JPF

iTrader: (1)

Personally if I was out of work and had no prospect of getting a job immediately I'd rather have some free training that gave me more opportunities to get a job later, had no help or incentives when I was out of work under the last government. Recession don't last forever you know....government does nothing to help, people complain, government helps and people complain.

Oh and do people really think it would have been better with the Tories? do me a favour! , they ****ed things up when there wasn't a global recession, who do you think closed down most of our industrial base? 3 million+ unemployment(official figures)poll tax? our wonderful railway system? closing coal mines so we end up importing our coal?.

Why aren't labour losing in the polls?....because there isn't a better alternative the conservatives should be way ahead in the polls. Personally I'd rather have a guy in charge that countries round the world are listening to(so he must be doing something right, no?) than some drip that wants us to hide under the bed until it all goes away.

Shore the government can be held responsible for some things as can greedy bankers etc but so can greedy people too, buying things they cant afford because the banks and government tells them they can?(we are all guilty of this to some degree) come on! we all have some basic understanding of maths don't we? you have x income and y expenditure, its not hard really. People blindly follow there governments lead and lap up the money showered upon us by the banks, then when it all goes **** up we blame it all on them
Shore we should rightfully blame others for some of the ****e we are in especially governments, cost of fuel, taxes, then there's the fat cats and Fraudsters, there's plenty of people responsible for the problems we are in, but a lot of us still spent money we didn't have, so we need to take some personal responsibly for ourselves too.

I'm shore people will take the mick and have at me go for talking crp and I may well be, I'm just getting sick of the media and people of this country being so fecking negative and always blaming everything on everyone else, things are crp at the mo and will be for a while, blaming people without knowing all the facts is so easy to do, but maybe we should all help ourselves out of this mess and then when its over we can decide on whose to blame?, at the moment its like trying to blame the crew for the ship is sinking rather than getting into a life boat.......lol maybe I should move.

Matteeboy

Tanya - that's shocking (Italian workforce thing)!
Bet they were a quid cheaper than a UK bid.

That sort of thing needs to be headline news I reckon.

Leslie

Wonder what the real figures would be if you add on the jobseekers, young people out of work,and even the civil servants with no job to do who are kept in the "talent pool" on their salaries.

Les

PeteBrant

That 2 million figure includes these people.
Examples?
Or is this straight out of the Mail?

Mitchy260

Pete..

JSA figures are just over 1m
IB figures are around 2.65m
IS figures are at around 1m

So there is 4.65m unemployed straight away, about 10% of the British workforce.

There are many people who do not claim unemployment benefit,i.e JSA as they are not actively seeking work and are not allowed to claim JSA. There are also many women who stay at home and look after their children whilst partner is at work, i.e the housewifes

There are also the wealthy, the footballers wifes etc that are unemployed. Factor in all those disabled aswell, and we are probably speaking well over 6m that are unemployed, i would put a prediction closer to 10m truelly unemployed.

Population is 60m
There are 29m people employed according to the ONS
The 0-16 age group and the 65+ age group equates for around 20m, that is leaving a shortfall of around 11m people. Given women retire at 60, we are probably speaking 9-10m.

Unemployment as in the JSA count is about as useful as ti*s on a fish

Unemployed means exactly that, it should not be based around how many people claim a certain benefit.

The government have fudged this the last 10-15yrs by increasing the sick list, this has now got too high, they dont know what to do next, official unemployment, ie those JSA claimants will rocket (anyway) due to the fact people are now being booted from IB and IS.

The media will not see this though and blame it all on the recession rather than a benefits overhaul

Leslie

I dont read the Mail.

Does it really include them all, I heard different.

Les

dynamix

iTrader: (3)

Comparing figures now (as we go into recession) to previous recession's is worthless as the manipulated stats of Gordon do not include any off balance sheet funding so would on a like for like basis be much worse even as we enter the recession

2million unemployed now but analysts acknowledge that this figure does not include the huge redundancies over the last 2 months which will not hit the figures for a month or two. 3 Million by middle of next year and still rising... for when the gov ridiculously claim that we will be heading out of recession.

It will get very bad and happy to have this debate about comparing figures when judgement day comes.

