Mike, I think you are still trying to make May a heroine for our times when really she has been v naive or arrogant to think that she would push through something with so many holes and so unpopular. Anyone from a distance could see that she has been heading for a brick wall. Politics is also the art of the achievable. For the sake of the country and her party, IF she holds a vote on the 11th and loses she should step down asap. Hope that she does not become the G Brown of the Conservative Party as she leaves through the door...
She does need to step down, and Mike is perhaps a bit too glowing about her at times, but it may not be that she is naiive or arrogant to think she would push through something so unpopular - she might know she cannot push it through but believe it to be the best option available and so she must fight tooth and nail to try.
Still, the attempts to spin her utterly reckless behaviour in running down the clock as being some sort of heroic resiliency is nauseating
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
If you think it's so important to appease rabid leavers, we better ditch May's deal, which they hate.
Rabid leavers - not at all - they are wanting a sensible deal to leave and are angry at those who want to stop brexit
Either the ultra remainers or the hardcore brexiteers are using the other as their useful idiots right now. We shall see in time which is which
I generally find as a pedestrian being on one kerb is fine, being on the other kerb is fine, standing arbitrarily in the road with on coming traffic is not.
Too often people in politics confuse "the middle" as being safe or rational. Sometimes it's the worst and you are better picking one side or the other. Even if your side loses for now.
@JessPhilipsMP 1h1 hour ago More Given the first hand experience I have with some of the most unsavoury events in parliament over the last 3 years I cannot understand why I don't have the support of my own party. This really feels like I have been stabbed in the back.
In the front I think was her phrase Han Dodges rules OK
Thats not her twitter account.
Not enough Ls in her name, for a start. I thought twitter (of which I know little) had a system of verified accounts for public figures: is that not the case?
Yes - an account with a blue tick means the person is deemed important enough by Twitter to have been verified and that the person is who they claim to be (usually unless the account has been hacked).
That account doesn't have a blue tick so either it's not the person it claims to be or that person isn't important enough for twitter to think they need to be verified (hint its the former here).
@JessPhilipsMP 1h1 hour ago More Given the first hand experience I have with some of the most unsavoury events in parliament over the last 3 years I cannot understand why I don't have the support of my own party. This really feels like I have been stabbed in the back.
In the front I think was her phrase Han Dodges rules OK
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
But really Big_G what are they going to do? Man the barricades? In protest against being offered another democratic vote?
Boycott it, and if enough Leavers did so it would undermine the legitimacy of any Remain win.
But then, plenty of Remainers consider the legitimacy of the 2016 vote to be compromised by Cambridge Analytica, funding shenanigans and Russian interference.
Oh yeah? Remind me, what was the minimum turnout legitimacy level set at for the 2016 referundum?
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I support another vote now, but the arguments against it are not purely about being frightened of another vote. Moreover, framing it that way speaks clearly to a motivation not of actually wanting the people to vote again, but only doing so because you believe they will give a different answer this time, the answer you want. If you didn't care which way they'd vote leavers being frightened of losing would be immaterial.
As for the point about the WA vote being pulled, no good reason has been provided for that IMO. I don't believe dozens are going to change their minds or abstain, but a twitter commitment to vote for or against is not the same as actually standing to be counted, to taking on parliamentary responsibility and voting it down. It could be the biggest government defeat ever, who cares, a lot of time and effort on our side and the EU went into the WA, if parliament does not wish to accept it that is their right, but they have to get off their arses and do it, not expect a free pass by having the vote pulled.
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
But really Big_G what are they going to do? Man the barricades? In protest against being offered another democratic vote?
Boycott it, and if enough Leavers did so it would undermine the legitimacy of any Remain win.
But then, plenty of Remainers consider the legitimacy of the 2016 vote to be compromised by Cambridge Analytica, funding shenanigans and Russian interference.
The boycott idea is so weird to me. Like, if they have enough votes to win, wouldn't they do that instead? And if not, why should we care that an insignificant number of people chose not to vote? And how do you wrangle millions of voters to act against their own interests? And even if they did, how would anyone actually know it had happened? If a bunch of people claimed to be Remainers who had boycotted the first vote on some point of principle, nobody would give them the time of day.
The whole thing seems like a total red herring
I am entirely happy with Leavers boycotting the #peoplesvote
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
If you think it's so important to appease rabid leavers, we better ditch May's deal, which they hate.
Rabid leavers - not at all - they are wanting a sensible deal to leave and are angry at those who want to stop brexit
I'm taking about the many leavers who oppose May's deal. You want to steal away their desired extreme Brexit without even giving them a chance to vote on it. Why don't you care about their fury?
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
But really Big_G what are they going to do? Man the barricades? In protest against being offered another democratic vote?
