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

Richard_Tyndall said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Jonathan said:

kyf_100 said:

Jonathan said:

Stereotomy said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people

Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.

The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.

By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.

Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.

More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.

The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.

It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.

Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.

Nope. There is not a ton of new information. There are just yet more scare stories.

Are you saying the 585 page withdrawal agreement is not new information and just scare stories?

It's information. Very little of it is new.

It's apparently new information to you that avoiding any kind of border infrastructure in Ireland is an imperative and that your preferred EFTA solution is therefore not possible as an off the shelf approach.

FrancisUrquhart said:

dixiedean said:

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

Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.

I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635188332945408

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635401793617927

Which is why we should say no deal.

When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".

There’s a reason why one can’t have subtle drafting in documents in any more. Drafting which gets you to where you want to be without signposting it. You’re highlighting it. Leavers, good at lying, bad at thinking in curves.

The thing that surprises is that TM deal sounds a really good one with fantastic opportunities during the backstop for NI. Apparently only the DUP are against it in Northern Ireland and they are not only going against industry including Bombardier but against their own core vote

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

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mps-will-lose-votes-unless-they-back-new-referendum-a4006626.html

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

As May's Deal ends free movement which was key to the Leave win and still gets us out of the EU and CFP

Wonderful painting by OGH's daughter-in-law!

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

dixiedean said:

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

Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.

I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.

It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

(Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)

Am no fan of tax credits TBH. Although UC seems to have improved the system by making it random on a monthly rather than annual basis.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Wonderful painting by OGH's daughter-in-law!

Who is it?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial

This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.

dixiedean said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

dixiedean said:

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

Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.

I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.

It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

(Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)

Am no fan of tax credits TBH. Although UC seems to have improved the system by making it random on a monthly rather than annual basis.

I think it is fair to say they are both very bad systems.

But I've always thought the real scandal of foodbanks was not how prevalent they have become but how many years they were not there and sorely needed.

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.

Again, in teaching, yes. I had a colleague who was sacked about a year ago because she never turned up in time for the start of school. She was usually about 5-10 minutes late.

OK, so I know other rules apply in teaching and the situation isn't strictly comparable.

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Compassionate conservatism right here

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.

Yes. 5 minutes is serious. The attitude it isn't is why some people struggle to hold down a job and not taking it seriously ultimately does them no favours.

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial

This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.

Do not often agree with you but do there. Both a proper Brexit and properly remaining would be preferable to this shambles.

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial

This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.

Do not often agree with you but do there. Both a proper Brexit and properly remaining would be preferable to this shambles.

No they would both be far worse. One leading to the worst recession for decades, the other to a surge in the far righr

Having watched Mrs May and this Cox bloke, you wonder why May was ever PM. She fails even the basics in public speaking. She panics, she gabbles, she is easily distracted, and she exudes a basic lack of confidence. They may both be lying, but she gives it away. Cox is a master of lying well. I assume he's an ex-barrister so he's had lots of practice.

Jezza has been coached to speak slowly and stick to the script. One advantage is he knows he's thick and he does what he's told; he probably doesn't even know he's lying.

Ps A very impressive picture.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635188332945408

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635401793617927

Which is why we should say no deal.

When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".

Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.

There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.

The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a

The farce continues!

Now we have confirmation that workers rights etc are not protected by the WA. This vote isn’t going to happen , it will be pulled in the coming days .

The whole process is descending into chaos .

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.

If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635188332945408

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635401793617927

Which is why we should say no deal.

When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".

Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.

There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.

The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a

Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people

Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.

The signatures are remainers intent on stopping brexit, not chestnuts

The prime minister is a remainer too, is she deliberately doing a bad job to sabotage Brexit?

No she is just naturally bad at her job. It is a Brucie Bonus for Remain.

Honestly - I wonder if she has cunningly fucked up so badly that even remain seems better.


I mean, no one could be that crap could they?

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.

If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post

Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards

The argument against another vote is desperate !

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 !

nico67 said:

The farce continues!

Now we have confirmation that workers rights etc are not protected by the WA. This vote isn’t going to happen , it will be pulled in the coming days .

The whole process is descending into chaos .

Can you provide the link on workers rights please

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

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

And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635188332945408

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635401793617927

Which is why we should say no deal.

When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".

Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.

There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.

The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a

Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.

The DUP are alienating their core base

That's not for us to determine. That's for voters to determine.

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.

If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post

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.

CD13 said:

Having watched Mrs May and this Cox bloke, you wonder why May was ever PM. She fails even the basics in public speaking. She panics, she gabbles, she is easily distracted, and she exudes a basic lack of confidence. They may both be lying, but she gives it away. Cox is a master of lying well. I assume he's an ex-barrister so he's had lots of practice.

Jezza has been coached to speak slowly and stick to the script. One advantage is he knows he's thick and he does what he's told; he probably doesn't even know he's lying.

Ps A very impressive picture.

May was in the right place at the right time, or wrong place at the wrong time (depending on how you look at it). She is a technocrat, but is clearly whiter and whiter, no borrowing horses of media moguls or holidaying with dodgy foreign leaders.

So when the shit show stopped and Cameron jumped off, she was basically one of the only candidates.

I think she probably worked her way up the greasy pole in a similar fashion. The media have never found any dirt on her or her husband, they are greyer than grey, and often a vacancy opens up because of dodgy behaviour and the so a safe pair of hands is the often the obvious choice.

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.

If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post

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.

I suggest you get a job that you can ensure you are on time for. Either in walking or cycling distance (I know many who walk up to 40 minutes to work) or by getting a bus that will get you to work with plenty of time to cope if the bus is late.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

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

You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether

Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.

If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post

Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards

Of course not..In my company (before I retired) continued late attendence would result in a discussion with the employee to ascertain the cause and attempt to resolve it. If it continued a verbal warning would follow, then a written, then termination.

You may realise from this no one ever left my company due to time keeping, indeed no one even received a verbal warning. My attitude to my employees was to treat them as I would like to be treated myself

Would expect nothing less from you, Sir. If all Conservatives were like you, you could count on my support.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nico67 said:

The argument against another vote is desperate !

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 !

You may not comprehend yet just how divisive and angry it will be. Indeed remain may not win

Indeed remain were IIRC further ahead in the polls before the vote was formally called last time than they are now.

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635188332945408

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635401793617927

Which is why we should say no deal.

When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".

Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.

There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.

The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a

Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.

The DUP are alienating their core base

That's not for us to determine. That's for voters to determine.

They are making public statements to that effect including the DUP core farmers vote

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635188332945408

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635401793617927

Which is why we should say no deal.

When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".

Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.

There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.

The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a

Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.

The DUP are alienating their core base

That's not for us to determine. That's for voters to determine.

They are making public statements to that effect including the DUP core farmers vote

So be it. Let them vote in future elections where they can remove the DUP and effect their rules.

Don't take their franchise away from them and give rule setting powers to a third party overseas to which they get no vote.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Norm said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial

It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.

It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes

We are already there.

Not yet by a long way

You’re happy because your preferred leader is charge. You would be content if she forced her Brexit on the rest of us. You are not in a great position to judge. There is nothing good or unifying about her deal.

You speak as a remainer

Because leavers are so overjoyed at this deal?

bigjohnowls said:

Jess Philips
‏

@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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Norm said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial

It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.

It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes

We are already there.

Not yet by a long way

You’re happy because your preferred leader is charge. You would be content if she forced her Brexit on the rest of us. You are not in a great position to judge. There is nothing good or unifying about her deal.

You speak as a remainer

Sure. I can understand the arguments of the hard Brexiteers better than the May loyalists.

ydoethur said:

nico67 said:

The argument against another vote is desperate !

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’s at moments like these when you just have to marvel at the almighty mess we’re in. It will get worse before it gets better.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

nico67 said:

The argument against another vote is desperate !

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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

nico67 said:

The argument against another vote is desperate !

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?

Stereotomy said:

The problem is that we're unwilling to admit to ourselves that democracy only picks the most popular outcome in the same way that the world cup picks the best football team. i.e. probabilistically. If the vote had been held a week earlier or later, or different people had been coming up with campaign ads, or different events had occurred, or any of a number of other factors, then the result could have been different.

We don't like to think about it that way, because it feels like it deligitimises democracy- not just for that referendum, but for every vote, every election. But it's true, and for that reason rerunning a referendum- especially one that was very close- is essentially giving one side another flip of the coin. I'd be furious if the same thing had happened for a vote which went the way I wanted, e.g. Sindyref. And I'm sure that if that DID happen, the people supporting the opposing position (the SNP, following the example) would be able to come up with some sales pitch about new information, lies during the campaign, blah blah, to justify it.

So that's one frame of mind. But here's another: if there really is a majority to stay in the EU now, isn't it perverse to the point of insanity to say we need to leave to respect the democratic will of the electorate of 2 and a half years ago? And another: given that leaving would always involve negotiating with the EU- who aren't bound by our referendums- did it ever make sense to have this setup, where we'd have a single with just one option encompassing so many different possibilities, many mutually contradictory, none of which we could predict?

I partially resolve it by saying that the original referendum was ill-conceived, which is largely Cameron's fault. But that doesn't really give us a way forward. After that, I lean towards a second referendum for a few reasons:

1. I want to Remain. Process is important, but so's the outcome.
2. We have a parliamentary democracy for a reason. We voted in the referendum, but we also voted in these MPs.
3. There remains the "ideal scenario" of public support moving significantly towards having a second referendum (say 60+% support, broadly reflected in polls). In that case I think it's very hard to argue that it's undemocratic to have one. Same goes if there's an early GE and the winning party has it in their manifesto, though I think that's unlikely.

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.

Apart from disagreeing with you regarding the need for another referendum, I think this was an excellent argued piece.

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...

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jess Philips
‏

@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.

But it's close enough in corbynista-land

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

dixiedean said:

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

Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.

I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.

It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

(Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)

Am no fan of tax credits TBH. Although UC seems to have improved the system by making it random on a monthly rather than annual basis.

I think it is fair to say they are both very bad systems.

But I've always thought the real scandal of foodbanks was not how prevalent they have become but how many years they were not there and sorely needed.

UC is a disgrace.. We had to go thro the process when my wife took ill. The whole system seems designed to stop people claiming/lose the will to live, holding to waiting to be answered by their interminable keep em on hold switchboard, with music so repetitious that Hari Kara would not be a surprise. You have go thro this just to claim ESA even though you are excluded for the first week. As I say an utter disgrace.. Corby has a point about this shambolic disgrace

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jess Philips
‏

@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?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Jonathan said:

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

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

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

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

And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.

Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.

But over three years? It might be pretty serious.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

nico67 said:

The argument against another vote is desperate !

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

I think people worry too much. This isn't France. If we abrogate the Brexit vote in some fashion, all that will happen is that turnout for general elections will be much lower for a time, we may have a Labour administration or perhaps even a recasting of the political parties. No political party has a right to eternal life.

In terms of Brexit, if we believe NIESR (who are plausible imo), then we're talking 4-5% lower growth over the next 12 years or so. Given that the '08 crash not only cost us around £1.3 trillion in additional debt, but lost us at least 7% economic growth in only 4 years we should keep a sense of proportion. The financial industry fucked the country over far more thoroughly.

rpjs said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

nico67 said:

The argument against another vote is desperate !

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