Brexit Megathread Part 3: COP26 and beyond. The Empire is no more.

[prettybird]

The old thread is nearly full so as COP26 is in my home town, I thought I'd start the next one.

I'm not expecting anything wonderful from COP26. The selfishness that is Brexit will extend to the rich nations - or rather corporations, countries and cronies - not wanting to do anything that might actually cost them money or hurt their profits and having made their money on the back of the resources of the poorer nations (in some cases quite literally ), they'll expect them to pay the price for the riches of the West.

The deliberate mistranslation of France's letter to the EU will distract from real issues - but that's ok for BJ as he can then blame the perfidious French.

Nothing changes.

@Peregrina

Amelia Gentleman's article is soo bad that it contradicts itself more than one. I'll let you find those little gems all on your own.

I didn't find it 'soo bad' so perhaps you would like to elabourate on the contradictions you find.

The DWP spokesperson at the end effectively makes a suggestion that all Bulgarians are criminals.

Happy to... This: "Concern about the treatment of many Bulgarian and some Polish universal credit claimants has also been raised by a charity supporting EU nationals and an estate agency renting to Bulgarian tenants in London."

and this:
"...an estate agent who said her north London company was dealing with 40 tenants struggling to pay the rent because their universal credit had unexpectedly been suspended, 38 of whom were Bulgarian and two Polish. The lettings agency rents to tenants of all nationalities and, overall, Bulgarian tenants are in a minority."

So does the agency "rent to Bulgarian tennants" or does it rent to lots
of people? including some Bulgarians? Seems to be the latter to me..

In which case, how many of all the people the agency deals with are in UC suspension? You'd need to know that to judge if, and how far, any action against the Bulgarian or Polish tennants was "unfairly targeted" No details are given.

Also this: from the letting agent
“All these tenants are at least in part-time work,” she said, asking for the name of the letting agency not to be used.

and this from the Workers Rights Centre director
By jumping to suspending payments, the DWP is effectively throwing them into destitution.”

Do we know that the DWP have 'jumped' to suspending payments? Do we have any evidence for this? Here's the contradition though, these people have provided evidence that they are working apparently, how then does a suspension of UC result in "destitution?" If they are in part time work, presumably UC accounts for only a small proporition of their income.

Do we know that the DWP have 'jumped' to suspending payments? Do we have any evidence for this? Here's the contradition though, these people have provided evidence that they are working apparently, how then does a suspension of UC result in "destitution?" If they are in part time work, presumably UC accounts for only a small proporition of their income.

This last point clearly shows that you do not understand people on low incomes. When you are earning very little (to the point where you are eligible for UC top ups), the removal of that top up will cause you immense hardship. I'm talking inability to afford heating, food and rent. Removing 'a small proportion' of so little that you are already on the breadline = hardship. You have to be a bit hard of thinking not to understand that.

This 'I am alright Jack so fuck everybody else' attitude really does my head in.

Taking back control
bylinetimes.com/2021/12/06/britains-post-brexit-immigration-system-cannot-cope/

Is this a book you would want your wife or servants reading ?

The cultural divide between the world of that statement and the world of UC has widened these past 60 years.

Last week discussing the (still relevant) power outages in the NE a minister had to be reminded that not everyone could fuck off to a hotel and then "claim it back".

So does the agency "rent to Bulgarian tennants" or does it rent to lots of people? including some Bulgarians? Seems to be the latter to me..

The statement "X rents flats to Bulgarian tenants" does not exclude the idea "and to lots of other people".
Tricky language, though, English...

Your reading is that X rents flats to Bulgarian tenants and to lots of tenants of other nationalities.
Your analysis is that the DWP cut off the Bulgarians' benefits disproportionately with regard to the other nationalities.

Because the DWP are renowned for being fair and competent, as evidenced by Windrush?
Or because...?

The idea that benefits are a top-up for single mothers' earnings and that they could do fine without UC shows a dire lack of awareness of how low wages actually are for many. The term 'working poor' isn't a metaphor or a quote from Dickens.

I read it that the agency rents to a lot of tenants, including Bulgarians. I also inferred that the MP had seen Bulgarians raising the issue with her, and sought corroborative evidence, which the agency provided. The agency didn't as far as we know say that this was common among all nationalities.

The idea that benefits are a top-up for single mothers' earnings and that they could do fine without UC shows a dire lack of awareness of how low wages actually are for many.

Unlike the 30 or so Tory MPs for whom being an MP is just a second job on the side, and pays peanuts of £82,000 p.a.

