Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 4, 2022 12:54:42 GMT
To be honest and some will see this as a very right wing view, I would say that after a year or whatever on benefits then people should be guided into jobs it is terrible that you have places with 10% unemployment yet in those same areas care home owners etc can't get staff. Don't apply to jobs that are available? Sanctioned, lose JSA. www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-leaflet/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-how-to-keep-your-benefit-payment#what-you-must-do-to-keep-your-benefit-paymentShould they then complain when people who ARE prepared to <checks notes> "get on their bike and look for work" get jobs and they don't? Or does a willingness to do so change from a positive to a negative as soon as an international border is involved? Of course, since the high-unemployment area you're referring to is within easy public transport commuting distance of the thriving regional capital, it's a bit of a moot point. Nobody needs to move. Indeed, many of the employed people in the area already do that commute. That's what you would think and yet people remain unemployed for years when they are perfectly fit and there are plenty of jobs available. I have heard that some apply for jobs (to comply with the rules) and then at interview show no interest in getting the job and make it clear that they are not going to be an ideal employee. You can take a horse to water...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015 
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 4, 2022 12:56:56 GMT
That's what you would think and yet people remain unemployed for years when they are perfectly fit and there are plenty of jobs available. I have heard that some apply for jobs (to comply with the rules) and then at interview show no interest in getting the job and make it clear that they are not going to be an ideal employee. You can take a horse to water... Perhaps what's needed is feedback from interviewers to be taken into account...? But, really, you'd think that the choice between £77/week JSA and £356/wk minimum wage FT would be enough incentive...
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 4, 2022 13:45:02 GMT
That's what you would think and yet people remain unemployed for years when they are perfectly fit and there are plenty of jobs available. I have heard that some apply for jobs (to comply with the rules) and then at interview show no interest in getting the job and make it clear that they are not going to be an ideal employee. You can take a horse to water... Perhaps what's needed is feedback from interviewers to be taken into account...? But, really, you'd think that the choice between £77/week JSA and £356/wk minimum wage FT would be enough incentive... Would likely also to be eligible for Universal Credit (plus a bit of casual work cash in hand perhaps).
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 4, 2022 14:12:54 GMT
That's what you would think and yet people remain unemployed for years when they are perfectly fit and there are plenty of jobs available. I have heard that some apply for jobs (to comply with the rules) and then at interview show no interest in getting the job and make it clear that they are not going to be an ideal employee. You can take a horse to water... Perhaps what's needed is feedback from interviewers to be taken into account...? But, really, you'd think that the choice between £77/week JSA and £356/wk minimum wage FT would be enough incentive... But that isn't the difference as when on UC you get lots of other stuff free too like council tax. Also what would you do with that feedback? Just cut their benefit so they starve or turn to crime ? Back on topic, I didn't vote Brexit for reasons of controlling immigration. However, I have more recently started to think about it. I think the "they take our jobs" argument falls flat as they also create jobs - a bigger economy in total. I worry more just about numbers of people: Cars on the road, green areas given away to houses etc. I also think it is a very short-sighted way of managing scarce valuable resources. Not enough doctors? Thats ok, just import some.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 4, 2022 17:41:06 GMT
I worry more just about numbers of people Well, given net migration has remained unchanged since Brexit (it's just non-EU nationals instead of EU, and we ALWAYS had full "control" of them), that's not a factor. So the question is which end of life do you prefer to target, in order to reduce population? Discouraging births, or hastening deaths?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 4, 2022 17:46:21 GMT
I worry more just about numbers of people Well, given net migration has remained unchanged since Brexit (it's just non-EU nationals instead of EU, and we ALWAYS had full "control" of them), that's not a factor. So the question is which end of life do you prefer to target, in order to reduce population? Discouraging births, or hastening deaths? If you can not quote me out of context I'll happily reply.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 4, 2022 18:03:06 GMT
Well, given net migration has remained unchanged since Brexit (it's just non-EU nationals instead of EU, and we ALWAYS had full "control" of them), that's not a factor. So the question is which end of life do you prefer to target, in order to reduce population? Discouraging births, or hastening deaths? If you can not quote me out of context I'll happily reply. I quoted the bit I was replying to. I was not replying to the rest, and it provided no relevant context. You are worried about the population of the UK. Net migration is unchanged since Brexit, so Brexit is irrelevant to concerns about population (and, as you said, it was not your issue anyway - so clearly it is not relevant to your concern). So, if you want to address population, you need to do so at one end of life or the other... Which? If you think that some context was relevant, feel free to reintroduce it and explain why it was relevant.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 4, 2022 18:07:09 GMT
If you can not quote me out of context I'll happily reply. I quoted the bit I was replying to. I was not replying to the rest, and it provided no relevant context. You are worried about the population of the UK. Net migration is unchanged since Brexit, so Brexit is irrelevant to concerns about population (and, as you said, it was not your issue anyway - so clearly it is not relevant to your concern). So, if you want to address population, you need to do so at one end of life or the other... Which? If you think that some context was relevant, feel free to reintroduce it and explain why it was relevant. If you quote the paragraph from which you extracted that partial sentence I'll happily reply.....
