#current government jobs in mp

[naukrinetwork1]

Find the latest government jobs in mp 2024. Get updates on MPPSC, police, teaching, engineering, and banking Posts. Apply online with Naukri Network.

[cassolotl]

UK government planning to scrap a major disability benefit

I'm only just scraping by and the government are proposing to take away PIP (a disability benefit), which would be HALF of my income wiped out.

"Reforms to personal independence payments (PIP) could include stopping regular cash payments, and instead offering claimants one-off grants for things like home adaptations." -- "Disabled people face end to monthly benefits cash", BBC News, 29 April 2024

And:

"The plans, which will be consulted on over the coming months, also include proposals to “move away from a fixed cash benefit system”, meaning people with some conditions will no longer receive regular payments, but instead access to treatment if their condition does not involve extra costs." -- "People with depression or anxiety could lose sickness benefits, says UK minister", Guardian, 29 April 2024

That's what the NHS is supposed to be doing...

Genuinely absolutely terrifying.

Can anyone living in the UK join in with an (hopefully!) overwhelming cascade of unique emails to their MP opposing this? WriteToThem.com makes it very quick and easy.

They're proposing to replace it with one-off grants that the individual can apply for, which is absurd and horrifying, so feel free to point out how that won't work as well!

Here's what I'm writing, and do not just copy-paste my letter/email, because that makes it less legit. Do your own thing, even just one sentence telling your MP that you're opposed is enough if that's all you can manage. Whatever you want to say is what your MP needs to hear.

Dear [MP's name], Today I learned that the government plan to scrap PIP, and maybe replace it with something like a one-off grant application process, before the next election. ("Disabled people face end to monthly benefits cash", BBC News, 29 April 2024: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo) PIP is about half of my income (about 44%). I don't spend it on occasional large purchases, I spend it on countless things that are more expensive for me than they are for other people. PIP is in place to acknowledge, as it says in the above article, that disabled people's lives are more expensive than non-disabled people's lives by hundreds of pounds per week. ("Previous research from Scope suggests households with at least one disabled adult or child face an estimated average extra cost of £975 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households." That's £225 per week, and the maximum amount of PIP you can get is £184.) So firstly, it could be argued that PIP doesn't even cover the additional expenses of the average disabled household. And next, the cost of implementing an alternative system would be worse for disabled people, totally unsuited to its purpose, and more expensive to run. Worse for disabled people: Currently PIP acknowledges that being disabled takes a lot more work to maintain a comparable standard of living, and as it's an amount of work that the claimant cannot sustainably do, they are given money so that they can pay someone else to do it. These costs are distributed across all living expenses, in addition to occasional one-off purchases of e.g. mobility aids. Having to apply for one-off payments for expenses would be more work on top of that, so if the disabled person isn't able to do it (which is very likely) they will either have to work less in their day jobs in order to spend more time applying for one-off grants, or they will have to also apply for one-off payments to pay someone to apply for more one-off payments. This is self-evidently a waste of energy and time, and totally impractical, as well as being counter to the entire point of disability benefits. It would also be extremely undignified for the disabled people, and arguably against human rights (right to private life and dignity), to have to justify each purchase to the government. Totally unsuited to its purpose: One off-grants are not suited to ongoing higher expenses such as having to buy more prepared food (e.g. carrot batons are more expensive than raw carrots and go off much more quickly). Does this policy assume that disabled people's PIP is only for things like wheelchairs and walking sticks? More expensive to run: The system for PIP applications is already fairly backlogged, in that my last application took over 6 months to complete. I was awarded PIP for 10 years. If every application for a one-off grant had to be accompanied by an application of a similar scale that wouldn't be workable, so presumably an initial PIP application like the current system's would still be required to qualify for the system in the first place, and then following that, numerous smaller applications for money (e.g. for taxis, pre-chopped veg, painkillers, specialist clothing, etc.) would be carried out per person per month. The disability benefits system would have to be scaled up significantly, and it would be much more expensive. It is far cheaper to give people a set amount of money based on their needs; it's the same money that you would be giving them in grants anyway, but without having to process each purchase/one-off application. I implore you to oppose this proposal. It is blatantly unworkable to the level of absurdity, but more importantly it is inhumane. I look forward to your reply detailing your stance. Many thanks in advance. Yours sincerely, [My name]

But, again, if you can't manage anything long or complicated like that, your best is good enough. Even if they're not all perfectly written and detailed, we want to bowl them over with sheer quantity of emails.

[turbo-enid]

It bugs me that there's posts that are responding to Tr-mp getting shot with "The Republicans are riled up now! This why we need to vote! We can't let Tr-mp win!".

Like. Okay. Sure. Whatever. Vote. But where's the push to get B-den to step down and find someone else, so voting would even seem REMOTELY worthwhile?

If you're trying to encourage people to vote blue, you really need to start giving a fuck about WHO it is and what their values are, because people. have. lost. hope.

At this point, when B-den has done jack shit these past 4 years to earn his re-election and has given NO indication that anything will improve with another 4 years of him as president, I'm not sure what the hell is the actual, tangible benefit of voting for him. Like, genuinely, what exactly is this party's plan besides cornering people into voting blue because "at least we're not Tr-mp"? Are you fucking serious right now?

Under B-den's CURRENT presidency: there's multiple genocides being funded, covid is still rampant & unmitigated, the rates of suicides are high, there are mass layoffs with so many people lacking job security, very few people feel like they can afford a home, life expectancy is decreasing, trans rights are being trampled over, the police is actively being funded & militarized, among a mountain of other issues, and you're telling me I'm supposed to feel motivated to go to the polls when your only campaign strategy is "At least we're not Tr-mp"? Get the fuck out of my face with that bullshit please!

And my other thing is, what exactly is your plan POST election day? Yes, YOU, the voter. Because I'm sick and tired of seeing people constantly putting the emphasis on election days (including primary elections) as the only days people can do something substantial if they want to influence how their lives are governed. There are 363 other days in the year that you could be DOING something for your community, which would be tremendously more impactful.

