jeffs posts
is it fair that my children should lose out after its time for me to go into a home or other
Theresa May might not be planning to starve your granny and steal her house anymore – at least, not within earshot of you – but one of her ministers is.
Social care minister Jackie Doyle-Price said the following at the Conservative Party Conference.
According to the Mirror:
Later in the same meeting, she added: “We are very much looking at, when the review comes up, we will be looking at the whole issue of caps and floors and the degree to which people can protect their [inaudible] and what they pay.”
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “The idea of a ‘dementia tax’ was rightly rejected by the public during the general election. It is appalling that the Tories still want to force older people to pay for care with their homes.
Ms Doyle-Price’s comments will reignite fears that the Tories plan to introduce a dementia tax.
The Tory manifesto set out plans to quadruple to £100,000 the amount Brits can keep before having to pay for care. But it also said the care cap would be scrapped – and many pensioners would have to pay for care in their own home for the first time.
After the proposals were branded a dementia tax and provoked an angry backlash, Mrs May performed a U-turn and said she still intended to introduce a cap to care bills.
This Writer made the situation clear, way back on May 20:
All the Tories need to do is convince enough of you to vote for them so they’ll have a majority in Parliament. Then they can do anything they damn well please – whether it’s in their manifesto or not; whether they said they wouldn’t do it or not.
They have already said “products will be available” so they have already promised the value of millions of houses – along with the houses themselves, let’s not forget – to their friends in the insurance industry.
They’ll be determined to hand over your houses to their insurer friends.
What are you prepared to do about it
Posted by jeffrey davies on 14 October 2017
=============================
jeffs posts
Disabled campaigners have criticised new Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) rules that explain which benefit claimants will no longer have to be repeatedly put through the much-criticised “fitness for work” test.
DWP announced last month, on the eve of the Conservative party conference in Manchester, that some claimants in the support group of employment and support allowance (ESA) – and the equivalent universal credit group – would no longer need to attend “routine reassessments”.
Only those with “the most severe and lifelong health conditions or disabilities” will be exempt from reassessments, and they will be told of their exemption when they receive the results of their next work capability assessment (WCA), the test which assesses ESA eligibility.
Although DWP declined to release the eligibility criteria for exemptions, the guidelines have now been published by Disability Rights UK, one of the disability organisations that took part in discussions with the government as it developed the policy.
Among the new criteria, it states that a condition must be “lifelong” and “unambiguous” and that the claimant must have “no realistic prospect of recovery”, while their “level of function” must always meet the criteria for being placed in the support group.
The ruling on whether a claimant should be exempted from further reassessment will be made by DWP decision-makers, following advice from the healthcare professionals who carry out the WCA and work for the discredited US outsourcing company Maximus.
But DWP has made it clear that, although a claimant can ask the department to reconsider a decision not to provide an exemption if they believe their case has not been dealt with correctly, there is no formal right of appeal.
Ken Butler, DR UK’s welfare rights officer, said the refusal to introduce a right of appeal was not fair on disabled people, while the criteria failed to address the “fundamental problems” of the WCA.
He said: “The WCA causes stress, fear and anxiety to many disabled people and any effective reform to reduce this must be welcome.
“The previous longest gap between WCAs [for] those who will be included in the new policy was just three years.
“But it is an indictment of the DWP that it has taken a year for the new policy to be finalised and after nine years of the WCA being in operation.
“It’s still unclear how well the new policy will operate and how many disabled people will be exempted from further reassessment by the criteria.”
He added: “Disabled people would have more confidence in the WCA if assessments were carried out by doctors or specialists who had experience of their disability or health condition.”
Linda Burnip, a co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “It’s a typical government fudge which is basically meaningless and at best will only help a very few people avoid reassessments.
“The other really damning feature of this is it appears that a medically unqualified decision-maker will be able to overrule both GP and specialist advice and opinion.
“In short, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.”
Tom Hendrie, head of policy and communications at Cheshire Centre for Independent Living, also raised concerns about the lack of a formal appeal structure, and said he hoped the exemption would eventually also be applied to those claiming personal independence payment.
