...I saw somewhere yesterday (can't find source nowrebeccariots2 wrote:richard ford @RFord4 10m10 minutes ago
Number of EU nationals working in UK tops 2m for first time, ONS figures show.
![Embarrassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
...I saw somewhere yesterday (can't find source nowrebeccariots2 wrote:richard ford @RFord4 10m10 minutes ago
Number of EU nationals working in UK tops 2m for first time, ONS figures show.
Good-morning, yahyah! I hope you're feeling better and rested well last night.yahyah wrote:I like that positive thinking there Paul. Thanks for reframing the situation.
Indeed. And forgot to give them British citizenship, didn't they? And forgot to defend the islands.RobertSnozers wrote:Once again the Tories act for short term political gain at considerable risk of damaging things in the long term. Of course there should be no question of debating sovereignty, but inflaming tensions with Argentina risks weakening Britain's position. The last thing we want to do is to start pushing other countries into backing Argentina on this.StephenDolan wrote:Morning.refitman wrote:Morning all.
Fallon, get told.
"The chairman of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly said Argentina remained the greatest threat to security, not the Labour leader."
Fallon reaffirms commitment to defend Falkland Islands - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35593095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Tories always want us to forget it was they who were pushing through leaseback against the islanders' wishes before the 1982 invasion.
Another victory for the Express: Officials forced to act over job ads that exclude Britons
OFFICIALS have been forced to act after the Daily Express revealed how unemployed Britons were being denied access to work in favour of economic migrants.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/644739 ... jobs-taken" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The cynic in me says I bet the government backed recruitment site is rather keen to do something about this in the run up to the EU referendum ... No idea how widespread this practice is. But given how crap Universal jobmatch is generally - it wouldn't surprise me if the few real jobs they had included some actively flouting aspects of employment law.... A foreign jobs row erupted after dozens of vacancies on a Government-backed recruitment site required applicants to speak Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Russian.
Agencies are free to advertise for work with language requirements where it is "necessary for the role".
But an investigation by this newspaper found companies were actively seeking security guards, cleaners, customer service advisors and teaching assistants fluent in languages other than English.
One advert on the Universal Jobmatch site even stressed it was "essential" an experienced painter and decorator was able to converse in Polish...
So...no work for 8 weeks....but no Social Security payments...and not on the list of 'unemployed'....yet no MSM questions as to how this might affect the greatlongtermeconomicplancratingjobsunemploymentgoingdowntelleveryonethey'llbelieve(TM)you mantra...or the mental health of those being forced into such activity...or the eye-watering sums of money being wasted...ephemerid wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:What are zero-hours contracts? You asked Google – here’s the answer
Dawn Foster
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... gle-answer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Sickening.... That’s the fear of zero-hours contracts: that one day, you find your hours have dropped to zero and you’ve effectively been sacked. You can’t challenge your employer over their decision, because effectively, contractually, they were doing you a favour by giving you any shifts at all. A man in his 40s in Redcar told me outside the jobcentre that he had been given no shifts by his construction firm for eight weeks. The jobcentre adviser insisted he was employed, so he wasn’t entitled to jobseeker’s allowance. If he left the job, he’d be deemed to have quit voluntarily … so wouldn’t be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance. This paradox is precisely why so many people are against zero-hours contracts: they make low-paid workers completely powerless, and let their bosses act with unaccountable impunity. Everyone deserves a fair wage for a fair day’s work, and to be able to depend upon it.
Welcome to the wacky world of DWP - yes, it is sickening, and it is going to get much much worse.
If you are claiming JSA, ESA WRAG, or Income Support, you can do a few odd hours now and then, declare it when you sign on, and it will be lopped off your benefits penny-for-penny after a disregard (£5 to £15).
As long as you work no more than 16 hours in any "benefit week" you can keep your claim open; thus if you get HB/LHA it won't be stopped automatically as it would be if your DWP benefit claim was closed.
If you have a ZHC, you are (in legal terms) under a contract of employment and thus "employed" whether you work or not; you may have entitlement to HB/LHA (which will vary with whatever you earn).
You cannot claim working tax credits (for which you must work 30 hours as a single person, 24 if in a couple) but you might be able to get child tax credits. You can't get JSA. ESA, or Income Support.
