Question time

Wookster

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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

Not just Pretend.

Last time I was served in any capacity by a brit in a cafe/ restaurant was quite a while ago.

grizzly1911

Doesn't just apply to Tower Hamlets either no different in deepest Lake District either.

That is probably more to do with their being few "locals" as they can't afford to live there. Guess the incomers are "content" to dos down wherever.

Emy1501

People have got used to living on credit and as most probably still believe the UK is a super power there are few who really believe we have a chance of becoming Greece. The Labour idea sounds more appealing the many as it's the easy way out with little pain. The Tory plan will soon be no longer acceptable as pain is now due to go on too long and I suspect they will have little chance of getting back in next time round.

As for the youth I agree with recruitment consultant towards the end. My eldest is at college and is part of the got all for doing nothing generation. Ps3, hd tv's, iPhones, blackberrys, laptops etc. These kids also had little discipline at school and its not a surprise that this kids find out that life gets a lot harder after the simple GCSE's they did.

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.

There's no race. But we have to compete. Plenty of Indian and Chinese people aspire to a Western lifestyle, i.e. easy living. Labour markets are now global. We must lose the island mentality as we are not immune to world events.

thor

The main idea I got from QT a few days ago was that it is not the tories' fault that their plan has been derailed. The EU crisis and global slowdown are the real culprits. Although I do seem to remember 3 or 4 years ago the CONservatives and Libdems blaming Labour for the huge debts racked up at that time despite the problem being the banks were ruining the world economy. Typical MP two facedness I suppose.

dunstonh

thor wrote: »

The main idea I got from QT a few days ago was that it is not the tories' fault that their plan has been derailed. The EU crisis and global slowdown are the real culprits. Although I do seem to remember 3 or 4 years ago the CONservatives and Libdems blaming Labour for the huge debts racked up at that time despite the problem being the banks were ruining the world economy. Typical MP two facedness I suppose.

Labour were not responsible for the credit crunch and recession. They were responsible for borrowing and spending during the good years and lining up a range of debts that need to be paid for later without any factoring in of future recessions.

You could compare Labour to the people that used their credit cards for spending beyond their means but then remortgaged to take advantage of increased equity in house but then borrowing on the credit again. Sooner or later that comes to an abrupt halt as it cant continue and the lifestyle that was supported with credit goes downhill fast once. That is the bit which Labour got wrong and the bit the country is having to face up to now.

flashnazia

chewmylegoff wrote: »

is JSA really a massive problem which disincentivises the young to work?

my albeit limited understanding of JSA is that the max you can claim is £50/week, and if you live at home with your parents and have never paid NIC, the total amount you can claim is £0. this understanding may be completely wrong of course.

I don't think it works like that. Plenty of people who have never paid NICs get JSA. There are two types of JSA: Income-based and contribution-based. The people with no NICs can get income-based. The contribution-based one is if you live with a partner who is working, it only lasts six months. This was how it was a few year's ago so it may have changed.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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. .....

Reason being, SHE wants the benefits. If he leaves, she will be left high and dry. ...

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

I used to go in the Benefits board for fun (yes, I am that sad).

It amazed my how many threads there were from people lamenting the coming of age of the youngest angel and complaining that they would be left high and dry with no money to feed themselves.

Call me a cynic, but I also believe the rules that require a lone-parent to tranfer to JSA once their youngest is five is sparking a new baby boom...

Rochdale_Pioneers

dunstonh wrote: »

Labour were not responsible for the credit crunch and recession. They were responsible for borrowing and spending during the good years and lining up a range of debts that need to be paid for later without any factoring in of future recessions.

You could compare Labour to the people that used their credit cards for spending beyond their means but then remortgaged to take advantage of increased equity in house but then borrowing on the credit again. Sooner or later that comes to an abrupt halt as it cant continue and the lifestyle that was supported with credit goes downhill fast once. That is the bit which Labour got wrong and the bit the country is having to face up to now.

Which is fine. Until you remember that for all of this spending binge Labour had less debt than they inherited until the crash forced them to start buying banks. Or that Labour ran a surplus for more years of their 13 than the Tories ran in 18. Or that Cameron's response to Labour's profligate spending was to pledge to match it if elected.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can't erase what was said and done at the time.

dunstonh

Which is fine. Until you remember that for all of this spending binge Labour had less debt than they inherited until the crash forced them to start buying banks. Or that Labour ran a surplus for more years of their 13 than the Tories ran in 18.

Labour inherited a country in a much better state than the tories did in 79 and the conlibs have inherited now.

Or that Cameron's response to Labour's profligate spending was to pledge to match it if elected.

The voting public is generally stupid. They dont vote for what is needed (at times either Conservatives or Labour are needed). He was wrong to say that. However, had he said we were going cut back we would probably see another Labour Govt now.

chewmylegoff

flashnazia wrote: »

I don't think it works like that. Plenty of people who have never paid NICs get JSA. There are two types of JSA: Income-based and contribution-based. The people with no NICs can get income-based. The contribution-based one is if you live with a partner who is working, it only lasts six months. This was how it was a few year's ago so it may have changed.

yes, but the income-based is means tested and i don't think you get it if you live at home with your parents and they have a "normal" income. i would have thought a great many unemployed people between the ages of 16-24 are in exactly that situation, but this may just be complete nonsense as i am absolutely guessing.