John McArdle, co-founder of Black Triangle, said it was “absurd” that “unqualified bureaucrats” who were not medically-trained would be deciding whether someone should be exempt from reassessments.
He said: “It’s ridiculous. How on earth can they be trusted to make such important decisions?”
Meanwhile, DWP has released the names of the organisations which have been awarded contracts to provide employment support services under the government’s new Health and Work Programme.
The aim of the programme is to support disabled people, those who are long-term unemployed, and other groups such as ex-carers, ex-offenders, homeless people and those with drug or alcohol dependencies.
Although there were no contracts awarded to G4S or People Plus (formerly known as A4E) – two much-criticised companies that had been in the running – the contract to provide services across Wales was awarded to Remploy, the formerly government-owned business now mostly owned by the US company Maximus.
Maximus has a disturbing track record of discrimination, incompetence and fraud in the US, while Remploy slashed the pay of service-users who were taking part in inspections of health and care facilities, after taking on three Care Quality Commission contracts.
DNS revealed in May that disabled people helping to deliver a vital part of the CQC inspection programme were refused support workers by Remploy, while one was bullied into resigning.
CQC was forced to write “formally” to Remploy three times over its concerns, while a CQC report in May 2016 found there had been “multiple issues with Remploy’s performance”, although CQC said its performance later improved.
Remploy had been hit almost immediately by accusations of incompetence when it took on the CQC contracts in February last year, with claims of resignations and confusion.
DWP declined to release further details of the contracts, including the names of the smaller organisations that will be working as sub-contractors on the six contracts, which are expected to include a number of disability charities.
A DWP spokeswoman said: “The Work and Health Programme will use the expertise of private, public and voluntary and community sector providers to deliver sustained employment for disabled people, disadvantaged groups and the long-term unemployed.
“It brings a different and refreshed energy and approach by offering: more intensive, tailored support than can be provided by Jobcentre Plus; contacts so that providers can offer unique support to claimants; [and] strong links to national and local employers to identify employment needs, identify roles and provide more individual training to better match people’s skills to jobs.”
The other organisations to win contracts are the charity Shaw Trust in central England; Reed In Partnership in north-east England; Ingeus in the north-west; Pluss in the south of England; and Shaw Trust in the home counties
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 13 October 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
A Conservative minister has been caught on camera saying that taxes shouldn’t fund care for older people. And that pension-age homeowners should sell their homes to cover the costs.
We’ve heard these claims before. The Conservatives’ proposed ‘dementia tax’ was a key blunder in Theresa May’s 2017 election campaign. Yet her minister for adult social care has suggested it’s time to revive the idea.
But Labour caught wind of it. And Corbyn isn’t having any of it.
‘I don’t think it’s fair’
On 11 October, a video emerged from a fringe event at the disastrous 2017 Conservative Party conference. In the video, MP Jackie Doyle-Price suggests pensioners are a ‘burden’ on society for having care needs.
First, she says [0:00]:
I don’t think it’s fair to expect the next generation of taxpayers to pay for… this generation’s long-term needs, when ultimately this is the first generation that’s going to be less well off than what went before it.
Then, she says [0:25] older people should only live in their homes if they can afford their own care:
We’ve got to a stage where people feel that they are the custodian of an asset to give to their offspring, but actually we need to get back to a stage when actually homes are for living in.
And that [0:39]
People are now… well into their pension ages, sitting in homes that are too big for their needs
Meanwhile, 200,000 homes in England aren’t lived in. Buckingham Palace has 775 rooms. And almost 20% of MPs are landlords. But no one’s telling them that “homes are for living in”.
You can watch the full video here:
‘Appalling’
Since the video came out, Theresa May has insisted the ‘dementia tax’ won’t happen.
And on Twitter, Jeremy Corbyn responded by calling out the Tories for pushing this policy:
The ‘dementia tax’ was rejected by the public. Appalling that the Tories still want to force older people to pay for care with their homes.
And on 12 October, he announced a much fairer option at a community centre in Shipley. He said Labour would create a national care service and add £8bn in funding for social care.
