Becoming Homeless Under Universal Credit


A pensioner who cares for her brain-damaged teenage granddaughter worries they could lose their home because of benefit cuts as she goes over to Universal Credit.

Jean Godfrey has brought up Emily Lydon, who has the human kind of mad cow disease since she was a baby. The 19-year-old’s condition started in the womb when her mum, Sally Evans, became one of the first Britons to get the variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.


It attacked both her brain and that of her unborn baby. Sally died aged 24 in May 2000 when her child was only seven months old. Emily is unable to walk, talk or feed herself and is dependant on her grandmother.

However last month Jean, 68, was told their joint income would be cut from £720 a week to £400 as they went to Universal Credit and because Emily had turned 19, and the benefits they have lost include Support for Mortgage Interest, which was stopped in April this year and succeeded by a loan, Child Tax Credit, Special Guardianship Allowance and Child Benefit.

But government failures let mad cow disease into the human food chain, killing Jean’s her daughter and brain-damaging her granddaughter. Jean has spent 20 years caring for her granddaughter Emily and now these benefits could make them homeless.

Emily can’t talk or eat and a syringe has to be used to pump food into her stomach through a tube. Emily is doubly incontinent and can’t walk which Universal Credit officials know about, but the Department for Work and Pensions responded that Emily was no longer eligible for child benefits as she had turned 19.

After checking her claim, it was found she was eligible for Employment and Support Allowance of £328 a month, which is being backdated, in addition to £58 a week Universal Credit. But it means Emily will still be £245 a week worse off and Jean worries they may lose their bungalow in Newark, Notts.

It requires £150 a month for heating oil, so if she heats the house they can’t eat, and she still believes they will lose their home, and Jean said that despite Emily’s condition, she’s still been asked to attend a work and capability assessment at her local Jobcentre.

The DWP announced in a statement: “As Emily has turned 19 and left full-time education, she is no longer eligible for child benefits,” and presently Emily gets Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments.

The Department of Employment and Support Allowance stated that they have ensured she is getting the right support, and have backdated all payments, and that this has been related to Emily and her grandmother.

Relating to the work capability assessment, a DWP spokesperson added: “As Emily has a severe disability, she will not need to attend any further assessments.”

These are the direct results of a ruthless, cruel government and an inept cow, Theresa May with her immoral Tory party belt-tightening tactics, and being seriously disabled doesn’t come cheap, there are hospital appointments that require a taxi, the equipment required to feed Emily and the feed itself, and any medications that the free prescriptions don’t cover, the adult nappies, the additional electric and gas, it all adds up.

And then there are the Conservatives who are supposed to be the caring party, the only people they care about is their own, the rich who they make sure get richer.

I would like to know how they managed to convey these details to Emily, and the treatment of disabled people and their carers has got to be illegal. This government may as well be giving out lethal injections to all disabled claimants, better still, charge them for the injections, then inform disabled claimants they have to use them as it will save the government money.

I’m sure there will be a few knighthoods or Lords titles on offer at a later date for their noble endeavours, and it’s sickening how disabled people and their carers are made to suffer like this.

Thirty lives are lost each month due to benefit cuts, this is so crazy. Yet we spend so much money overseas, and money is leaving the United Kingdom to support other nations, but how many begging adverts do you see every hour on your TV each day to help out people in other countries, yet our government put our most defenceless and disabled people into such a mental state that they can no longer go on.

The overseas support has become a farce with India using £330 million on the worlds largest statue, yet we still give them aid money, money that would be much better spent on helping our disabled and vulnerable, and these corrupt people don’t care about the sick and disabled, they’re turning human beings into claim numbers and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Didn’t the government announce that austerity had ended? If this is correct, then the government can stop freezing pensioners and starving children, and instead of our taxes going towards royal weddings and funding MP’s expenses for such things like light bulbs it should be going towards our sick and disabled – what happened to our country?

This isn’t living, it’s existing while the wealthy always get wealthier and the poor are left to die.


