Wednesday 17th February 2016

[Lonewolfie]

richard ford ‏@RFord4 10m10 minutes ago
Number of EU nationals working in UK tops 2m for first time, ONS figures show.

...I saw somewhere yesterday (can't find source now ) that Britain is also the country that has the most citizens working/living abroad....wonder if that'll make it to the news....no?...quelle surprise...

[citizenJA]

I like that positive thinking there Paul. Thanks for reframing the situation.

Good-morning, yahyah! I hope you're feeling better and rested well last night.

I share your appreciation of Paul's talent for turning grave concerns around a bit, making the best of a bad business and remaining awake to those concerns.

Got any Welsh cakes today?

[HindleA]

http://labourlist.org/2016/02/home-is-w ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Home is where the heart is – and UKIP’s beats in time with the Tories’

John Healey

[Tubby Isaacs]

Morning all.

Morning.

Fallon, get told.


"The chairman of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly said Argentina remained the greatest threat to security, not the Labour leader."

Fallon reaffirms commitment to defend Falkland Islands - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35593095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once again the Tories act for short term political gain at considerable risk of damaging things in the long term. Of course there should be no question of debating sovereignty, but inflaming tensions with Argentina risks weakening Britain's position. The last thing we want to do is to start pushing other countries into backing Argentina on this.

The Tories always want us to forget it was they who were pushing through leaseback against the islanders' wishes before the 1982 invasion.

Indeed. And forgot to give them British citizenship, didn't they? And forgot to defend the islands.

[rebeccariots2]

Another victory for the Express: Officials forced to act over job ads that exclude Britons
OFFICIALS have been forced to act after the Daily Express revealed how unemployed Britons were being denied access to work in favour of economic migrants.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/644739 ... jobs-taken" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... A foreign jobs row erupted after dozens of vacancies on a Government-backed recruitment site required applicants to speak Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Russian.

Agencies are free to advertise for work with language requirements where it is "necessary for the role".

But an investigation by this newspaper found companies were actively seeking security guards, cleaners, customer service advisors and teaching assistants fluent in languages other than English.

One advert on the Universal Jobmatch site even stressed it was "essential" an experienced painter and decorator was able to converse in Polish...

The cynic in me says I bet the government backed recruitment site is rather keen to do something about this in the run up to the EU referendum ... No idea how widespread this practice is. But given how crap Universal jobmatch is generally - it wouldn't surprise me if the few real jobs they had included some actively flouting aspects of employment law.

[Lonewolfie]

What are zero-hours contracts? You asked Google – here’s the answer
Dawn Foster
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... gle-answer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... That’s the fear of zero-hours contracts: that one day, you find your hours have dropped to zero and you’ve effectively been sacked. You can’t challenge your employer over their decision, because effectively, contractually, they were doing you a favour by giving you any shifts at all. A man in his 40s in Redcar told me outside the jobcentre that he had been given no shifts by his construction firm for eight weeks. The jobcentre adviser insisted he was employed, so he wasn’t entitled to jobseeker’s allowance. If he left the job, he’d be deemed to have quit voluntarily … so wouldn’t be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance. This paradox is precisely why so many people are against zero-hours contracts: they make low-paid workers completely powerless, and let their bosses act with unaccountable impunity. Everyone deserves a fair wage for a fair day’s work, and to be able to depend upon it.

Sickening.

Welcome to the wacky world of DWP - yes, it is sickening, and it is going to get much much worse.

If you are claiming JSA, ESA WRAG, or Income Support, you can do a few odd hours now and then, declare it when you sign on, and it will be lopped off your benefits penny-for-penny after a disregard (£5 to £15).
As long as you work no more than 16 hours in any "benefit week" you can keep your claim open; thus if you get HB/LHA it won't be stopped automatically as it would be if your DWP benefit claim was closed.