As The Canary has pointed out, the Tories’ ‘dementia tax’ would target the working and lower-middle classes.
So the government is right that current inequalities between generations are unfair. But punishing those with less will only make those inequalities worse. While the rich continue to own multiple homes, and pass them on to the next generation.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 12 October 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
Briish Steel Pension Fund
As British Steel pensioners will be aware, there will will be changes to their pension fund in December of this year.
Pensioners have a choice of one of two schemes to replace the old one - as explained in the letter sent to them.
Meetings are being arranged all over the country with the ones in Port Talbot yet to be arranged. The meetings will be to clarify the schemes and to answer questions from members.
Members must declare the one that suits them best on postal forms to be returned by 11th December.
In the meantime, if any member wants to make a comment on this website they are welcome to do so
Posted by John (Deputy Ed) [95.149.166.193] on 11 October 2017
while men of steel build their pension along comes a employer and takes out I thought this was highway robbery has the rich pinch the peasants savings but our governments don't change this law of allowing access to then to do it
Posted by jeffrey davies on 11 October 2017
==================================
jeffs posts
Charlotte Hughes’ true stories of the effect of Universal Credit can be read on her website, The Poor Side of Life. It makes grim reading but should leave nobody with any illusions.
We all know the arguments about UC. The so-called “benefit” has been plagued with problems ever since it was first announced – and has plagued the vulnerable as a result.
But a succession of Tory Work and Pensions secretaries have refused to address those problems in any meaningful way. Iain Duncan Smith, Stephen Crabb, Damian Green and now David Gauke have all promised to tinker around the edges without tackling the fundamental flaws that are built into the system as they have devised it.
They have devised it to push people towards suicide.
The reason is clear: If a person takes their own life, the Conservatives can claim it is nothing to do with them – the standard comment is that “there are many contributing factors towards suicide” – and revel in the benefit saving from the demise of another “useless eater”.
The simple fact is that Universal Credit will never help anybody while it is being administered by a Conservative government.
That is why the best way forward is a pause – until a Labour government can take over and consider the situation.
This Writer does not agree with Labour that UC can be saved. I think the concept is fundamentally flawed because it is demonstrably possible for a punitive government like that of the Tories to use it as a punishment for being poor, rather than an aid towards prosperity. Labour needs to accept this.
While campaigners should certainly continue making their case to the current government, I think it is also time they put forward a persuasive argument to the next one.
Evictions, homelessness, debt and even suicide will all rise if the government’s ‘chaotic’ Universal Credit roll-out continues, ministers have been warned.
In Greater Manchester, critics have said the system could devastate lives in the area.
In a dire message to Whitehall, public sector bosses, advice services and a string of MPs have all demanded an immediate halt to the policy in their area – insisting it will send some of the country’s poorest people into a downward spiral.
Charities have dubbed it a ‘universal catastrophe’, while claimants say it has made them sick with stress.
Experts have repeatedly highlighted a catalogue of problems with the system, including a minimum six-week wait for payments to be processed, which has pushed thousands of people into arrears or debt – as well as a confusing online application system, lost documentation and repeated administrative errors.
Campaigners have also staged ongoing protests outside Ashton[-under-Lyne]’s JobCentre for the last four years, warning Universal Credit claimants are being forced to rely on food parcels – and are three times more likely to face sanctions than those on Jobseekers’ Allowance.
Campaign leader Charlotte Hughes, who has been compiling a dossier of horror stories on the benefit, said: “Universal Credit is hell on earth.”
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 10 October 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
The future will be bleak for Hazel MacRae. While the Tories vow they are doing everything to make their murderous ‘benefit’ system fair, they are taking money away from her and trying to force her to find a job she can’t do.
Will she be able to survive on the reduced amount now available to her? The Tories don’t care.
Will she be able to find a job? Absolutely not, because firms simply would not spend money on adaptations for a disabled person who is unlikely to last very long in a job. The Tories don’t care.
Will she be stricken by the usual problems that afflict benefit claimants who are attacked by the Tory system – despair, mental ill-health, suicidal tendencies? Probably. The Tories don’t care.
If she doesn’t survive, the Tories will deny responsibility and enjoy the benefit saving. They consider her to be a “useless eater” and are probably looking forward to her becoming another statistic for their policy of chequebook euthanasia.
It’s all about money with the Tories, you see. They want it all, and don’t care who they take it from or how badly they will be harmed.
Blind since birth and stricken by a string of disabilities but told she is fit to work – this is the reality of Government benefit cuts.
Hazel Macrae, who also suffers from epilepsy, Type 2 Diabetes and osteoarthritis, was claiming Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and was told she’d have to undertake a back to work assessment.
The 62-year-old filled in a questionnaire explaining she’s unable to leave her home without the help of her partner or son because she is afraid of falling, can’t use a pen or pencil, telephone, and would be unable to “move safely” in a workplace.
She was also required to meet with a health professional in Gosforth to undergo a face-to-face assessment where she was asked a series of questions about her daily activities.
Echoing the award-winning Ken Loach film I, Daniel Blake – which was shot in Newcastle – Miss Macrae has been told she has “limited capability for work” and her ESA has been moved from the Support Group to Work Related Activity Group, and reduced by £15 per fortnight.
She said: “They think they can support me back into work but I can’t do it. There are no jobs that I can do.
“They have said that I can use my hands and I’m expected to apply for all jobs going… I can’t even make a cup of tea myself because of the boiling water.”
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 10 October 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
coming our way
Cornwall’s main hospital has gone into special measures. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) report on the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (Treliske) followed an inspection in July. And the report “uncovered a catalogue of serious failings”. But no matter how hard NHS staff work, they have faced a ‘perfect storm’ of cuts to local services and an increase of tenders to private companies. And a source told The Canary that the impact of this report could be:
the end of the NHS in Cornwall. Don’t say we didn’t warn everyone.
Inadequate
The report, published on 5 October, found services “inadequate” for an NHS trust that serves over 500,000 people. But hospitals in Cornwall also serve a huge influx of tourists. And as Jeremy Corbyn noted in a recent visit to Cornwall:
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
The summer population is closer to 1 million and all those people need to know there’s a hospital there to care for them.
But this influx of visitors is not fully acknowledged in terms of funding for the NHS in Cornwall. In July, ahead of this latest move to special measures, NHS Kernow was rated “inadequate”. And the problems don’t stop there.
Sustainability and transformation?
The Conservative government has introduced plans for Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) across the NHS. The Canary gave a detailed analysis of STPs here. STPs emerged from the Five Year Forward View (5YFV). This was drawn up by Simon Stevens, CEO of the NHS, who previously worked in private healthcare in the US. One of the main objections to STPs is that they are seen to be another means of privatising the NHS. Critics have described them as a “wish-list for privatisers”.
And because these plans advocate the integration of health (NHS) and social care, this creates more problems. The NHS, free at the point of use, is not means tested. But social care is means tested. And since the Tories have been in power, huge cuts [pdf] to local government and a 27% drop in social care funding have left the system in crisis.
The CQC report in July highlighted:
the experience of people moving between hospitals, social care and their own homes was often not good enough. The review has concluded that the services need to make urgent and significant change to improve…there was a higher rate of delayed transfers of care in Cornwall than in similar areas.
There has been widespread opposition to STPs. And as previously reported in The Canary, there has been fierce opposition to STPs in Cornwall.
Crisis
According to local activists, a huge NHS trust in Cornwall has been run into the ground. And this is largely due to an increase in tenders and a lack of funding for the elderly and those needing social care. A healthcare worker in Cornwall told The Canary:
Devastating funding cuts in health and local government have caused the crisis at Treliske. This started with difficulties in providing community care as the council was forced to tender out services. But this change was created by Westminster legislation. Since 2012, services now have to go out to tender and most seem to go to private tender. It is becoming more and more difficult for the NHS to retain or get new tenders. Some private companies don’t pay tax in the UK, so our public funding doesn’t go back in. They are taking money away from the NHS every day.