Preparing For The Challenge


Theresa May is mounting a tour of the United Kingdom and planning to challenge Jeremy Corbyn to a live TV debate on Brexit, and if agreed the show could happen on Sunday 9 December, days before the Commons vote.

The reports come despite chicken Mrs May ducking calls for TV debates during last year’s general election. At the time she claimed that she didn’t think people got much out of seeing politicians having a go at each other and stated that Jeremy Corbyn should be paying a little more thought and think more about Brexit negotiations.


But ‪a Labour Party spokesperson stated that Jeremy Corbyn would relish a head to head debate with Theresa May and her botched Brexit deal and the fate of the nation, and No 10 could not directly be reached for comment.

Brexit discussions are supposed to be concluded, and Jeremy Corbyn has had no input. If Theresa May had wanted opinions on Brexit from Jeremy Corbyn she surely would have taken them on board in the beginning, and if the less than trusted Prime Minister wants a televised confrontation, then it can only be an endeavour to undermine Jeremy Corbyn in some way, maybe by attempting to portray him as being opposed to Brexit, and if that’s the case she may as well be discrediting all those people that opted to stay in.

She will presumably work with a script and will have hints and answers provided through an earpiece, and the entire thing is destined to be a pretence, just as her proposed Brexit deals are.

Theresa May seems to be animated by her fighting spirit to ward off the backstabbers and plotters within her own party, but a challenge with the leader of the opposition should test her precarious strength, and hopefully, Jeremy Corbyn will eat her alive and then spit her out.

The one thing that Jeremy Corbyn shines in is open discussion and speech, and the one thing that Theresa May can’t do is open debate. How long will it take before she goes on about what Labour did in the 1970s, and how long will it be before she loses her rag, once pressed? And if this is meant to be a charm offensive, it will certainly fail.

Theresa May is now regarded as so incompetent, she couldn’t call a pet dog to heel, and she’s the bane of the United Kingdom, and she should be made to resign.

She will be like the lamb to the slaughter unless it’s scripted, but then I suppose she’s so desperate now that she has to do something, but the most important thing that we can do now in this country is to force politicians out if they’re taking payments for working corporations over the people of the country, this degradation is destroying the United Kingdom and must go.

Most of the people of the United Kingdom are fed up with politicians lining their own pockets at the detriment of the people living in it.

However, with this debate, Jeremy Corbyn will now have to tell us what he actually thinks, there will be no more sitting on the fence, and if nothing else, it should be a laugh.

We have listened to Theresa May’s lies and now see them as being an entire capitulation and deception of this nation, now it’s time to hear what Jeremy Corbyn really thinks.

Theresa May and the Conservatives have failed and failed hard but make no mistake, so have Labour, and if we vote for them they will do it again. To fix our society we must fix the entire political system and make it functional, and we certainly won’t get a reliable government by voting for corrupted self-serving politicians.

It doesn’t matter who you vote for now in the United Kingdom, and irrespective of who you do vote for, what you actually get is someone who is going to rip you off, on the make for themselves off people who did actually work in a real job for 50 years and are now living on welfare.

But why does it have to be Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn having this debate? Just because their parties are the two largest doesn’t mean they will be in the next general election, what about all the other parties, don’t they get to have a say?

This is the nation that developed industry and now has none, this is the nation that helped win two world wars, and children are leaving school now with more prospect of a knighthood than a decent job, paying decent wages. Our NHS was once the best in the world, and now it’s like the third world, and now all our best nurses and doctors now call Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Europe home, but we do have lots of food banks, soup kitchens and exploding prisons.

And when we’re free from the EU we will be able to barter with Bangladesh, Upper Volta and Africa, doing what Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler all failed to do, destroy it, and if you hate Great Britain, vote Tory!

But then anyone who puts on a khaki uniform in the mistaken notion that he’s defending his country is seriously misled because every war is based on lies, and the only people who conquer are the bankers.


Emmanuel Macron has already stated he will bind Britain to the Customs Union indefinitely until we agree on full access to British waters, and Theresa May is finished as Prime Minister and it’s the EU that will kill her off once they have ceased using her to get what they want.

