Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Defying the odds Theresa ploughs on

12346»

Comments

  • HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    Absolute twaddle.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:


    Well unfortunately there is little alternative to a sanction for job seekers who do not meet the terms of their contract to seek work and turn up to appointments on time

    Really? Has your GP ever refused to see you because you turned up a minute late for the appointment, or your child been turned away from school because they turned up a minute late in the morning? Or does the system somehow manage to find a bit of wiggle-room when its users include middle class people?
    If I see my GP or send my child to school I am the customer not the employee being paid to turn up on time. Plus of course parents can be called in if persistently late anyway and patients fined by surgeries too
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:
    Actually I don't understand his point here. The SNP will vote with Labour, won't they? So that's 3 vs. 3, and the chair is Labour.
    Chair (Labour) only votes to settle a tie (i.e. 2-2 + 1 abstention). So if 3 Tory's vote one way, Chair does not vote, carried 3-2.
    Ah, I see, that makes sense
  • Here's one chap with epilepsy who was sanctioned because he had a seizure and couldn't attend an appointment.

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/dwp-culture-sanction-universal-credit-benefits/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.

    In my experience the #1 reason people are late is that they set off late. By a longshot.

    Not to suggest other reasons aren't possible but they're more likely excuses than reality.

    Have to catch an early train
    Got to be to work by nine
    And if I had an air-o-plane
    I still couldn't make it on time
    'Cause it takes me so long
    Just to figure out what I'm gonna wear
    Blame it on the train
    But the boss is already there
    So address that - maybe some of the unemployed don't realise why punctuality is important, what it means for others, why you need to allow yourself plenty of time to allow for unexpected events etc.. This may all seem obvious to you and me but may not be obvious to those who have not built up good working habits. By all means have sanctions but first we should be trying to help people learn good habits by teaching, advising and helping. Then if they still don't learn have sanctions.

    Any good employer would do that. UC staff should be like a good employer, using some common-sense and judgment not adopting a computer-says-no mentality.
    There are plenty of coaching courses available via job centres, as even you admit that does not negate the need for sanctions
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.

    Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?

    How does it compare with the old signing-on process?

    My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.

    With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
    If that's correct, then it's fairly sh*t - especially if 'short notice' is less than a day or two.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273
    John_M said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:


    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.

    And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
    Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.

    But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
    I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
    9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
    It is trivial because it is nothing compared to the normal variations in GDP. In the 2008/9 crisis the UK economy shrank by 7.2%. That is actual shrinkage, not just a slight reduction in the rate of growth over 15 years. Even the usual quarterly revisions are not far short of the same magnitude as the No Deal projections. Trying to paint is as a disaster is just ludicrous.
    Well I think 2008/9 was a disaster too.

    And incidentally, according to the ONS, UK GDP shrank by 0.3% in 2008 and 4.2% in 2009, so I don't know where you get your 7.2% figure from.
    You have to account for the ~2% trend growth that we forwent(?) in '08 and '09. The economy grew by a minimum of 2.4% from '00 to '07. You can pick your favourite data point. We also had a three year hangover when growth was subdued by historical standards.
    No, sorry, that does not mean "the UK economy shrank by 7.2%" - it shrank by 4.5%.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited December 2018
    Anorak said:

    For anyone interested in the peculiar priorities of Christopher Chope, have a gander at the bills he has personally blocked or filibustered.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope#Blocking_and_filibustering_of_bills

    I believe he says it is to prevent shoddy legislation getting through, as though bills must look like they do on first reading, even though he has also, IIRC from the upskirting one, said he objects to the procedure and doesn't read the contents closely, so if that is so really he doesn't know if they are shoddy legislation or not.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662
    kle4 said:

    TudorRose said:

    kle4 said:

    That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.

    Which is why unless for some reason May and co think that is a good distraction from the whalloping the deal is going to get, it is such an odd thing to resist. We get it, no one wants to provide their legal advice, but everyone assumes it to be terrible sight unseen, it cannot be worse than the imaginations fuelled by the leaks and the summaries.
    I think Cox was making the point that some of the advice might be commercially/nationally sensitive - especially in the context of an ongoing negotiation process. Personally I don't understand why those parts can't be redacted but I'm not a lawyer.
    I thought the whole point was parliament wants none of it omitted or redacted no matter the reason, and since it ordered it the government must comply, even if it is a bad idea.
    Would these be the same people who are describing May's deal as an act of national suicide?!
  • Here's the kicker, IDS said sanctions would help people get into jobs, turns out he was talking bollocks.

    Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

    The public spending watchdog also said use of the sanctions "varies substantially" between jobcentres.

    Sanctions can be imposed on people who fail to comply with conditions attached to the benefits they receive.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    Absolute twaddle.
    No the truth. In Africa people walk for hours a day if they need to
  • As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.

    Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?

    How does it compare with the old signing-on process?

    My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.

    With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
    Is it one strike and you're sanctioned? Or only after multiple issues?
    Am told it is quite regular for one strike and to be sanctioned for a couple of months.

    Only 2 or 3 strikes are needed for a claimant to lose their benefits for three years.

    There's been a few occasions where people have been sanctioned for being at hospital or attending an interview rather than attending their short notice review at a jobcentre plus.
    Then that seems a reasonable thing to reform. Keep sanctions but reflect the world of work by escalating them not going from zero in one bounce.

    In my experience best practice is say:
    Verbal warning, stays on file 3 months.
    Written warning, stays on file 6 months.
    Final written warning, stays on file 12 months.
    Dismissal.

    I'd say an equivalent is:
    Warning
    Final warning
    Small sanction
    Bigger sanction
    Loss of benefits.

    With equivalent increasing timescales before older warning lapse.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:
    Actually I don't understand his point here. The SNP will vote with Labour, won't they? So that's 3 vs. 3, and the chair is Labour.
    Chair (Labour) only votes to settle a tie (i.e. 2-2 + 1 abstention). So if 3 Tory's vote one way, Chair does not vote, carried 3-2.
    That's an odd procedure. I know many old school committee chairman don't like to vote unless there is a tie, but is that actual formal procedure that they cannot in that committee?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.

    Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?

    How does it compare with the old signing-on process?

    My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.

    With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
    Is it one strike and you're sanctioned? Or only after multiple issues?
    Am told it is quite regular for one strike and to be sanctioned for a couple of months.

    Only 2 or 3 strikes are needed for a claimant to lose their benefits for three years.

