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

Graham_Devon

Alan_Cross wrote: »

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?

So thats the answer?

"I'll slag off tories and anyone who vaguely looks like they support them for everything they do, but don't expect to ask any questions of labour, they would have done better, just do not ask me how because it doesn't matter".

At least we cleared it up I guess.

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.

So I can class you as a tory then?

Unless of course labour did everything they said they would do in opposition.

Laughable.

Laters.

Alan_Cross

greenbubble wrote: »

post #12 from this thread

post #67 from this thread

green

Post 12 - I'm not saying people would definitely start coming out and spending - what I am saying is that this policy has put paid to any remote prospect thereof. It was a possibility, although admittedly in the balance, thanks to the recovery initiated by Labour under GB. Now it's dead in the water and we face a hugely greater prospect of an Irish nosedive.

Post 67 - GB had to keep spending levels up in order to get anywhere near re-establishing historical levels of spending on schools, hospitals etc. He made no secret of this, despite the agenda of certain people to claim that it was all profligacy. YOU may not remember how school roofs were falling in and people were waiting years for ordinary hospital procedures under Thatcher and Major - but I certainly do.

chris_m

Alan_Cross wrote: »

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?

Of course they kept quiet - they learned quite quickly that any idea they had and publicised tended to get nicked by Bliar and Clown.

greenbubble

thank you for responding.

with regards to post #12 response which is from this thread.

and i will admit this upfront as possibly being rhetorical , but do you really see the end result being different whichever path we take ?

this probably goes more to my thinking that we are damned if we do and we are damned if we dont.

green

Alan_Cross

greenbubble wrote: »

thank you for responding.

with regards to post #12 response which is from this thread.

and i will admit this upfront as possibly being rhetorical , but do you really see the end result being different whichever path we take ?

this probably goes more to my thinking that we are damned if we do and we are damned if we dont.

green

I saw a possibility, as stated. That was important and cannot be stressed enough. The Government should have gone for that possibility, hell for leather. They should have prized our fledgling recovery and attempted to nurture it. No possibility now exists after today's sledgehammer, slash-and-burn tactics, IMHO...

... and to return, finally, to the topic, jobs and people being paid money are the only conceivable engine of recovery. Where are these jobs coming from?

How ludicrous of the cobblition not to realise the overriding importance of public perception, as I have stated before. If people see what looks like a siege economy - even if it is not - are they going to go out and spend? Will shareholders happily sit back and countenance their companies making large scale investments for the future? The hell they will.

This is the economics of the madhouse... and a pretty dumb madhouse at that.

greenbubble

Jowo wrote: »

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...

add into this , migrant workers , has the game now become one of wage defaltion rather than wage inflation , couple this with BoE's apparent remit of creating inflation.

is this how the debt will be paid back ?

green

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Alan_Cross wrote: »

This is the economics of the madhouse... and a pretty dumb madhouse at that.

Nonsense.

Spending is increasing every year of this parliament.

2011-12: £651 bn

2012-13: £665 bn

2013-14: £679 bn

2014-15: £693 bn

Natural attrition in the public sector is 300,000 a year, and they'll be reducing positions by 120,000 a year. They'll still need to hire 180,000 people a year.

And in the meantime, private sector employment is projected to increase by 2.6 million over the term of the parliament, and it looks like unemployment has well and truly peaked.



Todays spending review will succeed in rebalancing the economy towards the private sector away from the public sector, but all within an overall pattern of growth.

Squeeky bum time is limited to public sector non-jobbers and benefits claimants. Labours client state, in other words.

The rest of the country is going to do very well indeed over the next few years.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Its simple - jobs = growth. The cuts remove half a million public sector jobs. AND at least the same again in the private sector as public money spent there dries up, and public sector employees stop spending their ex salary.

So thats a good million taxpayers about to STOP paying taxes. And stop spending money spending which pays VAT, and keeps other people in jobs and companies making profits. AND they're all going to claim benefits. So a cut in government revenue and an increase in government spending.

These cuts will increase the deficit. The plan only works if the private sector creates 2.5m jobs in 4 years. Remember that in 10 years of boom they only created 1.4m jobs. Without those new jobs we stick with 4 million or so on the dole, not paying taxes, not spending money, receiving the dole.

Labour's response is simple - don't cut so hard that you create mass unemployment and cripple the economy this way. People work, pay taxes, spend money. Receipts go up, the deficit goes down.

Charlton_King

Alan_Cross wrote: »

I saw a possibility, as stated. That was important and cannot be stressed enough. The Government should have gone for that possibility, hell for leather. They should have prized our fledgling recovery and attempted to nurture it. No possibility now exists after today's sledgehammer, slash-and-burn tactics, IMHO...

... and to return, finally, to the topic, jobs and people being paid money are the only conceivable engine of recovery. Where are these jobs coming from?

How ludicrous of the cobblition not to realise the overriding importance of public perception, as I have stated before. If people see what looks like a siege economy - even if it is not - are they going to go out and spend? Will shareholders happily sit back and countenance their companies making large scale investments for the future? The hell they will.

This is the economics of the madhouse... and a pretty dumb madhouse at that.

Too true - this is such elementary stuff. It defies belief to think that grown up people can't see this, yet somehow the act of forming the coalition seems to have blinded Cameron and especially Clegg to the effects of simple, human reactions to things.

This is very strange in people who claim to be politicians and supposedly have a basic grasp of what makes folk tick. There's no denying there's a kind of messianic light in their eyes, though, as they keep ever on about cuts, cuts and yet more cuts. They've become indoctrinated by their own propaganda without giving alternatives any consideration worth the name.

I wonder how many Libby Demmies are really sold on this reduce the state Tory agenda that they find themselves having to peddle on the doorstep. Next year's local elections will give us the first answers on that one.

Especially after Mervie King's two-penorth, you can now expect the prospect of recovery to float gently down the river and out of sight.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its simple - jobs = growth. The cuts remove half a million public sector jobs. AND at least the same again in the private sector as public money spent there dries up, and public sector employees stop spending their ex salary.

So thats a good million taxpayers about to STOP paying taxes. And stop spending money spending which pays VAT, and keeps other people in jobs and companies making profits. AND they're all going to claim benefits. So a cut in government revenue and an increase in government spending.

These cuts will increase the deficit. The plan only works if the private sector creates 2.5m jobs in 4 years. Remember that in 10 years of boom they only created 1.4m jobs. Without those new jobs we stick with 4 million or so on the dole, not paying taxes, not spending money, receiving the dole.

Seriously interesting statistic.