For the moment, the tories seem happy to let Gordon tie the noose ready for that day.

PeteBrant

Sorry mate, I won't entertain a conversation with you on benefits and unemployment. It's just a pointless exercise. You wont be for turning and nor will I. I could post up lots of contrary points to the ones you have raised, but it would be a waste of time and effort. I am not saying this in a nasty way by the way.

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

It is..............up here

But as always, if it's not happening in the South East, Labour aren't interested

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

There's none so blind..............

Mitchy 260: you forgot the 16-17 year olds who can't claim ANYTHING until they reach 17, and therefore appear on no list whatsoever

Matteeboy

Indeed. The focus on the SE with regards to business is just insane.

Basically the banks got into bed with the government and they are all in London. Yet our USP (centre of World finance) is now long gone.

Oh dear.

PeteBrant

Hey, just because I said I wont argue with Mitchy doesn't mean I won't take you to school .

Course they can. They can claim EMA, they can get surestat payments, they can get invalidity benefits, they can get income supportt they can get Disability living allowance.


Basically, you are talking ****e.

Welfare Benefits for Young People - Lawyers for Young People at FJG Solicitors Colchester Essex UK

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

They can ONLY claim EMA if they stay on at school/go on a registered course.
Under 17's can't even register at the jobcentre, so not sure where you get the idea they can have Surestart comes from?
They can't claim invalidity if they are fit and WANT to work.
They can have NO income support under 17.
They can't claim disability if they aren't disabled.....be sensible.

Sorry Pete, I'm speaking from experience with an under 17 year old, recently. And your experience/source of info is?

Mine was OFFICIAL, and even included a letter to our (Labour) MP

I'm not sure about talking sh*te, but ONE of us is grasping at straws..........invalidity, disability my firm but pliant

PeteBrant

They can't claim invalidity if they are fit and WANT to work.
[/quote]
Well... no, Is that wrong, then?

Rubbish.

People aged 16 or over who are too ill to work may be able to claim for:
Incapacity Benefit
Income Support on the ground of incapacity
Disability Living Allowance

Again, thats not what you said is it... You said noone under 17 years can receive benefits at all.

My Oldest son. Who is 17.

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

Pete, you are splitting hairs here. The whole thread was about UNEMPLOYED. My comment was about UNEMPLOYED 16-17 year olds. NOT those on invalidity, etc.

When it happened to my son, Connexions were the ONLY place he could go, and he could have NO money from anywhere, no jobseekers, no I/S, NOTHING, and believe me, we tried.

The point I'm making is that THOSE kids will NOT appear on any list of jobless, as they can't claim anything, (forget invalidity etc, they aren't, OK?)

And it's NOT a small number. Why do you think Labour have brought in the law about staying on until 17? NOT because they need the extra education.

PeteBrant

At 16/17 you have a welath of options avaiable to you. Anyone can enrol in a college course, it is open to everyone. Even to retake GCSE and he would get up to £30 EMA per week, or you have connexions, or you have modern apprenticeships.

At that age you have more options that at any other point in your life.



Of course its to do with Education. Its to do with raising the standard of education in this country and to have young people better prepared, precisely so they don't leave school and go straight into the welfare system


And they are doing this at massive cost

Do you think its all about hiding unemployment numbers?

unclebuck

I know that's why I put him and that Martin bloke on ignore. Please stop quoting his hogwash.

Under Labour 25% of people of working age do nothing. 1 in 4.

Of those who do go to work 2 out of 5 work in the public sector 'service' providers and produce nothing of worth.

Good isn't it.

PeteBrant

What, and you just took it off for 5 mins when you replied to a post I made yesterday

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...ml#post8355010

Man, you make it too easy, you really do.

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

Yes, Pete, but AGAIN you sidestep the point: what if they DON'T WANT to train, just go to work? And there isn't work? Then what? Are you suggesting they should just enrol on some bullsh*t course just to get the government off the hook?




No Pete, I believe Labour when they say ANYTHING

PeteBrant

No, i am suggesting they should either go to college, or learn a trade to actually give themselves chance in life rather than end up in a dead end job for the rest of thier lives.

