Saturday 7th & Sunday 8th November 2015

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 2:23 pm

So in employment means different things,dependent on your purpose.The benefit cap does apply to people in employment,not that you would know.Any earnings.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 2:56 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... of-the-web" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clive James: ‘The verbal tics of Germaine Greer’s trolls affirm the blustering carelessness of the web’

In any left-wing posting about politics, the use of the supposedly satirical term “US of A” is the sure sign of a dunce. In right-wing postings, any attempt to express the argument in the form of a poem should be taken as an instruction to stop reading instantly. If I had started looking for these signals earlier I might have saved a year of my life.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:05 pm

HindleA wrote:FWIW

125,877 on UC,38,109 "in employment"

An individual on Universal Credit at the count date will be recorded as in employment if they have employment earnings within the Universal Credit assessment period which spans the count date. They may not be in employment precisely on the count date.

Crikey. I thought it was probably zero in employment. I guess there's some pretty intensive pen pushing required for each in work claimant.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:08 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:Vesta Chow Mein. Not saying it was good but it was in common use. I liked the crispy noodles, mind. At this time of year I miss buying bags of hot chestnuts.
Oh Lord. I'd forgotten that....I liked it. And their Beef Risotto. It's about as near as I ever got to foriegn food.

I think you can still get the Chow Mein from some Tesco stores, and from Amazon although it's very expensive if you buy it through them.
Plus their Beef Curry, with raisins - something true afficionados always regarded with horror

I think all their stuff is still fairly easily available, for those who want a nostalgia trip.

It's not. I think the Chow Mein is the only one and that's not too common...I found a Facebook page talking about it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:14 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: Oh Lord. I'd forgotten that....I liked it. And their Beef Risotto. It's about as near as I ever got to foriegn food.

I think you can still get the Chow Mein from some Tesco stores, and from Amazon although it's very expensive if you buy it through them.
Plus their Beef Curry, with raisins - something true afficionados always regarded with horror

I think all their stuff is still fairly easily available, for those who want a nostalgia trip.

It's not. I think the Chow Mein is the only one and that's not too common...I found a Facebook page talking about it.

A while back I went on a hunt for them...Morrisons used to sell them, but not any more. And our local Tesco doesn't either.

Check the prices on Amazon!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keyw ... 8da5npqv_e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:15 pm

Willow904 wrote:Trio bars.

Greetings to TR'sGhost.

On the politics front, I just got told on CIF that Labour didn't want SDP types like me and I should go join the Tories/Liberals instead. Genuine Corbyn supporter or troll? Hmm....let me think....

Edited to add, having looked at the poster's history, possibly genuine supporter. Cripes!

I'm getting some of the same vibes towards me on CiF.

One thing that makes me thinks that it's trolling is that another board I go on (When Saturday Comes) has people I know are proper Corbyn Labour and further left, and I don't pick up any sense there that I don't belong in Labour.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:17 pm

Don't forget Vesta Paella.
I used to 'cook' it when I left home and my ~~hovel~~ rented room had a coin meter for the cooker that ate up my coins.

The dried prawns rehydrated to the consistency of little pieces of rubber. Quite delicious

I found out later, via another tenant, that the house owner's son had a mirror on a stick and used a sequence of reflections to peer at me through the glass pane above the bathroom door.
Those were the days.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:27 pm

Ukip targets immigration fears in Oldham West and Royton byelection

(Please see photo' at top of article.)

Why's Nigel Farage only got a very small one? (If the red thing on his coat lapel is, indeed, some sort of poppy. See? Perfectly non-salacious question.)

I think there should be a press witch-hunt.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... byelection

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:37 pm

I've zoomed it up to 500% zoom and still can't see what it is exactly.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:39 pm

yahyah wrote:I've zoomed it up to 500% zoom and still can't see what it is exactly.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:40 pm

yahyah wrote:I've zoomed it up to 500% zoom and still can't see what it is exactly.

It's an enamel pin, rather than a paper poppy.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:43 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:I've zoomed it up to 500% zoom and still can't see what it is exactly.

