Mais um relatório a confirmar que a grande reforma dos serviços da Segurança Social não estão a dar resultado positivo nenhum.
Isto sem foi sabido, devido a IDS, o ministro da Segurança Social ter em conjunto com o governo, cozinhado a referida mudança mais por razões ideológicas contra as classes populares do que por razões de poupanças ou benéficas para o povo britânico.
Estão a esbanjar rios de libras para pôr em prática o mal fadado projeto de mudança do sitema de subsídios, e pôr cima de tudo, isso não dá os resutados que eles afirmavam iriam produzir.
Obviamente que não, porque os verdadeiros resultados que eles verdadeiramente esperavam eram os de lixar a classe proletária. Aí funcionou, porque muitas famílias estão agora em dificulades. Essas mesmas famílias também não arranjaram emprego.
Eles sabem disso, estão satisfeitos e dizem entre eles: se não tinham meios para formar famílias não as formassem? Só não dizem que os governos querem que as pessoas formem famílias, mesmo disfuncionais, para depois as despejarem no mercado de trabalho para engrossar os números e baixar os preços salariais. Isso não dizem eles!
Os governos do Reino Unido são eles próprios responsáveis por essas famílias cujas crianças serão depois a s flhadas nas escolas e andarão por aí ao deus dará em empregos isntáveis e de misérias. Essa uma espécie de mão d´obra escrava dos tempos modernos nos empregos plebeus.
Só que esses desgraçados não sabem disso e continuam a cair nas armadilhas todas que as classes milionárias lhes põem à frente. Metem todos lá pezinho na argola. Depois quando não precisarem mais dessas massas de trabalhadores devido à robotização, descartam-nos para subsídios de fome no desemprego.
Em Inglaterra você desempregado não recebe 80% do seu salário anterior, apenas dão a você o salário mínimo durante uns seis meses, e depois espetam consigo noutro sistema, onde recebe a mesma quantia, mas o dinheiro já vem do erário público, que dizer, vai passar a viver da esmola do contribuinte, ou tax payer no termo inglês.
Poré continuam a baixar os impostos dos super milionários. e a deixar fugir ao fisco esses mesmos milionários.
O PM Davide Cameron meteu a Comissão Europeia no Tribunal Europeu porque a Comissão colocou um plafond (limite) no montante de bónus que um banqueiro pode receber sem autorização dos acionistas.
Nós garatimos que o montante dos bónus sem medidas restritivas é muito caroço, e os banqueiros nem sabem o que hão-de fazer com isso, além de continuarem a jogar na economia casino.
Porque razão nenhum país Sul Americano sofreu com esta crise? O Brasil, por exmplo, tem para lá reais às tonoladas. Muito simples: Os bancos Sul Americanos não apostaram na economia casino e não tinham comprado hipotecas aos bancos da América do Norte.
Quando tudo se apercebeu que esses produtos financeiros eram junk, quer dizer, os copradores de casas não podiam pagar as hipotecas, então o esquema castelo cartas caiu por aí abaixo e os bancos dos países que nesse jogo de batota andavam metidos, forami varridos por um tsunami ecnómico.
Seja, faliu tudo e só foi segurado pelo amparo do erário público, com o dinheiro do cidadão. E agora, esses fulanos que não tiveram visão, deitaram tudo abaixo, ainda querem bónus! Como isso? Deviam era serem todos levados a tribunal, condenados e engavetados, para refletirem durante algum tdempo, sobre os vícios da batota com o dinheiro dos outros.
Definitivamente, é isso a função do governo britânico de defender os bónus? Os banqueiros que se queixem no Tribunal ou será que precisam de legal aid? Ou não sabem falar por eles próprios? This government sucks. Que grande seca
Só existe uma solução para este governo Ultra Reaça do Reino Unido do Unido: RUA!
O PM Davide Cameron meteu a Comissão Europeia no Tribunal Europeu porque a Comissão colocou um plafond (limite) no montante de bónus que um banqueiro pode receber sem autorização dos acionistas.
Nós garatimos que o montante dos bónus sem medidas restritivas é muito caroço, e os banqueiros nem sabem o que hão-de fazer com isso, além de continuarem a jogar na economia casino.
Porque razão nenhum país Sul Americano sofreu com esta crise? O Brasil, por exmplo, tem para lá reais às tonoladas. Muito simples: Os bancos Sul Americanos não apostaram na economia casino e não tinham comprado hipotecas aos bancos da América do Norte.
