Labours jobs miracle - a disaster for a whole generation

#1
#2
"Jeff Randall says it is way too late to blame the Tories for the latest, terrible unemployment figures."

Huh what da ya mean.
Too late to blame the hated Tory.
It's never too late means ta say we have only been in Absolute Power since 1997, mind you Good Old Gorden the Great has only been in top slot for 2 ? years ish.
john
It's never too late to explain to the Great Unwashed It's all the Tories fault, definitely Maggie's curse on UK.
 
#3
There is one reason, and one reason only that bLiar chucked it when he did - he saw the whole nulab 'miracle' was going to go tits up spectacular style. Forget the special deals about handing power over to Cyclops, bLiar left on his own terms at his time of choosing.

And since Cyclops has been the idiot who was in charge of the money all those years he deserves every single bit of sh!te he's getting now.

I get the impression New Labour could have been in power for 100 years and some people would still think it was all the Tories fault though :roll:
 
#5
In 1982, unemployment breached 3 million, 3 years after the Conservatives got into power - because she had to make massive changes to the economy to stop it collapsing completely (anyone remember 1979, 1978, 1977 etc - under Labour). Thatcher did not inherit a good economy, she got the leftovers of ruin and incompetence - left behind by Labour.

12 years after Labour got into power, a new Conservative Prime Minister is being left exactly the same legacy. A country ruined by envious, spiteful, incompetent liars. It's going to take another generation to fix broken Britain again. Before this is done, unemployment is going to hit approx. 3.5 million - maybe even 3.75 million as tens of thousands of non-jobs (jobs that massaged the unemployment figures, at huge cost to the tax-payer) in the state sector are thrown where they belong - in the bin, to balance the books.
 
#6
Sad thing about the "up to date" figure is, they neglect to mention that anyone who is signing on, and on a training course, is not included as being on the unemployed list.
Even though they are, and are still getting benefits, so the actual figure is almost twice the quoted number.
 
#7
Gren said:
Sad thing about the "up to date" figure is, they neglect to mention that anyone who is signing on, and on a training course, is not included as being on the unemployed list.
Even though they are, and are still getting benefits, so the actual figure is almost twice the quoted number.
Not to mention those on the sick because it's more convenient for the figures and the huge numbers of young people doing courses in Sugababes Studies at the University of Neasden etc.
 
#8
Indeed - they aren't counting those on incapacity either. In the last 12 years, about 2.5 million people have suddenly found themselves 'broken' rather than merely unemployed, and have thus been removed from the lists.

As you say - those on 'training', but signing on are excluded too.

Plus another 200,000 non-jobs created by the state merely to reduce the unemployed rates still further.

Not to mention the 10's of thousands who have lost their jobs but haven't signed on, due to redundancy payments or the fact that their partners now support them.

I would hazard a guess and say that the REAL unemployed figure in the UK (those able to work, but not in work) is somewhere closer to 5 million.
 
#9
The real catastrophe on the conservative years wasn't the cyclical unemployment, it was the elimination of an entire sector of the economy that provided jobs with decent pay and prospects that were both suitable for the non-academic and fostered a sense of community amongst those involved with them. It was a mistake no one else in Europe made, and one we'll never be able to row back from.
 
#10
Extremist said:
Indeed - they aren't counting those on incapacity either. In the last 12 years, about 2.5 million people have suddenly found themselves 'broken' rather than merely unemployed, and have thus been removed from the lists.
You might want to look into when that really happened:

 
#11
parapauk said:
The real catastrophe on the conservative years wasn't the cyclical unemployment, it was the elimination of an entire sector of the economy that provided jobs with decent pay and prospects that were both suitable for the non-academic and fostered a sense of community amongst those involved with them. It was a mistake no one else in Europe made, and one we'll never be able to row back from.
I think your location should read Planet Zog., not earth.

msr
 
#12
msr said:
parapauk said:
The real catastrophe on the conservative years wasn't the cyclical unemployment, it was the elimination of an entire sector of the economy that provided jobs with decent pay and prospects that were both suitable for the non-academic and fostered a sense of community amongst those involved with them. It was a mistake no one else in Europe made, and one we'll never be able to row back from.
I think your location should read Planet Zog., not earth.

msr
How am I wrong?
 
#13
parapauk said:
Extremist said:
Indeed - they aren't counting those on incapacity either. In the last 12 years, about 2.5 million people have suddenly found themselves 'broken' rather than merely unemployed, and have thus been removed from the lists.
You might want to look into when that really happened:

Would you care to explain why that is anything other than the most depressing graph of Government mendacity?
 
#14
You talk of the Coal Miners for a start - STILL haven't learned the truth of that one.

Seeing a you like graphs so much - check out the graphs for number of people employed down the mines over a 50 year period. Pay close attention to the Labour run periods.

Those very same non-academic jobs were being held to ransom by militant-trotskeists hell-bent on seeing yet another government fall, and not giving a toss about the UK while they tried to bring it to a standstill. It was an industry that, at the time, could not compete with oil, which was half the price.

Edited to add: Parapuke - have you noted in the graph the corresponding rise in incapacity claimants, or the fact the the total number claiming one sort of benefit or another has been pretty static throughout? I bet you won;t dare put up this year's figure when they come out :twisted:
 
#15
Extremist said:
You talk of the Coal Miners for a start - STILL haven't learned the truth of that one.

Seeing a you like graphs so much - check out the graphs for number of people employed down the mines over a 50 year period. Pay close attention to the Labour run periods.

