Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Wasn't limiting early access to benefits part of Cameron's grand *ahem* renegotiation?
Yes. Except he didn't actually get that. He got the possibility that, if all the other EU governments agreed, then he could temporarily suspend early access to benefits.
There have always been any number of ways we could reform the benefits system in full compliance with EU law as long as it was non-discriminatory.
It is however, reasonable to discriminate between British Nationals and non-nationals.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that the feeling of having been turned into a stranger in one's own country only matters when it's expressed from one side of a multi-faceted issue.
You should feel enriched about the vibrant new Britain of suburban shanty towns, Jew hatred, industrial scale racist child rape, female genital mutilation, human trafficking and slavery.
So Rotherham grooming (from the early 1990s onwards), FGM (for at least a generation), Human Trafficking (ditto), Jew hatred (SWP / Nazis / National Front) etc etc were all caused by Brexit.
Dr Who Lives !
Or perhaps Brexit will help us recover from these things that happened on the EU watch.
Or perhaps someone is blowing smoke.
These things have happened in a large way because of mass immigration. The public never wanted it, the politicians never listened to them, then we had a referendum which was a proxy for immigration control, and a chance to slap the political elite in the face...
But it wasn't EU migration it was migration the government could have controlled, so who did they slap in the face?
Successive governments allowed immigration, both EU and non EU, to increase beyond all known records, while promising to be tough on it. The public always want less immigration said the polls, but no matter who was in charge, they increased it. UKIP went from 3% to 13% once they majored on immigration, despite being a one man band. Then we had a chance to slap the bosses in the face...
If Ken Clarke had been leader in 1997, a lot of things would have been different.
Surely. We'd be in the Euro and Schengen, and have an EZ wide fiscal policy.
Wildly off-topic, but looked at the BBC news website before going to bed. Linking these two from the same front page seems very .... um ... British, to me.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Got to be stronger than that I feel. I want it under the total control of a govt I can elect and fire. I feel people would be more comfortable about numbers, even not inconsiderable ones (and yes of course we will need immigrants), if they feel they are getting a say. At present we have signed away all control on 440m. If you don't control your borders, you are not a proper country, nor can your realistically plan for the future as a state for the benefit of your citizens if you only have a pretty inaccurate idea of how many will be here and where in five and ten years time.
It's a continuum even for "free movement", though isn't it?
Free movement for those with certain qualifications, no criminal records, no possibility of benefits, and a job offer paying more than x
Through to
Free movement and free benefits for anyone from anywhere.
There's probably about 10% of the population, and perhaps 15% among opinion formers, who do actually believe in the latter.
Drop the benefits and I'll say yes to the latter.
Free movement and free benefits are an impossible combination.
I wonder if people who have had some direct experience with the NHS, ie as an inpatient, have a different view from the political weapon it has become. I was unfortunate to have had an emergency admission for 7 days, now fine, and my experience/treatment was very good, however I do not want to go back.| I was admitted over a weekend and got excellent treatment, the staff were very good, and the problems they deal with are enormous, often self inflicted. | I did not enjoy night times, they really need to do something about machines that go beep all night, and mobile phones need to be banned, 3.00am, " Yeah I am in hospital, waiting for some tests". I am actually very grateful as I had just got back from Peru, a high Andes trip, and if I had been taken Ill there, then the outlook would have been grim, probably fatal. Please take the politics out of the NHS.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that the feeling of having been turned into a stranger in one's own country only matters when it's expressed from one side of a multi-faceted issue.
You should feel enriched about the vibrant new Britain of suburban shanty towns, Jew hatred, industrial scale racist child rape, female genital mutilation, human trafficking and slavery.
So Rotherham grooming (from the early 1990s onwards), FGM (for at least a generation), Human Trafficking (ditto), Jew hatred (SWP / Nazis / National Front) etc etc were all caused by Brexit.
Dr Who Lives !
Or perhaps Brexit will help us recover from these things that happened on the EU watch.
Or perhaps someone is blowing smoke.
These things have happened in a large way because of mass immigration. The public never wanted it, the politicians never listened to them, then we had a referendum which was a proxy for immigration control, and a chance to slap the political elite in the face...
