Could Nikki Haley be the GOP figure to beat Trump? – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, she is too moderate for most Republicans in their current moo. Trump also has such a big lead in state and primary polls hard to see that being overturned.

Carnyx said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

Significant win for Biden.

https://twitter.com/LaurenKGurley/status/1726607861093167353
Ford, GM & Stellantis workers have voted by 64% in favor of ratifying their contract deals, UAW says.

Contracts offer larger wage increases than UAW workers have received in the past 22 yrs combined.

Close-ish vote likely due to very high expectations from members..

Will he get any thanks though?

America economy is doing pretty good yet ordinary joes are fed up and negative and think everything is going to shit economy wise. The polls just dont match the finance situation.

There’s a lot more American people primarily feeling the negative effects of cumulative inflation, than there are feeling the positive effects of the economic recovery, even if on paper growth is up and inflation is down.

Same here, feeling the negative effects of cumulative inflation, but with the addition of no economic recovery.

It's the main reason that the polls are where they are.

And the impact of current tax policy won't help: some perhaps surprising graphs here:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2023/oct/02/uk-income-tax-how-fiscal-drag-leads-to-people-falling-into-higher-rates (later graphs seem to be blurred cos no hard data)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/pressure-grows-on-hunt-to-cut-income-tax-as-millions-more-face-paying-it

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach

M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon

It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever

We all know its

… boredom? Probably

There are too many people here weirdly keen to talk to me. That suggests not many outsiders and a lot of boredom

And yet it is intensely seductive. M’pai right now. Rush hour




Love the school desks in the sand vibe


I must be getting old because I can imagine doing a whole winter here. January March. I’d probably get excited by the cement bag delivery

Got yer tinnie there I see. Did they not have Tenants?

Fairliered said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach

M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon

It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever

We all know its

… boredom? Probably

There are too many people here weirdly keen to talk to me. That suggests not many outsiders and a lot of boredom

And yet it is intensely seductive. M’pai right now. Rush hour




Love the school desks in the sand vibe


I must be getting old because I can imagine doing a whole winter here. January March. I’d probably get excited by the cement bag delivery

Got yer tinnie there I see. Did they not have Tenants?

Why would you spoil perfection by drinking Tennents?

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

viewcode said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash
Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder

Pensioners:young people.
Predators:prey

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash
Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder

Pensioners:young people.
Predators:prey

Those with mental health problems in particular are likely to become worse as they fear losing benefits and falling into destitution. What happens if the person is unable to sustain any work . Perhaps the government is hoping the suicides pile up and they get rid of the problem . This government is utterly loathsome .

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, she is too moderate for most Republicans in their current moo. Trump also has such a big lead in state and primary polls hard to see that being overturned.

It’s true. Republican voters can be pretty bovine.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

MarqueeMark said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash
Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder

Pensioners:young people.
Predators:prey

Those with mental health problems in particular are likely to become worse as they fear losing benefits and falling into destitution. What happens if the person is unable to sustain any work . Perhaps the government is hoping the suicides pile up and they get rid of the problem . This government is utterly loathsome .

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.

Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.

The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.

The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.

The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.

He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0p6ll3jjgo

I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.

What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

This is the sort of thing the UN gets shit over - Lots of people on here have expressed some concerns about the goverment's attitude toward protesting in general, and just because there are many countries which are far far worse does not mean the UK is exempt from criticism, but just the tone, whinging about a lack of reply (when the government says it has responded) will probably put a lot of people side of the government against the UN. These rappoteur's can sometimes have reports which seem completely random.

Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.

The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year. Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.

The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.

The sentences are "significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past," Mr Fry notes.

He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0p6ll3jjgo

I doubt very much if he’d worry about the freedom of expression of people he disliked.

What brings the system of Special Rapporteurs into disrepute is that they are not impartial observers, but rather fervent partisans. But, their appointment by the UN lends them a credibility they don’t merit.

It does appear that way. "UN says X" makes for a good headline, but who are these people, what resources do they have, what is their remit?

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.

In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.

MarqueeMark said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....

Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.

No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).

Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.

