Support NeoGAF

[Visualante2]

But that's an easy fix for the government. New rate of minimum wage for people on JSA for 1+ years, stick it at £67 per week at 35h per week. So have a new rate of minimum wage at £1.90/h and call it a day.

And that would be legal would it? Righto.

The dissonance between IDS and DWP has been noted on Twitter. IDS is saying people are working for their benefits. Yet DWP are saying the opposite. Someone is wrong.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

And that would be legal would it? Righto.

The dissonance between IDS and DWP has been noted on Twitter. IDS is saying people are working for their benefits. Yet DWP are saying the opposite. Someone is wrong.

Yes it would be legal as a new rate of minimum wage would be introduced via a finance bill which is primary legislation. No getting around that.

 

[frankie_baby]

But that's an easy fix for the government. New rate of minimum wage for people on JSA for 1+ years, stick it at £67 per week at 35h per week. So have a new rate of minimum wage at £1.90/h and call it a day.

If that's what it takes then I don't doubt the government will introduce such a measure in the next finance bill. However, I know that IDS just wants to get people off the dole and into paid work, any paid work. He knows, like most people, that work creates a positive cycle for people and the economy while sitting on the dole does the exact opposite as it destroys people's confidence and harms the economy.

The community action scheme is not something I personally agree with, but if they do it properly and get young people into the idea of working early in their lives, whether it is paid or voluntary work then that's a good thing. I worked for a charity (British Red Cross) when I was 16 for no money, it's no big deal, people need to put a much larger importance on experience and much less emphasis on money.

Boycotting schemes to get people into work is very destructive, but I expect nothing less of opportunistic lefties.



Employment increased by 154,000 in the previous quarter. There are jobs out there.

How about we just bring back slavery, anyone unemployed more than 6 months the government can just sell them on the cheap to poundland

I mean even slaves had a roof over their heads and got fed, they'll be OK

 

[Visualante2]

How about we just bring back slavery, anyone unemployed more than 6 months the government can just sell them on the cheap to poundland

I mean even slaves had a roof over their heads and got fed, they'll be OK

Instead of buying them up front you simply lease the slave our from the government. It'll really make them appreciate that glorious minimum wage if they're ever lucky enough to be released from their shackles.*

* by those opportunistic** lefties
** fast becoming the new entitled

On my previous point regarding IDS vs. DWP. IDS constantly using volunteering, when in fact it is not the case.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-obriens-explosive-row-with-duncan-smith-67738

I'd love to see his statistics on over 50% of young people getting jobs after doing work experience. Because time and time again he uses "off benefits" instead of actually gaining a job in his metric.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Something something workhouses.

 

[CyclopsRock]

As I've explained before, I don't support workfare, but the idea of comparing someone living on benefits at the expense of taxpayers being asked to work for that expense with slaves who worked literally until they were dead seems fraught with the typically inaccurate historical analogies that the left seems prone to. Guess what happens if I don't go to work?

 

[Jackpot]

the typically inaccurate historical analogies that the left seems prone to.

wat.

 

[Visualante2]

Yeah history and analogies are so unreasonable when you have cold hard emotional reality of my life and how things used to be. Everything would be better if people just thought of the poor companies before their own pathetic excuse of a life.

I don't support workfare, just the ideas behind it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

dp

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah history and analogies are so unreasonable when you have cold hard emotional reality of my life and how things used to be. Everything would be better if people just thought of the poor companies before their own pathetic excuse of a life.

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here.

I don't support workfare, just the ideas behind it.

Is that what I said? I don't even support the ideas behind it. Refusing to equate something to slavery is not the same as supporting it. That's sort of what I'm talking about...

wat.

Slavery. Feudalism. Assaults on a certain class. Apartheid. These tend to get banded about fairly casually when discussing every-day political issues. A similar point is mentioned by Phil Collins (not that Phil Collins) here (originally on the Times website but now behind the paywall.) A choice quote that discusses a similar thing to what I mention:

"It’s the emotional signature of the oppositionalist for whom slogans stand for deeds. He is someone whose moral righteousness only increases the more it falls on deaf ears. The infuriatingly unrealistic nature of his demands should alert you to the fact that, if by some miracle he should succeed, he would lose the cause that animates his moral superiority. What he wants is forever to fall short, so that he can continue, in the torrent of military metaphors that you find on every anti-cuts website, “the fight” or “the struggle”."

