Cameron retiring from the House immediately
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bornblue
The obsession should not be just on jobs but on the number of hours too.
Many new jobs were simply created by making one job into two zero hour contracts for example. The actual amount of work did not rise, just the amount of people performing that work.
Many new jobs were simply created by making one job into two zero hour contracts for example. The actual amount of work did not rise, just the amount of people performing that work.
You do realise you can't just spout utter bull-**** and expect people to believe you, yeah?
Mark my words, the history books will immortalise him as Prime Minister David Cameron the Great.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
How much of it was down to Cameron and how much to Osborne is difficult to determine, but it seems we can assume they were agreed at all points. They certainly ran an extremely right wing ideological government hell bent on maniacally reducing the public sector regardless of consequences. This also seems to be a Tory Party thing now, as May is shaping up to be much the same, despite her Thatcherite blather outside No 10 after she was anointed the new Dear Leader.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I like to think I'm being completely objective. 
UK public spending by year (billions):
2009: £634
2010: £673
2011: £714
2012: £721
2013: £740
2014: £745
2015: £756
2016: £762
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_2009UKbt_16bc5n
+13.2% in 6 years.
Original post by L i b
You do realise you can't just spout utter bull-**** and expect people to believe you, yeah?
Lmao.
If you invent how unemployment figures are calculated so as to not count millions of people who are actually unemployed then you can near enough get the figure to say exactly what you want.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Josb
UK public spending by year (billions):
2009: £634
2010: £673
2011: £714
2012: £721
2013: £740
2014: £745
2015: £756
2016: £762
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_2009UKbt_16bc5n
+13.2% in 6 years.
2009: £634
2010: £673
2011: £714
2012: £721
2013: £740
2014: £745
2015: £756
2016: £762
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_2009UKbt_16bc5n
+13.2% in 6 years.
I thought we were meant to be living within our means and being responsible? Now we're spending more?
Strange.
Original post by Bornblue
You're simply fibbing. Unemployment figures are calculated by the number of JSA claimants not on a 'back to work programme'.
False. Indeed, read the study you've cited (actually Sheffield Hallam, not Sheffield incidentally): "In theory, the ILO measure of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey is independent of benefits status. It includes many of the unemployed who are ineligible to receive Jobseeker’s Allowance and don’t therefore bother to sign on, who are consequently omitted from the claimant count. These include, for example, the unemployed who are disqualified from the means-tested ‘income-based’ version of Jobseeker’s Allowance by virtue of other household income or savings."
I mean, it's blindingly obvious: how can an international standard be dependent on UK-specific benefit entitlement?
You've also not replied to my point about why the bedroom tax was a bad policy given the fact that it was not accompanied by any house-building project to provide properties for people to move in to.
I apologise, I missed that among the flurry of posts on the thread. I'll happily do so--
"Had it been accompanied by a house-building project to provide adequately sized housing for those who were required to downsize then it would have been acceptable.
However there was no building of social housing. It's incredibly unfair to cut peoples' housing benefits because they have a spare room (which often they needed if they were disabled), when there is virtually nowhere for them to move.
The end result was that thousands were made homeless because they could no longer afford their accommodation and there was nowhere for them to downsize to. Have you seen housing association waiting lists? I really doubt you have."
There was social housing built - just not in huge numbers, with a focus on providing affordable housing instead.
Let's just nip the disabled argument in the bud here: if you were disabled, and needed a spare room because of that, you received discretionary housing payments if you applied for them. I've not seen a single legitimate case where that did not happen exactly as Government guidelines stated it should.
I'm perfectly aware of housing association waiting lists, which is largely why I support the policy. What was available, of course, was the option of swapping (which is a commonly used method of switching and there was real investment in making that even easier) - not to mention sharing larger housing stock.
"Oh and seeing as you laud our courts, the Court of Appeal actually ruled that the bedroom tax violated the human rights of disabled people.
You're being incredibly fake here. You don't care about 'hundreds of thousands in cramped accommodation' because if you did you would support a serious project for the establishment of new social housing."
Nope, I support affordable housing and wider home ownership. I don't think social or private renting is a positive long-term position for families. What I do support is a huge house-building programme. I've been highly critical of successive governments' failures to create the conditions to build. I want to see millions of homes built across Britain's brownfield and greenbelt sites, with easy access to planning permission, a planning system that does not make sitting on vacant land easy and all sorts of supply-side measures.
In the meantime however, we should use our social housing stock as effectively as we can. The idea that someone can be sitting as a single person in a four bedroom house while some poor family is living out of one room is nothing short of appalling.
"Instead Cameron tried to force Housing Associations to sell off their properties for right to buy discounts which would further have depleted the stock of affordable rental housing. Thankfully he was rebuffed and backed down."
