On The First Day of Christmas, My True Love Gave To Me... A Useless Labour Party

 Joe White walked into the kitchen on Christmas Eve and found his mother sitting at the kitchen table with her head in her hands.

"What's the matter, Mum?" the teenager frowned and sat down next to her.

"This," she said, passing a couple of sheets of paper to him.  It was a credit card bill.  All eight pages of it.  And the total balance was £34,000.  He whistled.

"Blimey, they've messed that up haven't they? Are you going to ring them to find out what's gone wrong?"

"No Joe," Mrs White said slowly.  "It's not incorrect.  That is what we owe.  The interest alone this year is £1,600."

"But you only earn £26,000 don't you?"

"Yes Joe.  We have been somewhat living beyond our means, and it's time to sort it out".

The two of them sat for a while.  Joe taking it in.  His mother thinking.  Then she pulled a sheet of paper towards her and started to write.

"OK Joe.  You are a part of this family too.  Let's have some ideas.  We need to cut back our spending drastically if we are going to pay this off".

"I guess if we tighten our belts for a bit.  Stop eating out quite so much.  Use the money off coupons at the supermarket.  That should do it shouldn't it?" he asked hopefully.

"In a word no.  You see the problem is not just paying the interest off.  It's that we have accumulated another £5,000 in debt this year.  That means our income for the year isn't enough to cover our expenditure by £5,000.  Just to get to the point where we are breaking even, before we even start paying off the annual interest, we need to stop accumulating debt.  That means saving £5,000 this year alone and every year from this point on.  Or, of course, earning an extra £5,000 and using it to break even, before we start paying off the debt."

"£5,000!  Does that mean that you've been earning £26,000, but we've been spending £31,000?"

"It does."

"So what can we cut?"

"Well, I've been looking through our bank statements.  We could stop the digital TV subscription, but that'll only save us £500 for the year.  It's a good start though.  The dance classes for Gemma, and the drumming classes for you will have to stop though I'm afraid"

"WHAT! You can't do that!"  Joe jumped up.  Suddenly it was affecting him and he wasn't happy.

"But Joe, you've had those lessons for years, despite us not being able to truly afford them.  We should never have started them.  Can't you be grateful that you've had the lessons you have and recognise the seriousness of our situation?  If we don't turn it around we'll lose the house."

Joe sat back down.  He was still fuming, but he could see the frustration and fear in his mother's eyes.

"OK Mum.  Whatever it takes.  Let's sort it out"

"Thank you, love" she said.  "It's going to be a difficult road, and it'll take us at least five years to stop accumulating new debt and to start to pay off the £34,000 we already owe.  But we have to work together.  I know your father and I haven't managed it well, and I apologise."

"It's alright" said Joe (he was a very intelligent, kind boy).

"Mum?" he said

"Yes dear?"

"I wonder how common this situation is?  Just think what it would be like if a whole country was in this position."

"Don't be silly Joe"  said Mum.  "A whole country couldn't make the same kind of mistakes we have.  They have governments to manage it all properly.  Now what do you want for tea?"

"Not sure.  What have we got?"

"Not a lot.  It's Christmas though.  Shall we go to that restaurant we like?"

"Yeah. Why not?"



The numbers in this little story are directly proportional to the debt the UK finds itself in.  The total income collected by the Government in 2010-11 was £697 billion,  the UK's average salary of £26,000 represents that income.  On that basis, the UK owes £909billion pounds and so, in Joe's family, they owe £34,000.  Scared yet?


By Yummymummyreally.

Does it help to start apportioning blame to this situation in which our country finds itself?

The Tories blame Labour, Labour blames the cuts, The Green Party blame the Banks/Tories, and blame Labour for not pointing this out earlier. The IMF blames the cuts for the continuing recession, the Daily Mail blames the weather. Now all we need is someone to blame Elvis.

A third of voters still blame Labour for the economic crisis.

This interesting article in the Economist at the beginning of this year, took Miliband to task for trying to deflect the blame onto the Tories and suggest that Labour need to stop looking to the past failures:

This is badly, badly wrong. One of the iron rules of politics is that no opposition ever persuades the public to change their minds about anything. Only governments, or external events, can do that. Oppositions must recognise where the centre-ground is, occupy it to get elected, and then move it in their direction when they are in power.

Does it matter who caused the recession? It is a peculiar human trait to apportion blame, but all the mud-slinging distracts from the more important issues - how to move forward.

This is one of the things that we at Frothers are hoping to highlight.

We need a strong opposition. We need someone to stand up and say, "Right. This just isn't working. We need a new plan".

Traditionally the "opposition" to a Conservative-lead government would be the Labour Party, but they are too self-involved at the moment to get cracking.

It is being left to activists to highlight the concerns that many have about the cuts. Where are the Labour leaders? Why has no one started asking tough questions? And offering detailed alternative plans?

We refer back to our first posts on this blog where we asked about SureStart, DLA, cuts to Credit Tax, to the NHS, to Universal Child Benefit.

Come ON, Labour Party. Get fired up about this. These are the kind of issues that are perfect for a nice ranty press conference.

Stop burrowing your heads in the sand. So things were not great when you handed over to the ConDem goverment. GET OVER IT. Move on.

We don't want the Labour Party to say, "This is bad", we want them to say, "This is bad...  this is why...  this is how it will affect YOU...  this is what we would do instead..."

There is only so much the activists and bloggers can do. Not everyone reads blogs. And the ConDems are winning the press war at the moment, as can be seen by the high approval ratings of both the government and the Prime Minister.

The news of how the cuts will affect everyone in this country needs to get out there, and the Labour Party are the ones to do this.

Give us an opposition party to get behind and support.

We are ready.



MmeLindor 

Numbers to add up

So let's have a look at what these billions and trillions really mean. Most of us deal in singles and tens, or hundreds and thousands if we're well off. The billions & trillions of George Osborne's world tend not to register with us, except as "a lot".

One million hours ago was Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. Long-distance telephone was in use.

One billion hours ago, people (homo sapiens) first walked the earth..

