FlyTheNest

http://www.tony-atkinson.com/the-15-pro ... n-be-done/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The 15 Proposals from Tony Atkinson’s ‘Inequality – What can be done


(RIP)

PorFavor wrote:

Brexit’s slow-burning fuse will reach a powder keg this year

William Keegan (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... eg-in-2017

William Keegan is one of the best writers on the Guardian. His series of work on the UK/EU is especially good.

I can't find words and string them together satisfactorily explaining my understanding of devastating alterations we're looking at with 'Brexit'.
Citizenship status, right to travel, trade, settle and otherwise participate within the EU will affect generations - profound changes.

I've lately had an idea going through my head about why the response from Labour MPs about the EU referendum result and 'Brexit' have been mostly tepid.
I think they're probably loath to mess with the EU referendum result, reluctant to do anything that may seem as though the result should be set aside, because
doing so may create a historically dangerous precedent. Big Dave's EU referendum had almost nothing to recommend it from start to finish. But the UK electorate
voted on it, the thing is done. The UK electorate were given to believe their vote was going to be acted upon. I can appreciate the dilemma MPs and everyone else
may be having.

Nonetheless, it's too much change to foist upon millions of people who'd voted against leaving or were not allowed a vote in the outcome.

Just swinging by to wish everybody a happy new year.

At least the 21 days of it before Trump launches WW3 by tweet.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Just swinging by to wish everybody a happy new year.

At least the 21 days of it before Trump launches WW3 by tweet.

Good to see you TE!
Have a great year (well, if possible that is)

"Swinging"

Cameron, in his role as PM of the UK, created the terms of the EU referendum. He gave people to understand what was at stake,
he decided the rules and conditions of EU referendum vote. The same integrity that went into legitimising the EU referendum
were debauched by his dancing off the set after losing the bet, failing honouring his own house rules. He left anyone with or
without a conscience to handle his failure, resignation and disinclination to fulfil his duty.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Just swinging by to wish everybody a happy new year.

(cJA edit)

Wonderful to see you! Happy New Year!

p.s. I decline to know him. If we all do it, we'll all live longer and healthier lives.

A literal fart as President.

HindleA wrote:"Swinging"

Possibly I could have phrased that better, not a pleasing image.

I may adopt The Citizen's approach to Donald, might make the world last until February.

citizenJA wrote:Cameron, in his role as PM of the UK, created the terms of the EU referendum. He gave people to understand what was at stake,
he decided the rules and conditions of EU referendum vote. The same integrity that went into legitimising the EU referendum
were debauched by his dancing off the set after losing the bet, failing honouring his own house rules. He left anyone with or
without a conscience to handle his failure, resignation and disinclination to fulfil his duty.

This is a monstrous paradox, you know? Just because Cameron takes law and stuff like that lightly, it can't force others
into following his dissipated example and blow off responsibility. To do so further undermines justice and precedent.

I want the Remain MPs in there making an unequivocal case for duly noting the referendum result and then promptly
moving on without 'Brexit'. How, without degrading standards some more and jeopardising legitimacy? I don't know, exactly.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

HindleA wrote:"Swinging"

Possibly I could have phrased that better, not a pleasing image.

I may adopt The Citizen's approach to Donald, might make the world last until February.

I got China on the line.
'Just ignore him,' I've said.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ing-threat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Robin Hood's Sherwood Forest faces fracking threat

Where is Edwinstowe?

At the end of his feet,where else?

Happy New Year – from Angela Merkel
Posted on December 31, 2016 by judithknott
A number of today’s papers have carried parts of, or references to, Angela Merkel’s new year message. Given the vacuum in political leadership in the UK, I decided it was worth translating in full.

For any cynics who may read this: I’m not blind to Germany’s faults. Indeed, I’ve got a blog in the pipeline about a German tax issue that shows some of those faults only too clearly. But at least they have a leader who is worthy of the name.

https://judithknott.wordpress.com/2016/ ... la-merkel/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish we had a leader.... (worthy of the name)

A festive "yo" to all.