    There's been a few occasions where people have been sanctioned for being at hospital or attending an interview rather than attending their short notice review at a jobcentre plus.
    The logic goes that you can cancel an short notice review before hand by calling them up if you have a valid reason. Hospital stays are more awkward and would require an appeal but it's not a problem if you can prove you were there.
  • HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    Well unfortunately there is little alternative to a sanction for job seekers who do not meet the terms of their contract to seek work and turn up to appointments on time

    Really? Has your GP ever refused to see you because you turned up a minute late for the appointment, or your child been turned away from school because they turned up a minute late in the morning? Or does the system somehow manage to find a bit of wiggle-room when its users include middle class people?
    If I see my GP or send my child to school I am the customer not the employee being paid to turn up on time. Plus of course parents can be called in if persistently late anyway and patients fined by surgeries too
    But they aren't fined for turning up 1 minute late once which is what we're talking about.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    kle4 said:

    Anorak said:

    For anyone interested in the peculiar priorities of Christopher Chope, have a gander at the bills he has personally blocked or filibustered.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope#Blocking_and_filibustering_of_bills

    I believe he says it is to prevent shoddy legislation getting through, as though bills must look like they do on first reading, even though he has also, IIRC from the upskirting one, said he objects to the procedure and doesn't read the contents closely, so if that is so really he doesn't know if they are shoddy legislation or not.
    He routinely objects to the second reading of every private member's bill, as some quixotic act of principle against their primary use as virtue signals masquerading as bills.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    TudorRose said:

    kle4 said:

    TudorRose said:

    kle4 said:

    That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.

    Which is why unless for some reason May and co think that is a good distraction from the whalloping the deal is going to get, it is such an odd thing to resist. We get it, no one wants to provide their legal advice, but everyone assumes it to be terrible sight unseen, it cannot be worse than the imaginations fuelled by the leaks and the summaries.
    I think Cox was making the point that some of the advice might be commercially/nationally sensitive - especially in the context of an ongoing negotiation process. Personally I don't understand why those parts can't be redacted but I'm not a lawyer.
    I thought the whole point was parliament wants none of it omitted or redacted no matter the reason, and since it ordered it the government must comply, even if it is a bad idea.
    Would these be the same people who are describing May's deal as an act of national suicide?!
    Well, some of them are. Others just want to embarrass the government/assert the will of parliament.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.

    Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.

    As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
    While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    Of course, it's so easy in your world. You're a mother looking to work who has to drop her child off at school first and then catch the one bus/train/tube to get to work. The school opens at X time, it takes 10 mins to walk to the station to catch the train at Y time which will get you to work 7 mins before your start time with 5 mins to get from the train station to work.

    On good days it works fine. But it just takes one or two days for the train to arrive 3 minutes late and stop unannounced for 2 minutes in the middle of the journey because of leaves or weather or signalling or Christ-knows-what and you're 3 minutes late and your employer, HYUFD Limited sacks you for your 3-minute lateness.

    Of course you could get up an hour earlier and turn up at the closed school and dump your child outside and hope nothing bad happens.

    Or you could pray that your employer had a bit of common-sense and would be happy if you made up the time at lunchtime or at the end of the day. Or you could run to work and arrive sweaty and smelly but on time.

    I dunno - it's easy to make rules if you don't actually live in the real world with all its messiness. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I've been that mother (only with 3 kids to get to different schools) and I've been an employer and I've been in a city with good public transport which still managed, at least once a week, to provide some hellish transport experience.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:


    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.

    And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
    Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.

    But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
    I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
    9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
    Well I think 2008/9 was a disaster too.

    And incidentally, according to the ONS, UK GDP shrank by 0.3% in 2008 and 4.2% in 2009, so I don't know where you get your 7.2% figure from.
    You have to account for the ~2% trend growth that we forwent(?) in '08 and '09. The economy grew by a minimum of 2.4% from '00 to '07. You can pick your favourite data point. We also had a three year hangover when growth was subdued by historical standards.
    No, sorry, that does not mean "the UK economy shrank by 7.2%" - it shrank by 4.5%.
    Note that 7.2% is Richard's figure.

    However, you needn't worry about our loss of trend growth forecast after Brexit. The economy won't shrink; it will simply grow more slowly. By your own argument it doesn't matter. Isn't that lovely?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    TudorRose said:

    kle4 said:

    That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.

    Which is why unless for some reason May and co think that is a good distraction from the whalloping the deal is going to get, it is such an odd thing to resist. We get it, no one wants to provide their legal advice, but everyone assumes it to be terrible sight unseen, it cannot be worse than the imaginations fuelled by the leaks and the summaries.
    I think Cox was making the point that some of the advice might be commercially/nationally sensitive - especially in the context of an ongoing negotiation process. Personally I don't understand why those parts can't be redacted but I'm not a lawyer.
    I liked the way the Cox implied that there *might be* commercial or national security concerns. He did not say there were. Which presumably means there aren't.

    That fact that Cox has a great voice really did very little to disguise that it was speaking a load of old bollocks.
    It'll be very interesting to see how he would do when not having to speak bollocks.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Sanctions have certainly driven people to suicide, which reduces the overall jobless rate, so I guess it all works out for IDS in the end.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    HYUFD suggesting you buy a bike in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:



    If you are unemployed in the daytime in the week you should mostly be spending your time preparing and writing job applications anyway

    It is hard to believe with that attitude you repeatedly get rejected by the electorate.

    Some of these people are ill or parents.

    A typical example is the following anonymised list of sanctions reported by food bank clients to the Trussell trust charity:

    1) Man who missed appointment due to being at hospital with his partner, who had just had a stillborn child.

    2) Man sanctioned for missing an appointment at the jobcentre on the day of his brother’s unexpected death. He had tried to phone Jobcentre Plus to explain, but could not get through and left a message which was consequently not relayed to the appropriate person.

    3) Man who carried out 60 job searches but missed one which matched his profile.

    4) Man had an appointment at the jobcentre on the Tuesday, was taken to hospital with a suspected heart attack that day, missed the appointment and was sanctioned for nine weeks.

    5) Man who secured employment and was due to start in three weeks. He was sanctioned in the interim period because JCP told him he was still duty bound to send his CV to other companies.

    6) Young couple who had not received any letters regarding an appointment that was thus subsequently missed. Their address at the Department for Work and Pensions was wrongly recorded. They were left with no money for over a month.

    7) One case where the claimant’s wife went into premature labour and had to go to hospital. This caused the claimant to miss an appointment. No leeway given.

    8) One man sanctioned for attending a job interview instead of Jobcentre Plus – he got the job so did not pursue grievance against the JCP.

    9) Man who requested permission to attend the funeral of his best friend; permission declined; sanctioned when he went anyway.

    10) A diabetic sanctioned and unable to buy food was sent to hospital by GP as a consequence.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/24/benefit-sanctions-trivial-breaches-and-administrative-errors
    I have only stood twice, the last time increasing the voteshare and have done menial jobs myself from working in a plastics factory, to night portering and as a kitchen porter and have even claimed for a few months and always made sure I did my applications and turned up for appointments.