One trillion hours ago, South America was still joined to Africa; mammals began to appear.

One trillion is the amount of pounds we gave to British banks.

That's how much they cocked it up. That's how much Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, thinks we should just forget about and move on ... meanwhile, encouraging us to blame one another and take the punishment.

Barclays chief Bob Diamond - he of the £11.5m pay package - has been saying for the past year that "The time for remorse is over". Our Chancellor, it seems, agrees that multi-millionaires have no need to be sorry while we, the voters who pay his salary, should feel very remorseful. So much so, he's going to make damn sure we do ...

Click to see all

I tried making a chart to show the difference but a trillion is so huge, the other numbers didn't show up; not even the billion. Somebody's done a neat graphic representation here, using $100 notes for size.

The Bank of England put the bailout bill at £1trillion in 2009. There have been further bailouts since then. It's even more now.

£1trn. is £19,608 per UK adult (at 51m. in 2011). That's how much you gave.

Well played, Mr Diamond!
[pic: Daily Mail]

I want to clarify that I don't question the need for this bailout. I think it was a stopgap measure, but that's beside the point. Our economies at present depend on the banking system to 'create' wealth and, since nobody had their eye on the ball at the time, we'd little choice but to keep it in the air after some clumsy fool dropped it.

What I do mind, very much, is being told that I - and my neighbours, my elderly mum, the nephew going debt-ridden to university next year, the niece with a new baby, friends with disabilities and disabled children, the newly redundant and the families in my doctor's waiting room ... being told that WE cost too much and WE are greedy.

I resent being asked to give up the securities our parents fought so hard for, and which we have PAID for. Purely because our governors are blindsided by the wealthy.

Andrew Haldane, of the Bank Of England, said in February 2011 that the cost of the credit insurance we have collectively provided to our banks is worth £100bn a year. He bases this on 2009 figures so, with the way insurance premiums go, it would be worth at least £115bn now. That's roughly the entire cost of the NHS and half the welfare bill.

I mind that this premium is still unpaid, unasked-for and taken completely for granted. This year the big four banks will announce  profits of £24bn. That's not counting the billions of pounds paid in bonuses and bloated pay packages. HSBC will also announce an imminent move to Hong Kong, thus ensuring they'll never have to pay us back.

Recovery of unpaid mega-taxes would generate £95bn for our economy. All the banks, Vodafone, Philip Green and his 'Top Shop' group of companies, Boots, drinks giant Diageo and Tesco are among the worst offenders.  They made their money out of us - and now we're being asked to pay all over again.

Articles worth reading:
There Is An Alternative [PCS]
The Government's Line [UKuncut]
Targets [UKuncut] - These pages explain why they have chosen certain companies for attention.

What can I do?

If you're up for personal action, join UKuncut. Some of their protests are very imaginative and quite funny - it's worth finding their videos on YouTube.

Complain to HMRC by writing a letter online at 38degrees.
Join a Union.  Representing millions of ordinary people, they can and do make a difference.

Monday Media Round Up

Over the weekend there has been a flurry of articles, both on blogs and in main stream media about the true cost of the cuts.

We shall try to share articles with you once a week, so if you see anything you think should be included, do let us know.

It seems that the shouting from campaigners is finally bearing fruit, as the mainstream media are beginning to report on the cuts, particularly the cuts to ESA/DLA.

 Sue Marsh, disability campaigner who suffers from severe Crohn's disease, and has has other serious health issues was informed that her application for Disability Living Allowance has been denied. This brings us to the question - if someone as ill as Sue is not awarded DLA, who will be? Is this the current strategy - first turn the applicant down and see if they give up. Appeals can take months, leaving the person with little or no income for that time.

Debbie Jolly writes on the London School of Economics Blog about the way in which the tabloid media portray the disabled as fraudsters.

The Guardian's Patrick Butler picked up the story, reporting about Sue and other claimants being seen as "scroungers", even though the Government and the press know that disability benefit fraud is extremely rare.

Owen Jones in the Independent goes back in time to explain the shift in public perception of benefits.

And if you missed Zoe Williams in the Guardian  last Saturday, she wrote about the changes to child maintenance, as highlighted here on Frothers, and kindly linked to our blog.

The story of Remploy has come to our attention. State subsidised business that employ people with disabilities are to have their funding withdrawn in 2013. These companies employ those who would find it difficult to get work in the normal job market. When Remploy companies close, the only option for the employees is to rely on benefits (which they may not get if the Government does not change their plans).

Does Every Disabled Child Matter?

Every Disabled Child Matters is asking that you email David Cameron to ask that the government rethink its decision to cut disability premiums awarded to families with disabled children.  This campaign is supported by Mumsnet.

I would also like to ask you to do this too.  For me, for my family and for the other thousands of families out there who will suffer real financial hardship if these reforms are allowed to go through.

The House of Lords voted these cuts through last night, so please spare a couple of minutes to do this.

It's not anything you have to word yourself, simply provide your details and it is done for you.  It takes no more than a couple of minutes.  Although if you do then please check your email after as no 10 will email you and if you don't click the link it won't go through.

Yesterday The Indpendent ran this article using my family to illustrate how the cumulative effects of cuts are going to affect families.  Whilst a good article it doesn't mention that the riding isn't just to calm my son, it's also to exercise his legs and trunk to try and help because physiotherapy resources are so scarce, it doesn't mention that it offers him a chance to socialise with his peers, something he finds almost impossible due to his autism.  Rhys isn't the only child with additional needs to use this riding school, there used to be a Riding for the Disabled group based there so their insurance is geared to children with additional needs.  It's not the most local stable, but the more local ones can't take him as they are not covered by insurance for children with additional needs like Rhys'.  So that incurs additional cost for transport.  A scenario all too common for those of us who have children with additional needs, sometimes the local option isn't viable for our children, like the Beavers Colony for my elder son - he has to go to an out of town Colony where the leaders have more experience with children with additional needs.