Reread that last paragraph. Because if you're so scared of how Republicans seem to be so organized and equipped to tear down your rights, then you might want to start being more productive in your community, more vocal to your representatives, more RECEPTIVE to the voices of the people you're trying to rally voter support from (instead of shaming & coercing them to vote for a party that has routinely shat all over their hopes), etc. if you want the scales to REALLY tip in your favor.

"We're not Tr-mp" is not going to fucking cut it this time.

[invisibleicewands]

Actor and debt campaigner Michael Sheen has joined calls for the government to pass legislation to help tackle the crisis of unaffordable credit and problem debt in the UK. In 2022- 2023, more than 9 million were declined for credit, with millions relying on pay-day-lenders and buy-now-pay-later schemes with high interest rates. At its worst, lack of access to affordable credit means hundreds of thousands of people find themselves turning to loan sharks, while viable businesses remain stuck, unable to develop and create jobs. Campaigners are calling for a Fair Banking Act to help ensure that everyone can access essential financial services and support. 

Speaking at an event in Parliament on Monday, Sheen said:

“Anyone can find themselves in a place where they need credit to make ends meet or to get through a difficult time. The lack of affordable credit for people on lower-incomes is harming individuals and families, but also businesses and communities. Whole regions are seeing their growth held back. We can’t keep waiting and hoping that things will get better. We need something to change now. The Fair Banking Act could be the thing which really makes the difference”.  

The event in parliament was organised by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Banking, alongside the Fair Banking for All Campaign – a group including credit unions, Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs), fintechs, charities and policy experts who are calling for a Fair Banking Act to help increase access to affordable credit. MPs, peers and financial regulators were among the attendees. 

Lloyd Hatton MP, chair of the APPG, said:

“We need a Fair Banking Act to help increase affordable lending in every corner of the country, ensure small businesses have access to the financial support they need, and guarantee that nobody is financially excluded by the mainstream banks. Only then will we deliver sustained economic growth across the whole of the UK.”

Before the election, Labour announced that financial inclusion would be a priority for them in government, with plans being developed for a comprehensive national Financial Inclusion Strategy. The Fair Banking for All Campaign is calling for a Fair Banking Act to be a central pillar of this strategy, to help grow the responsible finance sector. The idea is based on a successful example from the US, where similar legislation has successfully increased access to financial services and support for people on low-incomes and from marginalised communities. 

As well as leading mainstream banks to improve their own provision of affordable credit for underserved communities, the proposed legislation would also incentivise partnerships between high-street banks and institutions such as credit unions and CDFIs, which are often best placed to provide tailored services that meet the needs of individuals and small businesses who have been turned down by larger institutions. 

Recently published research from the Fair Banking for All Campaign estimated that a Fair Banking Act in the UK could increase fair and affordable lending to individuals by £2bn a year – equivalent to the total amount owed to loan sharks. This would help to pull the rug out from under the illegal lending market, by providing people with a safe and affordable alternative when they’re in urgent need. Additional support to small businesses could create or maintain just under 10,000 jobs over five years, including in some of the most economically deprived parts of the country – where small businesses currently find it hardest to get loans from high street banks.

Robert Kelly, chief executive of the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd, was another of the speakers at the event. He said: 

“We need more humanity in our banking system. At a time when more and more people need access to affordable credit, their options are becoming more and more limited. People are being turned down by high-street banks because of their income level or credit score, and so they’re turning to high-cost credit or illegal lending. Credit unions give them an alternative. The sector continues to serve communities and employers across the country at record levels through the provision of ethical and responsible products and services. There’s so much demand out there for this kind of alternative – but we need a Fair Banking Act so we can grow to meet that demand, and help millions more people”

Theodora Hadjimichael, chief executive of Responsible Finance which represents CDFIs in the UK, said:

“Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs) invest into underserved places and people, unlocking potential for businesses, social enterprises and households. For economic growth to happen, we need lenders that get to know businesses and understand people’s lives, make fair lending decisions that take these into account, and offer affordable finance, and incentives to ensure that growing demand for affordable, ethical, credit can be met. That’s why Responsible Finance is part of the campaign calling for a Fair Banking Act”.

[sugdenlovesdingle]

This is the new Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof during his first big debate.

This is also the face of a man who already hates his job. He started on July 2nd.

The first debate featured two (2) motions/votes of no confidence from the opposition. One against two nazi ministers from the far right racist party for freedom who have been spouting nazi conspiracy theories, and the second one against Schoof himself - mainly because nobody knows who the fuck he is or what his political opinions are. Neither got enough votes - but still.

Then leaders of two of the four parties who make up the current government started attacking the leader of the third (out of the four) and largest party on twitter. (it's their weapon of choice - talk shit about each other on twitter)

Then another racist/nazi MP and current vice prime minister tweeted a screenshot of two tweets of the (now) mayor of Amsterdam about hijabs (one saying something different than the other) while the debate was still ongoing. A debate she was a part of.

The pm then suspended the debate for half an hour while he talked to his MPs nazis and told them not to tweet during debates anymore. (we're one step away from them having to hand in their phones at the start of the debate and not getting them back until they're done)

And then the leader of the largest far right, racist party called the prime minister a wet blanket on twitter. The prime minister HE HIMSELF has picked out and put forward for the job.

This shitshow is supposed to fix the problems of 14 years Mark Rutte (former pm) but all they do is pick fights with each other.

[aressida]

What is the Digital Identity Bill?

It's the glue that holds together the digital control agenda by which every Australian will be controlled, corralled, exploited and then gagged when they speak or act in opposition.

The government knows Digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a Digital ID.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Digital ID cannot be stopped But can we cut off its balls?

In my opinion there is not much chance of stopping digital id entirely with the current ownership of the opposition party, Libs-Nats, and with so many Labor Greens and Teals in parliament.