Shouldn't think that's the first time a woman has said that about a Farage appendage.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:47 pm

yahyah wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:I've zoomed it up to 500% zoom and still can't see what it is exactly.

Shouldn't think that's the first time a woman has said that about a Farage appendage.

Good Lord.

(stern emoticon)

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 3:48 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone.

Welcome, TR'sGhost, for joining here.
Thank you for your contributions earlier this morning.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:06 pm

Re the Andrew Fisher thing, I've some sympathy with Corbyn though I don't like the appointment of Fisher for various reasons.

One thing we could probably all agree on was that the regular thinktank stuff has run out of steam in terms of providing a way forward. Poor Ed probably expected too much from it. So Corbyn naturally looked to the "outside left" for an advisor. If you do that, the people you find will probably have been a bit unguarded at times. When you compare a few tweets with being a Labour member since 1996 (I'm told) then the idea he's disloyal doesn't stand up, and purging from Labour would be ridiculous. But I don't see him as heavyweight enough or Corbyn strong enough for him to do his job successfully for very long, with Milne there too.

Fisher's appointment crystallizes one of the things I worried about with Corbyn before he was elected. There seemed to be a fair bit of energy taken from what I call in my sexist way "blokes on the internet"- Richard Murphy's improbable tax gaps etc. This is, for me, too much like what the Right does (climate change being the most obvious and pernicious example). I can see it from Corbyn's point of view too- that he wanted people he could trust and there wasn't much within "the mainstream", but I'd prefer it if he'd gone more for the sort of people McDonnell chose as his economic wise men, very much "inside left".

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:06 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Trio bars.

Greetings to TR'sGhost.

On the politics front, I just got told on CIF that Labour didn't want SDP types like me and I should go join the Tories/Liberals instead. Genuine Corbyn supporter or troll? Hmm....let me think....

Edited to add, having looked at the poster's history, possibly genuine supporter. Cripes!
I'm getting some of the same vibes towards me on CiF.

One thing that makes me thinks that it's trolling is that another board I go on (When Saturday Comes) has people I know are proper Corbyn Labour and further left, and I don't pick up any sense there that I don't belong in Labour.

Thanks for that. Maybe my initial instincts were correct after all. I responded by saying my conversations with other Labour supporters made me feel their opinion was possibly an exception rather than the norm. I've never known anyone suggest social democrats belonged anywhere other than on the left before, regardless of views on 'splitters' etc. That's why Clegg lost so many votes when he went all right wing, he was only able to take the liberal wing of the original Liberal/SDP Alliance with him. I've had a bit of a 'cybernat' feeling at the Guardian since Corbyn became leader. Although most are bound to be genuine comments, the way some seem designed to provoke Labour infighting makes me wary of shenanigans.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:07 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
HindleA wrote:FWIW

125,877 on UC,38,109 "in employment"

An individual on Universal Credit at the count date will be recorded as in employment if they have employment earnings within the Universal Credit assessment period which spans the count date. They may not be in employment precisely on the count date.
Crikey. I thought it was probably zero in employment. I guess there's some pretty intensive pen pushing required for each in work claimant.

The (very long) description of who is counted as "in employment" will include people who may have done just one day of casual work during the "assessment period".
I would expect that number to go up appreciably on a seasonal basis - when I worked at a Jobcentre, the unemployment register fell by 1,000 (a third) during the Cheltenham Gold Cup Festival - the caterers used to take on locals in large numbers for a few days (a lot of them couldn't find work for the rest of the year)
I don't believe any of DWPs figures on UC - IDS has lied about the entire debacle for so long that I doubt anyone really knows what's going on.

