Priti Patel!!

American_Mary said:
Looking at every possibility is not scaremongering it’s a taking a situation and expressing an opinion on what might happen Cooper, the point is there’s a definite dissonance between the areas where the economically inactive live and where the job shortfalls are going to occur, so the question of how one group of people in one area will fill the employment requirements in another is pretty germane rather than alarmist.
Click to expand...

I think stating that families are literally going to be torn away from where they live to take up low paid jobs in the capital and asking how they can afford it is being slightly alarmist. It’s not even a genuine option. The people who believe it is a possibility are ones who see the government as the worst of the worst. It’s taking a situation and expressing the most extreme outcome. There have been no other options to discuss put forward
 
The big bosses and capitalists are going to take a big hit here. I notice they are moaning big time today. Fact is they have been using cheap EU labour to diminish their responsibility to invest in their own business and people for too many years.
Mostly at the expense of non South East communities.

There will be a short term hit but long term there will be better well paid quality jobs when businesses adapt to the new order.
As ever adapt and survive
 
You are like a record stuck in a groove Cooper. We are discussing the whole measure not just some silly point that you keep repeating ad nauseum. There is no point debating with you. If you cannot see what is plain as day to those who work with the situation on a daily basis then I can see why you are so in tune with this government. You and Priti would get on like a house on fire.
 
Cooper6711 said:
I think stating that families are literally going to be torn away from where they live to take up low paid jobs in the capital and asking how they can afford it is being slightly alarmist. It’s not even a genuine option. The people who believe it is a possibility are ones who see the government as the worst of the worst. It’s taking a situation and expressing the most extreme outcome. There have been no other options to discuss put forward
Click to expand...

I don’t think it is alarmist if Patel is floating this as a solution then one of two things can happen, the people travel to the jobs or the jobs relocate to the people, the secondary option may happen but having lived through the 80’s I saw the diaspora from the North East due to lack of investment in the area and the concern is the same will happen again.
 
Cooper6711 said:
True but you stated further up they would be faced with a choice of moving or be stripped of any benefits. There is no policy regarding that. Under the UC sanctions you refer to you have missed the section regarding how far a customer is expected to travel. It is not sufficient distance to need to relocate
Click to expand...

I have missed that. Could you link it for me please?
 
HundredRoom said:
The big bosses and capitalists are going to take a big hit here. I notice they are moaning big time today. Fact is they have been using cheap EU labour to diminish their responsibility to invest in their own business and people for too many years.
Mostly at the expense of non South East communities.

There will be a short term hit but long term there will be better well paid quality jobs when businesses adapt to the new order.
As ever adapt and survive
Click to expand...


When those jobs become better paid - carers, fruit pickers.... who do you think is going to pay for the increase? It will be passed on in price increases to the consumers. For UK fruit and veg that’s you and I
 
When those jobs become better paid - carers, fruit pickers.... who do you think is going to pay for the increase? It will be passed on in price increases to the consumers. For UK fruit and veg that’s you and I
Which do you prefer finny.
 
1finny said:
When those jobs become better paid - carers, fruit pickers.... who do you think is going to pay for the increase? It will be passed on in price increases to the consumers. For UK fruit and veg that’s you and I
Click to expand...

Are you not willing to pay a little extra to increase pay for poorest paid then? Or do you prefer to pay less to keep costs low for yourself?
 
He's probably worried about those who can hardly afford food now. Like those that get sent from the local Job Centre to our Foodbank.
 
I think it’s a good policy to encourage the unemployed back into work. Universal credit and similar policies by the conservative government are saying to these people that unemployment is not a career choice, no longer can people sit comfortably claiming benefits with no intention of ever working ( when they are fit and capable of doing so)
Once we have this group of people working and contributing to society then we can assessthe real skills shortage and adapt accordingly.
 
I haven't implied anything. It's a fact. But "Ministers have been accused of “failing people at the most vulnerable point in their lives” after figures revealed 17,070 disability claimants have died while waiting for decisions on their personal independence payment (PIP) claims since 2013." is a worthy statement.
 
bear66 said:
I haven't implied anything. It's a fact. But "Ministers have been accused of “failing people at the most vulnerable point in their lives” after figures revealed 17,070 disability claimants have died while waiting for decisions on their personal independence payment (PIP) claims since 2013." is a worthy statement.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the correlation is. Them waiting for a decision on PIP isn't what has made them die. They would have died if they had been awarded PIP as the outcome was unknown.
 
Adi_Dem said:
I have missed that. Could you link it for me please?
Click to expand...

See policy as per below

A claimant must normally be willing to travel 90 minutes each way to work, by a route and by means of transport appropriate to their circumstances, for example:
  • car
  • public transport
  • walking
  • cycling
If a claimant has particular difficulties which have an adverse effect on their ability to obtain work and to be able to travel to work (such as a health condition or caring responsibilities), they must have their travel to work time or area of destination limited to take account of this.
 
Not sure what the correlation is.
Click to expand...

It's a loss of sight of what the Welfare State is about. To protect the most vulnerable in society. If the 'system' (are you a part of it?), doesn't realise why it is there, the government has failed to protect its citizens.
 
bear66 said:
It's a loss of sight of what the Welfare State is about. To protect the most vulnerable in society. If the 'system' (are you a part of it?), doesn't realise why it is there, the government has failed to protect its citizens.
Click to expand...

It does protect the most vulnerable. Anyone who makes a claim for PIP or ESA and their death is expected within 6 months is instantly awarded the benefit at the highest rate under special rules.

Your assertion is that the 17,000 people who died waiting for PIP decisions were on deaths door. Given the above guidance none of these people have been expected to pass away within 6 months of their initial claim. You can't state because someone dies that retrospectively they should have been awarded the benefit no question. Where does it end.... I have an illness that could potentially lead to my death one day so I should be awarded the benefit no questions asked just in case?
 
I guess my point is why have the died?, natural causes, starvation, stress. Point being are you saying all the deaths are caused by the lack of benefit being paid to them?
 
Why should the most vulnerable have to wait 14 weeks on average for a decision? This government has broken the system by not supporting it (or the private assessors are making easy money out of doing it badly - £255 a year) or those working the system are incompetent and/or heartless 'tic boxers'.

Given the above guidance none of these people have been expected to pass away within 6 months of their initial claim
Click to expand...

"The Scottish parliament passed an amendment earlier last year which changes the definition of terminal illness to one based on clinical judgement, therefore removing the six-month restriction, and the UK government is being urged to do the same."

Good on the Scottish Parliament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top