Joe Biden is drifting like a barge atm. There's a juicy 3.65 available for those who (unlike me) think he's overwhelmingly likely to be the DEM candidate. Donald Trump is the lay of lays at 2.66. You just have to have some of that.
It feels to me like any hope of an alternative candidate to Trump is futile and wishful thinking.
I can’t see any way in which he doesn’t win the primaries, unless one of the many prosecutors can actually put him in prison with no phone and no rallies - and even then, there’s little evidence that locking him up will impact his popularity among the primary voters.
Only a Convention stitch-up is going to prevent his nomination.
They can't even do that as he'd stand as an independent and guarantee that the Republicans lose. So their choice is 50% chance (or maybe more) of winning with him vs 0% without him.
He couldn't do that. The laws on candidate registration prevent too sore-loser candidates running as independents in too many states. He simply couldn't get onto the ballots.
But the scenario is false. The notion that a convention can stitch up a nomination for someone who primary voters wanted is more than half a century out of date. I don't know the last time that actually happened - the Democrats in 1968 possibly, though there were special circumstances there. But pretty much every state holds primaries now, which they didn't then, and delegates are tied in ways they weren't then, and even if they weren't, the overwhelming majority of delegates would be hard-core Trumpites. It's not a gathering of the great and good.
Unless Trump dies or is incapacitated to such an extent that even his supporters recognise he can't run, it's almost certain he gets the nomination. The legal cases will probably drag out too long to impact and even then, primaries play to the base, and the base is his.
I doubt it, she is too moderate for most Republicans in their current moo. Trump also has such a big lead in state and primary polls hard to see that being overturned.
It’s true. Republican voters can be pretty bovine.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
Contracts offer larger wage increases than UAW workers have received in the past 22 yrs combined.
Close-ish vote likely due to very high expectations from members..
Will he get any thanks though?
America economy is doing pretty good yet ordinary joes are fed up and negative and think everything is going to shit economy wise. The polls just dont match the finance situation.
There’s a lot more American people primarily feeling the negative effects of cumulative inflation, than there are feeling the positive effects of the economic recovery, even if on paper growth is up and inflation is down.
Same here, feeling the negative effects of cumulative inflation, but with the addition of no economic recovery.
It's the main reason that the polls are where they are.
And the impact of current tax policy won't help: some perhaps surprising graphs here:
Not surprising, but probably is to many in the electorate. Labour (and others) should be giving them hell on this as it's big tax rises for people near the thresholds who are not earning more in real terms. Those going over £50k are also hit by the child benefit withdrawal/tax too. That was painful enough a few years ago for us, but at least it as due to promotion and actual pay rises. People are going to get sucked into that now without even earning more in real terms. Not to mention those at the low income end getting taxed on a higher share of their income, again despite no real terms increase.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
We all know its
… boredom? Probably
There are too many people here weirdly keen to talk to me. That suggests not many outsiders and a lot of boredom
And yet it is intensely seductive. M’pai right now. Rush hour
Love the school desks in the sand vibe
I must be getting old because I can imagine doing a whole winter here. January March. I’d probably get excited by the cement bag delivery
Got yer tinnie there I see. Did they not have Tenants?
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
We all know its
… boredom? Probably
There are too many people here weirdly keen to talk to me. That suggests not many outsiders and a lot of boredom
And yet it is intensely seductive. M’pai right now. Rush hour
Love the school desks in the sand vibe
I must be getting old because I can imagine doing a whole winter here. January March. I’d probably get excited by the cement bag delivery
Got yer tinnie there I see. Did they not have Tenants?
Why would you spoil perfection by drinking Tennents?
On topic the reason I think Trump isn't nailed-on is, apart from the possibility that he'll be dead or in prison, is:
1) Primary voters in early states do surprising things 2) Nothing succeeds like success 3) The media love a horse race, even Fox News 4) There are a lot of people who are nominally supporting Trump who would really like it if he'd go away
I think Nikki Haley would the most likely of the pack to do it: She negotiated the Trump situation quite cannily and was one of the only people who got through it without either hopeless alienating the Trumpists or destroying her reputation with everyone else.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
Pensioners:young people. Predators:prey
Those with mental health problems in particular are likely to become worse as they fear losing benefits and falling into destitution. What happens if the person is unable to sustain any work . Perhaps the government is hoping the suicides pile up and they get rid of the problem . This government is utterly loathsome .
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
Pensioners:young people. Predators:prey
Those with mental health problems in particular are likely to become worse as they fear losing benefits and falling into destitution. What happens if the person is unable to sustain any work . Perhaps the government is hoping the suicides pile up and they get rid of the problem . This government is utterly loathsome .
More likely the government believes its own propaganda, that there are hundreds of thousands of workshy trots claiming the dole and going on demos, who could easily find work as college bedmakers to the Brideshead crowd at Oxford.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
I doubt it, she is too moderate for most Republicans in their current moo. Trump also has such a big lead in state and primary polls hard to see that being overturned.
It’s true. Republican voters can be pretty bovine.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
Pensioners:young people. Predators:prey
It is, shall we say, interesting how certain groups of people require firmness and cajoling by law or punishment, whereas others have to be treated with kid gloves. Like how rich people paying more tax does not work and is unfair, but poorer people paying tax totatally does and totally is.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
Pensioners:young people. Predators:prey
Those with mental health problems in particular are likely to become worse as they fear losing benefits and falling into destitution. What happens if the person is unable to sustain any work . Perhaps the government is hoping the suicides pile up and they get rid of the problem . This government is utterly loathsome .
They only lose benefits if they refuse to look for any work or turn down job offers, which is fair enough.
In some countries like the US if you are out of work after 6 months you lose all benefits beyond food stamps if you have children unless have a proven disability meaning you cannot do any work.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
It does appear that way. "UN says X" makes for a good headline, but who are these people, what resources do they have, what is their remit?
I doubt it, she is too moderate for most Republicans in their current moo. Trump also has such a big lead in state and primary polls hard to see that being overturned.
It’s true. Republican voters can be pretty bovine.
And if Trump did lose the nomination somehow he would almost certainly run as an independent, which would ironically help Biden as he could be re elected with just 40% of the vote
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
It does appear that way. "UN says X" makes for a good headline, but who are these people, what resources do they have, what is their remit?