The ONS was not given the figures for the initial implementation of UC for it's Claimant Count; UC stats as supplied by DWP are not seasonally adjusted (which the ONS, rightly, thinks is important); the stats the ONS incorporates are "experimental" ones supplied by DWP; and the ONS is basically guessing at what it thinks the effect of UC is on the Claimant Count.
They say this - "Because the DWP statistics are the subject of ongoing development they are undergoing regular revisions to the whole series. The ONS will not be routinely applying these ongoing revisions and will initially use the DWP figure for any period as it was first pubilshed" - which suggests to me that they do not trust th revisions, even if they are willing to to count the "experimental" figures.

My Auntie Gladys used to make pink blancmange in a jelly-mould in the shape of a rabbit; this would be surrounded by "lettuce" made of bright green jelly chopped up into little bits.
Her Saturday tea salad involved a slice of breaded ham, half a hard-boiled egg, 1 leaf of lettuce, 1 half a tomato, and 1 slice of pickled beetroot. And bread with Stork marge.
On Mondays, she did a "double-pie-day" - which involved a meat and potato pie made with Sunday leftovers, and a fruir pie with custard; this was a throwback to her Jarrow days (when she was bringing up my dad) and all the washing got done on Monday in a copper and mangle, so the dinner had to do itself.

My mother, being German, was considered very Continental n the way she cooked. We had proper spaghetti (in those long packets made of blue paper) and I was 9 before I tasted a tinned baked bean at a friends house (vile - and I've never touched 'em since).
She made her own Stollen, truffles, aniseed biscuits, and cinnamon and almond biscuits for Christmas - I still do that now.

She used to harangue the fishmonger for smoked salmon scraps to make pate, she would bully the butcher into giving her bones for stock (much to the embarrassment of our oh-so-english neighbours; we always had a stock pot on the go, and to this day I absolutely believe that there's not much that can't be soothed by a bowl of chicken noodle soup....
When our new GP turned out to be Indian, she took herself off to meet his missus (with a cake as a bribe) and insisted she gave her recipes for curry. When she realised that no shop in Stevenage sold the spices she needed, off she went to London and got so carried away that dad was moaning about the cost for months - and he hated curry.

Best thing - ice cream blocks between 2 flat wafers (can't remember what they were called).
Worst thing - school chocolate sponge with pink (pink!!!!) custard. Plus lumps.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:13 pm

On Farridge and appendages etc

[youtube]NGFGoIVpe4E[/youtube]

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:25 pm

A random look at the benefit cap at a point in time stats(lead claimant)-19% on ESA,15% on JSA,6% on CA;50% on IS;1%on Bereavement Payment,1% on HB only.ie 85% not expected to work,but may be and of course you can claim JSA if you work less than 16 hours.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:34 pm

Cheers, Emphemerid. You've made me think there-

is it possible the employed aren't receiving any money for their work at all? That way there's no need for anything complicated in design. You just tick a box and process the claim for what's basically JSA?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 4:59 pm

Reforming child benefit – and other alternatives to the tax credit cuts
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetory ... -cuts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to this writer the alternative measures to tax credit cuts suggested by the Resolution Foundation are simply not acceptable because 'Readers will note that four of the five proposals are in effect tax increases – ‘finding’ money by just taxing people or businesses more.'

Ahem. These 'tax increases' are in fact not giving tax cuts - i.e. not cutting inheritance tax, not cutting corporation tax, not increasing the personal tax allowance to the same degree or slowing down implementation, not lifting the higher tax rate threshold to the same degree or slowing down implementation ....

These are things that haven't yet been given - so if they stay at the same rates or are introduced more slowly they can't really be called tax increases surely? They (Tories) really do scrape the bottom of the barrel with the warped arguments ... rather like the bedroom tax can't be a tax because it's a removal of a subsidy.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 5:03 pm

The pensions triple lock is another silly populist policy that could be scrapped and save lots of money. That it's combined with changes that will leave lots of women without a full pension is really quite spectacularly bad.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 5:11 pm

Government's green energy policies attacked by hard leftist utopian, John Gummer.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ohn-gummer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Britain farthest of any EU member from its 2020 targets (9.9 percentage points).

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 5:20 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cheers, Emphemerid. You've made me think there-

is it possible the employed aren't receiving any money for their work at all? That way there's no need for anything complicated in design. You just tick a box and process the claim for what's basically JSA?

