Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[lifetime fan]

And then make government policy according to the established facts. You remember that, don't you, when governments used to make policy based on facts rather than tabloid hysteria?

 

Make you're mind up SD.

 

Are the government wanting to review the minimum wage so that they can either reduce it or scrap it all together?

 

Or

 

Are those saying this is exactly what the government would love to do 'conspiracy theorists'?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Well he got that wrong, didn't he?

 

Yes, Stronts, he did. He got it very wrong, like most of the things he talks about.

 

So the question is whether you believe him when he says he has changed his mind

 

Well, let me just throw it out there: I don't believe him. I don't believe it any more than I believe he didn't know about Coulson. I don't believe him any more than when he says sorry about his sexist remarks.

 

based on the excellent reasons he would have for changing his mind, or whether you believe that he's lying and he secretly wants to implement something that he knows isn't justified just because he hates the poor.

 

Like I said: conspiracy theorists.

 

Nothing to do with hating the poor, even if he did once say that his daughter 'looks like she just fell out of a council flat', or that his cuts are hurting the poor in this country and barely touching those responsible, who also turn out to be his financiers.

 

It has do with what his relationship with business. You might be prepared to look passed the obvious populist ploys of his, but I can't. You might want to dismiss it as I conspiracy theory, but I think the guy's beliefs are as they ever were.

[Strontium]

So we lower the minimum wage, how can narrowing the gap between work and the dole encourage people to work?

 

Why not scrap income tax for those in the 16-21 bracket. Can't help but feel you're approach to issues is again punitive Stronts rather than incentivising low earners.

 

 

Hold on here, I haven't advocated cutting the minimum wage for anyone, so it can't be said that I have any kind of approach to the issue. All I've done is suggest that the minimum wage is contributing to youth unemployment, which I think it most probably is.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Hold on here, I haven't advocated cutting the minimum wage for anyone, so it can't be said that I have any kind of approach to the issue. All I've done is suggest that the minimum wage is contributing to youth unemployment, which I think it most probably is.

 

Yep, it is. But you're sounding like somebody who is anti-slavery but the most they can muster is 'well, it's true that the slavery really has driven a lot of black men out of full time work'. Now, that's fine, but when it's all[/u] you say on the subject, you can't be too shocked when somebody gets the wrong end of the stick.

 

I've not got the wrong end of the stick but I do question why you say so little. In fact, you only really say the very small piece of the argument which supports the position. Why is that? Is it because you feel you might have to defend the LDs later on in parliament?

[cochcaer]

Hold on here, I haven't advocated cutting the minimum wage for anyone, so it can't be said that I have any kind of approach to the issue. All I've done is suggest that the minimum wage is contributing to youth unemployment, which I think it most probably is.

 

I really don't know, for 16-17 year olds it's £3.68, for me that's cheap labour and I can see why some opt for the dole (plus community charge, housing and other benefits). To get these people into work I'd rather use the tax system to make it a more attractive proposition for employer/employee than open up the possibility of teens being exploited for cheap labour and left disillusioned.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

 

Because even at £4.90 an hour or whatever it is (on top of employer's NI, training costs etc) very few employers are going to be willing to take a chance on a kid with no experience and hardly any useful skills.

 

It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is, and I'd hope that government could at least examine the issue without the conspiracy theorists leaping in with their trademark bullshit.

 

Training costs? A company that pays minimum wage won't have any training costs. They stick them on the front line with a fellow employee and get them to show them the ropes. There is no training involved.

 

National insurance contributions won't be that much either.

 

The government have already looked into it and removed any potential training these people could get to help them sell themselves to an employer. And that is The Work Programme, a scheme that has been given to companies who have no background in the dealing with the 18 - 24 group, or even the unemployed. A security company got handed one of the big national contracts, and also one of Cameron's biggest supporters and close friends.

[TheHitman]

2.60 the hourly rate for apprenticeships and with the extreme financial climate, a fair few employers are taking advantage.

 

I think the idea of apprenticeships in the right hands are vital, but the lack of skills that those taking part in the scheme gain, it is just even cheaper labour.

 

You can get apprenticeships for everything collecting rubbish, cleaning in hotels etc.

[VladimirIlyich]

Training costs? A company that pays minimum wage won't have any training costs. They stick them on the front line with a fellow employee and get them to show them the ropes. There is no training involved.

National insurance contributions won't be that much either.