But it wasn't EU migration it was migration the government could have controlled, so who did they slap in the face?
Successive governments allowed immigration, both EU and non EU, to increase beyond all known records, while promising to be tough on it. The public always want less immigration said the polls, but no matter who was in charge, they increased it. UKIP went from 3% to 13% once they majored on immigration, despite being a one man band. Then we had a chance to slap the bosses in the face...
If Ken Clarke had been leader in 1997, a lot of things would have been different.
Surely. We'd be in the Euro and Schengen, and have an EZ wide fiscal policy.
The Stability And Growth Pact *is* a common fiscal policy. I assume you mean a common EU treasury, which neither Clarke nor Germany have every been in favour of.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Got to be stronger than that I feel. I want it under the total control of a govt I can elect and fire. I feel people would be more comfortable about numbers, even not inconsiderable ones (and yes of course we will need immigrants), if they feel they are getting a say. At present we have signed away all control on 440m. If you don't control your borders, you are not a proper country, nor can your realistically plan for the future as a state for the benefit of your citizens if you only have a pretty inaccurate idea of how many will be here and where in five and ten years time.
It's a continuum even for "free movement", though isn't it?
Free movement for those with certain qualifications, no criminal records, no possibility of benefits, and a job offer paying more than x
Through to
Free movement and free benefits for anyone from anywhere.
There's probably about 10% of the population, and perhaps 15% among opinion formers, who do actually believe in the latter.
Drop the benefits and I'll say yes to the latter.
Free movement and free benefits are an impossible combination.
I think Robert would advocate a clean record, and a job offer, plus no benefits till you'd paid tax for five years, and you paid for any public services you used during that five year period.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Wasn't limiting early access to benefits part of Cameron's grand *ahem* renegotiation?
Yes. Except he didn't actually get that. He got the possibility that, if all the other EU governments agreed, then he could temporarily suspend early access to benefits.
There have always been any number of ways we could reform the benefits system in full compliance with EU law as long as it was non-discriminatory.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Wasn't limiting early access to benefits part of Cameron's grand *ahem* renegotiation?
Yes. Except he didn't actually get that. He got the possibility that, if all the other EU governments agreed, then he could temporarily suspend early access to benefits.
There have always been any number of ways we could reform the benefits system in full compliance with EU law as long as it was non-discriminatory.
It is however, reasonable to discriminate between British Nationals and non-nationals.
My preference would be to treat Ireland as a foreign country, whose citizens have no special rights. But, obviously, that would cause a huge storm, so we'll have to stick to the status quo.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Wasn't limiting early access to benefits part of Cameron's grand *ahem* renegotiation?
Yes. Except he didn't actually get that. He got the possibility that, if all the other EU governments agreed, then he could temporarily suspend early access to benefits.
There have always been any number of ways we could reform the benefits system in full compliance with EU law as long as it was non-discriminatory.
Why would we want it to be non-discriminatory?
That'd be the whole desired point.
Now what you really want is a privatised benefits system financed by wealthy benefactors. Then you could score eligibility however you like.
Young people deemed to be at risk of getting caught up in crime and disorder during the Notting Hill carnival this weekend are being removed from the area and invited to a watersports weekend at a cost of more than £1,000 each, the Guardian has learned.
More than £1k EACH...You could put them up in the Ritz for the weekend for that!
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
We also know a significant percentage of zero hours contracts are top rate tax payers. I wonder how many council workers are?
I wonder if people who have had some direct experience with the NHS, ie as an inpatient, have a different view from the political weapon it has become. I was unfortunate to have had an emergency admission for 7 days, now fine, and my experience/treatment was very good, however I do not want to go back.| I was admitted over a weekend and got excellent treatment, the staff were very good, and the problems they deal with are enormous, often self inflicted. | I did not enjoy night times, they really need to do something about machines that go beep all night, and mobile phones need to be banned, 3.00am, " Yeah I am in hospital, waiting for some tests". I am actually very grateful as I had just got back from Peru, a high Andes trip, and if I had been taken Ill there, then the outlook would have been grim, probably fatal. Please take the politics out of the NHS.