That article is actually the tip of the ice berg.  Now these cuts are happening I have to consider ending all the additional extra curricular activities I have in place for all three of my children, all of whom have autism amongst other complex needs, that I put in place to try and help their physical and social development in place of hideously overstretched NHS physiotherapy and speech and language provision.  I'll have no choice if it comes down to that or heat/eat.  On the surface of it many may say that's life, that in this recession many families are having to do without extra curricular 'treats', but in our case they're really not treats.  The long term effects of this could mean the difference between my children having a level of independence and being able to go out to work or being entirely dependent on what is left of the Welfare State for the rest of their lives.

Like many parents I am ambitious for my children.  However rather than hoping they'll go to a good university and get a good career my ambitions for them are that they are happy, that they are able to live independently (albeit with some level of support) and that they are able to work.  Ever since my eldest was first diagnosed six years ago I have sought every bit of help and intervention that I can to achieve the best possible life outcomes for them.  With these cuts these ambitions may be impossible.

So what do these top ups cover?  Mainly they help where the DLA just isn't enough to cover the additional expense of having a child with additional needs.  The increased utility bills from the extra laundry we do (continence is not a strong point and when food is a sensory experience it gets everywhere) and obviously they are higher because we are home more than most.  Replacement of clothes that have been chewed or wrecked (another sensory thing plus a penchant for walking round on knees).  Awkward diets because they won't eat x or y one week and then the next they will eat x or y and not a or b.  And yes they would rather opt to starve so no they won't eat when they're hungry.  Increased fuel bills to get them to activities and to hospital appointments (no the mobility component doesn't quite cover it).  We have to run our own second car in addition to the Motability car as often we need to be in three places at once.  Replacing household items that have been hurled across the room and broken.  Child proofing the house to prevent them hurting/killing themselves.  This list is just the start.

Everything in our lives is a fight.  A fight for getting my children a decent education (four years fighting for statutory assessment), a fight for ensuring they get appropriate medical care (I had to transfer my daughter to another hospital to ensure she got prompt cardiac care), a fight for the disability living allowance awards they get.  I have appealed twice in the last 12 months about the decisions made for this DLA.  It's incredibly draining and sometimes I do hit rock bottom but I can't give up for my children.  And this is why I will ask you again now, sign the Every Disabled Child Matters email.  For me, for my children and for the other thousands of families out there living in fear today.

But What About The Children??

Spend any time with parents and eventually the discussion will get around to education. Whatever your view on the public vs private debate and wherever you stand on the subject of religious schools, the one thing we all agree on is the need for good, committed teachers.

Teaching is a fine profession and one that can bring great job satisfaction. But as one who has spent a dozen years at the chalk face can attest, it’s not a job for the faint hearted. The hours are long, everything you do is subject to public scrutiny, the goal posts are constantly changing and the risk to physical and mental health is high.

So how do we tempt our brightest and best into teaching? This is how the government proposes it should be done. First, insist on an undergraduate degree. That’s £9,000 per year for a minimum of three years, plus living expenses. Even living at home and walking to university, our potential teacher would be lucky to graduate with £40,000 worth of debt. Add more to that if they choose to live away from home or live in a large city like London.

Once our potential teacher has graduated with the requisite 2:1 they need to spend another year doing a PGCE. That’s another £9,000 in fees. Gone are the days when PGCEs were fully funded. Add to that the living costs. This is where it gets a bit more expensive. PGCE students spend time in schools. They need appropriate clothing, three years below the poverty line has probably decimated their wardrobe, and travel costs. Often the placement schools are drawn from a wide area. Let’s be generous and assume a penny pinching student could get by with £10,000 for the year. Their debt is now at around £60,000.

Hurray!! Our newly minted teacher is now ready to start work. The starting salary for a teacher is £21,588. Of course, as the starting salary is over £21,000 they will have to start paying back their loan immediately. The take home pay, once tax and student loan has been taken out is £16,448.92. That’s approximately £1,370 per month. Not bad really, liveable, unless you live in a big city. London teachers earn a little more, £27,000 per year, which works out as £1636 per month. Not a bad wage, I agree, but bear in mind that the average cost of a room in a shared flat in London is around £700 per month and a zone 1-5 travel card will cost you £205.10 a month, that leaves our young teacher with £731 a month to eat, entertain and save for the future with.

Ahh, saving for the future. We forgot about that. Let’s take our fictional London teacher. If they decide to opt into the Teacher’s Pension fund they will currently pay in 6.4% of their salary. That’s another £144 off the monthly wages, leaving them with £587 a month. Should the Govt’s pension reforms go through, instead of 6.4% the contribution would rise to 8% leaving our fictional teacher with £551 per month to live on.

So, that’s 4 years of study, £60,000 plus debt. A debt that, after 30 years will still not be paid off. This government has a history of changing the goalposts. Just ask anyone who pays into a public sector pension. There are no guarantees that the 30 year limit or the percentage of the earnings to be paid back will not change. And all for £551 a month to feed and clothe yourself. How are you going to save for a future or, heaven forfend, have children with that?

Our brightest and best are not stupid. They will look at the figures, do the calculations, and opt out. Teaching used to be a job with prospects. Not any more.

The True Cost of Winter

On a clear day he heads off for his daily walk, passing parks, stopping for basics, savouring the air before returning home. Alone.
He watches the barometer creep slowly nearer the chill and remembers the previous two winters: the frost; the snow.
Last winter he was isolated. Neighbours cleared his path but he feared falling on it.

His own family live a fair distance away. At 93, his siblings are long gone.

He never married: his working life devoted to serving his country.

When the chill comes, he spends days fully clothed and in bed, living in one room with a single storage heater and a radio for company. The other rooms are cold, dark, uninviting.
He cannot afford to heat them.

He has survived 93 years, a war, his family, cancer.

This year he wonders if he will survive the winter.


On the same day, on a different planet, four of the ‘Big Six’ fuel company bosses warm themselves over their 15% to 63% pay rises.
In their cosy little bubble, they are protected from the cost of coincidence: a 15+% increase in the price of gas.