They do not see it that way
I do not know what will happen but if you think Farage and Johnson in full hate EU mood is not going to become incendiary you are an optimist
@JessPhilipsMP 1h1 hour ago More Given the first hand experience I have with some of the most unsavoury events in parliament over the last 3 years I cannot understand why I don't have the support of my own party. This really feels like I have been stabbed in the back.
In the front I think was her phrase Han Dodges rules OK
Thats not her twitter account.
Its Han Dodges as I said
He's a pretty good parody, almost caught me out a couple of times. Think I was in the process of writing a reply to his Claire Perry (I think) version at one point before I realised. His Han is the best one though.
The Labour vote in Corbyn's seat would fall from 78% to 52% if his party join the Tories in voting to Leave the EU while the LD vote would rise to 30% a new poll finds
But I feel like whatever our stance on Brexit, we should all be able to agree that neither the in-principle case for or against a second referendum is trivially right or wrong. The in-practice arguments (e.g. may not be able to remain on the same terms, may not be able to extend/withdraw A50) is a different conversation.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
If you are not on a permanent contract with all the employment rights and warnings accrued you can be sacked for being 1 minute late if on a temporary contract.
Many of those jobs are an entry into the world of work for the unemployed and they should be ready to meet the standards such employers demand
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
If you think it's so important to appease rabid leavers, we better ditch May's deal, which they hate.
Rabid leavers - not at all - they are wanting a sensible deal to leave and are angry at those who want to stop brexit
I'm taking about the many leavers who oppose May's deal. You want to steal away their desired extreme Brexit without even giving them a chance to vote on it. Why don't you care about their fury?
Do we all need to update our Brexit lingo? The Brexitloon-Brexiteer-Brexiter to Remainer-Remoaner-Remainiac spectrum might not be suitable when, in theory at any rate, there are former remainers now risking or desiring hard leaves on the basis of us getting back in sooner, and former leavers who, in a choice between deal or remain, implicitly back remain.
Hungary / Orban's loss, Austria's gain. Almost Brexitish in its stupidity and shortsightedness....
Much worse than Brexit IMO. A dangerously totalitarian cast of mind animated, in part, by old-fashioned anti-semitism. Very worrying, as well as stupid and short-sighted.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
How do you see the 3 years' serious disruption ever being recovered? That lost growth will be gone forever.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
Are such employers reasonable and fair or something out of Dickens?
With Paris in flames and Emperor Macron seemingly powerless Sadiq Khan should get over there and persuade some French banks to relocate to London.
I was struck by the bullish nature of this BBC piece talking about the usual french script for these events and how much of what will be said is pious rubbish. I'd be interested if those with more insight on dear France think something truly different is occurring this time
Do we all need to update our Brexit lingo? The Brexitloon-Brexiteer-Brexiter to Remainer-Remoaner-Remainiac spectrum might not be suitable when, in theory at any rate, there are former remainers now risking or desiring hard leaves on the basis of us getting back in sooner, and former leavers who, in a choice between deal or remain, implicitly back remain.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
In the case of many of these people harshly punishing them, whatever the merits of doing so, seems likely to have negative consequences rather than positive ones.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
How do you see the 3 years' serious disruption ever being recovered? That lost growth will be gone forever.
As will the UK. The idea that it won’t register in the history books is preposterous.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
Evidence is NOT a solution to the problem. As for the rest, well, you clearly wilfully have no comprehension of rural life. So I give up.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
How do you see the 3 years' serious disruption ever being recovered? That lost growth will be gone forever.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
In general I wouldn't find that fair or reasonable. However, if it truly was an impossible standard to keep then a company operating such a policy would quickly find itself losing the majority of its workforce.
I know that when I am travelling into the Glasgow office from home in Edinburgh I leave enough time to allow for a number of different delays - so that if everything does run on time I am into the office before colleagues who live around the corner. And yet, there have still sometimes been days when public transport failures have meant that I have been unable to make it into the office at all.
So I do think that there are some people who do not take reasonable precautions to be on time - and I also think that there are some circumstances that will overcome all precautions.
Hungary / Orban's loss, Austria's gain. Almost Brexitish in its stupidity and shortsightedness....
Much worse than Brexit IMO. A dangerously totalitarian cast of mind animated, in part, by old-fashioned anti-semitism. Very worrying, as well as stupid and short-sighted.
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
In my experience the #1 reason people are late is that they set off late. By a longshot.
Not to suggest other reasons aren't possible but they're more likely excuses than reality.
Have to catch an early train Got to be to work by nine And if I had an air-o-plane I still couldn't make it on time 'Cause it takes me so long Just to figure out what I'm gonna wear Blame it on the train But the boss is already there
It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !
Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
If you think it's so important to appease rabid leavers, we better ditch May's deal, which they hate.
