Another Economic Success for Brown
Discussion
The Unemployment figures today show 2.5m on the dole, but a staggering 8.1m that are economically inactive. This includes those that have given up looking for work. How many have given up looking for work because the benefits they are getting are too good?? How high should that unemployment figure be?? Nearer 7m I guess!
I'll cut and paste this from another thread...;
My sister called me yesterday, fuming. They went to visit my other sister, who is on benefits, and her husband. She was bragging about the government giving her £500 for a new computer, when my little sister, who has three kids, works (as does her husband), and they have been trying to save up for a computer for months - to find that her lazy (and she is lazy) sister can sit on her @rse all day and get something that is aspirational to my working sister for free!
Quite obviously, a future fair for all doesn't include those who pay their own way and contribute to society..
It pays to be 'economically inactive'
My sister called me yesterday, fuming. They went to visit my other sister, who is on benefits, and her husband. She was bragging about the government giving her £500 for a new computer, when my little sister, who has three kids, works (as does her husband), and they have been trying to save up for a computer for months - to find that her lazy (and she is lazy) sister can sit on her @rse all day and get something that is aspirational to my working sister for free!
Quite obviously, a future fair for all doesn't include those who pay their own way and contribute to society..
It pays to be 'economically inactive'
Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 21st April 19:19
hornetrider said:
Mind, I guess that includes pensioners?
I'm fairly sure pensioners and the young are excluded:"The UK labour market comprises of three main groups: the employed, the unemployed and the economically inactive. This latter group consists of those people who are out of work but who do not satisfy all of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) criteria for unemployment. This is because they are either not seeking work or are unavailable to start work.
Economic inactivity lies on the supply side of the labour market framework, as economically-inactive people have the potential to move into the labour market at some point in the future."
Clearly OAPs aren't going to return to the labour market.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/user-guidan...
What is amazing me is why Cameron isn't hammering Brown on this, 10m people out of work!!! It never makes the headlines because 8m are hidden away in another statistic. I am begining to dispair at the Conservatives, how they aren't out of sight by now is beyond me. Another 5 years of Brown could be a very real possibility, even at 3rd in the polls the BBC seat calculator says he will get back in.
May 7th could be a dark day in the UK.
God I have depressed myself now!!
May 7th could be a dark day in the UK.
God I have depressed myself now!!
Skipppy said:
Assuming there is not a hung parliment (it seems a long shot now), the best thing ANY incoming government can do is be completely and utterly transparent on data like this.
Unemployment at 2.5 million is a lie. Show the REAL figures.
Actually, the UK government's figures are more boastful than that and tell us that the claimant couunt is 1.54m (having fallen from 1.58m the month before).Unemployment at 2.5 million is a lie. Show the REAL figures.
The 2.5m figure is the ILO (international labour organisation) definition of unemployment which seeks to get a comparable measure across countries.
Back in the 90s, the two figures used to be very close together. Somehow the government has managed to narrow the definition of claimants.
The 8m somebody mentioned earlier do not include pensioners. The latest number "economically inactive" aged 16 and over is 18.34million.
Edited by a_bread on Wednesday 21st April 11:57
Fittster said:
Iain H said:
What is amazing me is why Cameron isn't hammering Brown on this, 10m people out of work!!! It never makes the headlines because 8m are hidden away in another statistic.
What exactly would you like Cameron to say?Iain H said:
Fittster said:
Iain H said:
What is amazing me is why Cameron isn't hammering Brown on this, 10m people out of work!!! It never makes the headlines because 8m are hidden away in another statistic.
What exactly would you like Cameron to say?http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election...
DAVID Cameron vowed yesterday a Tory government would axe unemployment benefits for people who shirk work.
But those eager to get jobs would be given all the help they needed.
You need Flash Player 8 or higher to view video content with the ROO Flash Player. Click here to download and install it.
Mr Cameron said: "We cannot go on as we are, paying people who could work but who refuse to do so.
"That is a big change that's coming with a Conservative government."
He said Jobseeker's Allowance would be slashed for anyone who refused to take up reasonable work offers - the first time for one month, the second for three months, and the third for up to three years.
The Tory leader said his party would "end the free ride" taken by those who "fail to take responsibility".
Yep, but wont happen while scum are free to breed. Give em food tokens I say, no alcohol, no fags, just basic food stuffs, asda smart price quality. Want better? work then. Might be the only example ever where an ID card would work, so the actual claimant had to use the tokens(maybe barcoded or something) otherwise theyd be traded like in the usa. Why should I work to pay for these wa****s?.
king songs about this then?I saw part of the Liar Party election broadcast, showing all these new schools/hospitals etc that they are building and all the money going into the economy from the state - oddly, they never mentioned that they were on PFI and that the state would be paying through the nose for the next 20 years.
Jasandjules said:
I saw part of the Liar Party election broadcast, showing all these new schools/hospitals etc that they are building and all the money going into the economy from the state - oddly, they never mentioned that they were on PFI and that the state would be paying through the nose for the next 20 years.
I agree most are done on PFI, but the theory that PFI is more expensive than using government capital etc is flawed. Generally PFI rolls in lifecycle cost so you have buildings that are well maintained for years so remain functioning for years. The non pfi route leads to very poor maintenance and long term much larger costs than would otherwise have been occured. I have seem this proven time and again with NHS infrastructure. Think of it as buying a car but never servicing it. Makes it look cheap until you have to replace the engine.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff