FlyTheNest

utopiandreams wrote:All this talk of Tristram got me thinking. What he needs is an appearance on some Q&A show, serious or comedic, but one where he faces down that opinionated historian who never stfu. His name escapes me as I type but but am about to Google before I post...

Put me out of my misery someone. The search term 'opinionated historian' does not give the expected result, but I'm sure you know who I mean; he's always popping up on the Beeb giving us his view..

utopiandreams wrote:All this talk of Tristram got me thinking. What he needs is an appearance on some Q&A show, serious or comedic, but one where he faces down that opinionated historian who never stfu. His name escapes me as I type but but am about to Google before I post...

Put me out of my misery someone. The search term 'opinionated historian' does not give the expected result, but I'm sure you know who I mean; he's always popping up on the Beeb giving us his view..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 48313.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 38124.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 27933.html

utopiandreams wrote: Not wishing to offend, Swarthlander, but I want to know, can we count on you? Which are you? The one really giving it to 'em or the one peering out from behind Eric Pickles?

AngryAsWell wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: How about Keir Starmer? He has "gravitas", experience out of politics (was Director of Public Prosecutions) comes across well on camera, will be able to sort the torys HRA mess out.....and the right name as well!

We just can't have somebody elected last week as Labour's new leader. Sorry

Dan Jarvis was only elected in October 2013 ....
Everyone keeps saying we want someone new
(he wont stand anyway was just tossing names around in my head and his popped up)

utopiandreams wrote:Btw forget what I said of Tristram and Starkey. Something in my dim-witted mind confused Tristram with Dan Snow. I cannot imagine why; that's where historian came from.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote: We just can't have somebody elected last week as Labour's new leader. Sorry

Dan Jarvis was only elected in October 2013 ....
Everyone keeps saying we want someone new
(he wont stand anyway was just tossing names around in my head and his popped up)

No, in March 2011 - so he's been an MP for most of the last parliament (and, indeed, a front bencher for much of it)

Swarthlander wrote:

utopiandreams wrote: Not wishing to offend, Swarthlander, but I want to know, can we count on you? Which are you? The one really giving it to 'em or the one peering out from behind Eric Pickles?

Who would want to be behind Eric Pickles? I'm sure there's as much hot air coming from his rear orifice as there is his front.

The story with my bins is a long one. Basically, for years, I used to have to drag the bins a couple of hundred yards down a rough lane to be emptied and then drag them back again every week. Not a fun job in foul weather. During the winter I had the regular job of picking the recycle stuff out from a field drainage ditch because of strong winds blowing the bins over or a fox looking for a snack. A couple of years ago, after a long and tiresome discussion with the council, they agreed to send the wagon down the lane and all has been well until now.
Last week they did not empty the recycle bin (blue), this week they have not emptied the waste bin (green). I have emailed the council and I await to see what happens. Otherwise, out comes my pichfork to aid a re-discussion.

Willow904 wrote:

utopiandreams wrote:Btw forget what I said of Tristram and Starkey. Something in my dim-witted mind confused Tristram with Dan Snow. I cannot imagine why; that's where historian came from.

Ha! Because you were actually making sense there. Tristram is an historian. Not entirely unlike Dan Snow.

utopiandreams wrote:
Thanks for enlightening me, Swarthlander. I trust you knew I was joking.

pk1 wrote:Piece here by Survation on Labour candidates & how people view them.

http://survation.com/next-labour-leader ... d-present/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 47245.html

Apologies if this link has already been posted. And - if it hasn't should I put it with the other Contenders?

ohsocynical wrote:Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

AngryAsWell wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 47245.html

Apologies if this link has already been posted. And - if it hasn't should I put it with the other Contenders?