I always wonder how they get the gig. All major Governments must get irritated at this sort of report, so you’d think they would club together to make all these role full of dull, easy to manipulate people.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
He was president for a short time in 2021.
There are ways round the term limits. In fact, strictly speaking, there is no term limit on the US presidency. There is a limit on how many times someone can be *elected* to the presidency.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
He was president for a short time in 2021.
There are ways round the term limits.
To that point, in about nine months can Biden not just “concede” the last election? We can all then say “sorry mate, but term limits mean you’ve had your two”.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
It does appear that way. "UN says X" makes for a good headline, but who are these people, what resources do they have, what is their remit?
For example, you had Professors John Dugard and Richard Falk appointed as SR’s on the Occupied Territories, who utterly loathe the existence of Israel (and in the case of the latter, is actually anti-Semitic), and who were quite incapable of reporting objectively.
They’re entitled to their opinions, but why must the UN lend its authority to them?
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
I agree. KRS is the closest I've been to paradise, apart from the mosquitos. I spent a couple of weeks writing once. No distractions, gorgeous weather and a stunning beach. It was perfect.
Ooh. You’ve been here? Where did you stay? What beach? What season?
Do you think you could have endured 2 months without hanging yourself?
A serious question. I normally go to Bangkok in the winter but hmmmmm
I stayed in January 2019. I stayed in a guesthouse called (iirc) Mr Song's Guesthouse. It was cheap, it had reasonable wifi, it was about five minutes' walk from the beach and he was a pretty good cook. Also it was concrete not wood, so that kept the mosquitoes out to some extent. There was another guesthouse across the street run by a couple of Englishmen where I'd go for a mug of Yorkshire tea and some English conversation.
With enough good books on my Kindle I could have stayed until the rainy season started. But I'm like that.
I still remember the first words from another traveller as I got off on the jetty a few yards from your photo - "Welcome to Paradise". For once, that wasn't hyperbole.
I'm going to be in Singapore in a couple of weeks. Remembering all this tempts me to head back to KRS for the winter instead of the Philippines, which I was vaguely planning.
For some reason there’s a whole load of weird US media stories overnight.
1. X/Twitter is suing campaign group Media Matters, for platform manipulation and tortuous interference. This is the group that have been lobbying advertisers to boycott the platform, allegedly by falsifying connections between adverts, posted content, and relationships between them. https://deadline.com/2023/11/elon-musk-lawsuit-twitter-ads-1235630087/
Are we seeing the start of the mainstream and alternative media outlets trying to shut each other down ahead of the election, or a flash in the pan that gets resolved quickly?
None of those you list involved in bringing lawsuits are exactly renowned for a close relationship with the truth.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
He was president for a short time in 2021.
There are ways round the term limits.
To that point, in about nine months can Biden not just “concede” the last election? We can all then say “sorry mate, but term limits mean you’ve had your two”.
He can say what he likes. It's Congress and the Supreme Court which will decide what counts.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
It does appear that way. "UN says X" makes for a good headline, but who are these people, what resources do they have, what is their remit?
For example, you had Professors John Dugard and Richard Falk appointed as SR’s on the Occupied Territories, who utterly loathe the existence of Israel (and in the case of the latter, is actually anti-Semitic), and who were quite incapable of reporting objectively.
They’re entitled to their opinions, but why must the UN lend its authority to them?
How many UN states have an easy relationship with antisemites?
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
He was president for a short time in 2021.
A very short time, he has talked about times well after that.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
Sorry but if the sentences were for protesting as opposed to scaling the Dartford Bridge and bringing traffic to a halt for almost two days, it might indeed stifle freedom of expression and the UN might have a point. As they weren't, it doesn't.
Now the UN can either spend the time protesting against Chinese gulags or Iranian prisons or sod off.
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
Leon’s back. Can we be nicer to him today? He’s trying very hard and, in the circumstances, doing okay.
Leon, I’m proud of you. The way you get knocked down on here, but keep coming back despite everything, is inspirational.
Thanks. You’re still a simpleton, but “the admiration of a fool is better than gold from a rich man”
That’s an old Khmer saying which I just made up
Send me a large ingot, and you'll have my deep admiration.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
Pensioners:young people. Predators:prey
I don’t see what pensioners have actually done to deserve this invective other than cashing the cheques. Would the young people you're defending turn down money? I wouldn't.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
They weren’t jailed for exercising their right to free speech, they were jailed for forcing the closure of one of the busiest roads on the country for two days, at a cost to the operator of c.£1m in toll revenue, plus countless millions more in traffic that was disrupted, appointments that were missed, journeys that were not undertaken etc.
Perhaps these UN idiots should best focus their ire on actual freedom of speech issues?
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
I thought that on seeing (on television) Cliff Richard's Caribbean hideaway with its unrestricted view of the ocean from his bed. What do you look at after the first ten minutes?
We have a sea view. It used to be the first thing I looked at each morning. Now it’s just a view.
So even sea views get boring
I guess it’s true of everything. That’s the restless human spirit
As Pascal said, so much trouble stems from the fact humans can’t just sit in a room, quietly
My parents' house in Guernsey had a sea view from the top floor. I never tired from the view from my bedroom - the sweep of the bay, the view across to the other islands and the French coastline in the distance. Sunlight glinting on the surface, waves one day, calm the next as the wind changed direction. Boats bobbing about in the small harbour at the end of the road - or beached when the tide was out. It was always different.
At night, it was just as fascinating - the curve of the street lights along the bay, navigation beacons blinking, the distant shimmering glow of the Cap Flamanville nuclear power station.
I never stayed there for longer than 2 months at a stretch - would I have tired of it eventually? I don't know, but I suspect not.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
He was president for a short time in 2021.
There are ways round the term limits. In fact, strictly speaking, there is no term limit on the US presidency. There is a limit on how many times someone can be *elected* to the presidency.
Indeed. He could run for VP and the President resign. Not sure if there are term limits for a VP
For some reason there’s a whole load of weird US media stories overnight.
