The Politics Thread

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply

Who will you be voting for?

Labour
12
40%
Conservatives
11
37%
Liberal Democrats
2
7%
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
0
No votes
Green Party
3
10%
Plaid Cymru
0
No votes
Other
1
3%
Planet Hobo
1
3%
 
Total votes: 30

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:10 pm

thebish wrote:
Hoboh wrote:
Prufrock wrote:Oh, "loads"? I'm going to need something a bit more specific than that.

No one doubts some people are out to take the piss, we've all seen them on telly, but while it's galling, there comes a point where it costs more to go after the people gaming the system than you save by catching them. And that's without factoring in the social "cost" of people who are validly claiming being made to feel like lepers.

People keep talking about the "unaffordable" cost of welfare and "loads" of scroungers but I've never seen any numbers to support that. The only numbers I've actually seen are that 1% of 1% of the total welfare bill are most to fraudsters. The majority goes on pensions
I suspect you hardly know anyone on welfare nor have much experience of large council estates, there are still a significant number who take the pee.
Oh and I love the pension cop out as used countless times by those avoiding the point.
in that case it should be relatively straightforward to give us some actual statistics that show this.. no?

why not just show us the stats and end the argument?
I think you'd find the stats will only become available when these people are dealt with the best is long term unemployed
The Office for National Statistics revealed that more than 30m people are now in jobs, up by 459,000 on a year ago, the highest figure since records began in 1971.
The jobless total fell by 63,000 in the quarter to January to 2.33m, a rate of 7.2%. Most of the fall was among men.
And the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in February fell by 34,600 to 1.17m, the 16th consecutive monthly reduction, while vacancies jumped by 23,000 to 588,000, the most since 2008.
There was also a drop in the number of people working part-time because they could not find full-time work - down by 32,000 in the latest quarter to 1.4m, although still 41,000 higher than a year ago.
Youth and long-term unemployment both fell, with those out of work for over a year down by 38,000 to 828,000, while 912,000 people aged between 16 and 24 were jobless, down by 29,000.
As the figures came out David Cameron tweeted: “Another significant fall in unemployment is a sign our long-term economic plan is working, providing security & chances for hard-working people.”
The number of people classed as economically inactive, including long-term sick, those looking after a relative or who have given up looking for work, fell by 19,000 to 8.9m, including the lowest number of women on record (5.6m).
Public sector employment has fallen by 159,000 to 5.5m, the lowest since December 1999, although most of the reduction was explained by Royal Mail workers moving to the private sector because of the postal group’s privatisation.
A large enough figure to suggest a substantial number of p*ss takers

freeindeed
Promising
Promising
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by freeindeed » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:19 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
You are talking in very broad terms. What do you think needs doing particularly to solve the problem? Saying work needs to pay is easy to do, but very hard to achieve in reality. The problem is many people are actually worse off through going to work or at least marginally better off. And there is the rub. You can't just raise wages because every bit of evidence shows that actually suppresses low paid jobs and leads to less entry level jobs, which worsens the original problem....
See Corbyns policies :D

The rich and corporations pay much more:
(http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/investme ... ax_justice
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_c ... x_campaign )

Decommission trident (http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/defence_diversification)

Education - Create a National Education Service (http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_c ... on_service)

Housing - Build more council houses (http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/housing

Jobs - Re-industrialise our work base and build economy in places other than London:
(http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/corbyn_h ... _the_north)

How does raising the minimum wage supress the wages of those on the minimum?

freeindeed
Promising
Promising
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by freeindeed » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:22 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
thebish wrote:I know plenty of people on welfare... most of them have a job - some of them have more than one job.
Here are some stats as you asked for.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/work ... ab-Summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Over 300,000 households where no adult has ever worked. That is higher than I thought to be honest.

