Question time

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That was aimed at purposely confusing the audience, to try and make out Ken Clarke was talking nonsense.

I don't believe that he didn't know what he was on about. I think he knew he was purposely confusing the situation in the hope people would believe what he had to say.

What he was saying was true, we do control our own interest rates.

But it wasn't anything to do with what everyone else was talking about.

he said that the "markets" take account of the independence of our fiscal policy from europe and that therefore interest rates would remain low under labour's borrow more and spend more policies.

markets couldn't care less about who sets our base rate, rather they would like to know whether we are good for the capital and coupon.

if greece could set its own base-rate, its bond yield would still be 353,445,213%.

weasel words from him.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Welfare makes our lot not want to take jobs.

as above - does it really though?

i'm not sure what benefits you get as a young person (whatever the f a young person is - probably defined in the same dictionary as a hard working family), but i don't think you get to swan around living the life of riley.

clearly, once children become involved things get very different, but most of the yoof don't have a load of kids and aren't therefore able to milk the benefits gravy train. i accept there are some on thinks like DLA when they clearly shouldn't be, but i would be surprised if the majority of the 20% employed aged 16-24 or whatever it is receive huge amounts of benefits.

Rochdale_Pioneers

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Controlled capitalism with fair redistribution of gains OK, greed and profiteering at the expense of others bad?

In my mind it is the redistribution bit that is failing. Shame really because there are no pockets in shrouds.

I don't understand the people cheering on the race to the bottom. Slash wages, slash benefits, slash employee protections. A race to the bottom drags everyone working downwards including the cheerleaders.

Actually no, I do understand it. Its the people who still think there is a middle class, that being a member of the middle class makes them better than the proles below them and immune to such effects. Its an illusion. If you have to work for a living you are economically speaking working class. The MD of the company works just as hard as the guy on the production line and both need the work to pay their bills. "Middle class" might buy you fancier trinkets than "working class" but you're both as dependent as each other on keeping in a job and both form economic cogs in the same process. For the ogliarchs in the 1% at the top there is no distinction - its created purely by snobbery in the middle and exploited to divide us. Same with public vs private sector, unionised vs non etc etc.

stonethrower

A friend of mine had to sign on after 43 years working as a fitter welder. for the last few years he was a foreman and when he was made redundant he knew that he would not be physically able to do welding again. After 15 months on the dole he got a job working as a night porter in a hotel and now he reckons he is about £15 a week better of than he was on the dole and can now understand why some people can't be bothered to work.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Welfare makes our lot not want to take jobs.

If there was a surplus of jobs then I would be tempted to agree.

It may account for some, it always will.

Unfettered economic immigration just imports a dole queue if there are insufficient jobs.

Now that EU migrants will be allowed to claim benefits then our position is just going to get worse IMO.

In addition if we have the unemployed plus economic immigrants using our "infrastructure" without adequate provision then this is adding to the problem.

It is easy to have a go at the effect without sorting out the cause because that is the softer target.

Didn't see Qt last night but surprised the labour guy appeared so bad. Have seen him on some of the select committees and elsewhere and thought he seemed OK, politics aside. Perhaps it wasn't his strongest subject matter.

StevieJ

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I like Deborah Meaden, thought she was straightforward and was interested in her views. I like Dragon's Den, and think it's just what we need.

She spouted total bullsh1t for me, not unusual on question time, much prefer This Week where even politicians sound human for a change

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

as above - does it really though?

i'm not sure what benefits you get as a young person (whatever the f a young person is - probably defined in the same dictionary as a hard working family), but i don't think you get to swan around living the life of riley.

clearly, once children become involved things get very different, but most of the yoof don't have a load of kids and aren't therefore able to milk the benefits gravy train. i accept there are some on thinks like DLA when they clearly shouldn't be, but i would be surprised if the majority of the 20% employed aged 16-24 or whatever it is receive huge amounts of benefits.

Often theres an incentive for the child not to go into work, or to stay in education from the parents perspective.

My cousin left secondary school this year. Wanting to go out into the big wide world, his mum twisted his arm to continue in education. A complete waste of his time, he's just not that kind of person. He'd be pretty good at joinery and stuff like that, but his mum is holding him back.

Reason being, SHE wants the benefits. If he leaves, she will be left high and dry. Another reason she wants him to stay is she will soon be overcrowded. If thats the case, he may need rehoming. Won't happen quick, but if he moved his girlfriend in, it may happen quicker.

Therefore its straight from education to being housed, without working.

We don't get on with them too well, and even though the benefits system is messed up, I don't think they will get very far. But they are trying, even if my cousin doesn't quite realise what hes being used for. I'm sure she has perfectly good intent with the education. However, there IS an ulterior motive and shes openly stated so.

If he went and got a job and moved in with a mate, it would mess her plans up and reduce her income. So it doesn't always have to be the child themselves who are reliant on the benefits, or hold back from work.

I'm sure she can't be the only hanger on.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

She spouted total bullsh1t for me, not unusual on question time, much prefer This Week where even politicians sound human for a change

Out of interest, what was rubbish?

Found her a breath of fresh air to be honest. She actually seemed to answer the questions directly, with an answer that had substence and didn't need to play the political game. 2 minute argument from labour trying to confuse the public as to interest rates, and Deborah simply stated "no, it doesn't work that way, investors will require higher interest rates if we spend more and thats that" and then moved on to answer the question while the labour politician looked totally bemused that she could undermine him within 3 seconds flat.

I liked her idea of making it easier for the wealthy to direct loans to business's. It would take some setting up and regulation, but sounded pretty fair.

stonethrower

What they also mentioned was most kids don't want to work in trades or engineering which is a big problem.

lisyloo

What they also mentioned was most kids don't want to work in trades or engineering which is a big problem.

That wasn't my take on it at all.
What she (deborah meaden) said is that we are totally failing our young people by not preparing them for the skills/jobs that are available.
it's not their likes and dislikes that are the issue, it's our total failure to prepare them and WE are the one setting up their expectations, WE are responsible.