If you have a ZHC, you are (in legal terms) under a contract of employment and thus "employed" whether you work or not; you may have entitlement to HB/LHA (which will vary with whatever you earn).
You cannot claim working tax credits (for which you must work 30 hours as a single person, 24 if in a couple) but you might be able to get child tax credits. You can't get JSA. ESA, or Income Support.

At the moment, DWP cannot force claimants of out-of-work benefits to accept a ZHC.

Under Universal Credit, claimants will be expected to accept any work they are offered. If they refuse, they will be sanctioned.
They can be mandated to take a ZHC; the theory is that if they don't earn any money they will have their UC in full, and if they do get a few hours now and again their UC will be recalculated accordingly. HB/LHA and all the other elements.

Of course, this UC recalculation is done every 4 weeks - so the claimant, employer, DWP, HMRC, and the local authority, all have to do their own calculations based on whatever the claimant earns and the evidence the claimant and employer provides; this could be different every week of the four, plus HB/LHA and tax credit is worked out on a calendar month basis so it gets a bit more complicated.

While all that's going on, the claimant has to prove that they are conducting a "more or better work" jobsearch on a pro-rata basis.
One week they could be having to prove jobsearch for 20 hours, another 6 hours, another 35 hours - depending on hours worked.

Even worse - if you do agency work as a self-employed person, you will not get UC at all unless you earn enough to meet the "minimum income floor", ie. the money equivalent to 35 hours at NMW. Even if you do, you will have to satisfy "better work" jobsearch conditions.

Pissing employers off with a tsunami of unsolicited CVs and letters is one thing - facing sanctions on a weekly basis when you are already working as much as you can is quite another.

It's even more sickening than many people think, RR.

So...no work for 8 weeks....but no Social Security payments...and not on the list of 'unemployed'....yet no MSM questions as to how this might affect the greatlongtermeconomicplancratingjobsunemploymentgoingdowntelleveryonethey'llbelieve(TM)you mantra...or the mental health of those being forced into such activity...or the eye-watering sums of money being wasted...

Here in Hope (just north of Peterborough but a bit grey and overcast today) we rather like the idea of a Citizen Wage from cradle to grave - start a National Investment Bank, pay into it on behalf of each citizen from birth so that by the time the citizen reaches education, there's already a fund built up...which then continues throughout the lifetime of the individual...creating savings/providing an income if no work is available (how many people would actually sit around all day if they had the opportunity? Very few - boredom is its' own style of torture)....combine it with the idea of a 20/25 hour working week (almost twice as many 'workers' required)....and I know - I'm not 'living in the real world'....but I would counter that Hugely Subsidised Bankster Criminals received an unknown share of the £375Bn of quantitative easing that was created at the press of a button, whilst simultaneously being fined for criminality (costs passed to customers), found to be involved in more criminality which has yet to play out fully (http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... s-sue-hsbc) whilst an un-thinktank says UC might not help people to save...from the paltry amount that doesn't even cover the most basic requirements for a life of dignity and respect - so I will continue to believe(TM) that anything is possible if the will is in place, and that the 'onus of responsibility' for the citizen to jump through the hoops described so well by Ephie above can be 'disappeared' quite easily.

[utopiandreams]

@Lonewolfie

Quite so, wolfie. Add to that the continued progress of mechanisation plus AI, something the G has been covering lately, there is going to be even less worker requirement. Let us not forget that this was anticipated in our youth and is not some recent development. Even so the long term economic plan of the modern Tory completely overlooks this minor problem. One would think they're only concerned with the means of production and how much of it they can secure for themselves. I have heard it called bunker mentality; bunkum seems more appropriate applied to our current governance.

[PorFavor]

Contrary to some reports, The Independent understands the note left by Rose Polge was not addressed to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, though it does mention him in passing.(Independent)

Like you do . . . .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... ift-in-dev

[citizenJA]

richard ford ‏@RFord4 10m10 minutes ago
Number of EU nationals working in UK tops 2m for first time, ONS figures show.

...I saw somewhere yesterday (can't find source now ) that Britain is also the country that has the most citizens working/living abroad....wonder if that'll make it to the news....no?...quelle surprise...