Quando tudo se apercebeu que esses produtos financeiros eram junk, quer dizer, os copradores de casas não podiam pagar as hipotecas, então o esquema castelo cartas caiu por aí abaixo e os bancos dos países que nesse jogo de batota andavam metidos, forami varridos por um tsunami ecnómico.
Seja, faliu tudo e só foi segurado pelo amparo do erário público, com o dinheiro do cidadão. E agora, esses fulanos que não tiveram visão, deitaram tudo abaixo, ainda querem bónus! Como isso? Deviam era serem todos levados a tribunal, condenados e engavetados, para refletirem durante algum tdempo, sobre os vícios da batota com o dinheiro dos outros.
Definitivamente, é isso a função do governo britânico de defender os bónus? Os banqueiros que se queixem no Tribunal ou será que precisam de legal aid? Ou não sabem falar por eles próprios? This government sucks. Que grande seca
Só existe uma solução para este governo Ultra Reaça do Reino Unido do Unido: RUA!
!
UK government benefits cap ‘not working’ - report
The Government’s benefits cap will struggle to meet its objectives of saving taxpayers’ money and encouraging people into work, a report has found.
The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) studied the results of the cap in Haringey, one of four London boroughs chosen as pilot areas for the scheme.
It found that 747 households saw their benefits cut between April 15 and August 16 because they were above the cap threshold.
The report found that just 10% - 74 of the households affected by the cap - were able to find work to avoid their benefits being cut, while 11 households increased their working hours to avoid the cap.
Almost 50% claimed extra payments from the council to help them pay their rent, which the CIH said “both shunts costs between national and local government budgets and masks the true impact of the cap until those discretionary payments run out”.
The amount lost by the households hit by the cap ranged from 15p to £374.50 a week, the CIH said, with 51% of claimants losing £50 to £199 a week.
About 2,300 children were affected by the cap, with larger families experiencing the highest loss.
The cap, which was rolled out across the country from July, limits benefits that people can receive to £500 a week for families with children or £350 a week for those without children.
The report said that while the cap is changing attitudes towards employment, “for many claimants there remain significant barriers to finding work, including the lack of job seeking skills and affordable childcare”.
It also found that marginalised people in society were disproportionately affected by the cap, that wider welfare reforms such as the council tax reuction scheme had hit at the same time and further reduced household incomes, and benefits claimants needed intense support to help them respond to the cap and move into work, which fall upon local authorities.
Report shows failings
Grainia Long, chief executive of the CIH, said: “The Government said the benefit cap would save money and encourage people into work, but this report shows it is far from achieving both of those aims in one of the worst affected areas.
“There have been whispers that the Government is considering lowering the cap or increasing the amount of hours people must work to avoid it. Unless ministers commit to increasing support for people looking to get back into work and funding for childcare this would be very dangerous.
“Ultimately, the Government must do more to tackle the UK’s housing crisis. The reason that the housing benefit bill is so high and that so many people are affected by the benefit cap is that we are simply not building enough homes to accommodate our growing population.”
Claire Kober, leader of Haringey Council said: “This research shows that the benefit cap has failed in its main objectives.
“Only a few households have been able to get back into work and, while the government may be making some savings, the real costs are just being passed to local councils already under enormous financial pressure.
“People still need a lot of support to get training or back into work and spiralling housing costs mean there is a long way to go before anyone could claim the benefit cap is working.”
The cap covers the main out-of-work benefits - Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income Support, and Employment and Support Allowance - and other benefits such as Housing Benefit, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit and Carer’s Allowance.
A spokesman at the Department for Work and Pensions said: “This research relies on early and limited data from a single council and completely ignores the fact Jobcentre Plus has helped 16,500 claimants nationally into work who were potentially affected by the benefit cap.
“We do not recognise this report as providing a sound or reliable picture of the reform.
“The benefit cap is helping to return common sense to the welfare system by placing a fair limit of £500 a week on the amount a household on benefits can receive.”
‘Fundamentally flawed’
Work and pensions minister Mike Penning said the report was “fundamentally flawed” and criticised the BBC - which featured the story prominently in some early morning news bulletins - for its coverage.
“Interestingly only the BBC and The Guardian bothered to call us about this because the research is flawed,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
“It is a fair policy and it is much too early for the BBC and the institute to be writing this off.”
Presenter Justin Webb said: “We’re only merely reporting what they did.
“We’re not accepting it by reporting it, you know perfectly well we’re not.”