Theresa May has lost what little supporters she had, but then the Tories only look after the Tories, all of us other followers are seemingly irrelevant, our country is finished, and the only reason she wants this debate is to seek and gain a little more public support, for a deal that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and it’s a disaster whichever way you look at it.

And of course, Theresa May will attempt to turn this around and condemn Labour for her woes, but this is her mess, induced by her party, she can’t downshift the culpability and waggle her finger.

Just Like Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka sent hundreds of e-mails about official business from her personal account, it’s been reported.

NY: Donald Trump Speaks On Staten Island

The top White House aide used personal e-mail for much of 2017 before realising the use infringed federal records rules, and messages published by transparency group American Oversight show Ms Trump freely e-mailed a government official from a ‘.com’ e-mail address.

It comes despite Donald Trump blasting Hillary Clinton in the US election for using a private e-mail server, chanting “lock her up!”.

“Crooked Hillary” and “but her e-mails!” became casual refrains in the acrimonious 2016 campaign and the President cited his Democrat opponent of putting the US in danger.

White House ethics chiefs led an in-house investigation of Ms Trump’s use of e-mail, and aides were said to be startled by the volume of Ms Trump’s personal e-mails and taken aback when she stated she didn’t know the rules.

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesperson for White House ethics counsel Abbe Lowell, told the newspaper: “While transitioning into government, after she was given an official account but until the White House provided her with the same guidance they had given others who started before she did, Ms Trump sometimes used her personal account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family.”

He emphasised the case was different to that of former Secretary of State Ms Clinton, who had a private e-mail server in the basement of her home, but the president’s family is not above the law, and there are pressing issues that Congress should promptly examine.


Did Ivanka Trump turn over all of her emails for preservation as required by law? And was she sending classified information over a private system?

For more than two years, President Trump and senior leaders in Congress have made it pretty apparent that they view the use of personal email servers for government business to be a grave crime that requires investigation and even prosecution, and we demand the same standard will be implemented in this matter.

Perhaps Ivanka Trump should be locked up like President Trump declared Hillary Clinton should have been locked up, and they’ll soon need a guide dog the for the stupidity they’re showing to the world, there’s no cure for ignorance.

But at least she’s not a warmongering psychotic megalomaniac, she leaves the megalomania to her father, but give her time!

If it’s proved that she sent classified data through an unprotected and unauthorised server and nothing is done about it, then the hypocritical government should call for people like Edward Snowden to be released back into the United States of America without imprisonment, otherwise, it’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

Yet, if they do end up doing the sacrificial goat, and if they do prosecute Ivanka, then it just sets a precedent, a precedent that opens up a door to hunt down Hillary.

Sweary Rant Over Brexit

Soapstar Danny Dyer’s on his soapbox again as he criticised Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage in an expletive-filled tirade over Brexit, as the EastEnders actor turned on the former foreign secretary for his “stupid haircut” and the ex-UKIP leader for being “another p**** in a suit”.


He further extended his sympathies to the Prime Minister saying that Theresa May, bless her, just got that job by default and that Boris Johnson’s running around with his crazy haircut spouting bollocks.

The 41-year-old, who plays Mick Carter, has previously called the ex-PM David Cameron a “t***” for calling the EU referendum.

Of course, Danny Dyer’s simply being himself, could this man talk without using foul swearing language, and even though Danny Dyer is loved by millions, just because he can’t string two words together without cursing shouldn’t make him any less a person.

The fact is a huge proportion of the constituency don’t even know what Brexit is, but then politicians aren’t explaining it in words we can understand on such a pressing matter.

Our government is struggling, and everyone is pulling in many directions, we must be the laughing stock of the world, and Theresa May must dread waking up in the morning to an attack of no faith comments.

So, what’s the news here, that Danny Dyer has an opinion or that he uses too many swear words to describe people?

Well, the news is that we’re letting people, (the government) run around the country stealing from the state’s coffers, left, right and centre of billions, taking it right from the support and social care system many of the poorest rely on, so why shouldn’t I grab myself a f**king TV?