The UK is 'home' to millions of people born in places the UK has visited, conquered, made friends with, appropriated, married and settled into all over the world. I've a couple of grandparents who'd left towns somewhere in Wales and North of Manchester some years after getting born there.

[ohsocynical]

Yes - I agree - it's blatant. He's clearly vacillating to work out which way will suit his leadership prospects. What a shit. Sorry - not in a mincing words mood today. And to follow him in London the Tories are offering us Zac Goldsmith. Any respect I might have had for Goldsmith was pretty much dissolved by his performance on Newsnight yesterday and his 'explanations' re non dom status.

I'm hoping for the following. After Cameron announces the terms, the polling shows a consistent lead for exit. Flush out the ministers plus Boris to back leave. Get the Conservative grassroots looking forward to a win. Global economic news continues to deteriorate, the vote is a narrow win for stay. The bloodbath ensues.

Is Boris Johnson really as important in all this (or, indeed, anything else) as both he and the media like to portray him? I may be the odd one out but I couldn't give a toss for his views on the In\Out question. Although I suppose I must assume that David Cameron thinks he's (BJ) got some clout. But is that any sort of endorsement?

He's topping the poll for next Cons Leader....

[Vordy]

Nuclear Nightmares

The bombs dropped over North Carolina weren’t the only nuclear near misses. Cirincione catalogues many accidents from past decades: a B-47 that crashed into a nuclear weapons storage “igloo,” a hydrogen bomb that was accidentally dropped over Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and a B-52 that unknowingly flew across the country carrying six cruise missiles in 2007.

Most alarming was a 1995 incident in which Russian radars mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a U.S. ballistic missile. Russian President Boris Yeltsin decided not to strike, but Cirincione writes, “senior military officials advised him that he had to launch.”

In the event of an accident, yet alone a regional or global war, the consequences would be dire—millions of deaths, environmental contamination, and a potential nuclear winterscenario. But even without a catastrophe, the financial costs of nuclear arsenals outweigh any potential benefits, according to Cirincione.

Despite wide public support for arms control, the nuclear budget remains grotesquely high—$56 billion per year, according to the Ploughshares Fund. The U.S. nuclear arsenal consists of more than 7,700 weapons, yet experts believe nuclear deterrence is achieved with far fewer. Cirincione cites numerous estimates, from 900 warheads to as few as 150.

Cirincione’s cogent argument for cuts should theoretically strike a chord with both anti-war progressives and fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, partisan politics often defies logic.

Source:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/790202- ... -too-late/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

P.S. I hope all those with problems,medical or otherwise are doing okay.

[rebeccariots2]

Hospital trusts threatened with cuts if they refuse to impose new contracts
Health Education England says implementation of contract will be key criterion for making decisions on investment in training
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... -contracts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imposition - it's the new order, doncha know. (Doncha is HuntOsborne speak.)

... none of the 152 foundation trust hospitals in England, which are semi-independent, are legally obliged to force junior doctors to accept the junior contract, the Department of Health admitted last week.

The government had feared trusts could be tempted to offer better terms as a means to recruit enough junior doctors to start as trainees in early August.

In the letter, the HEE chief executive, Prof Ian Cumming, said: “We are not prepared to see a system where a competition based on a local employer’s ability to offer different terms is part of the recruitment process. The recruitment process should be based on patient and service need and quality of training as it always has been.

“Therefore implementation of the national contract will be a key criterion for HEE in making its decisions on our investment in training posts.”...

That fragmentation agenda not working out quite as they intended?

[ohsocynical]

George Aylett ‏@GeorgeAylett 7 mins

Labour to consider adopting Universal Basic Income as policy if it can be funded.

Labour should have that debate.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Basic Income is an idea whose time is coming, it increasingly appears. Though implementation will be far from a piece of cake......

[citizenJA]

Morning all.