3.3M households with nobody working in them. As I say it isn't the financial cost, it is the social problems this causes in many core traditional Labour areas....
Lets also not forget that as well as a social problem this is an economic problem. If every one of those people had a doctorate, there would still be high unemployment because there simply are not enough jobs.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26460
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:29 pm

freeindeed wrote:
BWFC_Insane wrote:
You are talking in very broad terms. What do you think needs doing particularly to solve the problem? Saying work needs to pay is easy to do, but very hard to achieve in reality. The problem is many people are actually worse off through going to work or at least marginally better off. And there is the rub. You can't just raise wages because every bit of evidence shows that actually suppresses low paid jobs and leads to less entry level jobs, which worsens the original problem....
See Corbyns policies :D

The rich and corporations pay much more:
(http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/investme ... ax_justice
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_c ... x_campaign )

Decommission trident (http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/defence_diversification)

Education - Create a National Education Service (http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_c ... on_service)

Housing - Build more council houses (http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/housing

Jobs - Re-industrialise our work base and build economy in places other than London:
(http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/corbyn_h ... _the_north)

How does raising the minimum wage supress the wages of those on the minimum?
I will dig out some publications on this later...

But in general if you have a higher minimum wage you have 4 possibilities:

Companies make less profit
Companies increase prices
Companies reduce staff costs through numbers reduction
Companies stagnate staff pay just above the minimum wage.

You only really have four options, there isn't going to be extra money made available.. The top one isn't happening. The second is a path to inflation and means the minimum wage rise is counter-productive.

The third possibility leads to a reduction in employment or more likely a reduction in the number of new jobs created.

The fourth possibility is seen in contract industries and larger employers. Simply staff just above the minimum wages see their wages compressed. In other words pay progression gets stopped and slowed and more are dragged towards the min wage.

freeindeed
Promising
Promising
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by freeindeed » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:56 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
I will dig out some publications on this later...

But in general if you have a higher minimum wage you have 4 possibilities:

Companies make less profit
Companies increase prices
Companies reduce staff costs through numbers reduction
Companies stagnate staff pay just above the minimum wage.

You only really have four options, there isn't going to be extra money made available.. The top one isn't happening. The second is a path to inflation and means the minimum wage rise is counter-productive.

The third possibility leads to a reduction in employment or more likely a reduction in the number of new jobs created.

The fourth possibility is seen in contract industries and larger employers. Simply staff just above the minimum wages see their wages compressed. In other words pay progression gets stopped and slowed and more are dragged towards the min wage.
Thanks for that, interesting.

Point 1 - The modern world is completely dominated by large companies, corporations and mega-corporations. This domination is bad for individuals and society. Thatcher and Regan demolished anti-monopoly laws that allowed the rise of the multinational, just as they deregulated the financial sector that is destabilising the worlds economy.
Corporate profit and greed is not a given. Monopoly can be reigned in if the politics redefines law.

Instead of consumers being ripped off from every sector as profit is extracted, we can choose to nationalise industry. Instead of every household being exploited for profit, we can choose to have collective ownership, so all of our money is saved rather than given away. Analogous to renting a house Vs Saving via a mortgage.
We pay 4 times the £ in subsidies for the railways than we did to run the whole network. The promise was to bring prices down; the reality is they have gone through the roof.

The multi-nationals in cahoots with the right-wing ideology have created a "race to the bottom" where nations reduce their tax bill to "attract business" whilst simultaneously eroding workers rights, banning trade unions, and freezing/reducing wages. Where will it end?

It needs attacking from both ends. Nationalise industries that are natural monopolies, Increase corporation tax in the UK. Campaign internationally to outlaw tax havens. Increase the wages directly at the bottom. Our first concern is the wages of the working poor, the corporations profits can see to themselves.

KeyserSoze
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1776
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by KeyserSoze » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:21 pm

Wage hikes and corporate profits aren't mutually exclusive though.

There have been a few high-profile wage increases by several big companies this year, and something similar will probably continue for a while. However, there is a danger that with raising too high you are pricing out the labour of minimum-skill workers. This is particularly acute given how technology is taking over many menial tasks.

It isn't a clear picture, and it's not as if raising the minimum wage is the only available option (there's tax credits, increasing the allowance, etc).