Because then that makes us no different to them, the only thing is one is a couple of hundred, while the other is a couple of billion, and the state of life for our country is most vulnerable.

Theresa May talks about uniting a divided Britain by forcing through something that slightly over half the people voting wanted, but will have huge life-changing repercussions on the whole population for years.

I’m sure Danny Dyer wasn’t really implying that we should loot and riot, where would that really get us? Aside from some jail time, no, our outrage should be aimed at the government and the rich fools who got us into this mess, looting and rioting are never okay, but while there’s unrest in the United Kingdom, people like Danny Dyer will imply it’s okay to do just that.

In the meantime, there’s pandemonium on our high streets, and it’s just another day and another high street store at risk as stores on our high streets start to close down, and most of our shops have gone online.

But most people want to try their garments on before they purchase them, they want to look at the quality. People like to wander around the shops, and perhaps pick up something they didn’t expect to see but liked.

Online is the future, sadly, and if this is the case, then looting will be a thing of the past.

Of course, everyone out there has a view and that’s why it’s called free speech, although there doesn’t appear to be much of it these days, and if Danny Dyer wants to give his views on the matter of government, that’s fine, but perhaps he should consider how he puts his opinion across. Being a cockney is one thing but opening your mouth and every other word that comes out is a swear word doesn’t make him look particularly smart, and instead of getting recognition for his words, all he will get is a big thumbs down.

Lord Lester Trousered

Lord Lester has trousered nearly £10,000 in expenses since he was indicted for being a sex pest but between the accusation being made in November 2017 and May this year he has received £9,485 and served only 32 out of the 102 sitting days.

Peers can claim £300 a day solely for clocking in at the Lords, and the sum could be higher as the last five months’ worth of expenses has yet to be announced.

Lord Lester, 82, has not submitted any written questions since December 2017 and has not voted since January 2018, and it’s a sad fact that lords can proceed to claim thousands of pounds while hardly contributing to the work of the Lords, including those under investigation.

Lord Lester, however, will not be able to claim allowances from the point where he’s suspended because the peer faces a House of Lord’s embargo after telling a woman that if she slept with him he would make her a baroness within the year.

Married Lord Lester could be barred for four years following an inquiry found he breached the code of conduct by touching and harassing the much younger woman for sex.

He stood down as a Lib Dem human rights spokesperson and retired from the party whip after it was revealed in February that he was under investigation. The woman told the Lords Commissioner for Standards, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, that she met Lord Lester in the course of her work relating to parliamentary affairs.

The Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee supported the commissioners’ decision that Lord Lester had breached the code of conduct. It advised he be barred until June 2022, but Lord Lester, a leading QC, categorically denied the allegations and criticised the inquiry as flawed.

However, Blackstone Chambers has stood by Lord Lester, a member and Liberal Democrat Lord indicted of sexual harassment, while another of its barristers has intervened to save his skin in the House of Lords.

Lord Lester was set to be barred by the House of Lords until the arbitration of Lord Pannick, a fellow Blackstone barrister, who got a majority to refer the matter back to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. He did so on the grounds that its commissioner, former Law Society President Lucy Scott-Montcrieff, neglected to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness when dispensing with Lord Lester’s case.

Lord Lester, a human rights lawyer who in recent years has acted for Scientology, was accused by Jasvinder Sanghera, a campaigner against forced marriage and the patron of the charity Karma Nirvana, of harassing her a decade ago.


Jasvinder Sanghera abandoned her right to anonymity to help, she said, any other victims of Lord Lester to come forth.

Jasvinder Sanghera made her accusation in November last year. She alleged that when she missed her train following a meeting with Lord Lester at the House of Lords, he insisted she stay the night at his London home, and on the drive there, he kept repeatedly missing the gearstick with his hand and instead quite firmly put his hand on her right thigh.

Jasvinder thought that the first time it happened she assumed it must have been an accident, but when it continued she realised it wasn’t an accident, and she removed his hand and asked him to stop, but he simply smiled.

She felt incredibly uncomfortable knowing that she was on the way to staying at his home as he continued to grope her thigh for the length of the journey, despite her objections.