1. X/Twitter is suing campaign group Media Matters, for platform manipulation and tortuous interference. This is the group that have been lobbying advertisers to boycott the platform, allegedly by falsifying connections between adverts, posted content, and relationships between them. https://deadline.com/2023/11/elon-musk-lawsuit-twitter-ads-1235630087/
Are we seeing the start of the mainstream and alternative media outlets trying to shut each other down ahead of the election, or a flash in the pan that gets resolved quickly?
None of those you list involved in bringing lawsuits are exactly renowned for a close relationship with the truth.
So no, that's not what we're seeing.
Still, it gave me a small laugh to hear Trump and Paxton talk about "potentially fraudulent activity". And Musk's lawsuits tend to be as successful as the first test flight of a new SpaceX rocket design - the difference being that he doesn't seem to learn anything from them.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
He was president for a short time in 2021.
There are ways round the term limits. In fact, strictly speaking, there is no term limit on the US presidency. There is a limit on how many times someone can be *elected* to the presidency.
Indeed. He could run for VP and the President resign. Not sure if there are term limits for a VP
The Putin manoeuvre: swapping posts and powers between prime minister and president to defeat term limits.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
Odd to try to justify a scheme to force people to work from home by talking about their duty "if they are able to go out to work". (?)
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
We all know its
… boredom? Probably
There are too many people here weirdly keen to talk to me. That suggests not many outsiders and a lot of boredom
And yet it is intensely seductive. M’pai right now. Rush hour
Love the school desks in the sand vibe
I must be getting old because I can imagine doing a whole winter here. January March. I’d probably get excited by the cement bag delivery
Got yer tinnie there I see. Did they not have Tenants?
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
Pensioners:young people. Predators:prey
I don’t see what pensioners have actually done to deserve this invective other than cashing the cheques. Would the young people you're defending turn down money? I wouldn't.
Block votes for an inept governing party in exchange for the cheques.
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
I thought that on seeing (on television) Cliff Richard's Caribbean hideaway with its unrestricted view of the ocean from his bed. What do you look at after the first ten minutes?
We often go to the same chalet on Cornwall's south coast for our summer holiday and it has a beautiful view right along the coast from Rame Head to Looe and beyond. I never get tired of looking at the view. Maybe it's because I grew up near the sea, but I always find myself drawn to the ocean and find its shifting moods and pallets endlessly fascinating.
This has been the view from our house for the past 13 years (well the mist comes and goes, obvs). I never thought we'd get bored with it and that's true...-ish, but we do find ourselves taking it for granted sadly.
On the plus side, we've enjoyed it for that time and we'll be moving on next year for a new project. Time to let someone else enjoy the view.
That’s beautiful
I’m trying to guess where. But it could be multiple places in southern England. Dorset? Sussex? Somerset?
Dorset, in the Blackmore Vale, Melbury Beacon in the distance.
Any more clues and you'll all be turning up to our Christmas drinks!
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
Well the view from my reading chair is splendid this morning and, after 10 years, still full of interest… this time of year the tup in the field is doing his business… over a 60 minute cycle it’s shag, eat, gaze at and sniff the the next ewe in line, shag, eat, rest…
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
The ratchet was clearly designed by someone mathematically illiterate - three sequences should be tracked, one 2.5% compounding nominal from 2010, a prices growth chart (CPI I'd assume) and an average earnings sequence. The state pension can then leap about between the best of the three, or just remain as is for a few years if both prices and earnings drop in a year. The ratchet taking the best of the three and leaping about between it makes it a mathematical certainty the pension will eventually be unaffordable in the long term.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.
On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.
He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.
If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....
Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
He was president for a short time in 2021.
There are ways round the term limits. In fact, strictly speaking, there is no term limit on the US presidency. There is a limit on how many times someone can be *elected* to the presidency.
Indeed. He could run for VP and the President resign. Not sure if there are term limits for a VP
There aren't.
There is a clause in the 12th Amendment that prevents anyone from being elected to the VP'cy who is not eligible to serve as president but the question of how that interacts with the 22nd Amendment has never been tested. The different wording in the two Amendments suggests to me that a VP could succeed to a third or subsequent presidential term in that way but no doubt it would end up before the SCOTUS.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
I thought it had become overrun with tourists. Good news if not so.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
Are we going to have an SNP generation-style debate about whether a century is more or less than the foreseeable future? That would be dull.
And as I said, a fairer way of reducing government spending on pensions would be to end higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions, which benefits the better-off such as MPs and media pundits who complain about the triple lock. Even if this were limited to standard rate, the highly-paid can still benefit from salary sacrificed pension contributions that reduce their taxable income.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
They weren’t jailed for exercising their right to free speech, they were jailed for forcing the closure of one of the busiest roads on the country for two days, at a cost to the operator of c.£1m in toll revenue, plus countless millions more in traffic that was disrupted, appointments that were missed, journeys that were not undertaken etc.
Perhaps these UN idiots should best focus their ire on actual freedom of speech issues?
The right to protest does not mean the right to break any law you feel like and face no consequences for your actions.
Good that these prats are starting to get the prison sentences they deserve for being criminals. Any others who break the law should be held to account accordingly.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
The ratchet was clearly designed by someone mathematically illiterate - three sequences should be tracked, one 2.5% compounding nominal from 2010, a prices growth chart (CPI I'd assume) and an average earnings sequence. The state pension can then leap about between the best of the three, or just remain as is for a few years if both prices and earnings drop in a year. The ratchet taking the best of the three and leaping about between it makes it a mathematical certainty the pension will eventually be unaffordable in the long term.
Or a mathematician who was politically illiterate perhaps. Raising pensioner incomes made sense when pensioners were on average poorer than the rest of society, and a significant proportion were struggling. So something that increased over time, faster than it would for workers was fine for a period. Now the reverse is true and workers need to be looked after for a bit.
The problem is that stopping the triple lock is going to be very contentious as few people understand it or government finances and the impacted group are the most likely to vote. The problem of how to end the triple lock applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
The ratchet was clearly designed by someone mathematically illiterate - three sequences should be tracked, one 2.5% compounding nominal from 2010, a prices growth chart (CPI I'd assume) and an average earnings sequence. The state pension can then leap about between the best of the three, or just remain as is for a few years if both prices and earnings drop in a year. The ratchet taking the best of the three and leaping about between it makes it a mathematical certainty the pension will eventually be unaffordable in the long term.