That could happen in a variety of scenarios under UC - with JSA and Income Support, you can work up to 16 hours (in theory) and still claim; there are earnings disregards, the lowest being £5, and only after that is benefit taken off on a pro-rata basis.
ESA/IB claimants can do Permitted Work, i, bits and bobs as they are able; that also has a disregard, but will be abolished under UC.

I say "in theory", because if you work 15 hours at NMW, you don't pay tax and pay minimal NI and you get £97.50 gross - that's £24 more than the over-25 JSA rate, so you'd get no JSA for that week depending on which day your Benefit-week-ending day falls.
If you do this for a full fortnight covering a signing-on period, your claim is likely to be closed - and any new claim will be subject to the 7 waiting days for which jobsearch evidence must be submitted before the new claim is even registered.
A lot depends on the JCP adviser - but if the claim IS closed, t's a disincentive to do any work at all while claiming.

Plus, all JSA claimants must now sign the Claimant Commitment (it's a lie to say it's for UC claimants only) which requires 35 hours of evidenced jobsearch, which is a difficult thing to prove if you were at work. If people are working unpaid, there would be an availability doubt, which is sanctionable, and is why JSA claimants can't do volunteer work any more - unless they are mandated to do it by DWP.

Under UC, the people most likely to be working for not much money (or none to start with) are the self-employed. UC has an "income floor" which is based on the equivalent of 35 hours a week at NMW; this assumes that is the earnings level and it forms the basis of the UC calculation. If you don't make that much, you may not be able to claim; depending on household make-up and other income, there could easily be self-employed people working for nothing and not able to claim UC either. As UC includes HB/LHA, this is serious.

For all working UC claimants, DWP can (and has) insisted that people close their businesses down as unviable (even in cases where it was DWP or a Work Programme provider who helped set it up), and those with part-time or low-paid jobs wll be sanctioned if they fail to look for more and/or better work. In fact, the guidance states that people working full-time can be told to look for better work, and what that consists of is down to the whim of the JCP adviser. You could have quite a good job for yourself and still be sanctioned.

When Osborne and IDS drone on about perverse incentives, they conveniently ignore the much worse disincentives they are bringing in with UC. It's all part of the plan to get as many people off benefit as possible; and when you consider that any UC claim must take ALL household income into consideration, people who might have a family member who has a bit of a pension coming in or savings, it's obvious that the state will no longer provide if family can.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 5:30 pm

Just checking out my local CLP's Facebook page after getting an email with AGM stuff.

Saw this:
Aberystwyth University Labour Students
26 October at 09:52 ·
Wishing a warm welcome to the, literally, hundreds of new members of @CeredigionLab very exciting time!!

From the meeting minutes it looks as if a lot are ex-members who have come back.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 5:42 pm

yahyah wrote:Just checking out my local CLP's Facebook page after getting an email with AGM stuff.

Saw this:
Aberystwyth University Labour Students
26 October at 09:52 ·
Wishing a warm welcome to the, literally, hundreds of new members of @CeredigionLab very exciting time!!

From the meeting minutes it looks as if a lot are ex-members who have come back.

Thank you yahyah - I needed a bit of cheering up re local Labour - and that's welcome news, especially if we in north Pembs find ourselves absorbed into the Ceredigion constituency for the next Westminster election. I am filled with a bit of gloom at the prospect though of having done all the work here to suddenly find ourselves in a seat with very little prospect of winning. And the weirdness of then being in an Assembly constituency which will still be Preseli Pembs. Am I meant to belong to two branches of the CLP?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 5:50 pm

Scotland has had "decoupled" constituencies at Westminster/Holyrood for a while now and they seem to cope, tbf.

I think it is inevitable Wales will go the same way if the overall reduction in MPs does go though.

Indeed it could be a chance to increase the overall size of the Assembly (long advocated by some)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:01 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Scotland has had "decoupled" constituencies at Westminster/Holyrood for a while now and they seem to cope, tbf.

