Are Labour Siding with the Tories on Workfare?

[Stu Monty]

The unemployment figures are freely available. Feel free to offer evidence of figure massaging if you find any.

 

 

So are "spurious statistics" on inequality and wealth distribution. I wouldn't want to be accused of that again, hence why I'm asking which figures you are using to back your belief that unemployment is going down.

 

I'm also pointing out that they might want to be breaking down the type of employment or your point is rather weak unless your dream is a nation of zero hours agency staff.

 

What figures are you using?

[Strontium]

If the government seriously wanted to do something they could introduce a land bank tax overnight.

 

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but I would be quite happy with such a tax.

 

So are "spurious statistics" on inequality and ealth distribution. I wouldn;t want to be accused of that again, hence why I'm asking which figures you are using to back your belief that unemployment is going down.

 

I'm also pointing out that they might want to be breaking down the type of employment or your point is rather weak unless your dream is a nation of zero hours agency staff.

 

What figures are you using?

 

 

The official unemployment figures.

[Whelan]

Did the unemployment figures not rise yesterday?

[Section_31]

Of course there is class war. How many of the present cabinet, or indeed most cabinets of the past god knows how many years, are from a working class background? This government is absolutely crammed with multi millionaire Oxbridge connected families. Class matters more than ever to deny that is to deny the way the world works.

 

All 3 major parties are sucking at the state bosom while trying to deny it to the people who need it most and who they profess to represent. It is all about money and only money. You have money, you have power. No power? That's because you have no money. It might well be that's the way the world has always been but a trip to the dentist for more than a little filling will put you right in your place nowadays. No money? Fuck off.

 

The problem extends through the media too, this is a massive problem IMO.

 

I've only worked in papers for six years but I came in at the back end of the 'old school' newsrooms and have seen them change over time as the old guard have been laid off and retired and been replaced by predominantly middle class young people.

 

Newspaper people were very often working class, many joined straight from school and it was considered a trade not a profession. So the politicians were being held to account by people who understood the working class and working class life.

 

They're pretty much mostly gone, I'd say my generation (early 30s) are the last to go. Most my age and younger are middle class graduates. Very often they're the only ones who can afford the training and afford to stay in the job.

 

They report things through their own world view. For example one girl I know who'se really sound but quite dizzy, reported on a food bank recently but came back claiming 'a lot of them' were 'quite chavy' and 'had Blackberries'. This was a girl whose car packed in recently and she was given her mum's old one two days later.

 

I recently did a story on the 'troubled families' fund and how the local council had identified what it called 'quick wins', families who would be easy to help - it planned to concentrate on them because they'd get paid by results, which pretty much negated the whole impact of the scheme. The girl who'd done the story before me when it was at its initial council stage - who's very well to do - reported the story as 'some of the borough's biggest problem families will get government money to turn their lives around'.

 

Very often the media now, the civil service, and the professional politicians are drawn from the same backgrounds. They equate wealth with hard work, but choose to overlook the fact a huge amount of success in this society is to do with luck, having the right chances and the right connections.

 

For example, I'm from Speke, and the only reason I made anything of myself was because my mother cleaned bogs to send me to a private school. It wasn't an Eton type school, the fees were about 50-80 quid a month or something, I only took five GCSEs out of a choice of seven, it wasn't an amazing school by any means - but the alternative would have been to go to Speke comp where I'd have spent most of my days trying to avoid getting my head kicked in.

 

Growing up in Speke was fucking hellish. The stuff you take for granted like going for a quiet pint or going the chippy or something you just couldn't do. There was nothing in the way of evening classes or culture or even places to get a decent part time job, if we hadn't have moved out of there I'd have been well and truly fucked.

 

So brains had nothing to do with it, 'hard work' had nothing to do with it, the game was rigged against me and my mum tried to even the odds - and I owe her everything.

 

This is what grinds my gears when I see people from my background patting themselves on the back because they blagged a teaching job and got a house after New Labour pulled the education chair out for them and all they had to do was sit down, and now these cunts are the Tories' shock troops.