 

The government have already looked into it and removed any potential training these people could get to help them sell themselves to an employer. And that is The Work Programme, a scheme that has been given to companies who have no background in the dealing with the 18 - 24 group, or even the unemployed. A security company got handed one of the big national contracts, and also one of Cameron's biggest supporters and close friends.

 

I think? a person has to earn around £135 a week before paying National Insurance contributions and how many 16-18yr olds are even paid close to that?

Not many I'm guessing.

 

I don't believe the youth unemployment figures are high due to a piddling minimum wage,I think there are other factors at play.

[Section_31]

One of the problems in this country is that we don't differentiate between small business and massive fucking Tesco-Yutani sized multinational corporations when we talk about 'the needs of business'.

 

I've got every sympathy when a small firm wants to hire some help, or maybe take on an apprentice, but is already struggling to turn some kind of profit at the end of the year. In those circumstances the Government should let them pay maybe half the minimum wage, but then top up the rest with funds from the benefits pool. They'll be getting some of it back in taxes, the business will be boosted to the point where it might even be able to expand and take the person on on a proper wage, and at least the worker will have something to put on their CV.

 

When we hear talk like the above though, the cynic in me feels it's aimed more at the Philip Greens of this world than the small entrepreneurs.

[Jose Jones]

One of the problems in this country is that we don't differentiate between small business and massive fucking Tesco-Yutani sized multinational corporations when we talk about 'the needs of business'.

 

I've got every sympathy when a small firm wants to hire some help, or maybe take on an apprentice, but is already struggling to turn some kind of profit at the end of the year. In those circumstances the Government should let them pay maybe half the minimum wage, but then top up the rest with funds from the benefits pool. They'll be getting some of it back in taxes, the business will be boosted to the point where it might even be able to expand and take the person on on a proper wage, and at least the worker will have something to put on their CV.

 

When we hear talk like the above though, the cynic in me feels it's aimed more at the Philip Greens of this world than the small entrepreneurs.

 

Of course it is. If a business can't afford to pay someone 4 quid an hour then it is a pretty shit business that will soon be going down the crapper anyway.

It has also been proved through every country around the world that introducing a minimum wage has improved the economy and boosted jobs in that particular country, despite the howlings of protest from "business" at the time it was introduced. You get people paid a decent wage and guess what? They generate more money for the economy.

Incidentally these are the minimum wages down here:

 

Under 16 years of age £3.60

At 16 years of age £4.60

At 17 years of age £5.60

At 18 years of age £6.60

At 19 years of age £8.00

Over 20 years of age £9.40.

[Stu Monty]

I love the idea that Cameron might want to shift more advantages to business owners as a conspiracy theory. Is there anything that isn't a conspiracy theory Stronts? Next you'll be telling us that the idea that the main players in this government were in cahoots with the met and the newspapers in illegal activity is a conspiracy theory. Poor naive soul.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I love the idea that Cameron might want to shift more advantages to business owners as a conspiracy theory. Is there anything that isn't a conspiracy theory Stronts? Next you'll be telling us that the idea that the main players in this government were in cahoots with the met and the newspapers in illegal activity is a conspiracy theory. Poor naive soul.

 

"I'm just stating facts".

[VladimirIlyich]

Back in the early 80's when i left school youth unemployment was also through the roof,there was no minimum wage then so whats the difference?

Anybody reckon a new version of the YTS is on the horizon?

[TheHitman]

Back in the early 80's when i left school youth unemployment was also through the roof,there was no minimum wage then so whats the difference?

Anybody reckon a new version of the YTS is on the horizon?

 

It is already out there, they just call it apprenticeships. The government have pledged to increase the apprenticeships and loosen the red-tape to employers.

 

 

Spoke to a few people in that age group, and half of the stuff they learn is related to elf n safety and a lot of bizarre form filling.

 

Quite ironic as this government have chastised elf n safety and criticised the amount of form filling in a lot of occupations.

 

Sad really, as a lot could really benefit from well run schemes.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

half of the stuff they learn is related to elf n safety and a lot of bizarre form filling.

Political correctness gone mad, Stew.

[L19red]

One of the problems in this country is that we don't differentiate between small business and massive fucking Tesco-Yutani sized multinational corporations when we talk about 'the needs of business'.

 

 

We do differentiate here are a couple of examples

1) Corporation Tax.

If your profit is below £300,000 you pay 21%, if its over £300,000 you pay 28%

Those rates going down to 20% and 26% because we are all in it together. The % for big companies will fall to 23% by 2014.