Rabid leavers - not at all - they are wanting a sensible deal to leave and are angry at those who want to stop brexit
I'm taking about the many leavers who oppose May's deal. You want to steal away their desired extreme Brexit without even giving them a chance to vote on it. Why don't you care about their fury?
You will find that not one of them wants a re run
Really? Do we have any polling comparing May's deal vs. second referendum for people whose first choice is no deal?
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
In general I wouldn't find that fair or reasonable. However, if it truly was an impossible standard to keep then a company operating such a policy would quickly find itself losing the majority of its workforce.
I know that when I am travelling into the Glasgow office from home in Edinburgh I leave enough time to allow for a number of different delays - so that if everything does run on time I am into the office before colleagues who live around the corner. And yet, there have still sometimes been days when public transport failures have meant that I have been unable to make it into the office at all.
So I do think that there are some people who do not take reasonable precautions to be on time - and I also think that there are some circumstances that will overcome all precautions.
They are talking about just a minute late. A lousy minute. It’s pathetic.
Apparently enough of it to cause multiple Cabinet resignations, unless you think they are playing up what apparently surprised them.
I think too many of them are unwilling to accept any compromise, no matter what it is, and still hope to either force a No Deal or force a remain result depending on their side of the argument. The Deal itself is immaterial, simply the fact that it exists and might scupper their own more extreme preferences, is enough to cause them to oppose it.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
Apparently enough of it to cause multiple Cabinet resignations, unless you think they are playing up what apparently surprised them.
I think too many of them are unwilling to accept any compromise, no matter what it is, and still hope to either force a No Deal or force a remain result depending on their side of the argument. The Deal itself is immaterial, simply the fact that it exists and might scupper their own more extreme preferences, is enough to cause them to oppose it.
The democratic deficit is very real. Being subject to EU law without influence and potentially no clear route out is not ok.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
I'd hope common sense would be applied. I live in Taunton. Traffic is notoriously difficult, but unpredictable. People coming in from the surrounding rural areas would struggle to be on time in all circumstances. However, if the claimant lived in (say) French Weir, that's within walking distance of the office. Unless they had a disability, puntuality wouldn't be too much to ask. And so on and so forth. The problems arise when unsympathetic jobsworths simply apply rules without using their grey matter.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
In general I wouldn't find that fair or reasonable. However, if it truly was an impossible standard to keep then a company operating such a policy would quickly find itself losing the majority of its workforce.
I know that when I am travelling into the Glasgow office from home in Edinburgh I leave enough time to allow for a number of different delays - so that if everything does run on time I am into the office before colleagues who live around the corner. And yet, there have still sometimes been days when public transport failures have meant that I have been unable to make it into the office at all.
So I do think that there are some people who do not take reasonable precautions to be on time - and I also think that there are some circumstances that will overcome all precautions.
They are talking about just a minute late. A lousy minute. It’s pathetic.
If it was so pathetic why not be a minute early? Terrible attitude.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
People don't miss what they've never had. As I pointed out downthread, we've forgone at least 7% growth (and thinking about it, it's nearer 10%) in the period 2008-2012. Shall we hang the bankers?
Apparently enough of it to cause multiple Cabinet resignations, unless you think they are playing up what apparently surprised them.
I think too many of them are unwilling to accept any compromise, no matter what it is, and still hope to either force a No Deal or force a remain result depending on their side of the argument. The Deal itself is immaterial, simply the fact that it exists and might scupper their own more extreme preferences, is enough to cause them to oppose it.
The democratic deficit is very real. Being subject to EU law without influence and potentially no clear route out is not ok.
Agreed. At least if we remain we get MEPs. I voted to take back control not shed the controls we have.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
In general I wouldn't find that fair or reasonable. However, if it truly was an impossible standard to keep then a company operating such a policy would quickly find itself losing the majority of its workforce.
I know that when I am travelling into the Glasgow office from home in Edinburgh I leave enough time to allow for a number of different delays - so that if everything does run on time I am into the office before colleagues who live around the corner. And yet, there have still sometimes been days when public transport failures have meant that I have been unable to make it into the office at all.
So I do think that there are some people who do not take reasonable precautions to be on time - and I also think that there are some circumstances that will overcome all precautions.
They are talking about just a minute late. A lousy minute. It’s pathetic.
Agreed. Unless you're responsible for setting off the New Year fireworks along the Thames, who gives a shit.
Apparently enough of it to cause multiple Cabinet resignations, unless you think they are playing up what apparently surprised them.
I think too many of them are unwilling to accept any compromise, no matter what it is, and still hope to either force a No Deal or force a remain result depending on their side of the argument. The Deal itself is immaterial, simply the fact that it exists and might scupper their own more extreme preferences, is enough to cause them to oppose it.