 

Most people in this media/political combine have never known hardship, they've never felt fear at the fact their road is full of twats throwing parties into the wee small hours where smack dealers congregate, they have - basically - no right to judge the poor. But the politicians like Duncan Smith cast down their judgments from on high, while the people who report have as little understanding as him, and a concensus of opinion is formed and foist upon us all. When you're truly poor you spend most of your time afraid, tired and pissed off, not debating high minded principles and harbouring grand ambitions. Ths is what these patronising cunts will never understand.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Section_31

[lifetime fan]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I would be quite happy with such a tax.

 

 

If any party was genuinely serious about housing and getting the economy growing I'd start a state run bank/building society, a state run house building arm and introduce a land tax.

 

People can choose to not invest in a state run bank/building society (an ethical banking group just slightly further ahead of the Co-op who I bank with already), they can choose to not purchase a state built reasonably priced house.

 

And House builders can choose to either actually build new, actually affordable homes or they can pay a tax on the land banks they've built up.

 

Democracy in action.

 

Ethical banking - No high risk stupid lending but you don't need high risk/reward returns for shareholders. A small profit on top of running costs to be ploughed back into the economy.

 

A genuine builder of 'affordable homes' - No need to provide massive returns for shareholders. The building arm produces high quality, green affordable housing. it employs builders and tradesman who all have to have their CSCS card, they all pay tax, they all pay NI. No cheap dodgy foreign labour, no tax scams. Plenty of overtime for those that want to work it and a living wage for those that don't.

 

The land tax may actually bring housing prices to a reasonable and sensible level. Companies owning vasts amounts of land without any intention of building on it for years will be taxed if they don't build and complete within 24 months.

 

24 months allows a small/medium estate to be built in time comfortably. No loop holes for house builders to dig foundations then fuck off for 5 years waiting for the next boom in house prices to then finish the houses and cash in for maximum profit.

 

This really isn't difficult stuff to sort, it just takes a will to do it. A will all three main political parties shamefully lack.

[Whelan]

Ethical banking - No high risk stupid lending but you don't need high risk/reward returns for shareholders. A small profit on top of running costs to be ploughed back into the economy.

 

A genuine builder of 'affordable homes' - No need to provide massive returns for shareholders. The building arm produces high quality, green affordable housing. it employs builders and tradesman who all have to have their CSCS card, they all pay tax, they all pay NI. No cheap dodgy foreign labour, no tax scams. Plenty of overtime for those that want to work it and a living wage for those that don't.

 

 

Yep. Could not agree more about the Bank - if people want big bucks and high interest let them bank with a private bank. If you want to save, then have a state run one.

 

Just on the building - the culture show last week was on Architecture and that is something that is done in Germany - essentially a group of people, directly appoint an architect to design their homes and get homes built for them. So the cost is at a minimum because they are not built for profit. But, the government needs to relax the land - land that is worth £10,000 suddently becomes worth £30,000 if it is given planning permission - so land is accumulated and kept hold off without using it.

 

Although this government seems oppossed to people making a slight profit, they are only interested in big busines.

[Karl_b]

Yep. Could not agree more about the Bank - if people want big bucks and high interest let them bank with a private bank. If you want to save, then have a state run one.

 

Just on the building - the culture show last week was on Architecture and that is something that is done in Germany - essentially a group of people, directly appoint an architect to design their homes and get homes built for them. So the cost is at a minimum because they are not built for profit. But, the government needs to relax the land - land that is worth £10,000 suddently becomes worth £30,000 if it is given planning permission - so land is accumulated and kept hold off without using it.

 

Although this government seems oppossed to people making a slight profit, they are only interested in big busines.

 

It was an interesting episode and I found myself prety inspired, until I got back to the mundanity of my job! I really want to contribute more to this discussion (and the one about dystopian towns and planning) but I'm going to read The Stand for about 3 minutes until I fall asleep.

 

I'll try and remember to come back to this!

[lifetime fan]

Yep. Could not agree more about the Bank - if people want big bucks and high interest let them bank with a private bank. If you want to save, then have a state run one.

