POLITICS CORNER

[Whyperion]

There is the consideration that for new migrants of working age into the country 1) 'benefits' are restricted in eligibility to claim compared to UK nationals' criteria. 2) Non-UK nationals (other than some EU countries) , evidence of a need that they are required for the workplace has to be in place before they are allowed to come for work in the first place.

What the statistics are not interpreted as that persons without jobs at one time would have been encourage to look for work , etc elsewhere - like the British Colonies , or maybe encouraged into the Military, both options that are not with us in such numbers now.

[Stanley]

Andrew Mitchell really is Mr Nasty isn't he. He's convinced that the Plebgate row was a plot to destroy him and is reported to be suing both the paper that printed the allegation and the Metropolitan Police. What an ego! He's admitted abusing the police, I would have thought he would be better off keeping stum and letting things quietly cool down. Still, normal common sense doesn't seem to function in the Westminster bubble.

[hartley353]

Andrew Mitchel the epitomy of a modern politician. Lies and bluster, and totally immoral.

[Tripps]

Another ridiculous move from this 'omnishambles' of a coalition...

New compulsory ID cards for Northerners will allow the government to track their movements.
A growing North-South divide has seen immigrants from as far afield as Rotherham and Burnley heading South in search of work, housing and free health care. Health secretary Jeremy Hunt said: “These people need to know that NHS does not stand for Northern Health Service. “Northerners may still travel freely in the South, but must maintain their accents at all time and not offer anyone a ‘barm cake’.”

[Stanley]

David, have you noted the sub-clause buried in the small print. They must wear clogs and flat caps and whippets are barred from travelling unless wearing a fluorescent jacket with their chip number stencilled on both sides.

[Stanley]

Not sure if this is April Fool but IDS says publicly that he could live on £53 a week. Handy that he's living rent free in his wife's mansion and has his parliamentary salary to live on.... That'll go down well with the 2million families that will be affected by the latest cuts.
In principle, the continued assertion that people should be encouraged to work is a fine principle. Problem is that there aren't enough jobs that pay a living wage....
I note that straws are being grasped to 'prove' that we have avoided a triple dip recession. Semantics actually, the bald fact is that the economy is stalled and the longer it goes on the worse the effects will be and the more permanent.

[Stanley]

No comfort for Ossie in the latest indices. Eurozone unemployment figures up (running at over 25% in Spain and Greece). Purchasing manager's index down again. Only sector that is keeping the overall figures up is 'services' so the telephone sanitizers and advertising/financial services are all that's keeping us afloat. I can remember the days when that mysterious item, 'invisible exports' used to be wheeled into the equation whenever the trade balance was discussed. I distrusted it then and I do now. What we need is demand for manufactured goods, exports can't do this because of the global slow-down, only domestic demand can get manufacturing moving again and the government's policies are driving disposable incomes down. Simples!
I've always taken notice of Frank Fields' opinions. Remember when Tony Blair asked him to 'think the unthinkable' and then sacked him when he did? Frank was giving his opinions about Tax credits for those in work. He says that the main effect of them is not to raise incomes of workers but support high rents and low wages. He reckons that the effort should go to forcing employers to pay a living wage and invest in productivity, and make a real effort to curb rents. Makes sense to me.....

[Tripps]

I've just heard the MP for Rochdale Simon Danschuk telling the story of one of his constituents who came to his surgery yesterday. He claimed that he only had £27 per week to live on after his costs. He said that his constituent was an "apprentice", and implied that he was living independently, no doubt supported by tax credit, housing, and council tax benefit.

Does anyone remember when an "apprentice" was aged between 15 and 21, and lived "at home" with his parents, earned next to nothing, but lived for the day when he had "served his time", and was then fired, and had to get another job, but at full rates of pay. Only then did he start to think in terms of independent living, and marriage. (Remember marriage? )

Am I hopelessly old fashioned to think that there is not an automatic right to independent living on leaving school, and the modern system is unsustainable. It would solve the "bedroom tax" problem for his mum and dad for a few years, too. In the world of mythical money -this is what you would have paid if we had raised fuel prices - it could be seen as an indirect income for them.