Politically, the simplest thing would be to retain the mechanism and switch to the middle of the three items; that could be sold as 'retaining the Triple Lock', while updating it.
Well the view from my reading chair is splendid this morning and, after 10 years, still full of interest… this time of year the tup in the field is doing his business… over a 60 minute cycle it’s shag, eat, gaze at and sniff the the next ewe in line, shag, eat, rest…
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
Feel for you if it has died before 100k; you'd hope a modern car would do more than that.
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
I agree. KRS is the closest I've been to paradise, apart from the mosquitos. I spent a couple of weeks writing once. No distractions, gorgeous weather and a stunning beach. It was perfect.
Ooh. You’ve been here? Where did you stay? What beach? What season?
Do you think you could have endured 2 months without hanging yourself?
A serious question. I normally go to Bangkok in the winter but hmmmmm
I stayed in January 2019. I stayed in a guesthouse called (iirc) Mr Song's Guesthouse. It was cheap, it had reasonable wifi, it was about five minutes' walk from the beach and he was a pretty good cook. Also it was concrete not wood, so that kept the mosquitoes out to some extent. There was another guesthouse across the street run by a couple of Englishmen where I'd go for a mug of Yorkshire tea and some English conversation.
With enough good books on my Kindle I could have stayed until the rainy season started. But I'm like that.
I still remember the first words from another traveller as I got off on the jetty a few yards from your photo - "Welcome to Paradise". For once, that wasn't hyperbole.
I'm going to be in Singapore in a couple of weeks. Remembering all this tempts me to head back to KRS for the winter instead of the Philippines, which I was vaguely planning.
Ooh. Philippines. Never been!
Do you know it? Where would you go?
KSR - especially Mpai - is brilliant. What it needs ia just one good 3 star with a balcony room overlooking the beach
I’ve got this view for £10 but it’s a wooden house and I suspect mosquitoes will be hideous
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
Are we going to have an SNP generation-style debate about whether a century is more or less than the foreseeable future? That would be dull.
And as I said, a fairer way of reducing government spending on pensions would be to end higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions, which benefits the better-off such as MPs and media pundits who complain about the triple lock. Even if this were limited to standard rate, the highly-paid can still benefit from salary sacrificed pension contributions that reduce their taxable income.
I concur it is sustainable for the foreseeable future, but nowhere near perfectly, it is sustainable only with damaging costs and divisions in society. A century is clearly not foreseeable. I also concur on ending higher rate tax relief.
This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
They weren’t jailed for exercising their right to free speech, they were jailed for forcing the closure of one of the busiest roads on the country for two days, at a cost to the operator of c.£1m in toll revenue, plus countless millions more in traffic that was disrupted, appointments that were missed, journeys that were not undertaken etc.
Perhaps these UN idiots should best focus their ire on actual freedom of speech issues?
The right to protest does not mean the right to break any law you feel like and face no consequences for your actions.
Good that these prats are starting to get the prison sentences they deserve for being criminals. Any others who break the law should be held to account accordingly.
That appears to be the UN issue, exemplary sentences, or sentences that are out of line with prior norms, or "these prats are starting to get the prison sentences they deserve".
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
Are we going to have an SNP generation-style debate about whether a century is more or less than the foreseeable future? That would be dull.
And as I said, a fairer way of reducing government spending on pensions would be to end higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions, which benefits the better-off such as MPs and media pundits who complain about the triple lock. Even if this were limited to standard rate, the highly-paid can still benefit from salary sacrificed pension contributions that reduce their taxable income.
You could limit pension contribution tax relief to the 20% rate, and also get rid of the silly £100k personal allowance withdrawal (with its 62% marginal rate for PAYE employees) at the same time.
The PA withdrawal must be costing the Treasury billions, as it’s acting as a massive disincentive to work for many late-career middle-class professionals, especially contractors and self-employed.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
Feel for you if it has died before 100k; you'd hope a modern car would do more than that.
Yeah, it was never quite the same after Covid. Wasn't driven much in 2020 and when it was from 2021 onwards, it just wasn't the same anymore. Was completely reliable until then, but has been increasingly falling apart since.
Could have continued to repair it and drive it, but got a good offer on a new vehicle, and I feel like any more repairs now is throwing good money after bad.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
Feel for you if it has died before 100k; you'd hope a modern car would do more than that.
100k miles is lamentable. Generally there's a few things that need doing when a car gets to around that age, but after that it should be good for another 100k miles.
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
I thought that on seeing (on television) Cliff Richard's Caribbean hideaway with its unrestricted view of the ocean from his bed. What do you look at after the first ten minutes?
We have a sea view. It used to be the first thing I looked at each morning. Now it’s just a view.
So even sea views get boring
I guess it’s true of everything. That’s the restless human spirit
As Pascal said, so much trouble stems from the fact humans can’t just sit in a room, quietly
My parents' house in Guernsey had a sea view from the top floor. I never tired from the view from my bedroom - the sweep of the bay, the view across to the other islands and the French coastline in the distance. Sunlight glinting on the surface, waves one day, calm the next as the wind changed direction. Boats bobbing about in the small harbour at the end of the road - or beached when the tide was out. It was always different.
At night, it was just as fascinating - the curve of the street lights along the bay, navigation beacons blinking, the distant shimmering glow of the Cap Flamanville nuclear power station.
I never stayed there for longer than 2 months at a stretch - would I have tired of it eventually? I don't know, but I suspect not.
Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach
M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon
It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever
I thought that on seeing (on television) Cliff Richard's Caribbean hideaway with its unrestricted view of the ocean from his bed. What do you look at after the first ten minutes?
We have a sea view. It used to be the first thing I looked at each morning. Now it’s just a view.
So even sea views get boring
I guess it’s true of everything. That’s the restless human spirit
As Pascal said, so much trouble stems from the fact humans can’t just sit in a room, quietly
My parents' house in Guernsey had a sea view from the top floor. I never tired from the view from my bedroom - the sweep of the bay, the view across to the other islands and the French coastline in the distance. Sunlight glinting on the surface, waves one day, calm the next as the wind changed direction. Boats bobbing about in the small harbour at the end of the road - or beached when the tide was out. It was always different.