May as well add it to his "page" so we can keep track of what was said when

Willow904 wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

The criticisms of Labour are all fair enough but the complete and utter faith in the integrity and goodness of the SNP and Greens is rather frightening. I'd hoped that the Libdem experience had cured people of this. Power corrupts and vested interests seek to corrupt all who hold it. We pick the best defence against the vested interests that we can, but anyone who thinks their perfect party won't be sullied by the realities and compromises of real responsibility is being unrealistic. Ed did a good job of wrestling the Labour party back from the Thatcherites, but I guess it was just too soon for many to accept that the ghost of Blair had been put to bed. I guess they'll never understand that their rejection of Ed, because they disliked Blair, will be the fundamental reason behind any Blair resurrection.

ohsocynical wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

The criticisms of Labour are all fair enough but the complete and utter faith in the integrity and goodness of the SNP and Greens is rather frightening. I'd hoped that the Libdem experience had cured people of this. Power corrupts and vested interests seek to corrupt all who hold it. We pick the best defence against the vested interests that we can, but anyone who thinks their perfect party won't be sullied by the realities and compromises of real responsibility is being unrealistic. Ed did a good job of wrestling the Labour party back from the Thatcherites, but I guess it was just too soon for many to accept that the ghost of Blair had been put to bed. I guess they'll never understand that their rejection of Ed, because they disliked Blair, will be the fundamental reason behind any Blair resurrection.

A lot of people will be nodding their heads, because the speed with which the Blairites have come out of the woodwork, proves they really didn't go away...

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

ohsocynical wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

The criticisms of Labour are all fair enough but the complete and utter faith in the integrity and goodness of the SNP and Greens is rather frightening. I'd hoped that the Libdem experience had cured people of this. Power corrupts and vested interests seek to corrupt all who hold it. We pick the best defence against the vested interests that we can, but anyone who thinks their perfect party won't be sullied by the realities and compromises of real responsibility is being unrealistic. Ed did a good job of wrestling the Labour party back from the Thatcherites, but I guess it was just too soon for many to accept that the ghost of Blair had been put to bed. I guess they'll never understand that their rejection of Ed, because they disliked Blair, will be the fundamental reason behind any Blair resurrection.

A lot of people will be nodding their heads, because the speed with which the Blairites have come out of the woodwork, proves they really didn't go away...

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

utopiandreams wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

utopiandreams wrote:Btw forget what I said of Tristram and Starkey. Something in my dim-witted mind confused Tristram with Dan Snow. I cannot imagine why; that's where historian came from.

Ha! Because you were actually making sense there. Tristram is an historian. Not entirely unlike Dan Snow.

Thanks, Willow. It was afterwards that I doubted myself and then came up with Dan Snow and wondered why I was so confused. Don't answer that!

Swarthlander wrote:

“The deliberations in Westminster are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the north of England. The northern cities feel far greater affinity with their Scottish counterparts such as Glasgow and Edinburgh than with the ideologies of the London-centric south.

“The needs and challenges of the north cannot be understood by the endless parade of old Etonions lining the frontbenches of the House of Commons.

“The north of England should join the newly independent Scotland and regain control over its own destiny.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/th ... ay-5692916" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Using the hashtag #TakeUsWithYou Scotland, the call appears to have originated in Sheffield.

Paul?




Just jesting.

FORMER armed forces minister Mark Francois has been appointed the new minister for Portsmouth, The News can reveal. (News)

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

PorFavor wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

Do you have any particular woman\en in mind? Or do you mean Yvette Cooper - who won't be getting my vote, for the record.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

ephemerid wrote:Morning Dan and tc2, yahyah, and utopiandreams.

After my very long response to Willow yesterday on the sanctions-figures-that-make-no-sense-as-usual, those of you who read it (and I hope you settled down with a flask and sandwiches...) may have noticed that the ONS claimant count figures which the government quotes do not as yet include people claiming the JSA element of UC. The ONS calculates them separately as "experimental" rather than "official" statistics.

At the last count, there were 35,600 UC single straightforward claimants on the JSA element who count as unemployed, actively seeking work, etc. like their ordinary JSA counterparts but with extra UC rules on top. They will steadily increase in number as UC gets rolled out; also slowly increasing is the number of couples making a joint claim whose status is also fairly straightforward.

Starting now, is the UC roll-out for people who work and claim tax credits being put on to UC - all new claims for tax credits in this group of people will now be for UC instead. Entitlement for TCs is based on income, and there is no "income floor" - there is a lower limit on hours worked, and to qualify a single person must be working for an employer for 30 hours a week, or be in "sustainable" self employment.

The "income floor" for one person on UC is about £12,000PA if employed and £11,000 if self-employed. The hours don't matter any more.
All the people who want to make a new claim for TCs in these circumstances must now claim UC - they will all be "mandated to the jobcentre" and required to sign a Claimant Commitment. However many hours they work.