I think even many of those with direct experience vastly overrate the NHS, often in the absence of anything with which to compare it. Such is their fervent religiosity. It's certainly true in my family.
Over the last five years or so I've seen several relatives die under NHS care. What is truly baffling is how every time 'all the nurses and doctors were absolutely marvellous' and 'did all they could'.
There is absolutely no scrutiny, no hard questions, not a glimpse of a semblance of a hint that, just possibly, the NHS might be anything less than fantastic. Despite its fundamental purpose being to heal people and its continuous, obvious failure to do so.
Obviously there's never an appropriate time to ask a grieving widow how she knows for certain they did everything they could, and that in different circumstances might grandad possibly still be alive.
And so the holy cow wanders onward in perpetuity...
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Got to be stronger than that I feel. I want it under the total control of a govt I can elect and fire. I feel people would be more comfortable about numbers, even not inconsiderable ones (and yes of course we will need immigrants), if they feel they are getting a say. At present we have signed away all control on 440m. If you don't control your borders, you are not a proper country, nor can your realistically plan for the future as a state for the benefit of your citizens if you only have a pretty inaccurate idea of how many will be here and where in five and ten years time.
It's a continuum even for "free movement", though isn't it?
Free movement for those with certain qualifications, no criminal records, no possibility of benefits, and a job offer paying more than x
Through to
Free movement and free benefits for anyone from anywhere.
There's probably about 10% of the population, and perhaps 15% among opinion formers, who do actually believe in the latter.
Drop the benefits and I'll say yes to the latter.
Free movement and free benefits are an impossible combination.
I think Robert would advocate a clean record, and a job offer, plus no benefits till you'd paid tax for five years, and you paid for any public services you used during that five year period.
As would I. I'd even scrub the job offer requirement if you could survive without benefits (eg pensioners, self-employed, the independently wealthy, entrepeneurs etc).
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principal earner.
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
We also know a significant percentage of zero hours contracts are top rate tax payers. I wonder how many council workers are?
If the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County council is anything to judge by, maybe 60%?
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
But that's the thing. For a second earner, adding something to the family pot but with possible childcare or carer responsibilities, they can be very very useful.
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
Young people deemed to be at risk of getting caught up in crime and disorder during the Notting Hill carnival this weekend are being removed from the area and invited to a watersports weekend at a cost of more than £1,000 each, the Guardian has learned.
More than £1k EACH...You could put them up in the Ritz for the weekend for that!
I'm not sure you could. Not when you include room service.
Young people deemed to be at risk of getting caught up in crime and disorder during the Notting Hill carnival this weekend are being removed from the area and invited to a watersports weekend at a cost of more than £1,000 each, the Guardian has learned.
More than £1k EACH...You could put them up in the Ritz for the weekend for that!
I'm not sure you could. Not when you include room service.
Two to a room and I am sure they will be happy with KFC....
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
But that's the thing. For a second earner, adding something to the family pot but with possible childcare or carer responsibilities, they can be very very useful.
But if they're banned, that goes too.
Yeah, she works that way by choice, turning down a permanent contract.
The unpredictability of the work would be a nightmare for others though. Ofen she gets missed by the bank office and then gets a months pay in a week.
How to control exploitation while maintaining flexibility? Perhaps only permitting them where a Union representative in the workplace agrees would be a good start.
Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.
The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.
Got to be stronger than that I feel. I want it under the total control of a govt I can elect and fire. I feel people would be more comfortable about numbers, even not inconsiderable ones (and yes of course we will need immigrants), if they feel they are getting a say. At present we have signed away all control on 440m. If you don't control your borders, you are not a proper country, nor can your realistically plan for the future as a state for the benefit of your citizens if you only have a pretty inaccurate idea of how many will be here and where in five and ten years time.
It's a continuum even for "free movement", though isn't it?
Free movement for those with certain qualifications, no criminal records, no possibility of benefits, and a job offer paying more than x
Through to
Free movement and free benefits for anyone from anywhere.
There's probably about 10% of the population, and perhaps 15% among opinion formers, who do actually believe in the latter.
Drop the benefits and I'll say yes to the latter.