"I read it that the agency rents to a lot of tenants, including Bulgarians. I also inferred that the MP had seen Bulgarians raising the issue with her, and sought corroborative evidence, which the agency provided. The agency didn't as far as we know say that this was common among all nationalities."

And as Bulgarian tenants are in the minority, perhaps they are being targeted disproportionately by the DWP.

I didn't say people could "do fine without UC" I said that UC was a small proportion of their income.

if they are working part time earning, say at the least the minimum wage for 50% of a working week, so earning £160 ish p/w and so around £650 per month and UC is £257 per month (tapered off above a set limit)

Of course their UCi n reality will be lower than £257 per month quoted because it tapers off, so it will be a small proportion of their income, which it is. If it were halved from £257 due to the taper then it would be about 20% of their earned income from work at £650 pw.

I do understand that losing 20% of your income is likely to result in some people not being able to pay their rent, but it should take 2 months of missed payment before a landlord can even serve notice on a tenant who is in arrears and longer to render them "destitute" as the article claims.

Here's the contradition though, these people have provided evidence that they are working apparently, how then does a suspension of UC result in "destitution?" If they are in part time work, presumably UC accounts for only a small proporition of their income.

I'm stunned by the lack of understanding shown here. UC might (in some cases) form a small proportion of total income, but it would be a vital part - the difference between being able to afford rental payments and defaulting so being evicted.

Do you really think that UC is paid out in such amounts that would enable claimants to purchase niceties? The reason for providing in-work benefits is that some people cannot survive on the money they earn.

Suspending UC payments for these women places them and their children in danger. If it is found, as suggested, that the UK claims are in some way connected with organised crime, these women are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators. I'm ashamed of what this country has become.

It isn't just about rent, Louise. It's about food, heating, light, transport where applicable. Life isn't free. Losing 20% of your income when you're on the lowest rung of the ladder is crippling.

Your confidence in the DWP is also misplaced - look at the proportion of denied claims for PIP which are overturned when they get to court.

There are none so blind as those privileged who refuse to cannot see

@LouiseCollins28 The amounts you quote don't inc the UC received for children, this would have been stopped too.

Do you really expect people to live on £160 pw?

fwiw i was bought up on social security, my mum suffered so much stress and worry over money/bills/food/kids clothing she lost hair, came out in clumps.

Benefits should always remain in situ until fraud is proven and then action taken but even then, what exactly is gained by making families homeless with or without children?

To answer 2 recent posts with 1. Yes, I know life isn't free, in addition to sustaining my own, I pay income tax, NI, VAT like most other people do.

No I don't expect people to live on £160 pw, nor does the DWP, that's why taxpayers fund UC and a host of other benefits.

Oh the naivety

@LouiseCollins28

To answer 2 recent posts with 1. Yes, I know life isn't free, in addition to sustaining my own, I pay income tax, NI, VAT like most other people do.

No I don't expect people to live on £160 pw, nor does the DWP, that's why taxpayers fund UC and a host of other benefits.

Yes they do indeed but what i and others are complaining about is that the UC element of their income has been taken away (on hearsay) you agree with this and so does the DWP.

You & the DWP, therefore do expect people to live and bring up children on £160.

@prettybird

Oh the naivety

You are wasting your time...

It seems appropriate to quote Dickens...the poor will die "and decrease the surplus population"

Result, right?

You're right @Opal8

I was going to repeat my "None so blind..." post but decided that there was no point as it would just go straight ....

Nope, you're right

@prettybird

You're right *@Opal8*

I was going to repeat my "None so blind..." post but decided that there was no point as it would just go straight ....

Nope, you're right

Long time lurker and past poster

Thank you for keeping these threads going

Despite all the goading

A Christmas Carol:

Super wealthy being supernaturally scared into sharing!

🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄

A whole thread almost gone, and no sign of Clavinova or yellowspanner!

But I think well done to Louise for at least trying to put a case for Brexit.

@Peregrina

A whole thread almost gone, and no sign of Clavinova or yellowspanner!

But I think well done to Louise for at least trying to put a case for Brexit.

...and failing abysmally 🤣🤣🤣

Link to new thread

Brexit mega thread part 4 : non goady thread : Christmas edition http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eureferendumm2016/4420647-Brexit-mega-thread-part-4-non-goady-thread-Christmas-edition

@prettybird

Link to new thread

Brexit mega thread part 4 : non goady thread : Christmas edition [[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu]]referendumm2016/4420647-Brexit-mega-thread-part-4-non-goady-thread-Christmas-edition

😊🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