He was president for a short time in 2021.

There are ways round the term limits.

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach

M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon

It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever

I agree. KRS is the closest I've been to paradise, apart from the mosquitos. I spent a couple of weeks writing once. No distractions, gorgeous weather and a stunning beach. It was perfect.

Ooh. You’ve been here? Where did you stay? What beach? What season?

Do you think you could have endured 2 months without hanging yourself?

A serious question. I normally go to Bangkok in the winter but hmmmmm

biggles said:

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.

In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.

MarqueeMark said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....

Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.

No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).

Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.

He was president for a short time in 2021.

There are ways round the term limits.

To that point, in about nine months can Biden not just “concede” the last election? We can all then say “sorry mate, but term limits mean you’ve had your two”.

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.

In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.

MarqueeMark said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....

Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.

No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).

Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.

He was president for a short time in 2021.

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach

M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon

It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever

Leon’s back. Can we be nicer to him today? He’s trying very hard and, in the circumstances, doing okay.

Leon, I’m proud of you. The way you get knocked down on here, but keep coming back despite everything, is inspirational.

Thanks. You’re still a simpleton, but “the admiration of a fool is better than gold from a rich man”

That’s an old Khmer saying which I just made up

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

Good catch - he's not a legitimate President and therefore won't ever be a legitimate ex-President either.

In all seriousness I think Trump may genuinely think he is still President, albeit not in power. He makes his lawyers and spokespersons call him 'The President', not simply 'President Trump', he's talked about being busy as President in 2021, and he absolutely believed there was the ability to replace Biden and reinstall him as President once he read something on twitter which 'proved' election fraud.

MarqueeMark said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On topic, Trump is the only GOP figure who can beat Trump. And, to be fair, he's giving it a bloody good go.

He once joked he could shoot someone on the street and not lose votes. Among his base, that is absolutely true, since whilst some of them argue he is innocent and it is all oppression, others go the other route and simply say Presidents and ex-Presidents should not be prosecuted even if they have committed crimes, because that's political.

They don't extend that attitude toward Biden, oddly.

Well, Biden isn't really President, you see. STOP. THE. STEAL.

If he isn't, then Trump has already had his two terms - and can't stand again....

Nah, not been sworn in as President even though he is the real President.

No one tell him the dictator trick of updating the Constitution to reset term limits though (even where term limits are not changed in the Constitution).

Fortunately this is one case where the difficulty of updating the Constitution is a good thing.

He was president for a short time in 2021.

There are ways round the term limits. In fact, strictly speaking, there is no term limit on the US presidency. There is a limit on how many times someone can be *elected* to the presidency.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

For some reason there’s a whole load of weird US media stories overnight.

1. X/Twitter is suing campaign group Media Matters, for platform manipulation and tortuous interference. This is the group that have been lobbying advertisers to boycott the platform, allegedly by falsifying connections between adverts, posted content, and relationships between them. https://deadline.com/2023/11/elon-musk-lawsuit-twitter-ads-1235630087/

2. Two Republican State Attorneys General have also shown an interest in the Media Matters case. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-opens-investigation-media-matters-potential-fraudulent-activity

3. Video platform Rumble may also want to join the Twitter lawsuit, they’re also struggling with advertiser boycotts. Investigation by journalist Glenn Greenwald: https://rumble.com/v3wxe0s-system-update-show-185.html
https://x.com/chrispavlovski/status/1726745030470119588?s=61

4. Trump’s Truth Social is suing 20 mainstream media outlets, (inc Guardian and Daily Mail) for allegedly reporting incorrect financial information on a listed company, and failing to correct the error. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/trump-s-truth-social-parent-company-sues-20-media-outlets

Are we seeing the start of the mainstream and alternative media outlets trying to shut each other down ahead of the election, or a flash in the pan that gets resolved quickly?

None of those you list involved in bringing lawsuits are exactly renowned for a close relationship with the truth.

So no, that's not what we're seeing.

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

Pensioners with perfect physical health and mobility get large sums of cash
Younger people with imperfect physical health and mobility get whipped to work harder

Pensioners:young people.
Predators:prey

I don’t see what pensioners have actually done to deserve this invective other than cashing the cheques. Would the young people you're defending turn down money? I wouldn't.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.