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 4, 2022 18:29:28 GMT
I quoted the bit I was replying to. I was not replying to the rest, and it provided no relevant context. You are worried about the population of the UK. Net migration is unchanged since Brexit, so Brexit is irrelevant to concerns about population (and, as you said, it was not your issue anyway - so clearly it is not relevant to your concern). So, if you want to address population, you need to do so at one end of life or the other... Which? If you think that some context was relevant, feel free to reintroduce it and explain why it was relevant. If you quote the paragraph from which you extracted that partial sentence I'll happily reply..... Back on topic, I didn't vote Brexit for reasons of controlling immigration. However, I have more recently started to think about it. I think the "they take our jobs" argument falls flat as they also create jobs - a bigger economy in total. I worry more just about numbers of people: Cars on the road, green areas given away to houses etc. I also think it is a very short-sighted way of managing scarce valuable resources. Not enough doctors? Thats ok, just import some. Now, where were we? End of life or start of life?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 4, 2022 18:45:29 GMT
If you quote the paragraph from which you extracted that partial sentence I'll happily reply..... Back on topic, I didn't vote Brexit for reasons of controlling immigration. However, I have more recently started to think about it. I think the "they take our jobs" argument falls flat as they also create jobs - a bigger economy in total. I worry more just about numbers of people: Cars on the road, green areas given away to houses etc. I also think it is a very short-sighted way of managing scarce valuable resources. Not enough doctors? Thats ok, just import some. Now, where were we? End of life or start of life? It seems like it is a huge subject of its own: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_planningClearly many methods wouldn't be considered ethical by many (myself included). It would seem changing immigration policy is just one way to tackle it. Surely though you wouldn't even discuss this if you didn't think there was a problem (as I think you don't) or could be a problem. My main point in all this though is why not plan for the future? Maybe some would like it if all of the UK became carpeted in one large city for example and others would like a smaller population than we have now (and all inbetween). Its a topic that ought to be discussed sensibly without any of the nastiness/racism.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 4, 2022 18:58:55 GMT
Now, where were we? End of life or start of life? It seems like it is a huge subject of its own: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_planningClearly many methods wouldn't be considered ethical by many (myself included). It would seem changing immigration policy is just one way to tackle it. Surely though you wouldn't even discuss this if you didn't think there was a problem (as I think you don't) or could be a problem. My main point in all this though is why not plan for the future? Maybe some would like it if all of the UK became carpeted in one large city for example and others would like a smaller population than we have now (and all inbetween). Its a topic that ought to be discussed sensibly without any of the nastiness/racism. I don't think net migration sitting at about one person in 300 of the population each year is particularly relevant to anything, no. It's a rounding error. And, at least, they're economically active people. So... I don't think you answered the question. Which end of life do you prefer to address?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 4, 2022 19:03:22 GMT
It seems like it is a huge subject of its own: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_planningClearly many methods wouldn't be considered ethical by many (myself included). It would seem changing immigration policy is just one way to tackle it. Surely though you wouldn't even discuss this if you didn't think there was a problem (as I think you don't) or could be a problem. My main point in all this though is why not plan for the future? Maybe some would like it if all of the UK became carpeted in one large city for example and others would like a smaller population than we have now (and all inbetween). Its a topic that ought to be discussed sensibly without any of the nastiness/racism. I don't think net migration sitting at about one person in 300 of the population each year is particularly relevant to anything, no. It's a rounding error. And, at least, they're economically active people. So... I don't think you answered the question. Which end of life do you prefer to address? That might be the historical average but you might not want to be vulnrable to sudden peaks as we have also been in the past. As to your second question I thought I answered by saying they are not the only choices - there is a list on that Wiki page.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 4, 2022 19:09:20 GMT