 

2) Flat Rate VAT scheme. Which is worth between 2.5-12.5% of gross turnover for qualifying small businesses depending on your sector.

[She Knows It]

It is already out there, they just call it apprenticeships. The government have pledged to increase the apprenticeships and loosen the red-tape to employers.

 

 

Spoke to a few people in that age group, and half of the stuff they learn is related to elf n safety and a lot of bizarre form filling.

 

Quite ironic as this government have chastised elf n safety and criticised the amount of form filling in a lot of occupations.

 

Sad really, as a lot could really benefit from well run schemes.

 

Our company delivers Apprenticeships, and they're nothing like an apprenticeship of old. Effectively it's what used to be an NVQ (now called a diploma), with a maths, English and IT qualification (Key Skills) thrown in.

 

Here's the catch: The government has pledged to invest billions in Apprenticeships and keep pulling figures out of their arse regarding how many more there'll be available. At the same time, providers are paid buttons for Key Skills. So, if a learner signs up on a Level 3 App that means they have to complete and pass Level 2 Key Skills, which is roughly GCSE Level. The average Apprentice learner probably has the reading and writing skills of your average 10 year old. They might need say 3 hours teaching a week, for 12 months, in each of the Key Skills to get them up to Level 2. So that's 9 hours a week teaching, plus the expenses incurred of a teacher visiting them in their workplace, plus admin costs for a whole year.

 

How much do we get paid for providing these Key Skills? At the moment it's about £180 per course. Obviously, training companies cannot afford to spend tens of thousands of pounds on staff wages when we're only getting 180 quid back, we'd go bust within a month; so sadly we have to knock back a massive proportion of applicants. We'll only take on learners who are capable of passing the Key Skills, which is very few. The rest of these kids are left to rot.

 

So when the government are banging on about how many apprenticeships they're creating, it's actually bollocks. Only a small proportion of them will ever be used.

[TheHitman]

Our company delivers Apprenticeships, and they're nothing like an apprenticeship of old. Effectively it's what used to be an NVQ (now called a diploma), with a maths, English and IT qualification (Key Skills) thrown in.

 

Here's the catch: The government has pledged to invest billions in Apprenticeships and keep pulling figures out of their arse regarding how many more there'll be available. At the same time, providers are paid buttons for Key Skills. So, if a learner signs up on a Level 3 App that means they have to complete and pass Level 2 Key Skills, which is roughly GCSE Level. The average Apprentice learner probably has the reading and writing skills of your average 10 year old. They might need say 3 hours teaching a week, for 12 months, in each of the Key Skills to get them up to Level 2. So that's 9 hours a week teaching, plus the expenses incurred of a teacher visiting them in their workplace, plus admin costs for a whole year.

 

How much do we get paid for providing these Key Skills? At the moment it's about £180 per course. Obviously, training companies cannot afford to spend tens of thousands of pounds on staff wages when we're only getting 180 quid back, we'd go bust within a month; so sadly we have to knock back a massive proportion of applicants. We'll only take on learners who are capable of passing the Key Skills, which is very few. The rest of these kids are left to rot.

 

So when the government are banging on about how many apprenticeships they're creating, it's actually bollocks. Only a small proportion of them will ever be used.

 

Thanks for that, good to hear from someone who works in the training capacity. My overriding feeling is academically these kids might not be competent, but they know when they are getting a raw deal.

 

I am sure we will find over the next few years, lots of training providers are not offering the quality of training as your organisation provides, ie skimping due to costs from not very reputable providers.

[Section_31]

We do differentiate here are a couple of examples

1) Corporation Tax.

If your profit is below £300,000 you pay 21%, if its over £300,000 you pay 28%

Those rates going down to 20% and 26% because we are all in it together. The % for big companies will fall to 23% by 2014.

 

2) Flat Rate VAT scheme. Which is worth between 2.5-12.5% of gross turnover for qualifying small businesses depending on your sector.

 

When I say 'we' I mean George Osborne, Ed Balls, and Philip Green.

[VladimirIlyich]

It is already out there, they just call it apprenticeships. The government have pledged to increase the apprenticeships and loosen the red-tape to employers.

 

 

Spoke to a few people in that age group, and half of the stuff they learn is related to elf n safety and a lot of bizarre form filling.

 

Quite ironic as this government have chastised elf n safety and criticised the amount of form filling in a lot of occupations.

 

Sad really, as a lot could really benefit from well run schemes.

 

Thats not the point though is it,its all about allowing just about anybody to cobble together a training scheme so that as many people can go on it and take them off the unemployment register and claim they are being trained for a job.