What you can do:

AgeUK are asking for YOUR support - ask your MP to sign the winter pledge via their website - Their campaign doesn't just affect the elderly but anyone who struggles to afford winter heating costs. Help to avoid needless deaths this winter.

Macmillan is also running a campaign. They want the Winter Fuel Payment extended to people with cancer who are in particular need and struggling with their energy bills. 1 in 4 people having cancer treatment struggle to pay their bills. Many of them turn off their heating, at a time when they are at their least active. Their treatments leave them feeling cold and many face a cut income.

This is all about benefits, how am I bothered?

We've got so used to thinking of "claimants" as some separate species, we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture.

I include myself in this, even though I am a claimant. I get knee-jerk reactions to stories in the papers about families getting £x,000 a week: I think "How much???!" without wondering why our parsimonious State deems them in such need.

Some people have families with greater needs - maybe one or both parents are disabled, maybe some of the kids are, maybe they live in a rural place where the buses run twice a week and have to pay for transport to school.

Maybe a lot of things. I am aware some folks know how to work the system for maximum reward. As someone who, like the majority, knew nothing about the system - and suffered unreasonably for it - I feel angry about them. But they are very few.

I feel more angry that our so-called safety net is so hard to work, only those with specialist advisors know how to navigate it.

Why do we need this system at all?

If you have children, you probably get some money from the State (= us). If you have a parent or partner who needs support due to illness, you probably get some support. Even if you're averagely well-off and don't claim benefits, you've probably used NHS medical services.

All of these are under immediate threat.

The problem, to simplify just a bit (!), is that profits rise faster than earnings. In essence, the situation is that businesses pursue profit at any price, meaning the cost of goods goes up while the wages of their staff and customers stay down. For the past thirty, forty years we've had checks & balances in place for this - essentially, a redistribution of wealth takes place. The richest pay a bit extra so their staff can buy their stuff. As a very rough sketch of how benevolent capitalism works, this will do.

You might still be thinking it doesn't apply to you - but, if you've got kids, did you get child benefit? Do you pay your GP £50 a visit? If something awful happened to you or your family, would you rush to hospital or call a subscription service? Who would perform the operation? Tripping down a peg or two, what about your cleaner; nanny; doorman; taxi driver; Tube driver? What if a flu outbreak actually killed 40% of the lower classes (as happened in 1918) due to lack of social care? Who would make your lunch or mend the roads then?

A quick look at 100 years of history would show you why the social fund - call it what you will - is necessary.

While I was still rich, I helped out with some charity projects in countries with shaky welfare. They have three-year-old street prostitutes. They have nine-year-old kids running drugs, who are the first target for shooting by the police or gangs. There are whole families living in shop doorways. Beggars with curable diseases die on pavements. This is what we had, here in England, back in Victorian times. It was even worse here, as the poor can die of cold.

If we dismantle the concept of welfare, then we destroy everything that makes this a pretty safe place to live. We would wreck all that our grandparents and great-grandparents fought so hard for. In historical terms it's still fairly new and, thus, fragile. Our current administration's doing a startlingly good job of breaking it all down as soon as it's got on its feet.

The short answer to the title question is: Because it will make your life, and your family's lives, a hundred times harder. And you will have to step over the dying as you struggle to keep things together.

Do the ConDems want this? No, of course they don't. They're just inexperienced, and overly influenced by what people say in surveys (or what they're told people say).
But, unless we stand up and say: NO, WE DON'T WANT THIS, they will blunder on regardless.
Over to you.

What can I do?

Vote! This is still a democracy, and a nervous government needs your feedback more than most. We pay them, and they need us.

See the WriteToThem box on the right, or visit WriteToThem.com to find and email your representatives. Use the Too Many Cuts petitions page to find issues that directly concern you.

Dig around a bit if you feel so moved, and let us know what you feel needs supporting. "We're all in this together", huh? Well, let's see proof of that!

Bureaucratic nonsense (waste of money)

Yesterday I got two bizarre letters from the DWP about how I must choose between working (signing off benefits) and reducing my permitted work to less than £20-worth a week.

Considering that I made a £1,900 loss on my work last year - and that they based their decision on my declared earnings for 2007-2008, which were zero and I wasn't even receiving any benefits - this is getting more Kafka-esque by the week.

Last month the JobCentrePlus invited me in for a discussion about my permitted work. I told them about the year's £1900 loss and that I'd been too unwell to work at all from April to October this year. These letters are the results of that interview.

How can I refute an assertion that is based on made-up information?

Can anybody suggest how this process is intended to help me (and people like me) back to self-employment?

Even more crucially, HOW the hell would someone, who is as sick as I was in 2007, be supposed to deal with such accusatory bollocks??

I am at a loss to understand how any of this even aids the national economy, let alone supports people back to work.

It clearly un-supports those trying to forge their way in an enterprise economy, against the barriers of ill health. Yet, simultaneously,  refuses to assist people who need assistance.

What can I do?

Please use the Write To Them box to the right of this page; hassle your MPs and other representatives for more compassion AND logic to the UK's support system.

The Ministers for the DWP are:

• The Right Honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
• The Right Honourable Chris Grayling MP – Minister for Employment
• Steve Webb MP - Minister for Pensions
• Maria Miller MP - Minister for Disabled People
• Lord Freud - Minister for Welfare Reform

Also see our Petitions page. There's a vote of confidence (ahem) in David Cameron's administration. Petitions of this nature need a lot of signatures in order to carry weight.

Remember - they work for us! Make them get some common sense.

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: Time Limiting ESA - Template Letter to Lords

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: Time Limiting ESA - Template Letter to Lords: Yesterday, I asked you all to write to a Lib Dem peer and plead with them to vote against time limiting ESA to just one year. Template let...

'Protecting The Vulnerable'- are you having a laugh?

It was a simple call from a friend last week- 'have you had the letter about tax credits?', she said. 'We won't be entitled to Working Tax credit from April. We can't pay the mortgage'.

Now, I knew about this one: had followed it since the budget as we knew it affected us. The change is simple- if you are in a couple then the minimum number of hours worked goes from 16 to 24 (12 must be with one person) from April if you want to be classed as working and receive the appropriate tax credits- and, more than the Government would have you believe is true, maintain the dignity that comes of being a worker.

