Gordon Brown to 'create' 100,000 jobs.

ad9898_3

More Brown bo**ocks, christ I'm getting tired of the same crap, this will. as usual amount to nothing only spin. I saw him on Andrew Marr this morning, global, America, fiscal, global, banks won't lend, billion here, billion there, blah, blah, blah. If it wouldn't cost a £1000, I would have drop kicked the TV.

leveller2911

I wont name them and shame them but I work for 2 MP,s and from chatting with them I can say they both give the impression of caring whilst having absolutely No idea how the everyday person lives, the struggles and concerns we all have.

When challenged regarding a proposed housing development in the area, my opinion was that we needed more low cost housing for local FTB,s , young couples and local families rather than 4 and 5 bedroom houses costing in the region of £500k........

I was told "This area suffers from a lack of leadership and building 4 and 5 bedroom houses would bring in more professional people who are inteligent and would then join the local councils etc and lead the public to a better future".......

So summing up anyone who can afford a £500k house is intelligent enough to lead , anyone else isnt............:rotfl:

Talk about out of touch idiots.............That is why , as a nation we are stuffed.......Political elite will not allow the country to decide properly who they wish to govern them...

I really fear we are going to have an "end of days" scenario ....

pinkcloudnine

My son grauates this summer, he is panicking:eek: about how he is going to find a job in the area we live; the so called prosperous SE [but so far east it's easier to get to France!] He will hopefully have a BA in History. At the moment he is applying for anything remotely graduate like. But he reckons he'll end up FT at our local s/market, but at least he will have a job.:j
Gordons idea to create 100,000 jobs, what a joke ;in our area we have no industry, a global drugs company winding down operations over the next few yrs with the loss of thousands of jobs. Moving their operations to cheaper parts of the world, including republic of Ireland. There are derelict port area's, a Turner centre to be constructed in the most deprived seaside town in the SE. Can't see all the luvvies & arty types coming to spend a w/e in the town.:rolleyes:
Need more BIA jobs to keep on top of immigration, thats where the 100,000 could be created, a human wall at each port, put GB at the front, enough to send would be immigrants fleeing back to their lands!!!!!!!!!

lynzpower

What you are all failing to notice when making statements about "non jobs" or jobs that aere not required, they are not required in a bouyant market - -but in a depression/ reession are tremendously oversubscribed.

I hear from my freinds in Mental Health social work that they were beyond coping before but its horrendous now with many people experiencing very poor mental health ( losing homes, companies, relationship breakdown etc etc) I expect it is the same in older peoples social work, as sons & daughters can no longer afford to pay for services for thier parents & relatives. as we know state schools, gyms & sports facilities, and health services ae more oversubscibed now as people pack in thier private cover. Extra jobs in libraries to cope with additional footfall- and extra people to deal with the onslaught of processing of DWP payments and LHA and the associated all new mortgage relief in whatever form this takes. There are jobs going at a jobcentre in west london if anyones interested.

Housing projects will be brought forward ( the double glazing and dampwork in some local authority projects im aware of) and I can see the olympics jobs being repackaged as some sort of government saviour, even though these jobs were costed for long ago.

treliac

leveller2911 wrote: »

I wont name them and shame them but I work for 2 MP,s......

No, it wouldn't do much for your job prospects,would it? (Only kidding )

Mr_Falling_Star

Arrrgh! We are all going to die, all of us

Yes unemployment is going up, I am currently unemployed myself but I don't understand why people aremeeting Gordons reasonable suggestion with a wave of negativity. I don't expect to get one of the 100,000 Jobs but surely its a move in the right direction? Its either that or its the Tory old move of signing you onto Incapacity benefit to get you off the register and then you can come out and say dole queues are down. A policy that we are still suffering for by the way.

And yes Jobcentre Plus will be recruiting like mad soon as they cannot cope with the workload (due to some very shortsighted cuts)

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/DC620E0B-432A-4B73-B362F7D84998D03F

I dont think I will ever understand people who spend their whole lives in a slough of despond. Angry, upset, worried, depressed, yes fair enough everyone deals with these from time to time but where do people get off by being so bleeding negative all the time?

Nigella_2

We had a boom (off credit) and now we are going to have to pay many times over with Unemployment/Pound/Public debt!!

If it is a genuine solution i.e. bringing projects forward and it keeps or gives people a job then potentially a good solution.

BUT if a fire fighting / vote winning, "I saved the world" solution - it will cost us more in debt and how long will these jobs last and cost per job??

SGE1

leveller2911 wrote: »

I was told "This area suffers from a lack of leadership and building 4 and 5 bedroom houses would bring in more professional people who are inteligent and would then join the local councils etc and lead the public to a better future".......

So summing up anyone who can afford a £500k house is intelligent enough to lead , anyone else isnt............:rotfl:

That's not really summing it up. It's got nothing to do with intelligence, it's just straightforward incentives. If you can afford a 500k house, we're indeed talking about a professional couple, possibly family, or a very loaded single person. Those with higher earning professions generally owe a large part of their salary advantage to good education (note generally, not always). Those who invest significantly in an area (i.e. by buying an expensive house), and those who have extra incentive to ameliorate the area they live in (e.g. children who attend the local school) tend to become more involved in their neighbourhood, with a view to ameliorating it. Success breeds success, unfortunately, so while it may be counter-intuitive, bringing in well-off professionals is in fact quite a good way of improving a neighbourhood, both statistically and in practice.

On the other hand, those who live in social housing have less incentives to contribute or get involved in their local area - they get moved around a lot, and they get given properties they might not want, in locations they might not like.

The ideal solution is therefore scattering a bit of both, I think: more social housing, because more people will need it - but scatter it around larger houses that will attract more well-off people and families who will have more incentive to contributing to the long-term improvement of the area.

mizzbiz

The infrastructure we have needed over the boom period (schools, hospitals, lamp posts) was conducted through PFI (on the tick). How can we now afford to 'create' jobs as such when we still need to pay for these PFI's - with interest?

Creating 100,000 jobs is a ridiculous idea that won't help the economy one bit. Talk about treating the symptoms rather than the disease!

The sort of people that would vote for such a 'spin' are the sort of people that would only vote labour anyway. Can you imagine, suddenly the poll about who we will vote for in the next election will swing to Labour, because Brown is voodooing 100,000 jobs when the predictions for next year are that 3 million stand to be unemployed. It's just more mediocre spin to excite the Sun readers.

treliac

SGE1 wrote: »

The ideal solution is therefore scattering a bit of both, I think: more social housing, because more people will need it - but scatter it around larger houses that will attract more well-off people and families who will have more incentive to contributing to the long-term improvement of the area.

The well-off don't usually like to live too close to social housing and it doesn't help to maintain the value of their properties.