£480 wk ben cap not enough for families in London to live on.

bobthedambuilder

FTBFun wrote: »

Article 8 is a qualified right though, in that it can be infringed in certain circumstances - the article says:

"2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Important bit highlighted in bold. I would say it is arguable that it isn't against their human rights in this case.

Let's hope you're right, but since when has logic and common sense prevented the use of this initially laudable but now woefully misused piece of legislation.

Darthvader

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Add on free prescriptions. Some childcare benefits. Fruit & Veg vouchers. Some reduced bills, such as electric and gas. Free laptops. Free collection of large household waste. Free insulation.

And it goes on...

Interesting one was savings, where some on benefits could claim gross interest on a small amount. Benefits were not counted towards income. Whereas for the worker, income is income.

Hang on, is it a benefit cap or not? If childrens school meals and prescriptions and all are on top, then its not a cap. Or instead make it £500wk total cap to include everything.

I still think £480wk is enough to include everything, and I mean absolutely everything.

Derivative

Darthvader wrote: »

I still think £480wk is enough to include everything, and I mean absolutely everything.

Why do we dance around the point with this 'think' business?
No offence intended to you in particular, btw.

I don't see how an opinion comes into this.
£26k pa is factually enough to live on unless you have more than (roughly) ten children.

It's really not worth arguing about the 'edge cases' because there are probably less than a hundred families in the UK that have more than ten children. You can easily look at those on a case-by-case basis.

The opinion comes in when you start to argue about what those on benefits should/shouldn't be able to do, over surviving.

ukcarper

At the moment you get £79.66 for first child then about £62 for each one after that, if you have 4 kids does it really cost another £186 a week. Especially considering that doesn’t include any extra housing costs.

vivatifosi

FTBFun wrote: »

Important bit highlighted in bold. I would say it is arguable that it isn't against their human rights in this case.

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

Let's hope you're right, but since when has logic and common sense prevented the use of this initially laudable but now woefully misused piece of legislation.

I read FTBfun's point with interest and went off to have a look for more info on cases. Full Fact (www.fullfact.org) provides a link to the ECHR portal for cases. This follows Helena Kennedy's statement on Today programme that only 8 cases were found against the UK at the court in 2011.

For 2011, 516 cases related to the UK were decided, 471 were struck out by a judge as inadmissible, 2 were struck out by chamber and 33 by committee. Ten went to judgement and eight were found against the UK.
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/european_court_human_rights_cases_violations-3267
For clarity, its worth highlighting that per Full Fact, not every case goes to full judgement or gets thown out, so there is further data on this if you are interested.

If you then click through on the cases through to the portal, I've read through a few of these (top and tail only as that gives you an intro to the facts and the judgement), its quite clear that the case - even where finding against the UK, rarely gives full restitution as requested by the plaintiff.
I've found this quite a reassuring exercise, even though there is one case of those that I read that I really don't agree with.

bobthedambuilder

vivatifosi wrote: »

I read FTBfun's point with interest and went off to have a look for more info on cases. Full Fact (www.fullfact.org) provides a link to the ECHR portal for cases. This follows Helena Kennedy's statement on Today programme that only 8 cases were found against the UK at the court in 2011.

For 2011, 516 cases related to the UK were decided, 471 were struck out by a judge as inadmissible, 2 were struck out by chamber and 33 by committee. Ten went to judgement and eight were found against the UK.

The fact that 471 cases were taken to the ECHR and then found inadmissible is by itself clear evidence that the legislation is being woefully misused. I wonder how much taxpayers money was spent (on legal aid etc) in bringing those cases?

getcontrolback

It is a conundrum, but the cycle can't carry on. Crazy house prices and rent not only in London but the whole of the SW that bear no relation to the average persons wage let alone benefits so I would welcome a drop in house prices and rents so Londoners over time can afford to live close to family. I know far too many people that have had to move out of London away from family that have lived in an area for several generations because of inflated prices.

Regarding benefits, I have just spent 5 years on the DFW board and a quick trawl through that will show it is amazing what we all can live on when we need to without going hungry - might not beable to smoke, drink, have new clothes all the time but it can be done.
It's a fair amount money to live, talk to a nurse she/he has to live on it and one with kids. The main thing that would help is lower rents and house prices. There will always be the city salaries keeping house prices high in certain areas but it would be nice to get back to lower prices in the rest of London keeping it for Londeners

FTBFun

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

The fact that 471 cases were taken to the ECHR and then found inadmissible is by itself clear evidence that the legislation is being woefully misused. I wonder how much taxpayers money was spent (on legal aid etc) in bringing those cases?

It would be even worse if the HRA was repealed as there would be no mechanism to filter out cases before getting to the ECtHR.

The UK pulling out of the ECHR entirely would be the only way to stop this but I would call that an utterly pathetic route to follow.

LydiaJ

Darthvader wrote: »

Hang on, is it a benefit cap or not? If childrens school meals and prescriptions and all are on top, then its not a cap. Or instead make it £500wk total cap to include everything.

I still think £480wk is enough to include everything, and I mean absolutely everything.

The point about free school meals and free prescriptions is that the families are provided with the food/medicine for free rather than given money and left to choose whether to pay for the food/medicine or something else. It would be silly to change this - many families would behave responsibly, but there are some who would drink/smoke the money and leave the children still unfed and untreated for their illnesses. It would be completely unworkable to have to assess each family to work out how many prescriptions they'd had this month before deciding how much they should get in cash benefits.

The-Joker

getcontrolback wrote: »

It is a conundrum, but the cycle can't carry on. Crazy house prices and rent not only in London but the whole of the SW that bear no relation to the average persons wage let alone benefits so I would welcome a drop in house prices and rents so Londoners over time can afford to live close to family. I know far too many people that have had to move out of London away from family that have lived in an area for several generations because of inflated prices.

Regarding benefits, I have just spent 5 years on the DFW board and a quick trawl through that will show it is amazing what we all can live on when we need to without going hungry - might not beable to smoke, drink, have new clothes all the time but it can be done.
It's a fair amount money to live, talk to a nurse she/he has to live on it and one with kids. The main thing that would help is lower rents and house prices. There will always be the city salaries keeping house prices high in certain areas but it would be nice to get back to lower prices in the rest of London keeping it for Londeners

Don't worry lower rent sand house prices will happen when the caps come in.

But your argument is when lower prices come people can live nearer London. Well only if you can pay for it yourself.

Any family with a few kids on low income will not anymore be able to get their rent paid.