If you don't reach that number, you lose out.

So you say- OK there are redundancies and that sort of thing but we knew about those; why CAN'T a couple work those hours? because the 'special cases' will be covered, they promised that in the Budgets- no caps for disabled families and all that.

Well, no.

Single parent families- 16 hour limit remains.

Where a parent is sick or disabled- 16 hour limit remains.

My friend is a carer: someone forgot to maintain their 'special exemption'. Like the families above only one parent is available for work, but there is no hourly reduction for them. And because her family has had the work hours cut to 18 or risk redundancy, they are going to lose out.

Why the anomaly? Why did caring families not get the cover others get? Is being a carer any more of a choice than being a single parent? Doubt it; let's face it, someone choosing disability for their relative or friend would need medical assessment, not support!

And if you do work 16 hours, or 20- how do you make that up? how many employers these days have a spare 8 hours you can take up, how many extra jobs are there out there? Is it not better that 2 people have 16 hour jobs so their children get to see them work, they get the dignity of working, rather than one person have both jobs and the other nothing?

And what of the no cap for families with a disability, as touted so much in the press?

Well you see whilst many thought it was universal for all cuts, it is not. Far from.

On the cap- yes that applies: it means that people with a disability can receive their DLA above other benefit levels. That is welcomed, but won't protect people from much when you read below.

Housing benefits- nah. No exemptions. Housing Benefit is dropping for many: as well as there being no extra payment for a four bedroom (read before you judge in this context...), payment levels have been set using a new measure that lowers the benefit levels for many people. There is widespread support for this it seems- even if much is based on 'people who don't work' when statistics tend to show that 80% of Housing Benefit claimants are NOT unemployed: they will be low income workers, disabled and sick people, carers, the elderly.

So, what does it mean to a carer or disabled person to lose that money? Well clearly the supposed motivational factor is lost- if you can't work, you can't. Simple. And if you can't pay you move right? To somewhere cheaper. Save the Government some money.

You move away from your carers, or those who care for you: you lose independence, you become dependent on Social Services for respite or support: you end up costing more for something you never wanted or needed, plus you are more likely to become isolated and develop the associated mental health disorders that can bring...

Can you see the problem here?

And that four bedroom thing I mentioned earlier: often dealt with by the dismissive phrase 'we can't afford it and we work'. Well, many Housing claimants also work as mentioned above, but even then having a disability affects the space you need. Two of my children have autism: they have to have a room to themselves, thus meaning we need a four bedroom house: we don't choose one- too much vacuuming for my tastes!- but we need one. If we were reliant on housing benefit we would be penalised for that by being forced to find extra money from the day to day living expenses- a clear 'disability penalty'.

And there is a cut to the Disability Tax Credit payment for every child on Middle Rate (and that can mean severely disabled but sleeps through) on top of that: someone I know wrote to Maria Miller about this, and had a letter that said it wasn't until 2012 so she had time to prepare. Yes, because obviously autism is a curable disorder and she can just cure her child in order to prepare. Ah, I wish! that would be nice.

And then there is the change to PIP from DLA, and ATOS- ! There is a rumour that there is little cover for carers under the PIP guidelines but we will have to wait and see; cover for carers is also very vague under Universal Credit anyway- lots of mentions and no actual statements of what. We need what: this is our reality. We can't work out how to move forward without actual facts.

So next time you hear that disabled people are protected, remember this. You can't protect disabled people without making sure their carers are safe. Caring has never been financially beneficial: I know several people with post grad qualifications, even doctorates, who presumably could make more than Carer's Allowance of £55 a week if they were working! They do it from love and a sense of duty. And lack of choice, I can't recommend someone send an aggressive child to day care (even if anyone would take them) knowing another child could- most likely would- get hurt can I? (as well as having autistic children I work and study in the field).

Somewhere behind the numbers there are families that are panicking and scared this Christmas as they have no idea what 2012 and even worse, 2013 and Universal Credit, will bring. You can help them by questioning the politicians about how they plan to protect the genuinely vulnerable. Thank you.

HMRC, Goldman Sachs and a brave whistleblower

If you haven't been following the inquiry into a series of highly controversial deals made by top brass at HMRC and big businesses then you have been missing out.

It sounds utterly boring doesn't it? Yawn, Yawn, Yawn - until you start actually looking at the figures involved.

David Hartnett (Permanent Secretary For Tax) is accused of lying to parliament about a deal he made with ginormous multinational bank Goldman Sachs, which resulted in a loss to the coffers of this country of £10m. Officials are also accused of allowing Vodafone to pay a mere £1.25bn tax bill rather than the £8bn they owed.

After reading this post I would love you to go and have a look at some of the heartbreaking stories on this site from people suffering - really, truly suffering as the cuts kick in, then come back and have a little look at those figures again.

Dave Hartnett, let me remind you, was also criticised by ministers for that fabulous little tax code disaster that happened last year - do you remember? That was when millions of people received a charming letter from the tax office telling them that HMRC had made a mistake and..here's the bill. It beggars belief that this man is still in office.

All of this would have probably passed me by, if it wasn't for the latest piece of work by HMRC.

Osita Mba, a solicitor at HMRC, blew the whistle on Hartnett's grubby little deal and has been giving evidence to the committee set up to look into the accusations of incompetence and a lack of accountability levelled at the organisation.

So what have HMRC done?

"An HMRC spokesman said it had begun an inquiry into Mba and confirmed that this could lead to his dismissal and prosecution."

Isn't that just brilliant? It's almost like a joke - the reason that disciplinary action can be taken is that

"Section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2004 states that information held by the organisation must be held purely for the business of the organisation"

In essence, what happens at the HMRC stays at the HMRC.

You can find out more here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/08/goldman-sachs-whistleblower-threatened-sack

and join the twitter campaign using the hashtag #ositamba

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 (Job Seekers Allowance) 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%. Which would leave the PWC with 7-12% LESS than they currently receive as maintenance.