[Thomo]

No you are not "Old Fashioned" Tripps. I was an apprentice as described, but became an employee with the firm who saw me through the difficult years, for which I am truly thankful. I served a second apprenticeship as a married man with 2 children when I was in my 30s, again what I learned although costly, was invaluable, again I am grateful. During this time, no benefits were recieved whatsoever. Today there are they who want everything before making any input, and as for what is happening in the EU:- "Don't Blame Us".

[Tizer]

In a way of speaking, I served several apprenticeships. Before becoming an undergraduate I worked for 5 years in three very different jobs, on low wages, no pension fund and sometimes long hours (first apprenticeship). Then when I took up my studies it was with a local authority grant because I'd worked for those years, but it wasn't much money and I lived most of the time in a grotty bedsit with a single hob for cooking, an electric fire on a meter and a bathroom/loo shared with a lot of other people (second apprenticeship). I had a good period as an industrial research scientist and got a decent salary but eventually research funds began to grow thin and the company moved in other directions. I upped sticks and started my own business but it failed - bad timing, it was 1989 and the economy collapsed shortly afterwards. I changed my own direction and got a job with a big publisher of technical magazines and books but I had to start at the bottom and I worked with people half my age and earned the same as them, but I learnt about publishing (third apprenticeship). Later Mrs Tiz and I started our own publishing business which was successful but to begin with was like a fourth apprenticeship! Perhaps my life has been one long apprenticeship - when does the real job begin?

[Stanley]

Same as mine Tiz, I have come to the conclusion that everything is an apprenticeship to equip us for retirement!
I see that David Cameron has written an article 'proving' that we must have Trident. The same old arguments about Mutually Assured Destruction and Deterrence. What he won't say is that the main reason has always been to assure a 'place at the top table' in international affairs. Every time I hear the phrase 'punching above our weight' I want to choke the speaker. Time we realised we are a small but prosperous island off the mainland of Europe and settled down to running our economy for ourselves, not some ridiculous aspiration to remain a 'world power'. But of course that would reduce the sphere of influence of our masters in the Westminster Bubble so it will never happen.

[Bruff]

There are 1000s of people, across all age ranges, who have been taken on in the services sector for example, who stack shelves, clean floors, make coffee who are called apprentices. Nothing wrong with these roles, but they are not 'apprentices' as folk of a certain age will understand. There is no reason why, it seems to me, a person could not have a traditional apprenticeship in retail - one could learn about stock control, hygiene, marketing, customer service and so on and so on. This happens in Germany for example. Pound to a penny it's not happening here with any great frequency - I wager 'apprentices' here are recruited as a ruse to pay less than the minimum wage for a year (£2.65 per hour), and help the Govt trumpet how many 'apprenticeships' they have created. Our MP here has an 'apprentice' in their office. I'm sure they are getting a comprehensive training.............

Not sure we can draw any conclusions from the MP for Rochdale's constituent, without more information than given above as to their circumstance and background. This person may very well be in the 30s or 40s, and this 'apprenticeship' is all that was on offer after a period searching for alternative employement following redundancy (for example). At 2.65 an hour for the first year. Not surprised they're struggling to make ends meet.

If there's one thing I detest as a tax payer, it's my taxes going to subsidise (in effect) employers paying wages that do not enable their employees to put a roof over their head or otherwise function as a productive member of society. But we're not allowed to think about that. It's all about the skivers.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

