Too Many Cuts...come join the #Frothers and have your say

[AnyFuckerForAMincePie]

This is the 3rd thread in a series.

It is for people who are horrified, frustrated and downright sad at the erosion of human rights with respect to how this country is being run, just now and in the recent past

it is apolitical in nature, but of course due to many recent initiatives by the recent govt, there will be rants against our current "leaders"

please join in

I shall post the link to the old threads, our "Too Many Cuts #Frothers" blog that is attracting a lot of widespread attention and a little bit of what we are about in a moment

Fuck, hunty. Fuck fuck fuck.

FUCK

I really must compose myself and stop panicking and swearing.

I promise this will happen by the end of today. As you were.

And, of course, given that the charges are in the offing - this means that not only will you lose the maintenance money pound-for-ponud, but you will also be out of pocket with the % taken out AND the charges.

How to more than half the CSA's workload, and means maintenance will only be worth bothering with for those Lone parents that earn too much to be entitled to UC.

RIGHT!

I think we should give it a go. We can try to get it retweeted and on 38 degrees and stuff. We won't know until we try.

It's OK Lubey - I don't think I've sworn as much as I have been doing over the last 12 hours. I woke up at 4am in a cold sweat saying fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck!!

A particular part of the bill that needs opposing is making contributory IB/ESA 1 year only.

It's supposed to encourage disabled people to get better...

(But NB context is that currently person X who was working will get a higher amount of IB/ESA than person Y who was a SAHM at the time they suffered identical injuries in the same train crash, say.)

Just link dumping to look at later

www.family-action.org.uk/section.aspx?id=13271

Officially signing out, back sunday. Good luck with the UC piece -

Actions should definately be writing to Lords, they can and have turned around shitty legislation before - they're particularly keen on the declaration of human rights if you can find anything relevant.

This:
apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/cutting-disabled-ill-people-benefits

Another stupid move by the government.

apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/cutting-disabled-ill-people-benefits
sorry.

Will catch up in a moment, just wanted to say I am having a twitter chat (if that is not exaggerating two tweets from him) with Grant Shapps about the housing strategy.

Hunty
Can you link to the IFS or tell us what it is called, so that we can look at it?

Don't panic about the time scale. We do what we can to highlight the issues. At the end of the day, the paid politicians who we elected ie. the opposition, ie LABOUR will have to fight the battles.

Te
FANTASTIC post. Really really great. Well done.

IT support, my arse.

:o

This is the post on the CSA for the blog - can someone proofread it for me, and give me any additions or things to take out, need someone to look over it as I have done it quite quickly, and I have to go and get dinner in the slow cooker!!

The changeover from CSA (Child Support Agency) to CMEC (Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission)

A lot of people are aware that the Government are planning big changes to the CSA, but most are unaware of the scope of these changes. It was announced on Friday 2nd December that there are plans to charge BOTH parents an annual fee to use the CSA/CMEC. The fee would be £100, or £50 if you are in receipt of means-tested benefits. Which could mean that a PWC (Parent with Care) who is working, might have to pay £100, while her Ex-Partner, or NRP (non-resident parent) might be on JSA and only have to pay £50. The charge will be applicable MORE than once a year if the NRP changes jobs without informing the CSA, or if the NRP stops paying. So if you have an Ex-Partner that doesn?t want to pay maintenance, you may face REPEATED charges for trying to get him to provide for your child or children.
On top of that ? the Government is proposing that there are extra charges levied on maintenance, on a percentage basis. They have proposed that a percentage of between 15 and 20% is ADDED to the maintenance that the NRP pays. The CSA would then take their cut, taking it back to the current level of maintenance. THEN the CSA would take another percentage cut from the maintenance before they pay it out to the PWC. They have proposed that this will be between 7 and 12%.
What does this mean in real terms? There is a thread here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1356043-CSA-figures-when-they-start-charging-for-using-the-CSA on Mumsnet that spells out the financial implications of this, for both the PWC and the NRP.
There are lots of people campaigning about this at the moment, including www.csahell.com/single-parents-to-pay-for-csa-help-2347.html - (CSA Hell), www.nacsa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=146 - (NACSA), www.gingerbread.org.uk/content.aspx?CategoryID=577 ? Gingerbread.

