Gordon Brown to 'create' 100,000 jobs.

SGE1

Hold on a minute, you all moan as redundancies increase, and then when the Government announced public works which will employ c.100,000 people, you moan still?

100,000 jobs isn't perhaps enough to bring us back to the very high levels of employment in 2007, but surely it's a start?

And to those who dismiss this as a vote-winning tactic, I say, what? Vote-winning is the very basis of power, only a schizophrenic and very confused politician would pursue policies they thought would significantly damage their voter base and reduce their chances of getting elected/re-elected, not least because all politicians have policies they believe are the best way forward, and that the best way forward, is, generally, improvement, which in turn they hope will lead to more votes.

wymondham

SGE1 wrote: »

Hold on a minute, you all moan as redundancies increase, and then when the Government announced public works which will employ c.100,000 people, you moan still?

100,000 jobs isn't perhaps enough to bring us back to the very high levels of employment in 2007, but surely it's a start?

And to those who dismiss this as a vote-winning tactic, I say, what? Vote-winning is the very basis of power, only a schizophrenic and very confused politician would pursue policies they thought would significantly damage their voter base and reduce their chances of getting elected/re-elected, not least because all politicians have policies they believe are the best way forward, and that the best way forward, is, generally, improvement, which in turn they hope will lead to more votes.

Do you think the Government can carry this out effectively?

The reason for my pessimism is that Gordon Brown has the midas touch in reverse!

Zagu

SGE1 wrote: »

Hold on a minute, you all moan as redundancies increase, and then when the Government announced public works which will employ c.100,000 people, you moan still?

It's the cost that worries me. If each job is going to be around the £20k p/a area, you need the income from five £20k p/a private sector jobs to cover each job. That means that 500,000 peoples contributions are being used to support jobs that the market didn't require. As I see it, the public sector is bloated as it is. Bloating it more won't help.

disney_cjd

he could resign and create 100,001 jobs if he likes

Masomnia

Zagu wrote: »

It's the cost that worries me. If each job is going to be around the £20k p/a area, you need the income from five £20k p/a private sector jobs to cover each job. That means that 500,000 peoples contributions are being used to support jobs that the market didn't require. As I see it, the public sector is bloated as it is. Bloating it more won't help.

That's true, but surely if they're out working they're off benefits and spending more. Money is saved in benefit payment, and the economy is helped. They'll pay tax on their income so they'll support their own jobs to an extent, if that makes sense, so not quite 500,000 people's contributions.

Britain's infrastructure needs work anyway, and improving it is a good foundation for recovery if you ask me.

Zagu

Masomnia wrote: »

That's true, but surely if they're out working they're off benefits and spending more. Money is saved in benefit payment, and the economy is helped. They'll pay tax on their income so they'll support their own jobs to an extent, if that makes sense, so not quite 500,000 people's contributions.

I agree that there are other factors, but as the aim is to provide jobs for no specific purpose, I question how useful these jobs will really be. If it was announced that 100,000 jobs were to be created for a specific purpose it would be different. To extend your logic, if it was truly beneficial to artificially create jobs so as to save on benefits and become tax payers, why do we have any unemployed?

The truth is that even the government have announced cutbacks in staff numbers, and I fail to see the wisdom in creating jobs to decorate schools while at the same time "seventy hospital staff in Whitehaven, Cumbria, have lost their jobs and the union Unison is warning that NHS staff could be under threat from long-term spending cuts. Widespread redundancies are expected in the Civil Service, where union leaders fear nearly 10,000 jobs will go in courts and the prison and probation services because of cuts at the Ministry of Justice. An estimated 3,500 more will be axed to meet efficiency savings at HM Revenue and Customs." Out with real jobs, in with artificially created, low priority jobs to keep people busy?

It really doesn't make much sense to me, and I feel that we could be slipping back to the 70's, where overemployment was common.

Masomnia wrote: »

Britain's infrastructure needs work anyway, and improving it is a good foundation for recovery if you ask me.

Yes and no. The current situation provides an opportunity to address some longstanding problems, but it's not a panacea for the government to employ all and sundry.

JasonLVC

I like how Brown believe that HE alone can 'create' 100,000 jobs like he is some type of god.

Those 100,000 jobs will be construction for government projects and o he might as well just have said "I'll employ another 50,000 civil servants with fancy pensions".

Those constrution jobs will go to the lowest bidder and will involve the cheapest labour and therefore the Polish and Czech will take ome back over to the UK, do thejobs and then go again (and I've no problem with that, but of no long term benefit to long-term residents of the UK).

Until Brown comes out of the close and admits he's screwed up, he will continue to create fancy headlines and tinker around the edges of what is a mssive financial metldown of the countries economy.

GooeyBlob

It's a very nice headline, but in reality it would not work.

The only jobs Brown can "create" are public sector ones - some might be doing useful things, but some won't. What's more, this would add significantly to public expenditure, at a time when we should be cutting costs to reduce the horrendous debt levels that Brown has been running up in recent years. Brown has already "created" a lot of public sector "non-jobs", and we really don't need any more of them. Remember, as the private sector contracts, the burden of an enlarged public sector becomes much heavier, taxes have to rise, further damaging the UK's competitiveness when it is trying to recover from a severe recession.

Well-meaning headline-grabbing, yes. That's understandable. But criminally irresponsible were the plan to be put into place. I expect and hope nothing will come of it.

Rochdale_Pioneers

mewbie wrote: »

A JOB will go every 52 SECONDS as 2009 turns into an employment bloodbath, experts predict.

A job a minute would surely have a nicer ring to it? I love the term employment bloodbath.

In the article it talks about people being thrown on the dole. What I want to know - is at what stage do these people become scum scroungers? Is it immediately or after a few months?

lol! There are going to be a lot of Daily Wail types who bemoan people on benefits as scrounging scum who themselves will end up on benefits.

mvengemvenge

disney_cjd wrote: »

he could resign and create 100,001 jobs if he likes

Lol......actually, I'd like him to resign and create just ONE job vacancy.