UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

[ilovebender.com]

1 hour ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

But the system has been bought into disrepute with constant failings in assessments (using ATOS staff for trying to assess medical suitability for instance).  There's many, many cases of claimants deemed fit to work because they were incorrectly assessed and a successful appeals process of 60%, just shows how incorrect and humiliating the claims process is.  Most people don't understand just how broad, varied and limiting various disabilities can be, I know of multiple people who look fit for work, while their mobility is limited to the point they never could work, but their mind is razor sharp.

 

When people who live less than a few months due to terminal conditions end up being deemed fit for work, then results in them being awarded benefits posthumously after their family appealed to pay for the funeral, you know there's something wrong. 

Has anyone suggested the terminal ill fit for work?

I maintain that it's a Labour notion that people who are fit for work are classified as unfit for work.

Do you remember a time before David Cameron when we had Gordon Brown and Job Seekers paid more than some jobs meaning people were better off on the dole; The Tories put a stop to this.

'Making work pay' was a the phrase coined when the benefit system had its shake up.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/news/63265/david-cameron-speech-making-work-pay

He might not have been my favourite Tory ever, with is war on tax havens and internet pr0n, but he did something right.

 

 

Edit: Since when was pr0n a bad word?

Edited February 20, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

3 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Has anyone suggested the terminal ill fit for work?

 

Cameron's reforms made it obvious to those working with the terminally ill fairly quickly.  Marie Curie starting making the issue mainstream and this blog from 2016 shows how far they were along the line by that point.

https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/blog/terminal-illness-benefits/101972

 

By 2019, the issue was still rampant.  These two articles from last year just scratch the surface of what is a grossly unfair, disability claims system.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/04/dwp-apologise-for-telling-seriously-ill-man-to-find-a-job

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/19/dying-gran-left-6-week-benefits-cut-fit-work-10424932/

 

 

3 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

I maintain that it's a Labour notion that people who are fit for work are classified as unfit for work.

 

Just because someone looks fit for work, doesn't mean they are.  Many terminal illnesses and even conditions like Chrohn's Disease are invisible to the naked eye, yet they can deem individuals unfit for work and reliant on permanent sick benefits.  This issue isn't a Labour notion, it's a lack of education in the general public notion.

 

3 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Do you remember a time before David Cameron when we had Gordon Brown and Job Seekers paid more than some jobs meaning people were better off on the dole; The Tories put a stop to this.

'Making work pay' was a the phrase coined when the benefit system had its shake up.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/news/63265/david-cameron-speech-making-work-pay

He might not have been my favourite Tory ever, with is war on tax havens and internet pr0n, but he did something right.

 

Cameron created a much more hostile and abusive environment for claimants.  Making some people actually fear for their own claims and made them not bother, dropping them into financial hardship as a result.  They'd rather go cold and hungry, than try and claim what they had a right for.

[jpm1]

@ilovebender.com https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851 i'm not sure EU was that bad for the UK. so to replace this you want more frontiers, more taxes, more pressure over small and vulnerable firms, and buy your cucumber 10 000 km away from where you live. sorry 6213,712 miles. that's true that in opposition to the little European i am you can't read French. Great. i mean maybe the US concomber has better taste. but it's gonna pollute more for sure

Edited February 20, 2020 by jpm1

[sivispacem]

3 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

Do you even understand the concept of a points based system keeping out unskilled foreign workers?

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this like it's a good thing. Where are we going to magic up this unskilled workforce from? 

 

3 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

If America and Australia can do it, so can UK.

The US immigration system isn't points based; well, not unless the RAISE act gets passed. The visa diversity lottery is kinda the literal opposite. And the AU system is driven by labour market requirements.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Has anyone suggested the terminal ill fit for work?

Yes, Priti Patel most recently.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

 and Job Seekers paid more than some jobs

We still do. The maximum claimable benefits are the equivalent of the average median wage; many employees still earn significantly below that. It would make a lot more logical sense to increase minimum wages rather than impoverishing the disabled.

 

3 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

And we agree, if someone can work, they should work.

I think most people would agree here, but as per the figures above, only about 12% of those categorised as "long term unemployed" are actually able to.

[Ned Bingham]

On 2/19/2020 at 5:32 PM, jpm1 said:

i read an article (that i can't find back unfortunately) saying that the British empire was still at work actually, and pretty good at it. laundering all the black, or grey money of the world. thru a well made tax havens, inherited from the British empire.

Something that has puzzled me longtime are the complaints about the City of London being a haven for dirty money.  Is there a presumption that if the dirty money were eliminated from that particular market, that dirty money would itself disappear from the world, or is the assumption that it would just go somewhere else and leave the London market more morally acceptable, if somewhat poorer?  Perhaps the dirty money would transmogrify into clean money and no one would be the poorer for it.  Why don't we British instead just do what we've always done best, that is to moralize to the rest of the world, whilst at the same time shafting said world to the hilt.  Gives me the wood.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Ned Bingham
to change emphasis on word

[Grotti Vigilante]

Honestly, this new point-based system doesn't sound like such a bad idea if my understanding of it is correct. I think that if someone speaks English and has a job offer to legally work in the UK then why not? I would only argue that an employer should first try to source the labour locally, but if not possible should offer work visas to foreign workers, low or high-skilled, to fill the roles.