Have weighed post-xmas self and have googled calorie calculator as a consequence.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-loss- ... nting.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jacobs Cream Crackers: 443 kcal per 100 grams. Don't ask about peanut butter.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... rns-top-gp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Seven-day NHS plan puts weekday surgeries at risk, warns top GP
Dr Helen Stokes-Lampard says government’s pledge to guarantee access to family doctors at weekends is unrealistic

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-pledge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see there's a pressure group called "leave means leave"

CHOOSE FREEDOM
An Official Route to European citizenship
... to travel, to work, to discover, to study, to live, to love anywhere in your Europe
21 December 2016
Yippee! This application has been accepted by the Commission -
Sign up for email alerts, and get ready to vote...

http://www.certeka.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-pledge

I see there's a pressure group called "leave means leave"

Not big on synonyms are they, these Brexit people?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-scotland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“This sense of alarm about populist rightwing politics has brought more people to thinking we need to do something to provide better security for people. We are risking our economic and political stability if we don’t do something about it.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... nt/487883/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Utrecht proposal—called “Weten Wat Werkt,” or “Know What Works”—includes six test groups, the members of which will receive slightly different stipends under slightly different conditions. In addition to the group that will receive €960 per month without any work obligations, there is a group that will be given that, plus an additional €150 at the end of the month if they provide volunteer services, such as doing maintenance work on schoolyards. And there is another that will have the same option to volunteer, but will get the money at the beginning of the month and have to return it if they don’t volunteer. “Human behavior is always unpredictable,” Groot says. “We want to know what motivates people, what people respond to.”

Am curious as to your collective views.

The headline tells you all you need to know.Are pensioners doing nothing to receive the State Pension-an income replacement benefit the same as ESA,CA as examples.Many receiving for some decades,certainly,longer than those supposedly encouraged to die years before reaching it.It isn't a guaranteed income variance conditons are attached,circumstances change,situational and changeable restrictions apply to all.

If you give choice and reward those that can more easilly make that choice who benefits but more importantly who doesn't.A fact that seems to escape advocates.

All good points A, I'd like to add it could suppress wages in low paid jobs as cleaning etc become "volunteer work" rather than a paid job.

It's the "personality/attitude,behaviour,motive" bollox that pisses me off.

Bristol law centre gets 95% of 'fit-to-work' decisions overturned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-br ... 5773507289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sadly will mean fuck all,intention is to residualise all to JSA levels with incremental increases in conditionality,subject to the S of S as sponsored by Reform,overseen by exReform discretion.

Simplification.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-scotland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“This sense of alarm about populist rightwing politics has brought more people to thinking we need to do something to provide better security for people. We are risking our economic and political stability if we don’t do something about it.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... nt/487883/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Utrecht proposal—called “Weten Wat Werkt,” or “Know What Works”—includes six test groups, the members of which will receive slightly different stipends under slightly different conditions. In addition to the group that will receive €960 per month without any work obligations, there is a group that will be given that, plus an additional €150 at the end of the month if they provide volunteer services, such as doing maintenance work on schoolyards. And there is another that will have the same option to volunteer, but will get the money at the beginning of the month and have to return it if they don’t volunteer. “Human behavior is always unpredictable,” Groot says. “We want to know what motivates people, what people respond to.”

Am curious as to your collective views.

I've been doing some more thinking about this and still don't think it's feasible, not just on cost but on fairness. Even if you took out the volunteering bit, the cost of living for a long term sick or disabled person are much higher than a none sick/disabled person so they need more than average. On the other hand a pensioner does not need as much as a person looking for a job (wardrobe & travelling for instance) so their needs are fewer. I can think of other examples but these will do for now.
If the variations of need are catered for in higher or lower payment levels, are we not just back to where we are now with the added complication of paying out to those who have no need for it anyway?

Probably out of my depth, but like the idea of a minimum weekly income, close to say 35 hours of the minimum wage.
No work voluntary or otherwise would be expected, with aim being
1. to provide reasonable standard of living
2. to help support higher wages (by limiting supply of labour willing to work for lower amounts)
3. people shouldn't need to be pressured into working, it should purely be because they want to (for financial or other reasons )
The cost would have to be paid out of taxation, but would be justified by helping keep wages higher generally.
A.Hindle's point would still apply, there would still need to be extra benefits for those needing them.

Suspect it's more complicated than this & would suffer from continual adjustments by those in power.

It may be only applied to the fit and able(another hornets nest as to definition).I don't know.I don't trust Governments-of all stripes -"protecting the vulnerable"-are they?Even if genuinely well intended,those that need it most will be the hardest hit,first to suffer, is happening now-sometimes spotted,partially reversed or hidden from view-"double accounting for need" ruse,replaced by "services"-actually existing or not but "on condition"-ESA to JSA,"localism"-discretion replacing agreed criteria-for basic need.Why aid this process with guinea pig imaginings?

tinybgoat wrote:Probably out of my depth, but like the idea of a minimum weekly income, close to say 35 hours of the minimum wage.
No work voluntary or otherwise would be expected, with aim being
1. to provide reasonable standard of living
2. to help support higher wages (by limiting supply of labour willing to work for lower amounts)
3. people shouldn't need to be pressured into working, it should purely be because they want to (for financial or other reasons )
The cost would have to be paid out of taxation, but would be justified by helping keep wages higher generally.
A.Hindle's point would still apply, there would still need to be extra benefits for those needing them.

