[Closed] Great news on the unemployment figures.

Proof?

Well those shelves at Tesco's were never going to stack themselves, were they? 🙄

No !, you stay there.
I'll do it.
Allow me.

[img] [/img]

Someone put the kettle on.
Coffee, black, Ta.

Woppit, you old softie, you started this thread just for TJ.

That's so sweet and thoughtful 🙂

Perhaps TJ will miss this for chowing down on his birthday muffin.

that will be why unemployment is still rising then

Unemployment is rising because of TJ's muffin?! 😯

Woppit, you missed a crucial zero out: its 270,000 public sector jobs gone. Not quite so good news now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/14/osborne-austerity-270000-public-sector-jobs

part time versus full time
more people in labour market
young people figures scary
unemployment actually up

woppit was it for a joke or did you really think it was 27000?

Churlish to suggest that data was not good news (and better than expected/feared) but complacent to think that it marks anything other than a stabilisation of a sorry state for overall employment.

Not much to do with politicians in either case!

Actually I cannot get involved in these threads as its not been as apocalyptic as I predicted

🙂

Fair play, TJ, that's quite some admission. You're mellowing with age 🙂

The public sector apocalypse is just beginning. The NHS hasn't seen a fraction of the impending job losses yet.

Data actually showed NHS employment rising. Public sector job lossess mainly in local government.

6% of the proposed cuts so far I read. (No proof so this may be completely incorrect)

EDIT - just remembered it was on Festina Girl's twitter feed.

Actually I cannot get involved in these threads as its not been as apocalyptic as I predicted

You were wrong? 😯 You're admitting it? 😯 😯 😯

What a rubbish birthday you must be having - I do hope it gets better soon 😉

teamhurtmore - Member

Data actually showed NHS employment rising. Public sector job lossess mainly in local government.

is that GPs taking on accountants to sort out their new funding role ? 😉

Ha! Didnt look that closely kimbers but judging from my mother's dreadful experience in an eye hospital yesterday I doubt it is in front line service. Good subtle joke though 😉

What's particularly good is the way that unemployment is disproportionstely impacting on black people and women, and that we are at a 17 year high for unemployment (hmm who was in charge 17 years ago?). High unemployment suits the Tories, it means they can drive down pay and workers rights more easily.

Yep, 17 year high for unemployment, 25 high for female unemployment. Great news!

kimbers - Member
woppit was it for a joke

No, it was for TJ...

High unemployment suits the Tories, it means they can drive down pay and workers rights more easily.

Grum, if you don't put a smiley against that sort of comment, people will take you seriously. 😉

Why is female unemployment worse than human unemployment?

I seem to remember someone saying 'we were all in this together'. However, it now appears that you'll shoulder a larger burden if you're daft enough to be

a) Female
b) Black
c) Young
d) Poor
e) Disabled

However, if you're white, male, older and ****ing minted, then you're laughing! Hurray for Call-me-Daves re-branded, not-nasty-any-more Tory Party!

Yep, obviously any politician worth his salt is going to deliberately target all of those categories binners. Third page in the Tory party manifesto along with lets screw all workers' wages.

What is the opposite of the Daily Wail for LW nonsense?

[img] [/img]

Guessing that was a typo.

Yep, obviously any politician worth his salt is going to deliberately target all of those categories binners. Third page in the Tory party manifesto along with lets screw all workers' wages.

What is the opposite of the Daily Wail for LW nonsense?

The Grauniad is getting like a lefty Daily Mail these days.

However, it's a fact that all these groups are being disproportionately Impacted on. Why do you think that is? Are you comfortable with it?

They don't target them, as such. They just accept that as a result of vehemently defending the interests of their friends, those are the people who will suffer. And they couldn't care less

Exactly binners

Of course no-one is comfortable - read my first post about complacency - but to make sweeping comments suggesting that the Government is directly targeting those chosen segments to suffer is simply BS.

On the same logic go the ONS data published yesterday and draw other spurious correlations eg, the Tories are deliberately discriminating in favour of Bangladeshi and ****stani born and US born citizens and against those born in SA. The data may suggest this, but it is similarly BS.

Politicians win popularity when things are going well. I am sure that CMD's mates would be making more money and be happier if the econ was flying and the labour market was tighter. That is unless they can control their margins.

And they couldn't care less

You guys are a bit mental. You honestly think people on the right think as they do out of some self interested class hatred.