Our best hope is to win some concessions… by politely demanding (by phone, or in person) each of our local MPs propose or support another member proposing the following amendments or they will lose your vote and a dozen of your friends and family’s votes at the next election.

Required Amendments:

(1) ensure there are strong and broad protections against any person, entity, business, government, etc making digital ID compulsory for any purpose whatsoever (be that to gain or maintain employment, be it to access a space or place, be it to purchase (or even to receive for free) any goods or services, to receive or access any payments or services from the government, etc).

(2) ensure the protections are sufficiently broad to protect from “nudging”. For example special queues for people with/without digital ID (where one group is treated with a different level of service), for example cutting back on staffing for face to face traditional ID verification processes, or any other practice which could be seen by a reasonable person to make non digital ID options less convenient.

(3) amend the Bill to ensure that no one should be able to veto the protections outlined in (1) and (2) for any reason whatsoever, not even the relevant minister.

(4) also update consumer rights laws and privacy laws to enhance and complement the above protections (especially against it becoming mandatory or mandatory adjacent or as mandatory as possible).

Read on to understand why asking your MP to simply vote against it will probably be worse….

It is not good enough to ask Lib Nats to vote against Digital ID outright. There’s not enough of them by themselves.

We also know the Greens and Teals are willing to vote FOR it in its current form. We saw that in the Senate.

Labor plus Greens in the lower house is more than enough to push it through.

Therefore we have to (a) scare the pants off labor/greens/teals backbenchers, especially any of them who only won on slim margins or saw huge swings against them last election. Make it clear they need to do what we the people in their electorates want or they are risking their future in politics.

However, Labor MPs almost never ‘cross the floor’ and vote against their party. They risk expulsion from their party, and then they will probably lose their seat at the next election. Again, they’re scared of losing their job as MP.

So option 1 (tell them to vote against Digital ID) is a non-starter. Labor MPs will not do that unless their whole party decides not to - which is highly unlikely. We will simply end up with Digital ID legislation in its current form with minimal protections from it becoming mandatory.

So we need to convince the Labor MPs to take the amendments issue to the Party room meetings to get the suggested amendments through. I.e. we need to scare them enough." - JS Digital ID. Telegram.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[beardedmrbean]

The bill, put forward by ruling majority MP Nicole Le Peih and supported by President Emmanuel Macron's centrist government, was approved 78 votes to 12 overnight on Monday and will now proceed to the Senate.

"This law will put an end to abusive lawsuits against farmers who do nothing but their job: feed us. It is a common-sense proposal, country-side common-sense," Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti said on social media platform X.

French governments have long courted farmers, an influential sector that Paris ignores at its peril.

The country has a history of conflicts between former city dwellers buying country houses and then complaining about roosters crowing, dogs barking, the noise of agricultural machinery or the smell of manure. BFM TV reported that nearly 500 farmers are currently facing lawsuits from neighbours taking issue with noise, or smells, emanating from their farms. In 2019, in a case that caught international media attention, a court ruled that a rooster called Maurice could continue his dawn crowing despite complaints from neighbours in a village on a small island off France's Atlantic coast.

France already has legislation, introduced in 2021, to protect the "the French countryside's sensory heritage", but the new law aims to give more protection to existing farms from newly arrived residents in the area.

"Proud to support those who work in our fields. Now to the Senate," farming union FNSEA Deputy Chairman Luc Smessaert said on X.

Brittany region environmentalist Claire Desmares told local radio France Bleu that the proposed law is an "absurd and populist" measure proposed by the powerful agricultural lobby. _______________________

You moved next to a dairy, it's gonna smell and be noisy, don't like it move elsewhere.

One more reason country folks want to keep city people out of their areas right here.

[probablyasocialecologist]

When Labour was elected with a big majority, there was a great sense of expectation of a sea change, and that the historical debt of the Labour Party to the miners would be redressed. There would be a serious program of social and economic regeneration for the former coalfield areas, hinging on the provision of decent, well-paid manufacturing jobs, not only for the current miners but also for the future generations. Then, it became clear that Blair’s view of regeneration was to sell these areas to mobile international capital. Some of it originated from the United States, some from Southeast Asia. Blair’s policy didn’t produce enough jobs, and the jobs that it did produce bore no comparison, in terms of wages, to those that had been available in the mines. Many of these jobs were not in manufacturing, but instead in call centers — they were poorly paid, part-time, and often precarious. The new economy that Blair’s government built up was not at all what people had expected, and it did not fit with what they were led to believe was Labour’s commitment to the coalfield areas. Having hit a high point in electoral support for Blair in 1997, the Labour Party had its support progressively eroded after that, as people became more and more disillusioned with the Thatcherite policies the Labour Party had pursued and the party’s inability to effectively combat the austerity politics of the Tory coalition in 2010. The opportunity to express disillusionment came with the Brexit vote. Those who had suffered as a consequence of industrial decline and the subsequent austerity policies of the previous two or three governments could voice their opposition to the political establishment. The Conservatives were largely in favor of Brexit. Senior figures in the Labour Party wanted to stay in Europe. In a sense, staying in Europe was seen as a sort of a class project — a certain fraction of the educated, middle-class political establishment had an interest in remaining in Europe. Brexit provided an opportunity for those in the areas that had suffered as a result of the previous thirty or forty years of economic policy to say, “If you’re in favor, we’re not. We’re not necessarily against our brothers in Europe, but we’ve had enough of being treated this way, and both major political parties have ignored our legitimate demands for decades.” This trend manifested in the subsequent election results. In 2019, Boris Johnson returned with a massive majority. In the North East, sometimes for the first time ever, conservative MPs were returned in districts like Blair’s, which had been solidly Labour for as long as anybody could remember. Something similar happened in South Wales: The Labour vote declined, but the opposition vote was split between the Tories and Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party. Labour held onto the seats, but Brexit was a turning point in Labour support in these areas. People wanted something different.

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

Right, I'm going to weigh in on the Lisa Cameron MP situation and current media trends in the UK right now...