Suspect it's more complicated than this & would suffer from continual adjustments by those in power.

I do like the idea, just can't see how it would work practically.
Not to mention massive upheaval & cuts and plunge back into poverty each time the tory's got back in (and they would).

It could be that those who don't need it would be pushed into a higher tax band therefore we collect more tax.... but if we had not paid it out in the first place...

My head hurts

"needing them"-playing off those that "most need them",against those that supposedly "don't".Follow the narrative,context,myths,intentions.

HindleA wrote:"needing them"-playing off those that "most need them",against those that supposedly "don't".Follow the narrative,context,myths,intentions.

I agree! Yes! but not sure how to write my thoughts down without using words....

AngryAsWell wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:Probably out of my depth, but like the idea of a minimum weekly income, close to say 35 hours of the minimum wage.
No work voluntary or otherwise would be expected, with aim being
1. to provide reasonable standard of living
2. to help support higher wages (by limiting supply of labour willing to work for lower amounts)
3. people shouldn't need to be pressured into working, it should purely be because they want to (for financial or other reasons )
The cost would have to be paid out of taxation, but would be justified by helping keep wages higher generally.
A.Hindle's point would still apply, there would still need to be extra benefits for those needing them.

Suspect it's more complicated than this & would suffer from continual adjustments by those in power.

I do like the idea, just can't see how it would work practically.
Not to mention massive upheaval & cuts and plunge back into poverty each time the tory's got back in (and they would).

I think sometimes it can be good to float these ideas even if they are impractical. It certainly starts debate about what society could be.

I'm off the scale of left/right.Labour/Tory-do think Labour would be currently be slightly more careful,genuinely more reciprocally minded,certainly more knowledgeable.

Attributes which unfortunately don't appear to be particularly popular.

Sorry AAW,not personally aimed.Just doing my waffling thing.

PorFavor wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-pledge

I see there's a pressure group called "leave means leave"

Not big on synonyms are they, these Brexit people?

Leave can be alternatively interpreted to be the opposite of itself.

No idea-there was a point there somewhere.

Well it's catching on anyway

ITALY: Basic Income Pilot Launched in Italian Coastal City
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/12/ita ... stal-city/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CANADA: Food Bank Canada recommends creating a national basic income to curb the “unacceptably high” reliance on food banks
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/12/can ... ood-banks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BRAZIL: Basic Income Startup gives “lifetime basic incomes” to villagers
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/12/bra ... villagers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From
Basic Income European Network (BIEN)
http://basicincome.org/about-bien/#overview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"A stream of unrelenting bollox"-working title for my first book,short story,article,doodlings on kitchen towel.

"A sodastream of gas inducing musings"-Volume 1.

Compared to this it could be doable, with the added benefit that the money will go straight into the economy rather than offshore accounts?

John Fisher
‏@nigel2john
@TomLondon6 @Astrobi7 Can we not repeat this...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like quantitative easing - for the people....

https://makingrightsmakesense.wordpress ... s-in-2017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Five big challenges for British disability rights in 2017

HindleA wrote:"needing them"-playing off those that "most need them",against those that supposedly "don't".Follow the narrative,context,myths,intentions.

I'd hope for a universal income, with a separate 'benefit' system on top of this, don't know how you'd then decide who needs what, there's always going to be some arbitrary decision & it's always going to be controversial and open to manipulation.
I do think there's an important difference in motivation/intention, in building system along the lines of recognising people intrinsically deserve things and therefore ensuring people are getting "what they need" rather than making divisive value judgements and claiming to be ensuring they get "what they deserve".

I don't think I explained that very well.

No I understand.I wasn't very clear.The narrative is "doing nothing" versus "working all their lives",on a turn of a day.The reduction in ESA and replacement with "support" is posited as a better way to improve lives.Remembering we are dealing with people with little knowledge,advised by people with less and decades of collusive myth making,where each party takes turns to blame the other for deliberately encouraging people to become sick/disabled at the same rate they always have.They would argue it is well intended,motivated by "saving people" by them getting 'phone calls whilst on literal death bed and the "if you don't send information it may effect your benefit",as we did.

Thanks, I understand now,
(also thanks for decoding my oozlum bird impersonation.)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... green-belt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Fourteen garden villages to be built in England totalling 48,000 homes
Sites for new villages include green belt land and spread from Cornwall to Cumbria, but local opposition is strong in some areas