NUT are calling for this year's KS1 and KS2 SATs to be scrapped.

http://www.teachers.org.uk/education-po ... mplemented" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nicky Morgan’s new system for testing and assessment of KS1 and KS2 pupils has come apart at the seams. As a result the NUT is calling for the 2015/16 SATs to be suspended.

In early February the DfE published its requirements in relation to teacher assessments of children’s writing standards. These have come far too late in the process. The detail in the exemplifications of the required standards and the number of separate pieces of evidence required for each individual assessment mean that they are impossible for teachers to deliver in the few months between February and June. Since these exemplifications are 'interim' and only for this year, they could also change completely again next year.

These proposals add to a chaotic heap of other demands. The reporting date for teachers’ assessments has been brought forward. The 'expected standard' that children are required to meet has been pushed upwards, beyond the reach of far too many pupils. The consequences of this shift on the requirement on schools to meet floor standards have not been thought through.

That'll do wonders for teacher's workload...

Too many changes and too late in the process - they're even changing the way that pupils are supposed to write 'exclamation sentences' even now. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so important to schools.

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/key-stage-1-ch ... h-century/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The definition of an “exclamation sentence” being applied is that it must start with either “how” or “what” and, to be a full sentence, must include a verb.

So, an exclamation such as “How amazing!” would not count. It would need the addition of a verb (e.g. “How amazing it was!”) to qualify. Not exactly common parlance for your average 21st century seven-year-old.

That's grammatically correct.' "How amazing!" ', isn't a complete sentence, it's a fragment. "How amazing!" said Roger, is the correct sentence grammaticaly, although dropping attribution tags in fiction to improve the flow of the prose is an accepted convention. I was taught these rules when I was in Primary School, and actually I think it is important that kids get taught how to construct a sentence properly, as early as possible.

I used to spend an inordinate amount of time unteaching stuff, with each new cohort, when they arrived in Year 7. Primary teachers are experts in teaching literacy and numeracy, but simply don't have the time to do it properly with everything else the govt has now added to the pot - in which they are not specialists. Poorly taught History etc is far worse than no history lessons at all. Personally, I would prefer Year 7 students arriving with no prior teaching in my subject whatsoever, but who can read + write at an appropriate age.

(my bold)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. My grammatical education was sporadic, well-intended and mostly wrong. I try writing a grammatically correct piece of writing regardless the context. A properly constructed piece of writing is effective and hopefully pleasurable to read. Do you do any tutoring? I'm not asking for myself, I'm simply curious. I apologise if you've already shared that information and I've missed it.

[Willow904]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... -contracts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The government has told hospital foundation trusts that they could lose funding for training programmes if they refuse to impose the new contract for junior doctors.

Leaves foundation trusts completely compromised. The level of political interference in the running of the NHS has become quite breathtaking in its scope. Desperate levels of autocratic control. Just as in education, we see a single politician who has never worked in the sector insisting he is right and the entire profession is wrong. The lack of respect among the current crop of Tory ministers for those who in many cases are their direct peers both in background and professional standing is quite unprecedented. Power truly does corrupt, doesn't it?

Edited to add - must type faster

[Willow904]

Basic Income is an idea whose time is coming, it increasingly appears. Though implementation will be far from a piece of cake......

I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.

[citizenJA]

By the by and totally off topic I was entertained to a meal out for my birthday by my lads (and granddaughter) yesterday so felt obliged to buy the drinks. Bloody hell, is that what they cost nowadays? For the record and to confirm my cryptic clue in yesterday's post, I am now sixty-four.

Happy birthday!

[yahyah]

Belated happy birthday to you UD !

[rebeccariots2]

When I heard that WATO were going to a Derby CLP to ask grassroots members how they feel about Corbyn's leadership and was told this was a CLP that nominated Liz Kendall as leader ... I was ready to hear more tired vox pops and ... well you know. How refreshing then to hear the majority wanting Labour to get on and be for change - and generally positive about Corbyn.

If WATO was trying for an anti Corbyn pitch they didn't really get one.