New guidance for this describes how Jobcentres will address "low-earning behaviour". This behaviour is not going to be tolerated.

"Under-achieving" employed workers will be subject to mandatory interventions even if they can demonstrate that they are doing what the CC requires, and they will be expected to work more hours, ask for better pay, or change their job, subject to sanction.
Self-employed people must comply with the "gainful self-employment test" which is aimed at "protecting the taxpayer from those who declare themselves self-employed but whose businesses routinely generate little income" - these people will have to close down their businesses and claim UC as a JSA-type jobseeker - this is likely to cost the taxpayer more, not less.

Failure to earn £900 a month will mean that the business must close - someone earning about £800 would currently get by on a small amount of TCs and perhaps some HB/LHA; under UC they will have to shut up shop, and claim JSA and full HB/LHA entitlement.
35% of the self-employed in the UK earn less than the UC income floor. Not all of them are currently claiming TCs or other help; but we are still talking about a lot of people who will have to close down their enterprise - which they were actively encouraged by IDS to take up.

It is estimated that there will be between one and two million people affected by these UC conditions when the roll-out is complete - this could take a long time if it is restricted to new claims only; but as HMRC have issued new rules on sustainability of self-employment in what they call "preparation for UC" the switch from working for yourself to becoming a JSA/UC dependent jobseeker might happen sooner for some.

Thanks to pisspoor wages, ZHCs, short hours contracts, insecure work causing people to have to sign on and off repeatedly, plus the active promotion - until now - of Jobcentres and Work Programme providers to get people off JSA and into self-employment, there is a massive cohort of people who will be affected by this. Massive.
UC's Claimant Commitment can impose any conditions on a claimant that the Jobcentre sees fit. That covers everything from impossible numbers of jobs to be applied for, mandatory attendance for signing on daily, mandatory "training" or programmes, and compulsory unpaid work. Even if you are already working full time.

Some of the people who will be affected by this will have voted Tory. They have no idea what's coming. At least a million of them are going to be forced back on to JSA and expected to work for it; any deviation from what they have been ordered to do will result in a sanction.
IDS will attempt to hide the rising claimant count, but as it is the figures are already massaged and the real picture of employment in this country is hazy at best. Where it will show, eventually, is in tax receipts - and with less money, the Tories will....cut benefits.

ohsocynical wrote:As an ex-LibDem who supported Ed rather than Labour, I'm finding it difficult to form any deep opinion about the leadership.

I can only read a certain amount, before my anger wells up as bad as ever. It's best to get it all out in the open, but the more I read, the more fractured it all seems.

Considering the Cons only increased their vote by less than 1% [.o8%?] We should have been waving them goodbye.

We aren't. Instead we have the rise of UKIP.

If Labour listen to the voters who swung UKIPs way and start pandering to them, I won't like that.

If they go too far to the right I won't like that either.

Is there a middle way?

I'm dithering. Not convinced.

seeingclearly wrote:

ephemerid wrote:Morning Dan and tc2, yahyah, and utopiandreams.

After my very long response to Willow yesterday on the sanctions-figures-that-make-no-sense-as-usual, those of you who read it (and I hope you settled down with a flask and sandwiches...) may have noticed that the ONS claimant count figures which the government quotes do not as yet include people claiming the JSA element of UC. The ONS calculates them separately as "experimental" rather than "official" statistics.

At the last count, there were 35,600 UC single straightforward claimants on the JSA element who count as unemployed, actively seeking work, etc. like their ordinary JSA counterparts but with extra UC rules on top. They will steadily increase in number as UC gets rolled out; also slowly increasing is the number of couples making a joint claim whose status is also fairly straightforward.

Starting now, is the UC roll-out for people who work and claim tax credits being put on to UC - all new claims for tax credits in this group of people will now be for UC instead. Entitlement for TCs is based on income, and there is no "income floor" - there is a lower limit on hours worked, and to qualify a single person must be working for an employer for 30 hours a week, or be in "sustainable" self employment.

The "income floor" for one person on UC is about £12,000PA if employed and £11,000 if self-employed. The hours don't matter any more.
All the people who want to make a new claim for TCs in these circumstances must now claim UC - they will all be "mandated to the jobcentre" and required to sign a Claimant Commitment. However many hours they work.