After Jasvinda had a cup of tea with the barrister and his wife, he showed her to her bedroom where he informed her that her bedroom was not far from his bedroom, which he insisted pointing out to her, telling her that he would not be far from her, so Jasvinda phoned a friend to say she felt trapped, and on their recommendation she wedged a chair against the door and went to bed fully clothed.

The next morning after Lord Lester’s wife had left the house, the peer came up behind her and put his arms around her waist. She shoved him away, but again he put his arms around her, but this time further up her body and she pushed herself away from him once again.

Lord Lester then stalked her around the kitchen as she begged him to stop and that she wanted to leave. Before driving her to the station, he told her that he had strong feelings for her and insisted on showing her his shed, surely a suspending misdemeanour all by itself.

In a subsequent meeting at the House of Lords, Lord Lester told Jasvinda Sanghera he would make her a baroness if she had sex with him, and that he could destroy her if she refused.

Jasvinda Sanghera alleged that Lord Lester then started pointing out peers and commenting about the reasons they had reached the positions they were in, suggesting that this was the reason they were in such a position, either that, or they just had good relations and good connections and so on.

He further supposedly made reference to the colour of the carpet and stated that only members of the House of Lords were permitted to walk on the red carpet and that commoners were only allowed to walk on the blue carpet.

The impression that he conveyed was that he was a man of authority who could make things happen and that Jasvinda was feeble in comparison.

Lord Lester informed her that unless she was a good girl who agreed to sleep with him, he would see that she never had a chair in the House of Lords and that there would be other consequences for her before making a number of improper sexual remarks, such as that he could see her becoming a demanding concubine.

Jasvinda Sanghera promptly phoned friends including a district judge, a senior British embassy representative and a director of the CPS to tell them what had occurred, all of whom endorsed her account to the committee as witnesses.

She was subsequently frozen out of Lord Lester’s campaign but chose not to make a complaint until last year, when she learned of how an intern in the House of Lords had reported a similar encounter against another peer and became convinced that she had to act.

In his defence, Lord Lester presented the ten-year delay as proof of its misrepresentation, but Jasvinda Sanghera described the suggestion surprisingly self-serving, given his field of expertise because Lord Lester failed to appreciate the thought method of victims.

Lord Lester further contended that Jasvinda Sanghera’s absence of apparent distress at his home implied that he was innocent and that she did not demonstrate how her seemingly normal appearance and behaviour were compatible with her accusations of precariously distressing sexual misbehaviour the night before.

He portrayed himself as a blissfully espoused man and displayed his immaculate record with women as additional confirmation of his integrity, and he stated that had he been blameworthy of these things that Jasvinda had accused him of, then there would presumably be other women coming forward – Wait for it!

Lord Lester might have outlined his professional work advocating equality for women, but of course, that doesn’t demonstrate his innocence. On the other hand, we could be asking ourselves why Jasvinda Sanghera waited ten years to make such an accusation, I suppose the reasons why masses of other people waited years to come forth in the many celebrity scandals because they were too afraid of the machinations it would bring.

A basic platform of Lord Lester’s argument and his subsequent appeal was the House of Lord’s Cod of Conduct, which he claimed was not intended to investigate sexual harassment and therefore inapplicable, and Lord Lester seems to think that whether or not the accusations were true, he shouldn’t have been subjected to investigation.

And in 2009 Lord Lester made a speech in support of the suspension of other misbehaving peers, in which he actively defended the process which he now endeavours to undermine.

Lord Lester further harried Jasvinda’s own staff, where he besieged her office sometimes several times a day, with demands that she should conclude the investigation quickly and vindicate him, calling the Blackstone barrister’s conduct grossly inappropriate. He was further criticised for leaking Jasvinda Sanghera’s name to another Lord, and Lord Lester called the investigation a nightmare.

Council House Tenants On Universal Credit


Council house tenants on Universal Credit owe an average of two-and-a-half times as much in outstanding rent as claimants still on old benefits, and Townhall bosses warn they’re grappling to cope with the welfare overhaul, which sees housing benefit paid to tenants rather than direct to landlords as under the old regime.

Council tenants on Universal Credit owe on average £663 in rent, around two and a half times the amount owed by those still on housing benefit, £262, according to BBC Panorama, and in Flintshire, North Wales, the amount of rent owed to the council by people on the Government’s flagship welfare shake-up owe an average £1,424, six times the amount owed by those on housing benefit.

Flintshire has been a pilot for Universal Credit, with their other local authority co-workers presently coming into the full roll out of Universal Credit, and it’s been a bit of a mess.

The Government was advised difficulties could be unleashed over the housing benefit shake-up, and in 2011, Professor Paul Hickman, of Sheffield Hallam University, was asked by the Department of Work and Pensions to examine impacts of paying the money to claimants to pass on to landlords.

Recognising a growth in rent arrears, his investigation determined only 8 percent of tenants managed to pay their rent in full.

Professor Hickman told Panorama: “Were we ignored?

Some of what they said was listened to by the government but they were so committed to the course of rolling out Universal Credit, and whatever was uncovered in the investigation, the government were going to proceed to plough ahead anyhow.

The Department of Work and Pensions said more than 80 per cent of claimants are paid on time, and maintains there should be no problem with landlords getting rent payments. Meanwhile, a Resolution Foundation report shows Universal Credit is estimated to be more costly than the policy it succeeds thanks to reforms revealed in last month’s Budget.

Proposals announced by the Chancellor mean 200,000 more families will be better off due to the welfare reform, the think tank believes, and the moves announced by Philip Hammond will cut the number of working families losing out because of the changes from 3.2 million to three million.

Philip Hammond acted amid rising tension from Labour, Tory rebels and the Mirror’s Stop the Universal Credit Cruelty campaign.

The petition, launched in the run-up to the Government’s financial showpiece, set out three possibilities: redesign Universal Credit to be fit for purpose, axe it in support of the old system if Universal Credit is unfixable, or introduce a brand new system.

Universal Credit rolls six welfare benefits, child tax credit, Working Tax Credit, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance and Housing Benefit, into one single payment. The roll-out is scheduled for completion in December 2023.

The difficulty is with these people getting into arrears because either Universal Credit are not paying them on time or they simply don’t pay it, then the Council’s and Housing Association will evict them, then we will find more families out on the streets with their children, I bet Social Services are rubbing their hands together.

And more than half of homeless families across England are in work but rising rents and the shortage of social housing is forcing more families into makeshift accommodation, and more than 33,000 families in temporary accommodation are holding down a job despite having nowhere permanent to live, a figure that has risen by 73 per cent since 2013, when it was 19,000 families.

One single mother, Mary Smith, who works full-time in a shoe shop said she and her three sons had been stuck in a cruel succession of precarious makeshift accommodation for two years after being evicted from their private property, and they have been unable to afford to rent anywhere else.

She’s amongst thousands of working households in low-paid, part-time or contract employment that are no longer able to afford rents and are therefore being forced into squalid and overpopulated makeshift accommodation.

Losing a tenancy is now the single biggest reason for homelessness in the country, accounting for more than a quarter of all households accepted as homeless in the last year. It comes following an investigation exposed at least 310,500 households in England have been waiting to be moved into social homes for more than half a decade, with more than 100,000 stuck on waiting lists for more than 10 years and some waiting for as many as 18 years.

With the country having a backlog of 3.91 million homes, meaning 340,000 new homes need to be constructed each year until 2031, a figure significantly greater than the government’s current target of 300,000 homes yearly.

Ms Smith and her three sons, now aged 18, 19 and 21, had lived in a privately rented home in Watford for 13 years when the landlord evicted them two years ago, forcing them to move into a hostel.

They were stuck in an absolute hovel of a rat-infested hostel, where food would get robbed. Ms Smith almost lost her job when they first became homeless because of transport connections to work that were so bad, and the family spent three months in the hostel before being relocated into temporary accommodation, and they have since been relocated to two other temporary properties, which Ms Smith said was destabilising for both her and her sons.