I don't think a single ex Cabinet Minister wants no deal. They just wanted and expected a different deal.
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
In my experience the #1 reason people are late is that they set off late. By a longshot.
Not to suggest other reasons aren't possible but they're more likely excuses than reality.
Have to catch an early train Got to be to work by nine And if I had an air-o-plane I still couldn't make it on time 'Cause it takes me so long Just to figure out what I'm gonna wear Blame it on the train But the boss is already there
90% of my staff commute in by train, which is how it has to be since we work in the city centre.
I would have had nobody working for me if I sacked them for being late this year.
The railway system collapsed in the North this year.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
It is trivial because it is nothing compared to the normal variations in GDP. In the 2008/9 crisis the UK economy shrank by 7.2%. That is actual shrinkage, not just a slight reduction in the rate of growth over 15 years. Even the usual quarterly revisions are not far short of the same magnitude as the No Deal projections. Trying to paint is as a disaster is just ludicrous.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
In general I wouldn't find that fair or reasonable. However, if it truly was an impossible standard to keep then a company operating such a policy would quickly find itself losing the majority of its workforce.
I know that when I am travelling into the Glasgow office from home in Edinburgh I leave enough time to allow for a number of different delays.
So I do think that there are some people who do not take reasonable precautions to be on time - and I also think that there are some circumstances that will overcome all precautions.
They are talking about just a minute late. A lousy minute. It’s pathetic.
If it was so pathetic why no be a minute early? Terrible attitude.
I hope you live up to your own silly Dickensian standards and resign the next time you are a minute late for something. Meanwhile I will focus on results, not the clock.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
How do you see the 3 years' serious disruption ever being recovered? That lost growth will be gone forever.
Why?
Because time only flows in one direction. Once something has passed, it has passed.
Now, you may argue that we will offset that lost growth in future years, post-Brexit. I have yet to see a convincing argument to support that. Personally, I think it's a generous interpretation to assume that, after a few years of No Deal disruption, growth matches what it would have had we remained in the EU.
As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.
Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?
How does it compare with the old signing-on process?
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
How do you see the 3 years' serious disruption ever being recovered? That lost growth will be gone forever.
Why?
Because time only flows in one direction. Once something has passed, it has passed.
Now, you may argue that we will offset that lost growth in future years, post-Brexit. I have yet to see a convincing argument to support that. Personally, I think it's a generous interpretation to assume that, after a few years of No Deal disruption, growth matches what it would have had we remained in the EU.
What causes economic growth in the long term? Primarily technology and ideas. That's why if there's a downturn it is normally (albeit not always) followed by a bigger boost. Because the technological growth etc that occurred still occurs whether you were taking advantage of it or not.
If we had a couple of years of disruption they'd probably be followed by a couple of years of "Celtic Tiger" catch up growth.
As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.
Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?
How does it compare with the old signing-on process?
My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.
With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
Are such employers reasonable and fair or something out of Dickens?
If you on a temporary contract or on probation you can be sacked for anything the employer likes, including being a minute late. Employment rights and whether dismissal was fair and reasonable do not kick in until in permanent employment and having passed your probation period.
Probably, I have no idea who these things work. Who will be voting?
I've no idea either, though I see one of the Tory members is Sir Christopher 'I'm going to protest a procedure I do not like by torpedoing bills on upskirting etc at the first hurdle, no matter that they can be ironed out later' Chope.
As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.
Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?
How does it compare with the old signing-on process?
My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.
With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
Is it one strike and you're sanctioned? Or only after multiple issues?
As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.
Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?
How does it compare with the old signing-on process?
And there is the question of precedent and fairness between staff. If person X in the office can be late without penalty then why can't I? Deciding where to live and where to work are non-trivial life choices and normally involve trade-offs (such as rural vs travelling time). In my experience most people appreciate this. What they don't appreciate is the people they perceive to get away with regularly breaking the rules/norms.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacanciorrect thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
Are such employers reasonable and fair or something out of Dickens?
If you on a temporary contract or on probation you can be sacked for anything the employer likes, including being a minute late. Employment rights and whether dismissal was fair and reasonable do not kick in until in permanent employment and having passed your probation period.
Hungary / Orban's loss, Austria's gain. Almost Brexitish in its stupidity and shortsightedness....
Much worse than Brexit IMO. A dangerously totalitarian cast of mind animated, in part, by old-fashioned anti-semitism. Very worrying, as well as stupid and short-sighted.
Disheartening, isn't it?
Pretty much everything in public life is these days, one reason why you don't see me here so often these days. The hand to hand combat over Brexit with more heat than light is not tremendously appealing. I do have three (!) threads in mind - on non-Brexit topics - but within about 3 comments it will be wall to wall Brexit so I will wait until the fever abates.