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Much like how the rich get "incentives", the middle-class get "tax credits" and the poor get "handouts", it only becomes "CLASS WAR!" when the poor try and stand up for themselves.

Kicking down is the status quo. You better not fucking dare kick up.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I still can't believe they got £22bn in 2000 for 3G. For doing absolutely nothing.

It was during the Great Internet Boom, though. Some absolutely crazy shit went down then, the like of which I don't think we'll see for some time to come.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

So, I was thinking about the Scottish independence poll coming up next year and thought I'd have a quick google for the latest poll on this.

One of the first results shows that 23% of Scottish people are in favour of independence. I was pretty surprised how low this was given the prominence it's had in the news over the past couple of years.

Any Scots on here have an opinion on this? Can anyone really see this changing so significantly to make the outcome a Yes in 2014?

 

[phisheep]

I think that Cait's case will go to European courts, which may end up taking the side of human rights. But I dunno. Will be interesting to see how far it goes. DWP have been incredibly stubborn over the matter, even lying to clients in job centers trying to act like the ruling doesn't affect everyone when it does.

Let's take that one at a time.

Caitlin's case might go to the ECHR. But it's pretty unlikely to do so since the case was decided in her favour on other grounds, and what possible reason is there to appeal a decision that is in your favour? None whatsoever. I'm not sure there's even a mechanism for it. And if there's no chance of a successful appeal, then there's no chance of legal aid, and no chance of external funding, so it ain't gonna happen.

Now, also, the "DWP acting like the ruling doesn't affect everyone when it does" may also be wrong. Caitlin's case was decided on the narrow grounds of the regulations not conforming to the legislation - and as I understand it (haven't had time to research it myself, just what I've tripped over) new regulations were put out on Tuesday to fix that. So they're right, the decision doesn't affect anyone now. Or at least not yet, until someone comes up with a better challenge.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I dunno whether to laugh or cry at a bloke who Recieved an £320k bonus arguing that this "workfare" tosh is anything other than just the latest in a long line of gobshite policies dreamt up by a political class that aren't living in the real world with the rest of us.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I dunno whether to laugh or cry at a bloke who Recieved an £320k bonus arguing that this "workfare" tosh is anything other than just the latest in a long line of gobshite policies dreamt up by a political class that aren't living in the real world with the rest of us.

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/01/28/another-country/

 

[JonnyBrad]

So, I was thinking about the Scottish independence poll coming up next year and thought I'd have a quick google for the latest poll on this.

One of the first results shows that 23% of Scottish people are in favour of independence. I was pretty surprised how low this was given the prominence it's had in the news over the past couple of years.

Any Scots on here have an opinion on this? Can anyone really see this changing so significantly to make the outcome a Yes in 2014?

IMO

Salmond almost certainly knows he can't win. It's a play for more powers to be given to Holyrood.

 

[8bit]

IMO

Salmond almost certainly knows he can't win. It's a play for more powers to be given to Holyrood.

I don't foresee further powers going to Holyrood after this, the parties in favour of the union don't seem to be very forthcoming with their proposals for post-vote scenarios other than Cameron's anti-EU posturing.

Also, I seem to remember that there was something odd about that particular poll. Can't seem to find the backgrounf for it though.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I don't foresee further powers going to Holyrood after this, the parties in favour of the union don't seem to be very forthcoming with their proposals for post-vote scenarios other than Cameron's anti-EU posturing.

Also, I seem to remember that there was something odd about that particular poll. Can't seem to find the backgrounf for it though.

There's people bitching in the comments that it was taking during the fervour of the Olympics/Jubilee last year, but I presumed that since it was from a site called "The Scotsman" it would be, if anything, slightly nationalistic. If anyone has any better, or just more recent polls, feel free to post them.