Going on about how multinationals are in cahoots with the right wing lizard people or something won't stimulate a debate around this (important) issue, but turn it into a shit flinging match. There is certainly a case to be made for a higher minimum wage, but it's also worth thinking about the downsides of that in the long run - higher wages but fewer jobs won't help inequality.
#Jesuispratley

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:23 pm

freeindeed wrote:
BWFC_Insane wrote:
thebish wrote:I know plenty of people on welfare... most of them have a job - some of them have more than one job.
Here are some stats as you asked for.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/work ... ab-Summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Over 300,000 households where no adult has ever worked. That is higher than I thought to be honest.

3.3M households with nobody working in them. As I say it isn't the financial cost, it is the social problems this causes in many core traditional Labour areas....
Lets also not forget that as well as a social problem this is an economic problem. If every one of those people had a doctorate, there would still be high unemployment because there simply are not enough jobs.
Yeah and being most of them are in the low skilled category allowing in low skilled migrants ain't going to help the situation.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:37 pm

freeindeed wrote:
BWFC_Insane wrote:
I will dig out some publications on this later...

But in general if you have a higher minimum wage you have 4 possibilities:

Companies make less profit
Companies increase prices
Companies reduce staff costs through numbers reduction
Companies stagnate staff pay just above the minimum wage.

You only really have four options, there isn't going to be extra money made available.. The top one isn't happening. The second is a path to inflation and means the minimum wage rise is counter-productive.

The third possibility leads to a reduction in employment or more likely a reduction in the number of new jobs created.

The fourth possibility is seen in contract industries and larger employers. Simply staff just above the minimum wages see their wages compressed. In other words pay progression gets stopped and slowed and more are dragged towards the min wage.
Thanks for that, interesting.

Point 1 - The modern world is completely dominated by large companies, corporations and mega-corporations. This domination is bad for individuals and society. Thatcher and Regan demolished anti-monopoly laws that allowed the rise of the multinational, just as they deregulated the financial sector that is destabilising the worlds economy. Corporate profit and greed is not a given. Monopoly can be reigned in if the politics redefines law.
Blair, Brown and Labour had nothing to do with that then?
Instead of consumers being ripped off from every sector as profit is extracted, we can choose to nationalise industry. Instead of every household being exploited for profit, we can choose to have collective ownership, so all of our money is saved rather than given away. Analogous to renting a house Vs Saving via a mortgage.
We pay 4 times the £ in subsidies for the railways than we did to run the whole network. The promise was to bring prices down; the reality is they have gone through the roof.
the railways never ran on time they were riddled with wildcat strikes, people have short selective memories.
They still don't run on time but there's less strikes.

The multi-nationals in cahoots with the right-wing ideology have created a "race to the bottom" where nations reduce their tax bill to "attract business" whilst simultaneously eroding workers rights, banning trade unions, and freezing/reducing wages. Where will it end?

It needs attacking from both ends. Nationalise industries that are natural monopolies, Increase corporation tax in the UK. Campaign internationally to outlaw tax havens. Increase the wages directly at the bottom. Our first concern is the wages of the working poor, the corporations profits can see to themselves.
sod nationalising your so called monopolies, essentials such as power and water should be held in national interests, trains are hardly the be all and end all of people or freight carriers and God help us with a return to the GPO!

freeindeed
Promising
Promising
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by freeindeed » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:41 pm

KeyserSoze wrote:Wage hikes and corporate profits aren't mutually exclusive though.
No, but it was the specific point I was addressing.
There have been a few high-profile wage increases by several big companies this year, and something similar will probably continue for a while. However, there is a danger that with raising too high you are pricing out the labour of minimum-skill workers. This is particularly acute given how technology is taking over many menial tasks.
I was proposing it as a solution to incentivising work versus welfare.
It isn't a clear picture, and it's not as if raising the minimum wage is the only available option (there's tax credits, increasing the allowance, etc).
Do you know the different effects of each?