    In any situation you will get mistakes and UC is no exception and I have never once argued that those who are genuinely ill, recently bereaved etc should be sanctioned.

    That does not at all change my point that unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work, you do your applications and you turn up to appointments on time, indeed ideally earlier. Benefits should be a 'handup, not a handout' in the words of Bill Clinton
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    SeanT said:

    You've probably discussed this to death, and I haven't had time to read the threads (flying to Bordeaux tomorrow at 8am, UGH), but my God.

    That advice from the AG, that the TMay deal is a calculated risk??? And the risk is that we might become a permanent vassal state of the EU??? A satrapy, a far flung imperial colony. that's the "calculated risk"?? Sure, vote for that, why not, then just hope for the best.

    FUCK OFF

    The deal is deader than the deadest thing in the Walking Dead. What next?

    I think the risk is more we have to break cover from our holier-than-though reputation and just do what we want.

    There are no deals whatsoever that the British people are obliged to tell their representatives to honor. If we get somehow entrapped in the EU we can just say 'Not for us thanks'. Who's going to object, or at least object so that we care?

    I doubt that you'll look back on the above post with fondness.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasonssts are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned?
    That is what you appear to be suggesting.
    And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
    Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.

    Otherwise tough, that is thns attached
    Evidence is NOT a solution o I give up.
    Even in rural areas it is possible to leave earlier and walk if you cannot find alternative transport
    It is not always possible to walk from rural areas, unless you leave many many hours ahead of time and have an encyclopedic knowledge of public rights away over fields. Not all roads out have pavements you know.

    I'm far from up in arms over universal credit, and the number from those very difficult rural areas may not be very high, but it is not as simple as you suggest.
    It is possible to walk anywhere if you leave early enough and most jobcentres even in rural areas are in market towns or big villages not in a field in the middle of nowhere
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    "walking distance" is a rather odd metric. For periods 25-30 years ago, 'walking distance' was a mile at most. 15 years ago, 'walking distance' was 6,200 miles. ;)

    Mind you, for the latter they'd have to have scheduled the meeting a year in advance ...
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Here's the kicker, IDS said sanctions would help people get into jobs, turns out he was talking bollocks.

    Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

    The public spending watchdog also said use of the sanctions "varies substantially" between jobcentres.

    Sanctions can be imposed on people who fail to comply with conditions attached to the benefits they receive.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401

    If it bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't be voting for these psychopaths.
  • eek said:

    As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.

    Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?

    How does it compare with the old signing-on process?

    My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.

    With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
    Is it one strike and you're sanctioned? Or only after multiple issues?
    Am told it is quite regular for one strike and to be sanctioned for a couple of months.

    Only 2 or 3 strikes are needed for a claimant to lose their benefits for three years.

    There's been a few occasions where people have been sanctioned for being at hospital or attending an interview rather than attending their short notice review at a jobcentre plus.
    The logic goes that you can cancel an short notice review before hand by calling them up if you have a valid reason. Hospital stays are more awkward and would require an appeal but it's not a problem if you can prove you were there.
    I've often said that one of my friend's works for a JCP, she said the system assumes if you miss an appointment you must be a benefit cheat and your benefits get stopped immediately.

    You have spend ages trying to prove your innocence, whilst on no benefits.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:


    Even in rural areas it is possible to leave earlier and walk if you cannot find alternative transport

    LOL.

    No. Really, really, no.

    My parents live in a village to the south of Derby. Their bus service has just been slashed, from once an hour to twice a day. If you do not have access to a car, then it is a two or three hour walk in. That's totally unrealistic, especially if you have children to look after.

    And that's hardly rural; it's only a few miles away from East Midlands Airport ...
    Even two hours walk is not impossible if getting to the job centre should be the main focus of your day
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited December 2018
    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    Do you actually believe that?! What do you consider to be walking distance? Children are expected to be able to walk 3 miles to school (and boy are parents surprised to learn that), so let's double or even triple that as a 'reasonable' walking distance. You think there are no people who are 9-10 miles away from a job centre? Say you walk pretty quickly and there are paved roads the whole way (neither of which is guaranteed), that's 2-2.5 hours at best. More likely given you might be further away, not physically able to walk that fast particularly over fields and paths from rural areas, and you are looking at 3.5 hours or more. I'm all for being pretty tough, but someone's whole day should not be walking to the job centre and back. How is that helpful?

    I don't know why you don't just say the number affected like that will be limited, rather than this insistence that no one will face a situation where they cannot reasonable walk it, which is so provably incorrect.

    It's ok to be wrong sometimes without it meaning your whole argument on UC is wrong you know.
  • Here's the kicker, IDS said sanctions would help people get into jobs, turns out he was talking bollocks.

    Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

    The public spending watchdog also said use of the sanctions "varies substantially" between jobcentres.

    Sanctions can be imposed on people who fail to comply with conditions attached to the benefits they receive.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401

    If it bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't be voting for these psychopaths.
    Yet you're happy to vote this lot.

    Disabled protesters have thrown red paint over Downing Street's gates during a protest against the Government's welfare reforms.

    The group chanted slogans against the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, outside his official residence, Number 10 Downing Street.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41746.stm

    Unlike you, I'm quite prepared to call out my side when they make mistakes.
  • HYUFD said:


    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns

    You must have a very unique definition of 'walking distance'. The nearest Job Centre to me is 22 miles away, much of that distance on twisty, narrow roads with no pavements. Roads that nobody sane would risk walking on.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    A thread for TSE to the tune of Go West. Not a bad effort.
    https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1069701668273618944
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    If Cox and Lidington are suspended, the VONC could be a tie
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Anorak said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    HYUFD suggesting you buy a bike in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
    It worked for Tebbit pater
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited December 2018
    Scott_P said:
    Might as well publish, the vote is lost anyway.

    Whichever way they move the piece, I think it is checkmate now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited December 2018
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    That won't be exceptional in the least. Have you ever been to a rural area? I presume so, but you're acting like you've never moved outside a city limits.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    SeanT said:

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:


    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    Nope that is rubb

    And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
    Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.

    But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
    I am not advoca
    9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
    Well I think 2008/9 was a disaster too.

    And incidentally, according to the ONS, UK GDP shrank by 0.3% in 2008 and 4.2% in 2009, so I don't know where you get your 7.2% figure from.
    You have to account for the ~2% trend growth that we forwent(?) in '08 and '09. The economy grew by a minimum of 2.4% from '00 to '07. You can pick your favourite data point. We also had a three year hangover when growth was subdued by historical standards.
    No, sorry, that does not mean "the UK economy shrank by 7.2%" - it shrank by 4.5%.
    Note that 7.2% is Richard's figure.