What makes it a bull**** course? If they are learning a trade, or retaking exams, or preparing for A-levels or BTECS or on an apprenticeship what makes it a "bull**** course"?

What sort of job do you get where you need no training? Where is the future in that?
Well, thats avoiding the question. Do you think extending the shcool leaving age is simply a way to fiddle the unemployment numbers?

dynamix

iTrader: (3)

... to us not to them.

Its a stats manipulation exercise as said by tanyatriangles.

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

How about the many, many courses which allow kids to start, do a year, then THEY have to find an employer, or the course, which has another two, maybe three years to run, can't be completed? Bullsh*t? I'd say so.


Yes, mate, I surely do. It's been done before, RoSLA, 1974, and I'm sure this lot will soon go for 18 instead of 17.

MrNoisy

iTrader: (28)

PREEEEECISELY.
As anybody with a shred of common sense has realised, Labour statistics are total utter horsesh*t. Stats can almost always be fiddled to show what the author wants the reader to see - hence Labour's reputation for spin and nonsense - that and their obsession with using stats to try and prove they've accomplished anything useful during their time in office.

For example, unemployment figures do not include people on family support who don't work as I'd already commented.
It's like the Labour police figures not including ABH as a serious crime IIRC.
Labour is responsible for screwing up the educational system in the first place.
Making pupils stay on for longer isn't going to fix things.
Removing PC nonsense and idiotic cr*p like "happiness lessons" WILL!

PeteBrant

..

PeteBrant

Anybody with a thread of common sense would realise that the stats used to calculate unemployment figures are agreed Europe wide, and you can't just move the goalposts when you feel like it.

The official figure is the lower one, but the government actually realse the higher one (i.e includes all people out of work, not just those claiming JSA)

Also

What is family support? you still haven't cleared this up
Why do people go into political discussions half cocked? I can never understand it.

What happened was this:

If police described an incident as ABH, if there was clear intent to cause injury, the crime should come to court as "wounding/causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

However, if ,say, a drunk attacks someone with a bottle and misses, that crime should be categorised as GBH with intent - even though no injury resulted. Police forces have, in some cases, described that kind of incident as ABH or another lesser crime not included in the "most serious violence" category.

THat was what the furore was about. Nothing to do with fiddling the figures at all.
Yeah, year on year increases in pass rates is disastrous

It will give them a better start in life and open up options.

To suggest that raising the school age is an exercise to reduce unemployment figures is ignorant of the facts in the extreme

If the unemployment ratwe was 5 million plus, with huge number of under 17s affecting the rate, then maybe I could see some sinister moves.

But the fact is that we have had historically low unemployment for years. And taking all the 16 years old that arent already in college or on a training course and putting them in school wont change the figures at all, on account of very few 16 year olds being in this position.


Its the same old scoobynet trick of attacking labour without the first clue as to what you are attacking them for.[/QUOTE]

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

[/QUOTE]

But Pete, I know perfectly well why I'm attacking them: I hate them with a deadly loathing.

I hate their spin, I hate their lies, I hate the wars they lied us into, I hate their waste of taxpayer's money, I hate the way that NOTHING is ever their fault, I hate their sleaze, I hate their greed, I hate the PC nonsense they have foisted on us, I hate their apparent weakness when it suits them, I hate the way they and their blinkered supporters are STILL blaming the Tories after nearly 12 years, and I hate their dishonesty.

There are more, but I don't want to bore you.

And before you EVEN THINK it, don't you DARE accuse me of wanting the Tories...........I hate them nearly as much

Hung Parliament please, then we might have some decisions made for the good of the country and it's population, not it's government, or some daft political doctrine

Stainy

Tanya,

Don't feed the muppet, if labour brought out sh*t sandwiches, he'd open a shop to sell them. He is a labour lemming and will support them no matter what. His posts consist of totally onesided, inaccurate drivel.

PeteBrant

What a brilliantly, well structured, argument!

tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

The truth generally appears that way, Pete

MrNoisy

iTrader: (28)

ah, Mr Brown, welcome back to Scoobynet.
Please spare me the pyschobabble re you party and its 'wondrous' achievements.

Your spin and stats don't fool me