The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.

Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.

The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.

Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.

Pulpstar said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.

The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.

Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.

The ratchet was clearly designed by someone mathematically illiterate - three sequences should be tracked, one 2.5% compounding nominal from 2010, a prices growth chart (CPI I'd assume) and an average earnings sequence. The state pension can then leap about between the best of the three, or just remain as is for a few years if both prices and earnings drop in a year. The ratchet taking the best of the three and leaping about between it makes it a mathematical certainty the pension will eventually be unaffordable in the long term.

Simon_Peach said:

Well the view from my reading chair is splendid this morning and, after 10 years, still full of interest… this time of year the tup in the field is doing his business… over a 60 minute cycle it’s shag, eat, gaze at and sniff the the next ewe in line, shag, eat, rest…

DecrepiterJohnL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.

The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.

Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.

Are we going to have an SNP generation-style debate about whether a century is more or less than the foreseeable future? That would be dull.

And as I said, a fairer way of reducing government spending on pensions would be to end higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions, which benefits the better-off such as MPs and media pundits who complain about the triple lock. Even if this were limited to standard rate, the highly-paid can still benefit from salary sacrificed pension contributions that reduce their taxable income.

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.

So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].

Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.

Feel for you if it has died before 100k; you'd hope a modern car would do more than that.

PJH said:

Leon said:

Fairliered said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach

M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon

It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever

I thought that on seeing (on television) Cliff Richard's Caribbean hideaway with its unrestricted view of the ocean from his bed. What do you look at after the first ten minutes?

We have a sea view. It used to be the first thing I looked at each morning. Now it’s just a view.

So even sea views get boring

I guess it’s true of everything. That’s the restless human spirit

As Pascal said, so much trouble stems from the fact humans can’t just sit in a room, quietly

My parents' house in Guernsey had a sea view from the top floor. I never tired from the view from my bedroom - the sweep of the bay, the view across to the other islands and the French coastline in the distance. Sunlight glinting on the surface, waves one day, calm the next as the wind changed direction. Boats bobbing about in the small harbour at the end of the road - or beached when the tide was out. It was always different.

At night, it was just as fascinating - the curve of the street lights along the bay, navigation beacons blinking, the distant shimmering glow of the Cap Flamanville nuclear power station.

I never stayed there for longer than 2 months at a stretch - would I have tired of it eventually? I don't know, but I suspect not.

PJH said:

Leon said:

Fairliered said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

Have arrived on The Beach from Alex Garland’s the Beach

M’pai village on Koh Rong Sanloem. Lost to the world. Yet it has a wine and cheese bar. Dogs pant in the sun. Kids play in the sand. Everyone sleeps. You can get a really good pizza or watch the Khmer fishermen drink moonshine at noon

It’s one of those places where you think if I lived here would I kill my self with boredom after a week or would I be tranquil and happy forever and ever

I thought that on seeing (on television) Cliff Richard's Caribbean hideaway with its unrestricted view of the ocean from his bed. What do you look at after the first ten minutes?

We have a sea view. It used to be the first thing I looked at each morning. Now it’s just a view.

So even sea views get boring

I guess it’s true of everything. That’s the restless human spirit

As Pascal said, so much trouble stems from the fact humans can’t just sit in a room, quietly

My parents' house in Guernsey had a sea view from the top floor. I never tired from the view from my bedroom - the sweep of the bay, the view across to the other islands and the French coastline in the distance. Sunlight glinting on the surface, waves one day, calm the next as the wind changed direction. Boats bobbing about in the small harbour at the end of the road - or beached when the tide was out. It was always different.

At night, it was just as fascinating - the curve of the street lights along the bay, navigation beacons blinking, the distant shimmering glow of the Cap Flamanville nuclear power station.

I never stayed there for longer than 2 months at a stretch - would I have tired of it eventually? I don't know, but I suspect not.

Pulpstar said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

He's managing the sick out.