    However, you needn't worry about our loss of trend growth forecast after Brexit. The economy won't shrink; it will simply grow more slowly. By your own argument it doesn't matter. Isn't that lovely?
    Predicting growth rates over the next fifteen years, when we are about to undergo the greatest technological revolution in a century or more - robots, AI, VR, driverless, drones, Augmented Reality - is beyond pointless, it's risibly, surreally silly. It's like predicting the single most popular breakfast dish in Australia on the 4th August 2043.
    Oh I don't disagree. But we are, as they say, where we are. Only our membership (or lack thereof) of the EU has any salience on PB.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    Well unfortunately there is little alternative to a sanction for job seekers who do not meet the terms of their contract to seek work and turn up to appointments on time

    Really? Has your GP ever refused to see you because you turned up a minute late for the appointment, or your child been turned away from school because they turned up a minute late in the morning? Or does the system somehow manage to find a bit of wiggle-room when its users include middle class people?
    If I see my GP or send my child to school I am the customer not the employee being paid to turn up on time. Plus of course parents can be called in if persistently late anyway and patients fined by surgeries too
    But they aren't fined for turning up 1 minute late once which is what we're talking about.
    They can be sacked if in temporary work if they turn up a minute late as I have said.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273
    SeanT said:

    You've probably discussed this to death, and I haven't had time to read the threads (flying to Bordeaux tomorrow at 8am, UGH), but my God.

    That advice from the AG, that the TMay deal is a calculated risk??? And the risk is that we might become a permanent vassal state of the EU??? A satrapy, a far flung imperial colony. that's the "calculated risk"?? Sure, vote for that, why not, then just hope for the best.

    FUCK OFF

    The deal is deader than the deadest thing in the Walking Dead. What next?

    Abrogation is always an option. :-)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    HYUFD said:

    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus

    At 3MPH, a reasonable walking pace on the flat on good terrain, you're talking about nearly four hours to walk 11 miles. And the same to come back. If the meeting is half an hour, you're talking about eight hours of walking for a half-hour meeting. And if you have kids or other obligations it's impossible.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Here's the kicker, IDS said sanctions would help people get into jobs, turns out he was talking bollocks.

    Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

    The public spending watchdog also said use of the sanctions "varies substantially" between jobcentres.

    Sanctions can be imposed on people who fail to comply with conditions attached to the benefits they receive.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401

    If it bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't be voting for these psychopaths.
    Yet you're happy to vote this lot.

    Disabled protesters have thrown red paint over Downing Street's gates during a protest against the Government's welfare reforms.

    The group chanted slogans against the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, outside his official residence, Number 10 Downing Street.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41746.stm

    Unlike you, I'm quite prepared to call out my side when they make mistakes.
    Er, what? You think I'm a Blairite?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.

    Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.

    As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
    While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    Of course, it's so easy in your world. You're a mother looking to work who has to drop her child off at school first and then catch the one bus/train/tube to get to work. The school opens at X time, it takes 10 mins to walk to the station to catch the train at Y time which will get you to work 7 mins before your start time with 5 mins to get from the train station to work.

    On good days it works fine. But it just takes one or two days for the train to arrive 3 minutes late and stop unannounced for 2 minutes in the middle of the journey because of leaves or weather or signalling or Christ-knows-what and you're 3 minutes late and your employer, HYUFD Limited sacks you for your 3-minute lateness.

    Of course you could get up an hour earlier and turn up at the closed school and dump your child outside and hope nothing bad happens.

    Or you could pray that your employer had a bit of common-sense and would be happy if you made up the time at lunchtime or at the end of the day. Or you could run to work and arrive sweaty and smelly but on time.

    I dunno - it's easy to make rules if you don't actually live in the real world with all its messiness. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I've been that mother (only with 3 kids to get to different schools) and I've been an employer and I've been in a city with good public transport which still managed, at least once a week, to provide some hellish transport experience.
    If you are a mother you also get child benefit so that is a slightly different scenario but you could of course get a relative or friend to take them to school if no alternative
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Pulpstar said:

    Either the ultra remainers or the hardcore brexiteers are using the other as their useful idiots right now.
    We shall see in time which is which

    I generally find as a pedestrian being on one kerb is fine, being on the other kerb is fine, standing arbitrarily in the road with on coming traffic is not.

    Too often people in politics confuse "the middle" as being safe or rational. Sometimes it's the worst and you are better picking one side or the other. Even if your side loses for now.
    Funnily enough politics and walking along the road don't have too many similarities.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    HYUFD said:

    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus

    At 3MPH, a reasonable walking pace on the flat on good terrain, you're talking about nearly four hours to walk 11 miles. And the same to come back. If the meeting is half an hour, you're talking about eight hours of walking for a half-hour meeting. And if you have kids or other obligations it's impossible.
    Nor a good way to give someone time to focus on getting work and improving their life!
  • Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    Might as well publish, the vote is lost anyway.

    Whichever way they move the piece, I think it is checkmate now.
    The reason Cox gave was that it involves confidential information about other countries an as such is not in the public intetest

    The debate tomorrow is to decide if it should go to the standards committee not a verdict on contempt.

    So even if it passes it is kicking the can down the road time again
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    HYUFD said:

    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus

    At 3MPH, a reasonable walking pace on the flat on good terrain, you're talking about nearly four hours to walk 11 miles. And the same to come back. If the meeting is half an hour, you're talking about eight hours of walking for a half-hour meeting. And if you have kids or other obligations it's impossible.
    Or you've got a dodgy knee. Or it's 5 below zero. Or the appointment is at 9am. Or it's at 5pm.

    Unless we're going full-on Four Yorkshiremen here...
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Here's the kicker, IDS said sanctions would help people get into jobs, turns out he was talking bollocks.

    Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

    The public spending watchdog also said use of the sanctions "varies substantially" between jobcentres.

    Sanctions can be imposed on people who fail to comply with conditions attached to the benefits they receive.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401

    If it bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't be voting for these psychopaths.
    Yet you're happy to vote this lot.

    Disabled protesters have thrown red paint over Downing Street's gates during a protest against the Government's welfare reforms.

    The group chanted slogans against the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, outside his official residence, Number 10 Downing Street.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41746.stm

    Unlike you, I'm quite prepared to call out my side when they make mistakes.
    So you reckon disabled protestors are different to ably-bodied protestors?

    Is a post from a disabled PB poster better than one from an ably-bodied poster?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2018
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    That won't be exceptional in the least. Have you ever been to a rural area? I presume so, but you're acting like you've never moved outside a city limits.
    Yes, I lived and worked in Herefordshire, the most rural county in England for 4 years and even they had buses and the job centres were in the city or market towns and within easy walking distance for over 90% of the county anyway.

    The rest were mainly farmers and would not be claiming unemployment benefits so it would not be an issue
  • SeanT said:

    Omnium said:

    SeanT said:

    You've probably discussed this to death, and I haven't had time to read the threads (flying to Bordeaux tomorrow at 8am, UGH), but my God.

