CSR and 'new jobs' - the question that dare not speak its name

greenbubble

Alan_Cross wrote: »

whether to save or spend,

ok , lets ask you a question .

you have said that people will now save (pay down debt in the majority), in what situation could you have actually seen people spend instead (and using what mechanism) ?

green

Alan_Cross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Too many.

All seem to stem from one party too. The party that condemns anything the other parties do, but don't seem to actually tell us what they would do.

As for the private sector jobs. Who knows. I don't really see how magically the private sector will just find placements from thin air, especially as everyone cuts back.

Right, so you deny absolutely having been 'told' that Labour would 1. reduce the deficit more slowly, 2. take more by tax and less by cuts and 3. make the bankers pay more than this proposed wimpish 'levy'...

... you deny hearing that, do you? Or maybe is it that you just don't want to hear?

There are some on these forums who maintain an upfront - but spurious - 'evenhandedness' in their approach to issues - and if you are looking for shills these should be foremost in your researches...

tomterm8

It's billed as workforce reductions. Doing the sums, it's less than 100,000 a year, and you could get that kind of number just from a recruitment freeze. And it is based on not being able to negotiate deals with unions for a longer pay freeze... my back of envelope calculation is that if you had a pay freeze accross the entire public sector for the 4 years of this review period, there would not need to be any reduction in head count at all.

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Right, so you deny absolutely having been 'told' that Labour would 1. reduce the deficit more slowly, 2. take more by tax and less by cuts and 3. make the bankers pay more than this proposed wimpish 'levy'...

... you deny hearing that, do you? Or maybe is it that you just don't want to hear?

No.

How though. Detail.

It's not just me who states they won't say anything. Should have heard the BBC onto one of the labour spokespeople earlier. Made mincemeat of him by saying the same thing.

macaque_2

Charlton_King wrote: »

Ok, so with the private sector also undergoing contraction as a result of the massive, public sector cuts, exactly where are the jobs going to come from over the next 3 - 4 years to bring economic growth back..?

Am I the only one pondering this and thinking that all the answers I've heard so far just don't make sense and amount, at best, to wishful thinking?

There are two private sectors.

1. Those who provide necessary goods or services to willing buyers at competitive market prices.
2. Those who provide goods or services at prices which are partially or wholly subsidised by tax payer's money.

The less we waste on '2', the more competitive '1' becomes. If we are to survive in a global market, we have to reduce our dependence on government subsidised private sector jobs. There are far too many consultants, advisors, job trainers, organisers, leaders etc inventing roles for themselves at the tax payers expense. If Labour excelled at anything, it was blurring the line between the public and private sector.

Alan_Cross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.

How though. Detail.

It's not just me who states they won't say anything. Should have heard the BBC onto one of the labour spokespeople earlier. Made mincemeat of him by saying the same thing.

Let me get this right.

You are demanding, now, a blow-by-blow, detailed account of exactly what Labour are proposing to do after the next general election.

So were YOU one of the people demanding the same from the Tories during their recent umpteen years of self-imposed silence on just such detail? I assume you recall those years when Dopey Dave cycled round Westminster with nothing in his policy portfolio on economic measures, quite deliberately, until a few months before May of this year?

Selective memory, dear Graham? Heaven forfend that one might be tempted to use the term 'shill' in your hypocritical case...

greenbubble

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Let me get this right.

You are demanding, now, a blow-by-blow, detailed account of exactly what Labour are proposing to do after the next general election.

So were YOU one of the people demanding the same from the Tories during their recent umpteen years of self-imposed silence on just such detail? I assume you recall those years when Dopey Dave cycled round Westminster with nothing in his policy portfolio on economic measures, quite deliberately, until a few months before May of this year?

Selective memory, dear Graham? Heaven forfend that one might be tempted to use the term 'shill' in your hypocritical case...

so are you saying that because they didnt give any answers im not going to either ?

green

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Let me get this right.

You are demanding, now, a blow-by-blow, detailed account of exactly what Labour are proposing to do after the next general election.

So were YOU one of the people demanding the same from the Tories during their recent umpteen years of self-imposed silence on just such detail? I assume you recall those years when Dopey Dave cycled round Westminster with nothing in his policy portfolio on economic measures, quite deliberately, until a few months before May of this year?

Selective memory, dear Graham? Heaven forfend that one might be tempted to use the term 'shill' in your hypocritical case...

I'm not demanding anything.

And I'm not talking about the next election, I'm talking about now.

I'm just asking you, as someone who slams the tories whatever they do or don't do, and an obvious labour fan, to tell us what labour would have done.

You've been able to tell me exactly what any other labourite has been able to. Basically, that they would have done better, but you aint got the foggiest idea how, and neither do you wish to enter such discussion.

Sorry to have irk'ed you.

careinthecommunity

PasturesNew wrote: »

Everybody's going to become an Avon Lady, or Betterware Catalogue Distributor.

This will be a growth time for MLM and network marketing ..... and £££s will be lost by buying startup kits and believing the guff.

you forgot the cupcake industry..

Alan_Cross

greenbubble wrote: »

so are you saying that because they didnt give any answers im not going to either ?

green

It was Graham who was demanding the answers. I merely pointed out his arrant hypocrisy. He has previous on this so it was no surprise to see him parading as an unbiased thinker instead of the dyed-in-the-wool Tory he actually is.

I think the Labour team should indeed be more precise and I'm sure that, unlike the Tories over the last several years, they will be more upfront with the electorate over proposals.

They have already given the broad outlines - and I have yet to hear anyone, self-serving. politically-slanted ads taken out by the super rich in our daily papers aside, give a reasoned argument as to why a more measured, less economically poisonous approach would be such a bad idea.

This was the Labour - and indeed the Libdem - theme at the last election and I have little doubt that it is the more sensible, less risky strategy.