[citizenJA]

Thank you, everyone, for bringing your posts and links here. Today's thread is especially insightful. TR'sGhost posted several excellent comments on yesterday's (16 Feb 2016) Politics thread in the small hours of this morning. They may have been missed for this reason.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=92573#p92573" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rebeccariots2]

Jo Maugham QC
‏@JolyonMaugham
Don't force landlords to make homes fit for human habitation because some owner occupied homes aren't says Philip Davies MP.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 22m22 minutes ago
Philip Davies MP does actually perform a useful social function as a walking alarm bell. If he supports it, it's bad policy.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 20m20 minutes ago
If you want to read his argument yourself, you can do so here h/t @nearlylegal (put a penny in the swear jar first). http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article. ... e%20burden" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Karen Buck ‏@KarenPBuckMP 16m16 minutes ago
Karen Buck Retweeted Jo Maugham QC
Warning- original article brings on a severe headache.

[HindleA]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ion-morale" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jeremy Hunt must back down – the survival of the NHS depends on it

[rebeccariots2]

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 1m1 minute ago
Breaking: Death in Colnbrook immigration detention centre. Detainee was found unresponsive in his room. He was on "constant" suicide watch.

Andy Slaughter MP ‏@hammersmithandy 4m4 minutes ago
Staggering @HMIPrisonsnews report into Leicester Prison. Inmates unaccounted for. Chaos. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-35589240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

[PorFavor]

Jo Maugham QC
‏@JolyonMaugham
Don't force landlords to make homes fit for human habitation because some owner occupied homes aren't says Philip Davies MP.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 22m22 minutes ago
Philip Davies MP does actually perform a useful social function as a walking alarm bell. If he supports it, it's bad policy.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 20m20 minutes ago
If you want to read his argument yourself, you can do so here h/t @nearlylegal (put a penny in the swear jar first). http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article. ... e%20burden" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Karen Buck ‏@KarenPBuckMP 16m16 minutes ago
Karen Buck Retweeted Jo Maugham QC
Warning- original article brings on a severe headache.

Isn't reducing everything to the lowest common denominator what they always accuse Labour of wanting to do?


Edited to add an "e"

And to the 73 guests here - welcome to The Sticky-E


Edited - again - to add an "a"

Vowel troubles. But you don't really need to know that.

[utopiandreams]

I hate to say it but should a basic citizen's income ever come about there would have to be some restriction on eligibility and/or family size with all the associated issues that it raises, such as the recent third child question for example. I cannot see a completely unlimited free for all as practicable or even desirable in some cases. Apologies for sounding like a Tory, nevertheless I wouldn't like to tell someone, "Computer says no".

Postscript: obviously not thought through but I am not extending my argument to adulthood.

[utopiandreams]

Am I right in thinking that it is Philip Davies who regularly filibusters in the House?

[rebeccariots2]

Am I right in thinking that it is Philip Davies who regularly filibusters in the House?

Yes you are right utopian. He's rent a gob Tory style. That's why Jo Maugham says he's a good alarm system for bad policy - if he supports it it will be bad - otherwise he'll be talking it out.

[rebeccariots2]

The Bombardier news is very depressing - especially when it hits parts of the UK that most need to keep jobs. Bound to have a big ripple effect on other jobs and the economy locally.

What the hell has happened to this march of the makers we were promised by Osborne? Where is the rebalanced economy? I'll swap the HSBC 1,000 jobs kept in the UK for the Bombardier ones we're going to lose, please.

[utopiandreams]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ion-morale

Jeremy Hunt must back down – the survival of the NHS depends on it

When I saw who had written that, A, I had to check the date because I thought she'd already said this, not that I've read it before.

[gilsey]

I hate to say it but should a basic citizen's income ever come about there would have to be some restriction on eligibility and/or family size with all the associated issues that it raises, such as the recent third child question for example. I cannot see a completely unlimited free for all as practicable or even desirable in some cases. Apologies for sounding like a Tory, nevertheless I wouldn't like to tell someone, "Computer says no".