It feels like UK journalism has a real problem right now when public figures do something demonstrably bad, of instead of reporting that as news for the community to be aware of and informed by, journalists go directly to the public figure in question and let them mount a defence, defend, or otherwise excuse in advance their actions in the vein of putting across their side of the story... and thus in the process only platform that side of the story.

Enter Lisa Cameron, MP. Lisa was elected several years ago after standing to represent SNP, Scotland's prominent left-wing party. She's recently jumped ship to the Tories, who in Scotland are a party with minority support, and are strongly right-wing. Because of the law of the country, Lisa gets to keep her job representing the local community - although the party she now represents is diametrically opposed to the views of the party she was elected to stand for. She was elected in the first place because a majority of electors in her district wanted a leftwing party to represent them in government - and now that person that they elected will represent the minority of rightwingers in her district only, and is completely unashamed about this and unwilling to consider re-running an election or standing down.

How is the British media reporting this? Across the board, even in leftwing media...

"Poor Lisa, she's been getting threats and abuse from the nasty public. She has to go into hiding now because of all that abuse she's getting." (with of course no reference to why that is happening, leaving the implication it's because she's a powerful, successful woman, or independent minded etc.)

Making that focus so ridiculously overdramatic, as well as totally focused on the wrong aspect weakens the story, and detracts from what's real news - as well as, most importantly, also taking away the weight from real abuse and criticism that people who don't deserve it face; racism, ableism, sexism and other associated genuine discrimination based on prejudices, rather than angry words spoken as the result of actions someone has openly chosen in order to benefit themself and harm people in their community.

This kind of coverage has also arisen recently with the family of Captain Tom, another UK public figure who was a well-known charity fundraiser, whose family later claimed to continue his work after his death - but instead shifted quietly into for-profit work using his image and likeness, without drawing attention to this fact. Hannah Ingram-Moore, his daughter, was revealed to have personally profited from the sales of Captain Tom's autobiography, written with the aid of ghostwriters after he became a high-profile figure based on his charity endeavours, which strongly implied itself to be a book written and sold in order to raise more money for charity... but actually wasn't. Hannah and her family have been doing the media circuit in defence of this decision, pulling the 'my hero father just wanted to provide for his family' angle (who are all, may I add, working adults in their 50s)... and have been getting very little critical pushback for that! Despite the core story here being literally what seems to be a case of unscrupulous family members profiting off the charity work of a veteran.

Going back to Lisa, generally leftwing paper The Guardian just published a fawning article painting her as the victim - and carefully not asking her any hard questions that would go between the lines of the image she is deliberately crafting.

Quoting below, Lisa - who was elected in no uncertain terms to represent a particular political position and set of policies, supported by her voters, defends herself thus:

In the interview, Cameron said that because she repeatedly opposed the SNP’s “progressive” political positions, she had been blanked by party colleagues in the Commons’ tea room and corridors and was forced to seek help from a counsellor and her GP after experiencing panic attacks and loneliness. “I found it to be quite a psychologically coercive situation,” Cameron told the Times. “They are always right. If you question things you are wrong and you’re isolated.

But Lisa, if you don't agree with any of the SNP's positions on anything and disagree with all of your colleagues on every subject, then it begs the question of why you are actually standing as an SNP MP in the first place. And I suspect based on what she isn't saying here, that the 'isolation' and 'loneliness' she felt here came because people legitimately put this question to her.

Is it psychologically coercive to actually represent the people and political positions that you were elected to, folks? Are your colleagues bullying you when they ask why you aren't doing the job that you applied for and are getting paid circa 100k a year to carry out? Why isn't that the story here? Why are we being asked to feel sympathy for people who break the social contract in order to personally profit?

[eaglesnick]

Scandal After Scandal: Will They Never End?

Boris Johnson was so beset by scandal that his own party turned on him and threw him out of office. We all know about the Partygate affair but there were also questions raised regarding his personal monetary arrangements.  From charges of corruption concerning him asking a Tory donor to supply funds to refurbish his Downing Street residence, to his appointment of the BBC Chairman and an alleged £800,000 loan, Johnson was the epitome of the self-serving Tory.

Johnson has gone but the scandals have continued to rumble on. We had the unedifying debacle of multi-millionaire Nadhim Zahawi being forced to resign after he was  found  guilty of serious breaches of the ministerial code  by covering up issues to do with his attempts to minimise his tax bill.

Sunak’s own wife also avoided UK tax payments by claiming non-dom status. After being asked to “come clean” on his wife’s tax affairs and after much embarrassment the Sunak’s decided she should pay tax in this country.

It is not only those Tories at the top of government who are self-serving. Conservative MP’s have been calculated to have received an additional £15.2 million on top of their MP salaries, personal fortune hunting seemingly more important than giving their constituents 100% of their time. 

“Since the end of 2019, millions of pounds of outside earnings have been made by a small group of largely Tory MPs."  (Skynews: 08/01/23)

When Sunak, after much delay, made public his own tax affairs we discovered that for the year 2021/22 he made £172,415 unearned income from dividends and £1.6 million from capital gains. In total, the PM paid an average tax rate of 22% over a three-year period.

For you and I, the basic rate of tax on income between £12,571 and £50,270 is 20%.  Between £50,271 and £125,140, it is 40 %, going up to 45% for earned income over £125,140.

For Mr Sunak to have only paid 22% on his millions is therefore quite a smack in face for ordinary tax-payers, and one only made possible because the Tories have arranged the tax system to benefit  themselves and their rich friends.

“Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said: “[The tax returns] reveal a tax system designed by successive Tory governments in which the prime minister pays a far lower tax rate than working people who face the highest tax burden in 70 years

“… the fact that Sunak paid less than a quarter of his gains in tax highlighted the problems with taxing capital gains at a much lower rate than income…The low tax rate is because we have much lighter taxes on wealth than work”   (Guardian: 22/03/23)

So, if you work for a living, expect to pay proportionately more in tax than those who live on unearned income.