Free movement and free benefits are an impossible combination.
I think Robert would advocate a clean record, and a job offer, plus no benefits till you'd paid tax for five years, and you paid for any public services you used during that five year period.
As would I. I'd even scrub the job offer requirement if you could survive without benefits (eg pensioners, self-employed, the independently wealthy, entrepeneurs etc).
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
But that's the thing. For a second earner, adding something to the family pot but with possible childcare or carer responsibilities, they can be very very useful.
But if they're banned, that goes too.
Yeah, she works that way by choice, turning down a permanent contract.
The unpredictability of the work would be a nightmare for others though. Ofen she gets missed by the bank office and then gets a months pay in a week.
How to control exploitation while maintaining flexibility? Perhaps only permitting them where a Union representative in the workplace agrees would be a good start.
I agree with your point, not necessarily with your solution. Although that may be because I have just resigned in exasperation from my own union.
Certainly though I think they should only be used by mutual consent.
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
Not everyone is a principle earner though.
A great many people are unprincipled earners...
They are indeed (I corrected my misused homonym!)
Homophone.
And if that autocorrects itself things will get very confusing.
A Professor in EU and World Trade Law notes 'The Telegraph has been briefed on the government's paper on the ECJ & Brexit. In fact no non-EU state has ever asked ECJ to settle disputes'
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
Not everyone is a principle earner though.
A great many people are unprincipled earners...
They are indeed (I corrected my misused homonym!)
Homophone.
And if that autocorrects itself things will get very confusing.
I do wonder if the govt will soon have to admit that "Leave" is the same as "Remain" but without voting rights.
Because it is.
As I noted last month.
it appears those charged with delivering Brexit lack the vision, the wit, and managerial ability that God gave pistachio nuts.
To quote Sybil Fawlty "I have seen more intelligent creatures than you lying on their backs at the bottom of ponds! I've seen better organized creatures than you running around farmyards with their heads cut off!"
Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.
Not everyone is a principle earner though.
A great many people are unprincipled earners...
They are indeed (I corrected my misused homonym!)
Homophone.
And if that autocorrects itself things will get very confusing.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Speaking of ISIS, the Syrian army appears to be making excellent progress against them - breaking up ISIS territory into surrounded pockets: https://syria.liveuamap.com
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Yes hilarious. I guess you know better than the UN bloke in charge of Libya.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Not only that, but the Barcelona, Manchester, London, Paris attacks etc were set up by long resident or native born terrorists.
I suspdct IS has enough on its hands to not spare troops for attacks on the West. It is going todisappear as an entity shortly, though thatmay lead to a diaspora.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Read the Times front page
I don't see anything in the Times front page about 500,000 fighters. Is it in the small print?
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Read the Times front page
I don't see anything in the Times front page about 500,000 fighters. Is it in the small print?
The 500,000 figure was what Isis threatened in 2015. I'm sorry I linked to the Times front page via Farage as it gave people the free hit, but it was the front page I meant to be the important part.
At least at gave an opportunity for people to feel good about themselves
My preference would be to treat Ireland as a foreign country, whose citizens have no special rights. But, obviously, that would cause a huge storm, so we'll have to stick to the status quo.
You're not kidding.
"It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory,"
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Read the Times front page
I don't see anything in the Times front page about 500,000 fighters. Is it in the small print?
The 500,000 figure was what Isis threatened in 2015. I'm sorry I linked to the Times front page via Farage as it gave people the free hit, but it was the front page I meant to be the important part.
At least at gave an opportunity for people to feel good about themselves
Indeed that's the problem with Farage, he takes a reasonable idea and amplifies it to the point it's absurd at which point people can shoot the messenger rather than the message.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Read the Times front page
I don't see anything in the Times front page about 500,000 fighters. Is it in the small print?
The 500,000 figure was what Isis threatened in 2015. I'm sorry I linked to the Times front page via Farage as it gave people the free hit, but it was the front page I meant to be the important part.
At least at gave an opportunity for people to feel good about themselves
Indeed that's the problem with Farage, he takes a reasonable idea and amplifies it to the point it's absurd at which point people can shoot the messenger rather than the message.
