Thread 4 Burnham: Be alert, the world needs more lerts

[DuncinToffee]

Welcome to our long running thread for political discussion, general chit chat, a friendly hug and taxes in kind. 💐🍦 for anyone who needs them.

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5561429-thread-3-burnham-receso-para-reorganizarse?page=39

I feared that was the attitude they’d have.

which then has the knock on effect of woman having to stay in abusive relationships becUse they can’t afford to leave.

I think they should rebrand to Reform or Restore Britain back to the 1950’s!

Because that basically what they are aiming for.

They'd be far better looking at grants for small/medium companies to make accessibility adaptions. I've been involved in some at work and the cost can be significant. I remember one where we needed to put a downstairs loo in. Working out how to do it without impacting business needs was tricky but we found a way. Then we needed to apply for planning permission because it was a listed building. In the end the total cost was over £20k because we had to move other facilities around. Then a month after it was completed the employee it was done for resigned for a job nearer home. A big company like the one I worked for can absorb the cost but It's a massive disincentive for a smaller company.

I have not posted on these threads for a long time, but I’m surprised you think that street cleaners will be made redundant.
There are so few of them left after the latest round of cuts that most councils only have the barest minimum on their books, so whoever is worried about them can relax.
In addition to that the work that benefit claimants might be asked to do is anything but forced. They are paid and so many of them so desperately want to work that they will welcome any chance to repay society for the support they receive. Getting out and about in the lovely weather we have been having recently is a perfect way to get exercise, improve one’s mental heath and connect with the community while enjoying the fruits of their labour and a clean and inviting environment.
This is a win for everyone.

So councils have had to cut numbers but are magically going to be able to train and employ 1000s more street cleaners on the same terms as the existing ones?
Make that make sense!

Many many benefit claimants already work.

Well if they need more street cleaners then employ these people at the same wage as the ones already working as they want to work.

Not for benefits.

cant you see the difference?

I suspect we all have better things to do that read right wing fantasy politics from the perennially offended & aggrieved.

It was in response to Reform's 'make benefit claimants work for their benefits', very much forced.

Not to be taken completely serious.

By all means employ people for proper wages

I quite liked the 'out and about in lovely weather'

Bit like Tice's enjoy the heat wave

It's like when austerity put paid to a lot of paid positions running libraries etc so services were then able to continue thanks to volunteers. But now some Reform councils are "removing funding" from volunteer groups and charities because why is the council funding charities. Because they are running services that the council used to provide is the answer.

Want to employ benefit claimants as street cleaners? Pay them NMW. Anything else is exploitation.

The right never comes up with anything better than exploitation of the vulnerable.

Why the name change just for this one post if you have posted on these threads previously?🤔

Sorry, I didn’t realise no one ever name changes on here.

I apologise.

Does anyone remember that after PIP replaced DLA, someone giving evidence to a select committee accidentally let slip that the aim of teh switch had failed as it had not reduced claimants.

"AI" remembers:

You are likely remembering the explosive findings released by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and subsequent hostile questioning at the Work and Pensions Select Committee, where officials had to admit that PIP completely failed its original objective to reduce spending and claimant numbers

We tend not to here but I have seen it recommended elsewhere recently. It seems odd to me when you’re anonymous anyway but at the end of the day one pseudonym is as good as another I suppose.

Was it officially recommended? That’s interesting.

Do you have a link to the thread in Site Stuff?

I’m sure if you have a good look you’ll find it. ☺️

David Cameron “Big Society” bollocks it’s started with that fuckwit.

Nothing in Site Stuff.

It is difficult to remember what name was used when I guess

After all, we were warned by 'insert username(s)' that they wouldn't stop posting on these threads

I didn’t say it was in Site Stuff. ☺️

I just looked at reforms policy on this. I got about a quarter of the way down the first page before deciding its not worth my time to keep reading. Pile of fucking bullshit.

@Noplansforsticks why do you think exploitation of vulnerable people is acceptable? You appear from your comments to be supportive of the pile of shite the fuckwits in reform are pushing, it would be good to hear why. Maybe i could understand.

Where else would it be?

It's a big site and mumsnet mods post everywhere. It may take you time to look, I would suggest you put maybe 5 days aside to start with.

Go and look.

Ask AI to find it?

It remembered the PIP admittance.