As I see it, a citizen's income would exclude housing costs, housing benefit would have to continue, at least in this country.
For that reason it wouldn't eliminate the 'poverty trap', though it should reduce the number of people affected.

In terms of domestic issues, housing is starting to look like number one, even ahead of social security and the NHS.
Yet it should be easier to resolve and less controversial than either of those.

[rebeccariots2]

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft 15m15 minutes ago
'Citizen of the World'? 'Nothing to Lose'? Take my survey to find out what kind of referendum voter you are: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/02/wh ... r-are-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

I've just taken it. If this is representative of the standard / quality of questions he uses in his polling .... sheesh. They seemed very contradictory and blunt instruments to me.

Anyway - I'm a 'hard pressed undecided'. I already knew that.

[HindleA]

Beware "simplification" arguments I want necessary complexity.Basic income would just be that,services control and discretion will replace income,independence and entitlement; especially those with extra needs.Governments of all stripes have long aimed for this,why aid them,IMHO.

[StephenDolan]

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft 15m15 minutes ago
'Citizen of the World'? 'Nothing to Lose'? Take my survey to find out what kind of referendum voter you are: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/02/wh ... r-are-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

I've just taken it. If this is representative of the standard / quality of questions he uses in his polling .... sheesh. They seemed very contradictory and blunt instruments to me.

Anyway - I'm a 'hard pressed undecided'. I already knew that.

Citizen of the world here.

[ohsocynical]

Hospital trusts threatened with cuts if they refuse to impose new contracts
Health Education England says implementation of contract will be key criterion for making decisions on investment in training
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... -contracts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imposition - it's the new order, doncha know. (Doncha is HuntOsborne speak.)

... none of the 152 foundation trust hospitals in England, which are semi-independent, are legally obliged to force junior doctors to accept the junior contract, the Department of Health admitted last week.

The government had feared trusts could be tempted to offer better terms as a means to recruit enough junior doctors to start as trainees in early August.

In the letter, the HEE chief executive, Prof Ian Cumming, said: “We are not prepared to see a system where a competition based on a local employer’s ability to offer different terms is part of the recruitment process. The recruitment process should be based on patient and service need and quality of training as it always has been.

“Therefore implementation of the national contract will be a key criterion for HEE in making its decisions on our investment in training posts.”...

That fragmentation agenda not working out quite as they intended?

Will there be anyone left to be trained as so many Jnr docs appear to be leaving the NHS?

[HindleA]

Citizen of the World, here as well ,apparently.

[utopiandreams]

Beware "simplification" arguments I want necessary complexity.Basic income would just be that,services control and discretion will replace income,independence and entitlement; especially those with extra needs.Governments of all stripes have long aimed for this,why aid them,IMHO.

Well yeah, A, I probably should have stopped at, 'I hate to say this' and especially avoided terms like 'desirable' Who would be the measure of that even if I weren't thinking of ability versus disability?

[HindleA]

UD I think in times of reasonableness it may be a concept worthy of consideration.Of course,the times are not and haven't been for some time.This idea would be appropriated,regardless of party and utilsed to quicken the direction both desire.The removal of £30 per week from the sick/disabled replaced with "support"" was inevitable,given both parties role in joint collusion,not least in propagandising of myths.They seek further opportunities,why enable them,is my point.

[Willow904]

Citizen of the World, here as well ,apparently.

At 9% us 'citizens of the world' were the smallest grouping Ashcroft identified, yet seem two a penny here at Flythenest! As I feared, the majority sentiment is, as always, the opposite of mine. We could be going out. Especially as those who have waited decades for the chance to vote out are going to be far more motivated to vote than the younger cohort identified as being vaguely, though not passionately, for "in". The 13% awaiting David Cameron's recommendation just depresses me.

[tinybgoat]

Tried poll & I'm apparently HTTP 400 - Bad Request.