Those very same non-academic jobs were being held to ransom by militant-trotskeists hell-bent on seeing yet another government fall, and not giving a toss about the UK while they tried to bring it to a standstill. It was an industry that, at the time, could not compete with oil, which was half the price.

Edited to add: Parapuke - have you noted in the graph the corresponding rise in incapacity claimants, or the fact the the total number claiming one sort of benefit or another has been pretty static throughout? I bet you won;t dare put up this year's figure when they come out :twisted:
There is a big difference between a natural shift toward a more capital-intensive extraction and manufacturing industry and taking a wrecking ball to the whole thing.

It's amazing that despite most of Western Europe having a far more active communist and union movement than the UK they were somehow able to get through the period without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn't it?

Personal insults, good to see you've found your level... :roll:
 
#16
parapauk said:
The real catastrophe on the conservative years wasn't the cyclical unemployment, it was the elimination of an entire sector of the economy that provided jobs with decent pay and prospects that were both suitable for the non-academic and fostered a sense of community amongst those involved with them. It was a mistake no one else in Europe made, and one we'll never be able to row back from.
Don't agree with you on this one. I take it the sector you mean is heavy industry? Or perhaps, more specifically, mining? The stats don't hold up your argument, I'm afraid - as an example it declined more before she was in power than when she was there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7952388.stm

I think that recent Conservative governments crystallised a decline that had been ongoing since the end of WW2. I happen to think, as unpalatable as it was for all concerned, that it was the right choice. Our restrictive labour markets couldn't compete with the East and we weren't innovative enough (or were too union-led) to improve per capita productivity. Hence industrial white elephants.

How do the Germans manage? I would guess high quality products (developed through R&D from private capital) and innovative production methods.

You do raise an interesting point about the non-academic, though. What to do with them? Surely that was the point about people staying in the 'finest state education system in the world'; it was Blair's highest priority. Are you saying that money was all tossed away too?. Or are saying there's such a thing as lost causes? Sounds a bit elitist to me.

I'm afraid the answer is for people to provide the skills they need to be useful, rather than the state subsidise an entire industry as a welfare package. If it's artisan trades so be it; it's great news that brickies, chippies etc can command an enormous amount of money in the SE as it restores my faith in the market. They're certainly more useful than some more academically-gifted losers who end up in public-sector non-jobs, as perpetual students or wannabe potlitical activists.
 
#17
parapauk said:
The real catastrophe on the conservative years wasn't the cyclical unemployment, it was the elimination of an entire sector of the economy that provided jobs with decent pay and prospects that were both suitable for the non-academic and fostered a sense of community amongst those involved with them. It was a mistake no one else in Europe made, and one we'll never be able to row back from.
I work in the airlines sector Parap, could you explain why Gordon Brown is set on destroying that sector as well? Doubling APD tax later in the year when other countries have completely abolished theirs?

Or are we so broke as a country that he has no alternative?

The only thing Gordon Brown cares about is the banking sector, the rest can sink as far as he is concerned....Labour have nearly destroyed us-yet again.
 
#18
parapauk said:
You might want to look into when that really happened:

And you might want to extend that graph to 2009.

msr
 
#19
parapauk said:
Extremist said:
You talk of the Coal Miners for a start - STILL haven't learned the truth of that one.

Seeing a you like graphs so much - check out the graphs for number of people employed down the mines over a 50 year period. Pay close attention to the Labour run periods.

Those very same non-academic jobs were being held to ransom by militant-trotskeists hell-bent on seeing yet another government fall, and not giving a toss about the UK while they tried to bring it to a standstill. It was an industry that, at the time, could not compete with oil, which was half the price.

Edited to add: Parapuke - have you noted in the graph the corresponding rise in incapacity claimants, or the fact the the total number claiming one sort of benefit or another has been pretty static throughout? I bet you won;t dare put up this year's figure when they come out :twisted:
There is a big difference between a natural shift toward a more capital-intensive extraction and manufacturing industry and taking a wrecking ball to the whole thing.

It's amazing that despite most of Western Europe having a far more active communist and union movement than the UK they were somehow able to get through the period without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn't it?

Personal insults, good to see you've found your level... :roll:
Is there a better way to deal with militant unionism? The enemy within?

This nation was faced with an organisation that was very, very bad for this country. It was a threat to the prosperity of us all. They had to be stopped. Now, personally, I'd have been happy if the leaders of these militants were rounded up and shot, allowing the poor miners a way out through mediation.

Have you noticed how the docks have never recovered after the years of militant strikes? Have you noticed how the ship-building industry is pretty much nonexistant in the UK - gone long before it became cheaper to make ships abroad.

If the militant unions had not gone toe-to-toe with the VARIOUS governments, including Labour, and done a better job of representing the long-term interests of the miners, Thatcher would not have blown them out of the water when she got into power.
 
#20
You do raise an interesting point about the non-academic, though. What to do with them? Surely that was the point about people staying in the 'finest state education system in the world'; it was Blair's highest priority. Are you saying that money was all tossed away too?. Or are saying there's such a thing as lost causes? Sounds a bit elitist to me.
'Lost cause' is a loaded statement. To say that everyone has limitations in some areas is clearly correct, and for many that area of limit is academic. A high quality education system is about squeezing everything you can out of people, not about turning water into wine. Only around 55% of pupils get 5 GCSEs at A-C grade, but this doesn't result from 45% of pupils being tought by incompetents. You're always going to have 30% who just arn't up to it even in ideal circumstances.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top