[Closed] Is Unemployment a "Price Worth Paying"?

No price is worth paying for a Labour government - there hasn't been a single one that hasn't screwed the country up before being kicked out of office.

Ditto tories.

It's the inevitable consequence of having a growing population in an economy/society that has exceed it's need and capacity to support people.

Is Unemployment a "Price Worth Paying"?

I think your perspective changes depending on if you have a job or not.... 😕

Unless the Tories are now running the economies of every European country and the USA, I don't think that this is entirely their fault. Somehow I suspect we'd be in a much bigger mess if Labour had stayed in.

No price is worth paying for a [s]Labour[/s] government - there hasn't been a single one that hasn't screwed the country up before being kicked out of office.

EAT THE RICH

Supporters of each party inevitably blame the other.

IMO, neither party really has the expertise, vision or sense of responsibility to protect or enhance the UK economy.

Party politics, IMO, is short-sighted, self-willed and led by the inappropriately educated and over privileged. That's why I just can't buy into the red-blue debate with sufficient gusto.

Unless the Tories are now running the economies of every European country and the USA, I don't think that this is entirely their fault. Somehow I suspect we'd be in a much bigger mess if Labour had stayed in.

Didn't they dismiss the whole idea that it was a global issue and was instead all Brown's doing during the election? 🙂

Unless the Tories are now running the economies of every European country and the USA, I don't think that this is entirely their fault.

No, but not every country is using economic problems as an excuse to launch drastic cuts to public services for largely ideological reasons.

I've lost my job a couple of times and I'd never wish it on anybody - but I do hope a lot of people come to regret the way they voted.

Whats more worrying is the nature of the jobs that are being created. Earlier this year George Osborne was singing the praises of the companies that were 'investing in Britain' and creating jobs. Tesco, Asda, Macdonalds. Do you think these are high skilled jobs? Nope the majority will be minimum wage. And part time.

The jobs being lost are high skilled jobs ie: Bombadier in Derby

Will Hutton described what would happen if the City continues its self-obsessed ways, to the inevitable detriment of the rest of the country, and the present employment prospects for the majority continue as they are.

"The city will squat like a bloated toad in the middle of a low skill, low pay economy"

dont worry george and dave are going to reign in their chums in the city..... they are just gonna wait until 2018 to do it 🙄

im not even sure being unemployed will be enough to make people realise that voting tory was a mistake, certainly the boundry changes will make it even easier for them next time

its almost as scary as the uninsured in america being convinced by fox news they dont need obamas health care reforms because its some kind of socialism

Spot on binners, looking increasing like me tat there really is no way out of this and its just the start of the UK slowly getting poorer and as such all our standards of living getting worse.

Its going to take a party with serious vision to get the UK on track.

Unfortunatly no one is stepping up to the plate, they all have their fingers in the big fat pie and thats all that seems to matter.

At least for most people i talk to up here in Scotland quality of life is more important that money.

I hate to say this, because TJ will gloat horribly, but Alex Salmond appears to be the only politician in the UK who seems to have the slightest grasp on what's really going on out there

Should the UK have propped up the uncompetitive bombadier?

Should the UK have propped up the uncompetitive bombadier?

won't we be doing that anyway if we have to pay the employees benefits and UK PLC losing their spending power and tax paid?

Exactly

In Germany, France and elsewhere in Europe, when reviewing commercial tenders, they factor in the 'social cost' in lost employment, benefits payments etc of external/foreign suppliers winning the contract

For some utterly inexplicable reason the Government here doesn't. The Tories keep saying they have to obey European Competition law, yet there is nothing in European Competition law which states they can't do, so to say that it is is completely disingenuous

They base it purely on the bottom line, without even looking at the bigger picture. This is due to either

a) Extreme stupidity
b) Vested interests - keeping their mates in the city happy
c) Both of the above

This makes me very angry...

Ch 4 news last night gave a break down of the employment figures (and I'm not quoting exactly etc...)