It hardly matters, does it? If a family is in a social housing unit and they buy it, there's still the same number of units versus demand. You've decreased supply by one, but you've also decreased demand by one.
Personally my view would be that right to buy housing association stock is only a problem if you introduce a credible policy of booting people out of it once they get to a certain income level - which may well be an idea worth exploring.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
The obsession should not be just on jobs but on the number of hours too.
Many new jobs were simply created by making one job into two zero hour contracts for example. The actual amount of work did not rise, just the amount of people performing that work.
Many new jobs were simply created by making one job into two zero hour contracts for example. The actual amount of work did not rise, just the amount of people performing that work.
I completely agree, what bothers me is the fact these sculptured figures aim to undermine the work and progress of New Labour with record low unemploymemt, reduced inequality amongst the working and middle classes, expanding public and private sector, job security and sustained economic growth, people seem to forget Cameron took us into a recession in 2012 (although the figures were later revised, the loss of confidence and investment can't be revised, the figures were still an embarrassment of only 0.4% growth). Austerity doesn't help the economy, I believe cuts were necessary however it's now time to invest. I also believe Gordon Brown would've taken us through a far better recovery that didn't involve huge cuts and permanent damage to our economy. Sorry I've kind of gone from employment to the economy as a whole but I think Cameron and Osbourne were a bunch of muppets and deserve no credit.
Original post by Bornblue
Lmao.
If you invent how unemployment figures are calculated so as to not count millions of people who are actually unemployed then you can near enough get the figure to say exactly what you want.
If you invent how unemployment figures are calculated so as to not count millions of people who are actually unemployed then you can near enough get the figure to say exactly what you want.
You're accusing the independent ONS of doing this, based - it seems - on a study that says a problem (which it says would be largely rectified by 2014) that "hidden" unemployment is less than a million higher than official unemployment.
I'd call that pretty poor really.
Original post by Josb
UK public spending by year (billions):
2009: £634
2010: £673
2011: £714
2012: £721
2013: £740
2014: £745
2015: £756
2016: £762
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_2009UKbt_16bc5n
+13.2% in 6 years.
2009: £634
2010: £673
2011: £714
2012: £721
2013: £740
2014: £745
2015: £756
2016: £762
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_2009UKbt_16bc5n
+13.2% in 6 years.
It's money being awfully spent too. Had we re-elected Brown the money would've gone towards a full recovery in the public and private sectors, elected based on lies and thankfully kicked out on being exposed.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I'll try! 
I assume you're thinking of the Heath government, which was of course about the NUM trying to get decent standards and pay for miners, on whom the whole economy depended, but who were treated terribly badly in numerous ways. Arguably it was a good thing if Prime Ministers of the day gave in to them.
According to all the experts, the UK is facing a major power supply crisis and that will be entirely down to the form of extremist privatisation capitalism practised and preached by the Tories (and sadly, fellow New Labour travellers, at least for a few years), which is lamentably bad at strategic national planning. So when those cuts come, it perhaps won't be made clear, but the failure of the lights to come on when you press the switch will be entirely down to Thatcherism and the sad imitations of her who followed - including Cameron and Osborne.
I assume you're thinking of the Heath government, which was of course about the NUM trying to get decent standards and pay for miners, on whom the whole economy depended, but who were treated terribly badly in numerous ways. Arguably it was a good thing if Prime Ministers of the day gave in to them.
According to all the experts, the UK is facing a major power supply crisis and that will be entirely down to the form of extremist privatisation capitalism practised and preached by the Tories (and sadly, fellow New Labour travellers, at least for a few years), which is lamentably bad at strategic national planning. So when those cuts come, it perhaps won't be made clear, but the failure of the lights to come on when you press the switch will be entirely down to Thatcherism and the sad imitations of her who followed - including Cameron and Osborne.
I don't think so, pay rises demanded were in the ball park of 40% if memory serves me right and that's in the background of state subsidies for the pits.
In other words err no you can't have it
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
I don't think so, pay rises demanded were in the ball park of 40% if memory serves me right and that's in the background of state subsidies for the pits.
In other words err no you can't have it
Posted from TSR Mobile
In other words err no you can't have it
Posted from TSR Mobile
Working conditions were still pretty dreadful at that time for miners. The percentages sound large, but they were basically demanding a decent salary for dangerous, harsh work - not completely unreasonable.
After they won the awards, they were paid about the same as teachers.Original post by L i b
You do realise you can't just spout utter bull-**** and expect people to believe you, yeah?
It's interesting to look in detail at the supposed surge in employment. A large amount of it is move to self-employment and of course we have all those hidden zero hours contracts to factor in as well.
The sharp rise in self-emp. has been at least partly driven by heavy pressure from the companies that took over the long term unemployed management from the DWP machinery - they have shoved people into basically unpaid work to get them off the official figures and earn their generous (and sometimes fiddled) commissions.