 

If it were up to me I'd make it more of a GCC-like system where you can only come if you have a job (but obviously we won't take away your passport and you shall be given the working conditions you were promised so long as they complied with national working laws) or are a foreign student with a visa in which you are sponsored by the university in which you intend to study at.

 

I wouldn't be surprised though if a lot of people who are used to free movement of people across 27 other countries would find this a bit restrictive, but still, I think it's a reasonable and practical immigration system. How mine would compare to Priti Patel's in practice I cannot yet say, because I cannot say whether her policy will work or has worked because it's obviously not happened yet.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Grotti Vigilante

[Svip]

Would they be allowed to bring their family?  If not, that is likely to stop a lot of high-skilled applicants.

[Grotti Vigilante]

15 minutes ago, Svip said:

Would they be allowed to bring their family?  If not, that is likely to stop a lot of high-skilled applicants.

If they can adequately provide for their family while in the UK, then of course they can.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Grotti Vigilante

[Svip]

11 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

If they can adequately provide for their family while in the UK, then of course they can.

It's not clear from the releases regarding the point system so far.  Are you just assuming, or do you have it on good authority that they will be able to do that?

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

15 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

If they can adequately provide for their family while in the UK, then of course they can.

Define, 'adequately provide?'

 

If they cannot speak English, are not highly skilled and not coming to the UK to work themselves, they won't be coming.  There's no provision within the framework of this immigration plan that suggests they have thought about family and friends, even for those that have been in the UK for extended periods and wanting their loved ones to join them.  More detailed plans could be released later, but it's doubtful they'll make it easy for families.
 

So, kids, husbands, wives, nope, stay home, unless you're here to work and can earn 70 points in the first place.  (I'm sure they'll make joining families 60 points, so they'll be forced into learning English for that extra 10.)
 

[Grotti Vigilante]

23 minutes ago, Svip said:

It's not clear from the releases regarding the point system so far.  Are you just assuming, or do you have it on good authority that they will be able to do that?

I would hope that it would be something along the lines of what I've said, but the cynic in me is not so optimistic as to believe it will turn out that way. We'll have to just wait and see how it turns out in practice, because right now all we have is speculation.

 

20 minutes ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

Define, 'adequately provide?'

Basically, can they provide for both themselves and their family without need for government assistance? I understand this is barely something local citizens can do, which is a completely separate issue in itself that won't change regardless of the immigration statistics or the system in place to control the flow of people coming to the UK. But nevertheless, I believe it should be part of the criteria for new immigrants coming to the UK once new laws are put in place. Whether it will be or not remains to be seen. 

 

Quote

If they cannot speak English, are not highly skilled and not coming to the UK to work themselves, they won't be coming.  There's no provision within the framework of this immigration plan that suggests they have thought about family and friends, even for those that have been in the UK for extended periods and wanting their loved ones to join them.  More detailed plans could be released later, but it's doubtful they'll make it easy for families.
 

So, kids, husbands, wives, nope, stay home, unless you're here to work and can earn 70 points in the first place....

As said, I would hope the laws would allow families to be allowed within the framework of the new system so long as there is at least one provider with a valid work visa who meets the immigration criteria. That way, only the breadwinner of the family would need those 70 points. I'm hoping more details can be released later so I can properly form an opinion on the policy and compare it to what I'd personally do. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Grotti Vigilante

[ilovebender.com]

43 minutes ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

Define, 'adequately provide?'

 

So, kids, husbands, wives, nope, stay home, unless you're here to work and can earn 70 points in the first place...
 

That's a false conclusion; if the person coming to the UK to live and work has a family and are able to support their family in the UK, then their family would A; have someone in the UK connected to themselves to support them in the UK but more importantly, became a dependent of the person initially going through the points based system; so that's all they'd need imo, why would they need to go through the points based system if they're a dependent like spouse or child?

Edited February 20, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[jpm1]

do you really think in these global warming times, and probably massive immigration moves in bound it's a good thing to play alone, like that points system. it's february here in france, and i'm almost going out in T-shirt. just came from a jogging, i was in T-shirt with no cold at all. when you see the latest temperatures of last summer, and all the Australian s.. do you think it's reasonable to make an harm of honnor to the europeans countries that will very probably have to face major s.. pretty soon

 

@ILB : you were asking why conservatism is bad. conservatism is the antechamber of nationalism. nationalism is withdrawn, and racism. conservatism is when you say inside it's warm home, outside is danger, and cold. conservatism is antechamber of racism. and obscurantism. because when you start bullying in vacuum there's no ending

Edited February 20, 2020 by jpm1

[sivispacem]

3 hours ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

I would only argue that an employer should first try to source the labour locally

There's already a significant financial incentive to do so, because recruiting foreign nationals from abroad is always vastly more expensive for companies than recruiting a domestic citizen to do the same job.