At the moment, DWP cannot force claimants of out-of-work benefits to accept a ZHC.
Under Universal Credit, claimants will be expected to accept any work they are offered. If they refuse, they will be sanctioned.
They can be mandated to take a ZHC; the theory is that if they don't earn any money they will have their UC in full, and if they do get a few hours now and again their UC will be recalculated accordingly. HB/LHA and all the other elements.
Of course, this UC recalculation is done every 4 weeks - so the claimant, employer, DWP, HMRC, and the local authority, all have to do their own calculations based on whatever the claimant earns and the evidence the claimant and employer provides; this could be different every week of the four, plus HB/LHA and tax credit is worked out on a calendar month basis so it gets a bit more complicated.
While all that's going on, the claimant has to prove that they are conducting a "more or better work" jobsearch on a pro-rata basis.
One week they could be having to prove jobsearch for 20 hours, another 6 hours, another 35 hours - depending on hours worked.
Even worse - if you do agency work as a self-employed person, you will not get UC at all unless you earn enough to meet the "minimum income floor", ie. the money equivalent to 35 hours at NMW. Even if you do, you will have to satisfy "better work" jobsearch conditions.
Pissing employers off with a tsunami of unsolicited CVs and letters is one thing - facing sanctions on a weekly basis when you are already working as much as you can is quite another.
It's even more sickening than many people think, RR.
Like you do . . . .Contrary to some reports, The Independent understands the note left by Rose Polge was not addressed to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, though it does mention him in passing.(Independent)
The UK is 'home' to millions of people born in places the UK has visited, conquered, made friends with, appropriated, married and settled into all over the world. I've a couple of grandparents who'd left towns somewhere in Wales and North of Manchester some years after getting born there.Lonewolfie wrote:...I saw somewhere yesterday (can't find source nowrebeccariots2 wrote:richard ford @RFord4 10m10 minutes ago
Number of EU nationals working in UK tops 2m for first time, ONS figures show.) that Britain is also the country that has the most citizens working/living abroad....wonder if that'll make it to the news....no?...quelle surprise...
He's topping the poll for next Cons Leader....PorFavor wrote:Is Boris Johnson really as important in all this (or, indeed, anything else) as both he and the media like to portray him? I may be the odd one out but I couldn't give a toss for his views on the In\Out question. Although I suppose I must assume that David Cameron thinks he's (BJ) got some clout. But is that any sort of endorsement?StephenDolan wrote:I'm hoping for the following. After Cameron announces the terms, the polling shows a consistent lead for exit. Flush out the ministers plus Boris to back leave. Get the Conservative grassroots looking forward to a win. Global economic news continues to deteriorate, the vote is a narrow win for stay. The bloodbath ensues.rebeccariots2 wrote: Yes - I agree - it's blatant. He's clearly vacillating to work out which way will suit his leadership prospects. What a shit. Sorry - not in a mincing words mood today. And to follow him in London the Tories are offering us Zac Goldsmith. Any respect I might have had for Goldsmith was pretty much dissolved by his performance on Newsnight yesterday and his 'explanations' re non dom status.
Imposition - it's the new order, doncha know. (Doncha is HuntOsborne speak.)Hospital trusts threatened with cuts if they refuse to impose new contracts
Health Education England says implementation of contract will be key criterion for making decisions on investment in training
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... -contracts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That fragmentation agenda not working out quite as they intended?... none of the 152 foundation trust hospitals in England, which are semi-independent, are legally obliged to force junior doctors to accept the junior contract, the Department of Health admitted last week.
The government had feared trusts could be tempted to offer better terms as a means to recruit enough junior doctors to start as trainees in early August.
In the letter, the HEE chief executive, Prof Ian Cumming, said: “We are not prepared to see a system where a competition based on a local employer’s ability to offer different terms is part of the recruitment process. The recruitment process should be based on patient and service need and quality of training as it always has been.
“Therefore implementation of the national contract will be a key criterion for HEE in making its decisions on our investment in training posts.”...
(my bold)Temulkar wrote:That's grammatically correct.' "How amazing!" ', isn't a complete sentence, it's a fragment. "How amazing!" said Roger, is the correct sentence grammaticaly, although dropping attribution tags in fiction to improve the flow of the prose is an accepted convention. I was taught these rules when I was in Primary School, and actually I think it is important that kids get taught how to construct a sentence properly, as early as possible.RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.