    That advice from the AG, that the TMay deal is a calculated risk??? And the risk is that we might become a permanent vassal state of the EU??? A satrapy, a far flung imperial colony. that's the "calculated risk"?? Sure, vote for that, why not, then just hope for the best.

    FUCK OFF

    The deal is deader than the deadest thing in the Walking Dead. What next?

    I think the risk is more we have to break cover from our holier-than-though reputation and just do what we want.

    There are no deals whatsoever that the British people are obliged to tell their representatives to honor. If we get somehow entrapped in the EU we can just say 'Not for us thanks'. Who's going to object, or at least object so that we care?

    I doubt that you'll look back on the above post with fondness.
    That did actually occur to me after I wrote the post. If it comes to it, we are a sovereign nation, indeed we are not just a sovereign nation, we are the United Kingdom, godammit, so we can just say Fuck You and walk away from whatever. What is the EU gonna do? Invade? With broken German tanks and Guy Verhoefstadt holding a fly swatter?

    Of course our Fuck You would lead to a trade war and be very nasty and probably very bad for our credit rating, but it would not be the end of days. We'd survive.

    Nonetheless the phrase "calculated risk" when attached to the concept of perpetual vassalage is really not very good branding for TMay's deal. I cannot see how it passes.

    Read the German or French press.

    They hate the backstop, as Sean F has pointed out, we get access to the single market without any cost.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited December 2018
    SeanT said:

    Omnium said:

    SeanT said:

    You've probably discussed this to death, and I haven't had time to read the threads (flying to Bordeaux tomorrow at 8am, UGH), but my God.

    That advice from the AG, that the TMay deal is a calculated risk??? And the risk is that we might become a permanent vassal state of the EU??? A satrapy, a far flung imperial colony. that's the "calculated risk"?? Sure, vote for that, why not, then just hope for the best.

    FUCK OFF

    The deal is deader than the deadest thing in the Walking Dead. What next?

    I think the risk is more we have to break cover from our holier-than-though reputation and just do what we want.

    There are no deals whatsoever that the British people are obliged to tell their representatives to honor. If we get somehow entrapped in the EU we can just say 'Not for us thanks'. Who's going to object, or at least object so that we care?

    I doubt that you'll look back on the above post with fondness.
    That did actually occur to me after I wrote the post. If it comes to it, we are a sovereign nation, indeed we are not just a sovereign nation, we are the United Kingdom, godammit, so we can just say Fuck You and walk away from whatever. What is the EU gonna do? Invade? With broken German tanks and Guy Verhoefstadt holding a fly swatter?

    Of course our Fuck You would lead to a trade war and be very nasty and probably very bad for our credit rating, but it would not be the end of days. We'd survive.

    Nonetheless the phrase "calculated risk" when attached to the concept of perpetual vassalage is really not very good branding for TMay's deal. I cannot see how it passes.

    The deal was already dead, they're just killing time until the meaningful vote and the next stage of this farce can begin, as various improbable things have to be considered and some promises, from Labour and the Tories, will either be proven true or to be a big pile of elephant dung.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.

    Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.

    As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
    Are such employers reasonable and fair or something out of Dickens?
    If you on a temporary contract or on probation you can be sacked for anything the employer likes, including being a minute late. Employment rights and whether dismissal was fair and reasonable do not kick in until in permanent employment and having passed your probation period.
    Not true in respect of discrimination - which immediately becomes actionnable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus

    At 3MPH, a reasonable walking pace on the flat on good terrain, you're talking about nearly four hours to walk 11 miles. And the same to come back. If the meeting is half an hour, you're talking about eight hours of walking for a half-hour meeting. And if you have kids or other obligations it's impossible.
    Well if you are unemployed that will be the main focus of your day anyway if you have an appointment to get to
  • Omnium said:

    Here's the kicker, IDS said sanctions would help people get into jobs, turns out he was talking bollocks.

    Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

    The public spending watchdog also said use of the sanctions "varies substantially" between jobcentres.

    Sanctions can be imposed on people who fail to comply with conditions attached to the benefits they receive.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401

    If it bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't be voting for these psychopaths.
    Yet you're happy to vote this lot.

    Disabled protesters have thrown red paint over Downing Street's gates during a protest against the Government's welfare reforms.

    The group chanted slogans against the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, outside his official residence, Number 10 Downing Street.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41746.stm

    Unlike you, I'm quite prepared to call out my side when they make mistakes.
    So you reckon disabled protestors are different to ably-bodied protestors?

    Is a post from a disabled PB poster better than one from an ably-bodied poster?
    No, that's not what I'm saying.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.

    Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.

    As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
    Are such employers reasonable and fair or something out of Dickens?
    If you on a temporary contract or on probation you can be sacked for anything the employer likes, including being a minute late. Employment rights and whether dismissal was fair and reasonable do not kick in until in permanent employment and having passed your probation period.
    Not true in respect of discrimination - which immediately becomes actionnable.
    Yes but turning up late for work is not a matter of discrimination unless applied on racial or sexual grounds
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus

    At 3MPH, a reasonable walking pace on the flat on good terrain, you're talking about nearly four hours to walk 11 miles. And the same to come back. If the meeting is half an hour, you're talking about eight hours of walking for a half-hour meeting. And if you have kids or other obligations it's impossible.
    Well if you are unemployed that will be the main focus of your day anyway if you have an appointment to get to
    What happens if you have young children?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    Well unfortunately there is little alternative to a sanction for job seekers who do not meet the terms of their contract to seek work and turn up to appointments on time

    Really? Has your GP ever refused to see you because you turned up a minute late for the appointment, or your child been turned away from school because they turned up a minute late in the morning? Or does the system somehow manage to find a bit of wiggle-room when its users include middle class people?
    If I see my GP or send my child to school I am the customer not the employee being paid to turn up on time. Plus of course parents can be called in if persistently late anyway and patients fined by surgeries too
    But they aren't fined for turning up 1 minute late once which is what we're talking about.
    They can be sacked if in temporary work if they turn up a minute late as I have said.

    Yeah and a football team would do pretty badly if they only turned up a minute after the game started. Equally irrelevant to what we're talking about.

    We're talking about users of a government service, and we're talking about the difference between services used primarily by the working class vs services used by all classes. People being fired from temporary work for turning up a minute late a) has nothing to do with the government, b) are probably working-class, c) is also wrong (unless their job is extremely time-sensitive, I guess).