 

2 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

That's a false conclusion

It's not- the litmus test for "adequate provision" in terms of income is generally higher for households and families than for individuals in points based immigration systems. So as an individual you might be permitted to emigrate with a £25,600 salary, but if that's a salary for a whole household including two parents and dependent children then you won't meet the criteria.

 

In addition to the issues I highlighted previously but which you've chosen to entirely ignore, we're already at a point where we can't recruit enough skilled personnel for certain industry sectors even with freedom of movement. There's no magic domestic pool of citizens to draw down from because upskilling people to a basic level of competency in many technical/professional vocations takes 5-7 years even after leaving higher education. So where are industries like biotechnology, semiconductors and cybersecurity supposed to recruit from?

[ilovebender.com]

2 hours ago, jpm1 said:

 

 

@ILB : you were asking why conservatism is bad. conservatism is the antechamber of nationalism. nationalism is withdrawn, and racism. conservatism is when you say inside it's warm home, outside is danger, and cold. conservatism is antechamber of racism. and obscurantism. because when you start bullying in vacuum there's no ending

What's patriotism, to you?

You can be patriotic and not nationalist, in my book.

1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

There's already a significant financial incentive to do so, because recruiting foreign nationals from abroad is always vastly more expensive for companies than recruiting a domestic citizen to do the same job.

 

It's not- the litmus test for "adequate provision" in terms of income is generally higher for households and families than for individuals in points based immigration systems. So as an individual you might be permitted to emigrate with a £25,600 salary, but if that's a salary for a whole household including two parents and dependent children then you won't meet the criteria.

You're over thinking it.. How can a low earner back in the days of freedom of movement afford to support their family? They went to the Job Centre. Why are you moaning about someone earning a salary coming when you're all for low skilled migrants coming? It doesn't make sense.

Edited February 20, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[jpm1]

you can be patriot without leaving the EU, and putting in deep s.. your old partners, and your own country. actually in your mind the EU is something that GB can't have any influence on. which is absolute bull. plus the way you jump from conservatism, to patriotism makes me think, you're not quite really anchored in your beliefs (no offense). Your beliefs seems to take root more into a complaint, than on a real belief

Edited February 20, 2020 by jpm1

[sivispacem]

45 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

You're over thinking it.

I'm not- you just don't understand the subject properly.

 

45 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

How can a low earner back in the days of freedom of movement afford to support their family?

£25,600 is not a "low earner", it's more than the median wage in the UK. I refer you to my previous statement vis-a-vis your lack of understanding.

 

There are plenty of households with similar income who don't draw down benefits. Where you live in the country has a big impact on how feasible and difficult it is, but given you're basically sequestered in your London bubble with zero awareness of any other bits of the country I'm not really surprised.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

They went to the Job Centre.

EU migrants don't, by and large. Their eligibility to draw down benefits is significantly lower than that of domestic British citizens, and they cost the welfare system far less.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Why are you moaning about someone earning a salary coming

I'm not, doofus. Your continual inability to comprehend basic English is astounding, probably far worse than the overwhelming majority of EU migrants.

[ilovebender.com]

1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

I'm not- you just don't understand the subject properly.

 

£25,600 is not a "low earner", it's more than the median wage in the UK. I refer you to my previous statement vis-a-vis your lack of understanding.

I said how can a low earner expect to support their families in the old days of freedom of movement? Simple; they went to the job centre.

Quote

 

There are plenty of households with similar income who don't draw down benefits. Where you live in the country has a big impact on how feasible and difficult it is, but given you're basically sequestered in your London bubble with zero awareness of any other bits of the country I'm not really surprised.

My London bubble seems to think we'd be okay for foreign migration treating the EU like everyone else.

I don't know where you miss on all the migrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America, The Caribbean, North America, South America, Australia... You seem to be unaware of migrants from outside the EU; the old 'I was a doctor in my country but now I'm attending the cloakroom' line, these things are real. Why do you want some EU migrant to get preferred status to some African migrant, can't we just treat them the same?

Quote

Their eligibility to draw down benefits is significantly lower than that of domestic British citizens, and they cost the welfare system far less.

Unless you're a citizen, if you pay taxes here, you should be eligible; imo - doesn't matter if you're American residing in the UK or French etc; that sounds fair to me; ensuring someone has a salary helps this since they'd be paying taxes here. If need be and they lose their job, let them claim until they can find a new one; if something should happen to them, they'd get the NHS regardless, so why not get Universal Credit regardless if need be if they fall on hard times here? Why should it be for people from the EU without a salary just because EU?