I think, unless something pretty drastic happens, it's going to be a No. The support just doesn't feel like it's there for full blown independence, however most Scots do say they want more powers for Hollyrood.

 

[8bit]

There's people bitching in the comments that it was taking during the fervour of the Olympics/Jubilee last year, but I presumed that since it was from a site called "The Scotsman" it would be, if anything, slightly nationalistic. If anyone has any better, or just more recent polls, feel free to post them.

I think, unless something pretty drastic happens, it's going to be a No. The support just doesn't feel like it's there for full blown independence, however most Scots do say they want more powers for Hollyrood.

This seems to be the most recent : http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...30/Support-for-independence-bounces-back.aspx

The latest Ipsos MORI Scottish Public Opinion Monitor for the Times shows an increase in support for independence.

In answering the question recommended by the Electoral Commission, "Should Scotland be an independent country?", 34% of those certain to vote in the referendum said they would vote ‘Yes’. This is an increase of four percentage points since October 2012 and bucks recent trends which showed support for independence declining throughout 2012 (from 39% in January 2012 to 30% in October 2012).

Just over half of Scots voters say they would vote ‘No’ in the referendum (55%), down three points since October. One in ten Scots remain undecided (11%), down one point since October.


The poll reveals a considerable surge in support for independence among young people – 58% of 18-24 year olds now say they will vote ‘Yes’, more than double the 27% recorded in October 2012. High levels of support for independence are also found amongst those living in Scotland’s most deprived areas (43%) and men (41%). Meanwhile, support for the Union remains highest among those living in Scotland’s more affluent areas (65%), women (61%) and those aged 55 and over (61%).

Disclaimer, I'm an ex-pat so although I don't have any vote in this I am kind of interested to see how it turns out but I don't have strong feelings either way as I there is very little chance of my ever moving back to Scotland.

In addition, I do tend to read this on and off : http://wingsland.podgamer.com/

It's a nationalist skewed site but I've read Stuart Campbell's journalist works for several years and he is an entertaining writer nonetheless. I didn't much trust the Scottish press when I lived there anyway.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Hm, so it looks like the Scots might become independent in the future once all the oldies die out?

Who would gain the most from such a move?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Hm, so it looks like the Scots might become independent in the future once all the oldies die out?

Who would gain the most from such a move?

<dontsayenglanddontsayenglanddontsayengland...>

Uhh...Wales?

 

[kitch9]

I dunno whether to laugh or cry at a bloke who Recieved an £320k bonus arguing that this "workfare" tosh is anything other than just the latest in a long line of gobshite policies dreamt up by a political class that aren't living in the real world with the rest of us.

Depends on your mindset.

I'm an employer, and if I interviewed a dozen people for a position, I would probably be inclined to pick the person who could demonstrate they were hungriest for work.....

If only one applicant said they had participated in these schemes or done some of the many college courses available to the out of work so they could prove desire and the rest said that they couldn't be bothered / disagreed with them I would avoid employing them as their mindset clearly expects everything to be given to them on a plate, and they don't deal with adversity well.

So, its up to you what you want to portray yourself as, but sometimes you have to do stuff you don't like in order to get what you want and you just have to deal with it. The jobs market is fiercely competitive and if you are struggling to find work, being the guy who rages against the machine ain't going to get you anywhere.

I got up at 6am in the morning on most Saturdays, and through the week on school holidays when I was 14 to work a full day on the markets in town for £15.00 a day. I didn't do it for the money, as it was pitiful, but when I left school at 18 I got the first job I applied for because I had a CV full of people who would give me strong references.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Hm, so it looks like the Scots might become independent in the future once all the oldies die out?

Uh, young people are more likely to vote for big change then old people

so no, that would not be the thing that would make a difference unless you're talking some kind of tribe style virus

 

[CyclopsRock]

Much like how the rich get "incentives", the middle-class get "tax credits" and the poor get "handouts", it only becomes "CLASS WAR!" when the poor try and stand up for themselves.

Kicking down is the status quo. You better not fucking dare kick up.