 

Just on the building - the culture show last week was on Architecture and that is something that is done in Germany - essentially a group of people, directly appoint an architect to design their homes and get homes built for them. So the cost is at a minimum because they are not built for profit. But, the government needs to relax the land - land that is worth £10,000 suddently becomes worth £30,000 if it is given planning permission - so land is accumulated and kept hold off without using it.

 

Although this government seems oppossed to people making a slight profit, they are only interested in big busines.

 

 

There would be a land bank tax. Those house building companies that own vast amounts of the country are either taxed or have to build and complete within 24 months.

 

The government building arm can use brown field sites, they would also be able to purchase land at a fair price. The fact building companies couldn't purchase land and hoard it for decades would reduce prices too.

 

It really is that simple.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

 

With respect' date=' that's not a message I hear from government, nor one I propagate.

 

Well, this is why reducing income tax for low earners is a good thing. People who don't earn much shouldn't pay much tax.

 

There is no list. That's the point I already made to you in this thread. You presented a list which was about 50% large companies 50% charities/small companies to support your claim that the main beneficiaries of workfare were large companies. I already pointed out to you that that list wasn't exhaustive. You are presenting it as if it was something official and set in stone. There are more than 300 charities involved in these "workfare" schemes, most of whom don't appear on your list.[/quote']

 

Hang on a minute. You are the one that said that big corporations were not benefiting from this.

 

How can there not be a list of 300+ companies and charities who are on this scheme? What are they doing? Sticking a pin in the yellow pages to decide who gets a go?

 

Its a fucking tax scam. To appease those companies who dont need to benefit and you know it.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

 

The problem extends through the media too' date=' this is a massive problem IMO.

 

I've only worked in papers for six years but I came in at the back end of the 'old school' newsrooms and have seen them change over time as the old guard have been laid off and retired and been replaced by predominantly middle class young people.

 

Newspaper people were very often working class, many joined straight from school and it was considered a trade not a profession. So the politicians were being held to account by people who understood the working class and working class life.

 

They're pretty much mostly gone, I'd say my generation (early 30s) are the last to go. Most my age and younger are middle class graduates. Very often they're the only ones who can afford the training and afford to stay in the job.

 

They report things through their own world view. For example one girl I know who'se really sound but quite dizzy, reported on a food bank recently but came back claiming 'a lot of them' were 'quite chavy' and 'had Blackberries'. This was a girl whose car packed in recently and she was given her mum's old one two days later.

 

I recently did a story on the 'troubled families' fund and how the local council had identified what it called 'quick wins', families who would be easy to help - it planned to concentrate on them because they'd get paid by results, which pretty much negated the whole impact of the scheme. The girl who'd done the story before me when it was at its initial council stage - who's very well to do - reported the story as 'some of the borough's biggest problem families will get government money to turn their lives around'.

 

Very often the media now, the civil service, and the professional politicians are drawn from the same backgrounds. They equate wealth with hard work, but choose to overlook the fact a huge amount of success in this society is to do with luck, having the right chances and the right connections.

 

For example, I'm from Speke, and the only reason I made anything of myself was because my mother cleaned bogs to send me to a private school. It wasn't an Eton type school, the fees were about 50-80 quid a month or something, I only took five GCSEs out of a choice of seven, it wasn't an amazing school by any means - but the alternative would have been to go to Speke comp where I'd have spent most of my days trying to avoid getting my head kicked in.

 

Growing up in Speke was fucking hellish. The stuff you take for granted like going for a quiet pint or going the chippy or something you just couldn't do. There was nothing in the way of evening classes or culture or even places to get a decent part time job, if we hadn't have moved out of there I'd have been well and truly fucked.

 

So brains had nothing to do with it, 'hard work' had nothing to do with it, the game was rigged against me and my mum tried to even the odds - and I owe her everything.

 

This is what grinds my gears when I see people from my background patting themselves on the back because they blagged a teaching job and got a house after New Labour pulled the education chair out for them and all they had to do was sit down, and now these cunts are the Tories' shock troops.