Quote

 

I'm not, doofus. Your continual inability to comprehend basic English is astounding, probably far worse than the overwhelming majority of EU migrants.

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[ilovebender.com]

1 hour ago, jpm1 said:

you can be patriot without leaving the EU, and putting in deep s.. your old partners, and your own country. actually in your mind the EU is something that GB can't have any influence on. which is absolute bull. plus the way you jump from conservatism, to patriotism makes me think, you're not quite really anchored in your beliefs (no offense). Your beliefs seems to take root more into a complaint, than on a real belief

You can exist without being in the EU.

You speak of my old partners, but it's 2020, this is a brave new world, and the UK aims to make Brexit worth it.

The EU27 are debating their budget, I heard the cost of Brexit, this black hole the UK left, and I count that as money saved. Does the EU even generate that much in trade for us? The UK can find a new supply chain, be the customer of someone else, remember, the EU isn't the world.

In my mind, GB doesn't have to influence the EU.

Have you ever heard of the American Monroe Doctrine?

It states North America doesn't have to enter into European wars if it doesn't want to.

I want Brexit to be a GB Monroe Docterine saying, EU's problems and UK's problems aren't the same so the UK doesn't have to help the EU if we don't want to. So if you get a flood of refugees after Turkey takes our money and runs, that's on the EU.

Edited February 20, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

5 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

I said how can a low earner expect to support their families in the old days of freedom of movement? Simple; they went to the job centre.

 

An EU migrant goes to the job centre to find a job.  The idea they sponged off the state created the image of 'Schrodinger's Migrant,' one that simultaneously claimed benefits, while nicking your job at the same time, it's a popular trope among the right wing press.

 

I think you'll find the evidence from 2015 (the last time it was 'reliably estimated'), showed less than 50% claimed benefits in the first year.  While the numbers confirmed as fraudulent claims were far less a percentage, than UK citizens were fiddling the system.

To quote :
 

They accounted for 2.5% of benefits the DWP administered in 2014 - mostly out-of-work benefits - in 2014, and 7% of tax credits, based on the HMRC definition discussed above.

The DWP analysis says EU migrants on “in-work” benefits cost the taxpayer £530m in 2013. That represents a modest 1.6% of the year’s total tax credit bill.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/nov/10/eu-migrants-on-benefits-separating-the-statistics-from-the-spin

 

5 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

My London bubble seems to think we'd be okay for foreign migration treating the EU like everyone else.

 

That translates as your London bubble, ie : you.

 

5 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

I don't know where you miss on all the migrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America, The Caribbean, North America, South America, Australia... You seem to be unaware of migrants from outside the EU; the old 'I was a doctor in my country but now I'm attending the cloakroom' line, these things are real. Why do you want some EU migrant to get preferred status to some African migrant?

 

If a doctor saves your life, who cares where trhey come from?  It's just, since the EU conditions and level of training are far more advanced than most African nations, it was cheaper and quicker to train EU physicians than those from other, less developed nations.  It's not uncommon for a lot of African doctors to end up training in more developed nations anyway, so you're trying to grab extra staff from a set of nations that are already competing to train the brightest and best in the country of their choosing.  They'll likely pick a nation where they won't be treated like a second class citizen which demands points to make them travel there anyway.

 

5 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Unless you're a citizen, if you pay taxes here, you should be eligible; imo - doesn't matter if you're American residing in the UK or French; that sounds fair to me; ensuring someone has a salary helps this since they'd be paying taxes here. If need be and they lose their job, let them claim until they can find a new one; if something should happen to them, they'd get the NHS regardless, so why not get Universal Credit regardless if need be if they fall on hard times here? Why should it be for people from the EU without a salary just because EU?

 

 

Tell that to the 4 million or so ex-pats living in EU nations.  Most claim a pension as UK citizens, so are you expecting them to instead demand a pension in their country of retirement?  Those nations will be telling them to feck off and go home, in much the same way you are expecting the UK to handle EU citizens settled in the UK.  4 million angry voters all returning home to add extra pressure on stretched public services and vote registrations, all with one party to blame for their new situation.  Channel 4 will be running a new show for them, 'A Place In The sh*t.'

 

Is your mantra, one rule for Brits, one rule for everyone else?  If that's the case you're about to discover how far you aura of superiority is translated around the rest of the world....

 

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

I said how can a low earner expect to support their families in the old days of freedom of movement?

How are you defining "low earner" here?

 

Your comments appear to have no relevance to the point I'm making.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

My London bubble seems to think we'd be okay for foreign migration treating the EU like everyone else.

Most Londoners support freedom of movement. It's one of the reasons why support for the Union is so high in London.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

You seem to be unaware of migrants from outside the EU

Given I've referenced non EU migrants several times in my recent posts, this is self-evidently utter bollocks.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Why should it be for people from the EU without a salary just because EU?