I noticed the Tories raised the minimum wage, but lowered the tax credits to create a positive headline.
Going on about how multinationals are in cahoots with the right wing lizard people or something won't stimulate a debate around this (important) issue, but turn it into a shit flinging match. There is certainly a case to be made for a higher minimum wage, but it's also worth thinking about the downsides of that in the long run - higher wages but fewer jobs won't help inequality.
You think they are lizards? Sheez.

Their rise is due to right-wing ideology. Facts are facts, and if it's not clear to people it still needs to be said.

I'm in no way fixed on raising a minimum wage, but am fixed on increasing the rights and living standards of the working poor. I am not talking about raising wages in isolation, but as part of a restructuring of society as a whole, beginning with ending austerity, stimulating the econmomy and creating jobs - not losing them.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37588
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by thebish » Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:06 am

well - yes - Hoboh and BWFCi have quoted numbers - stats... good start! But none of them relating to the original claim - that (granted) might have been forgotten in the excitement...

this was BWFCi's claim:
there are significant numbers of people living off benefits with zero intention of doing anything else. It has become a generational thing in many Northern towns (and probably elsewhere).
now - if (as seems clear) this is just an "I reckon" - then fair enough, describe it as such. But if you are claiming this is an actual significant reality - then (as I said) I'd like to see some stats/research that actually backs it up. There is research that disputes that claim - I am interested to see the research that backs it up. please?

a couple of points for Hoboh and his stats..

"long-term unemployed" - this does not mean "has never worked" - it simply means claiming unemployment benefit for 12months or more.

jobs... it seems to me that your two most dominant forum arguments are kind of in the realm of have your cake and eat it..

1) all the jobs that our british workers want are taken by the squillions of east european migrants swamping the country
2) british unemployed are layabouts who don't want jobs

hmmm..

if immigrants have taken all the jobs - then you can't call the british unemployed "workshy layabouts" - as - by your argument - all the jobs have been taken by immigrants..

if brits are multi-generation layabouts who are taking the piss and won't work - then surely it is a good thing that the immigrants are doing the jobs the brits won't do - else who would empty your bins and clean out your bed pan?
Some people are like Slinkies … not really good for anything, but you can’t help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26460
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:11 am

thebish wrote:well - yes - Hoboh and BWFCi have quoted numbers - stats... good start! But none of them relating to the original claim - that (granted) might have been forgotten in the excitement...

this was BWFCi's claim:
there are significant numbers of people living off benefits with zero intention of doing anything else. It has become a generational thing in many Northern towns (and probably elsewhere).
now - if (as seems clear) this is just an "I reckon" - then fair enough, describe it as such. But if you are claiming this is an actual significant reality - then (as I said) I'd like to see some stats/research that actually backs it up. There is research that disputes that claim - I am interested to see the research that backs it up. please?

a couple of points for Hoboh and his stats..

"long-term unemployed" - this does not mean "has never worked" - it simply means claiming unemployment benefit for 12months or more.

jobs... it seems to me that your two most dominant forum arguments are kind of in the realm of have your cake and eat it..

1) all the jobs that our british workers want are taken by the squillions of east european migrants swamping the country
2) british unemployed are layabouts who don't want jobs

hmmm..

if immigrants have taken all the jobs - then you can't call the british unemployed "workshy layabouts" - as - by your argument - all the jobs have been taken by immigrants..

if brits are multi-generation layabouts who are taking the piss and won't work - then surely it is a good thing that the immigrants are doing the jobs the brits won't do - else who would empty your bins and clean out your bed pan?
See my stats from the ONS. Over 300,000 households where no adult has ever worked. I appreciate that stat isn't going to be entirely composed of the issue I described, of course, but it is going to be the closest stat there is. Not long term unemployed. But where no adult in that household has ever worked.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37588
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by thebish » Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:23 am

no - that does not address the issue you described!

research HAS been done on the very issue you describe.

the Centre for Market and Public Organisation (based at Bristol University) studied exactly the claim you make and concluded:
Worklessness is a major problem: in 3.7m working-age households, 18% of the total, nobody has a job. But two-generational worklessness is far rarer – workless parents and grown-up children are found together in only 0.9% of households. As for homes with two generations that have never worked, the fraction drops further, to less than 0.1% of the total. Of course there will be some "never-worked" families where children have flown the nest, but the little data available suggests these, too, are uncommon.
if you are interested, you can read their publicised research and findings here:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/ ... /wp278.pdf

The Joseph Rowntree foundation has also done extensive research on this specific issue.