You guys are a bit mental. You honestly think people on the right think as they do out of some self interested class hatred.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wealthy-people-more-unethical-study/story-e6frg6so-1226283551936

The millionaires in the cabinet are the ultimate example.

teamhurtmore, straw man argument there - we've already established that we're not arguing they've deliberately targeted them. Those are just the people they care least about. You don't seem too bothered about the unfair impact on them either tbh. Pretty facetious to argue 'it's all just statistics' or whatever.

i dont think the torries hate poor, young, black people, i just dont think they care about them very much

Not "class" exactly...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

Yes, recent research shows that rich, right-wing people are more likely to be selfish and stupid. Hooray for the Cabinet!

There were a couple of industry types on channel 4 news yesterday claiming that the best thing to do to increase the number of employed people was to make it easier to sack people.

They claimed that companies would be willing to employ more people if they thought they could easily get rid of them again if things didn't work out quite how they hoped.

Amazingly they managed to keep a straight face throughout the interview.

There were a couple of industry types on channel 4 news yesterday claiming that the best thing to do to increase the number of employed people was to make it easier to sack people.

They claimed that companies would be willing to employ more people if they thought they could easily get rid of them again if things didn't work out quite how they hoped.

Amazingly they managed to keep a straight face throughout the interview.

Thats just a flexible versus managed employment market argument, you need to calm down. Have a look at Italy or France, even in the boom years before the recession unemployment was stuck at around 10% or more, has been that way for a long time. Companies wont invest and cant hire unless they are certain the new venture is going to succeed and they rarely are. There isn't anything very controversial about that.

It's really quite surprising that anyone is getting frothed up about 31,000 roles lost in the NHS on four counts:

1.It's less than 2% of the workforce - hardly a massive cut compared to the 10-20% in year cuts that many organisations (public and private) have suffered in the last 4 years.

2. The cuts represent less than 6% of the NHS jobs added between 2002 and 2009.

3. As has already been pointed out, the NHS workforce continues to grow in some areas. The cycle of roles being removed can be found in each of the last 12 years - last year the losses were mainly in management, less managers being precisely the thing that clinicians say is required.

4. Against a backdrop of 8 consecutive years of 2-3% annual productivity declines in the NHS when the number of posts was rapidly increased it should be possible to take out many more roles just to restore the balance with where the NHS should be on productivity measures (see McKinsey report published in 2009 that details the potential improvements in great detail:

[url= http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_116521.pdf ]McKinsey's 2009 report[/url]

[i]It's really quite surprising that anyone is getting frothed up about 31,000 roles lost in the NHS on four counts:[/i]

May be. But do not let that get in the way of a politically motivated, lefty rant.
To be posted on a slow, foggy thursday.

It would be more efficient if we just had a " Put your hands up if you hate the Cons " thread.

But not as flammable.

[img] [/img]

grum - Member

teamhurtmore, straw man argument there - we've already established that we're not arguing they've deliberately targeted them. Those are just the people they care least about. You don't seem too bothered about the unfair impact on them either tbh. Pretty facetious to argue 'it's all just statistics' or whatever.

Grum - its not true to argue that (1) I have made a straw man arguments or (2) that I am not too bothered - again read my first post on the topic.

complacent to think that it marks anything other than a stabilisation of a [b]sorry state for overall employment.[/b]

You are correct that my choice of statistics was absurd - of course it was, that was the whole point - its ridiculous to attribute false causations and policy accusations from these statistics. Its absurd to accuse the Tories of favouring ****stanis over South Africans in exactly the same way as suggesting that they have an anti-woman, anti-black etc agenda.

We are making the same point.

[edit - if you want to make false and facetious point though, simply add financial services employers to the target list]

But do not let that get in the way of a politically motivated, lefty rant.

On a thread started by woppit, that really is irony at its finest.

mcboo - Member

You guys are a bit mental. You honestly think people on the right think as they do out of some self interested class hatred.

Where savings are to be made or revenue to be raised, governments will always look after their friends/voters/those who have made considerable donations to the party, and screw over their own supporters over last of all. As true for any Labour government as it is for this one.
It is not a question of self interested class hatred, it is more a question of how much you fall for the spin of your chosen political party and believe that they are acting in the interest of everyone rather than just those who they think will vote for them next time round. (again, I mean this for all three big parties supporters)

mcboo - Member

You guys are a bit mental. You honestly think people on the right think as they do out of some self interested class hatred.

I don't know about a bit mental, but you definitely have to be a bit dopey and docile if you think the likes of the Bullingdon Boys entered politics because they had a burning desire to achieve a better life for the ordinary working man and woman.