By and large its not, as access to the welfare system for EU migrants is heavily limited. Non-EU foreign migrants actually cost the welfare system significantly more per capita despite having even lower entitlements.

[ilovebender.com]

The fact is, Priti Patel urging people to employ more Brits might not mean what you say it means when you include the terminally ill or otherwise unfit for work. There are many types of work EU migrants do, transient seasonal work, low paid work, work that let's face it, has made the UK employer decadent; Low skilled job, no prospects for growth, not worth it to the resident or the citizen who may be around all year round and need a job all year round, instead of seasonal. It's something that people are going to have to do to ween ourselves of this culture of unskilled migrant jobs. 

Not talking about the EU for a second, we also have a gig economy; this is great for freedom but lousy on the sucker with an umbrella company and no pension pot or holiday pay.

9 hours ago, sivispacem said:

How are you defining "low earner" here?

 

 

EU migrant work, could be car wash, picking strawberries, Labourer with CSCS card (I'm native, before you think it's me) but; etc, low earner.

HELL, could be unemployed/unemployable and needing welfare in this whole freedom of movement unskilled migration 'low earner/welfare case' - I define that as low earner/claimant too; how do you support this but oppose a salary based judgement citing it wouldn't be enough to support when if £26.5k doesn't cut it, if, in this one bread winner situation dependent having family's salary doesn't cut it/hack it/support them; then why not allow them to claim benefits since they'd be paying taxes?

How is it, that you advocate for low skilled un educated ex convict freedom of movement but oppose a points based system where dependents won't need to be judged on their points; this includes spouses and children, not girlfriends or boyfriends - why wouldn't you let someone living and working in the UK and their dependents claim benefits if they need it if they reside here too. Why do you advocate EU citizens retain freedom of movement yet argue a salary can't support a family ignoring the welfare system for the new points based system when forgetting about it feeding the old freedom of movement.

Better yet, why not treat EU citizens the same for a change, it's only fair, why should an African migrant be treated different than an EU one? Answer me that, and then tell me it's unfair to have this new points based system for everybody.

Edited February 21, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[sivispacem]

46 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

The fact is, Priti Patel urging people to employ more Brits might not mean what you say it means when you include the terminally ill or otherwise unfit for work. 

Given she claimed there's an available labour market of circa 8 million long term unemployed when the actual figure who are able to work is about 900,000, I'm fairly confident I'm correct in what I've said.

 

46 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

There are many types of work EU migrants do, transient seasonal work, low paid work, work that let's face it, has made the UK employer decadent; 

I think you'll find if you look at the statistics that the vast majority of EU migrants in the UK perform skilled, vocational or professional roles.

 

46 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

EU migrant work, could be car wash, picking strawberries, Labourer with CSCS card (I'm native, before you think it's me) but; etc, 

Way to eschew stereotypes here. As above, the vast majority of EU migrants within the UK are in skilled, vocational or professional roles. Unskilled labourers only make up something like a fifth of the EU national workforce in the UK.

 

46 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

how do you support this 

How do I support what? Most of this section is an incoherent nonsensical ramble. I can't even begin to work out what you're trying to say frankly but I'm pretty confident given your previous history that you've misrepresented what I do and don't support.

 

46 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

why wouldn't you let someone living and working in the UK and their dependents claim benefits if they need it if they reside here too. 

What the juddering f*ck are you on about?

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

50 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

The fact is, Priti Patel urging people to employ more Brits might not mean what you say it means when you include the terminally ill or otherwise unfit for work. There are many types of work EU migrants do, transient seasonal work, low paid work, work that let's face it, has made the UK employer decadent; Low skilled job, no prospects for growth, not worth it to the resident or the citizen who may be around all year round and need a job all year round, instead of seasonal. It's something that people are going to have to do to ween ourselves of this culture of unskilled migrant jobs. 

 

Let's do some mathematics, please try to refresh your memory on how to perform some basic arithmatic.

The Bullying Home Secretary claims that UK companies will need to employ 8.5 million UK citizens in low-skilled jobs once free movement ends and warns business that they will have to retrain and adapt to using UK workers for low skilled jobs.  However, the latest unemployment figures show there's 1.4 million UK citizens out of work, so what's the difference?

 

8.5 - 1.6 = 6.9.  (Remember the number of zeroes makes no difference.)

 

So, by the basic rules of maths, there's a massive hole in the Bullying Home Secretary's own figures and now we're into the realm of another impossible question for Croydon's best to answer.  Where, if UK business cannot employ low-skilled immigrants, are you going to find 6.9 million new people to employ in low skilled posts?  Children (that option disappeared long, long ago), the dead (the only necromancy is see is raising dead GTAF threads from their rest), zero-hours contract workers may fill some of the gap with more than one zero hours contract any point, but unless you're expecting every person to have two / three / four jobs and work 24/7 for 365 days a year, its impossible.