Perhaps, but the problem is the people in charge don't listen unless they are shouted at. Even then it's unlikely they bother, too important to be seen to admit they were wrong.
The 500,000 figure isnt Farages anyway, it was a widely reported threat from 2015
So rather than a "common market" we really did join Hotel California in the 70's?
(I may have said this to you before, so apols for the repetition). The UK can leave the EU whenever it likes, and indeed is doing so. What it is trying to do is build new arrangements that enable it to trade with the EU as seamlessly as possible. These arrangements cannot be built without cost - TANSTAAFL - and some of those costs are difficult to distinguish from Remaining.
Speaking of ISIS, the Syrian army appears to be making excellent progress against them - breaking up ISIS territory into surrounded pockets: https://syria.liveuamap.com
Speaking of ISIS, the Syrian army appears to be making excellent progress against them - breaking up ISIS territory into surrounded pockets: https://syria.liveuamap.com
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Absolutely right.
Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.
On the other hand, trying to persuade the West that I was doing that seems a no brainer.
I think the RN has standardised on Kelvin Hughes' SharpEye used by many commercial vessels, I wonder how that compares with the Raytheon on the American destroyers.
It's cheaper which is all the MoD cares about.
One of the reasons the QECs have two islands is that the RN didn't want to pay for the Raytheon AN/SPY-3 which combines many antennae into one clever one and so the QECs need more surface area for more antennae.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Absolutely right.
Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.
On the other hand, trying to persuade the West that I was doing that seems a no brainer.
If you were Putin, trying to persuade the West that ISIS was doing that would also be a no brainer too.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Absolutely right.
Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.
On the other hand, trying to persuade the West that I was doing that seems a no brainer.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Precisely.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
Absolutely right.
Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.
On the other hand, trying to persuade the West that I was doing that seems a no brainer.
If you were Putin, trying to persuade the West that ISIS was doing that would also be a no brainer too.
Whose side is Farage on?
Farage is quoting the ISIS threat from 2015, The Times quote the UN guy in charge of Libya.
Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.
What if you've got somebody in your organization who's a total PITA for whatever reason? That must happen a lot in Jihadi circles, they must attract their fair share of arseholes. You don't have to smuggle them, just give them a little bit of money and tell them to work out how to get to Europe themselves. If they manage to make it somewhere interesting and blow something up then cool, if not then whatever, you still got rid of them.
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
Not only that, but the Barcelona, Manchester, London, Paris attacks etc were set up by long resident or native born terrorists.
I suspdct IS has enough on its hands to not spare troops for attacks on the West. It is going todisappear as an entity shortly, though thatmay lead to a diaspora.
Not entirely true: the Nice murderer was an immigrant as was one of the Barcelona cell. The Finnish attacker was an asylum seeker, apparently. Others were the sons of recent immigrants. Their parents were not exactly the sort of highly skilled people we're short of and came from countries/cultures imbued with violence and who have a poor record of peaceful integration into Eurooean dociety.
Why were they let into Europe? The interests of the immigrant cannot be the sole deciding factor. The interests of the host country and its population should matter too, rather more in fact.
Why was it in Europe's interests to permit such immigration?
This question was not asked and until we ask it and until we accept that some groups are much less desirable immigrants than others, in part because even their children born here seem unwilling to be anything other than European In Name Only - and this raises some hard questions about the idea that integration is only an issue for the 1st generation of immigrants - we will continue to act as if atrocities committed by young men from - or with close family ties to - countries where terrorist groups and extremist ideology have a hold are somehow Acts of God about which we can do nothing.
It makes no sense to continue letting in people from the sorts of groups which have the highest risk of having people within it prone to commit such atrocities.
And even more infuriating then to bleat "Ah but they're born here" as if that absolved us from responsibility for an immigration policy which makes it harder for us to deal with the terrorism issue.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/13/irish-wont-be-affected-benefits-curbs-eu-migrants
1) China re-launches world's fastest train
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41011662
2) World's fastest shed arrives in John O'Groats
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-41013427
Free movement and free benefits are an impossible combination.
