Wednesday 19th February 2020

Post by **refitman** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 6:13 am

Morning all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:49 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home ... ion-system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51550421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -statement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:49 am

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1229 ... 16801.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 9:04 am

I'm no expert on immigration....

But I'm singularly unimpressed by centrist Labour types criticising the new policy on the grounds it will be bad for British industry (even if it will).

Trouble is Patel's story sounds rather good and plays right into the Brexit narrative. Even though it won't work out that way. So well done Diane Abbott for taking a more principled approach.

I still think the very worst thing about the EU is the exploitation of freedom of movement by big business. Moving is not much of a freedom if you have to do it to feed your kids.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 9:13 am

If you are unskilled why do you need to be trained?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 9:45 am

Can't see it working without further exemptions,eg. social care without (further) pernicious implications."Economic inactivity"includes family carers of course,I humbly suggest that the "hiding unemployment" has bitten the left on the arse (again)with the appropriation by Government in essence of that is the case get them to work.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 9:49 am

Certainly not aided by carers organisations and the "gave up job"thing.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 9:56 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm no expert on immigration....

But I'm singularly unimpressed by centrist Labour types criticising the new policy on the grounds it will be bad for British industry (even if it will).

Trouble is Patel's story sounds rather good and plays right into the Brexit narrative. Even though it won't work out that way. So well done Diane Abbott for taking a more principled approach.

I still think the very worst thing about the EU is the exploitation of freedom of movement by big business. Moving is not much of a freedom if you have to do it to feed your kids.

When a poor country first joins the EU, people move to look for better work but the other side of the EU is that the joining country gets to enjoy the benefits of belonging to a larger bloc, it benefits from investment and eventually the factories and the jobs. Eventually people won't want to move as local jobs start to reflect the pay and conditions of the rest of the bloc.

You might just as well say people shouldn't be moving from Cornwall or Blackpool to take up low paid jobs in London, but they do. It's the same phenomenon, just on a smaller scale. The answer is to regulate businesses to enforce decent working conditions everywhere, provide investment incentives for areas where there are fewer jobs and tighten up rules to prevent corporations from avoiding tax, which is what the EU is increasingly doing and, seemingly, why the Tories are so desperate to leave.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 9:57 am

Priti Patel says Boris Johnson isn't a racist and that Dave's comments at the Brits were just a "generalisation".

Yes Priti, Dave took the isolated racist comments that Johnson has made over the years and generalised them into the accusation that he's a racist.

Perhaps she didn't mean to say generalisation?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 10:01 am

I may seem inconsistent with also the right to (also)work thing but I see parallels/connections with a similar appropriation of a woman's right to work instead of being at home in the stick to beat those that choose not to and the relative credence/respect/value/worth placed on them.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 10:10 am

HindleA wrote:Can't see it working without further exemptions,eg. social care without (further) pernicious implications."Economic inactivity"includes family carers of course,I humbly suggest that the "hiding unemployment" has bitten the left on the arse (again)with the appropriation by Government in essence of that is the case get them to work.

People will be forced to take low paid insecure work or lose their benefits - at least that's probably the idea. The reality will more likely be recession as freedom of movement has been a prime driver of growth over recent years. Either businesses will finally invest in technology with the accompanying increase in productivity or our whole shabby little house of cards will finally collapse as the government runs out of working age people it can coerce into low paid insecure work.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 10:19 am

HindleA wrote:I may seem inconsistent with also the right to (also)work thing but I see parallels/connections with a similar appropriation of a woman's right to work instead of being at home in the stick to beat those that choose not to and the relative credence/respect/value/worth placed on them.

The swapping of one stereotype, the housewife and stay at home mother, for another stereotype, the childcare using working mum, has led to child benefits being increasingly replaced with childcare and mothers as restricted in their life choices as ever.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 11:39 am

https://freemarketconservatives.org/the ... w-sabisky/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An apple is an orange

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 11:49 am

The change from "the danger to children from absentee mothers'"to the "danger to children from non-working mothers' is indeed remarkable.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 12:04 pm

Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:Can't see it working without further exemptions,eg. social care without (further) pernicious implications."Economic inactivity"includes family carers of course,I humbly suggest that the "hiding unemployment" has bitten the left on the arse (again)with the appropriation by Government in essence of that is the case get them to work.
People will be forced to take low paid insecure work or lose their benefits - at least that's probably the idea. The reality will more likely be recession as freedom of movement has been a prime driver of growth over recent years. Either businesses will finally invest in technology with the accompanying increase in productivity or our whole shabby little house of cards will finally collapse as the government runs out of working age people it can coerce into low paid insecure work.

This might be where some sort of "national service" for (especially) young people might come in - make *them* pick vegetables or wipe the gammons a***es.

Can't see that going wrong at all, can you?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 12:19 pm

Good afternoon, everyone.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 12:36 pm

HindleA wrote:https://freemarketconservatives.org/the ... w-sabisky/

An apple is an orange

Interesting. Toby Young uses the example of Downs Syndrome to suggest it's acceptable to move the debate further, when yesterday I used the example of Downs Syndrome to suggest we have possibly moved too far already.

As for free speech, it cuts both ways. While Sabisky (and Young) is entitled to voice his views, people are entitled to disagree with his views, point out why he is wrong and express concern that his views could have a negative and unwelcome effect if allowed to help shape government policy.