40,000 jobs created within the private sector

BUT, 111,000 jobs lost in the public sector, so unemployment massively UP

Therefore UK Economy is in a dire state.

[b]FFS[/b] - That is entirely within the Government's gift. Unemployment up directly because of UK Govt policy to reduce public specding.

The knock on effect on benefit payouts, decreased consumer spending, decreased public secotor procurement of private sector services etc will hugely hurt the economy

The tories favour policies that mean money does not loose it s value [ low inflation ] as many of its core supporters/donors/MPs are very rich.
I think they do think it is a price worth paying tbh

Labour used to be different but they are not any more.

It is hard to think that the current policies are working as the growth is reducing and they are now capital spending

Tbh we will never eally know if altenative approaches would have been better

Binners for PM

The Bombardier deal (or lack off) was based on a tendering process that was put in by the Labour government. Once the process is running you have to award the contract based on the rules put in place.

You can blame plenty of things on the Tories but this is not one of them.

the red-blue debate

but if we take it as a given that the deficit has to be cut (the greek\irish model of not doing so doesn't appear to be working to well) - how would you have done it? increase taxes? if so, where? Surely taxing the rich more has the same net benefit on the country (in reducing the amount of money kicking around) as reducing payments to the poor?

It's only a red-blue debate in England...in the past. You've heard of the Lib Dems, right?

Yes.

On the political divide, though, isn't it still essentially a two-way debate? Including the Lib Dems as peers of Labour and Conservative because they have facilitated a route out of a hung parliament surely overstates their importance.

Yeah, I know it's different in Scotland, NI and Wales.

They don't [i]Have too[/i] do anything of the sort. They can revue this. They just don't want too. Call-me-Dave dismissed it out-of-hand. Then bleated a load of lies about Euro Competition Law

For a party that puts itself across as anti-European, they don't half like to hide behind (real, imagined or just plain made-up) Euro legislation.

I wouldn't defend the labour party, they're just as bad. The self interest, and limitless greed of the 'Elite' at the top of our wonderful society is now so all-encompassing that they're prepared to sink the whole country so they are their friends can carry on accumulating obscene levels of wealth

They're selling the lot of us down the ****ing river!

Once the process is running you have to award the contract based on the rules put in place

total bollox

The last lot screwed up the process, this lot had/have the right and ability to scrap it and start again

lunge - Member

The Bombardier deal (or lack off) was based on a tendering process that was put in by the Labour government. Once the process is running you have to award the contract based on the rules put in place.

You can blame plenty of things on the Tories but this is not one of them.

im not sure thats entirely the case...
[url= http://www.togetherfortransport.org/node/211 ]http://www.togetherfortransport.org/node/211[/url]

but if we take it as a given that the deficit has to be cut (the greek\irish model of not doing so doesn't appear to be working to well) - how would you have done it?

so they've managed to reduce it since coming in then?

The whole deficit reduction thing is a smoke-screen. The conservatives neo-liberal agenda is driven purely by ideological zeal. And the pace of change is to make sure what they do is irreversible, for when they get booted out. Which they know they will

Here's the whole thing laid out in black and white

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/12/march-of-the-neoliberals ]Be afraid. Be very afraid[/url]

Including the Lib Dems as peers of Labour and Conservative because they have facilitated a route out of a hung parliament surely overstates their importance

What the Lib Dems think about Tory policy (and vice versa)

Nearly
What the libdems and some of the Tories think about Euro policies will destroy the coalition IMO

The Tory right is behaving as if it won a stonking great majority at the election.

I'd like to hope that at some point someone in the Lib Dems is going to grow a pair and remind them that they didn't. I'm not holding my breath though. I think they'll do the full 5 year term.

And Christ only knows how much damage they'll have done by that point!

even if the coalition were to collapse (i dont think it will as the limp dems know its the only taste of power they'll have for some time)

i doubt labour have the initiative or even the inclination to reverse the damage

Bring in the BNP, they will quite happily reduce the amount of people on this overcrowded little island.

When they've accomplished that, put them all on a boat, and send them out to sea.