 

Most people in this media/political combine have never known hardship, they've never felt fear at the fact their road is full of twats throwing parties into the wee small hours where smack dealers congregate, they have - basically - no right to judge the poor. But the politicians like Duncan Smith cast down their judgments from on high, while the people who report have as little understanding as him, and a concensus of opinion is formed and foist upon us all. When you're truly poor you spend most of your time afraid, tired and pissed off, not debating high minded principles and harbouring grand ambitions. Ths is what these patronising cunts will never understand.[/quote']

 

*stands up and applauds*

[bossy]

 

*stands up and applauds*

 

Yes, great post Section. The aspiration nation sound bite would be laughable if it wasn't such a sick joke.

The bit about 'problem' families is particularly illuminating as it illustrates the way the media views the poor and the government encourages that view.

[zigackly]

The biggest change we could make in our culture would be to stop measuring performance in purely economic terms and include a weighting based on social contribution.

[Stu Monty]

The official unemployment figures.

 

Okay. Just "David says so" then.

 

The Office for National Statistics has unemployment from Nov 12 to Jan 13 rising 6,000 in the UK. The last figures available.

 

It is also higher than at he point this government came into power.

 

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/gor/2092957698/subreports/nrhi_time_series/report.aspx?

 

That's without even going into how many full-time jobs are being lost and how many part-time jobs are being created, which I would imagine will be a big shift. They don't have figures for that, unfortunately.

 

So. Presuming you aren't naive enough to just repeat what the government says as fact, and because you're always so keen to check facts in case they are "spurious statistics"...which figures are you using?

Edited March 22, 2013 by Stu Monty

[clangers]

Okay. Just "David says so" then.

 

The Office for National Statistics has unemployment from Nov 12 to Jan 13 rising 6,000 in the UK. The last figures available.

 

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/gor/2092957698/subreports/nrhi_time_series/report.aspx?

 

That's without even going into how many full-time jobs are being lost and how many part-time jobs are being created, which I would imagine will be a big shift. They don't have figures for that, unfortunately.

 

So. Presuming you aren't naive enough to just repeat what the government says as fact, and because you're always so keen to check facts in case they are "spurious statistics"...which figures are you using?

 

 

Yep that's the point, the reason we haven't hit the official unemployment levels of previous recessions is due to the flexibility of the workforce swapping full-time skilled jobs for part-time often much less skilled roles. You can interpret it as a positive thing, as the right would, in that we now have a much more flexible economy. However that flexibility comes at the price of a generally lower skilled one as well.

 

The key is to look at the stagnation and in many sectors the fall in living standards and lack of wage increases. If the current government had genuinely created all these million plus jobs since they came to power we should be seeing a significant rise in both figures. Tax revenues for the government should equally be rising.

[Tyler Durden]

If any party was genuinely serious about housing and getting the economy growing I'd start a state run bank/building society, a state run house building arm and introduce a land tax.

 

People can choose to not invest in a state run bank/building society (an ethical banking group just slightly further ahead of the Co-op who I bank with already), they can choose to not purchase a state built reasonably priced house.

 

And House builders can choose to either actually build new, actually affordable homes or they can pay a tax on the land banks they've built up.

 

Democracy in action.

 

Ethical banking - No high risk stupid lending but you don't need high risk/reward returns for shareholders. A small profit on top of running costs to be ploughed back into the economy.

 

A genuine builder of 'affordable homes' - No need to provide massive returns for shareholders. The building arm produces high quality, green affordable housing. it employs builders and tradesman who all have to have their CSCS card, they all pay tax, they all pay NI. No cheap dodgy foreign labour, no tax scams. Plenty of overtime for those that want to work it and a living wage for those that don't.

 

The land tax may actually bring housing prices to a reasonable and sensible level. Companies owning vasts amounts of land without any intention of building on it for years will be taxed if they don't build and complete within 24 months.

 

24 months allows a small/medium estate to be built in time comfortably. No loop holes for house builders to dig foundations then fuck off for 5 years waiting for the next boom in house prices to then finish the houses and cash in for maximum profit.

 

This really isn't difficult stuff to sort, it just takes a will to do it. A will all three main political parties shamefully lack.