And yet there are interesting stories out there, which are being ignored as we all get the life sucked out of us by the Brexit Dementor.
That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
It is trivial because it is nothing compared to the normal variations in GDP. In the 2008/9 crisis the UK economy shrank by 7.2%. That is actual shrinkage, not just a slight reduction in the rate of growth over 15 years. Even the usual quarterly revisions are not far short of the same magnitude as the No Deal projections. Trying to paint is as a disaster is just ludicrous.
Well I think 2008/9 was a disaster too.
And incidentally, according to the ONS, UK GDP shrank by 0.3% in 2008 and 4.2% in 2009, so I don't know where you get your 7.2% figure from.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
In the case of many of these people harshly punishing them, whatever the merits of doing so, seems likely to have negative consequences rather than positive ones.
Well unfortunately there is little alternative to a sanction for job seekers who do not meet the terms of their contract to seek work and turn up to appointments on time
Honestly I didn't know there were commons committees with lay members.
How does that work then?
Happens in local government (where independent members on standards with voting rights was removed during the coalition), basically just being there to give their views on the matter at hand to provide an outsider's perspective on particular cases, even though they cannot directly influence the outcome. So I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar reasoning in parliament - though I see on the website it says they recently decided sometimes they should hold an indicative vote so the views of lay members can be on the record.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
Evidence is NOT a solution to the problem. As for the rest, well, you clearly wilfully have no comprehension of rural life. So I give up.
Even in rural areas it is possible to leave earlier and walk if you cannot find alternative transport
That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.
Which is why unless for some reason May and co think that is a good distraction from the whalloping the deal is going to get, it is such an odd thing to resist. We get it, no one wants to provide their legal advice, but everyone assumes it to be terrible sight unseen, it cannot be worse than the imaginations fuelled by the leaks and the summaries.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacanciorrect thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
In my experience the #1 reason people are late is that they set off late. By a longshot.
Not to suggest other reasons aren't possible but they're more likely excuses than reality.
Have to catch an early train Got to be to work by nine And if I had an air-o-plane I still couldn't make it on time 'Cause it takes me so long Just to figure out what I'm gonna wear Blame it on the train But the boss is already there
So address that - maybe some of the unemployed don't realise why punctuality is important, what it means for others, why you need to allow yourself plenty of time to allow for unexpected events etc.. This may all seem obvious to you and me but may not be obvious to those who have not built up good working habits. By all means have sanctions but first we should be trying to help people learn good habits by teaching, advising and helping. Then if they still don't learn have sanctions.
Any good employer would do that. UC staff should be like a good employer, using some common-sense and judgment not adopting a computer-says-no mentality.
Well unfortunately there is little alternative to a sanction for job seekers who do not meet the terms of their contract to seek work and turn up to appointments on time
Really? Has your GP ever refused to see you because you turned up a minute late for the appointment, or your child been turned away from school because they turned up a minute late in the morning? Or does the system somehow manage to find a bit of wiggle-room when its users include middle class people?
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
I am not advocating No Deal as my first choice. Just pointing out that the supposedly terrible figures produced by the treasury are nothing of the sort. As I said 3.9% lower growth after 15 years is less than the rounding error on the normal quarterly figures. 9.3% lower in the case of No Deal is 0.15% lower per quarter even without the compound effect. It is a far cry from the warnings of catastrophe that are flying around.
9.3% lower means we have 9.3% less to spend on health, education, security, social care, holidays, and stuff generally, than we would otherwise have done. It's not trivial.
It is trivial because it is nothing compared to the normal variations in GDP. In the 2008/9 crisis the UK economy shrank by 7.2%. That is actual shrinkage, not just a slight reduction in the rate of growth over 15 years. Even the usual quarterly revisions are not far short of the same magnitude as the No Deal projections. Trying to paint is as a disaster is just ludicrous.
Well I think 2008/9 was a disaster too.
And incidentally, according to the ONS, UK GDP shrank by 0.3% in 2008 and 4.2% in 2009, so I don't know where you get your 7.2% figure from.
You have to account for the ~2% trend growth that we forwent(?) in '08 and '09. The economy grew by a minimum of 2.4% from '00 to '07. You can pick your favourite data point. We also had a three year hangover when growth was subdued by historical standards.
As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.
Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?
How does it compare with the old signing-on process?
My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.
With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
If you are unemployed in the daytime in the week you should mostly be spending your time preparing and writing job applications anyway
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasonssts are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned? That is what you appear to be suggesting. And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
Well if you get evidence the bus broke down then that would solve your problem.
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
Evidence is NOT a solution to the problem. As for the rest, well, you clearly wilfully have no comprehension of rural life. So I give up.