New guidance for this describes how Jobcentres will address "low-earning behaviour". This behaviour is not going to be tolerated.

"Under-achieving" employed workers will be subject to mandatory interventions even if they can demonstrate that they are doing what the CC requires, and they will be expected to work more hours, ask for better pay, or change their job, subject to sanction.
Self-employed people must comply with the "gainful self-employment test" which is aimed at "protecting the taxpayer from those who declare themselves self-employed but whose businesses routinely generate little income" - these people will have to close down their businesses and claim UC as a JSA-type jobseeker - this is likely to cost the taxpayer more, not less.

Failure to earn £900 a month will mean that the business must close - someone earning about £800 would currently get by on a small amount of TCs and perhaps some HB/LHA; under UC they will have to shut up shop, and claim JSA and full HB/LHA entitlement.
35% of the self-employed in the UK earn less than the UC income floor. Not all of them are currently claiming TCs or other help; but we are still talking about a lot of people who will have to close down their enterprise - which they were actively encouraged by IDS to take up.

It is estimated that there will be between one and two million people affected by these UC conditions when the roll-out is complete - this could take a long time if it is restricted to new claims only; but as HMRC have issued new rules on sustainability of self-employment in what they call "preparation for UC" the switch from working for yourself to becoming a JSA/UC dependent jobseeker might happen sooner for some.

Thanks to pisspoor wages, ZHCs, short hours contracts, insecure work causing people to have to sign on and off repeatedly, plus the active promotion - until now - of Jobcentres and Work Programme providers to get people off JSA and into self-employment, there is a massive cohort of people who will be affected by this. Massive.
UC's Claimant Commitment can impose any conditions on a claimant that the Jobcentre sees fit. That covers everything from impossible numbers of jobs to be applied for, mandatory attendance for signing on daily, mandatory "training" or programmes, and compulsory unpaid work. Even if you are already working full time.

Some of the people who will be affected by this will have voted Tory. They have no idea what's coming. At least a million of them are going to be forced back on to JSA and expected to work for it; any deviation from what they have been ordered to do will result in a sanction.
IDS will attempt to hide the rising claimant count, but as it is the figures are already massaged and the real picture of employment in this country is hazy at best. Where it will show, eventually, is in tax receipts - and with less money, the Tories will....cut benefits.

Ever since this all started, when the coalition came in I have found it utterly bizarre, and when I read your clear pictures of what these measures do, I have to shake my head to clear it of my own normal perceptions. Because everything paints a picture in which normal human enterprise and engagement in life is getting stamped on and replaced by some formulaic impossibility. People don't organise like this, left to their own devices. I'm afraid I'm unable so see any long term benefit in any of it, for individuals or for us as a nation. There seems to be a coordinated attempt to strip away work and opportunity, stamp out creativity, enterprise and innovation, and demolish aspiration, and it's expanding upward.

I keep coming back to a single question. To what end is this happening? And I can't see one, or not a sane one. The reducing us to a cheap labour pool one doesn't work either. Depressing wages is only part of it, you still have to keep people motivated and hungry to work, and you still have to bring the development needed so there are real jobs to do, productive work. But I can't see this happening.

In the meantime other countries know how to do this stuff ok and are thriving. It's a mess, however can anyone think this will bring any kind of progress or prosperity, it's the opposite of what's needed.

You description of how people who can't earn enough will be treated convinces me these policies are insane. I'm starting to want to know exactly who is pulling the strings, and why. There's not a single one who's an expert in their field, most aren't expert in any field at all.

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

A woman for the sake of being a woman would be a disaster.

Why is Hunt a joke?

seeingclearly wrote:

ephemerid wrote:Morning Dan and tc2, yahyah, and utopiandreams.

After my very long response to Willow yesterday on the sanctions-figures-that-make-no-sense-as-usual, those of you who read it (and I hope you settled down with a flask and sandwiches...) may have noticed that the ONS claimant count figures which the government quotes do not as yet include people claiming the JSA element of UC. The ONS calculates them separately as "experimental" rather than "official" statistics.

At the last count, there were 35,600 UC single straightforward claimants on the JSA element who count as unemployed, actively seeking work, etc. like their ordinary JSA counterparts but with extra UC rules on top. They will steadily increase in number as UC gets rolled out; also slowly increasing is the number of couples making a joint claim whose status is also fairly straightforward.