 

Brilliant post that mate, unfortunately it makes far too much sense and wouldn't equate to any large company profits so will therefore never happen.

[Strontium]

Okay. Just "David says so" then.

 

 

"David" doesn't compile the unemployment statistics. So you are wrong.

 

The Office for National Statistics has unemployment from Nov 12 to Jan 13 rising 6,000 in the UK. The last figures available.

 

 

Unemployment always rises in January. It has risen every January since time immemorial. See if you can work out why.

 

It is also higher than at he point this government came into power.

 

 

It was 2.51m in May 2010, it is 2.52m now, however that represents a lower percentage (7.8% versus 8% then) as the working age population has increased.

 

That's without even going into how many full-time jobs are being lost and how many part-time jobs are being created, which I would imagine will be a big shift. They don't have figures for that, unfortunately.

 

 

They do have figures on part-time employment actually, so you don't have to rely on your imagination. May 2010 the number of part-time workers was 7.8m, now it is 8.05m. Your "big shift" is 250,000 more people of the 900,000 extra who are in employment since the coalition took power.

 

So. Presuming you aren't naive enough to just repeat what the government says as fact, and because you're always so keen to check facts in case they are "spurious statistics"...which figures are you using?

 

 

Still using the official figures.

[King Emlyn]

I wish Section 31 was a politician.

[Stu Monty]

"David" doesn't compile the unemployment statistics. So you are wrong.

 

Unemployment always rises in January. It has risen every January since time immemorial. See if you can work out why.

 

It was 2.51m in May 2010, it is 2.52m now, however that represents a lower percentage (7.8% versus 8% then) as the working age population has increased.

 

They do have figures on part-time employment actually, so you don't have to rely on your imagination. May 2010 the number of part-time workers was 7.8m, now it is 8.05m. Your "big shift" is 250,000 more people of the 900,000 extra who are in employment since the coalition took power.

 

Still using the official figures.

 

Sorry, how does 2.51m to 2.52m equate to 900,000 more people being classified as employed? Have I missed something?

 

May 10-Jul 10 it was 2,475,000 which was 7.8%

 

They record the Feb to Apr figure as 2,494,000 so where 2.51m comes from I don't know.

 

Nov 12-Jan 13 it was 2,516,000 which was 7.8%

 

That's from the ONS website. Which I provided a link for.

 

Now, if you please: Where are you getting your figures from? Where are the figures on the nature of employment?

 

I can't actually be arsed arguing with you over rounding errors on figures that are manipulated to suit by politicians I just find your demands for everyone to bring you evidence, figures, examples and references, and your complete reluctance to do the same, annoying.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I wish Section 31 was a politician.

 

Aye. Someone that would be worth voting for and somebody who's values and policies would mean something other than fat cats getting all the cream.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Employment figures are twisted, they don't take into account people on courses provided by welfare to work service providers or those on the workfare.

 

But if a student is in FET and also working they include them in the employed figures.

 

And that is not bullshit, that is a FACT because that is how DWP explained it to me when I went to a meeting about the 'Young Persons Contract' I was working on.

 

DWP said to those that attended that 'It is good for the figures as it shows these young kids off the unemployment figures and shows we are doing something and it is the same with the other welfare to work schemes. We will all look good in all of this'

 

What they didn't tell them was that the course was a mandatory course when it was sold as voluntary. If an 18-24 year old had been told they were to go on a course to learn about retail and they declined because they wanted to get a trade in joinery or nursing.

 

They were told if you don't attend the 4 week course, we will stop all your benefits. How is that any way to get a young 18 year old, who may be living in a flat struggling to survive with his giro and being threatened to have his housing benefit stopped so he would have to foot the arrears and potentially lose his home? The type of kids I dealt with were people who the very same system had abandoned.

 

It's all a big figure fudging exercise for each party to say "But we are doing this, and we are doing that. Look these figures we have manipulated say so"

 

I will never work for a government funded organisation again. The company I worked for I joined because they had values that would help those in desperate need, instead I seen this company have to change its ways so it could compete against the likes of Group 4 just to get a contract. A type contract that they had years of experience of working in. The Corporate teet makes companies give up their values and lose sight of the real reason they exist.