At night, it was just as fascinating - the curve of the street lights along the bay, navigation beacons blinking, the distant shimmering glow of the Cap Flamanville nuclear power station.
I never stayed there for longer than 2 months at a stretch - would I have tired of it eventually? I don't know, but I suspect not.
Running water, fires, sleeping new born babies, places where two streams meet, swans, looking at Vermeers.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
What do the thieves want 500 quid to fix?
Not contesting that it's probably beyond economical repair. Just interested.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
He's managing the sick out.
More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .
The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.
The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
The ratchet was clearly designed by someone mathematically illiterate - three sequences should be tracked, one 2.5% compounding nominal from 2010, a prices growth chart (CPI I'd assume) and an average earnings sequence. The state pension can then leap about between the best of the three, or just remain as is for a few years if both prices and earnings drop in a year. The ratchet taking the best of the three and leaping about between it makes it a mathematical certainty the pension will eventually be unaffordable in the long term.
"a mathematical certainty the pension will eventually be unaffordable in the long term"
Well it would be in theory if all else remained unchanged.
But in practice, what we're also seeing in parallel are changes that are making it harder and harder to access the state pension. Specifically: - Repeatedly pushing back the state pension age. I'm 63 now, and I'm now scheduled to only get my full state pension shortly before my 68th birthday. No doubt it'll have been pushed back again to 69 by the time I get there. It used to be 65 for men and 60 for women. - The changes of a few years back which upped the number of years contributions to 40 in order to access the full pension. Many more people nowadays find they're well short of the full contributions needed, and only realise that when it's too late.
So actually the increasing restrictions on access are offsetting the increase in the rate.
Apart from the state pension, lots of other add ons have also been subject to freezes in rates just like other benefits. Pension credit for pensioners on low incomes, for example.
There's one other trick. You're right, it is CPI that is now used for the inflation element. The triple lock was brought in at the same time as CPI replaced RPI, the latter having generally quite a bit higher each year. And because wage growth has been so anaemic over the past 13 Conservative years, it has very rarely been the measure used. The result is that had we still been using the old system using RPI and 2.5% but ignoring wages, the state pension now would be higher not lower. So even the change to bring in the triple lock wasn't what it seemed.
In short, the idea that the Conservatives have been generous to state pensioners is a con. The best you can say is that pensioners haven't experienced the sort of extreme benefit cuts experienced by people of working age, including those working on low incomes.
The nightlife in Quezon City is something else. There is a bar where they lower a sort in a wicker basket onto your spud gun and spin her round. Also, the chance of getting subjected to an armed robbery is about 30% per night out.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
Haley is a very astute politician - especially when it comes to calculating charting her next move. There are few individuals who can recognise shift in a political landscape and shift themselves - and others - so adroitly.
For 150 years, South Carolina was dominated by the Democratic Party. Yet by the late ‘60s it was turning rightward; Strom Thurmond jumped ship in ’64 followed by Tom Wofford in ’66. By ’75, the likes of Olin Johnson and Fritz Hollings were increasingly out of step with the new political landscape. In the decades since, the GOP has tightened its grip both in Columbia and in Washington.
What makes Haley remarkable is how she has remained firmly in the centre ground whilst making overtures towards to the liberals and the right. Think back to 2015 when the Confederate flag was removed from the grounds of the Statehouse. In a state where the views of the right were - and are - so deeply entrenched, where its role in the Civil War is celebrated and where the “white old boy” network persists, it was a remarkable achievement to get all sides to agree to remove the flag. It was regarded by many on the right in South Carolina as a liberal move and an act of betrayal. The liberals and the Democrats loved it.
The following year she challenged the right of the GOP again when she objected to a anti-transgender bathroom bill. She saw no need to copy North Carolina’s HB2 which would require all transgender individuals to use bathrooms that reflected their sex at birth. It would solve none of the problems facing the people of South Carolina and serve only to stoke the culture war.
Of course, the following year she’s the US Ambassador to the UN and effectively a card-carrying member of the Trump movement. Notwithstanding her earlier liberal or Democrat-leaning decisions, she’s moved towards the right and largely been accepted. Indeed, the nature of her departure from the Trump administration - with warm wishes and little antagonism from Trump - helped placate some of those in the GOP who distrusted her.
Fast forward to today and… Nikki Haley is back in the centre ground - cognisant of the impact that January 6th had on the country. Overtures to the liberals, the Democrats and the independents - all of whom she would need to secure the White House. Overtures to the right to keep the Trump movement (minus the nutters) on board.
What nobody is looking at is the future. The Trump campaign hasn’t really attacked her. Which begs a question. Why? Should Trump make it to the White House he’s a lame duck. He can’t run in 2028. So what if Haley has calculated that her best chance is to serve as his Vice President?
I still think Haley will be the nominee and will win against Biden. There’s too much baggage with Trump and any one of his legal problems could very easily throw the entire race up in the air. But if he does make through, don’t be surprised if Haley doesn’t emerge as his Vice President.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
Feel for you if it has died before 100k; you'd hope a modern car would do more than that.
Yeah, it was never quite the same after Covid. Wasn't driven much in 2020 and when it was from 2021 onwards, it just wasn't the same anymore. Was completely reliable until then, but has been increasingly falling apart since.
Could have continued to repair it and drive it, but got a good offer on a new vehicle, and I feel like any more repairs now is throwing good money after bad.
Diesel? If you are no longer commuting up and down motorways, and are just pootling round to the shops once a week, diesels can get very expensive very quickly.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.
What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
What do the thieves want 500 quid to fix?
Not contesting that it's probably beyond economical repair. Just interested.
New brake pads and discs, and two new tyres.
I get those are wearable parts, but so is everything else that has worn out, it just seems to be at the point that if its not one thing its another. Had this year a new clutch, suspension fix, other two tyres and more.
If I'm going to pay for new tyres and new brakes at this point, kind of feel I might as well get everything else new too.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.
There are also things that you can do to design the urban environment around people moving about under their own power. Make places less hostile for pedestrians and cyclists and people will end up fitter without having to make a special effort to exercise.