Chapter Three: Moving to the New Child Maintenance System.
? From 2012 all new applications will be made under the new Child Maintenance System, involving the Gateway process. No new applications will be taken under CSA or CMEC rules.
? From the introduction of the new Child Maintenance System, a probation period of 6 months will be in place, during which no charges will be applied. This will allow any ?teething problems? to be identified.
? Around end 2011, into early 2012, existing CSA/CMEC cases will be issued with case closure letters, and details of the new Gateway procedure will be given. After a period of 3 months, the PWC will then have to decide which option they intend to take ? either a private arrangement, or make an application to the new Statutory Service.
? The new system of child maintenance will be administered by another brand new computer system, which will be linked to HMRC. The intention is to have more up to date access to the income of the NRP.
? Cases will automatically be revised annually, ensuring maintenance is based on the most recent income information.
This is a paragraph from the NACSA document that I have linked to, showing that cases will be being closed VERY soon. This will give the PWC only 12 weeks to decide whether to go for a private agreement or have to pay to continue to use the collection service. Which some PWC will have no choice but to do. If they have been a victim of physical, emotional or financial abuse, having a private agreement is impossible. However, although there will be ?exceptions? for PROVEN Domestic Violence, emotional and financial abuse is notoriously hard to prove, and is unlikely to be covered by this rule. Which means that a woman who has left a relationship due to being emotionally or financially abused, will still have to pay to use the new CMEC to get maintenance from their ex-partner.
Often, a woman who has left a relationship due to emotional or financial abuse has an Ex-Partner that is what is called ?non-compliant?. This means that he will NOT pay maintenance without being FORCED to by the CSA/CMEC. And because this parent is irresponsible, and wishes to avoid paying maintenance, the PWC will be charged for this. There is unlikely to be ANY protection for PWC in this situation. This is a travesty for Women?s Rights.
The government says the current Child Support Agency is expensive to run, costing 40p for every £1 collected. It admits the main savings from introducing charges will NOT be from money collected, which it says will raise only ?a small proportion? of the running costs. Savings will come because charges will mean fewer people use CMEC?s child support scheme, making it cheaper to run.

The government says: ?For the majority of customers an application will be good value compared to the child maintenance that will be paid through a case. Given the long-term financial benefits of child maintenance we believe it is fair and in line with the principles of personal responsibility to ask parents to reallocate a small proportion of their spending so that they can afford an application charge.?
This is a paragraph from the Gingerbread document that was linked to earlier. What this means is that the Government is actively trying to DISSUADE PWC from using the CSA/CMEC to save money. Rather than trying to ensure that NRP?s take financial responsibility for their children, they are allowing them to shirk this responsibility by putting these barriers in place TO SAVE MONEY.
The ConDem Government do not care about the impact of this on Lone Parent Families. There will be another Blog post soon that expands on this issue, to tell you about the impact of the new Universal Credit on child maintenance.
HuntyCat, #frothers.

I don't know how to link to a PDF file. .

Will email Lubey it in a sec, maybe she can pass it on?

Sweet Jesus my broadband has been utterly dreadful again today.

Lots of this stuff originated under Labour.

The Freud Report set it out in 2007 ? in a period of high employment. When the banks and economy crashed, Labour said there was no need to change the plan and its completely arbitrary targets.

"the government has set itself a long term aim of 80% employment. By historical and international standards this is clearly an ambitious aspiration ? probably the most ambitious made in the area of employment policy. Only one country in the world, Iceland, has employment substantially above 80%.

"The Department has said in its Green Paper38 that, in order to achieve 80% employment:
? the lone parent employment rate would need to increase to 70%;
? the incapacity benefits caseload would need to reduce by one million;
? the number of older workers in employment would need to increase by one million.

"Assuming that the increase in lone parent employment is matched by a fall in the number on lone parent benefits, then based on these assumptions reaching 80% would mean reducing the number of people on benefits by up to 1.3 million. This would generate significant fiscal and economic benefits. The boost to public finances could also be substantial."
Chap. 2, p47

Freud then went on to become a peer for the Tories, of course. Just making clear this isn't party political.

There's no one left to vote for given the LibDems are now ConDems and Clegg was making identical noises on welfare before the election.

Unless Labour suddenly re-reinvent themselves when they realise the policies are unpopular.

I have to go and get my lamb stew in the slow cooker, but will be back soon. If someone could let me know what they think of the post above before I put it on the blog, it would be much appreciated!

TIA.

Huntycat that's great, get it posted!

Thanks for the emails, will look over it all properly later. Christ this is so awful. Grrrr.

Just reading, Hunty, have Q in a mo about clarity...

OK.

They have proposed that a percentage of between 15 and 20% is ADDED to the maintenance that the NRP pays. The CSA would then take their cut, taking it back to the current level of maintenance. THEN the CSA would take another percentage cut from the maintenance before they pay it out to the PWC. They have proposed that this will be between 7 and 12%.

[As a know-nothing I'm easily confused by this. If I've got it right, maybe try:]

"They have proposed that the NRP pays 15 to 20% more than current maintenance amounts, and that the CSA takes all of this increase. The CSA would also take an additional 7 to 12% from the original maintenance amount. So the NRP would pay 15 to 20% more, and the PWC would receive 7 to 12 % less."

What this means is that the Government is actively trying to DISSUADE PWC from using the CSA/CMEC to save money.
[deletion as unclear whether PWC or govt saving money, and you say it again more clearly in next sentence]

And rather than just linking to the MN threads, could you actually put your superb posts with all the figures in this blog posting? Lots of people just don't click through.

Otherwise, wow. Brilliant work.

Yup - I like it. I can't see why you can't quote a few pieces from MN threads either, they are public domain. Though you could PM the author's or use posts from Frothers who you know won't mind.

Have edited as Tianc suggested, and have included both the link to the MN thread, and a few of the posts about how it will affect people financially. Am going to try and get my head around getting it onto the Blog, as I had to have help last time. .