What does this mean in real terms? There is a thread on Mumsnet that spells out the financial implications of this, for both the PWC and the NRP. Here are some of the posts that show how this would affect both PWC and NRP’s, and obviously, by default, how it would financially affect the children involved:

If the NRP has an income of 20K pa: Normal, current maintenance for one dc would be £57.75 per week.

Best case under new rules: NRP pays £8.66 per week more than now. RP receives £4.04 less per week than now. Government makes £12.70 per week.

NRP pays £66.41 a week.
RP receives £53.71 a week.

Worst case under new rules:

NRP pays £11.55 per week more than now. RP receives £6.93 less per week than now. Government makes £18.48 per week.

NRP pays £69.30 a week.
RP receives £50.82 a week.

So even if the NRP is only on 20k pa, the Government will be making between £12.70 and £18.48 EVERY WEEK. Which is between £660.40 and £960.96 A YEAR from EACH CHILD.

If the NRP has an income of 40K pa: Normal, current maintenance for one dc would be £115.35 per week.

Best case under new rules: NRP pays £17.30 per week more than now. RP receives £8.07 less per week than now. Government makes £25.37 per week.

NRP pays £132.65 a week.
RP receives £107.28 a week.

Worst case under new rules: NRP pays £23.07 per week more than now. RP receives £13.84 less per week than now. Government makes £36.91 per week.

NRP pays £138.42 a week.
RP receives £101.51 a week.

If the NRP is on 40k pa, the Government will be making between £25.37 and £36.91 EVERY WEEK. Which is between £1319.24 and £1919.32 A YEAR from EACH CHILD.

If the NRP is on JSA: Normal, current maintenance for one dc would be £5.00 per week.

Best case under new rules: NRP pays 75p per week more than now.RP receives 35p less per week than now. Government makes £1.10 per week.

NRP pays £5.75 a week.
RP receives £4.65 a week.

Worst case under new rules: NRP pays £1.00 per week more than now. RP receives 60p less per week than now. Government makes £1.60 per week.

NRP pays £6.00 a week.
RP receives £4.40 a week.

If the NRP is on JSA, the Government will be making between £1.10 and £1.60 EVERY WEEK. Which is between £57.20 and £83.20 A YEAR from EACH CHILD.

There are lots of people campaigning about this at the moment, including  CSA Hell,   NACSA, and  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. 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 Used To Froth Alone

Sometimes the British feel it’s not their place to complain – if something doesn’t affect you directly, do you have the right to have an opinion on it? If you weren’t offended by a joke on television until a friend explained why you could be, does that mean you have no right to be offended at all?

I’m not one of the most vulnerable in society. I am not elderly, nor the working poor or disabled. I wasn’t overly worried initially when the coalition government came into power. I thought I hadn’t or wouldn’t be that affected by any cuts. Time has shaken me up.

New graduates with a small child, both my husband and my careers suddenly disappeared in the last few years – My local Council’s plans to train me for a role in Sure Start management quietly disappeared. Sure Start and the work it does helping vulnerable families and children is not a protected area of spending – despite the positive impact they were having. As just one tiny example of the fantastic things they do: one of the major barriers to work for the long time unemployed is poor numeracy and literacy skills – teenagers who left school with no English or Maths qualifications may struggle to ever get a job. Many Sure Start centres offer free numeracy and literacy classes, with free on-site crèche for the kids. Giving parents the chance to get off benefits and into work, and improving their childrens likely futures at the same time. Many councils forced to make budget cuts have made the decision to close or limit the facilities at their centres. 124 Sure Start Centres have closed since the coalition took over.

At the same time my husbands graduate job in the private sector was withdrawn before he could start. Public sector cuts meant his private sector job wasn’t needed anymore, massive job losses in his field followed.

We were lucky, after only a few months my husband found a job in a totally new area and slightly different field, so we got on our hypothetical bikes and moved there to start again. For now at least my career is on hold, childcare costs too high for both of us to work.

Our daughter is only 2, but I cried when I heard about the rise in student fees. What if my daughter wants to be a doctor? We have no spare money to save for her education, rents are high and we have our own student debt to pay off. 7 years of £9k debt, plus maintenance loans, plus interest... currently the deal is that she would not have to pay the loan back unless she was earning well. I say currently, because there is no line in the contract making that deal permanent. Future governments can perfectly legally change their mind and demand the money back in one payment if they so wish, or more likely, demand that repayments start at much lower income levels and with higher rates of interest. Even Universities are changing their fee levels after prospective students have made their choices and committed to a financial option. Would I be right to encourage my child to take this risk at a time when graduate earnings aren’t very much higher (doing some quick maths - only £2.2k per year more, before taking off loan repayments) than non-graduate earnings? No matter how clever or academic she may be? The day after the rise in fees was passed I met Andrew Lansley at a charity concert. Unable to resist the opportunity I asked him which way he had voted. For, he said. I told him that I was extremely disappointed in that. He tried to empathise, and told me he has a child who will have to pay the fees.

He doesn’t though. He’s an extremely wealthy member of parliament. If he has any sense he will pay for his daughter’s University education and let her start her adult life debt free. Do the rest of us have that option? Some do. But no. Not most. It was the moment I realised very clearly that the government just do not understand what life is like on even an average wage of 22k a year – let alone what it is like to be in the poorest 5%.

It’s not just on my families behalf that I froth.

My first childcare related job was in a mainstream state school. Amongst others I worked with several children with a range of disabilities, and as someone who’d known nothing about the funding system behind getting these children the help they needed to fulfil their potentials – the reality of the system seemed insane. Every so often the parents of a child who was permanently incontinent and could never be left unsupervised would let us know all her funding had been revoked and they were in the process of sorting it out, on second inspection whichever government body had decided the child was well enough not to need extra one to one support would realise that of course they did. The stress and the loss of much needed money was always unnecessary but still happened with stunning regularity.

With every change I’ve seen since then to do with Disabled Living Allowance – in all its new forms and acronyms, I have thought of that family and the future of that child. What if when that child grows up they are never able to work? Will they be stuck in the trap between ESA and JSA, with no income for 6 months out of every 18? How will their parents cope?

When I first started talking about working for Sure Start it was children like that who I particularly wanted to help. I still want the chance, and I know having been there once that free access to facilities like the NHS, Educational ‘extras’ like one to one support where needed and Sure Start is hugely important when it comes to making a difference. The very vulnerable and poor don’t have a few pounds a week to give for these services. These services are not and should never be about making money.

As all of this started to sink in I didn’t feel like there was anything I could do but get angry and moan, the next election is a long way away – until #Frothers. It is a great place for a rant – but it’s also about bringing together the campaigns fighting against these cuts. About making people aware of all the little cuts that might have slipped past their radar and not been widely reported, so that one place catalogues the full picture of just how immense the changes are. About putting the general public in contact with their own MPs and letting them have their say outside of one moment at the ballot box.

My role at #Frothers is part of a team of technical support – supporting the dozens of fantastic writers bringing you all the details of how cuts have affected them personally and the campaigns against them.

We are a team that is a mix of those directly affected, partly affected and not affected at all but utterly sympathetic.

With fingers crossed, the cuts won’t ruin my family the way they may ruin others, but I am here all the same, frothing in support -because the other thing that is extraordinarily British besides not wanting to moan too much – is looking after those we feel responsible for, putting the vulnerable first, even if doing so is unpopular or our motivations for doing so aren’t well understood.

The measure of any society is how it treats it’s most vulnerable members, what will our society become if we refuse to fight for them now?

By TeWi, part of #Frothers TechTeam, Frothing for the great and good.

The Housing Disaster Set for January 2012 - A Ticking Timebomb

The Housing Disaster set for January 2012

Housing benefit is set to be cut and capped in January 2012. The original plans were delayed by nine months to allow councils to prepare for an exodus of tenants from affluent, to less affluent areas. How likely is it really that Landlords will reduce their rents to meet the new LHA (Local Housing Allowance) caps? This is what the coalition government think will happen, and are in fact depending on.

The much more likely scenario, in this strange thing we know as The Real World, is that landlords still have mortgages to pay on their buy to let properties, and will not be financially able to implement such a thing, even if they wanted to. Those few landlords who would be in a position to reduce rents, won't because the market rate will not see a general drop. Landlords who so readily put up their rents to meet the LHA rates, will never be just as ready to cut them.

So where does that leave the tenants - of whom a staggering 388,000 (August 2011 government figures) in London alone are the working poor, settled in their homes and having lived in those areas for years, with jobs there and their children at local schools. There are some relative newcomers to these areas, but they are only there due to a lack of affordable, local authority or housing association homes, and/or migration for a job. There are many reasons why a person may have chosen or been forced to rent in an expensive area; some of these people would have started renting their homes in better times, when they had a well paying job, and have since been made redundant and had to claim housing benefit. Some will have been there a long time, but become entitled to housing benefit over the years as their rent increased. Some will have lived there for years due to family connections, and some will have had little choice due to other circumstances.

I, for example am one of those types - when I left my abusive marriage, the only choice available to me was to rent privately, in a home far more expensive than one with a housing association - there simply wasn't enough social, affordble housing to give me any choice in the matter. The only way I could leave and be put into emergency (B&B) accomodation was to get my ex to agree to officially evict me - he refused, because he refused to believe the relationship was over, and put every obstacle possible in my way. I was offered a place at a refuge, but it was over 20 miles away and to go there would have meant leaving my job and uprooting my child, who had already had a difficult year. So, no choice for me - it had to be private rental.

Thankfully, although the rent was more expensive than LA or HA housing, I was able to meet it with the aid of housing benefit, keep my job, keep my child settled with her long established friendships and keep the support of friends in the area. I fear for other people who are faced with a similar choice - if they happen to be settled in an affluent area, they will face having to move potentially very far away from family, schools, jobs, support - just to find somewhere where the newly capped LHA will actually go some way to meeting the cost of market rents.

The capping won't affect me directly - my place, although reasonably expensive for the area, will still fall under the capped rate, and I won't therefore find it impossible to meet the new shortfall between benefit and rent, so won't have to move out of the area. It's how easily this could have been me, or anyone - that strikes a chord.

So, the answer to the question of "where does this leave the tenants?" is this:

They will need to find the shortfall or increased shortfall between the capped LHA and their rent themselves. In times already so squeezed, this will be impossible for many.

So the next option is to move away, potentially making a commute to their jobs impossible to afford.

The option of moving away presents many other problems. If a tenant is lucky enough to be offered social housing, they will still have the cost of removals and making the home suitable to be lived in - social housing properties are let unfurnished and not carpeted and often in a poor state of decoration.

Local authorities and housing associations do not have enough properties for everyone this will affect, so many will need to find a private rental, and so will need to stump up the cash in advance for the deposit and first months rent, while awaiting their deposit back from their previous landlord, and awaiting the rent in advance or a portion of it back from their new LHA claim - something that could take up to six weeks to be granted, meaning on top of that they may also have to find another months rent themselves in the meantime.

They may also need to pass a credit check or find a guarantor to be allowed to privately rent a property - these hurdles combined will mean for some that moving just isn't possible and they will have to sit it out and wait to be evicted and housed in emergency accomodation - again most likely very far away from their jobs, childcare, and support networks.

For some of these people, (the single working and unemployed poor) - sadly the local authority will not have a duty to house them and they could face homelessness. Some will be classed as having made themselves intentionally homeless, and those forced to leave jobs to claim benefits may have their claims refused, as it will appear they have simply walked out of a job.

Some of these people will be elderly, disabled or otherwise vulnerable, unaware of their rights and unable to seek help.

This situation awaits them in just under a months time - a ticking time bomb of personal disaster for many, and collective shame for the coalition.

These measures will save just 50 million pounds. It may sound a lot, but in the grand scheme of things where the UK budget deficit is one TRILLION pounds, and tax evasion costs the UK 15.2 BILLION in lost revenue, and 11 Billion may be spent on the HS2 Birmingham to London high speed rail line, the human cost of this measure is appalling and unjustifiable.

A warning - from 1983

A sad and chillingly prescient speech from Neil Kinnock, from his general election campaign in 1983.  Just substitute the words 'Margaret Thatcher' for 'David Cameron' and 'George Osborne'.  Or even 'Nick Clegg' for the full hat trick:

"If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you.

I warn you that you will have pain–when healing and relief depend upon payment.

I warn you that you will have ignorance–when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

I warn you that you will have poverty–when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay.

I warn you that you will be cold–when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford.

I warn you that you must not expect work–when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies.

I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

I warn you that you will be quiet–when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

I warn you that you will have defence of a sort–with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

I warn you that you will be home-bound–when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

I warn you that you will borrow less–when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday–

- I warn you not to be ordinary

- I warn you not to be young

- I warn you not to fall ill

- I warn you not to get old."

Empty Homes and McMansions

How many empty homes are there near where you live? There must be a couple, since it is estimated that there are around 350,000 long term empty houses in England.

There are two million British families currently on waiting lists for a council or housing association home.

According to last night's Channel4 documentary, many of these homes were emptied by the councils to make way for new, larger housing in the previous Labour's government's Pathfinder scheme.

According to this report, "The schemes refurbished 40,000 properties and demolished 10,000, building 1,000 new homes" and cost £2bn.

Picture Credit

The project was halted last year by the Conservative/Lib Dem government half way through it's 15 year running time, as Channel 4 reported at the time. It seems slightly disingenuous to put all of the blame on the last government, when this one was the one to pull the plug.

At any rate, Pathfinder was responsible for some of the empty homes shown last night, but not all of them. And we can jiggle the figures and shift the blame as much as we want, at the end of the day it does not help those living in sub-standard housing.

The single mum living in a squalid house shows just how bad things are. She had to take a lamp into the kitchen as the ceiling light did not work The tangle of electrical wires, the damp and mouldy walls - the whole house was a massive fire hazard. For this dump, she paid £450 monthly rent.

I wrote recently about the government's new Housing Strategy, but the post got lost in my blog breakdown last month, so I am going to summarise it here.

Grant Shapps's Housing Strategy shows just how far from real life those in power are.

The basics:

• £400m investment in new development, supporting housebuilders in need of development finance including small and medium sized builders

• Mortgage indemnity scheme designed with the Home Builders Federation and Council of Mortgage Lenders to offer 95% loan to value mortgages for new build properties in England, to support 100,000 households

• Free up public sector land with "build now, pay later" deals for developers, releasing enough land to build 100,000 new homes and create up to 200,000 new jobs in the construction industry

• £400m earmarked for FirstBuy, to help 10,500 first time buyers with the help of an equity loan up to 20%

• A Custom Homes programme worth £30m to help individuals build their own homes, offering short-term project finance for independent projects

• Right-to-buy owners will be offered a discount of as much as half the value of their homes. Homes sold through right-to-buy will be matched by new homes developed for social rent

• £100m in funding to bring empty homes back into use, and a further £50m to tackle the worst concentrations of empty homes

• Consultation on an 'empty homes premium' added to council tax, payable if a home is left unattended for more than two years. Receipts from this additional tax used to bring homes back into use

Why on earth is £400m being invested in more houses, when that money could be used to renovate the ones that are sitting empty? Do we need more new builds that cost 2 - 3 times the price of an ex local authority house? Has Cameron been out to see the housing estates that are sitting unsold all over the country? Maybe it is just in the area where I am from but if you check out Rightmove at present, you will find pages of these "McMansions". Clachan View Gamekeepers View Iolaire - they are all shiny and new, often with twee "country" names, outside villages and town so that you need to drive everywhere. I would much rather spend my (imaginary) £300 on something like this.

Encouraging those who do not have a deposit saved to take out a 95% mortgage - isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? Does Cameron know that even saving 5% deposit for a house is almost impossible for many? Take a normal 3 bed house in Dundee, where my parents live. Cost: around £100k. Deposit: £5k.

Saving a deposit of £5 might not sound like a lot, when you spend that on a weekend away, Mr Cameron but when you only earn £20k - where is that money coming from? Considering the family is likely paying about £500 a month on shabby rented accommodation.

Which brings me neatly to my next point. Private rentals. There must be much more done to stop people being ripped off by unscrupulous landlords. It is incredible that in Health and Safety concious Britain, where an office worker is not allowed to change a light bulb, private tenants are living in such dangerous conditions. There must be stronger legislation for renters, and more encouragement for landlords to offer long-term rental periods. Perhaps a tax cut if the landlord agrees to a longer lease?

The only way out of the miserable private rental sector is to buy a house (out of the question for many, particularly in London area) or local authority housing schemes. Oh, but we are going to sell those off, aren't we? We need more LA houses, not less. If we sell them all off, then that leaves more families on the private rental market.

Part of the new strategy was that the sales of the RTB houses would fund building of new houses, although I cannot see how that would work. If you sell a house worth £200k at half market price, what kind of house are you going to build with that £100k?

The main problem, in my opinion, of housing in UK is the massive gulf between earnings and house prices. If the average salary is £25k, but the average house price £241k then there is a massive problem.

According to this calculator, the monthly payment for a £241k house, at 6% over 20 years would be £1700 - over £20k a year. Even saving up the 20% deposit of £40k would be beyond many people.

A single earner on average pay can borrow £100k - fine for a house in Scotland, but not in SE England.

Unless the government do more to tackle the issues, and realise that helping people to buy their own home is not the be and end all of the matter, things are not likely to change in the near future. Not everyone has to have their own home, but the terrible situation in the private rental sector is what drives most to attempt this.

Affordable, clean and safe housing should be the priority. Not building new homes, but encouraging the owners of the empty homes to renovate and rent those homes.

Want to do more?

The charity Empty Homes is campaigning on this issue.

Read more about the Empty Homes Scandal campaign on Channel 4.

Information on how to rescue a Empty Home