Daily review 26/05/2021

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 26th, 2021 - 17 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

17 comments on “Daily review 26/05/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • weka 1.1
      27 May 2021 at 1:08 am

      Fleming had rejected the Ministry of Health's initial offer as it only paid for 22 hours a week, which would have left her worse off than she was receiving the Supported Living Benefit.

      That bit doesn't make sense. 22 hours x $25/hr = $440 after 20% tax. SLP is $316 net.

      • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.1
        27 May 2021 at 9:53 am

        Hiya weka…I am assuming that the "offer" from the Miserly of Health was made under the auspices of the iniquitous Funded Family Care scheme.

        As some of us will remember, FFC was National's vindictive response to losing the Atkinson Case .

        Funded Family Care paid only the minimum wage for a maximum of 40 hours per week.

        Barely enough to live on, especially with the added expenses of disability, and as an added kicker the paid family carer was banned from any other paid employment over the 40 hours per week. Locked permanently into a poverty line existence. Arseholes.

        The assessments to ascertain how many hours the family carer would be paid for were/are narrow, odious and humiliating. Arseholes.

        Labour failed to make the promised reform of FFC a '100 days ' priority', and the reform has been piecemeal since.

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          27 May 2021 at 10:28 am

          FFC was excluded from the mandated pay rise for care givers? I didn’t know that, don’t know why I’m sure you’ve talked about it. Fuck.

          • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2021 at 10:46 am

            FFC is largely gone now. From what I understand most have transferred to either being paid through a provider or through IF. The minimum wage limit, I understand, no longer applies.

            I used to know the details of FFC, used to keep up even though spouses were specifically excluded from the scheme, but had to flag it away for the sake of my temper.

            Labour continuing the dicking around after exploiting the issue was a bit of downer. To say the least. Arseholes.

        • weka 1.1.1.2
          27 May 2021 at 10:29 am

          Will her adult son be getting SLP?

          • weka 1.1.1.2.1
            27 May 2021 at 10:30 am

            Also, fuck you Labour.

            • Chris 1.1.1.2.1.1
              27 May 2021 at 2:11 pm

              Reminds me of the sleepover case brought against IHC at a time when Labour was in government, then by the time the workers won Key was PM and Labour MPs hailed the victory. Fuckwits.

          • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.1.2.2
            27 May 2021 at 10:49 am

            I would say so. She may have been getting the DPB Care of Sick and Infirm…or whateverthfuck it is called now. (Spousal carers also excluded from that benefit.)

            Respect to her for rejecting Funded Family Care though. The uptake was barely a quarter of what they budgeted for. Shit scheme that it was.

          • Chris 1.1.1.2.3
            27 May 2021 at 2:02 pm

            While he certainly should be, it's unlikely that he isn't. Should be basic enough for even MSD not to stuff up.

        • Chris 1.1.1.3
          27 May 2021 at 11:46 am

          Yes, FFC followed Atkinson, Atkinson was a successful claim under Part 1A of the Human Rights Act, and the FFC legislation specifically excluded further claims against it under Part 1A of the HRA. Unbelievable.

    • Rosemary McDonald 1.2
      27 May 2021 at 9:59 am

      Of course I've read this already.

      And this…commentary from Disabiity Rights Commisioner.

      Paula very rightly emphasized this …

      “We are pleased the Court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that policies are accessible and enable the effective participation of the disabled people affected by them, and that it applied the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the judgment,” she said.

      “I also note that while the Court observed there are many disabled people who are willing to take the role of employer, this wasn’t the case for Justin because of the nature of his impairment.

      “This judgment confirms that it’s the duty of the Government to ensure that rights to policies that affect disabled people are applied consistently with its human rights obligations.

      The bold section is important, as on occasion it has been poorly stressed that it is important that the choices and wishes of the person requiring care are paramount.

  2. Pat 2
    26 May 2021 at 10:02 pm

    The British model (which is the basis of our own) is held up as a success with a reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels……but is it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/26/britain-net-zero-targets-environmental-issues