Despite working full-time and recently getting a wage rise, her pay is not enough to rent a property, and it’s like a vicious cycle for the family, living in properties that are freezing and have mould creeping up the walls with the uncertainty of their future.

Ms Smith’s children have had to go through a lot, which means that they haven’t been able to attain their full potential because there’s simply no safety net for them.

Ms Smith loves her job that she’s worked in for four and a half years, and she’s just accepted a 40 hour a week temporary to cover the manager, which meant that she got a pay rise, but she can’t see any benefit from the salary if it’s still not enough to secure a tenancy anywhere.

Getting a pay rise doesn’t make her any better off because it simply means she gets less help, and she still struggles to put food on the table, and she’s a proud person and doesn’t like asking for help, but it’s from the help of friends that they got through.

And it shocking that even when families are working every hour they can, they’re still being made to live through the austere reality of homelessness, and in many instances, these parents who work all day or night, then have to return to a crowded hostel or B&B where their whole family are made to share a room, a room that has no space for ordinary family things like cooking, playing or doing homework.

This was once a country where the streets were covered in gold, well at least in London, the land of opportunity, which is now slightly ironic because now we see streets that are dirty and poverty-stricken, and it’s appalling how we’re sinking back into the eighteenth century of Dick Whittington.

And we can’t let struggling families slide through the cracks created by our housing crisis because this isn’t the eighteenth century, and our government need to urgently come up with a new plan so that social housing can genuinely deliver the affordable homes that we so urgently require.


Everyone deserves a safe and decent place to live, but Theresa May said that the best way out of poverty was to work, she further said that she was going to make this country work for everyone, so what happened Theresa May?

But our government believe that they can justify their mismanagement by proposing new laws, well, it doesn’t actually work like that, but then they knowingly created this situation, and then they use guerilla tactics, then hit, run, and hide because they’re plagued with their own greed, the most single destructive human activity because with obsession you keep coming back to the same problem and they never come up with a solution.

And isn’t it strange how there are constantly reports in the newspapers about homelessness, but despite the statistics, the government will still tell you it’s not a problem.

Figures revealed that 4,751 people slept rough across England on any given night in 2017, with a 15 per cent rise compared to the previous year and that more than doubled in 2010. Last year 57,890 households were accepted as homeless in England, and in Scotland, 34,100 applications were assessed as homeless and in Wales 9,210 households were threatened with homelessness.

Our government doesn’t believe in social housing and they want it exclusively in the private sector, but the way they’re going about it leaves a sour taste because it chokes new social builds, stirs up the market for private landlords who like mortgage pawnshops are saying no thank you very much not because of arrears but because fair rent figures rarely corresponds with rent required when you have a tiny stock.

If you take these arrears, waiting times for benefits, social loans, incorrectly determined work capability tests, tribunal costs for reversal of decisions, sanctions, money spent on donating to food banks, provider contractors, et cetera, but what the government say they have saved and what is reality, is two different things.

In the meantime, a Resolution Foundation report shows that Universal Credit is set to be more costly than the system it succeeded thanks to changes revealed in last months Budget. It was never about saving hardworking taxpayers money, instead, it was all about an ideological class war started by the Tories against the working poor and those who don’t and can’t work for whatever reason.

So, when you get these Tory supporters backing the Tories, insisting it’s for the good of the taxpayer, they’re either exaggerating or they’ve fallen for the propaganda.

When people were on the old system, rent was paid straight to the landlord, but now it’s paid straight to the claimant who then has the responsibility to pay it to the landlord. Now, not everyone’s the same, some of these people have some kind of disability, and when I say disability, there is a broad spectrum of disabilities, not all disabilities are the same.

Countless people in our society have an addiction of one sort or another. I’m not sugar coating it, it’s a huge problem in our society, however, addiction is frequently linked to mental health problems, probably started as a way to cope with feelings that person felt and was powerless to deal with in any other way, therefore it then becomes a disability.