Then bring Labour back in...

Labour is having its Ian Duncan Smith moment. In fact Ed Milliband makes IDS look like a towering political colossus in charge of a devastatingly effective opposition. Worse than useless. He looks like the kid that [i]everyone[/i] used to bully at school. He has all the presence and authority of a sponge cake

Is it any wonder the tories are getting away with murder

Binners, that is a very fair point. It is a great time to be in opposition at the moment yet Milliband seems to be making a right royal hash of it. With a good leader I think there could already be calls for a general election, as it is there is just lots of chat about how equally bad both parties are.

FFS - That is entirely within the Government's gift. Unemployment up directly because of UK Govt policy to reduce public specding.

And reducing public spending is necessary why? In order to make the public finances sustainable. Yes, it'd be great to be able to maintain or increase state spending now in order to boost the economy, but in order for that to be possible money would have had to have been put aside during the boom years. And that's not how it happened.

ah but as the economy grows so does it s income from taxes and its outgoings reduce such as benefit payments and therefore the deficit reduces
The TINA [ no alternative ]line is BS for politically motivated cuts. It is quite possible to both slash public spending and grow the deficit. It is certainly true that has no chance of hitting either his growth or employment targets this year...but dont worry the colossus has no plan b- even though plan a has not ahcieved what he hoped or said it would

the money wasnt squandered during the boom years it was invested in things like the nhs, university education etc which ultimately benefit the country

the debt matters now because the banking system is fuct

nulabs failure was its rightwing finance agenda not its leftwing social enterprises

(imho)

ah but as the economy grows so does it s income from taxes and its outgoings reduce such as benefit payments.

The TINA [ no alternative ]line is BS for politically motivated actions. It is quite possible to both slash public spending and grow the deficit.
[/quote in the short and medium term, for sure, but over the longer term the only way to get the deficit down will be to reduce spending.

As an aside, what's wrong with politically motivated actions? The Conservatives and Lib Dems believe in a smaller role for the state, why shouldn't they work towards that end while in power?

Edited to add that I'm not arguing that money was necessarily squandered during the boom years, but whatever it was spent on then, it's not available now.

 

whatever it was spent on then, it's not available now

I think it is, in skills and experience and education

What part of their plan does adding 70,000 more people to the ranks of the unemployed aid?

And reducing public spending is necessary why? In order to make the public finances sustainable

That's a matter of policy decision...

Whether you accept that policy is down to individual judgement.

HOWEVER, even if you DO accept the requirement - reflecting on Govt mandated unemployment (ie lost Public Sector jobs) as an indicator of the wider economy is questionable.

That widely reported, shocking, increase in unemployment is the Govenerment's making, not the "general economy".

Low, but steady, private sector growth (start of a recovery?) has been undermined by the substantial (politically driven) reduction in Govt spending

its still not been answered how else the deficit should be closed without public spending cuts? if the cuts weren't made, where would the money be coming from?

its still not been answered how else the deficit should be closed without public spending cuts?

how much have they reduced it by so far?

I don't think anyone disputes that the deficit needs to be reduced...

But the suspicion that the "rate of reduction" is unnecessarily quick, painful and polically motivated gets stronger every day.

Early on we were told about quick reduction and return to growth - now we have 10 years of sluggish growth and austerity. That doesn't soundlike we'll be reaping the benefits of rapid deficit reduction

That's a matter of policy decision...

Whether you accept that policy is down to individual judgement.

HOWEVER, even if you DO accept the requirement - reflecting on Govt mandated unemployment (ie lost Public Sector jobs) as an indicator of the wider economy is questionable.

That widely reported, shocking, increase in unemployment is the Govenerment's making, not the "general economy".

Yes, I take your point that it is the government making these public sector workers redundant directly, and that this unemployment is therefore of their making. But the government has a wider duty to act in this country's long term interests, meaning (and here we're back to your notion of individual acceptance of policy decisions and the reasoning behind them) government spending must be sustainable (accepting that this will involve some level of government debt!).