I think it is inevitable Wales will go the same way if the overall reduction in MPs does go though.

Indeed it could be a chance to increase the overall size of the Assembly (long advocated by some)

Please don't add to my gloom AK. The word 'decoupled' just about sums it up for me today ... and it's not just about Westminster and Assembly boundaries.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:02 pm

ephemerid wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cheers, Emphemerid. You've made me think there-

is it possible the employed aren't receiving any money for their work at all? That way there's no need for anything complicated in design. You just tick a box and process the claim for what's basically JSA?
That could happen in a variety of scenarios under UC - with JSA and Income Support, you can work up to 16 hours (in theory) and still claim; there are earnings disregards, the lowest being £5, and only after that is benefit taken off on a pro-rata basis.
ESA/IB claimants can do Permitted Work, i, bits and bobs as they are able; that also has a disregard, but will be abolished under UC.

I say "in theory", because if you work 15 hours at NMW, you don't pay tax and pay minimal NI and you get £97.50 gross - that's £24 more than the over-25 JSA rate, so you'd get no JSA for that week depending on which day your Benefit-week-ending day falls.
If you do this for a full fortnight covering a signing-on period, your claim is likely to be closed - and any new claim will be subject to the 7 waiting days for which jobsearch evidence must be submitted before the new claim is even registered.
A lot depends on the JCP adviser - but if the claim IS closed, t's a disincentive to do any work at all while claiming.

Plus, all JSA claimants must now sign the Claimant Commitment (it's a lie to say it's for UC claimants only) which requires 35 hours of evidenced jobsearch, which is a difficult thing to prove if you were at work. If people are working unpaid, there would be an availability doubt, which is sanctionable, and is why JSA claimants can't do volunteer work any more - unless they are mandated to do it by DWP.

Under UC, the people most likely to be working for not much money (or none to start with) are the self-employed. UC has an "income floor" which is based on the equivalent of 35 hours a week at NMW; this assumes that is the earnings level and it forms the basis of the UC calculation. If you don't make that much, you may not be able to claim; depending on household make-up and other income, there could easily be self-employed people working for nothing and not able to claim UC either. As UC includes HB/LHA, this is serious.

For all working UC claimants, DWP can (and has) insisted that people close their businesses down as unviable (even in cases where it was DWP or a Work Programme provider who helped set it up), and those with part-time or low-paid jobs wll be sanctioned if they fail to look for more and/or better work. In fact, the guidance states that people working full-time can be told to look for better work, and what that consists of is down to the whim of the JCP adviser. You could have quite a good job for yourself and still be sanctioned.

When Osborne and IDS drone on about perverse incentives, they conveniently ignore the much worse disincentives they are bringing in with UC. It's all part of the plan to get as many people off benefit as possible; and when you consider that any UC claim must take ALL household income into consideration, people who might have a family member who has a bit of a pension coming in or savings, it's obvious that the state will no longer provide if family can.

Thanks for the details, all interesting.

I was actually getting at something much simpler than that though. If there's any pay at all, then that requires some sophistication in the system to make the adjustments. If that is happening, I'm surprised.

Workfare though, that wouldn't involve pay, and would count as "employed", I presume.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:21 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Scotland has had "decoupled" constituencies at Westminster/Holyrood for a while now and they seem to cope, tbf.

I think it is inevitable Wales will go the same way if the overall reduction in MPs does go though.

Indeed it could be a chance to increase the overall size of the Assembly (long advocated by some)
Please don't add to my gloom AK. The word 'decoupled' just about sums it up for me today ... and it's not just about Westminster and Assembly boundaries.

Sorry to depress you further, it wasn't intentional

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:30 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Cheers, Emphemerid. You've made me think there-

is it possible the employed aren't receiving any money for their work at all? That way there's no need for anything complicated in design. You just tick a box and process the claim for what's basically JSA?
That could happen in a variety of scenarios under UC - with JSA and Income Support, you can work up to 16 hours (in theory) and still claim; there are earnings disregards, the lowest being £5, and only after that is benefit taken off on a pro-rata basis.
ESA/IB claimants can do Permitted Work, i, bits and bobs as they are able; that also has a disregard, but will be abolished under UC.