In addition, there are at least 3/4 of a million workers on zero-hours contracts and despite some recent well publicised wins to at least get them NMW, many continue to be on lower-than-minimum-wage piece work and disguised unemployment.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/number-of-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-up-by-19
Then we have the fiddles whereby the government added various groups to the employment totals by changing the statistical base of calculations. This has been done several times.
Oh and finally, not to feed the Kippers too much, but a considerable percentage of the apparent employment increase in the economy has actually been taken up by inward migrants.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's interesting to look in detail at the supposed surge in employment. A large amount of it is move to self-employment and of course we have all those hidden zero hours contracts to factor in as well.
The sharp rise in self-emp. has been at least partly driven by heavy pressure from the companies that took over the long term unemployed management from the DWP machinery - they have shoved people into basically unpaid work to get them off the official figures and earn their generous (and sometimes fiddled) commissions.
In addition, there are at least 3/4 of a million workers on zero-hours contracts and despite some recent well publicised wins to at least get them NMW, many continue to be on lower-than-minimum-wage piece work and disguised unemployment.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/number-of-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-up-by-19
Then we have the fiddles whereby the government added various groups to the employment totals by changing the statistical base of calculations. This has been done several times.
Oh and finally, not to feed the Kippers too much, but a considerable percentage of the apparent employment increase in the economy has actually been taken up by inward migrants.
The sharp rise in self-emp. has been at least partly driven by heavy pressure from the companies that took over the long term unemployed management from the DWP machinery - they have shoved people into basically unpaid work to get them off the official figures and earn their generous (and sometimes fiddled) commissions.
In addition, there are at least 3/4 of a million workers on zero-hours contracts and despite some recent well publicised wins to at least get them NMW, many continue to be on lower-than-minimum-wage piece work and disguised unemployment.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/number-of-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-up-by-19
Then we have the fiddles whereby the government added various groups to the employment totals by changing the statistical base of calculations. This has been done several times.
Oh and finally, not to feed the Kippers too much, but a considerable percentage of the apparent employment increase in the economy has actually been taken up by inward migrants.
I do find it interesting when the left hate on flexibility in work. ZHCs should be banned because a few people on them don't want to be, and self employment... Actually, I really don't get your problem with it but you seem to be saying it's bad. Funny thing is I don't think I've ever heard of somebody properly self employed who doesn't want to be, and of all the self employed people I know (there are a lot) they all seem to agree it's the best thing they've ever done, and note there aren't any that were self e!ployed but no longer are.
Posted from TSR Mobile
When all is said and done, he is going to be remembered for being pretty darn ****.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37356873
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37356873
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Working conditions were still pretty dreadful at that time for miners. The percentages sound large, but they were basically demanding a decent salary for dangerous, harsh work - not completely unreasonable. After they won the awards, they were paid about the same as teachers.
After they won the awards, they were paid about the same as teachers.So an industry that was only still in business because the government was propping it up should have given in to the 40% demands?
So but lol.
It was this sort of behaviour that lost them their jobs
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'll always love Cameron for giving us the eu referendum.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
So an industry that was only still in business because the government was propping it up should have given in to the 40% demands?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
That wasn't the case in the early 70s. Or are you talking about the early 80s?
Arguably the destruction of the UK coal industry was both harmful and premature - instead, determined efforts should have been made to burn coal more cleanly (they have been since) and to innovate around carbon capture (also going on now), making Britain much more energy independent.
Original post by Jammy Duel
I do find it interesting when the left hate on flexibility in work. ZHCs should be banned because a few people on them don't want to be, and self employment... Actually, I really don't get your problem with it but you seem to be saying it's bad. Funny thing is I don't think I've ever heard of somebody properly self employed who doesn't want to be, and of all the self employed people I know (there are a lot) they all seem to agree it's the best thing they've ever done, and note there aren't any that were self e!ployed but no longer are.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It depends what sort of self-employment. There's a huge difference between younger and long-term unemployed people being forced into a spurious, zero-hours 'self-employment' with terribly fragile earnings and conditions and the sort of enjoyable self-employment that professionals enter.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Head Boy Speech
- Who will be the party to build the homes we need
- Mature Student.
- Dropping Out of my Master's Degree
- Lifetime ISA's, are they worth it?
- Shock and awe- interest rates and pension reform; is there a different way?
- My mum wants me to buy us a house
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- Tenancy Takeover Nottingham 23/24
- repayment after retirement
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- university drop out
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Getting expelled from university
- Would googling something make police come to your house?
- Looking for accom/tenancy takeover for 2023/24 Sep (Grand Felda/near North Greenwich)
- London student accommodation
- Wanted Studio/Ensuite - Wembley/Greenwich/East/ Central - Immediately
- Post 18
- London Accommodation Needed 2023-24
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
