Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:52 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

You stole that quote from Ian Duncan Smith - he used those exact words on Monday when describing statistics that showed that his "Squeezing welfare gets people off their arses and back to work" numbers were a figment of his imagination (he certainly didn't reference any official stats whereas the contradictory stats were referenced).

Keep swallowing the hype, The Sun is counting on you in 2015.

Unless they change their support again.

Now come on, Jerry, you know perfectly well that, if you say: 'Well, I believe it,' a lie ceases to become a lie.

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:09 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

These type of articles are just desperate. A narrow band of left wingers know that they are in a minority on issues such as welfare reform so they point to things like this and say 'the public are too dumb to understand', implying that they are right and the whole rest of the population is wrong. It really is see through.

A simple question requiring a simple answer, are you in favour of welfare reform?

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:18 am  

Him wrote:

A simple question requiring a simple answer, are you in favour of welfare reform?

You can't phrase the question like that though, in this newly enlightened era of media driven government you would have to phrase the question as follows ...

"Do you favour welfare reform in order to expunge the country of shirkers, third generation unemployed, faked disablility claimants, and foreigners coming here for an easy life?" Tick Yes or No, calls may be charged after the poll has ended but thats tough, we could probably not charge for calls after a fixed end time but why the hell should we if you are stupid enough not t read the T&C.

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:45 am  

UK unempolyment falls. Yay! However: "the number of long-term jobless rose." "About 915,000 people have been out of work for more than a year, an increase of 32,000 and the highest total since 1996. "Just over 460,000 people have been jobless for more than two years, the highest figure since 1997." And ... "The number of people classed as economically inactive also increased in the latest quarter, up by 87,000 to 9.04 million." So, perhaps the bubbly goes back on hold. Further: BBC wrote: Unemployment is now 72,000 lower than a year ago, which Employment Minister Mark Hoban said was "encouraging". "The fall in the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits ... [my emphasis] So no comment on how many people are in work, yet need in-work benefits because the pay is too low or because they cannot get enough hours? It's a very good illustration of why using the figure of those who are registered as 100% unemployed does not properly reflect the situation – and also of what confused some economists for a time a year or so ago, when unemployment – by that same definition – was not rising quite as expected, but the benefits bill was. The elephant in the room is underemployment, but that doesn't count for political purposes. So someone may be on a zero hours contract, and getting nothing in a week, but they don't get counted as unemployed. BBC wrote: ... together with the news that there are currently over half a million vacancies available in the UK economy, show that there are opportunities out there for those who are prepared to work hard, and who aspire to get on in life," he said. It shows nothing of the sort. At it's most simplistic (in keeping, therefore, with the nature of thew figures and the way they're used) there are 2.51 million people registered as out of work and there are "over half a million vacancies". In other words, there are not enough jobs for the number of unemployed. Suggesting that it's the fault of those who don't get those vacancies is typical nastiness. The headline figures also does not reveal whether those jobs are full-time, part-time, zero-hours contracts etc. Only last week, it was revealed that things are getting tougher for graduates – yet presumably, by Hoban's measure, any who don't get a job will only have themselves to blame.

UK unempolyment falls. Yay! However: "the number of long-term jobless rose." "About 915,000 people have been out of work for more than a year, an increase of 32,000 and the highest total since 1996. "Just over 460,000 people have been jobless for more than two years, the highest figure since 1997." And ... "The number of people classed as economically inactive also increased in the latest quarter, up by 87,000 to 9.04 million." So, perhaps the bubbly goes back on hold. Further: BBC wrote: Unemployment is now 72,000 lower than a year ago, which Employment Minister Mark Hoban said was "encouraging". "The fall in the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits ... [my emphasis] So no comment on how many people are in work, yet need in-work benefits because the pay is too low or because they cannot get enough hours? It's a very good illustration of why using the figure of those who are registered as 100% unemployed does not properly reflect the situation – and also of what confused some economists for a time a year or so ago, when unemployment – by that same definition – was not rising quite as expected, but the benefits bill was. The elephant in the room is underemployment, but that doesn't count for political purposes. So someone may be on a zero hours contract, and getting nothing in a week, but they don't get counted as unemployed. BBC wrote: ... together with the news that there are currently over half a million vacancies available in the UK economy, show that there are opportunities out there for those who are prepared to work hard, and who aspire to get on in life," he said. It shows nothing of the sort. At it's most simplistic (in keeping, therefore, with the nature of thew figures and the way they're used) there are 2.51 million people registered as out of work and there are "over half a million vacancies". In other words, there are not enough jobs for the number of unemployed. Suggesting that it's the fault of those who don't get those vacancies is typical nastiness. The headline figures also does not reveal whether those jobs are full-time, part-time, zero-hours contracts etc. Only last week, it was revealed that things are getting tougher for graduates – yet presumably, by Hoban's measure, any who don't get a job will only have themselves to blame.