I say "in theory", because if you work 15 hours at NMW, you don't pay tax and pay minimal NI and you get £97.50 gross - that's £24 more than the over-25 JSA rate, so you'd get no JSA for that week depending on which day your Benefit-week-ending day falls.
If you do this for a full fortnight covering a signing-on period, your claim is likely to be closed - and any new claim will be subject to the 7 waiting days for which jobsearch evidence must be submitted before the new claim is even registered.
A lot depends on the JCP adviser - but if the claim IS closed, t's a disincentive to do any work at all while claiming.

Plus, all JSA claimants must now sign the Claimant Commitment (it's a lie to say it's for UC claimants only) which requires 35 hours of evidenced jobsearch, which is a difficult thing to prove if you were at work. If people are working unpaid, there would be an availability doubt, which is sanctionable, and is why JSA claimants can't do volunteer work any more - unless they are mandated to do it by DWP.

Under UC, the people most likely to be working for not much money (or none to start with) are the self-employed. UC has an "income floor" which is based on the equivalent of 35 hours a week at NMW; this assumes that is the earnings level and it forms the basis of the UC calculation. If you don't make that much, you may not be able to claim; depending on household make-up and other income, there could easily be self-employed people working for nothing and not able to claim UC either. As UC includes HB/LHA, this is serious.

For all working UC claimants, DWP can (and has) insisted that people close their businesses down as unviable (even in cases where it was DWP or a Work Programme provider who helped set it up), and those with part-time or low-paid jobs wll be sanctioned if they fail to look for more and/or better work. In fact, the guidance states that people working full-time can be told to look for better work, and what that consists of is down to the whim of the JCP adviser. You could have quite a good job for yourself and still be sanctioned.

When Osborne and IDS drone on about perverse incentives, they conveniently ignore the much worse disincentives they are bringing in with UC. It's all part of the plan to get as many people off benefit as possible; and when you consider that any UC claim must take ALL household income into consideration, people who might have a family member who has a bit of a pension coming in or savings, it's obvious that the state will no longer provide if family can.
Thanks for the details, all interesting.

I was actually getting at something much simpler than that though. If there's any pay at all, then that requires some sophistication in the system to make the adjustments. If that is happening, I'm surprised.

Workfare though, that wouldn't involve pay, and would count as "employed", I presume.

When my husband claimed JSA between jobs back in 2010 he was entitled to some extra money in his claim for me because I only worked 6 hrs a week, for which some money was docked. The fact that my job was casual and I sometimes worked more than 6 hrs or sometimes not at all was well beyond what the system could cope with back then and the same amount was paid regardless. It seemed very hit and miss to me but was such a small sum it didn't really affect us. We had much bigger problems in the shape of our benefits office refusing to stamp my husband's form for our insurance company in order to use our PPI to pay our mortgage. Other jobcentres did, according to our insurer, but our office insisted on posting it off somewhere to be stamped making the insurance companies claim system all but unworkable. I think they were as relieved as we were when my husband got a new job in just a few months. Which is a long winded way of saying that the problem with JSA is all the other things tied to it being claimed, but not necessarily administered by the DWP (like council tax relief, PPI or free school meals) or things they are unable to accurately monitor like my job. To me this makes the whole idea of Universal Credit an impossible fantasy. There will never be a seamless one-stop-shop to ensure people are always receiving the precise exact help they are entitled to at any one time. Indeed, given that the system where everything is claimed seperately is more likely to lead to underclaiming, it's hard to see how rolling benefits together could ever save money, before you even start to condider the upfront cost of the complex software required to do it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:35 pm

ephemerid wrote: Best thing - ice cream blocks between 2 flat wafers (can't remember what they were called).