As funding, particularly for the elderly, has decreased, more pressure has been put on hospitals. And although this is a pattern that has been seen across the UK, the implications in this county have been devastating. Because the knock-on effect of the “special measures” coincides with the push to STPs. Cornwall Council is [pdf p199] a “key partner” for the STP. But there are concerns about the council’s record for dealing with a falling budget:
Fund management in Cornwall has been inadequate, at the worst professionally incompetent.
As a source said:
Councillors are trying to take over Health services in Cornwall. This is the same council that has an appalling record of community care. Although this is as a result of cuts from Westminster, people in Cornwall are suffering.
And fears have been expressed locally that this step could mean even more NHS services are put out to tender.
Special measures
Anna Gillett, Labour town councillor and chair of Truro and Falmouth Labour, told The Canary:
Special measures are new to Cornwall. It means we are likely to experience the sharp edge of this regime, swiftly administered by the government’s henchmen. Now the service has been run down sufficiently, it is ripe for dismantling. The cherry pickers have already taken what they can in terms of services that can run for profit. What is going to be left? Very little is my guess.
And another source explained to The Canary:
In Cornwall, services that have gone out to tender have been those that are profitable. Those that lose money, like end of care life and complex surgery, don’t make a profit. So the NHS has been left to foot the bill.
We stand with you
But what has emerged since the announcement is strong local support from the local community for all those working within the NHS trust. A source told The Canary:
Mainstream media reports imply that staff are to blame. This is not the case. Government cuts mean wards have closed and there are not enough beds. In Cornwall, there is a critical shortage of nurses; over 100. And we also need another 26o FTE [full time equivalent] healthcare workers across the county. Staff do an incredible job in an impossible situation.
And another source said:
NHS staff have stood by Cornwall and now Cornwall needs to stand by those staff.
At the time of writing, only two of the seven Tory Cornish MPs had made statements in response to this report. The Canary also contacted the Department of Health and the NHS for comment, but did not receive a reply.
But there is a possibility that this report could be another signpost along the road to the end of the NHS as we know it. We need to act now to protect it.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 10 October 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
starving hay
David Cameron has got himself a new job, working as an adviser for a financial transactions company. But he needn’t worry about the salary. Because while he starts this new gig, he’ll still be getting up to £115,000 a year from the public purse.
Bringing home the bacon
Cameron will sit on the advisory board of First Data Corporation. The company describes itself as:
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
a global leader in commerce-enabling technology, serving approximately six million business locations and 4,000 financial institutions in more than 100 countries around the world. The company’s… securing and processing more than 2,800 transactions per second and $2.2 trillion per year.
Big business, no doubt. But while Cameron earns an undisclosed amount from his first private sector role we, the taxpayer, are still forking out for him.
Cameron: still troughing it
As The Canary previously reported, accounts from Theresa May’s Cabinet Office revealed it paid [pdf, p89] Cameron £50,227 in 2016/17. The accounts say [pdf, p89] this is to:
assist former Prime Ministers, still active in public life. Payments are made only to meet the actual cost of continuing to fulfil public duties. The costs are a reimbursement of incurred expenses for necessary office costs and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life.
The allowance has a limit of £115,000 a year for the lifetime of the former PMs. Because Cameron only began [pdf, p89] getting this benefit from 14 July 2016, he hasn’t claimed the full annual amount. But in future years he will be able to.
Cameron’s new job, and six-figure expense account funded by the public, come on top of an £800,000 book deal he signed for his ‘memoirs’. And, as The Financial Times reported [paywall], he charges up to £120,000 an hour for speeches.
This little piggy…
The Guardian reported that the government’s Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) noted in a letter to Cameron:
You stated the role is not likely to include contact with government, you have no commercially sensitive information about First Data or its competitors and you did not have previous official dealings with First Data.
The Guardian continues:
Given Cameron’s former position, Acoba asked the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, John Manzoni, about the role. Manzoni confirmed that the government had no links with First Data…
It seems that while the rest of the UK still suffers the ill effects of years of grinding austerity, the man in charge of relentless cuts to benefits and public services is sitting pretty. As is often the case, the Tories are laughing all the way to the bank; funded, in part, at our expensePosted by jeffrey davies on 10 October 2017