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:59 am  

Vic Meldrew wrote:

40 x 10 = £400 - his deductions, that we all pay tax and NI.

It's not half his wages at all, read what you are writing before posting.

I have just offered a 27 year old labourer 2 weeks work operating a cherry picker on a Tesco Superstore in Cardiff at £10.00 per hour. Very easy work and a good fair rate of pay.

2 weeks work @ 40 hours a week - £400 - deductions.

You should have just written it correctly in the first place.

I'd worked out what you meant to write after I later read your post about the site manager being ripped off. But what you meant to write wasn't what you wrote.

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:09 am  

Aren't the government in the middle of a push to kick off tens of thousands of people from the disability benefits and "into work". When they don't get jobs aren't the govt going to have a problem massaging their unemployment figures?

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:25 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Aren't the government in the middle of a push to kick off tens of thousands of people from the disability benefits and "into work". When they don't get jobs aren't the govt going to have a problem massaging their unemployment figures?

Yes.

But the good news is that those shirkers will no longer be drawing £36k a year (equivalent) in benefits, so although the unemployed figures will go up the benefits bill will drop dramatically - and so will the second hand price of Range Rovers when all of those shirkers are now on just £70 a week JSA and can no longer afford them.

Also,

In the short term those former shirkers will only just have appeared on the unemployed figures and as the propaganda Ministers seem keen to just focus on the 12 and 24 month unemployed, we won't get to hear about them for at least another year, which, given the fact that most of them were very ill anyway, might mean they have died in the meantime (if not through their illness then through starvation, hopefully).


Disclaimer : some or all of the above may be sarcasm.

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:28 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Aren't the government in the middle of a push to kick off tens of thousands of people from the disability benefits and "into work". When they don't get jobs aren't the govt going to have a problem massaging their unemployment figures? Don't worry, they've already thought of that. If you are no longer "eligable" for ESA you can apply for JSA but the DWP and job centre will tell you you can't apply for JobSeekers as you are too ill to work and can't sign to say you are actively seeking work and are capable of 40 hours a week. So you are left with nothing, hanging in limbo not even a benefit statistic. I don't care what the likes of IDS and Ajw say, this is really happening, to real people. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... -help-me!!!

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Aren't the government in the middle of a push to kick off tens of thousands of people from the disability benefits and "into work". When they don't get jobs aren't the govt going to have a problem massaging their unemployment figures? Don't worry, they've already thought of that. If you are no longer "eligable" for ESA you can apply for JSA but the DWP and job centre will tell you you can't apply for JobSeekers as you are too ill to work and can't sign to say you are actively seeking work and are capable of 40 hours a week. So you are left with nothing, hanging in limbo not even a benefit statistic. I don't care what the likes of IDS and Ajw say, this is really happening, to real people. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... -help-me!!!

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:29 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Aren't the government in the middle of a push to kick off tens of thousands of people from the disability benefits and "into work". When they don't get jobs aren't the govt going to have a problem massaging their unemployment figures?

Everyone knows that people can get a job if they really want one, the very fact that there are a quarter of a million jobs going unfilled tells you that the 2.5 million who aren't applying for them are just plain lazy and are costing us all money that could be better used in protecting our country from illegal asylum seekers coming in via the Common Market.

Re: Tory Britain 2013 : Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:31 am  

Hull White Star wrote: Don't worry, they've already thought of that. If you are no longer "eligable" for ESA you can apply for JSA but the DWP and job centre will tell you you can't apply for JobSeekers as you are too ill to work and can't sign to say you are actively seeking work and are capable of 40 hours a week. So you are left with nothing, hanging in limbo not even a benefit statistic. I don't care what the likes of IDS and Ajw say, this is really happening, to real people. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... -help-me!!! There you are then - the perfect storm. This actually happened once before in history you know, a time when a class of people were defined as being undesirable and not required in a society where only perfect striving people need apply, the population as a whole acquiesced and so the government rounded them all up and ... well we know what happened next.

Hull White Star wrote: Don't worry, they've already thought of that. If you are no longer "eligable" for ESA you can apply for JSA but the DWP and job centre will tell you you can't apply for JobSeekers as you are too ill to work and can't sign to say you are actively seeking work and are capable of 40 hours a week. So you are left with nothing, hanging in limbo not even a benefit statistic. I don't care what the likes of IDS and Ajw say, this is really happening, to real people. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... -help-me!!! There you are then - the perfect storm. This actually happened once before in history you know, a time when a class of people were defined as being undesirable and not required in a society where only perfect striving people need apply, the population as a whole acquiesced and so the government rounded them all up and ... well we know what happened next.