WTF are Frothers? Have you seen them around and wondered? Not a quiche, but a protest group. Tory, Labour, Lib Dems - Common Goal - Protest Against the Cuts

[MmeLindor.]

What are the Frothers?

The term "Frothers" came about one dank and dismal November day in 2011. A frustrated user of the parenting forum Mumsnet started a thread about her dismay at the cuts that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government was inflicting on the British public.

She stated that she was not "quite a frothing berserker but I am getting rather cross with our government messing with the good stuff".

The good stuff - policies, benefits, institutions that had taken years to achieve were being cut for no good reason, often leaving gaping holes in the fabric of British society.

The NHS, with which we Brits have a love-hate relationship, but like a favourite sibling, we wish to protect from harm.

Sure Start, a successful scheme that supported parents who were struggling and offered children from deprived backgrounds a better start in life.

Universal Child Benefit was cut for those families who had one earner bringing in more than £44k a year. If both parents each earn less than £44k, they keep their UCB payments. This obviously hit single parents and families with a single earner hardest.

Disability Living Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance - which enabled those with disabilities to live a decent life, without feeling that they were begging for assistance or were a burden to the taxpayer.

Student Fees, the introduction of which, contrary to Lib Dem pre-election promises, means that a whole generation of young people will have to think carefully before applying to higher education.

These and many other cuts are being made in the name of austerity. We are "all in this together", but some of us are deeper in this than others.

We all understand that there are sacrifices to be made but why should these sacrifices be borne by those who already have so little?

The general public seems oblivious of the dangers being faced, they are unaware of the injustices being wrought on the already disadvantaged.

The government is winning the war of the headlines. They have blasted the recipients of DLA and ESA as scrounger and cheats so often that the general public believe it. They misinterpret data to "prove" their points. Teachers are painted as being irresponsible and greedy, while the bankers rake in the money.

The poster on Mumsnet was not alone for long. Within a few days, a group of over 30 posters had formed. They asked themselves, "What can we do?".

The idea of a blog was born. Three days later the blog had over thirty authors signed up, a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

The Aims:

• to open the general publics' eyes to the injustices being created by the governement

• to inform those who are facing cuts about their rights

• to link with other activists and charities, in order to put pressure on the government

Are you a Frother?

Come and join us.

BLOG

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

Something that amused me the other day was that in an environment where poor people are so often blamed, I gotr messages after mentioning my MA here asking why I was bothering and that it 'must be fun' as if I could enver use it.

MA is in my son's diagnosis, was paid for by us before DH was amde redundant and is dfone part time when they are at school.

how very dare us poor people try and find a way out eh?

Oh, I'm not questioning the fact that financial despair leads to - well, despair. Was just a bit at the headlines, which missed off the counterbalancing part of the news.

Yeah, I came in for a bout of blaming on another thread, too. I suppose people find it comforting.

Ages ago I started a thread about how a relative had said DH and I shouldn't have another baby until we were in aposition to not be entitled to any benefits at all. I may have repeated this in AIBU, and so many people agreed even though since CB is still universal and therefore it is impossible!! It's an impressive level of denial!

Also DH shouldn't have finished his degree, even though he was 3/4 of the way through when we had DD and finishing has meant he actually has a decently paying job now, and we were able to get off HB/food vouchers etc.

I was also quite amused.

If you are poor you can't do anything right.

Funny how council tenants always get criticised on here. If you get a new kitchen it's not fair you're getting one for free, if you install one yourself you shouldn't be able to afford to and live in social housing.

On The Fifth Day...

Very, very good, Mme! You've highlighted both the excess cost and the hypocrisy of promoting sport while letting our children down (and, naturally, blaming them for being unfit)>

Am angry all over again.

Great piece Mme

I'm all frothed up now and I should be in my sick bed. Be back later, just wanted to pop in x

Have put SGM's piece on fuel property on the blog ready for tomorrow. It is VERY interesting.

While searching for an alternative photo (I think it was a graph that SGM sent me but I could not copy it), I found this website, which reported on the new fuel poverty definition that has been suggested. Landmark day for fuel poverty?

Can someone tell me what this means, cause it looks to me as if this is sayign that fewer people are then in fuel poverty than previous. Or am I reading it wrong?

It is written as if it is a good thing.

