The EU debate - Part III

That's because we've been selling off housing stock for 30 years without replacing it mate.

Having social housing in the private sector suits the system anyway, as private landlords simply evict those who don't pay or are a nuisance. The council end up pissing around with them for far longer and then more often than not re-housing them anyway

 

Full employment does not work in a capitalist economy. There always needs to be slack in the labour market to prevent wage inflation.

Nov 16 stats show 434,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year.
12 months ago it was 516,000.

 

Watch from around 1.06.25. Should induce a nice debate

 

It is the long term unemployed who are the problem. Those for whom work has become almost an alien concept.

Some probably are unemployable, others need to be made to get off their arses.

No reasonably minded person minds some of the tax they pay going to give a hand up to people who have fallen on hard times, for one reason or another. But, in my view, that's what it's intended to be, a hand up to give temporary support and to help those people to get back on their feet. It's when the supposed hand up turns into a long term hand out that the problem begins.

 

...and those where the govt has allowed them to treat it like an alien concept. The welfare system was intended to be a safety net, but it has been allowed to become a comfort blanket instead.

 

When long term unemployed represent 1% of the total work force then there are bigger fish to fry.

To put this in context long term unemployment was 4.5% in 1993 so clearly the policies that push people into work are effective.

It's a stereotype that only holds true for a very small minority. There are plenty of sticks in the system to hit people who refuse to find/stay in work including sanctions and refusing benefit for first thirteen weeks if you choose to leave employment or are to blame for losing your job.

 

I wouldn't agree about the entire welfare system.

However, those who are fit and able to work, should do so. Being unemployed should not be allowed to become their way of life.


It's not natural for the vast majority, anyway. I don't need to work, and I wouldn't wish to do so again full time. But there are days I really wouldn't mind getting out there and doing my old job.

 

Not so easy if the lazy scrounger has kids though. There are also the benefit fraudsters to tackle.

 

I agree to an extent, Steven.

But there are those who know exactly how to play the system, and many know how to cheat it too. As can be witnessed by the numbers that are caught for benefit fraud.

I believe in a welfare system that is a safety net. Something that's there to catch you when you fall. But once you're able to get back on your feet again, you must. If you prove to be genuinely incapable of getting back up, fair enough. But many are, and don't.

The problem, as always, is how to separate the truly needy from the scroungers and cheats.

 

Family with kids are expected to work under current rules. Lone parents are expected to work once child reaches 5, between ages 5-12 you are expected to look for work in school/after school club hours, once child is 12 then you are expected to look for full time work. Failure to actively seeking work results in sanctions including full loss of benefit.

Benefit fraud will always be an issue but is as much to do with unscrupulous employers as it is benefit fraudsters. Closing the UBER self employed loophole would make a huge difference but it is already much harder to cheat the system than it was thanks to the links currently being built in. The National fraud Initiative now collects data from 33 sources, including credit agencies to to test whether the income / circumstances you declare match the information you give to other people.

 

PM faces fury after hinting at 'transitional' Brexit deal to appease City firms that could see us tied to the EU for YEARS.

Sounds like a good idea, slow and smooth, what do you lot think?

 

Had this been a third option in the referendum I would have voted for it

She loves a bit of backtracking does Theresa. She's been a completely spineless PM so far

 

This was mooted to be her strategy weeks ago in the FT (I posted a link at the time)

What she's looking for is the removal of the 2 year timescale for concluding negotiations once article 50 has been invoked. Seeking 5 years plus as a minimum, and in the interim things merely carry on as they are.

Sounds sensible enough to me, and very much like it being launched into the long grass. Whether the EU actually agree to this demand remains to be seen, but it'd placate all barring those in the EU who want to see the UK 'punished' economically for the Brexit vote.

I doubt the xenophobes over here will like it either tbh.

 

It'll be funny to see some in the EU that were screaming for us to go asap having to make a massive backtrack.

 

They'll find the UK begging for more time equally funny.

And we're off...

 

The Daily Kustard seems to have taken it well judging by the headline and the way they printed the word YEARS

 

I think those who do the most trade with us, will accept it, it'll be those on the periphery who might see our departure as an opportunity that could put a spoke in her wheel.

Farage would be fuming, and for that reason alone it's a great idea

 

Ken Loach and Diane Abbott both were making ridiculous comments such as people thought 75% of benefits claimants were scroungers or fraudsters and then proceeded to explain that wasn't the case but they refused to admit that the benefits bill is too much. They would say things like pensions were a large part of the benefit bill as if people didn't know that. They totally refused to discuss whether too much was spent on encouraging people not to work.

 

What about stay at home mums?

 

get out quickly and completely and negotiate a deal within the two years deadline
after that all countries have to agree an extension