Mr Penning said: “I don’t understand why we are looking at something so early on in one very restricted London area, which just happens to be Labour-controlled, which is said not to be working.
“Let’s let this go out throughout the country and let the BBC report the facts, not actually flawed data.”
READ MORE
Leia agora este artigo também publicado mesmo agora na imprensa britânica sobre o fecho de uma petroquímica na Escócia. Estes terão agora de ter cuidado com os negócios de origem Inglesa e as represálias contra o referendo da independência da Escócia.
23 October 2013 Last updated at 13:32
The refinery and petrochemical plants employ a total of 1,370 workers and many more contractors
Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close
The petrochemical plant at the giant Grangemouth complex in central Scotland is to close with the loss of about 800 jobs, owner Ineos has announced.
The news was broken to the workforce at the plant and its associated oil refinery at a meeting on Wednesday.
Ineos said a decision on whether to restart the refinery would be taken once the "threat of strike action" had been removed.
Scotland's first minister said the closure "matches our worst fears".
About 800 of the 1,370 people directly employed at the complex work at the petrochemical plant, with many more working there as contractors.
The dispute at the plant, near Falkirk, began over the treatment of a union official and escalated to the threat of strike action.
This was dropped but the operator shut down the plant and issued an offer of revised terms and conditions in a "survival plan", which was rejected by union members.
Workers leaving the staff meeting, which lasted about 20 minutes, told the BBC the decision to close the plant was "shocking".
One member of staff claimed that Grangemouth Petrochemicals chairman Calum Maclean had been "smiling" when he made the announcement.
Another worker, who did not want to be named, said: "I feel sick. It's gone. There's no livelihoods left and we don't even know if we're going to get redundancy out of it. I hope they're happy with themselves."
The worker, who appeared close to tears at points, said he could only listen to about 10 minutes of the meeting, before he felt he had to leave.
He went on: "There are folk in there have a husband and wife work here. That's it. Folk will be lucky if they have a house at Christmas."
Ineos said liquidators for the petrochemical plant would be appointed within a week.
Ineos chairman and founder Jim Ratcliffe had said at the weekend that if the petrochemical plant closed it was likely the refinery would go as well.
The refinery provides most of the fuel to Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland.
In a statement released after the staff meeting, Ineos said: "The company made it clear that rejection of change would result in closure. Regrettably, the union advised union members to reject any form of change.
"The outcome of the employee vote on the company's survival plan was a 50/50 split.
"Within this, almost all of the administrative staff voted for the company's plan but a large majority of shop floor employees voted to reject it.
"The shareholders met yesterday to consider the future of the business following the result of the employee vote.
"Sadly, the shareholders reached the conclusion that they could not see a future for Grangemouth without change and therefore could no longer continue to fund the business."
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said the closure of the petrochemical plant was the "outcome that matches our worst fears".
Mr Salmond added: "I will be speaking again to management and unions today to try and seek any further resolution we can. I will also convene an emergency cabinet meeting with relevant ministers later today to discuss the on-going situation.
"In preparing for this extremely difficult position we have been pursuing the contingency of potential buyers - we will now be actively exploring this as the main option as a matter of urgency.
"The Scottish government strongly believes the site has a positive future and we will continue to work with the UK government and all other parties concerned to find a solution that supports the workers affected and the wider Scottish economy."
Ministers - including the Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael and the Energy Secretary Ed Davey - were to meet in London to decide on a response to the decision.
Mr Davey said he was "saddened" to hear of the closure, particularly because of the impact it will have on the workforce and local community.
He added: "Ineos have informed us that the refinery will stay open and the management wish to restart full operations as soon as possible. We stand ready to help with discussions between the management and the union to ensure this can happen."
Mr Davey said fuel supplies continued to be delivered as usual and there was no current risk of disruption to supplies.
He added: "I continue to work very closely with the Scottish government, and other colleagues across government to share information with them."
However, Downing Street has indicated there will be no bailout for Grangemouth, and that it was up to the company and the trade unions to resolve the dispute.
Workers at the site had been given until 18:00 on Monday to agree to the changes, which included a pay freeze and downgrading of pensions.
Unite said half of the 1,370-strong workforce had rejected the proposed changes to contracts.
The company has said the plant, which has been shut down for a week because of the dispute, is losing £10m a month.
Ineos has said it is ready to invest £300m in Grangemouth, but only if workers agree to the new terms and conditions.
Do you work at the Grangemouth oil refinery? Are you affected by the issues in this story? Send us your comments using the form below.
Chemical sales drive export 