Low, but steady, private sector growth (start of a recovery?) has been undermined by the substantial (politically driven) reduction in Govt spending

This was the 'tale' about a year ago

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/cameron-rejects-talk-of-double-dip-recession/

Shouldn't the question be, how the **** did we manage to get into a situation, as a society, where the state is consistently spending massively (really, really massively) more than its taking in in total receipts - its really such a simple fundamental economic principle 👿

enfht - Member
Should the UK have propped up the uncompetitive bombadier?

Posted 3 hours ago # Report-Post

But then Bombardires site was once owned by us the taxpayer and called British Rail, and sold off quite a few times

I always find it amusing to find anti Labour sentiments expressed on a mountain biking forum considering that the Tories wouldn't have brought in the Land Reform Act or required the Forestry Comission to open up forestry land for public use. Both these things have made possible biking as it exists in Britain today! 😀

The premise of the OP is wrong - unemployment is deemed to be a price worth paying in the context of keeping inflation down. Neither the government nor the BoE want to keep inflation down (despite what the BoE mandate says).

I don't think anyone disputes that the deficit needs to be reduced...

But the suspicion that the "rate of reduction" is unnecessarily quick, painful and polically motivated gets stronger every day

The difference in the rate of reduction between labour and the conservatives isn't hugely significant in the overall scheme of things. The rate of reduction is also pretty insignificant when seen in the context of the actual debt rather than the deficit.

There is a very real risk that without the [i]perception[/i] that the government is being tough on the deficit, the bond markets would see us as the basket case we really are. They probably already would if it wasn't for the fact that most other major economies are just as bad or worse.

Fundamentally, as Zulu Eleven says, we spend too much on ourselves and produce too little of value. This is a long incubated outcome of decades of dishonest politics and personal greed. Neither party has had the courage or conviction to deal with it, and Gordon Brown was the worst of all - the reason we can't extend the deficit at the current time is that he splurged the surplus on buying votes in the public sector, and called it 'investment'.

Anyway, why is the level of debate from the left over this issue restricted to OMG THE TORIES ARE EVIL? the level of missing the point is only exceeded by the public sector unions trying to justify their pensions...don't quote Keynes as a solution in the current situation when you don't understand the quid pro quo.

I think the best phrase that can be used to sum up all politicians is "shower of shite the lot of them".

We can only reduce the deficit through economic growth. This bunch of morons seem to be intent on stifling growth at absolutely every opportunity available to them.

Bombardier were deemed uncompetitive due to there credit rating compared to Siemens. Im fairly certain a German or French government would have found away to make the financials work for a company in there own country. Most of the "cost" would be re-cycled into the domestic economy.

I work for the UK's "leading light" in high value added manufacturing (they make aero-engines just to give a little clue) and I've heard from a good source the view of the board level executive is that "this lot (i.e coalition) don't get it (the role high value added manufacturing can have for the UK economy)

Sheffield Forgemasters - Finance deal that would have enable them to be one of three global companies to produce steel forgings for the global nuclear renaissance was taken away within weeks of the coalition coming to power.

And Osbourne wants to lead "the march of the makers" total Bollocks! Pure lip service for fleet street.

Fundamentally, as Zulu Eleven says, we spend too much on ourselves and produce too little of value.

You don't know Zulu that well do you?

the level of missing the point is only exceeded by the public sector unions trying to justify their pensions.

Since the public sector workers didn't create this problem, I'd say they are more than justified to protect their pensions.

the level of missing the point is only exceeded by the public sector unions trying to justify their pensions.

So good pension provision is wrong is it? If you cannot trust your gov. to do the right thing by its workers who can you trust?

So good pension provision is wrong is it? If you cannot trust your gov. to do the right thing by its workers who can you trust?

No, it's a right (and obligation) for everyone that has turned into a privilege for some due to unrealistic expectations.

Your government has no money, it belongs to the taxpayers. It's not a question of the government looking after its workers, it's a question of taxpayers paying for other peoples' pensions instead of their own.