NUT are calling for this year's KS1 and KS2 SATs to be scrapped.
http://www.teachers.org.uk/education-po ... mplemented" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;That'll do wonders for teacher's workload...Nicky Morgan’s new system for testing and assessment of KS1 and KS2 pupils has come apart at the seams. As a result the NUT is calling for the 2015/16 SATs to be suspended.
In early February the DfE published its requirements in relation to teacher assessments of children’s writing standards. These have come far too late in the process. The detail in the exemplifications of the required standards and the number of separate pieces of evidence required for each individual assessment mean that they are impossible for teachers to deliver in the few months between February and June. Since these exemplifications are 'interim' and only for this year, they could also change completely again next year.
These proposals add to a chaotic heap of other demands. The reporting date for teachers’ assessments has been brought forward. The 'expected standard' that children are required to meet has been pushed upwards, beyond the reach of far too many pupils. The consequences of this shift on the requirement on schools to meet floor standards have not been thought through.
Too many changes and too late in the process - they're even changing the way that pupils are supposed to write 'exclamation sentences' even now. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so important to schools.
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/key-stage-1-ch ... h-century/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The definition of an “exclamation sentence” being applied is that it must start with either “how” or “what” and, to be a full sentence, must include a verb.
So, an exclamation such as “How amazing!” would not count. It would need the addition of a verb (e.g. “How amazing it was!”) to qualify. Not exactly common parlance for your average 21st century seven-year-old.
I used to spend an inordinate amount of time unteaching stuff, with each new cohort, when they arrived in Year 7. Primary teachers are experts in teaching literacy and numeracy, but simply don't have the time to do it properly with everything else the govt has now added to the pot - in which they are not specialists. Poorly taught History etc is far worse than no history lessons at all. Personally, I would prefer Year 7 students arriving with no prior teaching in my subject whatsoever, but who can read + write at an appropriate age.
Leaves foundation trusts completely compromised. The level of political interference in the running of the NHS has become quite breathtaking in its scope. Desperate levels of autocratic control. Just as in education, we see a single politician who has never worked in the sector insisting he is right and the entire profession is wrong. The lack of respect among the current crop of Tory ministers for those who in many cases are their direct peers both in background and professional standing is quite unprecedented. Power truly does corrupt, doesn't it?The government has told hospital foundation trusts that they could lose funding for training programmes if they refuse to impose the new contract for junior doctors.
I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Basic Income is an idea whose time is coming, it increasingly appears. Though implementation will be far from a piece of cake......
Happy birthday!utopiandreams wrote:By the by and totally off topic I was entertained to a meal out for my birthday by my lads (and granddaughter) yesterday so felt obliged to buy the drinks. Bloody hell, is that what they cost nowadays? For the record and to confirm my cryptic clue in yesterday's post, I am now sixty-four.
Jo Maugham QC
@JolyonMaugham
Don't force landlords to make homes fit for human habitation because some owner occupied homes aren't says Philip Davies MP.
Jo Maugham QC @JolyonMaugham 22m22 minutes ago
Philip Davies MP does actually perform a useful social function as a walking alarm bell. If he supports it, it's bad policy.
Jo Maugham QC @JolyonMaugham 20m20 minutes ago
If you want to read his argument yourself, you can do so here h/t @nearlylegal (put a penny in the swear jar first). http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article. ... e%20burden" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Karen Buck @KarenPBuckMP 16m16 minutes ago
Karen Buck Retweeted Jo Maugham QC
Warning- original article brings on a severe headache.
Ian Dunt @IanDunt 1m1 minute ago
Breaking: Death in Colnbrook immigration detention centre. Detainee was found unresponsive in his room. He was on "constant" suicide watch.
Andy Slaughter MP @hammersmithandy 4m4 minutes ago
Staggering @HMIPrisonsnews report into Leicester Prison. Inmates unaccounted for. Chaos. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-35589240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
rebeccariots2 wrote:Jo Maugham QC
@JolyonMaugham
Don't force landlords to make homes fit for human habitation because some owner occupied homes aren't says Philip Davies MP.
Jo Maugham QC @JolyonMaugham 22m22 minutes ago
Philip Davies MP does actually perform a useful social function as a walking alarm bell. If he supports it, it's bad policy.