    This transparently meaningless whatabouttery is just pathetic. For fuck's sake just make an actual argument for your beliefs or give up.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    @HYUFD
    It is possible to walk anywhere if you leave early enough and most jobcentres even in rural areas are in market towns or big villages not in a field in the middle of nowhere

    @dixiedean

    Check out Hexham JCP. It's area covers Allanheads to Prudhoe, and north to the Scottish Border at Carter Bar.
    It is possible to walk, yes. Not if you are disabled or have children. It may be 100 miles round trip. And there is not a choice of buses. North to South, no trains. It is this area my original post spoke about, in which I made clear I was speaking from my experience.
    So far we have had move house, cycle, walk, catch an earlier non-existent bus, buy a car, as solutions, rather than the more obvious one of not sanctioning people when the only bus of the day doesn't come on time.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    SeanT said:

    Omnium said:

    SeanT said:

    You've probably discussed this to death, and I haven't had time to read the threads (flying to Bordeaux tomorrow at 8am, UGH), but my God.

    That advice from the AG, that the TMay deal is a calculated risk??? And the risk is that we might become a permanent vassal state of the EU??? A satrapy, a far flung imperial colony. that's the "calculated risk"?? Sure, vote for that, why not, then just hope for the best.

    FUCK OFF

    The deal is deader than the deadest thing in the Walking Dead. What next?

    I think the risk is more we have to break cover from our holier-than-though reputation and just do what we want.

    There are no deals whatsoever that the British people are obliged to tell their representatives to honor. If we get somehow entrapped in the EU we can just say 'Not for us thanks'. Who's going to object, or at least object so that we care?

    I doubt that you'll look back on the above post with fondness.
    That did actually occur to me after I wrote the post. If it comes to it, we are a sovereign nation, indeed we are not just a sovereign nation, we are the United Kingdom, godammit, so we can just say Fuck You and walk away from whatever. What is the EU gonna do? Invade? With broken German tanks and Guy Verhoefstadt holding a fly swatter?

    Of course our Fuck You would lead to a trade war and be very nasty and probably very bad for our credit rating, but it would not be the end of days. We'd survive.

    Nonetheless the phrase "calculated risk" when attached to the concept of perpetual vassalage is really not very good branding for TMay's deal. I cannot see how it passes.

    We could of course calm down, have a cup of tea, and then get on with being a pretty cool nation. I feel you may have mislaid you're coolest of shades today.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Anorak said:

    HYUFD said:

    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus

    At 3MPH, a reasonable walking pace on the flat on good terrain, you're talking about nearly four hours to walk 11 miles. And the same to come back. If the meeting is half an hour, you're talking about eight hours of walking for a half-hour meeting. And if you have kids or other obligations it's impossible.
    Unless we're going full-on Four Yorkshiremen here...
    Back in my day parliament was so useless they spent weeks and months discussing impossible and unrealistic options rather than acting like grown ups
    Oh yeah, well in my day they were so useless to government lost a vote by almost 200
    Oh yeah.....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:


    Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.

    As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
    While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    Of course, it's so easy in your world. You're a mother looking to work who has to drop her child off at school first and then catch the one bus/train/tube to get to work. The school opens at X time, it takes 10 mins to walk to the station to catch the train at Y time which will get you to work 7 mins before your start time with 5 mins to get from the train station to work.

    On good days it works fine. But it just takes one or two days for the train to arrive 3 minutes late and stop unannounced for 2 minutes in the middle of the journey because of leaves or weather or signalling or Christ-knows-what and you're 3 minutes late and your employer, HYUFD Limited sacks you for your 3-minute lateness.

    Of course you could get up an hour earlier and turn up at the closed school and dump your child outside and hope nothing bad happens.

    Or you could pray that your employer had a bit of common-sense and would be happy if you made up the time at lunchtime or at the end of the day. Or you could run to work and arrive sweaty and smelly but on time.

    I dunno - it's easy to make rules if you don't actually live in the real world with all its messiness. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I've been that mother (only with 3 kids to get to different schools) and I've been an employer and I've been in a city with good public transport which still managed, at least once a week, to provide some hellish transport experience.
    If you are a mother you also get child benefit so that is a slightly different scenario but you could of course get a relative or friend to take them to school if no alternative
    You're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper tbh.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    That won't be exceptional in the least. Have you ever been to a rural area? I presume so, but you're acting like you've never moved outside a city limits.
    Yes, I lived in Herefordshire, the most rural county in England for 4 years and even they had buses and the job centres were in the city or market towns and within easy walking distance for over 90% of the county anyway.
    It is a lucky man who can say "I have lived in Herefordshire". That's where I grew up. And it is probably the most beautiful, unspoiled county in England and no one ever goes there. Still.

    At the time, as a teenager, I thought it was ineffably boring. Now when I go back I see how lucky I was: surrounded by that intense loveliness. I could walk from my house to totally exquisite rural quietness, by the River Wye, in ten to fifteen minutes.
    Ditto my early life in a market town in the Lakes. Adore going back, despised it and everything about it as a teen.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    The nearest job centre to me would be 7 miles away.

    But if you tried to walk it, along very busy roads with no pvements, you'd be dead in 5.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you on a temporary contract or on probation you can be sacked for anything the employer likes, including being a minute late. Employment rights and whether dismissal was fair and reasonable do not kick in until in permanent employment and having passed your probation period.

    Not true in respect of discrimination - which immediately becomes actionnable.
    This isn’t true anyway. ‘Probation’ means very little in employment law. You can be sacked for any reason apart from protected reasons such as sex, race, etc. In the first 2 years. It is irrelevant if you pass a probationary period or not.
  • New thread
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    I'm a long way behind this discussion, but I'm interested to know how someone who lives in a place where the first bus goes at 9.30am will ever be able to get an ordinary 9 - 5 job. How is that situation dealt with by officialdom?

    Good evening, everyone.
  • NEW THREAD

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Omnium said:

    Here's the kicker, IDS said sanctions would help people get into jobs, turns out he was talking bollocks.

    Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

    The public spending watchdog also said use of the sanctions "varies substantially" between jobcentres.

    Sanctions can be imposed on people who fail to comply with conditions attached to the benefits they receive.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401

    If it bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't be voting for these psychopaths.
    Yet you're happy to vote this lot.

    Disabled protesters have thrown red paint over Downing Street's gates during a protest against the Government's welfare reforms.

    The group chanted slogans against the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, outside his official residence, Number 10 Downing Street.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41746.stm

    Unlike you, I'm quite prepared to call out my side when they make mistakes.
    So you reckon disabled protestors are different to ably-bodied protestors?

    Is a post from a disabled PB poster better than one from an ably-bodied poster?
    No, that's not what I'm saying.
    I'm sure that's not what you're intending to say, but it is what you're saying.
  • kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    Omnium said:

    SeanT said:

    You've probably discussed this to death, and I haven't had time to read the threads (flying to Bordeaux tomorrow at 8am, UGH), but my God.