 

Plus working conditions like that have been shown, through many studies, to kill productivity.... 

 

50 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Not talking about the EU for a second, we also have a gig economy; this is great for freedom but lousy on the sucker with an umbrella company and no pension pot or holiday pay.

 

The muddy fields of the EU created a minimum rights bill for those within the gig economy last year, so they now have some protections :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47947220

 

However, with the immigration bill limitations and the, now very obvious, hole in the maths, how can you expect those minimum rights to be maintained, when there's this massive chasm you cannot avoid any longer?

 

50 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

EU migrant work, could be car wash, picking strawberries, Labourer with CSCS card (I'm native, before you think it's me) but; etc, low earner.

HELL, could be unemployed/unemployable and needing welfare in this whole freedom of movement unskilled migration 'low earner/welfare case' - I define that as low earner/claimant too; how do you support this but oppose a salary based judgement citing it wouldn't be enough to support when if £26.5k doesn't cut it, if, in this one bread winner situation dependent having family's salary doesn't cut it/hack it/support them; then why not allow them to claim benefits since they'd be paying taxes?

 

There's been no provision, anywhere, in the framework, to suggest this would be the case.  In every bit of detail studied thus far, there's been no mention on the rights of families and spouses in this points based scheme.  

 

50 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

How is it, that you advocate for low skilled un educated ex convict freedom of movement but oppose a points based system where dependents won't need to be judged on their points; this includes spouses and children, not girlfriends or boyfriends - why wouldn't you let someone living and working in the UK and their dependents claim benefits if they need it if they reside here too. Why do you advocate EU citizens retain freedom of movement yet argue a salary can't support a family ignoring the welfare system for the new points based system when forgetting about it feeding the old freedom of movement.

 

The key words there are 'ex-convict.'  When the far right are painting every EU migrant with the same brush, why would you expect them to be even given a fair chance?

 

50 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Better yet, why not treat EU citizens the same for a change, it's only fair, why should an African migrant be treated different than an EU one? Answer me that, and then tell me it's unfair to have this new points based system for everybody.

 

When the points system is skewed against people coming in the first place, and backed by a hostile population who'll treat new arrivals like second class scum in their society (well, a significant minority will).  It's not the points requirements that'll limit immigration, it's the knowledge they'll not be treated fairly or respectfully, no matter their country of origin.

 

----------

 

This immigration policy is already bound for disaster.  The numbers don't add up, the atmosphere is hostile and UK workers are set to have pretty much every protection they've managed to accumulate in the last 40 odd years to be abolished.  The pension age is rocketing already and there's no solution in anything currently published.  No doubt, a few months after the points go in, they'll try to 'fudge it' with exceptions for certain skill sets in low skilled and low paid posts, but it's all going to be smoke and mirrors backed up by views and hostility like that from Croydon's finest.  'No immigrants are good immigrants.'

 

You can start proving me wrong by finding the 6.9 million magic workers!

[ilovebender.com]

43 minutes ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

Let's do some mathematics, please try to refresh your memory on how to perform some basic arithmatic.

The Bullying Home Secretary claims that UK companies will need to employ 8.5 million UK citizens in low-skilled jobs once free movement ends and warns business that they will have to retrain and adapt to using UK workers for low skilled jobs.  However, the latest unemployment figures show there's 1.4 million UK citizens out of work, so what's the difference?

 

8.5 - 1.6 = 6.9.  (Remember the number of zeroes makes no difference.)

 

So, by the basic rules of maths, there's a massive hole in the Bullying Home Secretary's own figures and now we're into the realm of another impossible question for Croydon's best to answer.  Where, if UK business cannot employ low-skilled immigrants, are you going to find 6.9 million new people to employ in low skilled posts?  Children (that option disappeared long, long ago), the dead (the only necromancy is see is raising dead GTAF threads from their rest), zero-hours contract workers may fill some of the gap with more than one zero hours contract any point, but unless you're expecting every person to have two / three / four jobs and work 24/7 for 365 days a year, its impossible.

0 hours is great for tax purposes, no one's suggetsing getting rid of them unless you're a crack pot Corbynista.

 

Quote

Plus working conditions like that have been shown, through many studies, to kill productivity.... 

 

 

The muddy fields of the EU created a minimum rights bill for those within the gig economy last year, so they now have some protections :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47947220

I'm going to pretend for a second you didn't just tell me the EU came up fair working conditions because this suggests this is an EU invention or that the UK won't copy or improve on this.

 

Quote

However, with the immigration bill limitations and the, now very obvious, hole in the maths, how can you expect those minimum rights to be maintained, when there's this massive chasm you cannot avoid any longer?

 

The UK employer must ween itself off this decadent dependence on cheap foreign labour. Jobs need a future, people need a future; you just have to ween the UK employer off of EU migrant dependency given Brexit.