Even in rural areas it is possible to leave earlier and walk if you cannot find alternative transport
It is not always possible to walk from rural areas, unless you leave many many hours ahead of time and have an encyclopedic knowledge of public rights away over fields. Not all roads out have pavements you know.
I'm far from up in arms over universal credit, and the number from those very difficult rural areas may not be very high, but it is not as simple as you suggest.
The ranking Tory on the committee, btw, is Sir Christopher Chope, vocal brexiteer and outspoken critic of May's deal. One of the very first backbenchers to say he was going to vote against the deal.
Even in rural areas it is possible to leave earlier and walk if you cannot find alternative transport
LOL.
No. Really, really, no.
My parents live in a village to the south of Derby. Their bus service has just been slashed, from once an hour to twice a day. If you do not have access to a car, then it is a two or three hour walk in. That's totally unrealistic, especially if you have children to look after.
And that's hardly rural; it's only a few miles away from East Midlands Airport ...
The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.
If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.
So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.
And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.
But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
How do you see the 3 years' serious disruption ever being recovered? That lost growth will be gone forever.
Why?
Because time only flows in one direction. Once something has passed, it has passed.
Now, you may argue that we will offset that lost growth in future years, post-Brexit. I have yet to see a convincing argument to support that. Personally, I think it's a generous interpretation to assume that, after a few years of No Deal disruption, growth matches what it would have had we remained in the EU.
What causes economic growth in the long term? Primarily technology and ideas. That's why if there's a downturn it is normally (albeit not always) followed by a bigger boost. Because the technological growth etc that occurred still occurs whether you were taking advantage of it or not.
If we had a couple of years of disruption they'd probably be followed by a couple of years of "Celtic Tiger" catch up growth.
Well, I hope you're right. (Or rather I hope we never have to see if you're right!)
Interesting point re the bounce back though - not much in evidence post-2009. Well done George O!
While I agree with your last sentence, in the real world people do arrive late, transport companies provide poor or late or non-existent services etc. Trying to address the reasons for lateness should probably be the first step rather than automatic sanctions.
In my experience the #1 reason people are late is that they set off late. By a longshot.
Not to suggest other reasons aren't possible but they're more likely excuses than reality.
Have to catch an early train Got to be to work by nine And if I had an air-o-plane I still couldn't make it on time 'Cause it takes me so long Just to figure out what I'm gonna wear Blame it on the train But the boss is already there
90% of my staff commute in by train, which is how it has to be since we work in the city centre.
I would have had nobody working for me if I sacked them for being late this year.
The railway system collapsed in the North this year.
The ranking Tory on the committee, btw, is Sir Christopher Chope, vocal brexiteer and outspoken critic of May's deal. One of the very first backbenchers to say he was going to vote against the deal.
I would not expect ANY mercy from him.
Would be funny if the lay members all felt there was not a case to answer, but the MPs all had an axe to grind so ignored that. Though I would hope they all treat their responsibility more seriously than that.
As someone who has relatives who live somewhat out in the sticks, do not underestimate the difficulties of getting anywhere for a set time via public transport. Some of the comments on here seem out of touch with reality.
Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?
How does it compare with the old signing-on process?
My understanding is that with Jobseeker's Allowance you usually have a fortnightly signing on time, which was roughly set at a certain time, give or take 30 minutes.
With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
Is it one strike and you're sanctioned? Or only after multiple issues?
Am told it is quite regular for one strike and to be sanctioned for a couple of months.
Only 2 or 3 strikes are needed for a claimant to lose their benefits for three years.
There's been a few occasions where people have been sanctioned for being at hospital or attending an interview rather than attending their short notice review at a jobcentre plus.
That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.
Which is why unless for some reason May and co think that is a good distraction from the whalloping the deal is going to get, it is such an odd thing to resist. We get it, no one wants to provide their legal advice, but everyone assumes it to be terrible sight unseen, it cannot be worse than the imaginations fuelled by the leaks and the summaries.
I think Cox was making the point that some of the advice might be commercially/nationally sensitive - especially in the context of an ongoing negotiation process. Personally I don't understand why those parts can't be redacted but I'm not a lawyer.
The deal is deader than the deadest thing in the Walking Dead. What next?
Either the EU are lying about being willing to negotiate and bigger pushovers than they have seemed to date, and an interim Tory leader can get some tweaks agreed quickly, or we referendum it and remain wins, or the EU are not lying, this really is the only deal around, and despite their crying about it the Commons cannot agree enough to stop it no deal then occurs.
Obviously I'd hope the first occurs but it seems improbable, but the other do are not pleasant to contemplate.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UCled or on strike this is prefer it to be eaten.
You can certainly beher
Yes, of course you caay.
If ot
No wse.
