Unemployment FALLS for second month in a row

Rochdale_Pioneers

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No matter how well Brown has handled the crisis, (and he has handled it very well indeed,) nothing on gods green earth could convince me another term of illiberal, nanny state, intrusive, authoritarian, socialism would be acceptable, no matter what the economic consequences.

And I am quite sure that there are a lot of other voters holding a similar viewpoint to yourself, and there's nothing wrong with that. For some it'll be simple - they want a change. And for anyone in the public sector, or a part of the private sector thats still wobbly, it may come down to a simple choice. Vote Brown and put up with Labour social policies you disagree with. Or vote Tory and lose your house and your job.

Labour aren't going to lose this election for that very simple reason. No matter how much you hate Brown, its a brave voter who votes Tory knowing it will probably cost them their livelihood.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And I am quite sure that there are a lot of other voters holding a similar viewpoint to yourself, and there's nothing wrong with that. For some it'll be simple - they want a change. And for anyone in the public sector, or a part of the private sector thats still wobbly, it may come down to a simple choice. Vote Brown and put up with Labour social policies you disagree with. Or vote Tory and lose your house and your job.

Labour aren't going to lose this election for that very simple reason. No matter how much you hate Brown, its a brave voter who votes Tory knowing it will probably cost them their livelihood.

Whether Labour or Tory get in, the economic impact of paying back debt will be the same.

Do you believe that if labour get another 5 years, they will keep the economic policy they have kept so far? I.e. stimulating everything?

If so, how will they do it, considering our debt?

Everything is simply show at the moment. They are both trying to win an election. Scaremongering seems very much part of that from both sides.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whether Labour or Tory get in, the economic impact of paying back debt will be the same.

Do you believe that if labour get another 5 years, they will keep the economic policy they have kept so far? I.e. stimulating everything?

If so, how will they do it, considering our debt?

Everything is simply show at the moment. They are both trying to win an election. Scaremongering seems very much part of that from both sides.

I totally agree that there is scaremongeroing going on - there is an election to win after all.

No, Labour won't keep the existing policy. Thats why they have a policy to half the deficit in 4 years. The difference between the two parties is when to start cutting it and how to make the savings.

Labour plan on letting the economy reflate, growth and the return of tax receipts at normal levels meaning you need to cut less spending. The Tories seem intent on cutting and thats it. As they crash the economy and this time have no concerns about rising unemployment, tax receipts fall, spending goes up and the cuts have to be even deeper.

So in summary what I expect from the Tories is basically a rerun of Thatcher's first term. Slag off Labour for the state of the economy and high unemployment. Then eviscerate the economy and massively increase the number out of work. Then cut the taxes of those people lucky enough still to have a well paid job and blame joblessness on the unemployed. We know their policy is to cut deep and quickly despite Cameron's attempts to reign this back in (opposed by Osborne), and we know from history and from the IMF what impact this will have.

Frankly whatever Labour do can't be as bad as that. Its not as if we have a major debt crisis anyway - the ratings agencies have already said they can no more downgrade us than they can America, we print and control the currency
in which our debts are issued, and the markets will be far too distracted by the weaker EU countries falling over and the collapse of the Euro.

jetta_wales

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It hasn't.

In fact, it has been of great benefit to us, we have never been better off, as have most people I know.

I do know 3 people that lost their jobs, but all on really good redundancy packages, and all found another job on the same or better wages very quickly, and got to pocket the redundancy package.

Seriously, compared to previous recessions, this one has been a walk in the park for most people. Lower unemployment by far, lower interest rates which benefit millions of households, better safety nets in place through benefits, etc.....

Of course, it's never good for the people that do lose their jobs, but of all the people working full time before the recession, only 3% will lose their jobs. And for those that do lose a job, 75% will be back in work within 6 months.

As far as recessions go, this one has been better than previous ones by a long shot.

To be honest that's exactly what I thought you'd say so can I suggest that since you have never been better off that you might not have the foggyest idea how those who are up sh*ts creek without a paddle since the banks went bust are experiencing this recession as it's clearly a lot different for them than for you. Perhaps you could also then understand that this might be why it winds them up so much when you hark on about how rosey things are and how everything's on the up? When for many of us it isn't on the up at all nowhere near it in fact.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

jetta_wales wrote: »

To be honest that's exactly what I thought you'd say so can I suggest that since you have never been better off that you might not have the foggyest idea how those who are up sh*ts creek without a paddle since the banks went bust are experiencing this recession as it's clearly a lot different for them than for you. Perhaps you could also then understand that this might be why it winds them up so much when you hark on about how rosey things are and how everything's on the up? When for many of us it isn't on the up at all nowhere near it in fact.

I've been unemployed in the past when things were tough, as has my wife.

It is never easy, which is why I state that.....

