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

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

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.

Correction:

"Dye-in-the-wool tory" lib dem voter. :doh:

Jowo_2

It's not just the contraction of the public sector which will lead to higher numbers of job seekers.

There's also the migration of millions of claimants from Incapacity Benefit to ESA over the next few years which is resulting in the vast majority of them either withdrawing their claim or being ported onto Job Seekers Allowance, based on a recent snapshot of the cases.

There's also the changes for single parents who used to be able to claim Income Support up to a few years ago until their youngest child went to secondary school which has recently reduced to 7 and will be further reduced to around 5. Hundreds of thousands of single parents must be transferring onto JSA in the next few years who would ordinarily have a bit more sofa surfing time.

If EMA is withdrawn for those staying on in school/college (not sure of the govt plans for it), plus the increases in tuition fees for degree students, this could also reduce the number who stay in education and swell the ranks of job seekers.

Also, the proposal to reduce housing benefit for JSA claimants who haven't found a job in a year could also send some scrambling back to the workplace, too.

Lots and lots of competition for jobs in the next year or two...

amcluesent

The obvious first place to keep taking the JSA but work is 'on the black', cash in hand, nods-as-good-as-a-wink as it's now extremely silly to be on PAYE.

The Condem's millionaire cabinet may be chuckling to themselves tonight, but everyone else must be wondering exactly for whom they are working a dutifully paying their taxes.

This has to be the day that middle-class England starts thinking like the Greeks and Italians and regards tax as 'optional' and to be actively avoided.

Also, think smart and move savings to arms length and/or into bullion so that you don't miss out on means-tested benefits.

The plain fact is that confiscatory taxation is the norm now and it'll only get worse.

Alan_Cross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Correction:

"Dye-in-the-wool tory" lib dem voter. :doh:

Exactly...

.... those who will still vote for them are little other than Tories.

And TBH what I've seen of your postings over the years are virtually indistinguishable from those of your average, rabid, right wing ranter.

I personally have never sought to conceal my left wing thinking - and therein I distinguish myself from you and your laughable attempts to pose as having 'middle-way' ideas.

greenbubble

Alan_Cross wrote: »

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.

I thought he was asking for just a few minor points to at least start a debate from (maybe im wrong) , but this is now the second thread where you have haven't answered a question of mine put to you , but instead ,you just go on to repeat yappy little party slogans (couldnt care from which ever spectrum of the political divide it comes from).

doesn't really add much does it ?

green

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Exactly...

.... those who will still vote for them are little other than Tories.

And TBH what I've seen of your postings over the years are virtually indistinguishable from those of your average, rabid, right wing ranter.

I personally have never sought to conceal my left wing thinking - and therein I distinguish myself from you and your laughable attempts to pose as having 'middle-way' ideas.

Jeez Alan, I was only asking you what labour would have done, after your rantings about the coalition efforts.

Seems to have really upset you.

You have cast several labels on me just for asking these questions, of which, you have got wrong. I voted lib dem at the last elections, I can't "do anything" about "still" being a lib dem voter, as I've not had chance to vote again since.

I dunno what all this middle way ideas are all about. All I asked is what labour would have done, and you've got all uppety and thrown plenty of insults, but avoided the actual question throughout.

If all you want to do is slag off the tories for anything they do, then slag off anyone who questions labour as a dye in the wool tory voter wrongly, then slag the person off in question for anything you possibly can....all while avoiding the question. Fine. I can deal with that. But it would be nice to challenge a labour voter without all the above and just discuss issues.

Alan_Cross

greenbubble wrote: »

I thought he was asking for just a few minor points to at least start a debate from (maybe im wrong) , but this is now the second thread where you have haven't answered a question of mine put to you , but instead ,you just go on to repeat yappy little party slogans (couldnt care from which ever spectrum of the political divide it comes from).

doesn't really add much does it ?

green

I'm not sure what 'doesn't really add much' means... but by all means repeat your question, whatever it was, which I was so impolite as to ignore. However, let me warn you now that I normally ignore questions when they are either rhetorical or so stupid as not to rate a response...

greenbubble

post #12 from this thread

post #67 from this thread

green

careinthecommunity

i do agree jowo, but thought i would comment

Jowo wrote: »

It's not just the contraction of the public sector which will lead to higher numbers of job seekers.

no there is also the private sector that rely on public sector contracts

Jowo wrote: »

There's also the migration of millions of claimants from Incapacity Benefit to ESA over the next few years which is resulting in the vast majority of them either withdrawing their claim or being ported onto Job Seekers Allowance, based on a recent snapshot of the cases.

agree but i think this will be just shifting numbers from dla (whatever) to long term unemployed

Jowo wrote: »

There's also the changes for single parents who used to be able to claim Income Support up to a few years ago until their youngest child went to secondary school which has recently reduced to 7 and will be further reduced to around 5. Hundreds of thousands of single parents must be transferring onto JSA in the next few years who would ordinarily have a bit more sofa surfing time.

same as above, but without trying too, but achieving daily express reader status there are a lot of career mums out there and it is going to need a major shift in the general phsyce

Jowo wrote: »

Also, the proposal to reduce housing benefit for JSA claimants who haven't found a job in a year could also send some scrambling back to the workplace, too.

but where are the jobs going to come from?

Jowo wrote: »

Lots and lots of competition for jobs in the next year or two...

= lower wages = less incentive = same situation

Alan_Cross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Jeez Alan, I was only asking you what labour would have done, after your rantings about the coalition efforts.

Seems to have really upset you.

You have cast several labels on me just for asking these questions, of which, you have got wrong. I voted lib dem at the last elections, I can't "do anything" about "still" being a lib dem voter, as I've not had chance to vote again since.

I dunno what all this middle way ideas are all about. All I asked is what labour would have done, and you've got all uppety and thrown plenty of insults, but avoided the actual question throughout.

If all you want to do is slag off the tories for anything they do, then slag off anyone who questions labour as a dye in the wool tory voter wrongly, then slag the person off in question for anything you possibly can....all while avoiding the question. Fine. I can deal with that. But it would be nice to challenge a labour voter without all the above and just discuss issues.

Why should you expect a fully detailed policy from Labour? What right does any government supporter have to ask that, when the Tories kept quiet about what they would do in government for, quite literally, years?

There is now no difference between Tories and Liberals on economic policy, remember? Ask Saint Vince of the Volte-Face.

So why should I categorise a Libdem supporter as being anything other than a Tory? Your party said one thing in opposition and is now saying completely different things when riding in ministerial limousines.

And let's be honest, dear Graham, your posts have always been vehemently anti-Labour while, curiously, not saying much about Tory excesses. To me that smacks of a blue in yellow clothing. You truly live up to that interpretation of the Libdem logo as being a snake in the grass.