But you're talking as if they're all the same thing. You don't appreciate how ridiculous the concept of "the poor try to stand up for themselves" is in the context of a situation where their livelihood is paid for by the state, that there's a nationally mandated minimum wage, free education up to the age of 18, no up front payments for further education etc? There are lots of problems that "keep the poor down" and inhibit social mobility, but the idea that it's a result of the poor not standing up for themselves sufficiently as a result of media or governmental pressure is ridiculous.

 

[kitch9]

But you're talking as if they're all the same thing. You don't appreciate how ridiculous the concept of "the poor try to stand up for themselves" is in the context of a situation where their livelihood is paid for by the state, that there's a nationally mandated minimum wage, free education up to the age of 18, no up front payments for further education etc? There are lots of problems that "keep the poor down" and inhibit social mobility, but the idea that it's a result of the poor not standing up for themselves sufficiently as a result of media or governmental pressure is ridiculous.

There's free education if you are out of work too.... You'd be amazed how many people avoid it then expect people to just give them a job when they sit there looking gormless in an interview.

 

[Walshicus]

<dontsayenglanddontsayenglanddontsayengland...>

Uhh...Wales?

We'd all benefit; Scotsmen and Englishmen alike.

 

[Jackpot]

Slavery. Feudalism. Assaults on a certain class. Apartheid. These tend to get banded about fairly casually when discussing every-day political issues. A similar point is mentioned by Phil Collins (not that Phil Collins) here (originally on the Times website but now behind the paywall.) A choice quote that discusses a similar thing to what I mention:

"It’s the emotional signature of the oppositionalist for whom slogans stand for deeds. He is someone whose moral righteousness only increases the more it falls on deaf ears. The infuriatingly unrealistic nature of his demands should alert you to the fact that, if by some miracle he should succeed, he would lose the cause that animates his moral superiority. What he wants is forever to fall short, so that he can continue, in the torrent of military metaphors that you find on every anti-cuts website, “the fight” or “the struggle”."

I don't see how that's exclusive to "the left".

 

[War Peaceman]

We'd all benefit; Scotsmen and Englishmen alike.

If it is the democratic will of the Scottish to be independent, then I agree.


EDIT: This is scummy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/21/david-cameron-aid-military

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't see how that's exclusive to "the left".

It's not, I just think it happens more often there. You get it on the right too, with people talking about being "invaded" by immigrants, or them spreading like a disease. I think it's less likely to vein through a whole thought process, though, I guess because we on the right don't see ourselves as constantly being oppressed. Whilst one shouldn't be drawn in to using personal arguments as fodder, infighting on the left has a habbit of devolving fairly quickly in Monty-Python-esque competitions of who has been oppressed the most. The recent kerfuffle with Suzanne Moore is a perfect example, as is more or less every article Laurie Penny or George Monbiot writes (even the one quoted above - he started it by saying 'I know all about rich people, but I'm not rich myself, honest guv!' and then talked about how inappropriately his expensive private school educated him - a problem that doesn't appear to have hindered his career prospects, however).

 

[CyclopsRock]

EDIT: This is scummy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/21/david-cameron-aid-military

I don't mind that at all. It's been said that Greening has taken a hold of the DFID budget in a pretty impressive way to stop it just feathering the nests of dictators and stooges. The problem, though, is that the budget is ringfenced. Not only is the budget growing, but she's actively barred from spending less because Cameron has promised a percentage figure of our GDP goes on aid. Greening and the whole department find themselves in the bizarre situation whereby their neighbours in the Health, Education and - yes - Defence ministries are cutting wherever they can, whilst they are actively searching for ways to spend the money because they have to spend it. If some more of that goes to our troops to fund their missions that are otherwise not being funded (like the expense of our limited intervention in Mali) which also aids international development, they get no complaints from me.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

We'd all benefit; Scotsmen and Englishmen alike.

You say that with some certainty, but honestly I'm not so sure. Would we really all benefit? Surely if there are "winners" there must be "losers"?

 

[Walshicus]

You say that with some certainty, but honestly I'm not so sure. Would we really all benefit? Surely if there are "winners" there must be "losers"?