We're back to the whining indignation of the privileged egotist complaining that their uninformed minority opinion isn't being given equal weight to the overwhelming opinion of the expert majority.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 12:36 pm

...[UK home secretary Priti Patel] said 8 million people between the ages of 16 and 64 were “economically inactive” and could be given the skills to do jobs in sectors where there were shortages as a result of the new points-based system.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... riti-patel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, really
Does Patel know if those classified 'economically inactive' have the time, ability or desire to fill those positions?
Tory-led governments since 2010 go from bad to worse. The ugliest now has a majority and years of leadership ahead of them if nothing extraordinary or unprecedented turns up turfing them out. There's nothing on the horizon giving me hope for better things. I'm calm and concerned for us all.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 12:54 pm

Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://freemarketconservatives.org/the ... w-sabisky/

An apple is an orange
Interesting. Toby Young uses the example of Downs Syndrome to suggest it's acceptable to move the debate further, when yesterday I used the example of Downs Syndrome to suggest we have possibly moved too far already.

As for free speech, it cuts both ways. While Sabisky (and Young) is entitled to voice his views, people are entitled to disagree with his views, point out why he is wrong and express concern that his views could have a negative and unwelcome effect if allowed to help shape government policy.

We're back to the whining indignation of the privileged egotist complaining that their uninformed minority opinion isn't being given equal weight to the overwhelming opinion of the expert majority.

Exactly this - its not "free speech" that they want (they already have that, whatever some pretend) its UNCHALLENGED speech.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 3:30 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -migration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 3:32 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... suck-it-up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 3:50 pm

https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/why-new-po ... ights-work" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 5:13 pm

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... cipe-chaos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 5:18 pm

https://labour.org.uk/press/diane-abbot ... on-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 5:47 pm

I expect there will be ad hoc "exceptions" made to these new immigration rules for certain sectors.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 6:54 pm

citizenJA wrote:
...[UK home secretary Priti Patel] said 8 million people between the ages of 16 and 64 were “economically inactive” and could be given the skills to do jobs in sectors where there were shortages as a result of the new points-based system.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... riti-patel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh, really
Does Patel know if those classified 'economically inactive' have the time, ability or desire to fill those positions?
Tory-led governments since 2010 go from bad to worse. The ugliest now has a majority and years of leadership ahead of them if nothing extraordinary or unprecedented turns up turfing them out. There's nothing on the horizon giving me hope for better things. I'm calm and concerned for us all.

There are very good reasons,as to why the distinction with being counted as unemployed,not least the various reasons as to why so classified,the only real economically inactive are the deceased.Reducing the numbers,is not a good thing in itself ,I note the reduction in family carers,now that in a parallel universe where the adequate support is in place with no harmful consequences for those that wish to continue /return to work and those they help;the reality is of course the opposite.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 6:57 pm

Getting a bit tired at Lisa Nandy's persistent hints that Labour members and even voters are a bit rubbish.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 6:59 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:17 pm

Early night, then?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:26 pm

https://www.z2k.org/latest/universal-cr ... ou-to-see/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:28 pm

To spare Cja's blushesI won't enquire as to classification of activity,economic or otherwise.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:32 pm

They do count the number that say they "want to work",of course that is wholly different to providing the necessary support,changing employers attitude and financial means and the actual feasability,of course that has been misappropriated in Marxistic style as a reservoir of labour.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:36 pm

Akin and related to the "missing million"

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:37 pm

"RIP Pop Smoke" trending on Twitter - no, me neither.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:44 pm

Moral maze on gender identity at 8pm.Radio4

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 7:45 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fgsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 8:26 pm

HindleA wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
...[UK home secretary Priti Patel] said 8 million people between the ages of 16 and 64 were “economically inactive” and could be given the skills to do jobs in sectors where there were shortages as a result of the new points-based system.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... riti-patel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh, really
Does Patel know if those classified 'economically inactive' have the time, ability or desire to fill those positions?
Tory-led governments since 2010 go from bad to worse. The ugliest now has a majority and years of leadership ahead of them if nothing extraordinary or unprecedented turns up turfing them out. There's nothing on the horizon giving me hope for better things. I'm calm and concerned for us all.

There are very good reasons,as to why the distinction with being counted as unemployed,not least the various reasons as to why so classified,the only real economically inactive are the deceased.Reducing the numbers,is not a good thing in itself ,I note the reduction in family carers,now that in a parallel universe where the adequate support is in place with no harmful consequences for those that wish to continue /return to work and those they help;the reality is of course the opposite.

Reducing child benefits and replacing them with free childcare pushes stay at home parents back to work. Extending the qualifying period for state pension discourages early retirement. Removing grants and upping tuition fees forces students to work part time. And the conditionality of universal credit seeks (unsuccessfully) to scare ill and disabled people back to working fitness.

Except some parents can comfortably afford to stay at home to look after the kids, some students are happily looked after by comfortably off parents, people often retire early because they can afford to and many people are genuinely too unwell or disabled to work, or at least fill the jobs actually available. And this has been the case for a long time with numbers of economically inactive remaining remarkably stable somewhere between 7.5 and 10 million since 1971. Is Patel's plan really to reduce better off households to the level of poverty required to force all working age occupants into work? And while she's doing this to better off households, what on earth is she going to do to the rest of us?!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 8:48 pm

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... -10/14697/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 8:51 pm

As at 13 February 2020, the Department has spent £215,846.89 on legal costs defending and appealing the cases in relation to people formerly in receipt of Severe Disability premium that have transferred to Universal Credit.

And they ain't finished yet.Oh so brave protectors of the vulnerable and public purse.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 8:52 pm

https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/Press-r ... -challenge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 19 Feb, 2020 9:41 pm

Evening all.

Good day in the library and a trip to Chelmsford planned for the Essex Record Office tomorrow.

so...I'm economically inactive* as I am neither (i) working or (ii) signed on looking for work.

How does Priti Patel think she will contact me to offer me work that I don't actually want or need?

* although as I'm spending money and therefore part of the economy, that's not strictly true...