More rancid othering by this government . Some simply can’t work because of the level of illness or disability. Where will the line be drawn . The unsustainable part is the triple lock but nothing to see here .

The triple lock is perfectly sustainable, at least for the foreseeable future. The state pension is around £10,000 a year. That is only half the minimum wage. If the government wants to save money on pensions, ending higher rate tax relief on contributions would be the place to start, and higher rate tax-payers could still save money by salary sacrifice.

The triple lock is designed to give an ever higher slice of the economy out to each pensioner. The proportion of pensioners is increasing at the same time. The ever higher part means that within a century or so more than all the government tax take would have to be spent on pensions.

Those who think it is sustainable, let alone perfectly so, need to join Rishi for his remedial maths. Is it sustainable for an electoral cycle or two? Yes, but with further and faster generational unfairness and limiting economic growth.

The ratchet was clearly designed by someone mathematically illiterate - three sequences should be tracked, one 2.5% compounding nominal from 2010, a prices growth chart (CPI I'd assume) and an average earnings sequence. The state pension can then leap about between the best of the three, or just remain as is for a few years if both prices and earnings drop in a year. The ratchet taking the best of the three and leaping about between it makes it a mathematical certainty the pension will eventually be unaffordable in the long term.

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.

Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).

noneoftheabove said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.

Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).

If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.

noneoftheabove said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.

Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).

If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Completely off topic but out with the old, in with the new, my car that I've had since it was new for for over a decade dies today, I'd intended to keep driving it into the ground until I could get an EV, but its reached the point now where its beyond economic repair. I've already spent about £1300 on repairs on it this year alone, and just got quoted over £500 for more repairs.

So trading it in (for scrap value pretty much) and getting a new car instead. Not electric, but [non-plug in] hybrid at least, so a step in the right direction, even from brand new the depreciation on that vehicle will be less than the cost of repairs on my old one has been. Hopefully trade that in, in a few years time, when EVs are as affordable as petrol vehicles are, but this should get about 70% more mpg than my old car was getting [as hybrid, newer and it was no longer as efficient as it should have been].

Was hoping to get it to 100k miles at least, but its on 98,205 - so close, but so far away.

Malmesbury said:

A

noneoftheabove said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.

Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).

If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.

What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.

Sandpit said:

.

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.

Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).

There’s a number of moving parts here, and it’s needs carrots as well as sticks from the government side - yet all we’ve been hearing about is the sticks.

The number of people signed off sick long-term has gone up dramatically since the start of the pandemic, as has the number of people making themselves economically inactive by taking early retirement.

I wonder if employers can be encouraged to take on these people on a part-time, perhaps almost casual basis, for jobs such as call centres and customer service roles? Everyone will have their own requirements, and not all will be suitable, but it could well be that a lot of people signed off sick are able to work from home for two or three hours a day at their own discretion.

noneoftheabove said:

Malmesbury said:

A

noneoftheabove said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.

Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).

If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.

What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.

For the middle classes, sure.

AbandonedHope said:

Haley is a very astute politician - especially when it comes to calculating charting her next move. There are few individuals who can recognise shift in a political landscape and shift themselves - and others - so adroitly.

For 150 years, South Carolina was dominated by the Democratic Party. Yet by the late ‘60s it was turning rightward; Strom Thurmond jumped ship in ’64 followed by Tom Wofford in ’66. By ’75, the likes of Olin Johnson and Fritz Hollings were increasingly out of step with the new political landscape. In the decades since, the GOP has tightened its grip both in Columbia and in Washington.

What makes Haley remarkable is how she has remained firmly in the centre ground whilst making overtures towards to the liberals and the right. Think back to 2015 when the Confederate flag was removed from the grounds of the Statehouse. In a state where the views of the right were - and are - so deeply entrenched, where its role in the Civil War is celebrated and where the “white old boy” network persists, it was a remarkable achievement to get all sides to agree to remove the flag. It was regarded by many on the right in South Carolina as a liberal move and an act of betrayal. The liberals and the Democrats loved it.