    That advice from the AG, that the TMay deal is a calculated risk??? And the risk is that we might become a permanent vassal state of the EU??? A satrapy, a far flung imperial colony. that's the "calculated risk"?? Sure, vote for that, why not, then just hope for the best.

    FUCK OFF

    The deal is deader than the deadest thing in the Walking Dead. What next?

    I think the risk is more we have to break cover from our holier-than-though reputation and just do what we want.

    There are no deals whatsoever that the British people are obliged to tell their representatives to honor. If we get somehow entrapped in the EU we can just say 'Not for us thanks'. Who's going to object, or at least object so that we care?

    I doubt that you'll look back on the above post with fondness.
    That did actually occur to me after I wrote the post. If it comes to it, we are a sovereign nation, indeed we are not just a sovereign nation, we are the United Kingdom, godammit, so we can just say Fuck You and walk away from whatever. What is the EU gonna do? Invade? With broken German tanks and Guy Verhoefstadt holding a fly swatter?

    Of course our Fuck You would lead to a trade war and be very nasty and probably very bad for our credit rating, but it would not be the end of days. We'd survive.

    Nonetheless the phrase "calculated risk" when attached to the concept of perpetual vassalage is really not very good branding for TMay's deal. I cannot see how it passes.

    The deal was already dead, they're just killing time until the meaningful vote and the next stage of this farce can begin, as various improbable things have to be considered and some promises, from Labour and the Tories, will either be proven true or to be a big pile of elephant dung.
    Jon Craig of Sky suggested that six amendments will be taken by the speaker and one of them could pass, negating the vote on the deal. He did not say but as Nicola Sturgeon has again been with TM tonight, and Nicola wants a Norway deal, it could just be that is the amendment that will change the debate and should receive cross party support with all the SNP on board
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    For my son it was about the same distance - with not very good transport links.

    He was off work with depression, anxiety and manifestations of Agoraphobia.

    He was told to turn up anyway and some doctor on behalf of the state who had never seen him decided he was both ok to work and travel to job centre and his benefits were cut.

    Strange that this guy knew more than the lads gp, but hey ho.

    So we paid out of our pockets to keep him afloat and in the mean time his mental health deteriorated.

    Had to go to tribunal (he required financial support for months) - we took him there and back and supported him - he did really well but was grey from anxiety and physically shaking like a leaf.

    Strangely the panel found he was unfit pdq.

    He was lucky in that his parents could support him, others will not be that lucky - btw - he was told to "borrow from friends and family " until his tribunal

    What a world eh

    This is not my only experience of tribunals - I don't even think its politics but people who really couldn't give a toss.

  • dixiedean said:

    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.

    I don't believe a claimant is getting sanctioned because of one bus a day.

    If there was one bus a day presumably it sets off in the morning so you can get to work. Presumably there is a return bus so you can get back. With a full work day in between.

    But if you're going in just for a meeting what are you supposed to do? Get in before the start of the work day? If so why are you late unless you were due first thing? And what do you do with the rest of your day? Have a meeting then 8 hours kicking your heels waiting for return bus?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    That won't be exceptional in the least. Have you ever been to a rural area? I presume so, but you're acting like you've never moved outside a city limits.
    Yes, I lived and worked in Herefordshire, the most rural county in England for 4 years and even they had buses and the job centres were in the city or market towns and within easy walking distance for over 90% of the county anyway.

    The rest were mainly farmers and would not be claiming unemployment benefits so it would not be an issue
    Herefordshire is more rural than Northumberland? As I said. Hexham JCP covers an area bigger than Herefordshire. And it is the only one.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Let's take my village in Cumbria. The nearest job centre is in the nearest city - Barrow - some 21 miles away, a good 50 minutes along country roads by car, to be certain of getting there allow an hour, maybe a bit more to get there and find parking.

    Walking - about 7 hours there - and 7 hours back. I'm sure HYUFD does those sorts of walks in a day regularly.

    By bike - dunno - but say, over 2 hours, there and 2 hours back.

    By public transport: well a walk to the local station is about 20 minutes and there is one train an hour which takes 45 minutes and then another walk or bus to the job centre. If the train does not come you're stuffed. There are no buses.

    Some may have noticed that there were problems with Northern Rail this year. A big issue in Cumbria but not one which made it to the London-based papers. Who cares about unemployed rural Cumbrians after all.....

    So easy peasy really......

    About the only time I have really rooted for Corbyn was when he spoke up about rural bus services at PMQs - doubtless to the derisive condescension of many. But not me - because this sort of boring every day stuff, the minutiae of most people's lives, which can make life pleasant or tolerable or like an endless exhausting battle, is what matters to a lot of people.

    And while I have no time for scroungers I do understand from my own life and that of people close to me that when you're down you need practical help not lectures and punishments and sometimes a little kindness does not go amiss not sanctioning people and then spouting statistics. What can seem easy to those of us who can cope can seem like an unsurmountable mountain to those who can't.

    Yes people need to make an effort and develop a work ethic etc etc. Plunging them into poverty without thinking is not the best way to get them where you want them to be.

  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    Hmm. I consider myself a bit of a walker, but I doubt if there are a dozen days on which I've walked 22 miles in a day.

    How about you?


  • Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns

    I live in Ullapool, the largest village for 45 miles in any direction. My nearest job centre is in Inverness according to the job centre website which is 57.3 miles away. Would you walk there for a job centre interview HYUFD?
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.

    In my experience the #1 reason people are late is that they set off late. By a longshot.

    Not to suggest other reasons aren't possible but they're more likely excuses than reality.

    Have to catch an early train
    Got to be to work by nine
    And if I had an air-o-plane
    I still couldn't make it on time
    'Cause it takes me so long
    Just to figure out what I'm gonna wear
    Blame it on the train
    But the boss is already there
    So address that - maybe some of the unemployed don't realise why punctuality is important, what it means for others, why you need to allow yourself plenty of time to allow for unexpected events etc.. This may all seem obvious to you and me but may not be obvious to those who have not built up good working habits. By all means have sanctions but first we should be trying to help people learn good habits by teaching, advising and helping. Then if they still don't learn have sanctions.

    Any good employer would do that. UC staff should be like a good employer, using some common-sense and judgment not adopting a computer-says-no mentality.
    Agreed. Escalating steps leading to sanctions is reasonable. I wouldn't go there as first step unless there is some horrific red card/gross misconduct offence ... and I can't imagine what that would be other than frauds.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    That won't be exceptional in the least. Have you ever been to a rural area? I presume so, but you're acting like you've never moved outside a city limits.
    Yes, I lived and worked in Herefordshire, the most rural county in England for 4 years and even they had buses and the job centres were in the city or market towns and within easy walking distance for over 90% of the county anyway.

