boy sorry  :/pwn://: 

grumpy old git wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Why are so people desperate not to work - working is good fun and good for you and the country.

Just do it!

No answer big boy sorry  :/pwn://: 

I know - it just doesn't make any sense at all!

Well yours obviously doesn't give you any satisfaction or you wouldn't be so bitter and twisted.   You'd be thinking, all those poor buggers who can't find and job and feel so miserable, aren't I the lucky one.

Sassy wrote:Well yours obviously doesn't give you any satisfaction or you wouldn't be so bitter and twisted.   You'd be thinking, all those poor buggers who can't find and job and feel so miserable, aren't I the lucky one.

The RW don't do that!  

...They don't do empathy.

Sassy wrote:Well yours obviously doesn't give you any satisfaction or you wouldn't be so bitter and twisted.   You'd be thinking, all those poor buggers who can't find and job and feel so miserable, aren't I the lucky one.

But it does sassy - I see how good work is, for myself, my family and the wider community, hence why I trumpet work so much and strongly believe in getting people out of their onesies and in to work, no matter what work it is.

Catman wrote:

Sassy wrote:Well yours obviously doesn't give you any satisfaction or you wouldn't be so bitter and twisted.   You'd be thinking, all those poor buggers who can't find and job and feel so miserable, aren't I the lucky one.

The RW don't do that!  

...They don't do empathy.

I feel terrible for those who can't work for genuine reasons.

I feel terrible for those who lose their jobs.

I feel those who choose a life on benefits are lazy scrotes.

Catman wrote:

Sassy wrote:Well yours obviously doesn't give you any satisfaction or you wouldn't be so bitter and twisted.   You'd be thinking, all those poor buggers who can't find and job and feel so miserable, aren't I the lucky one.

The RW don't do that!  

...They don't do empathy.

Well that's not fair Phil because this government have sent out huge cheque's to people at the top end because by doing that we will all be better off because of it,,, apparently lol

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

The RW don't do that!  

...They don't do empathy.

I feel terrible for those who can't work for genuine reasons.

I feel terrible for those who lose their jobs.

I feel those who choose a life on benefits are lazy scrotes.

People don't choose a life on benefits, who in their right mind would choose to live on £70 a week.   

Irn Bru wrote:

Catman wrote:

The RW don't do that!  

...They don't do empathy.

Well that's not fair Phil because this government have sent out huge cheque's to people at the top end because by doing that we will all be better off because of it,,, apparently lol

When have this government done that, Iron?

Irn Bru wrote:

Catman wrote:

The RW don't do that!  

...They don't do empathy.

Well that's not fair Phil because this government have sent out huge cheque's to people at the top end because by doing that we will all be better off because of it,,, apparently lol

Yea...Give their buddies more money in which to screw down ' the peasants' & 'the minions' even further...We have seen their rhetoric!   

BigAndy9 wrote:Why are so people desperate not to work - working is good fun and good for you and the country.

Just do it!

Fun? I'd love to know what you do Andy  :D 

Yes, fun sometimes and important for self esteem and of course the obvious, supporting yourself and your family.  I absolutely feel for those who lose their job and/or unable to work due to ill health or disability.  

There are people however who have lived their entire lives on benefits, generations in fact.  I'm not demonising people I'm really not but there are other things people can do to help themselves back into work.  Retraining, volunteering, getting unpaid experience, education. Having had a short period of being unable to work myself I did absolutely everything I could to be able to return to my job.  I'm sure there are many out there doing the same but not all and those who abuse the system are effectively stealing from those who really need help.

Gotta disagree...within limits FTL....NO-ONE should be getting "unpaid experience" THAT is slavery and SHOULD be illegal. Anyone who does it is making the fat cats fatter off the skin of their own back.

grumpy old git wrote:Gotta disagree...within limits FTL....NO-ONE should be getting "unpaid experience" THAT is slavery and SHOULD be illegal. Anyone who does it is making the fat cats fatter off the skin of their own back.

Seconded. If there is a job to do then a wage should be paid for it.

grumpy old git wrote:Gotta disagree...within limits FTL....NO-ONE should be getting "unpaid experience" THAT is slavery and SHOULD be illegal. Anyone who does it is making the fat cats fatter off the skin of their own back.

If it's a way to get a foot in the door, not long term of course then I can't see an issue with it. It's not slavery if you are prepared to gain experience voluntarily and it can be a great way to prove yourself to potential employers rather than waiting for work to come to you. If I lost my job I'd certainly be prepared to take every opportunity.

grumpy old git wrote:Gotta disagree...within limits FTL....NO-ONE should be getting "unpaid experience" THAT is slavery and SHOULD be illegal. Anyone who does it is making the fat cats fatter off the skin of their own back.

OMG that stance is madness, absolute madness.

It is militant views like that which keeps the peasants down.

That, the dream of the "living wage", the dream that everybody should be much better off working and many other pipe-dreams which Labour are now selling to the masses because they are in opposition and can say whatever they want.

 

BigAndy9 wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:Gotta disagree...within limits FTL....NO-ONE should be getting "unpaid experience" THAT is slavery and SHOULD be illegal. Anyone who does it is making the fat cats fatter off the skin of their own back.

OMG that stance is madness, absolute madness.

It is militant views like that which keeps the peasants down.

That, the dream of the "living wage", the dream that everybody should be much better off working and many other pipe-dreams which Labour are now selling to the masses because they are in opposition and can say whatever they want.

Yip! Yip!

  

Hey Andy!

Are you on a really high income, or just on a really modest wage at this time...If you are not on a massive income, with the cost of living rising ever further...Do you really think that the Tories or UKIP (LMFAO) will be looking after you, once the 'peasants' beneath you have starved or frozen to death?

...No Andy...They won't give a fuck about you, you are just on their next list!