Ice cream sandwiches.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:35 pm

DWP BLATANTLY LYING over Benefit Cap
https://speye.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/ ... nefit-cap/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:42 pm

Tubby - thanks you; although workfare doesn't involve pay, it is counted as employment in certain circumstances.

If a workfare placement can be dressed up as "work experience" or "training" (this does not include new apprenticeships, faux or otherwise) the WP provider can get extra dosh for it, and as the claimant is "training" they get the same as JSA rates but it's called something else.
In that situation, the claimant is "employed" or "training", gets an allowance - and is not counted as unemployed by DWP.
That's why there is often a difference between the ONS figures and DWPs - the ONS uses internationally recognised definitions for it's statistics, and is it's also why they won't accept statistical revisions they don't approve of.

On the "sophistication" of the system - people on all the main benefits have been able to declare work and pay quite easily for a very long time.
In fact, it used to be actively encouraged because it usually meant that the claimants were a bit better off even if they only got their disregard.
That's all changed with new availability rules - if you're working at all, you're not available, and you could be sanctioned....and that depends on where you sign on, what targets your JCP has, and what your adviser is like.

This nostalgia-foodie-fest has me thinking....

Anyone remember those giant humbugs (in the traditional pyramid/twisted-pillow shape)?
And the huge gobstoppers that changed colour as thy got smaller?
Black Jacks and Rhubarb and Custard!
Callard and Bowsers Brazil Nut Toffee!

When the son-nearly-in-law went off to sea last time, we sent him parcels every week. He asked for sweets and a Private Eye every fortnight.
Our local newsagents (Jones the Bac, as opposed to Jones the Chemist, Jones the Books, and Jones the Iron) have these little packets of old-fashioned sweets that have Parma Violets, Refreshers, Sherbet Fountains, and Dolly Mixtures in them. He loved them!

I also remember my mother getting fat from the butchers to render down for dripping. It took hours but tasted fantastic.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:44 pm

Which is a long winded way of saying that the problem with JSA is all the other things tied to it being claimed, but not necessarily administered by the DWP (like council tax relief, PPI or free school meals) or things they are unable to accurately monitor like my job. To me this makes the whole idea of Universal Credit an impossible fantasy.

Yes, exactly. Impossible not to be long winded with complex situations.

I think Council Tax Support (having been "devolved") is already outside Universal Credit. Not very promising at all.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:46 pm

citizenJA wrote:
ephemerid wrote: Best thing - ice cream blocks between 2 flat wafers (can't remember what they were called).
Ice cream sandwiches.

I'm sure we had another name for them - can't remember!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:47 pm

I hadn't heard of this before. From 2010.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/ ... n-scrapped" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fund to ease impact of immigration scrapped by stealth
Government quietly abandons Gordon Brown's £50m pot for councils to ease pressure on housing, schools and hospitals

Well done, Cleggy there. Cutting this sort of thing was always going to help your party, wasn't it?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:49 pm

Here's a good policy, which will always be topical with Osborne in charge. Credit again to McDonnell for bringing Simon Wren-Lewis into the fold. Surely Labour can unite behind this?

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... iscal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without some independent oversight of this kind, we will have the irony of government ministers arguing that privatisations are needed because we must reduce government debt for the sake of future generations, when in reality they may be increasing the burden on future generations. We need a fiscal watchdog to protect future generations from shortsighted governments.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 6:51 pm

ephemerid wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
ephemerid wrote: Best thing - ice cream blocks between 2 flat wafers (can't remember what they were called).
Ice cream sandwiches.
I'm sure we had another name for them - can't remember!

Was the ice cream cut off a long block, or were they individually pre-made? I remember the long block (and I'm a child of the 80s).

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:02 pm

Ed Miliband's Climate Change Act seems to be the new "Brown deregulating the banks".

Putting steel producers out of business. In USA, Italy, France etc.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:12 pm

ephemerid wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
ephemerid wrote: Best thing - ice cream blocks between 2 flat wafers (can't remember what they were called).
Ice cream sandwiches.
I'm sure we had another name for them - can't remember!