 

Yet a security firm with fuck all experience in dealing with those in dire need of help got it because they are pals with Davey Boy and his other cabinet members. What then happens is the easier to work with i.e. me and you got fast tracked into work placements because they would be a quick pay out and we were job ready on day 1.

 

The purpose of these programmes is taken away because of what Zig alludes to in this post. Which I find quite sickening, as those in real need of it miss out.

 

The biggest change we could make in our culture would be to stop measuring performance in purely economic terms and include a weighting based on social contribution.

 

Rant over.

[Strontium]

Sorry, how does 2.51m to 2.52m equate to 900,000 more people being classified as employed? Have I missed something?

 

 

Yes, you're missing the fact that there are far more people in employment now.

 

May 10-Jul 10 it was 2,475,000 which was 7.8%

 

They record the Feb to Apr figure as 2,494,000 so where 2.51m comes from I don't know.

 

 

2.51m was the May 2010 figure as I said, the first figure released shortly after the general election. I don't know what the confusion can be.

 

Nov 12-Jan 13 it was 2,516,000 which was 7.8%

 

That's from the ONS website. Which I provided a link for.

 

Now, if you please: Where are you getting your figures from? Where are the figures on the nature of employment?

 

 

All my figures are coming from the ONS, who do figures on the number of part-time and full-time jobs, youth unemployment etc. Just look for the labour market statistics.

 

I can't actually be arsed arguing with you over rounding errors on figures that are manipulated to suit by politicians I just find your demands for everyone to bring you evidence, figures, examples and references, and your complete reluctance to do the same, annoying.

 

 

Reluctance? What are you talking about? The last few posts are full of figures, all of them easily verifiable, all of them from the same ONS that you say you are using.

[L19red]

 

 

 

2.51m was the May 2010 figure as I said, the first figure released shortly after the general election. I don't know what the confusion can be.

 

I know what the confusion can be; you are using the figure for March 2010 which was released in May whereas Stu is using the figure for May 2010.

[zigackly]

I quite like the idea that everyone in society could be given an allowance which would be just about enough not to starve on, put a basic roof over your head, and pay your heating bills in winter, but further to that if you want money to spend you can work and be taxed on everything you earn. It's inclusive, and it encourages people to work rather than discouraging it. We would also save a hell of a lot on trying to stop benefit fraud because there couldn't be any. I'm sure there would be more details to work out, but it's a radically different approach to the clusterfuck we have now where people are locked in to benefits because they can't afford to work, and demonised for it.

[Stu Monty]

Dog, your figures clearly aren't coming from the ONS, they're coming from second hand reports on figures from the ONS. I don't need a BBC article about the figures when I'm looking right at them and quoting them to you.

 

I'm telling you that the actual figures from the ONS (not reported figures from a secondary source) are:

 

May 10 -Jul 10: 2,475,000

Feb 10 - Apr 10: 2,494,000

 

And you're telling me that in May it was 2.51m. That's where the confusion was. It came from me looking at the figures available and wondering where you were getting your figure from (clearly not from source). Your post being "full of figures" is meaningless if you're taking them from the media or a party press release and I'm asking for the figures at source.

 

That source (The Labour Market Profile) doesn't have a breakdown of part-time and full-time workers online. That's why I'm asking you where your figures are coming from, so if it's a news article then at least post it up and stop trying to be elusive. If you were looking at the source you could say "Monty you muppet, it's in the box just under Job Seekers allowance figures!" but you're almost certainly not.

 

I don't trust communication from the government and I don't trust you to represent the facts fairly. That's why I'm asking for the figures at source. Very simple really.

 

I can show you that there were WMDs in Iraq if a news report saying it's so is evidence. Surely you get the difference?

[Stu Monty]

I know what the confusion can be; you are using the figure for March 2010 which was released in May whereas Stu is using the figure for May 2010.

 

No, it comes from the source figures being from Feb to Apr and the news article featuring a figure "the last three months to March" and Dog claiming that as the figure for May.