Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
What I meant was, the Government promised to create more jobs. For example IDS said there would be a work-placement scheme for locally unemployed people to come into effect in February next year.
The Government can create jobs, for example in the Armed Forces, the Police, the social services by supplying the sufficient funds. They can also axe jobs.
The Government can create the frame-work for businesses to create jobs for locally unemployed people, by changing the laws on equal opportunities for all EU citizens.
So of-course the Government can create jobs, through regulation.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - the simple fact is that the burden placed on the private sector by public sector costs loses jobs in the private sector. Put simply create a job in the public sector then you lose a job in the private sector. You can track that remarkably closely if you look at the last 13/15 years. You cannot create jobs for jobs sake - it is not more public sector jobs the economy needs but more jobs in the profit making, wealth creating private sector. HMRC needs more new tax revenue not more inefficiently recycled revenue.
You are right that the government can create a framework for more employment but that is by reducing not increasing regulation
Of course governments create jobs! The remit for a government is social engineering, that is what they do with their policies and budgets and legislation. They create families, jobs, homelessness, poverty, wealth. Politics is life.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Bern - social engineering costs jobs and is wrong. People are best left to live their lives unmolested by the dead hand of government.
But as long as governments exist that is not going to happen. Social engineering is inevitable if we have governments. And what is the alternative?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Bern - for government not to get involved in social engineering and to do as little as possible and to stop this treadmill of interference.
Not possible!! Every action, every policy, every tax, has an impact on the social structure. It is impossible for it not to impact heavily.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I disagree Bern. We would be better off now if governments just did the least possible. I am no anarchist and accept government is necessary, its main duty is defence of the nation and law and order. For the rest they should be 'enabling' - ensuring essential infrastructure is built and maintained (roads/broadband), enabling a decent education and health service for all - which does not mean directly providing it. Then there is the provision of a temporary basic safety net as a hand up (not hand out) when people fall on hard times along with a basic pension along with a basic framework of laws. People should be able and enabled to make their own provision over and above the basics - it is up to them...a matter of personal responsibility. Anything else is frippary, waste and interference and deeply damaging to people and be detrimental to the economy.
But Barry, even that enabling impacts on the social structure. We are not just talking about that old open wound Benefits, it is across the boards, and it is frankly impossible for any government NOT to impact and engineer. And given that, the next realistic step is to manage that fact to the advantage of the people in that society. NOT to micro manage, but to accept that facts and work with them.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The way you talk Barry, people could be forgiven for thinking you were a Tory working in the private pension field.
"The ideal of Politics and Government is that they should/must operate to suit me."
I doubt very much that you alone in your thinking, not in Tory circles, at any rate.
Alas, for some reason, we find ourselves living with, or indeed under, a Democratic system that may only pay lip-service to the idea of universal suffrage [I almost wrote 'sufferage', don't you just love these Freudian-slip chappies?] and yet, if all can be bothered, all can exercise their right to vote. I know too that you have ideas to put an end to this and Dave is doing his bit.
And yet, here we are:-
-hog-tied with red-tape etc. Although prior to 2008 in Britain, and today in the rest of Europe and elsewhere, enterprises various were/are enterprising.
No mention thus far, either, of how we are a Nation that has developed a system whereby, what more generally maybe described as an accident of birth, a signal benefit and enabler of personal progress and development is who your Mater et Pater happen to be.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 28......Oh dear!!!.......``Anything else is frippery``........is there any chance of just a little compassion/understanding?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Reg - it is your model of big government that is currently failing and causing considerable misery, compassion from that, no there is no compassion from a failed economic model. Compassion needs to be paid for from success, without economic success compassion is just a meaningless word.
Compassion is never, ever, a meaningless word.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Compassion needs to paid for! there is more to life than the financial world, not everything has a price.
Audere est facere.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Oh really.... Someone living in poverty needs cash not kind words, people who are ill need treatment to be paid for not mere good wishes - to mean anything practical and real we need economic success. You may not like that fact but it is a fact. Economic success is the basis of all, everything the State pays for and, what is more, the vast amounts of cash donated by individuals to charity. Less economic success less cash, simple. Our problems stem from trying to spend money that has not been derived from a successful economy but borrowed money to sustain a bloated state spending. To get success priority must go to boosting business, the root of all that compassion that so many like to wear on their sleeve.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Kind words and compassion can work wonders in all situations, it is a sad reflection on those that do not realise that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BarryW, I don't think anyone is daft enough to think there is an NHS fairy who magically provides healthcare for all and a hug at the exit. But compassion should be the guide for the spend, not the other way around.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You have to prioritise the cash generation first Bern. While you say that, there are many on this forum who seem to think ' compassion' is somehow divorced from the means to pay. We see that from some of the insults thrown at me. Far too many decisions made by government have been driven by seeing a need to spend money without a thought to where that money has to come from. Even the writers of fairy tales understood, the 'golden goose' that lays our 'golden eggs' are businesses and it is vital to give them an environment to thrive and if you do not do so the consequences are dire and that is what we are suffering from now.
Jan, kind words are good but not enough, they do not feed you if hungry and if you want more than words then the cash is vital.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
difficult to shed tears about insults hurled at you barry, you have managed to insult most of us at one time or another.
i suppose most members consider it a rite of passage.
That made me laugh!
But this is a serious topic! A more prescient topic might be less the provision of funding and more the management of it. It is my view that we do actually fund social and health care well, but because the management of it is so pi$$ poor it is a waste, a negative investment.
