I Got A Letter Back From Chris Row Today Regarding The Changes.

[grahamw48]

It's all a load of nonsensical bolox that either has been worked out on the back of a fag packet by a drunk MP or arrived at using the govt's own fake statistics.

I'll say it again and AGAIN.

The only fair measure of 'affordability' is DISPOSABLE income...as widely used for donkeys years by the consumer credit industry.
Having signed up 100s of people for finance over the past 35 years, I know this.

Bear in mind it was when this accepted principle began to be ignored that the whole banking industry went twits up.

[lastlid]

It's all a load of nonsensical bolox that either has been worked out on the back of a fag packet by a drunk MP or arrived at using the govt's own fake statistics.

I'll say it again and AGAIN.

The only fair measure of 'affordability' is DISPOSABLE income...as widely used for donkeys years by the consumer credit industry.
Having signed up 100s of people for finance over the past 35 years, I know this.

Bear in mind it was when this accepted principle began to be ignored that the whole banking industry went twits up.

I agree with this but it would be both a headache and costly to administer.

[lastlid]

Danny Alexander on regionalising benefit.

"It was the non-announcement of the week. Excised from the prime minister's speech, but lurking in the background; should people in different parts of the country be paid different levels of benefits?

The media was briefed that it would be in the speech, but when it was delivered the sentence referring to regional levels of benefit had gone.

But of course by then the issue was running.

And although it was not in the speech, Employment Minister Chris Grayling fuelled the fire by saying it was "entirely sensible" to debate whether benefit levels should be set on a regional rather than national basis.

Benefits bill
The argument is that people on benefits in regions like the north east are more likely to stay on them because wages are lower than in the south.

Of course, any change could also help to cut the benefits bill too.

It is now becoming clear, though, why the PM decided not to mention it.

Liberal Democrats were briefing that they had blocked it, and now Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander has come out openly to say it's not something that will happen under the coalition.

"In terms of regionalising benefits, for me as a Liberal Democrat, it's just a non-starter”

Danny Alexander MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
And he also made it clear that the idea of regional public sector pay rates (or local market-facing pay as he referred to it) is also a distant and unlikely prospect.

In a visit to Teesside he said: "There is absolutely no prospect of the government introducing regional benefits.

"We have been looking at local market-facing pay in the public sector. That is an issue which we have referred to the individual pay review bodies to consider.

"But they would have to be come up with some pretty overwhelming evidence for us to move in that direction.

"In terms of regionalising benefits, for me as a Liberal Democrat, it's just a non-starter.""


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18646934

[Arthur Little]

I agree with this but it would be both a headache and costly to administer.

... but the way it's going to be from the date the New Rules become effective, it'll surely prove an even BIGGER HEADACHE for the hundreds of LOWER PAID it affects.

[Arthur Little]

After all, it was the Government that dreamt up the whole - and unfairly discriminatory - measure in the first place ...

... therefore it should equally be the Government's responsibility to take care of the problem IT created - WTHOUT, of course, recouping the extra outlay through futher visa fee increases.

God knows ... applicants already fork out MORE than enough.

[yellowcloud]

I have been studying this alot lately and have few questions if anyone can answer I would be grateful.

Ms. May is correct in quoting the wording of the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. It is a qualified rather than an absolute right. However, measures that qualify should be proportionate, i.e. there is a need to justify that in effect the economic well-being of the country is being protected by these restrictions and that the means to do it are not disproportionate. This will be one for the courts. We will have to wait and see if any cases come forward.

In relation to the Human Rights Act (v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?

So May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to question (v) in every single case, that every applicants whose spouse earns less than 18,600 will affect the economic well-being of the UK and it is proportionate for every case. But in law they cannot Judges can not say that. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment? Is this true?

The only ways to achieve what May wants are to do away with an independent judiciary. Do you mean to get rid of Judges altogether?

What I don’t understand is that two separate things May wants or can do?
Do away with an Independent Judiciary, ie get rid of Judges altogether? or
Dictate and tell Judges how to interpretate Article 8 ie that any sponsor's spouse who does not earn 18,600 would effect the economic well-being of the UK, which she can do because there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think?




The 18,600 threshold was calculated by a group of economists called the Migration Advisory Committee. This is the income level at which a British family would not receive any public funds in the form of income-related benefits (including tax credits).

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?
In a letter I was sent by Chris Row, he claims that the sponsor’s housing benefit or other Benefits may increase due to the presence of his sponsored spouse. But it is not possible for this to happen, more so even if it was possible would it not be easier to just change the law making it not possible for a sponsors housing benefit or other benefits to increase due to the presence of his spouse who is not eligible for Public Funds’ rather than make a minimum threshold of 18,000?

Many people with disabilities do not receive DLA and there is the whole scandal of the re-assessments going on at the moment.

This is another major hole in the new rules in that not every disadvantaged or disabled person receives DLA, as DLA is only for specific problems which a disabled person has. Not only that but someone who receives DLA for instance may lose it one week and the next week his spouse applies for ILR and how can this person be expected to go from being disabled and unable to work to receiving 18,600 per year immediately potentially? Hence his family spit apart, potentially his/her spouse being arrested by border control, split apart from her/his children after living here for 5 years and being put in a detention centre back to a country they have not lived in for 5 years!

[lastlid]

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?

This point was made on the forum by JoeBloggs. Yes. A fair point.

[joebloggs]

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?

This point was made on the forum by JoeBloggs. Yes. A fair point.

nor can you claim 'more of' a benefit if one partner has no recourse to public funds.

all this is about is the gov appearing to do something about controlling immigration

[yellowcloud]

What I don't understand is there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think? So May is able to dictate to Judges how to interpretate law?

And can May get rid of an Independent Judiciary lawfully?

[lastlid]

What I don't understand is there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think? So May is able to dictate to Judges how to interpretate law?

And can May get rid of an Independent Judiciary lawfully?

She sounds like she wants to give it a good go....