Anyway, my point was more that you can't have a debate about something without engaging with the underlying issues. Public sector pensions are just the best example at the moment:

- "a £5,000pa pension isn't gold plated"
- "public sector pension costs as a percentage of GDP will fall over the next 60 years, therefore they are affordable"
- "public sector pensions aren't in deficit"

etc. etc. all missing the point.

The pensions issue and the deficit issue are fundamentally linked.

The pensions issue and the deficit issue are fundamentally linked.

out of intrest what proportion of the deficit can be attributed to pensions?

In the sense that both are the result of wilfully, or just blindly living beyond our means.

Public sector workers believe they have a right to a guaranteed income stream in retirement, regardless of the actual cost and who actually pays. Also that the level of income should remain proportionally the same as when said pensions were first established, when people died 10 years after retirement, and the western world was in the middle of a post war boom.

Western society as a whole believes it has a right to constantly increasing levels of consumption and living standards, despite being unable to generate the economic value to support it without borrowing until we are virtually insolvent.

so you have no idea then? Me neither.

Public sector workers believe they have a right to a guaranteed income stream in retirement, regardless of the actual cost and who actually pays

A proper us and then divide and conquer tactic being used
The teachers fund for example has no expected shortfall and is guaranteed in law that any shortfall is met by teachers.

m-f that is very harsh surely some marks for their reasoning 😉

It's not relevant though.

The proportion of the annual deficit is almost irrelevant because the burden of pensions isn't about the current annual cost, it's about the future liability.

[i]Public sector workers believe they have a right to a guaranteed income stream in retirement, regardless of the actual cost and who actually pays[/i]

Or, conversely, public sector workers entered into a contract with an employer which clearly set out the pension benefits that they would achieve and the length of time they would have to work to accrue such benefits.

Public sector work was available to anyone who chose to do it, was always seen as a poor choice in terms of wages, working conditions and status.

Because the global economy is in the shit, you'd like to take away my pension...

Thanks.

Western society as a whole believes it has a right to constantly increasing levels of consumption and living standards, despite being unable to generate the economic value to support it without borrowing until we are virtually insolvent.

I'm glad you at least understand what capitalism does.

I'm glad you at least understand what capitalism does.

He typed on his capitalist computer, using his capitalist broadband etc.......

Sixth form politics strikes again.

and private sector workers that everyone shouldhave a really shit pension like they do rather than insisting that they get a good pension like say the board /executives of the companies they work for.

No, private sector workers can't afford good pensions because reality hit them first. What's more, they have to pay for public sector pensions whilst failing to make provision for themselves! Anyway, explain to me who will pay for everyone in the private sector to have the same pension provision as the public sector?

I do agree though that the disparity between board level pay and the rest of the workforce is becoming a disgrace- something I think is unsustainable and the fault of shareholders more than anything else.

He typed on his capitalist computer, using his capitalist broadband etc.......

keep your friends close but your enemies closer... 😐

Or, conversely, public sector workers entered into a contract with an employer which clearly set out the pension benefits that they would achieve and the length of time they would have to work to accrue such benefits.

So did private sector workers - and we sat there and watched as a certain Mr G.Brown plundered our pension funds to the tune of fifty billion quid, to pay for an unprecedented expansion of the public sector, which ended up with a million more workers than when Labour came into power.

Public sector work was available to anyone who chose to do it, was always seen as a poor choice in terms of wages, working conditions and status

Yep, and we listened to years and years of Union officials (who directly funded the Labour party and selected its leader) telling us that this was unfair, that public sector workers were equally important, and that their pay and conditions must match those in the private sector...

So, really Crikey, its a taste of your own f'king medicine! 😉

.don't quote Keynes as a solution in the current situation

I think you'll find Keynes has solutions to many problems.

I'm tired and am off to bed

I'm hungry, I think I'll have a sandwich.

I need a poo,please excuess me I'm off to the loo.

It's not relevant though.

