We're All In This Together?

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:03 pm

I don't like Nick Boles, but I'm not sure this is fair- a rare occasion where I disagree with Zelo Street.

Sure, there's a personal use here, but learning languages is something we should want politicians to do.

We don't know how much Boles has paid himself for language lessons.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:58 pm

Don't think Boles was being "targeted because of his sexuality" here. The fact that he has a civil partner and not a spouse is completely immaterial.

Samanfur · **Posted:** Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Another pledge broken. Still, as Ruby Wax reminded us. you can always just book into The Priory, right?

smod · **Posted:** Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:08 pm

Responsible programming from Channel 4 in times of high unemployment and zero economic growth. Kick the unemployed further.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /episode-3

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4437

Saw an advert for that. Cunts. I expect how to dodge tax like the anti-social banker you are with Jimmy Carr will be on next week though.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:33 pm

Belatedly, it seems that the tax avoidance lawyers are going to be called in to a Select Committee.

Some of them do very well from government work at the same time they are helping the government lose tax revenue. At the very least, we might start linking the two.

Machadaynu · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm

smod wrote:

Responsible programming from Channel 4 in times of high unemployment and zero economic growth. Kick the unemployed further.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /episode-3

Turns out that it did not demonise benefits claimants. It's a critique on the incompetence of JobCentrePlus.

oboogie · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:38 pm

Machadaynu wrote:

smod wrote:

Responsible programming from Channel 4 in times of high unemployment and zero economic growth. Kick the unemployed further.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /episode-3

Turns out that it did not demonise benefits claimants. It's a critique on the incompetence of JobCentrePlus.

Oh good, I've recorded that to watch later.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:42 pm

It wasn't entirely fair on them really, I didn't think.

Not surprising their job centre set up for 1 day with clients who were clearly motivated was better than Job Centre Plus who have to deal with everyone forever.

And that last bit about those Job Centre Plus jobs- wouldn't it make sense for them to be advertised internally only? What with all that redundancy money it would save us if soon to be sacked civil servants got those new jobs?

The early bit about how you can write tripe on your job search and get away with it for ages was basically a bloke who did it once and got away with it.

"You could do that for ages, couldn't you?"
"I reckon so".

And what were they supposed to do with the bloke covered in paint? Have a bloke in the office free to follow him home?

And where was fucking IDS? No mention of him even declining an interview.

smod · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Machadaynu wrote:

smod wrote:

Responsible programming from Channel 4 in times of high unemployment and zero economic growth. Kick the unemployed further.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /episode-3

Turns out that it did not demonise benefits claimants. It's a critique on the incompetence of JobCentrePlus.

Which you wouldn't gauge given the tabloidistic show title. The examples of benefit avoiding are pretty far removed from reality. Whenever I have attended, a member of staff has checked to see I have meet the basic criteria (3 jobs per week). You simply could not get away with writing your shopping list. The forms are so stringent. You have to detail the steps you took to find work (online, newspapers, local shops), it's not enough to simply write the company name, location and job description any more. If there is a reference number you have to write it down.

If you've been on benefits long enough to see a personal advisor, the jobs they find you are checked during your interview against the computer system once your advisor has seen evidence on your form. Only then will they deem that part a success before they launch a new job search. There was no mention on limits of time staff can spend with clients, the weeks of docked benefits for minor things, job centre staff losing jobs.

It's harder and harder to simply fake your job search when claiming benefits and filling out your job search forms. Their evidence is irrelevant since it focused on one job centre. There was no evidence they saw him come into the centre with the van directly outside. We are told to accept this happened.

Regarding work experience, one I had I found myself and the job centre got in touch with the newspaper and sorted out the details. My current volunteering was deemed fine since it was in the non-profit sector.

I do agree that the Job Centre is incompetent and demeaning. It's not about getting people into work. It's about getting the numbers down.

Messianic Trees · **Joined:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm **Posts:** 2900

Here's the Mail's take on the programme from earlier today:

Benefit cheats' bonanza: Jobcentre Plus staff pay out even though claimants' documents are just shopping lists and letters saying 'don't give me a job'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z23SWSt1xW

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:13 pm

Shocking advertising of the programme indeed.

And a pretty lightweight programme in itself. Surely worthy of 1 hour?

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:14 pm

Messianic Trees wrote:

Here's the Mail's take on the programme from earlier today:

Benefit cheats' bonanza: Jobcentre Plus staff pay out even though claimants' documents are just shopping lists and letters saying 'don't give me a job'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z23SWSt1xW

Well done "edgy" left wing Channel 4!

new puritan · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:49 pm

There's a reasonably interesting article over at the Telegraph on the contest for the West Coast Main Line franchise. It would appear both bids are wildly over-optimistic. How long before the eventual winner goes the way of National Express? Just renationalise the fucker and stop buggering about.

Quote:

The Virgin king’s done his best to recreate the golden age of steam ever since it got out that his days as operator of the West Coast Main Line rail franchise were looking decidedly numbered. But, any day now, we’ll know whether FirstGroup really has bid as much as £7bn for the joys of running the London to Scotland line for the next 14 years – outbidding Virgin Rail by up to £1bn.

Maybe that’s overcooking the difference a bit. But, either way, deciding the winner is a big decision for rookie Transport Secretary Justine Greening. Not least when this bid looks to have all the hallmarks of a financial derailment waiting to happen.

It’s not just that, on the face of it, FirstGroup’s bid looks absurdly optimistic. They both do. Virgin Rail, which is 49pc-owned by Stagecoach, paid £160m to run the franchise last year, when it had £938m revenues, £34.4m operating profits and delivered £29m in dividends. True, the old and new franchises are not directly comparable – as there’ll be 28,000 extra seats, a 25pc increase. But the premium payments are rocketing by much more than that – averaging £500m a year on a £7bn bid.

Both bids appear reliant on the types of heroic revenue forecasts that blew up so spectacularly on the Channel Tunnel, its fast-rail link High Speed One and twice on the East Coast Main Line – under GNER and then National Express. They imply compound growth of at least 7pc a year for the next 14 – and off the back of a double-dip recession too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... appen.html

smod · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:46 am

Rail fare rises: Protests may herald U-turn on coalition plans

Quote:

Passenger groups and unions are stepping up pressure over train fares with a day of action, as the government hinted it may back down over planned rises that would result in some season tickets costing £1,000 more in 2015 than in 2011.

Fares will rise in January by three percentage points above the July RPI figure, which will be announced on Tuesday. That is expected to leave fares between 5% and 6% higher. Passenger groups said train fares were going up three times faster than salaries. With train operators allowed to raise some fares by an additional 5%, some commuters could see double-digit price rises on their tickets next year.

The transport secretary, Justine Greening, said she would ask for government money to keep fares down.

The Campaign for Better Transport's chief executive, Stephen Joseph, said: "The government knows they can't continue to hit [car] commuters – that's why they've postponed the fuel duty increase. Now they need to give the same help to rail users."

He said commuters in the south-east routinely spent up to 15% of their salary getting to work in London, and warned that the price of an annual season ticket from many towns – including Brighton, Oxford, Luton and Reading – would rise by more than £1,000 between 2011 and 2015.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/1 ... f-comments

We're All In This Together?

Who is online