How wicked of you, David Cameron.

[vivizone]

So we're going back to Victorian notions of the 'undeserving poor'. Time to re-open the workhouses.

How this man and his cronies are getting away with so much damage done to the ordinary man and woman, I do not know.

Help us all.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/09/deserving-families-council-housing-priority

Those of you saying it's tedious obviously suffer from a lack of empathy.

if you all had to worry about one of your children being the victim of this governments policy maybe you wouldn't find it tedious.

Sadly, my daughter isn't likely to be able to make a contribution to society. She's nearly 11, she looks 'normal' but she can't dress herself, eat by herself, sleep by herself and she runs in front of cars outside. I regularly lie awake worrying about what her future will hold for her, as this government don't seem to be doing anything progressive that will help her. She can't help having autism, and certainly shouldn't be punished for it.

I imagine the people affected by it would love to be distanced enough from it to be bored!

If you actually read the thread, it's about homeless people, not disabled people. The discussion would have stayed linked to the OP if homeless people were discussed more than anything else.

Of course it will affect some disabled people and parents of disabled children (if it happens), but it will also affect pregnant people, able bodied people, ex services people, care leavers, parents of able bodied children, out of work people, people working for a low income, people who volunteer, people who don't volunteer, and the list goes on. There is absolutely no need for it to all be about people who are disabled or who have disabled children. I find it sad that people are turned off potentially interesting threads because of certain posts.

Going back to an earlier post of yours outraged;

It doesn't say anything about disabled people in the article. Why are you assuming that someone who is disabled will be seen as less deserving than someone who is in the services

Because it doesn't say anything about them in the article!

So can you see why that article made some of us a little concerned?

Does that explain why we mentioned disability?

Every bit of security people with disabilities and their families have had is under threat at the moment, so it tends to make you notice these things you see.

Having re-read the article, it doesnt mention disabled people unless I am missing something. Carers have and always will be catered for to a decent level.

Not giving priority to familes for declare a relative "homeless" or pregnant people is not the end of the world. If you are adult enough to get pregnant you are adult enough to find a home privately. If you want to leave the family home, thats fine but dont play the system to get a house handed to you.

The system has needed an overhaul for years as its lost its welfare state credentials and become an entitlement to many.

Of course I can see that. I understand why you talk about the disability aspect of the thing perfectly.

What I don't understand is why disability is talked about to the exclusion of every other group of people that could be affected. You want me to step out of my world and understand how people affected by disability will be affected by this paper. And I'm happy to. That's why I read these threads and stay on them. But I'm interested in the other groups of people that will be affected too.

" I find it sad that people are turned off potentially interesting threads because of certain posts."

well i find it sad that you are trying to shut carers up.
do you really think that disabled people are never homeless?

MurderOfGoths Mon 12-Nov-12 18:25:07
I imagine the people affected by it would love to be distanced enough from it to be bored!

well said

Carers have and always will be catered for to a decent level

Says who? read up a bit on the subject and you will find that is not so.]

What I don't understand is why disability is talked about to the exclusion of every other group of people that could be affected

By talking about the disability/carers issue, I am not excluding anyone from discussing all aspects of the issue.

My issue is not about the needs of the other groups, it is that in focusing on them, other groups are being glossed over..this is no accident.

FFS threesocks, you really do only see what you choose to don't you?

I've already explained I'm not trying to 'shut carers up'. Like I said, being hopeful that a thread can stay on topic is not trying shut anyone up. Of course I don't think that disabled people can never be homeless, but you come across as though you think all disabled people will be made homeless.

Happy, I agree. Simply being pregnant should not give you priority for social housing. If there is one suitable property being offered and two pregnant people of the same age and in similar circumstances to choose from to give it to, I see nothing wrong with giving it to the one who has made a contribution to society over the one who hasn't.

Amberleaf, i ran a dummy quote through the benefit calculator. A couple where neither works with two children where one child qualifies for mid dla and a low rent of £80 can claim £20k in benefits and that didnt seem to include the dla payment. A working person would have to earn a gross salary of £26.5k to bring that sort of income in. Yes i think the system provides to a decent level.

Go and read up a bit about how the welfare reforms will affect people like your hypothetical couple then eh?

Is this another of these faux calculations where you neglect to add in that the couple earning £26.5 K would also be receiving child benefit, tax credits, yadda yadda?

Or are you saying that £26.5 K is the same level of provision to a family of three with disability-related costs, as to a fit single person with no dependents and no costs for care, special adaptations or mobility?

The point is, discussing the disabled on a thread like this IS relevant, at least to those of us who don't see each individual Government policy in isolation, but rather as a group of policies that combine to screw over the disabled and Carers more than any other section of Society.

A Lone parent who has a disability, like me (yes, I'm 'personalising' this again, because I know my own situation well enough, though there are others in the same situation) and is claiming ESA, will be subject to the benefit cap.

I live in the SE, in a HA house where I am already having to pay £100 top up on my rent as HB doesn't cover the so-called 'affordable rent' on my home. I can't relocate, for 101 reasons, some connected to my disabilities, some connected to my DC's continued contact with their father, and some connected to my DC's disabilities and schooling issues.

I also have multiple DC's with disabilities. So my income will probably be over the cap.