Quote

There's been no provision, anywhere, in the framework, to suggest this would be the case.  In every bit of detail studied thus far, there's been no mention on the rights of families and spouses in this points based scheme.  

There's also been no provision against this either; and to suggest a UK tax payer can't claim benefits is a little dodgy/shady.

Quote

 

The key words there are 'ex-convict.'  When the far right are painting every EU migrant with the same brush, why would you expect them to be even given a fair chance?

If you're not an ex convict, you can come, this doesn't stop those without previous convictions coming, they just might need a visa instead of visa free entry if they've a police record with no conviction.

Quote

 

When the points system is skewed against people coming in the first place, and backed by a hostile population who'll treat new arrivals like second class scum in their society

Do you even know how normal immigration works, this points based system is good enough according to New Labour for non EU migrants, hence it comes from the Tony Blair era; and Brexit means it's good enough for everyone.

MPs represent and fight for the rights of UK citizens; it's the job of immigration to suspect everybody of over staying or claiming welfare in the UK; it's up to the person applying for the visa to proof that they're won't before they're given a visa for entry into the country.

Why can't we have different types of visa?

Edited February 21, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[jpm1]

8.5M this is not the number i have here. the number i have here is 2.3M, increasing to 4.5 if you include non-EU pals. however these numbers will be increased by the withdrawnal of European companies that won't accept to change a huge part of their employees overnight, and by small UK companies that will not be able to handle the new tariffs, and will go into bankrupcy. so you'll get more jobs, but you'll have to replace them too, and you'll have taxes losses too, because of companies going away, or simply stopping their investments. lot of big companies have already annouced they will stop their investments in the UK, in case of hard brexit

the frontiers check ups will cause major disorders, that will obviously impact the economy, and job employement too

but, and more important, actually when you watch at the graphics, you see that EU had no impact at all on job employement in the UK. as UK had employement rates when it was in the EU similar to before it entered the EU

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms

 

so in the end that bad EU pals stealing our jobs thing is just a conservatist demonizing. can't prevent myself recalling of Hitler, and his demonization of anything that's not German in mein kampft

Edited February 21, 2020 by jpm1

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

0 hours is great for tax purposes

Your understanding of the British tax system is laughable.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

this suggests this is an EU invention or that the UK won't copy or improve on this.

Given that the UK had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way to introduce working standards in line with EU regulations- and given that we sought exemptions in some areas that means we don't have to- I think the notion that the UK would or will voluntarily improve working conditions without enormous external pressure to do so is pretty silly.

 

What impetus does the British government have to retain current workers rights and protections given that we're about to have a huge black hole appear in our workforce and we already have some of the lowest productivity in the developed world? 

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

There's also been no provision against this either

The absence of a provision in proposed legislation means exactly this. You don't tend to have negative provisions in legislation as they're superfluous, the absence of a provision has the same meaning.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Why can't we have different types of visa?

Are you suggesting we don't already?

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

0 hours is great for tax purposes, no one's suggetsing getting rid of them unless you're a crack pot Corbynista.

 

Not great for every worker trapped on them and not knowing if they're working week to week. 

 

Universal Credit ends up funding those people for the weeks they don't work and those workers have to drop their weekly / monthly pay slips into the job center monthly.  This is because UC then supplements those people for when they have little / no work.

 

Zero hours contracts have few employee protections and there's more than enough evidence to suggest they've skewed the unemployment figures, as people are taken off long term unemployment benefits and left to rot on zero hours contracts with just a few hours employment per week.  Besides, zero hours contracts favor lower skilled workers with lower pay and more night shifts.

 

 

Quote

 

I'm going to pretend for a second you didn't just tell me the EU came up fair working conditions because this suggests this is an EU invention or that the UK won't copy or improve on this.

 

The EU did come up with rights for gig economy workers....  There's nothing, nowhere to suggest the UK will develop better rules, especially because you still need to find the magic 6.9 million workers for the Bullying Home Secretary....  Gig economy workers will be picking up the slack no doubt, which means lower conditions and longer hours, far longer hours.

 

Quote

 

The UK employer must ween itself off this decadent dependence on cheap foreign labour. Jobs need a future, people need a future; you just have to ween the UK employer off of EU migrant dependency given Brexit.

 

Remember that magic number, 6.9 million?  Please tell me where 6.9 million workers are coming from, because you keep skipping this problem with the very figures you praise.

 

Quote

There's also been no provision against this either; and to suggest a UK tax payer can't claim benefits is a little dodgy/shady.

 

They do claim, you're trying to stop or deter immigrants from claiming if they're eligible.

 

Quote

If you're not an ex convict, you can come, this doesn't stop those without previous convictions coming, they just might need a visa instead of visa free entry if they've a police record with no conviction.

 

Shame you'll struggle to locate and detain ex-cons, since the UK is out of the European Arrest Warrant scheme soon, as well as the access to other services this access provides.