I wouldn't say 'self-interested class hated' just 'not interested'.

We're all in this together.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/15/george-osborne-top-tax-rate

I wouldn't say 'self-interested class hated' just 'not interested'.

Obviously they are not motivated by "hatred" felt for working people. Clearly it would make no sense to hate those responsible for the material wealth which they enjoy. It would be like a factory owner hating his employees - plainly stupid. And I don't think anyone has suggested such a thing, except in mcboo's imagination.

Of course they might well "hate" philosophies and policies which frustrate their ambitions, and indeed they do.

What does however motivate right-wing politicians is a desire to redistribute wealth away from ordinary working people and towards the privileged few - self interest is an overriding factor, as it is of course with those who oppose them.

And far from being "not interested" in the effect of their economic policies, they understandably take a very keen interest. No one who wants maximum return for the minimum cost is going to ignore such matters.

Once again if you take my factory owner, no one would expect him to be "not interested" in what his employees are earning - he needs to be certain that he is paying the minimum he can get away with, he certainly isn't going to pay more than he needs to as it would make no business sense at all.

Although needless to say he might well be hugely [i]uninterested[/i] if the wages he is paying leaves his employees unable to afford a holiday, struggling to pay bills, etc. Unless of course it results in his employees leaving to work elsewhere - in which case he's not paying what he [i]needs to[/i].

Similarly, right-wing politicians have to ensure they do the minimum required to stop their voters buggering off. And in the case of the present government the staggering number of U-turns that they have preformed in a relatively short period of time testifies to the fact that they only do what they can get away with.

Of course politicians and governments do have one extraordinarily powerful weapon in their armoury, and that is access, and to a large extent control, of the media. Getting turkeys to vote for Christmas is never going to be an easy venture, but the sophisticated and slick machine which constantly drip-feeds people the message that there is no alternative to paying large amounts of money to those responsible for screwing the country, whilst simultaneously everyone else makes crippling sacrifices, has had considerable success.

Of course politicians and governments do have one extraordinarily powerful weapon in their armoury, and that is access, and to a large extent control, of the media.

Oh look its the Dacre Effect. In the absense of an argument, blame the public for reading newspapers you dont like. Go on give us a lecture on False Consciousness, I havent heard about that since around 1989. Very popular with the Glaswegian SWP.

In the absense of an argument, blame the public for reading newspapers you dont like.

McBoo, I thought his argument was in the first 7 paragraphs. Browser not behaving this morning? 😉

[edit]Although I think it runs a lot deeper than newspapers, it also seems to be getting harder to dismiss the 'Dacre Effect' when you have News Corp/Sun being so frank (as in three inch capitals on front page iirc) about backing Nulab and then later on doing the same and backing the Conservatives, and the whole Coulson/Racehorse/whatever else business. And I level this criticism at both parties BTW, Blair invested a considerable amount of energy and money courting the media and clearly it paid off.

What does however motivate right-wing politicians is a desire to redistribute wealth away from ordinary working people and towards the privileged few - self interest is an overriding factor, as it is of course with those who oppose them.

In other words, greed.
Which is just as prevalent with left wing politicians as right wing politicians.
Self interest is the over-riding consideration with all politicians.

In other words, greed.
Which is just as prevalent with left wing politicians as right wing politicians.
Self interest is the over-riding consideration with all politicians.

Notwithstanding the interests of their financial backers, the left have traditionally been in the fortuitous position of being able to be a bit more open about the motivation behind their redistribution of wealth though. That is beacuse their basic 'redistribution of wealth' message is generally easier for the majority of people to swallow, not because they are any better at lying though.

We all know every successful politician and political party has a finger in a pie somewhere, and several other friends with several other fingers, but the left seem to have had an easier time of saying 'rich people are too rich' than the right have had. How on earth do you articulate the notion that 'the rich aren't as rich as they deserve to be and you are paying' to your working (and I mean taxpaying!) class voters?

Theres a lodge in the grounds of the big divisional Police station here in Manchester. Its windows are covered in 'UNISON' banners.

Every day I go past there are a few fat women stood outside smoking. Every so often there is a couple of undernourished men stood with them.

My view of Unison members is now coloured by these fine people.