The following year she challenged the right of the GOP again when she objected to a anti-transgender bathroom bill. She saw no need to copy North Carolina’s HB2 which would require all transgender individuals to use bathrooms that reflected their sex at birth. It would solve none of the problems facing the people of South Carolina and serve only to stoke the culture war.

Of course, the following year she’s the US Ambassador to the UN and effectively a card-carrying member of the Trump movement. Notwithstanding her earlier liberal or Democrat-leaning decisions, she’s moved towards the right and largely been accepted. Indeed, the nature of her departure from the Trump administration - with warm wishes and little antagonism from Trump - helped placate some of those in the GOP who distrusted her.

Fast forward to today and… Nikki Haley is back in the centre ground - cognisant of the impact that January 6th had on the country. Overtures to the liberals, the Democrats and the independents - all of whom she would need to secure the White House. Overtures to the right to keep the Trump movement (minus the nutters) on board.

What nobody is looking at is the future. The Trump campaign hasn’t really attacked her. Which begs a question. Why? Should Trump make it to the White House he’s a lame duck. He can’t run in 2028. So what if Haley has calculated that her best chance is to serve as his Vice President?

I still think Haley will be the nominee and will win against Biden. There’s too much baggage with Trump and any one of his legal problems could very easily throw the entire race up in the air. But if he does make through, don’t be surprised if Haley doesn’t emerge as his Vice President.

Malmesbury said:

A

noneoftheabove said:

Malmesbury said:

A

noneoftheabove said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits


'People with mobility and mental health problems will be asked to work from home or lose benefits as part of what a government minister described today as doing “their duty”.

The new policy will be set out on Wednesday as part of the autumn statement amid a drive by Rishi Sunak to make changes to the welfare system, which he described on Monday as “unsustainable”.

Hundreds of thousands of people will be told to look for work that they can do from home or face having benefits cut by £4,680 a year, under plans that were first reported by the Times.

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, told Sky News: “Of course there should be support for people to help them into work but ultimately there is a duty on citizens if they are able to go out to work they should. Those who can work and contribute should contribute.”'

There is some discussion to be had around whether increased working from home creates opportunities for those with physical health problems that may have made it impossible to go into an office, for example (commute not feasible at any reasonable time/cost) and it would be good to see some support for that - more carrot than stick, though. I don't really see - although I'm happy to be enlightened - how home working makes it any easier for those with mental health conditions that were preventing work to take on work.

You've a point. I was thinking that *logically* the only people to whom this should apply are these who for physical or mental reasons cannot go out to work *and are not already working from home* - though equally logically some folk in the latter group will be on UC ...

The sorts of mental condition that might apply could be agoraphobia, or some disorders which affect social interaction, but it's not entirely clear how far one can take this given (a) DWP's infamous ability to cope with the diagnosis of disability, and (b) the limited scope for the equivalent of Victorian of piecework labelling matchboxes.

Edit: there are also constraints in house rental and/or insurance contracts for non-office paperwork type jobs. And also the interaction with any Gmt policies to punish WFH won't help.

Yep. First question is what's the breakdown of people not working due to health conditions, then there can be some analysis on what fraction of those may have new opportunities due to there being more WFH roles (although most roles are still hybrid, at least). Then, ideally, you'd do some research with those groups to understand the barriers and look to address those.

Good point re some of the MH conditions where working from home may offer benefits to going to an office. As you say, there are a whole load of occupations where WFH is not straightforward (aside: wouldn't it be great if there were schemes, e.g. government loans with repayment dependent on income, to help people buy equipment for e.g. home workshops - if space! - for more physical occupations such as craftwork etc? Perhaps there are).

If we really wanted to get more people fit for work, mentally and physically, by far the best way to do that is to invest in fitness. Free adult classes for anything related to fitness, from gym to dance to home cooking and many more. It would take a few years to filter through but is a no brainer economically as well as for physical and emotional health. The "take a few years to filter through" part means it sadly won't happen in a democracy.

What works better is rewards for actually working towards and achieving fitness. See the Vitality program from Prudential.

For the middle classes, sure.

The principle is/was simple - do stuff, get rewards. Free gym memberships might well not get used. With Vitality, walking x thousand steps would get you free cinema tickets etc…