Way back in July 2022, Rishi Sunak was so disgusted with the immoral behaviour of Boris  Johnson that he resigned his post as Chancellor. This is what he said at the time:

“... the public rightly expect government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously. I recognise this may be my last ministerial job, but I believe these standards are worth fighting for and that is why I am resigning.”

But if a week is a long time in politics, then 9 months is an eternity. As we have seen, Sunak himself has become as equally embroiled in monetary scandal as his predecessor and now he is under investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Committee. 

“Rishi Sunak investigation: Government blocked Freedom of Information request into childcare firm.

Mr Sunak is currently being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner over his failure to be more transparent about his wife’s shares in childcare agency Koru Kids when quizzed on the subject by MPs.

It comes after i revealed last month that Akshata Murty, the Prime Minister’s wife, holds shares in the firm, which stands to directly benefit from reforms to the childcare system announced in last month’s Budget.” (inews: 19/04/23)

Time and time again we see top Tories under investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Commission. Time and time again we see how self-serving and unprincipled our leaders really are. Mr Sunak it seems, is no different to his predecessors and the sooner he goes the better.

[qnewsau]

Over 100 orgs call on government to count all of us in census

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/over-100-orgs-call-on-government-to-count-all-of-us-in-census/

Over 100 orgs call on government to count all of us in census

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is being asked to allow the Australian Bureau of Statistics to “do its job” and ask all three new questions on gender, variations of sex characteristics and sexual orientation in the next census.

The federal government caused national outrage last week after dumping three new questions on sexuality, gender, and intersex status from the next census.

On Friday, the Prime Minister said the government would allow one of the questions, on sexual orientation only.

But the government still hasn’t committed to the other two questions, to count Australia’s transgender and intersex populations.

Explanations from government ministers, including that the questions were scrapped to avoid a “divisive” debate and that the questions were too complex, caused further anger and backlash.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese suggested the proposed questions weren’t “appropriate”.

“Quite clearly, there should be common-sense questions asked that are quite easily understood,” he said, per ABC News.

“The ABS was going to go out and test some questions on Monday [last week]. That’s why we put a pause on that so that we could consider appropriate questions easily understood by people when they get the census.”

On Sunday, Albanese refused to commit to supporting all three of the questions. He said the government would “work with” the ABS on the issue.

‘End the uncertainty’ and include all three questions

Now, LGBTIQ+ Health Australia and over 100 peak bodies, community organisations and health experts have signed a joint statement on the census.

It calls on the government to “end the current uncertainty and unhelpful discourse” and give the green light to all three questions in the next national survey.

“These questions are not complicated. [They] are already being used in some government and non-government studies and data sets,” the statement reads.

“The absence of relevant Census data for LGBTIQ+ populations means that health policy, programs and services cannot be accurately targeted. This leads to increased healthcare costs and inefficient use of public resources.”

To address this, all three questions – not just sexual orientation – are necessary for the next census, the joint statement says.

“In the same way that asking a gender question will not collect information on sexual orientation and vice versa it is not possible to collect information on people with innate variations of sex characteristics through a question on gender or sexual orientation,” it reads.

“We ask all MPs to set aside political differences and focus on prioritising health and wellbeing above all else.

“Data is imperative for evidence-based policy, leading to better outcomes for all Australians.”

Read the joint statement in full here.

LGBTIQ+ Health Australia CEO Nicky Bath said signatories span mental health, suicide prevention, social services, disability, ageing and aged care, sexual, family and domestic violence, human rights, and research.

“This demonstrates the broad cross-sectoral support and need for collecting this data,” she said.

Separately, seventy LGBTQIA+ organisations have also signed a statement by Equality Australia. It also calls on the next census to count all LGBTIQ+ Australians in the census, which is the most comprehensive snapshot of Australia.

Read that statement in full here.

  View this post on Instagram

  A post shared by Equality Australia (@equalityaustralia)

PM slammed for exclusion of trans and intersex Aussies

LGBTQIA+ advocates called out the federal government for “picking and choosing” which queer Aussies to count in the census.

Trans Justice Project director Jackie Turner said removing the gender question broke a Labor party promise.

“The government needs to re-commit to their own party platform and support these common-sense changes,” Jackie said.

Jackie Turner said the decision sends a message that “our communities, our families, and our friends don’t count.”

Transcend CEO Jeremy Wiggins said trans, gender diverse and non-binary Australians are “systematically erased in too many areas of our lives already.”

“We face disproportionately poor health outcomes as a result. We exist across tens of thousands of households across Australia,” Jeremy said.

“If the census does not accurately capture our identities, then the data will be extremely poor. It will lead to years of ongoing health and policy failures for our communities.”

Intersex advocate Tony Briffa said the census must count Australians with innate variations of sex characteristics too.

“Governments need reliable data to make decisions about the delivery of vital health and community services,” Tony said.

“And yet the census doesn’t capture even the most basic information about how many people in Australia are born with biological variations of sex characteristics.

“This impacts policy and service delivery on everything from health, family support and participation in sport.”

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[cakesandfail]

okay, so, hi. I have a question about UK politics that you are 100% free to ignore.

starting context! If I, a usamerican saw a usamerican ~content creator~ I liked campaigning/vocally supporting/etc a third party candidate for our upcoming election, my reaction would be "'oh, this person sucks and is tacitly supporting the fascists winning"' because that's literally how our stupid two party system works. In our current hellscape, it's a massive red flag, and a hard no from me.

So my actual question! If a UK ~content creator~ that otherwise was inoffensive was working with one of those joke(?) (the trashcan guy) candidates during your most recent election, does that have the same connotations? Is that the sort of thing you'd cancel a patron sub/unfollow/etc over? Or is it a more neutral/harmless thing?

i am a dumb usamerica and i crave context, thanks <3

Generally speaking, no, it doesn't have the same connotations, because our political system works differently to yours, and because we're a nation of dickheads (affectionate) who love taking the piss out of important people.