"If there's one thing I detest as a tax payer, it's my taxes going to subsidise (in effect) employers paying wages that do not enable their employees to put a roof over their head or otherwise function as a productive member of society. But we're not allowed to think about that. It's all about the skivers." This was what Frank Fields was saying about Working Tax Credits.
I think many would join you there Richard. My mind goes back to Marx who forecast that laisser faire capitalism and production methods would lead to the de-skilling of the labour force to reduce wages. I can remember my dismay when I was running Ellenroad and first came across NVQs. They looked like a con-trick to me, giving the worker the impression that a scrap of paper saying he had fulfilled the qualification in some simple procedure was a genuine qualification. Mind you, we all know there was plenty of abuse in the old apprenticeship system and many employers saw it as a source of cheap labour. Read Love on the Dole for a good account of what happened when the apprentice reached the stage where he qualified for a better wage, instant dimissal followed far too often. Even so, the worker had got experience and a solid qualification and many got back into the industry and eventually prospered. I hate hearing youngsters being interviewed and when asked what they do say 'administrative assistant', sales executive' or something similar. Far too often it's simply a glorified title for a dogsbody. I feel so sorry for the young people, they are told they have all the advantages of education and high living standards but are nowhere near as well off as I was sixty years ago when school-leaving jobs were plentiful. Add to this the fact that they live in a society that worships the ability to consume and measures them by that standard and is it any wonder so many of them lose their way.
On a parallel track, I caught part of a programme on World Service this morning about robotics and the question was asked "Will it affect employment?" I remember sixty years ago the hot topic was what the effect of automation would be. The forecast was that it wouldn't necessarily mean more unemployed but more leisure as overtime would be unnecessary. Problem was of colurse that one section of workers got all the leisure, unemployment. You can remember the same discussion about the introduction of computer technology, now it's robots. I listen to politicians lauding the increase in employment figfures but can't help wondering how many of those jobs they count actually pay what we would have called a living wage all those years ago. In my early days I had the lowest wages around except for platelayers on the railway but I bought a house and seven acres of land and reared three children. (All right the wage rose during the process but the fact is that the bank took me on and lent ne the money to do it) When you tell today's youngsters this they think it's a fairy tale. We have and still are, failed our children and I can't see what the end result will be.

[Tardis]

If there's one thing I detest as a tax payer, it's my taxes going to subsidise (in effect) employers paying wages that do not enable their employees to put a roof over their head or otherwise function as a productive member of society. But we're not allowed to think about that. It's all about the skivers.

Richard Broughton

Agreed

[Stanley]

Osborne using the example of the Philpott case to justify cutting benefits is the worst kind of knee-jerk politics designed to trap any opposition into supporting the family and by implication, what they did. Says more about the weakness of his case and his personal attitudes than it adds to rational debate. (Evidently he parks in disabled persons bays as well)
Parliamentary Committee on banking standards calls for thee HBOS directors to be barred from the industry. Surprising thing is that they only named three! I'm all in favour of sanctions but let's apply them across the board.

[Bruff]

He should be careful about parking in disabled bays around my neck of the woods. A few months ago, a storm of sorts erupted following a letter in the local rag from 'Concerned of West Kirby' who noted that having spent some time in the cafe at Morrison's in the town checking the comings and goings of those parking in the disabled bays, 'many seemed' to them not disabled at all! Clearly a person of some diagnostic ability. Mind you, disabled groups are noting an increase in harrassment - a hardly surprising turn of events given the tenor of public debate on this matter.

Quite disgraceful intervention from the Chancellor. But a sense of relief on my part that he didn't push the 'argument' to its conclusion and note that having prompted this 'debate', the children hadn't therefore died in vain. I note Philpott was at the time of his attempted murder of his then partner and the assault on her mother a serving soldier. Clearly, his barely latent aggression was fuelled if not ignited by that great institution the British Army. See where ridiculous cause/effect arguments take you, George?

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Too true Richard. I couldn't help contrasting Ossie's style with the measured and forensic way that a good man like Frank Fields presents his arguments. A complete contrast. What it signals to me is that Ossie's thought processes are far from objective and focussed, this shows in his handing of the economy though I find it difficult to decide who is actually running policy. One thing is certain, it is blatantly political and fuelled by the extreme right. We didn't like Stafford Cripps in the old days but he commanded respect because there was no evidence he was driven by anything other than the facts. We need dispassionate assessments and policies at the moment.
The cuts in the 50p tax rate to 45p come in today as does the Granny Tax.
I note that the petition asking IDS to try living on £53 a week has exceeded 400,000 signatures. No word from him yet about it.....