Starting now, is the UC roll-out for people who work and claim tax credits being put on to UC - all new claims for tax credits in this group of people will now be for UC instead. Entitlement for TCs is based on income, and there is no "income floor" - there is a lower limit on hours worked, and to qualify a single person must be working for an employer for 30 hours a week, or be in "sustainable" self employment.

The "income floor" for one person on UC is about £12,000PA if employed and £11,000 if self-employed. The hours don't matter any more.
All the people who want to make a new claim for TCs in these circumstances must now claim UC - they will all be "mandated to the jobcentre" and required to sign a Claimant Commitment. However many hours they work.

New guidance for this describes how Jobcentres will address "low-earning behaviour". This behaviour is not going to be tolerated.

"Under-achieving" employed workers will be subject to mandatory interventions even if they can demonstrate that they are doing what the CC requires, and they will be expected to work more hours, ask for better pay, or change their job, subject to sanction.
Self-employed people must comply with the "gainful self-employment test" which is aimed at "protecting the taxpayer from those who declare themselves self-employed but whose businesses routinely generate little income" - these people will have to close down their businesses and claim UC as a JSA-type jobseeker - this is likely to cost the taxpayer more, not less.

Failure to earn £900 a month will mean that the business must close - someone earning about £800 would currently get by on a small amount of TCs and perhaps some HB/LHA; under UC they will have to shut up shop, and claim JSA and full HB/LHA entitlement.
35% of the self-employed in the UK earn less than the UC income floor. Not all of them are currently claiming TCs or other help; but we are still talking about a lot of people who will have to close down their enterprise - which they were actively encouraged by IDS to take up.

It is estimated that there will be between one and two million people affected by these UC conditions when the roll-out is complete - this could take a long time if it is restricted to new claims only; but as HMRC have issued new rules on sustainability of self-employment in what they call "preparation for UC" the switch from working for yourself to becoming a JSA/UC dependent jobseeker might happen sooner for some.

Thanks to pisspoor wages, ZHCs, short hours contracts, insecure work causing people to have to sign on and off repeatedly, plus the active promotion - until now - of Jobcentres and Work Programme providers to get people off JSA and into self-employment, there is a massive cohort of people who will be affected by this. Massive.
UC's Claimant Commitment can impose any conditions on a claimant that the Jobcentre sees fit. That covers everything from impossible numbers of jobs to be applied for, mandatory attendance for signing on daily, mandatory "training" or programmes, and compulsory unpaid work. Even if you are already working full time.

Some of the people who will be affected by this will have voted Tory. They have no idea what's coming. At least a million of them are going to be forced back on to JSA and expected to work for it; any deviation from what they have been ordered to do will result in a sanction.
IDS will attempt to hide the rising claimant count, but as it is the figures are already massaged and the real picture of employment in this country is hazy at best. Where it will show, eventually, is in tax receipts - and with less money, the Tories will....cut benefits.

Ever since this all started, when the coalition came in I have found it utterly bizarre, and when I read your clear pictures of what these measures do, I have to shake my head to clear it of my own normal perceptions. Because everything paints a picture in which normal human enterprise and engagement in life is getting stamped on and replaced by some formulaic impossibility. People don't organise like this, left to their own devices. I'm afraid I'm unable so see any long term benefit in any of it, for individuals or for us as a nation. There seems to be a coordinated attempt to strip away work and opportunity, stamp out creativity, enterprise and innovation, and demolish aspiration, and it's expanding upward.

I keep coming back to a single question. To what end is this happening? And I can't see one, or not a sane one. The reducing us to a cheap labour pool one doesn't work either. Depressing wages is only part of it, you still have to keep people motivated and hungry to work, and you still have to bring the development needed so there are real jobs to do, productive work. But I can't see this happening.

In the meantime other countries know how to do this stuff ok and are thriving. It's a mess, however can anyone think this will bring any kind of progress or prosperity, it's the opposite of what's needed.

You description of how people who can't earn enough will be treated convinces me these policies are insane. I'm starting to want to know exactly who is pulling the strings, and why. There's not a single one who's an expert in their field, most aren't expert in any field at all.