If households are assessed on income after household costs, where does this leave people with other high costs such as childcare, or high travel costs?

Well this jumped out at me: "The critical thing to remember is that the new definition neutralises the impact of fuel price rises. It is therefore no longer the case that an increase in fuel prices like the one we've recently experienced casts millions more into fuel poverty. From now on households will be judged as fuel poor relative to other households, not by a proportion of income spent on fuel."

I think it is a PR win for energy companies if so! Relative amount spent on fuel is fairly irrelevant, no? Whereas the actual amount fuel costs is definately relevant!

yy.

What good does it do that I don't spend as mcuh as my neighbour on fuel, if I cannot afford to heat the house?

Of COURSE fuel poverty is related to fuel prices for those who are in low income groups.

If fuel goes up by 20% and incomes don't, does that not have relevance??

That article is deliberately misleading, isn't it?

Mme, your last point is obvious to most folks but is ignored in the stats.

Speaking from our own experience here, the fuel increase is having an effect on our household outgoings. DH and I, as public sector workers, have had a wage freeze for 2 years and will have the same for the next 2- 3 years. God only knows how much fuel will have increased in that 4-5 years. Let alone other stuff.
We recognise that we are lucky that we have a decent regular income though.

Te, doesn't your quote basically mean that fuel poverty's becoming so prevalent, we now have to consider it normal?

Another 'Through The Looking Glass' moment ...

yes, as far as i can tell. Current definition is more than 10% of your total income being spent of fuel (not sure whether that is before or after tax though).

You'd have to do some digging but i suspect that site is sponsored by some fuel company or other or some other vested interest.

Fuel poverty was always a weirdy one; reason we don;t spend 10% on fuel is that we just don;t heat unless temp is zero (or it's Christmas Day- buggered if I am being cold on that day!)

Even if we could though we'd be disinclined to hand NPower any more of our income than is strictly esential; God bless thermal PJs and a duvet says I! If I am spending on fuel it can be petrol to get me down to the family.

Yeah that's a vague bit it's 10% to make the house sufficiently warm or similar. I'm not sure if that means warm enough that you won't die of frostbite in the night or warm enough that you aren't likely to get pneumonia/ill, or warm enough that most people would be comfortable...

Well, "You'll have to so some digging" rarely fails to set me off ...
They see to be quite influential with various govt departments, Ofgem, EAGA (who execute the Warm Front scheme) and so on. I've been reading some case histories here. It gives an interesting insight into how this game is played - channelling funds and paper from one involved body to another, all of the funds originating from the government and the outcome being government satisfaction at doing the right thing. (Highly naive summary, but still ...)

The preponderance of alternative-energy providers on their boards & panels suggests we're well on the way to having restricted energy supplies (from 'sustainable' sources) which will necessitate cost-based power rationing. That's part of the smart metering project. I also noticed we're still heading towards personal carbon allowances. I thought that had gone dormant after illegal international carbon trading scams were exposed, but now see the whole business is back on track. If you're poor, you'll be able to sell some of your PCA to somebody who wants to burn a lot of fuel. This will be interesting - presumably you won't be able to top up your overpriced, seasonally-unavailable renewable power by lighting a fire, as fires would use up carbon points.

I have a vision of the future. And I want to go & live somewhere warm, where food readily grows on trees :(

I got central heating from Warm Front - thank you, taxpayer! The guy set the control to the recommended levels, which were 21° during the day and 16° at night. Presumably that's what "they" are supposed to be working to?

Hmm, strange. The Guardian have a different take on the Hills Review

And WTF was this not headline news? Estimated 2700 deaths due to fuel poverty this winter?

Did any of you read about this?

Wow, I certainly didn;t see that no.

Awful.

Only just seeing it now. Can't believe it wasn't headlines either.

Found the Hills Report. This is from the conclusion:

In Chapters 5, 6 and 7 we set out the pros and cons of the current definition and of
a range of modifications and alternative
approaches. The current approach has a
key strength: its focus on required, not
actual, energy spend. In any modification
of the definition this should be retained.
However, the precise form of the
indicator ? based on a ratio against a fixed
threshold ? gives it certain weaknesses. It
generates, for instance, a trend over the
last fifteen years ? a rapid decline followed
by an equally rapid rise ? which does not
reflect what happened in the underlying
causes of the problem. This is because
while the indicator is affected by each
of the three drivers (household income,
energy efficiency and fuel prices) of fuel
poverty, it is dominated by fuel prices to
the extent that the impact of changes in
the others can barely be discerned. One
way of understanding this weakness is by
considering that the trends generated by
the current definition reflect two aspects
of the problem ? its extent and its depth ?
simultaneously. It would be more helpful to
separate them.

