The Polls - Labour Lead At 14 - Is It The Economy?

MacMickster

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The world is global employment wise now. Communications and transport mean that there are multiple choices as to where Companies can be based. Politicians have little say in the matter. The UK has to develop a highly trained workforce to compete. As labourers are now 2 a penny. The likes of Apple manufacturer in the USA then ship to China for assembly. In the past 20 years. Around 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese have joined the global workforce. So those without a skill or trade may well struggle to find full employment.

I agree, but we will always have a large number of the working age population who don't have that skill or trade.

As a society we probably need to consider whether it is preferable to

Have all or most of these people working part-time and so share the income from the unskilled jobs out there. Unfortunately they are unlikely to have sufficient income to support a family.

Encourage employers to offer full-time jobs, so some may be able to support themselves and a family, but this will leave others unemployed, and some permanently unemployed.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

I don't know the answer to your question but it brings up an interesting more general point: who actually works for the Government in these days of a bloated sprawling state?

If I work in a factory making paper clips and my boss's biggest client is the local council am I a state employee? What about if I'm a self-employed IT support person who is contracted to the village GP surgery? That sort of spending will be picked up as Government spending in the GDP data but not in things like employment data.

You have spread the net further than I was thinking when I made the post but it is a valid point. Even though you may see yourself firmly in the private sector the companies fortunes are often tied into government spend or at least underwritten.

I was thinking more of labour subcontracted by private firms, paid for by the government, providing services historically provided & paid directly.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You have spread the net further than I was thinking when I made the post but it is a valid point. Even though you may see yourself firmly in the private sector the companies fortunes are often tied into government spend or at least underwritten.

I was thinking more of labour subcontracted by private firms, paid for by the government, providing services historically provided & paid directly.

It's clearly dealt with in this release from a single issue: the movement of some FE workers from the public to the private sector is clearly shown. I doubt that the surveys are sensitive enough to track things like individual council/hospital contracts being put out to tender: they are probably only accurate to 100,000 people anyway (that's certainly the case with the unemployment stats). My mate at UBS used to reckon that he should work the same hours as the Swiss Civil Service as that's who he was effectively employed by!

I don't know how things like that are classified. I'll ask the question. Some bits of Government are better at answering than others though: the BoE and stats geezers are generally excellent at coming back to you, others less so.

DecentLivingWage

ukip are back up again - could it be last nights frightening programme on evictions and repossessions - lots of debate around the issue of asylum seekers afterwards.

DecentLivingWage

Yup, looks as tho suspicions about that blip upwards for UKip might have been spot on .... more results toimorrow from ComRes, but all have lost out to ... who? Mostly Cons loss I'm guessing.

DecentLivingWage

(PS ... conversely, You Gov has Ukip at 8% - wonder what the story is there?) Other one is ComRes/Mirror - last night on BBC News channel papers review, they said Conservatives cannot hope to win from this position in 2015 and not likely to pull in any more support going forward.)

Wookster

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

(PS ... conversely, You Gov has Ukip at 8% - wonder what the story is there?) Other one is ComRes/Mirror - last night on BBC News channel papers review, they said Conservatives cannot hope to win from this position in 2015 and not likely to pull in any more support going forward.)

Excellent. We'll have the chance to watch and laugh as labourtake us ffarther down the Greek path, towards a debt crisis. I want to see the two eds struggling to make tough choices.

DecentLivingWage

Wookster wrote: »

Excellent. We'll have the chance to watch and laugh as labourtake us ffarther down the Greek path, towards a debt crisis. I want to see the two eds struggling to make tough choices.

Tough Choices? Did you think Camerons lot made any tough choices lol? The only tough choices he makes are those for other people! (Like the tough choice to cycle to Westminste... and have a car to take his 'box' following behind! I still chortle thinking of that !) He was never 'all in this together' - none of them were on the Cons side - worst mistake he ever made, coining that phrase, it'll pull him down like an anchor come the end.

A._Badger

Come off, it. The only tough choice Red Ed ever had to make was whether to take Marx or Engels as his holiday reading.

Cameron is, clearly, a revolting specimen. But anyone who thinks Mlliband (either of them) is any less greasy, hopelessly inexperienced, and the product of a mypioc, privileged background, is badly deluded.

Wookster

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Tough Choices? Did you think Camerons lot made any tough choices lol? The only tough choices he makes are those for other people! (Like the tough choice to cycle to Westminste... and have a car to take his 'box' following behind! I still chortle thinking of that !) He was never 'all in this together' - none of them were on the Cons side - worst mistake he ever made, coining that phrase, it'll pull him down like an anchor come the end.

Hilarious post.

Which is a tougher choice, cutting spending, knowing it will hurt folks or bribing the electorate with more and more money you can't afford?