Jo Maugham QC @JolyonMaugham 20m20 minutes ago
If you want to read his argument yourself, you can do so here h/t @nearlylegal (put a penny in the swear jar first). http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article. ... e%20burden" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …Karen Buck @KarenPBuckMP 16m16 minutes ago
Karen Buck Retweeted Jo Maugham QC
Warning- original article brings on a severe headache.
Yes you are right utopian. He's rent a gob Tory style. That's why Jo Maugham says he's a good alarm system for bad policy - if he supports it it will be bad - otherwise he'll be talking it out.utopiandreams wrote:Am I right in thinking that it is Philip Davies who regularly filibusters in the House?
When I saw who had written that, A, I had to check the date because I thought she'd already said this, not that I've read it before.HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ion-morale
Jeremy Hunt must back down – the survival of the NHS depends on it
As I see it, a citizen's income would exclude housing costs, housing benefit would have to continue, at least in this country.utopiandreams wrote:I hate to say it but should a basic citizen's income ever come about there would have to be some restriction on eligibility and/or family size with all the associated issues that it raises, such as the recent third child question for example. I cannot see a completely unlimited free for all as practicable or even desirable in some cases. Apologies for sounding like a Tory, nevertheless I wouldn't like to tell someone, "Computer says no".
I've just taken it. If this is representative of the standard / quality of questions he uses in his polling .... sheesh. They seemed very contradictory and blunt instruments to me.Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 15m15 minutes ago
'Citizen of the World'? 'Nothing to Lose'? Take my survey to find out what kind of referendum voter you are: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/02/wh ... r-are-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Citizen of the world here.rebeccariots2 wrote:I've just taken it. If this is representative of the standard / quality of questions he uses in his polling .... sheesh. They seemed very contradictory and blunt instruments to me.Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 15m15 minutes ago
'Citizen of the World'? 'Nothing to Lose'? Take my survey to find out what kind of referendum voter you are: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/02/wh ... r-are-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Anyway - I'm a 'hard pressed undecided'. I already knew that.
Will there be anyone left to be trained as so many Jnr docs appear to be leaving the NHS?rebeccariots2 wrote:Imposition - it's the new order, doncha know. (Doncha is HuntOsborne speak.)Hospital trusts threatened with cuts if they refuse to impose new contracts
Health Education England says implementation of contract will be key criterion for making decisions on investment in training
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... -contracts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That fragmentation agenda not working out quite as they intended?... none of the 152 foundation trust hospitals in England, which are semi-independent, are legally obliged to force junior doctors to accept the junior contract, the Department of Health admitted last week.
The government had feared trusts could be tempted to offer better terms as a means to recruit enough junior doctors to start as trainees in early August.
In the letter, the HEE chief executive, Prof Ian Cumming, said: “We are not prepared to see a system where a competition based on a local employer’s ability to offer different terms is part of the recruitment process. The recruitment process should be based on patient and service need and quality of training as it always has been.
“Therefore implementation of the national contract will be a key criterion for HEE in making its decisions on our investment in training posts.”...
Well yeah, A, I probably should have stopped at, 'I hate to say this' and especially avoided terms like 'desirable' Who would be the measure of that even if I weren't thinking of ability versus disability?HindleA wrote:Beware "simplification" arguments I want necessary complexity.Basic income would just be that,services control and discretion will replace income,independence and entitlement; especially those with extra needs.Governments of all stripes have long aimed for this,why aid them,IMHO.
At 9% us 'citizens of the world' were the smallest grouping Ashcroft identified, yet seem two a penny here at Flythenest! As I feared, the majority sentiment is, as always, the opposite of mine. We could be going out. Especially as those who have waited decades for the chance to vote out are going to be far more motivated to vote than the younger cohort identified as being vaguely, though not passionately, for "in". The 13% awaiting David Cameron's recommendation just depresses me.HindleA wrote:Citizen of the World, here as well ,apparently.
Oh tinybgoat, you rebeltinybgoat wrote:Tried poll & I'm apparently HTTP 400 - Bad Request.
It's not proposed that it replace housing costs or disability support. So the systems for those still have to exist.Willow904 wrote:I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Basic Income is an idea whose time is coming, it increasingly appears. Though implementation will be far from a piece of cake......