Not necessarily. Who lost from the breakup of Czechoslovakia? Both parties gained. Doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Scotland will benefit from a government better able to represent it. England will benefit from a period of introspection and, again a government closer to its citizenry.

 

[phisheep]

We'd all benefit; Scotsmen and Englishmen alike.

... that's as may be, but I can't see there's anything in it for the Welsh ...

 

[CyclopsRock]

I feel towards Scotland kinda how I feel towards the adverts on TV about snow leopards all being hunted. I wish they weren't, but I ain't gonna fucking see one. I don't see them when I'm walking around. If, tomorrow, they announced that all the snow leopards in the world were dead, I still wouldn't be seeing them. Well woop-de-doo.

 

[Walshicus]

... that's as may be, but I can't see there's anything in it for the Welsh ...

It would probably fuel further devolution there.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Any thoughts on the surplus announced today?

 

[Walshicus]

Any thoughts on the surplus announced today?

It's pretty meaningless really, for a number of reasons.

 

[Nicktendo86]

It's pretty meaningless really, for a number of reasons.

Well that was a nice, in depth discussion

Spoiler

joking!

 

[Visualante2]

Let's take that one at a time.

Caitlin's case might go to the ECHR. But it's pretty unlikely to do so since the case was decided in her favour on other grounds, and what possible reason is there to appeal a decision that is in your favour? None whatsoever. I'm not sure there's even a mechanism for it. And if there's no chance of a successful appeal, then there's no chance of legal aid, and no chance of external funding, so it ain't gonna happen.

Now, also, the "DWP acting like the ruling doesn't affect everyone when it does" may also be wrong. Caitlin's case was decided on the narrow grounds of the regulations not conforming to the legislation - and as I understand it (haven't had time to research it myself, just what I've tripped over) new regulations were put out on Tuesday to fix that. So they're right, the decision doesn't affect anyone now. Or at least not yet, until someone comes up with a better challenge.

The DWP said they're going to exhaust every avenue they have so I guess I anticipate it will go higher, I'm looking at it from their side of appeal. I don't know how it works entirely if the judge refuses appeal maybe the government cannot take it to the European Courts. I think the case will get funding whatever, be it from philanthropists or legal aid.. it's not a concern to me. The updated regulations were incorrect and the solicitor has published the memo online and written to the DWP regarding it. I don't know how quick they've been to respond but they certainly tried to imply that the ruling does not affect everyone and that sanctions should not be lifted.

Apologies for being a complete lay person, just figured that if DWP was unhappy with the decision they had the chance to ask higher powers to rule in their favour.

CPAG writes to correct misleading advice to Job Centre staff

CPAG has seen a copy of a DWP circular sent to Job Centre Plus staff on implementing the Reilly and Wilson judgment. This inaccurately tells staff that claimants who have been sanctioned do not have a right of appeal while the case is being considered by the Supreme Court. This is not only misleading, but could lead to people losing their right to appeal against a sanction altogether.

CPAG&#8217;s solicitor has written to the DWP requesting that this advice to DWP staff be corrected: claimants are of course entitled to make appeals against sanction decisions on the basis of the Court&#8217;s decision. The deadline for appealing is one month, which can be extended by an additional 12 months where it is fair and just to do so. However, the Secretary of State does have powers to stay any appeal while the Supreme Court case is ongoing.

A copy of CPAG&#8217;s letter can be downloaded from the link on the right of the page.

 

[phisheep]

The DWP said they're going to exhaust every avenue they have so I guess I anticipate it will go higher, I'm looking at it from their side of appeal. I don't know how it works entirely if the judge refuses appeal maybe the government cannot take it to the European Courts. I think the case will get funding whatever, be it from philanthropists or legal aid.. it's not a concern to me. The updated regulations were incorrect and the solicitor has published the memo online and written to the DWP regarding it. I don't know how quick they've been to respond but they certainly tried to imply that the ruling does not affect everyone and that sanctions should not be lifted.

Apologies for being a complete lay person, just figured that if DWP was unhappy with the decision they had the chance to ask higher powers to rule in their favour.