Well if you get evidence the bus bched
While I agree with your last sentence, instep rather than automatic sanctions.
As Philip Thompson correctly points out if you are really concerned about being late get up and leave an hour earlier
I keep saying , and will do so again. Getting up earlier does not help when there is one bus a day.
Yes it does as you can walk to your destination. No job centre in the country is not within walking distance of its claimants even if in rural areas it takes longer than in cities and towns
That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.
Which is why unless for some reason May and co think that is a good distraction from the whalloping the deal is going to get, it is such an odd thing to resist. We get it, no one wants to provide their legal advice, but everyone assumes it to be terrible sight unseen, it cannot be worse than the imaginations fuelled by the leaks and the summaries.
I think Cox was making the point that some of the advice might be commercially/nationally sensitive - especially in the context of an ongoing negotiation process. Personally I don't understand why those parts can't be redacted but I'm not a lawyer.
I liked the way the Cox implied that there *might be* commercial or national security concerns. He did not say there were. Which presumably means there aren't.
That fact that Cox has a great voice really did very little to disguise that it was speaking a load of old bollocks.
That said I'm reasonably certain the point is not to actually nail Cox and Lidington with contempt procedings- the point is to ruin "the grid" by embroiling May in an almighty bunfight with Parliament about a coverup at the precise moment she should be winning MPs over.
Which is why unless for some reason May and co think that is a good distraction from the whalloping the deal is going to get, it is such an odd thing to resist. We get it, no one wants to provide their legal advice, but everyone assumes it to be terrible sight unseen, it cannot be worse than the imaginations fuelled by the leaks and the summaries.
I think Cox was making the point that some of the advice might be commercially/nationally sensitive - especially in the context of an ongoing negotiation process. Personally I don't understand why those parts can't be redacted but I'm not a lawyer.
I thought the whole point was parliament wants none of it omitted or redacted no matter the reason, and since it ordered it the government must comply, even if it is a bad idea.
If you are unemployed in the daytime in the week you should mostly be spending your time preparing and writing job applications anyway
It is hard to believe with that attitude you repeatedly get rejected by the electorate.
Some of these people are ill or parents.
A typical example is the following anonymised list of sanctions reported by food bank clients to the Trussell trust charity:
1) Man who missed appointment due to being at hospital with his partner, who had just had a stillborn child.
2) Man sanctioned for missing an appointment at the jobcentre on the day of his brother’s unexpected death. He had tried to phone Jobcentre Plus to explain, but could not get through and left a message which was consequently not relayed to the appropriate person.
3) Man who carried out 60 job searches but missed one which matched his profile.
4) Man had an appointment at the jobcentre on the Tuesday, was taken to hospital with a suspected heart attack that day, missed the appointment and was sanctioned for nine weeks.
5) Man who secured employment and was due to start in three weeks. He was sanctioned in the interim period because JCP told him he was still duty bound to send his CV to other companies.
6) Young couple who had not received any letters regarding an appointment that was thus subsequently missed. Their address at the Department for Work and Pensions was wrongly recorded. They were left with no money for over a month.
7) One case where the claimant’s wife went into premature labour and had to go to hospital. This caused the claimant to miss an appointment. No leeway given.
8) One man sanctioned for attending a job interview instead of Jobcentre Plus – he got the job so did not pursue grievance against the JCP.
9) Man who requested permission to attend the funeral of his best friend; permission declined; sanctioned when he went anyway.
10) A diabetic sanctioned and unable to buy food was sent to hospital by GP as a consequence.
Comments
Too often people in politics confuse "the middle" as being safe or rational. Sometimes it's the worst and you are better picking one side or the other. Even if your side loses for now.
That account doesn't have a blue tick so either it's not the person it claims to be or that person isn't important enough for twitter to think they need to be verified (hint its the former here).
As for the point about the WA vote being pulled, no good reason has been provided for that IMO. I don't believe dozens are going to change their minds or abstain, but a twitter commitment to vote for or against is not the same as actually standing to be counted, to taking on parliamentary responsibility and voting it down. It could be the biggest government defeat ever, who cares, a lot of time and effort on our side and the EU went into the WA, if parliament does not wish to accept it that is their right, but they have to get off their arses and do it, not expect a free pass by having the vote pulled.
I do not know what will happen but if you think Farage and Johnson in full hate EU mood is not going to become incendiary you are an optimist
Otherwise tough, that is the real world so leave earlier in the morning, walk or get a car. Plus the scenario you state applies to only a tiny fraction of the UK ie very rural areas.
As I said claiming unemployment benefits should be a preparation for the world of work not a hand out with no obligations attached
Many of those jobs are an entry into the world of work for the unemployed and they should be ready to meet the standards such employers demand
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46424053
I know that when I am travelling into the Glasgow office from home in Edinburgh I leave enough time to allow for a number of different delays - so that if everything does run on time I am into the office before colleagues who live around the corner. And yet, there have still sometimes been days when public transport failures have meant that I have been unable to make it into the office at all.