 

If schemes were well run and offered genuine qualifications and work skills then where are the jobs for those young people to go in to?

Might as well go for quantity over quality as that looks better.

 

I have been on many training schemes over the years and quite honestly I could generally do a better job myself than those training companies,no sarcasm intended.

[TheHitman]

Thats not the point though is it,its all about allowing just about anybody to cobble together a training scheme so that as many people can go on it and take them off the unemployment register and claim they are being trained for a job.

 

If schemes were well run and offered genuine qualifications and work skills then where are the jobs for those young people to go in to?

Might as well go for quantity over quality as that looks better.

 

I have been on many training schemes over the years and quite honestly I could generally do a better job myself than those training companies,no sarcasm intended.

 

I agree totally, it is about massaging the numbers and keeping numbers off the streets. My point is such schemes have a genuine chance to improve peoples prospects, rather than just prepare people for minimum wage jobs (even those are scarce in a lot of areas). Like most instances it is a false economy.

 

Whilst I agree the job situation is bad and is only going to get worse, the least we can do is try and give those going through them unique skills. As SKI pointed out all this costs money.

 

Although the overriding issue is jobs. The problem will only get worse for those in the younger age group. With people staying in work for longer due to retirement age changes and many more experienced people working part-time.

[cochyn]

Our company delivers Apprenticeships, and they're nothing like an apprenticeship of old. Effectively it's what used to be an NVQ (now called a diploma), with a maths, English and IT qualification (Key Skills) thrown in.

 

Here's the catch: The government has pledged to invest billions in Apprenticeships and keep pulling figures out of their arse regarding how many more there'll be available. At the same time, providers are paid buttons for Key Skills. So, if a learner signs up on a Level 3 App that means they have to complete and pass Level 2 Key Skills, which is roughly GCSE Level. The average Apprentice learner probably has the reading and writing skills of your average 10 year old. They might need say 3 hours teaching a week, for 12 months, in each of the Key Skills to get them up to Level 2. So that's 9 hours a week teaching, plus the expenses incurred of a teacher visiting them in their workplace, plus admin costs for a whole year.

 

How much do we get paid for providing these Key Skills? At the moment it's about £180 per course. Obviously, training companies cannot afford to spend tens of thousands of pounds on staff wages when we're only getting 180 quid back, we'd go bust within a month; so sadly we have to knock back a massive proportion of applicants. We'll only take on learners who are capable of passing the Key Skills, which is very few. The rest of these kids are left to rot.

 

So when the government are banging on about how many apprenticeships they're creating, it's actually bollocks. Only a small proportion of them will ever be used.

 

Cracking post. Goes to prove that you don't fatten a calf by weighing it: It disgusts me to think that if a kid can't pass their GSCE's then they're useless. It's a false marker. The whole point of apprenticeships is to give a someone a sense of worth and purpose by doing what they're good at outside our currently slanted education system.

 

Some of the best people I've ever worked with are lads who've apparently 'flunked' at school and earnt a crust 'on the coalface' as it were.

[Anubis]

Our company delivers Apprenticeships, and they're nothing like an apprenticeship of old. Effectively it's what used to be an NVQ (now called a diploma), with a maths, English and IT qualification (Key Skills) thrown in.

 

Here's the catch: The government has pledged to invest billions in Apprenticeships and keep pulling figures out of their arse regarding how many more there'll be available. At the same time, providers are paid buttons for Key Skills. So, if a learner signs up on a Level 3 App that means they have to complete and pass Level 2 Key Skills, which is roughly GCSE Level. The average Apprentice learner probably has the reading and writing skills of your average 10 year old. They might need say 3 hours teaching a week, for 12 months, in each of the Key Skills to get them up to Level 2. So that's 9 hours a week teaching, plus the expenses incurred of a teacher visiting them in their workplace, plus admin costs for a whole year.

 

How much do we get paid for providing these Key Skills? At the moment it's about £180 per course. Obviously, training companies cannot afford to spend tens of thousands of pounds on staff wages when we're only getting 180 quid back, we'd go bust within a month; so sadly we have to knock back a massive proportion of applicants. We'll only take on learners who are capable of passing the Key Skills, which is very few. The rest of these kids are left to rot.

 

So when the government are banging on about how many apprenticeships they're creating, it's actually bollocks. Only a small proportion of them will ever be used.

 

 

Thanks for the insight, Liz. It's just a pity mainstream tabloid journalism is incapable of looking into, let alone writing competently about, government training schemes. If they did, there may even be chance the public would react.