[Stanley]

I am having great difficulty avoiding sycophantic eulogies from high Tories on Margaret Thatcher. Now she's dead we will see some objective assessment by good historians and I fear her reputation will be somewhat dented. Norman Lamont was particularly obtuse. If he is right about Thatcherism how come it led to the results we still see today?

[Wendyf]

I remember shopping with my sister in law in the small market town of Mold one Saturday morning in 1976. We turned a corner and came across a small crowd gathered round a woman wearing a posh hat and speaking in a high pitched plummy voice. Kate grabbed my arm and led me away at high speed muttering "it's that unbearable Thatcher woman...". I still feel the need to run away at the sound of her voice.

[PanBiker]

Unfortunately the outpourings will last until well into next week until the massive funeral has been arranged. Lets see how the Tory government justifies the cost of that to the taxpayer when the country is bankrupt three times over. Austerity would surely dictate a suitably dignified simpler arrangement.

[Stanley]

Ian, I note that the question was asked yesterday and the answer was that the Thatcher family would be making a contribution. I doubt if it will be significant but we will never know the figures. Much talk of her legacy.... Too soon for any objective analysis but when it comes it will be savage. Did you see Blair defending her? Another politician obsessed with legacy and he's going to get a rough ride as well. I'm avoiding making any comments because as an old fashioned social democrat I can't forgive her or her mentors. Many years ago I heard a speech by Wedgie Benn advocating ring-fencing windfall North Sea oil revenues and applying them exclusively to infrastructure, education and health. He was ignored. Probably the greatest missed opportunity of the 20th century.
A lot of effort is going into avoiding unrest in London during the funeral. They are estimating the cost of the funeral in millions.
I've only just realised this morning that we have at least another week of this Thatcherite flood of eulogies. Much music will be listened to in this house.....
(I'm writing a NOP for one of my mentors on the principle of 'Less Eligibility' and have had to postpone it for a day or two because I'm so angry....)

[hartley353]

Thatchers funeral, should be very low key, preferably at pauper level, lying amongst the people she drove into penury may have a poetic justice. A funeral at the level being discussed wil bring crowds onto the streers to show their derision and will not be a pretty sight. Talks of renaming Port Stanley must surely be a press joke, the quicker this woman disappears into history and is forgotten the better for all, she stamped this country into the mud.

[Thomo]

I am going to stick my neck out and remind the members that this is a community site, and not a political platform, or a suitable place to air your grievances about someone who has died. In order to achieve something that affects "Barlick" I work every day with people from all political persuasions and beliefs, if you want to unload your aggressive bile, do it in your bath!!

[Nolic]

Thomo, as you are aware Mrs Thatcher has always provoked strong feelings in individuals and I feel that under such topics as Politics Corner or Obituaries members have every right to express their opinion as long as those posts are not offensive. Others may find these posts objectionable but that is not a valid reason to ask people to refrain from expressing those views.
If such posts cause offence then as with any others refer them to the moderators for consideration. Nolic

[Big Kev]

I am going to stick my neck out and remind the members that this is a community site, and not a political platform, or a suitable place to air your grievances about someone who has died. In order to achieve something that affects "Barlick" I work every day with people from all political persuasions and beliefs, if you want to unload your aggressive bile, do it in your bath!!

The title of the thread is "Politics Corner". My understanding is that it was opened on the site for members to discuss their political views. I personally don't contribute to the thread, choosing to keep my political views to myself and the ballot box but occasionally look in to see what is being said. I haven't found anything offensive in it yet, if I did I would flag it up with a Moderator, following which I would hope to get an unbiased response and appropriate, if any, action.

This "Community Site" is just that. Members of the community expressing their views in the appropriate threads; if member's views are that offensive to you why do you continue to read them?

Apologies to any site moderators if I have "stuck my trunk in", I'll get down off my soapbox now.

p.s. I don't like cats...