In one of their studies they set out to identify and investigate 20 such "never-worked" families in deprived Glasgow and Teesside, but it found not a single one. The reality is not permanent idleness, but permanent insecurity. Yes, there are individuals who give up on the jobs market, but most have relatives who flip between low pay and unemployment.

you can read the Joseph Rowntree research here: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/cult ... rklessness

This idea of a huge swathe of multi-generationaly slacker-families populating Northern estates is a myth...

it's a very convenient one for a tory govt who like to trot it out at every opportunity...

now - there is research that speaks against your assertion. you can dismiss it if you like - but I would still like to see some research that backs up your claim...
Some people are like Slinkies … not really good for anything, but you can’t help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 26460
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:35 am

thebish wrote:no - that does not address the issue you described!

research HAS been done on the very issue you describe.

the Centre for Market and Public Organisation (based at Bristol University) studied exactly the claim you make and concluded:
Worklessness is a major problem: in 3.7m working-age households, 18% of the total, nobody has a job. But two-generational worklessness is far rarer – workless parents and grown-up children are found together in only 0.9% of households. As for homes with two generations that have never worked, the fraction drops further, to less than 0.1% of the total. Of course there will be some "never-worked" families where children have flown the nest, but the little data available suggests these, too, are uncommon.
if you are interested, you can read their publicised research and findings here:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/ ... /wp278.pdf

The Joseph Rowntree foundation has also done extensive research on this specific issue.

In one of their studies they set out to identify and investigate 20 such "never-worked" families in deprived Glasgow and Teesside, but it found not a single one. The reality is not permanent idleness, but permanent insecurity. Yes, there are individuals who give up on the jobs market, but most have relatives who flip between low pay and unemployment.

you can read the Joseph Rowntree research here: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/cult ... rklessness

This idea of a huge swathe of multi-generationaly slacker-families populating Northern estates is a myth...

it's a very convenient one for a tory govt who like to trot it out at every opportunity...

now - there is research that speaks against your assertion. you can dismiss it if you like - but I would still like to see some research that backs up your claim...
Thanks Bish. Need to have a proper read of this later on when I've more time. However, what you've posted from Bristol at first glance seems to show there is a generational problem.
Sons with workless fathers in weaker local labour markets with high unemployment spend over 25% more time workless than sons with employed fathers.
So there is a generational issue there and a problem. I accept that it may not be as clear cut as "never worked", that is possibly me taking my local experience an extrapolation too far. But the data from Bristol backs up an assertion I have that there is a definite generational problem. 300,000 households where no adult has worked in 2014. Millions where no adult is currently working. And that Bristol data suggests that problem will have a generational effect. Within all the data of course will be people who have worked but only for brief periods. But I am glad you posted that as I will read it.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37588
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by thebish » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:04 am

just out of interest - what is your "local experience"? you mention walking around northern housing estates... what contact do you have with these families?

I don't think the data DOES back up your assertion that unemloyement is a generational issue.

I'm sure you can see the reason why tories paint it that way?? the implication is that worklessness/idleness is a life-value passed on from poor workshy parents to their children - worklessness is then a MORAL issue and something to be punished - it creates a them and us sub-species mindset...