But there are also people with long-term conditions who could work a bit, but who cannot reliably predict when, because of the way their condition fluctuates. These people simply don't fit into the way work is organised, but it would be better for their mental health if they could contribute when their physical health allows.
Doesn't look like HMG policy is going to do anything for these people except to try and shove them into the existing model of work.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
There’s a number of moving parts here, and it’s needs carrots as well as sticks from the government side - yet all we’ve been hearing about is the sticks.
The number of people signed off sick long-term has gone up dramatically since the start of the pandemic, as has the number of people making themselves economically inactive by taking early retirement.
I wonder if employers can be encouraged to take on these people on a part-time, perhaps almost casual basis, for jobs such as call centres and customer service roles? Everyone will have their own requirements, and not all will be suitable, but it could well be that a lot of people signed off sick are able to work from home for two or three hours a day at their own discretion.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
Sometimes these faults happen at the same time; just before Covid, my car had a series of faults that cost me about two grand. It was seven years old. In the three or four years since, I've spent little on it aside from yearly servicing and new tyres. I was tempted to get rid of it then, but am glad I kept it.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.
What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.
Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
Feel for you if it has died before 100k; you'd hope a modern car would do more than that.
Yeah, it was never quite the same after Covid. Wasn't driven much in 2020 and when it was from 2021 onwards, it just wasn't the same anymore. Was completely reliable until then, but has been increasingly falling apart since.
Could have continued to repair it and drive it, but got a good offer on a new vehicle, and I feel like any more repairs now is throwing good money after bad.
Diesel? If you are no longer commuting up and down motorways, and are just pootling round to the shops once a week, diesels can get very expensive very quickly.
Petrol, but it just wasn't the same after lockdown(s). Prior to then the only wearable parts I ever needed to replace were mainly the tyres, since then it seems to be an increasingly constant rotation of something.
I see that the government intends to cut taxes with the “long term savings” enabled by scrapping HS2, giving up on the North of England, and abandoning the manifesto pledge to address social care.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
There’s a number of moving parts here, and it’s needs carrots as well as sticks from the government side - yet all we’ve been hearing about is the sticks.
The number of people signed off sick long-term has gone up dramatically since the start of the pandemic, as has the number of people making themselves economically inactive by taking early retirement.
I wonder if employers can be encouraged to take on these people on a part-time, perhaps almost casual basis, for jobs such as call centres and customer service roles? Everyone will have their own requirements, and not all will be suitable, but it could well be that a lot of people signed off sick are able to work from home for two or three hours a day at their own discretion.
The trouble is the 'almost casual' bit, as I understand it. Varying income and work from week to week is utterly fatal to dealing with the DWP and getting one's necessary top ups. No idea if this aspect has improved, but my impression is otherwise?
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.
What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.
For the middle classes, sure.
The principle is/was simple - do stuff, get rewards. Free gym memberships might well not get used. With Vitality, walking x thousand steps would get you free cinema tickets etc…
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
There’s a number of moving parts here, and it’s needs carrots as well as sticks from the government side - yet all we’ve been hearing about is the sticks.
The number of people signed off sick long-term has gone up dramatically since the start of the pandemic, as has the number of people making themselves economically inactive by taking early retirement.
I wonder if employers can be encouraged to take on these people on a part-time, perhaps almost casual basis, for jobs such as call centres and customer service roles? Everyone will have their own requirements, and not all will be suitable, but it could well be that a lot of people signed off sick are able to work from home for two or three hours a day at their own discretion.
The trouble is the 'almost casual' bit, as I understand it. Varying income and work from week to week is utterly fatal to dealing with the DWP and getting one's necessary top ups. No idea if this aspect has improved, but my impression is otherwise?
Why?
Since the advent of realtime reporting, that shouldn't be a problem in this day and age.
UC is meant to be able to handle variable incomes in a way the old tax credit system couldn't do well.
Haley is a very astute politician - especially when it comes to calculating charting her next move. There are few individuals who can recognise shift in a political landscape and shift themselves - and others - so adroitly.
For 150 years, South Carolina was dominated by the Democratic Party. Yet by the late ‘60s it was turning rightward; Strom Thurmond jumped ship in ’64 followed by Tom Wofford in ’66. By ’75, the likes of Olin Johnson and Fritz Hollings were increasingly out of step with the new political landscape. In the decades since, the GOP has tightened its grip both in Columbia and in Washington.
What makes Haley remarkable is how she has remained firmly in the centre ground whilst making overtures towards to the liberals and the right. Think back to 2015 when the Confederate flag was removed from the grounds of the Statehouse. In a state where the views of the right were - and are - so deeply entrenched, where its role in the Civil War is celebrated and where the “white old boy” network persists, it was a remarkable achievement to get all sides to agree to remove the flag. It was regarded by many on the right in South Carolina as a liberal move and an act of betrayal. The liberals and the Democrats loved it.
The following year she challenged the right of the GOP again when she objected to a anti-transgender bathroom bill. She saw no need to copy North Carolina’s HB2 which would require all transgender individuals to use bathrooms that reflected their sex at birth. It would solve none of the problems facing the people of South Carolina and serve only to stoke the culture war.
Of course, the following year she’s the US Ambassador to the UN and effectively a card-carrying member of the Trump movement. Notwithstanding her earlier liberal or Democrat-leaning decisions, she’s moved towards the right and largely been accepted. Indeed, the nature of her departure from the Trump administration - with warm wishes and little antagonism from Trump - helped placate some of those in the GOP who distrusted her.
Fast forward to today and… Nikki Haley is back in the centre ground - cognisant of the impact that January 6th had on the country. Overtures to the liberals, the Democrats and the independents - all of whom she would need to secure the White House. Overtures to the right to keep the Trump movement (minus the nutters) on board.
What nobody is looking at is the future. The Trump campaign hasn’t really attacked her. Which begs a question. Why? Should Trump make it to the White House he’s a lame duck. He can’t run in 2028. So what if Haley has calculated that her best chance is to serve as his Vice President?
I still think Haley will be the nominee and will win against Biden. There’s too much baggage with Trump and any one of his legal problems could very easily throw the entire race up in the air. But if he does make through, don’t be surprised if Haley doesn’t emerge as his Vice President.