 

Quote

Do you even know how normal immigration works, this points based system is good enough according to New Labour for non EU migrants, hence it comes from the Tony Blair era; and Brexit means it's good enough for everyone.

 

Please show your working and proof that the Blair administration considered points based immigration systems?

 

Quote

MPs represent and fight for the rights of UK citizens; it's the job of immigration to suspect everybody of over staying or claiming welfare in the UK; it's up to the person applying for the visa to proof that they're won't before they're given a visa for entry into the country.

Why can't we have different types of visa?

 

One rule for Brits, one rule for everyone else eh?

 

The only way you'll get differing types of visa, is with trade deals.  I don't see any of those appearing from the ether....

[ilovebender.com]

On 2/21/2020 at 11:46 AM, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

Not great for every worker trapped on them and not knowing if they're working week to week. 

It's still there.

Quote

 

Universal Credit ends up funding those people for the weeks they don't work and those workers have to drop their weekly / monthly pay slips into the job center monthly.  This is because UC then supplements those people for when they have little / no work.

Yeah, and? You have issue with this?

Quote

Zero hours contracts have few employee protections and there's more than enough evidence to suggest they've skewed the unemployment figures, as people are taken off long term unemployment benefits and left to rot on zero hours contracts with just a few hours employment per week.  Besides, zero hours contracts favor lower skilled workers with lower pay and more night shifts.

Yeah, no one gives a sh*t if it's not for tax purposes, I know I don't.

0 hours, better than part time, don't have to pay income tax if you're on a 0 hours contract, can hire yourself as well, and you can hire someone without having to insure or pay tax; it's a wonderful thing that some tax avoidance requires. How else can you hire yourself and not be required to pay yourself an income or have to follow labour laws like how many hours you've worked a week begging the question if it's full time or part time???? I'd like to know how, because without 0 hour contracts, people would have to start doing more things just to hire people; be they an assistant or themselves. If they're about something other than getting around tax laws and labour laws; I don't honestly care.

Quote

 

 

The EU did come up with rights for gig economy workers....  There's nothing, nowhere to suggest the UK will develop better rules, especially because you still need to find the magic 6.9 million workers for the Bullying Home Secretary....  Gig economy workers will be picking up the slack no doubt, which means lower conditions and longer hours, far longer hours.

The PM suggested diverging from the EU for a better UK standard, actually.

There's only one lot claiming this is bull and that we need the EU, and that's those who lack the ability to think outside of their EU box.

Quote

 

Remember that magic number, 6.9 million?  Please tell me where 6.9 million workers are coming from, because you keep skipping this problem with the very figures you praise.

Time to ween the UK employer off of cheap EU labour; might not be easy, but it's the right thing to do.

Quote

 

They do claim, you're trying to stop or deter immigrants from claiming if they're eligible.

If they claim, what's the problem? You're all for claimants having freedom of movement and I'm all for a points based immigration system to insure we don't get unskilled, uneducated and ex convicts thinking they can just settle in the UK.

Quote

 

Shame you'll struggle to locate and detain ex-cons, since the UK is out of the European Arrest Warrant scheme soon, as well as the access to other services this access provides.

First of all, it's about stopping them from entry into the UK, second of all, I'm sure the home office can deport a foreign national after serving a minimum sentence of 18 months or something in the UK justice system.

Quote

 

Please show your working and proof that the Blair administration considered points based immigration systems?

It's allover the news, what ya, not heard LBC, it's now national so you've no excuse to say you can't tune in.

That's not to say this information wasn't reported in other media outlets or that this wasn't public domain meaning it's no big secret who coined this points based immigration for the UK; only difference is, it'll apply to those from the EU too; what's wrong with treating someone from EU the same everyone else for a change? Do you think the EU more deserving or the African less deserving?

In case you haven't heard though; http://theconversation.com/how-new-labour-made-britain-into-a-migration-state-85472

Quote

 

One rule for Brits, one rule for everyone else eh?

When it comes to rights to settle in the UK, yeah, duh.

Quote

 

The only way you'll get differing types of visa, is with trade deals.  I don't see any of those appearing from the ether....

I  remember Theresa May rejecting the idea of a trade deal with India because India wanted more student visas for Indians; I hope Boris Johnson is more receptive to India; that's the only trade deal/visa related example I've heard of during this Brexit; so far. EU and UK are due to talk soon (March 2020) and the UK and US (both eager it seems) want to rush in a Brexit trade deal before the November election to be rolled out January 1st 2021; but as for visas and rights to settle; ? with that, might seem like a more traditional trade deal where we talk trade and not linking it immigration.

Edited February 22, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[sivispacem]

3 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

0 hours, better than part time, don't have to pay income tax if you're on a 0 hours contract, can hire yourself as well, and you can hire someone without having to insure or pay tax

This is quite possibly the most absurd misunderstanding of both employment and tax law I've ever seen. Literally every single part of it is completely wrong.