The proportion of the annual deficit is almost irrelevant because the burden of pensions isn't about the current annual cost, it's about the future liability.

not relevant or almost irrelevant? even though you have no idea how big it is? It could be half of it? We should be told!! Or again is it nothing to do with the deficit?

as an aside didnt someone point out that future liabilities are reducing as a proportion of GDP? I have a sneaking suspiscion you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well ZE, if you weren't bright enough to be a nurse 25 years ago you really should have worked a bit harder at school...

[i]Yep, and we listened to years and years of Union officials (who directly funded the Labour party and selected its leader) telling us that this was unfair, that public sector workers were equally important, and that their pay and conditions must match those in the private sector...[/i]

I see nothing wrong with this, or do you think that public sector workers should always be considered less important, and have worse pay and conditions than the private sector?

Tell us how much you earn then, tell us what you do, tell us what hours you work and tell us what your pension will be.

not relevant or almost irrelevant? even though you have no idea how big it is? It could be half of it? We should be told!! Or again is it nothing to do with the deficit?

as an aside didnt someone point out that future liabilities are reducing as a proportion of GDP? I have a sneaking suspiscion you have no idea what you are talking about.

Without wishing to be rude, you've proved my point. You asked what proportion of the deficit (i.e. the annual deficit of income over expenditure) could be attributed to public sector pensions. I said that this wasn't especially relevant, except in short term cash flow terms. The relevant question is the burden of future pension obligations, and how much funding will be required to service those in the future.

You've misunderstood the future GDP issue as well. I thought that the unions were arguing that the annual cost of pensions will be lower as a proportion of GDP in 60 years? Not that the future liability will be a lower proportion. Anyway, forecasts over that sort of period are really meaningless.

I'm glad you at least understand what capitalism does.

I think I do thanks, but you clearly don't if you think my statement was a summary of the theory.

He typed on his capitalist computer, using his capitalist broadband etc.......

Sixth form politics strikes again.

This I don't understand - am I being placed in the anti capitalist camp?

Tell us how much you earn then, tell us what you do, tell us what hours you work and tell us what your pension will be.

if he's in the private sector he can't tell you what his pension will be...that's part of the problem.

I think its entirely fair that your terms and conditions are equal to those in the public sector

At the same time, I think its equally fair that your pension is equal to those available in the public sector

The value of private sector pensions has fallen, they are at the whim of the market, and frequently fail - public sector pensions are currently underwritten by the rest of us, thats not equality - if you demand parity in pay, terms and conditions, then I, as a private sector worker, demand parity in your pension provision in return.

Without wishing to be rude, you've proved my point. You asked what proportion of the deficit (i.e. the annual deficit of income over expenditure) could be attributed to public sector pensions. I said that this wasn't especially relevant, except in short term cash flow terms. The relevant question is the burden of future pension obligations, and how much funding will be required to service those in the future.

You'll hvae to run that past me again in plain english because my A level economics doesnt allow me to determine what if any point your trying to make.

Heavy engineering, bus and truck building, car making, steelmaking, foundries, train and tram manufacture,and a lot more of the engineering skills have been allowed to close or been destroyed by numerous governmnents, all helped along by the failing unions, who are now throwing the toys out the pram as a token jesture to the inevitable, uk plc, being broke.

I think the best phrase that can be used to sum up all politicians is "shower of shite the lot of them".

This.

I didn't want the Tories in office in 2010, but I equally wanted Labour out of office for a very long time.

if you demand parity in pay, terms and conditions, then I, as a private sector worker, demand parity in your pension provision in return.

First time you have ever written something I agree with, where do we sign?

[i]if he's in the private sector he can't tell you what his pension will be...that's part of the problem[/i]

So attacking my pension provision makes sense because?

So attacking my pension provision makes sense because?

So, attacking my income by forcing me to pay tax which goes to pay your wages makes sense because?

If I want your services, I can pay for them!

Zulu, you're a closet communist!

We should all be paid the same, comrade?

So, me paying tax to pay your wages makes sense because?

I is educating the masses so you lot can exploit them effectively