This was clearly a gesture to the GOP right, but seems her first misstep of the campaign to me.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
There’s a number of moving parts here, and it’s needs carrots as well as sticks from the government side - yet all we’ve been hearing about is the sticks.
The number of people signed off sick long-term has gone up dramatically since the start of the pandemic, as has the number of people making themselves economically inactive by taking early retirement.
I wonder if employers can be encouraged to take on these people on a part-time, perhaps almost casual basis, for jobs such as call centres and customer service roles? Everyone will have their own requirements, and not all will be suitable, but it could well be that a lot of people signed off sick are able to work from home for two or three hours a day at their own discretion.
Most businesses operate in the opposite way, where their employee resources are at their beck and call. They want to be able to deploy these resources when they're most useful to the business, and the work may have to be done to fit in with the timetable of the rest of a team.
I'm struggling to think of segments which could make it work where an employee only works a few hours a week when they are able. Old-fashioned piecework is the obvious sort of model, but even there it can be problematic. I don't think it's easy, but the government approach is really simplistic.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.
What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.
For the middle classes, sure.
The principle is/was simple - do stuff, get rewards. Free gym memberships might well not get used. With Vitality, walking x thousand steps would get you free cinema tickets etc…
Enough stuff you'd want to cover the cost of paying for the program?
Or is it just a nice boon for those whose employers pays for it anyway?
I see that the government intends to cut taxes with the “long term savings” enabled by scrapping HS2, giving up on the North of England, and abandoning the manifesto pledge to address social care.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.
You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.
What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.
For the middle classes, sure.
The principle is/was simple - do stuff, get rewards. Free gym memberships might well not get used. With Vitality, walking x thousand steps would get you free cinema tickets etc…
Pay up front and get cash back if you do x,y or z things that are good for you is not going to work for most of the economically struggling. Or most of those that are already struggling with mental and physical health as they might not believe they can do x,y or z.
Just make an hour or two a week free. Because we will end up with fewer people unable to work from mental and physical health, and those that are working will be more productive too. So it is far cheaper than paying people to be economically inactive for years to come.
Comments
But the scenario is false. The notion that a convention can stitch up a nomination for someone who primary voters wanted is more than half a century out of date. I don't know the last time that actually happened - the Democrats in 1968 possibly, though there were special circumstances there. But pretty much every state holds primaries now, which they didn't then, and delegates are tied in ways they weren't then, and even if they weren't, the overwhelming majority of delegates would be hard-core Trumpites. It's not a gathering of the great and good.
Unless Trump dies or is incapacitated to such an extent that even his supporters recognise he can't run, it's almost certain he gets the nomination. The legal cases will probably drag out too long to impact and even then, primaries play to the base, and the base is his.
'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.
The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.
Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.
Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'
1) Primary voters in early states do surprising things
2) Nothing succeeds like success
3) The media love a horse race, even Fox News
4) There are a lot of people who are nominally supporting Trump who would really like it if he'd go away
I think Nikki Haley would the most likely of the pack to do it: She negotiated the Trump situation quite cannily and was one of the only people who got through it without either hopeless alienating the Trumpists or destroying her reputation with everyone else.
Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder
Pensioners:young people.
Predators:prey
Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.
The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.
The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.
The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.
He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0p6ll3jjgo
They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.
In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud. Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.
No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).
Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.
What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.
In some countries like the US if you are out of work after 6 months you lose all benefits beyond food stamps if you have children unless have a proven disability meaning you cannot do any work.
There are ways round the term limits. In fact, strictly speaking, there is no term limit on the US presidency. There is a limit on how many times someone can be *elected* to the presidency.
They’re entitled to their opinions, but why must the UN lend its authority to them?
With enough good books on my Kindle I could have stayed until the rainy season started. But I'm like that.
I still remember the first words from another traveller as I got off on the jetty a few yards from your photo - "Welcome to Paradise". For once, that wasn't hyperbole.
I'm going to be in Singapore in a couple of weeks. Remembering all this tempts me to head back to KRS for the winter instead of the Philippines, which I was vaguely planning.
So no, that's not what we're seeing.
And he can’t run for a third term….
Now the UN can either spend the time protesting against Chinese gulags or Iranian prisons or sod off.
Perhaps these UN idiots should best focus their ire on actual freedom of speech issues?
At night, it was just as fascinating - the curve of the street lights along the bay, navigation beacons blinking, the distant shimmering glow of the Cap Flamanville nuclear power station.
I never stayed there for longer than 2 months at a stretch - would I have tired of it eventually? I don't know, but I suspect not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-02d9060e-15dc-426c-bfe0-86a6437e5234
And Musk's lawsuits tend to be as successful as the first test flight of a new SpaceX rocket design - the difference being that he doesn't seem to learn anything from them.
Any more clues and you'll all be turning up to our Christmas drinks!
Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.
Well the view from my reading chair is splendid this morning and, after 10 years, still full of interest… this time of year the tup in the field is doing his business… over a 60 minute cycle it’s shag, eat, gaze at and sniff the the next ewe in line, shag, eat, rest…
There is a clause in the 12th Amendment that prevents anyone from being elected to the VP'cy who is not eligible to serve as president but the question of how that interacts with the 22nd Amendment has never been tested. The different wording in the two Amendments suggests to me that a VP could succeed to a third or subsequent presidential term in that way but no doubt it would end up before the SCOTUS.
So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].
Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.
And as I said, a fairer way of reducing government spending on pensions would be to end higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions, which benefits the better-off such as MPs and media pundits who complain about the triple lock. Even if this were limited to standard rate, the highly-paid can still benefit from salary sacrificed pension contributions that reduce their taxable income.
Good that these prats are starting to get the prison sentences they deserve for being criminals. Any others who break the law should be held to account accordingly.
The problem is that stopping the triple lock is going to be very contentious as few people understand it or government finances and the impacted group are the most likely to vote. The problem of how to end the triple lock applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election#National_poll_results
Do you know it? Where would you go?
KSR - especially Mpai - is brilliant. What it needs ia just one good 3 star with a balcony room overlooking the beach
I’ve got this view for £10 but it’s a wooden house and I suspect mosquitoes will be hideous
But yeah it is close to Edenic
The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.
Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.