In terms of who actually gets to govern, it's effectively a two-party system, but there are a significant number of other legitimate political parties in parliament. And also Reform UK, unfortunately. Anyway. Some context:

When we have a general election, we're voting for a candidate in our local area (constituency) to represent that area as a Member of Parliament (MP). There are 650 constituencies, each represented by one MP. The party who gets the highest number of MPs elected becomes the new government. The party leader becomes the Prime Minister, but that's not a separate thing like it is with the US presidential election- the person has to get re-elected as an MP in their own constituency and you only vote for them directly if you live there. For example, I've never voted for our new prime minister Keir Starmer, because I don't live in the part of London where he's an MP.

Big third-party candidates here can be an issue when they're going to split the vote. That's actually what happened to the right in this general election- the Conservatives pissed everyone off so much by being absolutely shit at everything that a lot of their more, uh, passionate voters (*cough*racists*cough*) voted for Reform UK instead. But unless that's happening on a national scale like it did this time, having parties other than Labour and the Conservatives around is generally a good thing (again, with the exception of Reform UK, who are shit and awful, but at least there's only five of them and Nigel Farage doesn't turn up to work). The Liberal Democrats, Greens, and local parties in the devolved nations all represent their constituencies as intended and it's not really a problem. I actually voted Lib Dem myself in this election because the options where I live were Lib Dem or Conservative, and I am never going to vote Conservative.

The joke candidates are... different lmao. They are never anywhere near getting the sort of numbers that would put any legitimate candidates in danger of losing- we're talking a couple of hundred votes here, and usually in places where the winner is ahead by many thousands. They're generally doing silly things to make serious points or to take the piss out of specific politicians. Count Binface is a pretty good example actually- he always runs against the sitting prime minister, who will probably keep their place as an MP even if they don't get to be prime minister any more, and certainly won't lose their job to a bloke with a bin on his head.

And actually, given that you mentioned Binface and content creators: I'm guessing you're familiar with Matt Parker? I have zero issues with him being involved with Count Binface's latest run because Binface wasn't going to beat Rishi Sunak and didn't intend to. It's not about making a real challenge so much as just turning up to give a big middle finger to a powerful person that nobody really likes. I would consider unfollowing/no longer supporting a content creator that was involved with candidates who were genuinely dangerous or harmful in some way, but I probably wouldn't do it over a joke candidate unless they also met the 'genuinely terrible' criteria.

[invisibleicewands]

Actor and debt campaigner Michael Sheen has joined calls for the government to pass legislation to help tackle the crisis of unaffordable credit and problem debt in the UK.

In 2022-2023, more than nine million individuals were declined for credit, with millions relying on pay-day-lenders and buy-now-pay-later schemes with high interest rates. At its worst, lack of access to affordable credit means hundreds of thousands of people find themselves turning to loan sharks, while viable businesses remain stuck, unable to develop and create jobs.

Campaigners are calling for a Fair Banking Act to help ensure that everyone can access essential financial services and support.

Speaking at an event in Parliament on Monday, Mr Sheen said: “Anyone can find themselves in a place where they need credit to make ends meet or to get through a difficult time.

“The lack of affordable credit for people on lower-incomes is harming individuals and families, but also businesses and communities. Whole regions are seeing their growth held back. We can’t keep waiting and hoping that things will get better. We need something to change now. The Fair Banking Act could be the thing which really makes the difference.”

The event in parliament was organised by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Banking, alongside the Fair Banking for All Campaign – a group including credit unions, Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs), fintechs, charities and policy experts who are calling for a Fair Banking Act to help increase access to affordable credit. MPs, peers and financial regulators were among the attendees.

Lloyd Hatton MP, chair of the APPG, said: “We need a Fair Banking Act to help increase affordable lending in every corner of the country, ensure small businesses have access to the financial support they need, and guarantee that nobody is financially excluded by the mainstream banks.

“Only then will we deliver sustained economic growth across the whole of the UK.”

Before the election, Labour announced that financial inclusion would be a priority for them in government, with plans being developed for a comprehensive national Financial Inclusion Strategy. The Fair Banking for All Campaign is calling for a Fair Banking Act to be a central pillar of this strategy, to help grow the responsible finance sector. The idea is based on a successful example from the US, where similar legislation has successfully increased access to financial services and support for people on low-incomes and from marginalised communities.

As well as leading mainstream banks to improve their own provision of affordable credit for underserved communities, the proposed legislation would also incentivise partnerships between high-street banks and institutions such as credit unions and CDFIs, which are often best placed to provide tailored services that meet the needs of individuals and small businesses who have been turned down by larger institutions.

Recently published research from the Fair Banking for All Campaign estimated that a Fair Banking Act in the UK could increase fair and affordable lending to individuals by £2bn a year – equivalent to the total amount owed to loan sharks. This would help to pull the rug out from under the illegal lending market, by providing people with a safe and affordable alternative when they’re in urgent need. Additional support to small businesses could create or maintain just under 10,000 jobs over five years, including in some of the most economically deprived parts of the country – where small businesses currently find it hardest to get loans from high street banks.

Robert Kelly, chief executive of the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd, was another of the speakers at the event. He said: “We need more humanity in our banking system.

“At a time when more and more people need access to affordable credit, their options are becoming more and more limited. People are being turned down by high-street banks because of their income level or credit score, and so they’re turning to high-cost credit or illegal lending.

“Credit unions give them an alternative. The sector continues to serve communities and employers across the country at record levels through the provision of ethical and responsible products and services.

“There’s so much demand out there for this kind of alternative – but we need a Fair Banking Act so we can grow to meet that demand, and help millions more people”

Theodora Hadjimichael, chief executive of Responsible Finance which represents CDFIs in the UK, said: “Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs) invest into underserved places and people, unlocking potential for businesses, social enterprises and households.