But some people are too keen to judge, and we’re all sinful of this at one time or another in our lives, accusing alcoholics and addicts of wasting their money on a fix rather than paying their rent, but actually people are getting into arrears because once they go onto Universal Credit they have to wait 5-6 weeks for their first payment.

That first payment, four weeks worth would then be only for the upcoming month, so those first 5-6 weeks will still be outstanding, so nothing to do with poor budgeting or that the money is paid to people and not direct to the landlords.

Yes, people could be setting up direct debits as soon as their rent money gets into their account and several do, but they would still be in arrears because they don’t get any money on Universal Credit for 5-6 weeks and during that time Housing Benefit is not paid into the claimants account, which makes them in arrears.

Of course, most or all of it is backdated but by that time they have been evicted or a seeking of possession order served to them, that’s enough to make you either go insane or turn to addiction.

Things have shifted quite a bit in the last ten years, but there appears to be a deficit of understanding or just a deficiency of interest where people are concerned, and things are much different for people, now that the benefits system has changed.

Benefits aren’t quite as plentiful as they were on the old system, plus the cost of living keeps going up, however, benefits have been suspended at the same rate or cut, and judging people based on when things were much better is why maybe some people out there get confused.

And there’s going to be more chaos and mess through the government’s narcissistic clowns in office due to this Universal Credit, and people are going to be in such a dangerous place and before long we will start hearing of more deaths and mass homelessness.

Sadly, the government’s ego comes before the fall, the problem is, they won’t back down on this Universal Credit debacle and it’s Joe Public that will take the fall for it.

Everybody’s Entitled To Change Their Mind

Conservatives win general elections but Labour never lifts its hands in submission by declaring the nation has expressed its policies it so bitterly opposed that must be embraced. Rather, Jeremy Corbyn promises to save the NHS, better salaries, unshackle trade unions and renationalise privatised industries such as the railways and the Royal Mail.

When Labour was triumphing at the polls, it was the same response from Theresa May, who challenged Tony Blair and Gordon Brown every inch of the way. The Conservative Prime Minister rejected article by article, bill by bill, Labour’s agenda.

Then, when the Tories fell back into power in 2010, they sauntered through Parliament’s lobbies to turn off health spending taps, scrap new schools and wield a cleaver at the welfare state. MPs standing up, win or lose, for what they believe, whether we agree with them or not, is how politics and government work.

The beaten party in a vote seeking to shift public opinion in future is perfectly legal. Jeremy Corbyn is entitled to demand an early general election to change last year’s decision, and Theresa May is within her rights to resist.

So the worst debate of them all against another Europe vote is that it wouldn’t be democratic. But it would be, the people are entitled to change their mind in a democracy, and Boris Johnson’s brother Jo, a Tory with sincerity unlike the dishonest ex-Foreign Secretary, revealed in his atomic leaving address how Theresa May’s in-out Brexit hokey cokey would be significantly damaging for Britain than remaining in Europe, while the hardline Leaver’s lies are fantasy.

The appearance of the harsh truth is why a Populus poll for pro-European group Best for Britain finds that 65 per cent of voters back the British public having the final say on the reality of going or staying, and our country’s best chance is in Europe yet campaigners will tell you that only 120 of 650 MPs would vote today for a saviour vote.

Everyone is allowed to change the minds of their own understanding, but it’s the consistent barraging and harassment by the moaners and segments of the media that gets on people’s nerves, and we should all have another election, but then we will vote to leave again, and then we’ll have another election and we will keep doing it until all the leavers are so fed up with voting that they won’t try anymore and we will stay in, thank god for democracy!

But isn’t that then like taking out a two year fixed agreement on something and then six months later you change your mind?

The current situation that we’re in is that Theresa May set out to subvert a genuine leave from the start, and EU leaders knew this, but they knew they had the upper hand against a weak leader, and the only reason David Cameron gave the people a referendum was to quell the EU critics so that they could move onto the next stage, consolidation of Europe, one flag one Parliament, one leader, a United States of Europe, should Brexit fail then that’s precisely what is going to happen and no-one in the United Kingdom will be able to stop it.