Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#1
This cobbled together govt probably won't welcome the 2.67 million people becoming unemployed the highest figure for 16 years.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#2
There was an increase of 48,000 job losses announced today. The BBCs main man said a few minutes ago on News 24 that of this 48,000....32,000 of them are women. Women are feeling the brunt and no mistake. Quite a shock to households who very often badly need the financial contribution of women, all happening while food prices etc are going through the roof.
Also worth noting..confirmed today, older women are the first out the door.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
It is not all bad news....
A few facts that are less headline worthy:
Since May 2010 - the general election
Numbers actually in work increased by 100,000 from 29m to 29.1m
At the same time those unemployed did rise (the rise began under the previous government remember...) from 2.46m to 2.67m
The reason for these apparently contradictory figures is that the 'economically active' population has increased to 31.8m, an increase of 320,000, that breaks down to 110,000 more unemployed and 220,000 more in jobs.
The increase in the 'economically active' is from more older people working after 65 (about half) and immigrants.
To summarise, at a time of great economic problems we have been swimming against a tide with the unemployment figures. We must however remember we need more jobs and to grow the economy... I have addressed what measures should be taken in previous blogs and threads.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
unemployment figures are the easiest to spin in whatever way we want them.
we have seperate figures for those claiming or not claiming job seekers allowance.
then we have part time and full time employment simply given as a total.
another example was when the countryside alliance issued dire warnings of massive job losses with the hunting ban.
most of the people already had full time jobs and were doing a few hours a month for some of the year as a top up.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#5
Moody`s doubt in UK economy.............
Osborne has been headlining that he has kept UK`s AAA status...........we are now on ``negative watch``
Economic growth has not happened....lack of economic growth in UK endanders Osbornes fiscal targets and
will cause review of his March Budget
Growth will come from an Industrial policy...which we do not have one.....it will not come from the financial
sector.
Without economic growth the unemployment ( nearly 3 million ) will automatically rise,tax revenues will fall
and the Treasury will have to borrow more to meet the new commitments.
We do not have a growth agenda.
Consumer confidence is at an all time low...........
The public have been told to live within our means...............``Elite Greedy Pigs`` ............just carry on............
UK economy is in reverse due to the dysthymic failure of our economic policy.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#6
So lets go for an East Kent Council and throw a few more unemployed into the pot ???
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
We certainly need action on growth and there is more Osborne can do for that.
I guarantee one thing.... everything that can and should be done for growth will be hated by Reg and his ilk.
#8
Paul I'm absolutely not getting into the politics but your post did make me laugh !
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#9
this was compared to the american system of counting the unemployed,if its used here the total unemploed would be 6.3 million,frightning init.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#10
Asylum seekers and those who have been granted asylum don't work. The latter are not allowed to by law for so and so many years. Both those who have been granted asylum and those who have not receive benefits and free council housing from day 1, and are not counted as unemployed.
From 1997 to 2004, of almost 500,000 people claiming asylum in the UK, only 75,000 were returned home, the rest remained in Britain, including those who were not granted asylum.
The figures from 2004 onwards are even higher. We might be talking of several million people in all.
There are hundreds of thousands of people on incapacity benefits who could work, and are not counted as unemployed.
So the real number of people of working age who are not employed and receive benefits and free housing is probably close to Brian's estimation.
The figure of 2.67 million is a joke.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
Alexander - nobody has mention asylum seekers but you. You are wrong anyway, I think they can get permission to work so they can sustain themselves while awaiting a decision but, I admit I am not certain of this point.
You are just producing fantasy figures out of thin air. There are a lot of people fit for work who are claiming incapacity and there is a programme to identify them that is having some success and those identified so far are in the figures and accounted for.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#12
The problem we have now is that the present cobbled together govt are falling out with each other and the policies are not geting us out of our present plight.
The theme 'WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER'
Is not believed by the vast majority of the population, some are doing very nicely thankyou, whilst others struggle to find dosh for there next meal.
New N.H.S. reforms in tatters and likely to fail
Unemployment highest for 16 years
blimey and thats just the warm up
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
Change the tune Keith - it is wearing thin and rather boring now.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
i am pretty certain that alex is right, asylum applicants are not allowed to work until their application has been accepted.
alex is wrong on incapacity benefits nowadays though, a company called atos who work for the government are turning down almost all claims.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#15
Part of the increase in the 'economically active' Howard - genuine claimants who meet the terms required in the 'all work' test are approved, what we are now seeing is a justified tightening of those rules.
By the way - private income protection insurance uses the 'own occupation' test (the good policies anyway) which is better than the all-work test applied to incapacity benefit and, in fact, you can insure against not meeting the 'all work' test as well.... The government would be wise to allow tax relief on these to encourage take-up and restrict the long term incapacity only to those who are uninsurable or are existing genuine claimants.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#16
Osborne is under growing pressure to take action in next months budget to tackle long term unemployment
which is now approaching One million.
Two thirds of the increase in unemployment was accounted for by women who continue to be hardest hit by
the continued deterioration in the labour market.
He is told we will pay a long term price as a society because you cannot reduce long term unemployed
quickly as we experienced in the 1980`s.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
sadly true about long term unemployment, the stuffing gets knocked out of people when they get no replies to their job applications get rejected or ignored.
when the jobs market recovers many are past caring or have no confidence in doing a job of work.
#18
There is a major drive by some disabled people to sue the arse off ATOS because of their unfair assessments. These are not people trying to swing the lead, they are disabled people who want to work but still need some support because of disability. No-one really has a problem with targeting support appropriately and rooting out those who drain the system, but the balance has to be there to enable those who need support to access it.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#19
Many are grateful to get a job nowadays...but how low should the wages go. People are desperate but they shouldnt be exploited. I see the cleaners at St Pancras have gone on strike. They get £6.75 an hour, very low for London, but they were offered a 13p an hour pay rise...yes 13p an hour.
The imbalance in society is atrocious. The people offering the workers that..well they should be taken out and shot...there are a few in the queue lining up to be shot!
As Bob Crow said...
""Its disgraceful that the cleaners who mop up the spilt Bollinger in the St Pancras champagne bar are on POVERTY pay levels.""
The cleaners would have to work for 10 hours to pay for their own one bottle of Bollinger...if they wanted it that is. But no doubt they have other pressing needs for their cash.
With unemployment being the way it is, contempt is shown to the workers asking for a decent wage...13p !!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
Long term incapacity is determined by the all work test and if someone is able to perform any, repeat any, work they do not qualify. That has been the position many years but clearly it has not been applied with vigour before at great cost to taxpayers, now it is. If ATOS are applying the test to conform to the rules then there can be no justification for a court action. This will be interesting.