Desperate or what? Good job we're in the EU. Or do I mean NATO? I get so muddled up . . . .RAF jets sent to intercept Russian bombers heading to UK
19 minutes ago
RAF Typhoons have been scrambled to intercept two Russian bombers heading towards UK airspace, the Ministry of Defence has said.
The incident is currently ongoing, a spokeswoman said.
The UK's airspace extends 12 miles from the UK coastline. (BBC News website)
I meant its value for those not claiming housing benefit would disappear in housing, energy and other unavoidable costs. That as long as we have an economy that ensures money is funneled from those who rely on work for their income to those who rely on assets for their income, any money redistributed, in any form, to the former, rapidly ends up in the hands of the latter. As long as people in work struggle to find affordable accommodation, those who don't work and claim housing benefit will be perceived as getting a better deal, even when both are in receipt of a universal income. Providing the biggest cost, as universal housing, as council housing, was kind of a version of universal income except it controlled the value of what was being given - affordable accommodation. People in council housing who worked were clearly better off than those in council housing who didn't work and as long as there was ample council housing and anyone could avail themselves of it if they wanted, it basically worked as a universal basic right to a roof over one's head. We kind of had a good solution to a lot of today's problems until Thatcher destroyed it. Now Cameron is intent on dismantling what small amount of social housing we have left, protecting the wealth of the asset rich, protecting those who have more houses than they need at the expense of everyone else. I just don't see how a small amount of extra money for everyone will change that fundamental imbalance between the landowners and the rest. The biggest change came when councils became landowners on our behalf. We need to do that again.Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's not proposed that it replace housing costs or disability support. So the systems for those still have to exist.Willow904 wrote:I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Basic Income is an idea whose time is coming, it increasingly appears. Though implementation will be far from a piece of cake......
It would be a neat way of nailing universal credit, but can't see it happening.
A universal income is not the first adjustment needed, though it will help when combined with other measures. How do we tackle the impending work crisis? a balance between socially neccessary activity and economically rewarding activity for the majority might be a start to realigning our society, and redressing its shortfalls, and a commensurate but drastic reduction in working hours, along with delinking the individual from notions of productivity, and substituting the notion of contribution. Then combined with a massive programme of building, perhaps some of this could be well supported self build with an eco based emphasis. But most of all getting people to disconnect with the non viable thinking of the last century, which won't work for this one. The problems are different and need different solutions. In this respect the tories are much more mired in the past than any prehistoric lefty thinking.Willow904 wrote:I meant its value for those not claiming housing benefit would disappear in housing, energy and other unavoidable costs. That as long as we have an economy that ensures money is funneled from those who rely on work for their income to those who rely on assets for their income, any money redistributed, in any form, to the former, rapidly ends up in the hands of the latter. As long as people in work struggle to find affordable accommodation, those who don't work and claim housing benefit will be perceived as getting a better deal, even when both are in receipt of a universal income. Providing the biggest cost, as universal housing, as council housing, was kind of a version of universal income except it controlled the value of what was being given - affordable accommodation. People in council housing who worked were clearly better off than those in council housing who didn't work and as long as there was ample council housing and anyone could avail themselves of it if they wanted, it basically worked as a universal basic right to a roof over one's head. We kind of had a good solution to a lot of today's problems until Thatcher destroyed it. Now Cameron is intent on dismantling what small amount of social housing we have left, protecting the wealth of the asset rich, protecting those who have more houses than they need at the expense of everyone else. I just don't see how a small amount of extra money for everyone will change that fundamental imbalance between the landowners and the rest. The biggest change came when councils became landowners on our behalf. We need to do that again.Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's not proposed that it replace housing costs or disability support. So the systems for those still have to exist.Willow904 wrote: I don't think it is even slightly workable without wholesale changes to our entire society and culture. People are struggling because costs, particularly housing costs, are rising faster than incomes. A basic income could be absorbed very rapidly if the imbalance between the asset rich and the asset poor isn't addressed and arguably if you address this imbalance a citizen's income becomes less necessary anyway, especially if you properly honour the basis on which NI is paid - that it insures against lack of work for whatever reason and is a right not some kind of charity.
It would be a neat way of nailing universal credit, but can't see it happening.