[Willow904]

Tried poll & I'm apparently HTTP 400 - Bad Request.

Oh tinybgoat, you rebel

[Tubby Isaacs]

Basic Income is an idea whose time is coming, it increasingly appears. Though implementation will be far from a piece of cake......

I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.

It's not proposed that it replace housing costs or disability support. So the systems for those still have to exist.

It would be a neat way of nailing universal credit, but can't see it happening.

[ohsocynical]

Families of Americans killed by Mexican cartels sue HSBC for laundering billions
Four families are suing the British banking giant for allegedly allowing the gangs to launder billions, providing ‘systematic material support to the cartels’

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... s-sue-hsbc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

RAF jets sent to intercept Russian bombers heading to UK

19 minutes ago

RAF Typhoons have been scrambled to intercept two Russian bombers heading towards UK airspace, the Ministry of Defence has said.

The incident is currently ongoing, a spokeswoman said.

The UK's airspace extends 12 miles from the UK coastline. (BBC News website)

Desperate or what? Good job we're in the EU. Or do I mean NATO? I get so muddled up . . . .

[Willow904]

Basic Income is an idea whose time is coming, it increasingly appears. Though implementation will be far from a piece of cake......

I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.

It's not proposed that it replace housing costs or disability support. So the systems for those still have to exist.

It would be a neat way of nailing universal credit, but can't see it happening.

I meant its value for those not claiming housing benefit would disappear in housing, energy and other unavoidable costs. That as long as we have an economy that ensures money is funneled from those who rely on work for their income to those who rely on assets for their income, any money redistributed, in any form, to the former, rapidly ends up in the hands of the latter. As long as people in work struggle to find affordable accommodation, those who don't work and claim housing benefit will be perceived as getting a better deal, even when both are in receipt of a universal income. Providing the biggest cost, as universal housing, as council housing, was kind of a version of universal income except it controlled the value of what was being given - affordable accommodation. People in council housing who worked were clearly better off than those in council housing who didn't work and as long as there was ample council housing and anyone could avail themselves of it if they wanted, it basically worked as a universal basic right to a roof over one's head. We kind of had a good solution to a lot of today's problems until Thatcher destroyed it. Now Cameron is intent on dismantling what small amount of social housing we have left, protecting the wealth of the asset rich, protecting those who have more houses than they need at the expense of everyone else. I just don't see how a small amount of extra money for everyone will change that fundamental imbalance between the landowners and the rest. The biggest change came when councils became landowners on our behalf. We need to do that again.

[seeingclearly]

Citizen of the world #? checking in, mainly to wish UD belated birthday wishes, and being slightly older to say yes indeed, in 1981 I distinctly remember being exhorted to understand that humans would soon be obsolete, a bit like the course I had just enrolled on, a pre-digital graphic design course, I was an infill student on a proper course, no qualifications allowed as a part timer, of course, but grateful to gain any skill that might make me employable. How we toiled over our expensive design board, made by letraset, I still have a sample in its box, rendering images of stainless steel kitchen artifacts in gouache using sable brushes. Not anticipating photoshop gradients and millions of numbered colours. Or illustrator, though we had a vector computer that allowed you to stretch and shrink vector fonts, and a plotter with fibre tipped pens in four colours. But by 1985 I had the use of an Amiga and DPaint, which was amazing. So I've spent the morning looking at how arts provision has been affecting things, I am passionate about the difference it can make in peoples lives, in a wider sense, from the very disempowered to the over educated and stilted. It is win win stuff which is I suppose the basis for it being officiakly a target for suppression. But maybe the powerful are really no match for it, here it bursts out when put under pressure, we are more creative than we tink, and I do believe that it is this that will help change things. But that in itself is a bit utopian, but would like to add it to UDs dreams, as a birthday ish and as hope for all those feeling the grey wetness of today, and the relentless tory droning. So the best to you all especially if you have flu, or other health matters.