If you are making such claims - then this is very powerful stuff and I think it is a dangerous claim to make if you can't actually back it up with any actual research.

the sudies i have linked absolutely do NOT agree with you that a culture of worklessness/workshyness is passed on through the generations - in fact they show remarkable resilience in the face of real hardship for a strong work ethic. it is not the passing down of attitudes to work - OF COURSE people born with economic disadvantages will have fewer opportunities - but any subsequent periods of unemployment/underemployment will not usually be down to a "culture" of benefit dependency on Northern estates or a genetic aversion to work amongst the poor.

many people I know on benefits work a feck load harder than I do (and quite possibly you do).
Some people are like Slinkies … not really good for anything, but you can’t help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:04 am

thebish wrote:well - yes - Hoboh and BWFCi have quoted numbers - stats... good start! But none of them relating to the original claim - that (granted) might have been forgotten in the excitement...

this was BWFCi's claim:
there are significant numbers of people living off benefits with zero intention of doing anything else. It has become a generational thing in many Northern towns (and probably elsewhere).
now - if (as seems clear) this is just an "I reckon" - then fair enough, describe it as such. But if you are claiming this is an actual significant reality - then (as I said) I'd like to see some stats/research that actually backs it up. There is research that disputes that claim - I am interested to see the research that backs it up. please?

a couple of points for Hoboh and his stats..

"long-term unemployed" - this does not mean "has never worked" - it simply means claiming unemployment benefit for 12months or more.

jobs... it seems to me that your two most dominant forum arguments are kind of in the realm of have your cake and eat it..

1) all the jobs that our british workers want are taken by the squillions of east european migrants swamping the country
2) british unemployed are layabouts who don't want jobs

hmmm..

if immigrants have taken all the jobs - then you can't call the british unemployed "workshy layabouts" - as - by your argument - all the jobs have been taken by immigrants..

if brits are multi-generation layabouts who are taking the piss and won't work - then surely it is a good thing that the immigrants are doing the jobs the brits won't do - else who would empty your bins and clean out your bed pan?
Try finding stats for how many have not worked for 5 years plus, do you think they want you to find that out?

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37588
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by thebish » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:05 am

who is this mysterious "they"?
Some people are like Slinkies … not really good for anything, but you can’t help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:07 am

thebish wrote:well - yes - Hoboh and BWFCi have quoted numbers - stats... good start! But none of them relating to the original claim - that (granted) might have been forgotten in the excitement...

this was BWFCi's claim:
there are significant numbers of people living off benefits with zero intention of doing anything else. It has become a generational thing in many Northern towns (and probably elsewhere).
now - if (as seems clear) this is just an "I reckon" - then fair enough, describe it as such. But if you are claiming this is an actual significant reality - then (as I said) I'd like to see some stats/research that actually backs it up. There is research that disputes that claim - I am interested to see the research that backs it up. please?

a couple of points for Hoboh and his stats..

"long-term unemployed" - this does not mean "has never worked" - it simply means claiming unemployment benefit for 12months or more.

jobs... it seems to me that your two most dominant forum arguments are kind of in the realm of have your cake and eat it..

1) all the jobs that our british workers want are taken by the squillions of east european migrants swamping the country
2) british unemployed are layabouts who don't want jobs

hmmm..

if immigrants have taken all the jobs - then you can't call the british unemployed "workshy layabouts" - as - by your argument - all the jobs have been taken by immigrants..

if brits are multi-generation layabouts who are taking the piss and won't work - then surely it is a good thing that the immigrants are doing the jobs the brits won't do - else who would empty your bins and clean out your bed pan?
I think Yvette Balls answers all questions in regard of Labour and migration of illegals!

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:09 am

thebish wrote:who is this mysterious "they"?
The government, of any colour, no one will admit to cock ups of monumental style.
Why the hell do you think May won't release figures on the number of illegals making it over here? She'd be hung drawn and quartered.

jaffka
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8439
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: uk

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by jaffka » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:42 am

Feck me this has rambled on with no end in sight.

Is bish basically saying there aren't any work shy cvnts?

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12881
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Hoboh » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:49 am

jaffka wrote:Feck me this has rambled on with no end in sight.

Is bish basically saying there aren't any work shy cvnts?
Seems like it, same as some claim all migrants are a benefit to our country and society.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests