IDS calls "War!" on the Great Unwashed.

[The Egg Man]

There's a perfectly sensible public procurement directive which allows public contracts to be reserved for supported factories and businesses where more than 50 per cent of employees are recognised as disabled.

A bit more widespread use of this would go a long way to helping Remploy/ RSBi factories and workshops survive.

[Doorstop]

Hear, hear. The underuse of this preferred procurement policy is the main problem behind the Remploy 'shortfall'.

I use the word 'shortfall' with care, as I think that, for enterprises such as Remploy, profit shouldn't be the overriding factor.

The fact that both management and Government had the option of using preferred procurement to gain work directly from central Government office for these factories and didn't quite frankly stinks to high heaven of managed decline.

[Doug]

There's a perfectly sensible public procurement directive which allows public contracts to be reserved for supported factories and businesses where more than 50 per cent of employees are recognised as disabled.[*]

A bit more widespread use of this would go a long way to helping Remploy/ RSBi factories and workshops survive.

quite so, but why arent they doing it? Is it a political a move !!

[Doorstop]

Have I not just answered that question?

Managed decline .. as witnessed by Union reps who work in the Remploy environment .. I wouldn't be surprised to see the infrastructure of Remploy sold off for a token amount and miraculously reawaken under a buyout presided over by those who consistently ran the place into the ground.

I personally feel this is nothing short of an act of wanton vandalism against the disabled community .. a shocking indictment.

[Doug]

sorry doorstop didnt read you post properly as i was dashing off to work but i agree with your comments

Its a sad reflection on the way we treat our disabled folk

[Doorstop]

"The Department for Work and Pensions has pledged to close a loophole which would have inadvertently exempted long-term housing association tenants from the bedroom tax.

Regulations for the controversial policy, which will cut housing benefit for social housing tenants of working age with spare rooms, were laid before parliament last month.

The policy will see an estimated 660,000 households lose £14 a week on average.

The regulations state the bedroom tax does not apply to housing association regulated tenancies which date from before 15 January 1989.

Since 1989, housing associations have offered assured tenancies, which offer less security than regulated tenancies.

However the Department for Work Pensions says it will re-draft the regulations and take out the pre-1989 exemption. A spokesperson said the exemption was included in ‘error’.

She said: ‘These cases will not be exempted.’"

This says everything about the true nature of this government -- it's not exactly falling over itself to close the loopholes for the tax evaders/avoiders or reducing the financial support the MPs and Lords receive for their housing costs even though they have more than 1 home.

Of course some will see this as just and fair, after all it is only tenants, and the poorest tenants at that who will be affected - so doubly qualified for any form of public humiliation and suffering.

I dare not think where it seems the inspiration behind this poilcy is coming from, suffice to say that it does not truly follow any serious moral guidance .. or scrutiny.

http://tinyurl.com/crgxsht

[Josef]

"The Department for Work and Pensions has pledged to close a loophole which would have inadvertently exempted long-term housing association tenants from the bedroom tax.

Regulations for the controversial policy, which will cut housing benefit for social housing tenants of working age with spare rooms, were laid before parliament last month.

The policy will see an estimated 660,000 households lose £14 a week on average.

The regulations state the bedroom tax does not apply to housing association regulated tenancies which date from before 15 January 1989.

Since 1989, housing associations have offered assured tenancies, which offer less security than regulated tenancies.

However the Department for Work Pensions says it will re-draft the regulations and take out the pre-1989 exemption. A spokesperson said the exemption was included in ‘error’.

She said: ‘These cases will not be exempted.’"

This says everything about the true nature of this government -- it's not exactly falling over itself to close the loopholes for the tax evaders/avoiders or reducing the financial support the MPs and Lords receive for their housing costs even though they have more than 1 home.

Of course some will see this as just and fair, after all it is only tenants, and the poorest tenants at that who will be affected - so doubly qualified for any form of public humiliation and suffering.

I dare not think where it seems the inspiration behind this poilcy is coming from, suffice to say that it does not truly follow any serious moral guidance .. or scrutiny.

http://tinyurl.com/crgxsht

I don't know what the actual policy is (that link is no help, since it's just comments on the topic), but on the basis of that post, ....well..... bollocks.

As Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"

The purpose of Social (formerly referred to as Council) housing was to allow people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it to live in accomodation appropriate to the size of their family.

The notion has grown up, primarily from the Thatcher years, that once you have been allocated such accomodation, it's effectively 'yours', and it's only the doctrinare housing providers standing betweem you and ownership.

This is one of the main problems affecting Social Housing. You have four kids, you get a five-bedroom house, they grow up and leave home. You are, apparently, still 'entitled' to live in the house because you've lived there for thirty years.

My grandmother, god bless her and RIP and all that, was in that very situation. She could have exercised her 'right to buy' and made a serious amount of money, but voluntarily contacted the council to downgrade to a one-bedroom flat when the fledglings had flown the nest.

Anyone exercising the 'right to buy' on Council Housing is as big a Tory Bastard as anyone involved in the LIBOR scandal or anything else.

[Doorstop]

Correct .. on the 'right to buy' point.

Forcing a single bloke, who has lost his wife, and who's child has left home to move, lock, stock and barrel to an entirely new area because he has a spare bedroom in the council house he's lived in for thirty odd years? Not so much.

Four three spare bedrooms in a five apartment is one thing, forcing a person to move miles away from the infrastructure they've built up over a lifetime for the sake of £14 a month is another entirely.

[Josef]

Point acknowleged, but that's a local availabilty thing. I refer back to my 'right to buy' point.

[Doorstop]

And on that point, my friend, we are in complete agreement.

[The Egg Man]

......................

Anyone exercising the 'right to buy' on Council Housing is as big a Tory Bastard as anyone involved in the LIBOR scandal or anything else.

I know of one, OK only one, but one instance where someone bought a housing association (HA) flat under a preserved right to buy, immediately refinanced the flat and used the proceeds to start a small business which currently employs 4 people. That person has paid their 1/ 11th share of maintenance costs of the building ever since, including a major replacement bill, still lives in the same flat and has bequeathed the original property back to the HA in their will.

[Doorstop]

Off at a tangent here ..

You know that workfare placements for the Jubilee were offered as training with the possibility of lucrative Olympics jobs on completion? Well, G4S defended sister company Close Protection UK as an approved contractor who required no further vetting.

Also, back in February, G4S were advertising Olympic Recruitment with the words “not a job vacancy but you might find it interesting”.

How many thousands of jobless were G4S planning to deploy, either directly or through sub-contractors through the workfare scheme, before said schemes became PR-toxic?

G4S were on a rate of £28,000 per employee for the 10,000 required .. now, and here's where my cynical gear drops into the synchromesh, with the dole queue standing at 3 million (or thereabouts) is it really believable that they couldn't, given the time they had since being awarded the contract, find paid staff (at London Living Wage or above) for such a cushy wee number?

Or is it more likely that this crisis came about when their original plan of using workfare conscripts hired under the 'no extra vetting required' umbrella of Close Protection UK fell through the floor when they realise the Jubilee fiasco blew up in A4E's face and showed the whole thing up for the scam it is, and they were then left in the shite recruitment time wise?

[The Egg Man]

[Doug]

The whole Olympic recruitment thing is a bloody shambles. Why on earth, considering the importance of security aka missile and warship deployment, did the Olympic management team not see this yonks ago. What are they all doing sitting in their plush offices and picking up big salaries, surely at meetings this subject must have come up. And the sad part of it is that the taxpayers will once again end up paying out millions to incompetent companies and individuals who of course will got off scot free, but who cares, its just a drop in the ocean to the billions the games are costing the taxpayer anyway

[HelenD]

Olympic Ettiquette guide for Johnny Foreigner (Guardian )