“For economic growth to happen, we need lenders that get to know businesses and understand people’s lives, make fair lending decisions that take these into account, and offer affordable finance, and incentives to ensure that growing demand for affordable, ethical, credit can be met.

“That’s why Responsible Finance is part of the campaign calling for a Fair Banking Act.”

[warwickroyals]

you've mentioned places like great lakes and new westminster. are these states or provinces, or just general regions? how is sunderland divided administratively?

Yes, hello, these are provinces and Sunderland has ten of them! They look like this (roughly, it's a work in progress)

The ten provinces are:

Alexandria, Algonquin, Cheyenne, Danforth, Great Lakes, Iroquois, Lakota, Missoria, and New Westminster

Each province is represented by a provincial government and they are considered to have shared sovereignty with the federal government. Each province has a Governor-General, who represents the Crown aka Louis V. Each province has a certain amount of MPs (Members of Parliament) who sit in either the House of Commons (lower chamber) or the Senate (upper chamber). MPs represent the legislative interests of their provinces and municipalities at the federal level. There is a fixed number of twenty senators (two from each province), who are appointed by the King on the advice of his prime minister, while members of the House of Commons are elected directly in federal elections, with the number of MPs depending on the population of their province, the larger the province the more seats they have in the House of Commons.

In Sunderland, you don't vote for the prime minister directly, you vote for them through your MPs. So, if the potential prime minister (the party leader) belongs to the Liberal party, you vote for the Liberal MP representing your area, if that Liberal MP wins they have a seat in the House of Commons. If a majority of the MPs in the House are of a certain party (the main two being Liberals and Tory Conservatives), their party leader becomes Prime Minister with a majority government. If a party wins the most seats but fails to hold a majority, this is called a minority government and the ruling party has less absolute authority and will have to coalition-build with other parties in order to get things done. So, it's extremely important that the Prime Minister and his Ministers are supported by their MPs in the House of Commons, this is something Sunderland's current prime minister is struggling with. MPs can resign, retire, switch parties, or die on a whim, so the amount of power a government has can fluctuate.

The Senate is more of the wild-west as Louis is free to appoint to whoever he wishes for whatever reason he wants (on the advice of the prime minister, but he can ignore the advice). The general rule is that these people have to be of noteworthy public standing, but they don't have to be politicians. They can be activists, lawyers, civil servants, etc. If the King tries to appoint a friend or a family member, nothing but public outrage can stop him. So, naturally, Louis doesn't appoint friends or family and has grilled James and later Nicholas on this being something you should never do as King. Louis's Daddy James II didn't have the same restraint. . . Nor did King Nicholas (removing the leftists meant sacking the senate against them) . . . Or King George who fought tooth and nail to have his moronic son-in-law appointed to the Senate in 1898 . . . but it's not a corrupt system at all, I swear . . .

The Senate has the job of approving the potential laws (bills) passed to them by the House of Commons, in short: if they dislike it, they send it back or veto it, if they like it, they'll hand it over the Louis for royal assent. Believe it or not, the fact that there is an unelected body, that serves until the age of SIXTY-FIVE, picking and choosing what laws get greenlit has caused SCANDALS, with the protests happening in this post being triggered by the Senate rejecting an affordable housing bill forwarded by the Liberals in the House.

Until 1999, those appointed to the Senate were given a title of nobility, typically an Earldom or a Dukedom if The King thinks you're a really good boy. The families of Irene and Tatiana are descended from prominent Senators, this is where their family titles originated from. This tradition ended when the first woman was appointed to the Senate in 1999, since women can't inherit noble titles, Louis stopped the practice altogether, instead of . . .y'know, just getting Parliament to allow women the ability to hold noble titles suo jure. Louis can technically still hand out noble titles, but he informally agreed to stop granting titles to non-family members. People at the time viewed this as him becoming more egalitarian and progressive for the new millennia, but in reality, he was just keeping his crop of aristocrat ass-likers more exclusive. So, now your senators aren't literal dukes and earls . . . yay, progress?

Finally: The "commander-in-chief" of a province is called the premier. Think of him like a governor in the United States. These guys are elected through provincial elections and they form their own legislative bodies to handle provincial legislation (healthcare, education, etc.). They operate largely independently from the federal government and have historically resisted federal micro-management.

If you're familiar with American geography or history, you'll know that the provinces have Indigenous names (Cheyenne, Lakota, Missouria, Iroquois, Algonquin) and others are named after royalty (Alexandria and Louisia) and prominent figures/locations (New Westminster, Danforth) . . . the implications of these names say a lot about Sunderland's history.

Hopefully, I'll be able to update my map soon, hope you enjoyed the political lesson.

[mythologeekwriter]

God this is horrifying

[Note: I am not copying the whole of these articles, please do read them, I'm just sharing the bits that I think illustrate why you should in fact read them.]

Five-point plan to cut UK immigration raises fears of more NHS staff shortages | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian

Cleverly told MPs on Monday that “migration is far too high and needs to come down … enough is enough”. He added: “Today I can announce that we will go even further than those provisions already in place, with a five-point plan to further curb immigration abuses that will deliver the biggest ever reduction in net migration. “In total, this package, plus our reduction in student dependants, will mean about 300,000 fewer people will come in future years than have come to the UK last year.” Along with raising the salary threshold and scrapping the “shortage occupation list”, Cleverly announced that social care workers would no longer be allowed to bring their dependants when they came to work in the UK. He also said people living in the UK – including British citizens – would now be allowed to sponsor family members to move to the UK only if the person living in the UK earned £38,700, up from £18,600 currently. Finally, the government is asking the Migration Advisory Committee to review the rules for those who have completed undergraduate degrees in the UK. A spokesperson for Downing Street called the package “the biggest clampdown on legal migration ever”. They added: “We believe this is a package which will enable us to significantly reduce numbers whilst achieving economic growth.” It forms one part of a two-part plan to reduce the numbers of people coming into Britain legally and illegally. This week Cleverly is likely to fly to Kigali to sign a new asylum treaty with Rwanda, with ministers ready to bring forward new legislation in an effort to finally kickstart the government’s Rwanda plan.