So I do think that there are some people who do not take reasonable precautions to be on time - and I also think that there are some circumstances that will overcome all precautions.
Not to suggest other reasons aren't possible but they're more likely excuses than reality.
Have to catch an early train
Got to be to work by nine
And if I had an air-o-plane
I still couldn't make it on time
'Cause it takes me so long
Just to figure out what I'm gonna wear
Blame it on the train
But the boss is already there
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1069695103474827264
I would have had nobody working for me if I sacked them for being late this year.
The railway system collapsed in the North this year.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/transpennine-express-commuters-left-tears-15482096
One of my staff lives in Mossley, his station is the fifth worst train station for punctuality/cancellations in the country, out of over 2,600.
https://www.ontimetrains.co.uk/stations/MSL
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/we-ve-been-sacrificed-by-transpennine-express-over-900-cancelled-trains-in-six-months-for-colne-valley-communities-1-9452135
Now, you may argue that we will offset that lost growth in future years, post-Brexit. I have yet to see a convincing argument to support that. Personally, I think it's a generous interpretation to assume that, after a few years of No Deal disruption, growth matches what it would have had we remained in the EU.
Not knowing the process, a few questions: why are they having to travel? What are the meetings for? Are they regular and planned in advance, or irregular and without much notice?
How does it compare with the old signing-on process?
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1069227665381621760?s=19
If we had a couple of years of disruption they'd probably be followed by a couple of years of "Celtic Tiger" catch up growth.
With Universal Credit, there's no fixed signing on date, you get called in at short notice to give an update/review of your situation.
How does that work then?
And yet there are interesting stories out there, which are being ignored as we all get the life sucked out of us by the Brexit Dementor.
And incidentally, according to the ONS, UK GDP shrank by 0.3% in 2008 and 4.2% in 2009, so I don't know where you get your 7.2% figure from.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/standards/membership/
I see the obnoxious weirdo Christopher Chope is on the committee, so Christ knows what would happen.
Any good employer would do that. UC staff should be like a good employer, using some common-sense and judgment not adopting a computer-says-no mentality.
I'm far from up in arms over universal credit, and the number from those very difficult rural areas may not be very high, but it is not as simple as you suggest.
I would not expect ANY mercy from him.
No. Really, really, no.
My parents live in a village to the south of Derby. Their bus service has just been slashed, from once an hour to twice a day. If you do not have access to a car, then it is a two or three hour walk in. That's totally unrealistic, especially if you have children to look after.
And that's hardly rural; it's only a few miles away from East Midlands Airport ...
Interesting point re the bounce back though - not much in evidence post-2009. Well done George O!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope#Blocking_and_filibustering_of_bills
Only 2 or 3 strikes are needed for a claimant to lose their benefits for three years.
There's been a few occasions where people have been sanctioned for being at hospital or attending an interview rather than attending their short notice review at a jobcentre plus.
Obviously I'd hope the first occurs but it seems improbable, but the other do are not pleasant to contemplate.
That fact that Cox has a great voice really did very little to disguise that it was speaking a load of old bollocks.
Some of these people are ill or parents.
A typical example is the following anonymised list of sanctions reported by food bank clients to the Trussell trust charity:
1) Man who missed appointment due to being at hospital with his partner, who had just had a stillborn child.
2) Man sanctioned for missing an appointment at the jobcentre on the day of his brother’s unexpected death. He had tried to phone Jobcentre Plus to explain, but could not get through and left a message which was consequently not relayed to the appropriate person.
3) Man who carried out 60 job searches but missed one which matched his profile.
4) Man had an appointment at the jobcentre on the Tuesday, was taken to hospital with a suspected heart attack that day, missed the appointment and was sanctioned for nine weeks.
5) Man who secured employment and was due to start in three weeks. He was sanctioned in the interim period because JCP told him he was still duty bound to send his CV to other companies.
6) Young couple who had not received any letters regarding an appointment that was thus subsequently missed. Their address at the Department for Work and Pensions was wrongly recorded. They were left with no money for over a month.
7) One case where the claimant’s wife went into premature labour and had to go to hospital. This caused the claimant to miss an appointment. No leeway given.
8) One man sanctioned for attending a job interview instead of Jobcentre Plus – he got the job so did not pursue grievance against the JCP.
9) Man who requested permission to attend the funeral of his best friend; permission declined; sanctioned when he went anyway.
10) A diabetic sanctioned and unable to buy food was sent to hospital by GP as a consequence.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/24/benefit-sanctions-trivial-breaches-and-administrative-errors