Question time

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

From next year, for that cohort, it is mandatory to continue in education until 18 isn't it?

Won't be long til that goes to 21, if pension age increase are anything to go by;), to keep the unemployed figure down, especially the NEETS.

I wonder what the minimum age is for an economic migrant, even if they can be proved in some instances?

chewmylegoff

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

yeah it was good apart from billy effing bragg and jodie effing marsh.

and andrew neill's hairpiece is so irritating.

grizzly1911

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

Apart from the obvious lack of well paid jobs most engineering type jobs have usually been "relatively" lowly paid.

They are lured into wanton consumption and this doesn't meet their expectation as you say.

Whether that is their fault or the fault of the society we live in is the question. If they see the wealthy consuming like no tomorrow why shouldn't they have a reasonable chance to be part of it? The gulf is becoming wider and the fruit moves ever higher.

Sapphire

grizzly1911 wrote: »

They are lured into wanton consumption and this doesn't meet their expectation as you say.

Whether that is their fault or the fault of the society we live in is the question. If they see the wealthy consuming like no tomorrow why shouldn't they have a reasonable chance to be part of it? The gulf is becoming wider and the fruit moves ever higher.

It has ever been thus, though, in history, in any society, including under communism. There has always been a massively wealthy minority and a medium well off to an extremely poor much larger portion of society. The last existed even until the 1950s in the UK. And by poor I mean really poor, living in the sorts of conditions few people living today, apart from some elderly people, have experienced.

The difference now is that over the last 15 years or so everyone – particularly the young – has been indoctrinated with a massive sense of entitlement, with an unrealistic sense of expectation. Now it's all collapsing like a pack of cards, overwhelming debt having created the situation in the first place, and (probably) soon returning to how it used to be. Problem is that a large part of society is having to adjust its thinking, and is doing so very reluctantly.

lisyloo

I think that sums it's up nicely Sapphire.

tomterm8

Wookster wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion that what this country needs is a labour government.

It has become clear to me that
1. the labour 'everyone can have anything now without paying for it' propaganda machine is far more appealing than the coalition message that one must eventually pay for what you consume
2. the frothing masses with their ever growing sense of entitlement don't see a problem in wanting more than they pay for.
3. the only way that message will get across to the fiscally incontinent is if the UK has a full blown sovereign debt crisis.

Do you really think the conservative and labour policies are much different from another? I can see a lot of rhetoric that is different, but what they actually do is remarkably similar.

lisyloo

What also came out last night particularly from the US commentator, was that whoever had been in power and whatever course they'd taken, we'd pretty much be in the same situation.
So the global/eurozone/commodity price problems transcend party politics.

chewmylegoff

tomterm8 wrote: »

Do you really think the conservative and labour policies are much different from another? I can see a lot of rhetoric that is different, but what they actually do is remarkably similar.

Quite. None of them know what they're doing, they spout rhetoric and then muddle through as best they can.

chewmylegoff

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its a disincentive for the small minority who have no interest in working.

For the majority the disincentive to work is the lack of available jobs. Regardless of your views on immigrant labour and your assumptions on which jobs that labour may be filling, there is a severe shortage of jobs at the moment in large parts of the country. All cutting JSA is going to do is increase destitution and crime, neither of which have positive effects on economic growth. Nor will they encourage employers to employ more people as the hit on confidence you get from mass unemployment gives them the view that people will spend less.

There is this perception that the minimum wage - and now from Wookster JSA - artificially inflates wages thus crushing job creation. And yet the cost of living isn't going to miraculously fall if wages fall, so people either spend even less or nick or starve. We need confidence in the future and a race to the bottom won't create it.

Its a simple plan thats worked before. Mass unemployment lets you flog employees beyond breaking point for lower wages and worse conditions because of the fear that someone more desperate than you will do the job for less. It creates a buyers market for the employer where they get to make bumper profits by getting away with paying the absolute minimum in wages and benefits. Good for them, bad for the majority.

I think what you say has a lot of merit and is no doubt true in many areas. However it doesn't explain why in areas where jobs are created they are not being filled by young British people.

I don't know what the youth unemployment rate is in tower hamlets but I bet it's high. What I do know is that almost 100% of the staff in pret, starbucks etc etc in canary wharf are east Europeans.

Either
I) Brits don't apply
Ii) they apply but are not the best applicants
III) pret a manger is racist

gailey_2

American guy is true europe opted austerity, usa stimulus we both screwed!

The labour guys is called chakka hes shadow business secretary.
Hes annoying he got famous on the select committee quizing bankers hes very chopsy.
Hes often on daily politics or sky news.

I dident watch it all the silly union woman annoyed me!