There aren't all that many higher powers that could intervene in this. There are no grounds for appeal to the ECHR, the ECJ isn't engaged either, so it'll be a good old-fashioned tussle between the government and the Supreme Court. And one which the Supreme Court ought to win by the way, because otherwise we wave goodbye to parliamentary democracy such as it is.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Depends on your mindset.

I'm an employer, and if I interviewed a dozen people for a position, I would probably be inclined to pick the person who could demonstrate they were hungriest for work.....

If only one applicant said they had participated in these schemes or done some of the many college courses available to the out of work so they could prove desire and the rest said that they couldn't be bothered / disagreed with them I would avoid employing them as their mindset clearly expects everything to be given to them on a plate, and they don't deal with adversity well.

So, its up to you what you want to portray yourself as, but sometimes you have to do stuff you don't like in order to get what you want and you just have to deal with it. The jobs market is fiercely competitive and if you are struggling to find work, being the guy who rages against the machine ain't going to get you anywhere.

I got up at 6am in the morning on most Saturdays, and through the week on school holidays when I was 14 to work a full day on the markets in town for £15.00 a day. I didn't do it for the money, as it was pitiful, but when I left school at 18 I got the first job I applied for because I had a CV full of people who would give me strong references.

They need to bring back proper apprenticeships, this tosh the government is peddling is corporate welfare for some of the richest companies on the planet.

 

[CyclopsRock]

They need to bring back proper apprenticeships, this tosh the government is peddling is corporate welfare for some of the richest companies on the planet.

But how do you do that? How can the government "bring them back"? It was never the government that provided them in the first place. The workplace has changed fundamentally since their hey-day. They work well in some industries still, but not many.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Let's talk about Eastleigh.

Does it bode poorly for the Tories if they fail to win (as looks likely)? Afterall, it's a Tory heartland that they'd have held comfortably some 25 years ago before the Lib Dems encroachment into South England. And the outgoing MP has been charged with perverting the course of justice? On the other hand, Cameron has the best poll ratings of any Tory leader mid-term, including thoe that have gone on to win (the only exception being post-Falklands Maggie).

So how important is it for the Tories to win? What if they don't, but do very well? And what impact will UKIP biting at their heels have? Finally, where the fuck are Labour?

 

[Jezbollah]

Surely it cant be categorised as Tory heartland if the previous MP was a Lib Dem?

(bit puzzled by that, given that there's still a large Lib Dem leaning given the straw votes over the past few weeks)



Edit: Yeah, it's not a legitimate Tory target. It's been safely held by the Lib Dems with an average +/-35-40% majority since winning it from the Tories in 1994.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Surely it cant be categorised as Tory heartland if the previous MP was a Lib Dem?

(bit puzzled by that, given that there's still a large Lib Dem leaning given the straw votes over the past few weeks)



Edit: Yeah, it's not a legitimate Tory target. It's been safely held by the Lib Dems with an average +/-35-40% majority since winning it from the Tories in 1994.

You're right, by Tory heartland I meant it's a fairly well off Hampshire constituency with a strong local Tory presence on the ground. These are exactly the sort of seats the Tories need to be winning if they want to bring home a majority in 2 years.

 

[Jezbollah]

You're right. I think the interesting aspect of this Eastleigh contest will be any kind of vote transfer between the Tories and UKIP

 

[CyclopsRock]

The LD's are still firm favourites but the polls have had a bit of a knock today, and I don't suppose it's because of the Tories excellent campaigning...

Eastleigh by-election chances, as implied by bookies (with changes since Friday): Lib Dems 61% (-13), Con 25% (+8), Ukip 12% (+6), Lab 1% (-1), other 1% (0).

 

[Little Old Man]

Meanwhile on my Facebook, a 50 year old man writes:

Can someone please kill all Tory & Lib dem MPs. I HATE the lot of them.

Is this gvt the most evil; since the Nazis in Germany?

Is it? IS IT?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Meanwhile on my Facebook, a 50 year old man writes:




Is it? IS IT?

Reminds me of a post I read on Free Republic where someone said Obama was the biggest National Socialist threat America has faced since FDR.

My brain collapsed into a singularity for a split-second.