If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

mayonnaise wrote: »

Orla Guerin and Lyse Doucet caused the rapid spread of the Arab Spring...

According to Arabs themselves yes, on Al Jazzera and elsewhere, but the narrow 'liberal' wont be aware of discourse beyond the BBC / Guardian axis of course.


Orla Guerin and others were onto the original Tunisian uprising like a shot, gleeful, full of praise and awe, and their narratives and enthusiasm for people seeking their democratic rights, went viral and influenced Syrians and others


NO, not entirely down to them, I didn't say that though

ruggedtoast

The definition of unemployment in Germany:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24608/1/dp07041.pdf

Persons are counted as not in employment, if they are not employed or are employed for less
than 15 hours per week, and are searching for employment of at least 15 hours with compulsory
social insurance contributions. This means that the person has to and is willing to endeavour
all possibilities to end the period of having no job, including being at the disposal for
a placement through the Federal Employment Service. This availability to work is more precisely
defined as being capable of work and willing to take up a reasonable employment under
usual or standard conditions.

Makes sense. The UK's definition is a bit different. In fact when you consider that someone in a pointless training scheme is doubly counted, both as not unemployed, and employed, and that zero hours contracts count as employment, and also that people who can't claim benefits because the Tories took them away, but still want to work - then the UK really is hiding quite a lot of people who are jobless and don't want to be.

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

We have the Thatcher government to thank for the majority of the statistical trickery which currently renders the government released unemployment figures redundant. Prior to 1979, the unemployment rate was anyone registered as unemployed, this was converted to a percentage of the total workforce and that was the published unemployment rate. Then some changes came in:

Redefining Unemployment: originally defined as those ‘registered’ unemployed, changed to only count ‘claimants’ – this obviously reduced the number greatly as many unemployed people do not, for various reasons, claim benefits.
Cutting Benefit Entitlements: By making changes to the benefit system (who is eligible and not) the government can magic away unemployment numbers by simply removing eligibility for benefits. If the person cannot claim, they are not classed as unemployed.
Training Schemes & Work Programmes: the conservative government of the 80’s began to double count those in training & work programmes. First, they excluded them from the unemployed figures, then they added them to the total workforce figures – this means that simply by recruiting people into a work programme, the government has reduced the unemployment figures. Prior to Thatcher, these schemes were not counted as employment.

If anyone wants to read the Sheffield Hallam study, them it's here:

http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/real-level-of-unemployment-2012.pdf

Once you add in people who are unemployed who are actually unemployed, then the UK's real unemployment rate is about 10%. Or double that of Germany, which doesn't count people on zero hours or short part time as "employed".

I realise that Clapton and Conrad will immediately leap over this as a cause to shut the doors to immigrants. Of course they will, xenophobes see everything through the prism of their own fear.

The actual comparative facts are that Germany is much more open to immigration than the UK, receives the lion's share of asylum applications (500,000 people are seeking asylum in Germany at the moment), is part of the EU, doesn't count unemployed people as employed, and is doing better than us.

Conrad

As I've travelled across Germany I have not found the Rotherhams, the Bradfords, Leicesters, Coventry's, Birminghams, Lutons etc etc

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Statistics are often manipulated to fit your pre-existing message.

Indeed they are.

Masomnia

We use the standard International Definition of 'Unemployment'. So no you can't 'magic away' unemployed people by removing the right to benefits.

'If the person cannot claim, they are not classed as unemployed.'

Is completely wrong.

Post truth, innit?

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't have it. Do you have any breakdown to show that these people who caused the reduction in unemployment went on to get a full time job on a normal contract?

Do we have any idea why the unemployment figure went down? Higher than usual death rate caused by the sudden cold winter? Moving out of the country for work? Moving them into some new "not-unemployed" jobseekers style category? Crappy casual employment? Good employment?

I'm not saying the figure is *wrong*, I'm saying there's a lot of interpretation there, and the figures have been deliberately misleading in the past.

And all I'm saying is that there shouldn't be any interpretation.

Jobless figures have fallen. The end.

The previous figures were likely counted using the same methodology as this set of figures, and the number has decreased since then. I doubt very much that the methodology for counting such figures changes each time to put forward the narrative that the government wants to portray.

You are aware that there is a body responsible for making sure things like that don't happen?

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/monitoring-and-assessment/

Are these people not doing their job? Perhaps we should sack them all and save the taxpayer some money if we're just going to interpret, discredit and disavow the statistics each time they come out.

It comes across as tinfoil hat conspiracy think.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The definition of unemployment in Germany:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24608/1/dp07041.pdf



Makes sense. The UK's definition is a bit different. In fact when you consider that someone in a pointless training scheme is doubly counted, both as not unemployed, and employed, and that zero hours contracts count as employment, and also that people who can't claim benefits because the Tories took them away, but still want to work - then the UK really is hiding quite a lot of people who are jobless and don't want to be.

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/



If anyone wants to read the Sheffield Hallam study, them it's here:

http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/real-level-of-unemployment-2012.pdf

Once you add in people who are unemployed who are actually unemployed, then the UK's real unemployment rate is about 10%. Or double that of Germany, which doesn't count people on zero hours or short part time as "employed".

I realise that Clapton and Conrad will immediately leap over this as a cause to shut the doors to immigrants. Of course they will, xenophobes see everything through the prism of their own fear.

The actual comparative facts are that Germany is much more open to immigration than the UK, receives the lion's share of asylum applications (500,000 people are seeking asylum in Germany at the moment), is part of the EU, doesn't count unemployed people as employed, and is doing better than us.

Have you actually read that study from Sheffield Hallam?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And all I'm saying is that there shouldn't be any interpretation.

But it's a statistic, so there's always going to be bias and interpretation. It's utterly Naive to think otherwise, especially since you made such a big deal about doing your own research into anything the SNP says.

Jobless figures have fallen. The end.

For a given meaning of "Jobless", I agree with you. But what the statistic publisher counts as "jobless" is not what you'd naturally assume.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

We don't. I haven't seen any vote of confidence in the UK. Plenty of opportunities to make money from it either way, especially with the weak GBP.

A vote of confidence in the UK economy, is people willing to buy UK assets because they believe they will make money:

Conrad

Europeans in large number continue choosing the UK over other destinations to come make a life. Nuff said.