[Mr. Beast]

terrible (and fumbled attempt) by David Cameron to link working peoples relatively small household debts with the gigantic debts created by our insane banking system:

 

David Cameron has hastily rewritten his conference speech to remove any suggestion that he is either urging or instructing the public to pay off their credit card bills – a move that could dampen consumer demand and worsen the recession.

 

A pre-briefed version of the speech on Tuesday read: "The only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. That means households – all of us – paying off the credit card and store card bills."

 

The prime minister's aides said the speech would now read: "That is why households are paying down the credit card and store card bills."

 

A Downing Street aide said: "We are putting our hands up on this. It has been misinterpreted, and the only way to deal with it is to change the wording. We are not going to carry on when it is fairly obvious that it needed to be clarified.

 

"People at home who are struggling cannot afford to pay off their debts, so to have an instruction from on high to do so would have been wrong. We were not ever trying to urge people to pay their credit card bills tomorrow. It was intended as a metaphor or an observation, as opposed to an instruction."

 

The Conservatives pointed to figures showing the public were paying off their debt saying: "Consumers are paying off credit cards. In January 2010 consumers owed £62.4bn on credit cards. In August 2011 was £57bn."

 

Downing Street also denied that Treasury forecasts showed household debt was set to rise, saying these figures included mortgages.

 

A number of newspapers had written up the speech as a haughty instruction from Cameron to the public to pay off their debts for the sake of the economy.

 

On Wednesday morning, economists suggested the plan for a collective pay-off of credit card debts, if interpreted literally, would be economically disastrous as well as politically inept.

 

The episode shows the delicate balancing act Cameron faces in trying to offer some optimism in the middle of the deepening recession.

 

The prime minister does not want the entire Tory message to be one of gloom, deficits and debt, but fears he will be regarded as out of touch if he strays from those areas of concern.

 

Downing Street said the balance of the speech, including its emphasis on leadership through a crisis, was not being changed.

 

Officials said Cameron would not be adding any direct reference to the latest downgrade of UK growth figures or further bad news from some of the UK retailers.

 

But the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, said: "As today's figures show, families struggling with higher food and energy prices, rising unemployment and the VAT rise are already struggling to get by and are cutting back.

 

"They don't need an out-of-touch prime minister lecturing them about paying off their credit cards.

 

"These deeply concerning figures show the British economy has stagnated since the autumn of last year, well before the eurozone crisis. They should set alarm bells ringing in Downing Street and the Treasury."

 

He said it was "deeply out of touch for ministers to claim Britain is a safe haven when our recovery was choked off last autumn" and said the prime minister needs to come up with a plan for jobs and growth "and he needs to do it fast".

 

"David Cameron and George Osborne urgently need to realise that spending cuts and tax rises which go too far and too fast have hit consumer confidence," he said.

 

The deputy Conservative chairman, Michael Fallon, said Cameron was going to clarify his remarks. "As households have paid off the debt, so the government has got to do the same," he added.

 

David Willetts, the universities minister, said: "It was taken as personal financial advice when what he [Cameron] was trying to describe was what was going on in households. Drafts circulate, drafts get altered – what matters is what the prime minister says this afternoon."

 

The Institute for Public Policy Research director, Nick Pearce, said that if all households paid off their credit card debts, consumer spending in one quarter would be reduced by 25% and GDP by 15%.

 

Cameron rewrites conference speech to remove credit card pay-off call | Politics | guardian.co.uk

[VladimirIlyich]

I agree totally, it is about massaging the numbers and keeping numbers off the streets. My point is such schemes have a genuine chance to improve peoples prospects, rather than just prepare people for minimum wage jobs (even those are scarce in a lot of areas). Like most instances it is a false economy.

 

Whilst I agree the job situation is bad and is only going to get worse, the least we can do is try and give those going through them unique skills. As SKI pointed out all this costs money.

 

Although the overriding issue is jobs. The problem will only get worse for those in the younger age group. With people staying in work for longer due to retirement age changes and many more experienced people working part-time.

 

Don't disagree one iota,I'm all for giving young people every possible chance regarding their future irrespective of whether they got loads of qualifications or not.

But if it does cost money and based on my own experience of being a young person under a Tory led government,I don't hold much hope out for anything constructive or genuinely helpful for those youngsters.

I do think there will be a mixture of levels of training companies giving out that training and can only hope that many are like SKI's rather than the ones I experienced.