@OperaSocialist@SafariSara I’ve argued this for a while. It means those that need to work to maintain professional qualifications/experience/networks can, but those who want a 2nd just to feather their nests will have an £85k obstacle to overcome first. I’d then be in favour of increasing MP salaries.
“Free speech” in its absolute form is incompatible with the suppression of hate & anti racism in public spaces. It’s true, ask Elon.
People are also free to choose where they spend their money & they don’t need to justify not spending money with any individual business.
Happy 60th birthday to the Dartford Crossing!
The Dartford Crossing is one of our most important roads. Since it opened in 1963, it has helped people make countless journeys across the Thames. Over the coming weeks, we'll be exploring the history of this vital river crossing.
Govt say they’ll change intl agreements if they need to.
Correct me if I’m being thick, but surely, being agreements, that requires the consent of those intl partners?
News this morning of threats to remove benefits from anyone not seeking work.
So much to say, but let’s start here, why would anyone refuse a job?
Perhaps if it’s zero hours, being aware they’d be required to be on call 24/7 for a fluctuating income that will permanently put
them in a state of catch up with their benefits?
Perhaps we’d be better off with an #AnnualMinimumWage, with hours/pay annualised, giving the employer all the flexibility of a zero hours contract, while assuring the worker of a predictable wage above the tax threshold?
Tories offering to prevent Rwanda deporting anyone they send there in their new treaty.
So what happens to individuals refused asylum for whatever reason…??
No thought has gone into any aspect of this fiasco.
With concerns some carriers may not want to be involved in transferring individuals to Rwanda, govt have announced they’ll form their own dedicated airline for the purpose;
Conservative &
Unionist
National
Transfer
Service
nice for them, but it changes nothing.
If they declare by statute Rwanda is safe, without defining extensively & precisely the parameters of such a declaration, it would surely preclude us from membership of any international treaty that also considers such an idea ridiculous?
then do whatever it likes, because UK law stipulates that it is “safe”? No need for foreign office advice on this country, because the law states it’s a safe country?
This idea strikes me, not only as unprecedented, but batshit crazy. If parliament offers an opinion, that’s
I don’t understand this idea of parliament voting that Rwanda is a safe country. Will parliament be offering an opinion? In what sense will they be declaring it safe? Or will this be an act of parliament, stating that legally, Rwanda is safe? In which case, surely, Rwanda can
@ollieD68 So now comes the question, if govt tries to disapply parts of ECHR & risks being ejected from treaty as its right to do so isn’t accepted, what then?
Don’t think it will get there myself, nothing meaningful will happen this side of a GE, is my guess.