What this means is that I will lose any support I get over the cap. In practice, I can't stop ANY of the extra expenses caused by my disability, or my DC's disabilities. I can't cover my bills for heat, light and water AND cover my rent on what will be left, as I have lost roughly £2,500 a year.

So, as I have to cover all the expenses of our disabilities, feed my DC's and myself, keep the house warm enough that none of us freeze to death, and cover the costs of their exclusion diets and huge bus fares to school, the rent doesn't get fully paid.

I get evicted. I am no longer a 'priority' on the housing list, despite being homeless, as I don't 'contribute' to Society. If I am no longer a priority, then the Council does not even have to find a one room B&B to accommodate us. I don't have any money to pay for a Private rented deposit, and my council has no deposit scheme. I am unemployed so cannot get a loan to cover the cost of a deposit.

Are you HONESTLY trying to tell me that disabled people AREN'T going to be affected by these policies?!

And note in the bottom of the Article, it states SOME disabled people MAY be given priority. In other words, NOT ALL.

Let's see, now. Would your acceptance as a priority on the housing list be connected to your receipt of disability related benefits, as assessed by the deeply flawed WCA that has the published aim of getting 20% of people off disability benefits despite there being a combined fraud and DWP error rate of just 0.5%? Would this be decided on the findings of the same, deeply flawed WCA that has its findings overturned in 40% of self-represented cases, and 80% of cases represented by the CAB? Would this be decided on the basis of the same, deeply flawed WCA that is being decried by the Lib Dems? And Lord Harrington?

And you wonder WHY people with disabilities and their Carers come onto these threads to explain, yet again, how this policy or that policy will hurt the disabled the hardest?

WHY should access to Social Housing be based on ANYTHING other than who is in the greatest NEED? 'Deserving' shouldn't come into it. NEED should be the ONLY thing considered.

If you want MORE people to have access to Social Housing, such as the soldiers, then the solution is obvious to anyone. BUILD MORE HOUSES.

This would also have the added effect of stimulating the economy, more jobs, more money paid in taxes, AND homes for the 'deserving but not in as great NEED' as well as the truly in NEED.

Mmm.
Who pays rent of £80 a week? Where's the other £100 odd?

I'd say let's try to keep the subject about housing rather than disabilities and how much the govt does/doesn't give to disabled people. But then I'd be just told I'm unsympathetic and won't someone please think of the children!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos no I don't actually.
It won't most likely affect me as we already have a HA house. are good tenants and are not in arrears.
but that doesn't stop me from being concerned to see the changes that are being mad that will affect others.
oh and I do think it is now the time to remind people. disability is not a choice and it can happen to anyone at anytime, and it will affect everyone at some time how ever boring you find the subject

niceguy why? why do you think the 2 are seperate?

And as an aside, how many adapted private rented properties are there...

If people with disabilities aren't a priority, that means that if they are in need of an adapted property, they will basically have no way of getting it.

Because the Government isn't going to pay out for an expensive adaptation to a Private Rented house. Even if the LL agrees. Because that LL could then ask you to leave, and rent it out to another person who needs that adaptation, for WAY above market rent, without having had to pay ANY of the costs for that adaptation.

Meanwhile, the original tenant still needs that adaptation in their NEW private rented property...

Yeah, THAT'S going to happen.

And actually, the article DOESN'T mention disabilities at all. I've reread it. Which is what drew me in to posting in the first place!

It's the omission of mention that concerns the disabled and Carers. If we were going to be looked on as 'deserving' under these new rules, do you not think the Government would be crowing that from the rooftops as a way to say "Look, see, we DO care about the disabled and Carers."

So it's the omission that scares the fucking crap out of us, yeah? Surely it would have been the best way to put a spin on caring for the disabled and Carers (while minimising the effects of the useless WCA). But that ISN'T what they're doing.

So by omission, it tells the disabled and their Carers that nope, we don't class you as deserving enough any more.

So there you go. It's the omission that speaks volumes. Because if the disabled WERE to be included in this priority, do you really not think that the spin doctors could have used it to their advantage? If I was a spin doctor and this DID include the disabled and Carers as 'deserving', then I would have used it to try to claw back some support for my Government from the disabled, their Carers, and just about any major Charity that works with these people. But they haven't...

£80 rent? That barely gets a bedsit with a sofa bed as there isn't a separate bedroom in this town. Don't make me laugh! £80 a week rent. I bloody wish.

The disabled still need housing...

Why are people with disabilities not pertinent then?
Because after welfare reform, after being kicked off DLA, after having HB docked because they're overhoused (even though house side medically approved), after being told they're fit to work but too ill for JSA they're going to get evicted. In droves.

They are not separate issues. This is what we are trying to say.

As for us, good tenants yes but due to the LA stuffing up HB we had rental arrears for a time. So wouldn't be priority would we? We can't exactly work caring for three children with disabilities.

I chose a rent of £80 a week to not be accused of inflating rents to bump up the benefits total, doubling the rent will give an even higher benefit rate.

Parsingfanct, a couple on a salary of £26k would get child benefit but tax credits are capped to £26k so they would get very little if any. So bar the child benefit, they would get nothing. Up the rent to the amounts suggested above and add on the dla and the couple not working but caring are much better off. That means carers are given enough to cover living costs.

Hmm. The DLA is to be spent on the needs of the person with the disability. So it's unfair to include as income. Hence why up til now govt calcs do not include it.

DLA is not included in a house hold income.