Of course, it's never good for the people that do lose their jobs,

But on this board, we discuss and debate the wider aspects of the economy at large.

And the reality is that the following is true, and indisputable.....

but of all the people working full time before the recession, only 3% will lose their jobs. And for those that do lose a job, 75% will be back in work within 6 months.

Those are the facts, like them or not.

Things are much better this time around than last time, like it or not.

And whilst I completely agree that it sucks if you are one of the very, very small percentage of people for whom the above is not true, that still does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of people will get through this recession just fine.

We cannot base our opinion of how the world is on the tiny minority of people not doing well. When we know that the vast majority are doing great.

We can sympathise with them, we can feel sorry for them, but we cannot take that and twist it into an innacurate picture that everything is terrible for everyone when that is plainly not the truth.

CloudCuckooLand

All hail; "Halving the deficit" - as though it will be a fantastic curative action.

Halving the deficit only slows down the rate with which the overall debt is still growing.

And needing to have interest paid on it. Basic money management says pay down debts so you don't waste your income on interest.

We need to have a surplus, not half a deficit.

Maybe 10 years worth of surplus from the boom, salted away for a rainy day would have been a good idea?

Shame no-one thought of that.

cit_k

Dont they take people of the unemployment figures when they put them on new deal or whatever its called this month, and put them back on the figures when they have completed the course....

Emy1501

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I totally agree that there is scaremongeroing going on - there is an election to win after all.

No, Labour won't keep the existing policy. Thats why they have a policy to half the deficit in 4 years. The difference between the two parties is when to start cutting it and how to make the savings.

Labour plan on letting the economy reflate, growth and the return of tax receipts at normal levels meaning you need to cut less spending. The Tories seem intent on cutting and thats it. As they crash the economy and this time have no concerns about rising unemployment, tax receipts fall, spending goes up and the cuts have to be even deeper.

So in summary what I expect from the Tories is basically a rerun of Thatcher's first term. Slag off Labour for the state of the economy and high unemployment. Then eviscerate the economy and massively increase the number out of work. Then cut the taxes of those people lucky enough still to have a well paid job and blame joblessness on the unemployed. We know their policy is to cut deep and quickly despite Cameron's attempts to reign this back in (opposed by Osborne), and we know from history and from the IMF what impact this will have.

Frankly whatever Labour do can't be as bad as that. Its not as if we have a major debt crisis anyway - the ratings agencies have already said they can no more downgrade us than they can America, we print and control the currency
in which our debts are issued, and the markets will be far too distracted by the weaker EU countries falling over and the collapse of the Euro.

Pretty much every economists I have heard speak say we need to cut as soon as possible not next year. Philip Green and another business leader were on Sky news at Christmas and were saying even Tory planned cuts do not go far enough as did Andrew Mar when he spoke to DC a few weeks ago. Now Richard Branson comes out and says we need to cut now not next year.

The main thrust of their argument is that the UK needs to cut its structural budget deficit more quickly than the chancellor has suggested. On this they are in agreement with the IMF, the OECD and all the ratings agencies. Presumably, the chancellor disagrees. But the majority of economists would probably say that borrowing needs to come down more quickly, including many inside HM Treasury.

The above is from Stepanie Flanders talking about the letter written by the 20 economists and its clear that the IMF, rating agencies all seem to think we need to cut now. The only reason why GB is not doing what is needed now is because winning the election is more important that doing whats best for the economy.

Lets face it we all know Darling and by the sound if Mandleson wanted to anounce a harsher PBR but the suggestions are they were over ruled by GB

Rochdale_Pioneers

Emy1501 wrote: »

The above is from Stepanie Flanders talking about the letter written by the 20 economists and its clear that the IMF, rating agencies all seem to think we need to cut now. The only reason why GB is not doing what is needed now is because winning the election is more important that doing whats best for the economy.

Do keep up. The IMF have said NOT to cut now on the scale proposed by the Tories. You can't cut spending whilst the economy is still bumping along the bottom or you send it under. Thats according to the head of the IMF anyway, but I'm sure Branson knows better.

Emy1501

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Do keep up. The IMF have said NOT to cut now on the scale proposed by the Tories. You can't cut spending whilst the economy is still bumping along the bottom or you send it under. Thats according to the head of the IMF anyway, but I'm sure Branson knows better.

You better get onto Stehpanie quick then and tell her she does not know what she is talking about and all those business leaders and economists who think we need cut sooner rather than later. So what you are saying is one socialist bloke from the IMF knows better than most other economists?

Maybe you can provide some evidence of all these business leaders and economists who are saying that the Labour approach is the best and we should not start cuts now? Plus these comments from the IMF that we should not cut now in view of Stephs comments?

As for your comments on Branson. I think the majority of the UK public would prefer Bransons than a socialist who by all accounts wants to become the next leader of France.