    The rest were mainly farmers and would not be claiming unemployment benefits so it would not be an issue
    Try finding a regular bus in villages such as Burrington, Pudlestone or Craswall. I presume you lived near a large village that could sustain an hourly bus service.

    The policy is if in doubt to be cruel to benefits claimants in the hope that they won't know about tribunals and their right to appeal. There've been other cases like a man who was sanctioned because a letter arrived while he was away at a relative's funeral. The new rules say that if this happens, giving the DWP an apology and a reason for not attending are invalid; the benefit stops and one must appeal. Meanwhile one may become destitute and need food banks.

    It makes Thatcher et al look like Mother Theresa.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completely untrue. As an experiment I have googled the nearest job centre to my parents house. My parents live in a rural area.

    It is over 11 miles away.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    Hmm. I consider myself a bit of a walker, but I doubt if there are a dozen days on which I've walked 22 miles in a day.

    How about you?
    Ha.

    The last time for me was the 2015 election. 27 miles on election day. That exit poll made it all worthwhile...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus

    At 3MPH, a reasonable walking pace on the flat on good terrain, you're talking about nearly four hours to walk 11 miles. And the same to come back. If the meeting is half an hour, you're talking about eight hours of walking for a half-hour meeting. And if you have kids or other obligations it's impossible.
    Well if you are unemployed that will be the main focus of your day anyway if you have an appointment to get to
    What happens if you have young children?
    You get a relative or friend to look after them during that time but of course you will get child benefit anyway regardless
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    Well unfortunately there is little alternative to a sanction for job seekers who do not meet the terms of their contract to seek work and turn up to appointments on time

    Really? Has your GP ever refused to see you because you turned up a minute late for the appointment, or your child been turned away from school because they turned up a minute late in the morning? Or does the system somehow manage to find a bit of wiggle-room when its users include middle class people?
    If I see my GP or send my child to school I am the customer not the employee being paid to turn up on time. Plus of course parents can be called in if persistently late anyway and patients fined by surgeries too
    But they aren't fined for turning up 1 minute late once which is what we're talking about.
    They can be sacked if in temporary work if they turn up a minute late as I have said.

    Yeah and a football team would do pretty badly if they only turned up a minute after the game started. Equally irrelevant to what we're talking about.

    We're talking about users of a government service, and we're talking about the difference between services used primarily by the working class vs services used by all classes. People being fired from temporary work for turning up a minute late a) has nothing to do with the government, b) are probably working-class, c) is also wrong (unless their job is extremely time-sensitive, I guess).

    This transparently meaningless whatabouttery is just pathetic. For fuck's sake just make an actual argument for your beliefs or give up.
    We are talking about people being paid by taxpayers on the basis they make sufficient job applications and turn up for appointments on time.

    If they get in the habit of always turning up on time they will be able to hold even a temporary job
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    dixiedean said:

    @HYUFD
    It is possible to walk anywhere if you leave early enough and most jobcentres even in rural areas are in market towns or big villages not in a field in the middle of nowhere

    @dixiedean

    Check out Hexham JCP. It's area covers Allanheads to Prudhoe, and north to the Scottish Border at Carter Bar.
    It is possible to walk, yes. Not if you are disabled or have children. It may be 100 miles round trip. And there is not a choice of buses. North to South, no trains. It is this area my original post spoke about, in which I made clear I was speaking from my experience.
    So far we have had move house, cycle, walk, catch an earlier non-existent bus, buy a car, as solutions, rather than the more obvious one of not sanctioning people when the only bus of the day doesn't come on time.

    I did say in the first place if you could produce evidence the bus was late from the bus company that would be an valid excuse, you could still get up earlier to try and avoid such problems and get an earlier bus
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    AnneJGP said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    I'm a long way behind this discussion, but I'm interested to know how someone who lives in a place where the first bus goes at 9.30am will ever be able to get an ordinary 9 - 5 job. How is that situation dealt with by officialdom?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Presumably they live in an area so rural they would be working on a local farm, in a village pub or school or post office anyway
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709



    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns

    I live in Ullapool, the largest village for 45 miles in any direction. My nearest job centre is in Inverness according to the job centre website which is 57.3 miles away. Would you walk there for a job centre interview HYUFD?


    There are ferries from Ullapool to Inverness as well as buses
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly beher
    Yes, of course you caay.
    If ot
    No wse.
    Well if you get evidence the bus bched
    While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
    As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
    I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
    Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
    That is completelyaway.
    11 miles is still walkable even in your exceptional case or get up early and get the first bus
    That won't be exceptional in r moved outside a city limits.
    Yes, I lived and worked in Herefor the county anyway.

    The rest were mainly farmers and would not be claiming unemployment benefits so it would not be an issue
    Try finding a regular bus in villages such as Burrington, Pudlestone or Craswall. I presume you lived near a large village that could sustain an hourly bus service.

    The policy is if in doubt to be cruel to benefits claimants in the hope that they won't know about tribunals and their right to appeal. There've been other cases like a man who was sanctioned because a letter arrived while he was away at a relative's funeral. The new rules say that if this happens, giving the DWP an apology and a reason for not attending are invalid; the benefit stops and one must appeal. Meanwhile one may become destitute and need food banks.

    It makes Thatcher et al look like Mother Theresa.
    If you cannot get an hourly bus get an earlier one

    I have said bereavement should be a fair reason (if away get someone to check and contact you cannot wait for an appeal and need to contact the job centre.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.

    And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
    Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.

    But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
    I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
    9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
    It is trivial because it is nothing compared to the normal variations in GDP. In the 2008/9 crisis the UK economy shrank by 7.2%. That is actual shrinkage, not just a slight reduction in the rate of growth over 15 years. Even the usual quarterly revisions are not far short of the same magnitude as the No Deal projections. Trying to paint is as a disaster is just ludicrous.
    Well I think 2008/9 was a disaster too.

    And incidentally, according to the ONS, UK GDP shrank by 0.3% in 2008 and 4.2% in 2009, so I don't know where you get your 7.2% figure from.
    Peak to trough. According to the ONS between the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009 GDP fell by 7.2% peak to trough.

  • Try finding a regular bus in villages such as Burrington, Pudlestone or Craswall. I presume you lived near a large village that could sustain an hourly bus service.

    The policy is if in doubt to be cruel to benefits claimants in the hope that they won't know about tribunals and their right to appeal. There've been other cases like a man who was sanctioned because a letter arrived while he was away at a relative's funeral. The new rules say that if this happens, giving the DWP an apology and a reason for not attending are invalid; the benefit stops and one must appeal. Meanwhile one may become destitute and need food banks.

    It makes Thatcher et al look like Mother Theresa.

    I must admit much as I like some of the ideas behind UC it is beyond the pale to defend cutting benefits because people are a few minutes late for an appointment. Any company that behaved like that would be out of business pretty quickly.
This discussion has been closed.