Families face being split up by UK plan to cut legal migration, lawyers say | Migration | The Guardian

Data suggests this could make it impossible for between 60 and 70% of workers to bring their family into the UK. The crackdown has caused concern among some senior Tory MPs. Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said on Tuesday she was worried the package as a whole risked dividing families. She told LBC: “It risks being very unconservative”. Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said: “This is definitely completely different to what any other high income country does.” Under the new rules, someone will be able to bring a family member into the country if they earn £38,700 year. If the partner is already in the UK, both people’s incomes will be taken into account. If someone does not qualify under those rules, they will still be allowed to bring in family members if they have sufficient savings. Under current rules that figure is £62,500, but the government is consulting over whether to increase it.

Lawyers and applicants say, however, that it has led to distress and confusion, with many families already in the process of applying for visas now unsure of what the changes will mean for them. Kelly Robinson, an American PhD student living in Norwich with her partner, Owen Sennitt, had applied for her spousal visa last week, confident Sennitt’s job as a local journalist would be enough to qualify for it. Now she believes she may have to return to the US after eight years living in Britain. “It is a real shock,” she said. “The entire life we have built is being taken away from us overnight.” Nick Gore, a partner at Carter Thomas solicitors, said: “This is devastating for many people that just about meet the existing financial requirements. There is a huge spectrum of people who are affected – some are on minimum wage jobs, others have started their own businesses. This will split families up.”

Thanks to James Cleverly, I may never live in the same country as my kids again | Claire Armitstead | The Guardian

When I mentioned their predicament to a lawyer friend he was dismissive, saying that middle-class families always found a way round these problems. Other friends suggested we remortgage our house to raise the £62,500 capital that was the alternative route to a spousal visa. But it would have to have been in their bank account for a minimum of six months before they even reapplied; this was time their soaring stress levels meant they didn’t have. And anyway, they wanted to pay their own way. The Home Office said any change to the capital threshold would be announced in due course. At the old salary rate, they probably would eventually have worked something out, but at the new one there is no chance. Their relationship will always be based on them both working, and while their combined income would very probably exceed £38,700 a year, neither is going to make that much on their own. My eldest and his partner are now happily settled, so wouldn’t want to move back anyway. The sort of social care work she does is more highly valued in Spain. Meanwhile, my Australian daughter-in-law is in the crazy bind facing citizens of so many of the UK’s former colonies: expected to bend the knee to the monarch of a British state that doesn’t want them. Australia asks the foreign partners of its citizens only to prove their relationship is genuine.

[atleastimnotcalledrock]

At the Labour conference on October 10th, Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition (the Labour party) was covered in glitter by a protester saying 'True democracy is citizen led. Politics needs an update. We demand a people's House.'

So I did a bit of research on the protester and apparently he's affiliated with a group called People Demand Democracy who as the name suggests want to make the system more democratic.

According to their website, they are 'calling for a fair, proportional voting system for Westminster elections and a permanent, legally-binding national House of Citizens, selected by democratic lottery,' because 'we need a democratic alternative that gives the people of the UK a voice to deal with the major challenges of our time: rampant inequality, an escalating climate crisis, political corruption and on.' (https://www.peopledemanddemocracy.com/news)

Look I'm not saying that we shouldn't be looking for ways to make the system more democratic and representative but I think there are drawbacks to the solutions that they have proposed.

1: The introduction of proportional representation

The system currently used in the UK is the first past the post system in which each constituency (or area) votes for their MP who sits in the House of Commons, therefore they have a 'seat' in parliament. The party with the most 'seats' forms the government. The idea is a government will get a majority so it is easier to pass legislation.

The drawbacks of proportional representation is that it is less likely for parties to win an outright majority. In response two parties will form a coalition government so will have to work together. The problem with this is that frequently the two parties dont agree and so very little gets done. The last coalition government in the UK was between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in 2011.

Both systems have their flaws. Though proportional representation is undoubtedly more democratic I don't think that it will create the strongest government. At some point you have to sacrifice democracy for stability and where the current system just manages to toe the line, proportional representation can be considered a step to far. That's not to say it doesn't work in other countries but not for the UK

2: The introduction of a House of Citizens alongside the existing House of Commons and the House of Lords

I'll try and run though this quick

In House of Lords (red) sits 'experts' in their field as well as hereditary peers (some people think that practice is outdated). They scrutinise the government. Legislation must go though both houses before it can be passed.

House of Commons (green) contains the government (PM, ministers, shadow ministers) and all the other MPs. Here debates are held about bills, as well as Prime Minister Question time.

These houses make up the Houses of Parliament

The problem with a 'House if Citizens' is that it would be trying to do what the House of Commons is supposed to do. (I understand it doesn't always do what it should but stick with me)

The House of Commons is where the people, the commoners, are represented. If a House of Citizens was introduced to 'give the people of the UK a voice' it suggests that the House of Commons is not doing their task correctly. I'd assume that to make the House of Citizens truly representative of the people, stipulations would be added so that you could only be there depending on your income or job title perhaps.

If that were the case, there would create a larger class divide and more disolutionment with democracy seeing that the House of Citizens would focus on 'climate crisis' and 'political corruption'. Though these are both very important topics, they're not exactly the budget or international affairs. It suggests that the everyday person is only capable of managing the seemingly insignificant parts of politics, and that the important stuff needs to be left to the 'professionals' in the Commons.

I think that though it's good in theory the optics look bad. There would be room then for the House of Commons to take more control over public life because they, too, have been voted in but for the 'important' matters, and so 'must be more capable than the Citizens' because they're in the Commons.

I think thats a really cynical view for me to hold but I do believe that the solutions proposed by People Demand Democracy are too optimistic in places. I would like a committee to look into political corruption and for it to be taken more seriously though because recently there have been so many scandals we've all become desensitised to them.

We do need change in our political system.

The only question is: How?