It was the traditional label most often used by my people.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:19 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Ed Miliband's Climate Change Act seems to be the new "Brown deregulating the banks".

Putting steel producers out of business. In USA, Italy, France etc.

Outright lying propaganda junk is what it is.
Unbelievable, and it scares me.
It scares me because someone thinks this lie straight out of the Lying Fascist's Handbook is going to work somehow.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:22 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Here's a good policy, which will always be topical with Osborne in charge. Credit again to McDonnell for bringing Simon Wren-Lewis into the fold. Surely Labour can unite behind this?

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... iscal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without some independent oversight of this kind, we will have the irony of government ministers arguing that privatisations are needed because we must reduce government debt for the sake of future generations, when in reality they may be increasing the burden on future generations. We need a fiscal watchdog to protect future generations from shortsighted governments.

Yes, but why not just elect the long-term fiscal watchdogs protecting future generations and save time?
I thought government's job was the safeguard the people and nation.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:23 pm

refitman wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
citizenJA wrote: Ice cream sandwiches.
I'm sure we had another name for them - can't remember!
Was the ice cream cut off a long block, or were they individually pre-made? I remember the long block (and I'm a child of the 80s).

Off a block - and the trick was to lick the ice-cream all around and keep the wafers intact until you only had a bit of ice-cream left.....
I used to end up wearing most of it....

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:26 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Here's a good policy, which will always be topical with Osborne in charge. Credit again to McDonnell for bringing Simon Wren-Lewis into the fold. Surely Labour can unite behind this?

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... iscal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without some independent oversight of this kind, we will have the irony of government ministers arguing that privatisations are needed because we must reduce government debt for the sake of future generations, when in reality they may be increasing the burden on future generations. We need a fiscal watchdog to protect future generations from shortsighted governments.

Could we have one for education too?

They'd have a field day with the policy inconsistencies we have now.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:27 pm

Apparently it was Osborne's idea to hire IDS in the first place, but now suspects he has been unduly influenced by religion. Now 'many' in the treasury regard welfare reform as an unexploded bomb waiting to go off underneath the government.http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/1 ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:31 pm

citizenJA wrote:
ephemerid wrote: Best thing - ice cream blocks between 2 flat wafers (can't remember what they were called).
Ice cream sandwiches.

We used to call them - Wafers.

I can still hear my mum asking us, 'What do you want, a wafer or a cone?'

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:34 pm

ephemerid wrote:
refitman wrote:
ephemerid wrote: I'm sure we had another name for them - can't remember!
Was the ice cream cut off a long block, or were they individually pre-made? I remember the long block (and I'm a child of the 80s).

Off a block - and the trick was to lick the ice-cream all around and keep the wafers intact until you only had a bit of ice-cream left.....
I used to end up wearing most of it....

I used to do the same. And the end bit was always deliciously soggy....

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:34 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Here's a good policy, which will always be topical with Osborne in charge. Credit again to McDonnell for bringing Simon Wren-Lewis into the fold. Surely Labour can unite behind this?

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... iscal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without some independent oversight of this kind, we will have the irony of government ministers arguing that privatisations are needed because we must reduce government debt for the sake of future generations, when in reality they may be increasing the burden on future generations. We need a fiscal watchdog to protect future generations from shortsighted governments.

Outstanding article.
Wren-Lewis writes the National Audit Office's official mandate doesn't include what it should in its value for money evaluation but nonetheless did a fair job of reporting the political nature of the sale. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the body that is mandated to dun government over privatisation boondoggle potential, doesn't do so, according to Wren-Lewis. I agree. How the hell is this legal?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 Nov, 2015 7:35 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
refitman wrote: Was the ice cream cut off a long block, or were they individually pre-made? I remember the long block (and I'm a child of the 80s).
Off a block - and the trick was to lick the ice-cream all around and keep the wafers intact until you only had a bit of ice-cream left.....
I used to end up wearing most of it....
I used to do the same. And the end bit was always deliciously soggy....

My favourite bite was always the first one.