I was unfortunate to have had an emergency admission for 7 days, now fine, and my experience/treatment was very good, however I do not want to go back.|
I was admitted over a weekend and got excellent treatment, the staff were very good, and the problems they deal with are enormous, often self inflicted.
| I did not enjoy night times, they really need to do something about machines that go beep all night, and mobile phones need to be banned, 3.00am, " Yeah I am in hospital, waiting for some tests".
I am actually very grateful as I had just got back from Peru, a high Andes trip, and if I had been taken Ill there, then the outlook would have been grim, probably fatal.
Please take the politics out of the NHS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4813870/MP-shares-Twitter-post-telling-abuse-victims-shut-up.html
That'd be the whole desired point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/
More than £1k EACH...You could put them up in the Ritz for the weekend for that!
The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.
I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.
I think even many of those with direct experience vastly overrate the NHS, often in the absence of anything with which to compare it. Such is their fervent religiosity. It's certainly true in my family.
Over the last five years or so I've seen several relatives die under NHS care. What is truly baffling is how every time 'all the nurses and doctors were absolutely marvellous' and 'did all they could'.
There is absolutely no scrutiny, no hard questions, not a glimpse of a semblance of a hint that, just possibly, the NHS might be anything less than fantastic. Despite its fundamental purpose being to heal people and its continuous, obvious failure to do so.
Obviously there's never an appropriate time to ask a grieving widow how she knows for certain they did everything they could, and that in different circumstances might grandad possibly still be alive.
And so the holy cow wanders onward in perpetuity...
But if they're banned, that goes too.
The unpredictability of the work would be a nightmare for others though. Ofen she gets missed by the bank office and then gets a months pay in a week.
How to control exploitation while maintaining flexibility? Perhaps only permitting them where a Union representative in the workplace agrees would be a good start.
Both sides want to negotiate special privileges.
Certainly though I think they should only be used by mutual consent.
https://order-order.com/2017/08/22/remain-media-coverage-criticised-experts/
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/900103880494678017
And if that autocorrects itself things will get very confusing.
http://news.sky.com/story/migrants-clash-in-mass-brawls-around-calais-11000900
Because it is.
it appears those charged with delivering Brexit lack the vision, the wit, and managerial ability that God gave pistachio nuts.
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938
To quote Sybil Fawlty "I have seen more intelligent creatures than you lying on their backs at the bottom of ponds! I've seen better organized creatures than you running around farmyards with their heads cut off!"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-economy-latest-live-what-it-means-michael-gove-nazis-remain-leave-a7094931.html
https://twitter.com/JayMitchinson/status/900105402192457728
So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.
The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.
I suspdct IS has enough on its hands to not spare troops for attacks on the West. It is going todisappear as an entity shortly, though thatmay lead to a diaspora.
At least at gave an opportunity for people to feel good about themselves
"It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory,"
Ireland Act 1949I - Section 2(1)
The 500,000 figure isnt Farages anyway, it was a widely reported threat from 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-41011908
Why would the NHS need ECG machines anyway?
Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.
On the other hand, trying to persuade the West that I was doing that seems a no brainer.
One of the reasons the QECs have two islands is that the RN didn't want to pay for the Raytheon AN/SPY-3 which combines many antennae into one clever one and so the QECs need more surface area for more antennae.
Whose side is Farage on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40999001
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/900103228012064768
Why were they let into Europe? The interests of the immigrant cannot be the sole deciding factor. The interests of the host country and its population should matter too, rather more in fact.
Why was it in Europe's interests to permit such immigration?
This question was not asked and until we ask it and until we accept that some groups are much less desirable immigrants than others, in part because even their children born here seem unwilling to be anything other than European In Name Only - and this raises some hard questions about the idea that integration is only an issue for the 1st generation of immigrants - we will continue to act as if atrocities committed by young men from - or with close family ties to - countries where terrorist groups and extremist ideology have a hold are somehow Acts of God about which we can do nothing.
It makes no sense to continue letting in people from the sorts of groups which have the highest risk of having people within it prone to commit such atrocities.
And even more infuriating then to bleat "Ah but they're born here" as if that absolved us from responsibility for an immigration policy which makes it harder for us to deal with the terrorism issue.