The PA withdrawal must be costing the Treasury billions, as it’s acting as a massive disincentive to work for many late-career middle-class professionals, especially contractors and self-employed.
Could have continued to repair it and drive it, but got a good offer on a new vehicle, and I feel like any more repairs now is throwing good money after bad.
Not contesting that it's probably beyond economical repair. Just interested.
Well it would be in theory if all else remained unchanged.
But in practice, what we're also seeing in parallel are changes that are making it harder and harder to access the state pension. Specifically:
- Repeatedly pushing back the state pension age. I'm 63 now, and I'm now scheduled to only get my full state pension shortly before my 68th birthday. No doubt it'll have been pushed back again to 69 by the time I get there. It used to be 65 for men and 60 for women.
- The changes of a few years back which upped the number of years contributions to 40 in order to access the full pension. Many more people nowadays find they're well short of the full contributions needed, and only realise that when it's too late.
So actually the increasing restrictions on access are offsetting the increase in the rate.
Apart from the state pension, lots of other add ons have also been subject to freezes in rates just like other benefits. Pension credit for pensioners on low incomes, for example.
There's one other trick. You're right, it is CPI that is now used for the inflation element. The triple lock was brought in at the same time as CPI replaced RPI, the latter having generally quite a bit higher each year. And because wage growth has been so anaemic over the past 13 Conservative years, it has very rarely been the measure used. The result is that had we still been using the old system using RPI and 2.5% but ignoring wages, the state pension now would be higher not lower. So even the change to bring in the triple lock wasn't what it seemed.
In short, the idea that the Conservatives have been generous to state pensioners is a con. The best you can say is that pensioners haven't experienced the sort of extreme benefit cuts experienced by people of working age, including those working on low incomes.
Makati for lightweights who can't handle QC.
Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).
calculatingcharting her next move. There are few individuals who can recognise shift in a political landscape and shift themselves - and others - so adroitly.For 150 years, South Carolina was dominated by the Democratic Party. Yet by the late ‘60s it was turning rightward; Strom Thurmond jumped ship in ’64 followed by Tom Wofford in ’66. By ’75, the likes of Olin Johnson and Fritz Hollings were increasingly out of step with the new political landscape. In the decades since, the GOP has tightened its grip both in Columbia and in Washington.
What makes Haley remarkable is how she has remained firmly in the centre ground whilst making overtures towards to the liberals and the right. Think back to 2015 when the Confederate flag was removed from the grounds of the Statehouse. In a state where the views of the right were - and are - so deeply entrenched, where its role in the Civil War is celebrated and where the “white old boy” network persists, it was a remarkable achievement to get all sides to agree to remove the flag. It was regarded by many on the right in South Carolina as a liberal move and an act of betrayal. The liberals and the Democrats loved it.
The following year she challenged the right of the GOP again when she objected to a anti-transgender bathroom bill. She saw no need to copy North Carolina’s HB2 which would require all transgender individuals to use bathrooms that reflected their sex at birth. It would solve none of the problems facing the people of South Carolina and serve only to stoke the culture war.
Of course, the following year she’s the US Ambassador to the UN and effectively a card-carrying member of the Trump movement. Notwithstanding her earlier liberal or Democrat-leaning decisions, she’s moved towards the right and largely been accepted. Indeed, the nature of her departure from the Trump administration - with warm wishes and little antagonism from Trump - helped placate some of those in the GOP who distrusted her.
Fast forward to today and… Nikki Haley is back in the centre ground - cognisant of the impact that January 6th had on the country. Overtures to the liberals, the Democrats and the independents - all of whom she would need to secure the White House. Overtures to the right to keep the Trump movement (minus the nutters) on board.
What nobody is looking at is the future. The Trump campaign hasn’t really attacked her. Which begs a question. Why? Should Trump make it to the White House he’s a lame duck. He can’t run in 2028. So what if Haley has calculated that her best chance is to serve as his Vice President?
I still think Haley will be the nominee and will win against Biden. There’s too much baggage with Trump and any one of his legal problems could very easily throw the entire race up in the air. But if he does make through, don’t be surprised if Haley doesn’t emerge as his Vice President.
I get those are wearable parts, but so is everything else that has worn out, it just seems to be at the point that if its not one thing its another. Had this year a new clutch, suspension fix, other two tyres and more.
If I'm going to pay for new tyres and new brakes at this point, kind of feel I might as well get everything else new too.
But there are also people with long-term conditions who could work a bit, but who cannot reliably predict when, because of the way their condition fluctuates. These people simply don't fit into the way work is organised, but it would be better for their mental health if they could contribute when their physical health allows.
Doesn't look like HMG policy is going to do anything for these people except to try and shove them into the existing model of work.
The number of people signed off sick long-term has gone up dramatically since the start of the pandemic, as has the number of people making themselves economically inactive by taking early retirement.
I wonder if employers can be encouraged to take on these people on a part-time, perhaps almost casual basis, for jobs such as call centres and customer service roles? Everyone will have their own requirements, and not all will be suitable, but it could well be that a lot of people signed off sick are able to work from home for two or three hours a day at their own discretion.
UK faces ‘gigafactory gap’ that could stifle its EV industry, say MPs
Business committee tells government it must get more investment into sector to avert decline
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/21/uk-faces-gigafactory-gap-that-could-stifle-its-ev-industry-say-mps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdb3arA_eh8
Since the advent of realtime reporting, that shouldn't be a problem in this day and age.
UC is meant to be able to handle variable incomes in a way the old tax credit system couldn't do well.
"The first thing we have to do..."
Nikki Haley: "Every person on social media should be verified by their name" because of "national security."
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1724526032173064258
I'm struggling to think of segments which could make it work where an employee only works a few hours a week when they are able. Old-fashioned piecework is the obvious sort of model, but even there it can be problematic. I don't think it's easy, but the government approach is really simplistic.
Or is it just a nice boon for those whose employers pays for it anyway?
Argentina’s new president Javier Milei embodies the zombie neoliberalism of the 1990s.
By Quinn Slobodian"
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/11/javier-milei-argentina-president-monster-mainstream
Just make an hour or two a week free. Because we will end up with fewer people unable to work from mental and physical health, and those that are working will be more productive too. So it is far cheaper than paying people to be economically inactive for years to come.