I am glad to be a cotw, was never in any doubt I am one! So have been rather appalled today at aussie responses to a small girl child with burns who their government would like to return to nauru, along with her family, a place which is run by companies we know well, and which do not have the values of cotw people. Considering Oz is a place where successive waves of disenfranchised people came to make up much of the population, and where that entailed the brutal suppression of indigenous people I was shocked at the inhumane way this very small sick child was discussed. When things get this bad I think the pendulum has swung to far in one direction, and is due to swing the other. The recent figures on mortality here are another evidence of that. And Dave looking a bit wobbly on his perch, not such an extraordinary young man anymore. Hoping that we get to stay in europe while crushing his credibility, it would make most of our birthday dreams come true if he was personally sunk by his own stupidity. In the meantime I'm wondering about just how stimulating the fleet street event could get, if the world needs anything right now it is total exhaustion of the focus of attention. Which is not the bride to be. ( My aopologies if this gives rise to unwanted imagery, I'll admit to a certain kind of bilious feeling.) As for Boris, they think he is a populist choice and might just save their bacon, but I doubt it, he wouldn't have the suave slipperyness of his predecessor would he, and the mood is slowly changing. Thatcher was right on one aspect of the NHS, mess with it at your peril. In the meantime UC looms, and Ephie has already pointed out the ways in which it is expected to multitask and interact between different state entities, and won't. A monumental furcup, as the cartoonist has long predicted. Please sharpen your rustic implements in anticipation.

[Willow904]

In addition to my above post, I should point out that I'm well aware of the flaw in my state investment in land theory - what's to stop the Tories selling it all off at a loss the next time they get in. Which is something to be said for Blair's PFI at least, our new hospitals and schools being leased from the private sector at least prevents the Tories selling them out from under us. Indeed, it has been slim pickings for Tory privatisers on the back of the New Labour years. Maybe if they sell the shirt off Britain's back this time, people may finally see them for the vultures they truly are.

[seeingclearly]

I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.

It's not proposed that it replace housing costs or disability support. So the systems for those still have to exist.

It would be a neat way of nailing universal credit, but can't see it happening.

I meant its value for those not claiming housing benefit would disappear in housing, energy and other unavoidable costs. That as long as we have an economy that ensures money is funneled from those who rely on work for their income to those who rely on assets for their income, any money redistributed, in any form, to the former, rapidly ends up in the hands of the latter. As long as people in work struggle to find affordable accommodation, those who don't work and claim housing benefit will be perceived as getting a better deal, even when both are in receipt of a universal income. Providing the biggest cost, as universal housing, as council housing, was kind of a version of universal income except it controlled the value of what was being given - affordable accommodation. People in council housing who worked were clearly better off than those in council housing who didn't work and as long as there was ample council housing and anyone could avail themselves of it if they wanted, it basically worked as a universal basic right to a roof over one's head. We kind of had a good solution to a lot of today's problems until Thatcher destroyed it. Now Cameron is intent on dismantling what small amount of social housing we have left, protecting the wealth of the asset rich, protecting those who have more houses than they need at the expense of everyone else. I just don't see how a small amount of extra money for everyone will change that fundamental imbalance between the landowners and the rest. The biggest change came when councils became landowners on our behalf. We need to do that again.

A universal income is not the first adjustment needed, though it will help when combined with other measures. How do we tackle the impending work crisis? a balance between socially neccessary activity and economically rewarding activity for the majority might be a start to realigning our society, and redressing its shortfalls, and a commensurate but drastic reduction in working hours, along with delinking the individual from notions of productivity, and substituting the notion of contribution. Then combined with a massive programme of building, perhaps some of this could be well supported self build with an eco based emphasis. But most of all getting people to disconnect with the non viable thinking of the last century, which won't work for this one. The problems are different and need different solutions. In this respect the tories are much more mired in the past than any prehistoric lefty thinking.

[yahyah]

Hate to be boring, but my came up COTW too.

[tinybgoat]

tried a different browser, and
(drumroll) ...
Citizens of the World = 97.557%