10. We also discuss how the ratio basis of the
    current definition and its measurement
    against a fixed threshold make its results
    highly sensitive to the precise assumptions
    made in relation to the data on which it
    is based.

11. After examining a series of possible
    modifications and alternatives to the
    current approach in Chapter 6, we
    conclude that while they each bring
    insights to understanding the problem,
    they also have weaknesses. We therefore
    explore in Chapter 7 whether there is a way
    of building on the strengths of the current
    definition, but to use the information on
    which it is based in a different way. This is
    to look more directly at what is described
    in WHECA and in everyday discussions of
    what fuel poverty is and how to tackle it:
    to focus on households which both have
    low incomes and have high costs.

12. This kind of ?Low Income-High Costs?
    indicator would use the existing datasets
    and needs-based energy model both to
    show the number of households and
    individuals affected by fuel poverty, and
    to show the depth of the problem ? theirindividual and collective fuel poverty gaps.
    Under this approach, fuel poverty exists
    where a household has above reasonable
    costs of warmth and where meeting those
    costs would push it below an income
    threshold. To show its results, we have
    modelled this indicator using specific
    thresholds for income and costs, but other
    choices could be made.

13. Like the current definition, this approach
    responds to changes in income, energy
    efficiency and fuel prices. However, it
    does so in a way which more evenly
    reflects all three drivers. For example, the
    impact of fuel price increases is shown
    in an increased fuel poverty gap and in
    a number of households on the margins
    being pushed into fuel poverty. However,
    price increases do not dominate or lead to
    great swings in the number of fuel poor
    households identified. At the same time
    if prices fell, the core extent of the fuel
    poverty problem would remain visible but
    the fuel poverty gap would show how
    the depth of fuel poverty for individual
    households was reduced.

14. Using the data available, this approach
    would suggest that the extent of fuel
    poverty has been on a slow downward
    trajectory since 1996, but with a wide
    fluctuation in fuel poverty gaps, at their
    lowest in 2003 and at essentially the same
    peak levels in 1996 and 2009. We believe
    this reflects the structural issues at the
    heart of fuel poverty. Our understanding
    of the evidence suggests that the extent
    of the fuel poverty problem had not
    been reduced by three-quarters by 2004,
    compared to 1996. But equally it has
    not increased by more than three times
    since 2004.

15. Compared to the current definition, the
    average level of fuel poverty over thelast fifteen years shown would be similar
    under the low income-high costs indicator.
    However at times some households that
    are currently classed as fuel poor would not
    be so under this approach. In particular,
    there are some households with such
    low reported incomes that they would
    currently be classed as fuel poor, even
    if they had very energy efficient homes.
    Such households are clearly a very high
    priority for assistance of some kind: they
    are deep in poverty, for instance, because
    they are not receiving the benefits to which
    they are entitled, or are only entitled to
    benefits that leave them well short of the
    poverty line. What is not clear, however, is
    whether it is helpful to class them as ?fuel
    poor?. They do not ? on the face of it ? fit
    the WHECA description of having above
    reasonable costs to keep warm. There is
    rather little that further energy efficiency
    improvements can do to help. Rather they
    urgently need higher incomes.

16. Looked at in this way, the underlying
    problem of fuel poverty did not almost
    disappear in the early 2000s, but nor has
    progress almost entirely been reversed.
    This is not necessarily a huge comfort:
    a reduction only from 2.9 to 2.7 million
    households (and from 5.1 to 4.8 million
    individuals) affected by such a serious
    problem over thirteen years is deeply
    disappointing, as is the major increase in
    the depth of the problem in the last six
    years, as measured by the fuel poverty gap.
    It is hardly on track for its elimination in
    five years? time.

17. As we have explained , there are different
    ways of looking at this problem, and
    different choices that could be made if the
    approach we propose were implemented.
    We would welcome views on the analysis
    and ideas presented in this report, and give
    some specific questions for consultation

Seen this? here