What does however motivate right-wing politicians is a desire to redistribute wealth away from ordinary working people and towards the privileged few

If you really believe this you need to expand your circle of aquaintances. Matthew Paris wrote an article a few years ago I will try and find, putting forward the position that it was his desire to see EVERYONE better off, and more free that drove him to become a Conservative. It's fine to put forward say a Keynsian argument as the best way to get the economy growing, there might be something in it, though it's not my own point of view. What I cant stand is this tired, lazy attempt to paint everyone right of centre as conspiring to stick it to the working man, that moral purity lives only with the left.

You must be gutted that there is no UK equivalent to the US Tea Party mcboo. You strike me as someone who would enthusiastically champion an agenda dictated to you by billionaires, and act as their doormat supporting policies detrimental to yourself so that they can increase even more their wealth and power.

Of course I'm assuming that you're a Christmas voting turkey and not one of the 1%. As the 1% generally get mugs without a pot to piss in to do their fighting/arguing for them.

Wrong again Ernie. I'd be a gay friendly, keep your religious beliefs out of my face, liberal Bloomberg-Republican. Or a budget balancing, welfare reforming Clinton-Democrat. I'd vote to re-elect Obama because I love and admire the President a great deal.

You great big leftie mcboo.

Matthew Paris wrote an article a few years ago I will try and find, putting forward the position that it was his desire to see EVERYONE better off, and more free that drove him to become a Conservative.

The same Matthew Paris that wrote of stringing piano wire across cycle paths? He may have fooled you with his inclusive propaganda but his hatred of everyone who wasn't like him was never far from the surface.

Maybe you should look at the pension thread, observe the actions of tesco's one of the country's most successful companies, and how it is currently gouging it's employees pensions to feed the greed of the free market, how does that equate to the "desire to see EVERYONE better off"?

Liberal Ernest, liberal.

But I am part of the 1% so feel free to hate me.

Quoting Matthew Parris to defend present Tory Policies? Genius! Did he once meet a poor person? Did they doff their cap and plead for the opportunity to buy their council house? 😆

Matthew Paris wrote an article a few years ago I will try and find, putting forward the position that it was his desire to see EVERYONE better off, and more free that drove him to become a Conservative.

I would like to see all animals better off, but some animals more better off than others.

Apologies for the mangling. 🙂

I am part of the 1% so feel free to hate me.

Thanks for giving me the thumbs up. You bighearted liberal.

Matthew Parris as Glenn Beck. Do you guys have any other setting apart from the default Tory = Hate?

Mcboo - As we approach the budget, shall we see how big-hearted, inclusive Matthew, Call-me-Dave, and George 'we're all in it together' Osbourne are intending to address the countries problems? ....

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/15/george-osborne-top-tax-rate ]this is EXACTLY where our priorities lie. [/url]

Its like the Jeremy Kyle show in here this morning.

What would you prefer. Downton Abbey?

*doffs cap*

mcboo - Member

Its like the Jeremy Kyle show in here this morning.

I didn't think the 1%'s tellies could get channel 5. 😕

If it is, McBoo is Jeremy. 😛 and indeed 😉

It is funny watching mcboo start the playground taunts when he is faced with coherent arguments that oppose his dogma.

MSP wrote
The same Matthew Paris that wrote of stringing piano wire across cycle paths? He may have fooled you with his inclusive propaganda but his hatred of everyone who wasn't like him was never far from the surface

Dont you think this is just a little bit mental? No? Really?

Dont you think this is just a little bit mental? No? Really?

What, stringing piano wire across cycle paths? Yeah, that is a bit 'mental' really. I'd reccommend you choose someone less mental for your 'palatable conservative posterboy' next time. It must be like shooting fish in a barrel for the big lefties on here sometimes.

Dont you think this is just a little bit mental? No? Really?

That Matthew Parris wants to see cyclists beheaded, yes that's mental.

That this is the man that you consider an all inclusive cuddly tory, yes that is certainly mental.

MSP - dont take this the wrong way. But are you a student?

LOL, it's so funny watching your dogma fail, and then you just retort with silly little taunts.

mcboo - Member

MSP - dont take this the wrong way. But are you a student?

What is the 'wrong' way and what is the 'right' one? 😆

Don't take this the wrong way McBoo, but were you either bullied or a bully at school? I don't expect an answer of course. 😛

Don't take this the wrong way McBoo, but were you either bullied or a bully at school?

You have outed me. I am Daniel LaRusso.

I had to google Daniel Larusso. 😳

You guys and your skeleton suits dont scare me.

[img] [/img]

I am posting from home. If I do the praying mantis now, no one bar the cat will see me.

Go on McBoo, I dares ya!

hora - Member
My view of Unison members is now coloured by these fine people.

And the conversations you've had with them?