I don't think net migration sitting at about one person in 300 of the population each year is particularly relevant to anything, no. It's a rounding error. And, at least, they're economically active people. So... I don't think you answered the question. Which end of life do you prefer to address? That might be the historical average but you might not want to be vulnrable to sudden peaks as we have also been in the past. That is the peaks. The historical average depends on how far back you look, but prior to 2005 it was typically below the government's current target of 100k, which is 0.15%, roughly one person in 700.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jun 4, 2022 23:05:23 GMT
The Telegraph published last week: "More than one million foreign nationals allowed to live in UK in a year. Number of visas handed to workers, students, relatives and other foreign nationals rose by 35pc, amid claims of broken Brexit promises" 35% increase on last year and the highest influx since 2005 when modern recording began. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/26/one-million-people-allowed-live-uk-government-accused-breaking/One million people, less the steady (for the past 20 years) 3-400,000 who will have emigrated, that leaves a good extra half million this year to call on our services. For any country already no longer functioning in terms of GPs, dentists, hospital waiting lists, hospital beds, ambulances, prisons, police resource, school places and housing, allowing people in at this incredible rate doesn't seem the most sensible policy. Am I missing something, or has this government now lost the plot entirely? |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 5, 2022 8:29:03 GMT
The Telegraph published last week: "More than one million foreign nationals allowed to live in UK in a year. Number of visas handed to workers, students, relatives and other foreign nationals rose by 35pc, amid claims of broken Brexit promises" 35% increase on last year and the highest influx since 2005 when modern recording began. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/26/one-million-people-allowed-live-uk-government-accused-breaking/One million people, less the steady (for the past 20 years) 3-400,000 who will have emigrated, that leaves a good extra half million this year to call on our services. For any country already no longer functioning in terms of GPs, dentists, hospital waiting lists, hospital beds, ambulances, prisons, police resource, school places and housing, allowing people in at this incredible rate doesn't seem the most sensible policy. Am I missing something, or has this government now lost the plot entirely? Unless of course that number of immigrants includes a high percentage of overseas doctors, dentists, nurses, medical ancillary staff, teachers and those that are simply prepared to work their a***s off doing jobs that many of the 'entitled to be here' prefer not to do, such as working in care homes, working in the fields etc. etc. Not to mention that pretty much every pub/bar/restaurant/hotel is screaming out for people who are prepared to work in the hospitality industry. The govt. is formed from the same set of players who were the loudest in proclaiming that Brexit would allow the country to 'control immigration' and move to a points based system allowing a pick and mix approach, ensuring that only those who could contribute where needed would be allowed in* Since they were the proponents of both the need for, and the mechanism to achieve this, I very much doubt they have 'lost the plot'. After all, their political lives are now very much tied to that particular flagpost. Probably just finding that the rhetoric is as full of contradictions and that the 'desired outcome' comes with the whole host of undesirable consequences as was utterly predictable and predicted from the start. The UK unemployment rate stands at 3.8%, which is very low and is at the sort of level typically associated with 'full employment'. Yet we have huge numbers of vacancies in both critical and non-critical but important industries. *[as if market forces simply didn't exist when it came to free movement of labour].
|
|
