Young Britons could lose the right to claim some benefits for four years

Interesting listening to DC this morning on his piece on Today about the first hundred days of this government.

He is still blustering about this four year entry into the insurance system and saying they are still negotiating. Does he really believe he will be able to exclude people in this country but apply the four years to those from the EU? I see shades of yet another failed policy.

I like famous last words Ana, they are always so amusing.

Famous last words, roses!

I think we will see this thread going dormant now, which IMO will be a good thing, as there really isn't any more to say about the OP.

Anya

Wow! That sure is fightin' talk. actually it's interesting too, as I always wondered as a child where Ki ora name came from,( orange squash) maybe from Ka ora , it's life. We will never know( unless somebody here finds out.)

Ringa pakia
(Slap the hands against the thighs)
Uma tiraha
(Puff out the chest)
Turi whatia
(Bend the knees)
Hope whai ake
(Let the hip follow)
Waewae takahia kia kino
(Stamp the feet as hard as you can)
Ka mate! Ka mate!
(It is death!, It is death!)
Ka ora! Ka ora!
(It is life!, It is life!)
Ka mate! Ka mate!
(It is death! It is death!)
Ka ora! Ka ora!
(It is life! It is life!)
Tenei Te Tangata Puhuru huru
(This is the hairy man)
Nana nei tiki mai
(Who fetched the sun)
Whakawhiti te ra
(And caused to shine again)
A upa ne ka up ane
(One upward step, another upward step)
Upane, Kaupane
(An upward step)
Whiti te ra
(The sun shines!)

I wouldn't worry too much about 'sounding like an idiot' Nonnie after all it doesn't seem to bother some others I could (but won't) mention.

adopts a fighting pose

roses well put and what a shame as it stifles sensible debate which one would not expect from people who have lived long enough to be grandparents.

Anya too right, I stay off a lot of them partly for the reason you state and sometimes because I don't know enough about the subject which, in my case, means I don't want to sound like an idiot.

Nonnie and Roses it is indeed impossible to have a reasoned debate in the politics threads for the reasons you have both described. I've personally given up

This thread, and actually any thread virtually, on the politics forum here, has been dominated by the loudest shouters, they are few in number but vociferous.Some of the posts on the Corbyn thread , full of such socialist fervour, choose to ignore any post they don't like, ie. Any that don't praise Corbyn to the skies.This is not debate folks, this is a left wing love in.
Nothing wrong with people having Socialist views, even if most on here probably don't have them ( I am just guessing here, but think most Labour voters are probably centre or even right leaning) but are not as extreme left wing as Corbyn.The problem is, as Nonnie stated, that others decide to interpret their views on here, instead of just accepting a statement.I have no problem with left wing views( although I can't agree with extreme left wing viewpoints) nor extreme right wing viewpoints for that matter,I am a middle of the road-er, as a lot of people are.We must all be allowed to express our thoughts on any thread at all, no thread is just for cosy little chats between like minded people
All kinds have taken advantage of the Labour voting selection, including Trotskyites, Marxists, Communists,Conservatives, Greens. it is not fraud btw, just all kinds wanting to push their own agenda.

The trouble I am having with this thread is that a person decides what I said rather than what I actually said and then, instead of admitting (or even apologising) that they got it completely wrong they do that thing of '^not speaking to you any more^ which imo says it all!

Off to see if there is anything more interesting/believable/reliable to read on Gn.

I am sure it will Jen and the neighing from the Conservative benches will grow when he does, sadly. We need someone to show there is another way. You read more and more respected economists writing in respected journals saying that the JC standpoint is not impossible - it is a choice. The capitalists amongst the Conservatives have done a good in trying to convince everyone, including the other candidates in the LP leadership election, that their way is the only way. It is not.

If Corbyn gets in, perhaps the government will be challenged more om the changes they try to make. I notice he is supported by ten unions now, all of which have a stake in the changes that are being made.

There are Bez. The whole system has grown like Topsy and it does need simplifying but each government will add more complications and none of them from the best of motives. I do dislike these kneejerk suggestions which give little thought to the people involved. If you think of the bedroom tax perhaps we did need to change how council houses were subsidised but many of the people who moved into them were given to understand they had a home for life. The changes to retirement age are the same. These could have been planned for in the 1970s and 80s. To then accuse those who are affected as being the cause of a problem that is part of a system followed by all governments seems like cowardice to me. We (via all governments) need to think ahead and be prepared to help people over any changes.

Naive I know, but it does feel like a time to work out what we actually believe.

There are loads of anomalies in our system - years ago a friend of mine who had lived and paid tax etc in UK married a man who had always lived in Africa and she moved there - a couple if years later on one trip home to visit her parents she had the misfortune to suffer a miscarriage - immediately she was told that she needed to pay as she had been out of the country - and yet we hear of tourist health care - I cannot fathom it out at all.

It is all so complicated and, before people start making changes, again I will say that I am not saying we don't need them, we really need to know that no only do we understand what changes are being suggested but that the politicians who are suggesting them do too and I am not convinced.

Not long at all. The girl in question was travelling round Australia, etc., when she became ill and had to come back.
After she came out of hospital, she applied for PIP or other benefits. She was told she could not have work related. When she applied for income related her partner had enough money to live on as she had a student loan and a part time job. The girl herself had no income.
I cannot remember how old she was, but she would probably be caught in the four-year rule if it came in. By the end of the programme she was actually receiving some benefit in her own right, I think.

Two years - that's not long is it Jen? I think things change for drawing pensions after a matter of months so perhaps this is the same.

IMO it is extremely arrogant to decide what someone means rather than what they actually say!

Perhaps it is more arrogant to believe any of us can absolutely always say something in a way that can be understood, in exactly the way you meant, by all who are reading it Nonnie. If you can you are much cleverer than me. Sometimes we have to ask if you mean this or did you know that. I did not 'interpret' what you said any more than everyone does with each post - including how you read mine.

I will not be replying to anymore of your posts as I prefer a quiet life and do not need all the haranguing about a topic which has, in parts, been very interesting.

It's called Disabled in an Instant, on BBC iplayer.

I saw a programme a couple of nights ago where someone who had been out of the country for two years could not claim benefits. I'll see if I can find it.

Grace Or you could say "read what I say but do not try and understand what I mean. That would make the whole discussion a little pointless. What people write does not always mean we can understand straight away what they mean - if only.

IMO it is extremely arrogant to decide what someone means rather than what they actually say! Unless you actually know someone you are in fact making an uninformed opinion and trying to convince others that the person has said something they have not. I would have expected better.

Thanks Roses seems like you have taken the trouble to actually read what I said and accept that I said what I meant. It beggars belief that someone else can tell me what I meant!

Thanks Petra. What I really wanted to know (probably didn't make myself clear) was how long you had to be out of the country before this applies. I have done a quick bit of research and it seems to be to do with the Habitual Residency Test which applies to all people entering the country. I still feel I don't know much more but reading it the same rules would apply to anyone entering the UK from an EU country.

The reason I ask (back to the OP) is that this seems to mean that someone coming from always having lived in an EU country would already have to wait six months and I wonder why they didn't decide to extend these rules. Of course, this would then affect everyone returning or coming to live here rather than those in their first years of work and that is probably as unacceptable to just as many people. It was never going to be easy was it?

Gracesgran. Re. people claiming after returning from abroad. This has been happening for years. At least 10 years in my memory. Mind you, that could be wrong, ha ha.