 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment" Ooh, whi was running the country 5 years ago 🤔 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. " Most people on universal credit are in work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. " You honestly believe this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment Ooh, whi was running the country 5 years ago 🤔" . That was start of COVID. But your question isn't relevent or current. Liebour are in power NOW and what's happening now, esp for the young people is very relevent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. Most people on universal credit are in work. " Part time or full time? I know people that went from full time to part time for free rent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. Most people on universal credit are in work. Part time or full time? I know people that went from full time to part time for free rent. " . You cant be part-time unemployed. These are those who are NOT working | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The far right daily mail readers want these poor young people doing national service or scrubbing the streets with a toothbrush for their benefits." What's wrong with being a street cleaner? It's honest work ... Don't be such snob. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The far right daily mail readers want these poor young people doing national service or scrubbing the streets with a toothbrush for their benefits." Many countries ask their citizens to contribute to voluntary community projects in exchange for benefit payments, It helps hard pressed local councils and is not restricted to scrubbing the streets | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The far right daily mail readers want these poor young people doing national service or scrubbing the streets with a toothbrush for their benefits. Many countries ask their citizens to contribute to voluntary community projects in exchange for benefit payments, It helps hard pressed local councils and is not restricted to scrubbing the streets " And we pay them to stay in bed out of site with no prospects. no values and no reason to respect authoritie | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So you think reform are going to dramatically reduce unemployment? Farage is a posh schoolboy who rarely attends the commons or his constituency. Just remember the European court of human rights protected so many people from discrimination and if you think it's all about immigration you are sadly deluded. Not saying Labour have got it right but seriously do you believe a rich far right politician believes in the common people?" Get bored when people talk about farage being rich the leaders of the 3 main parties all millionaires. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a direct consequence of Reeves' budgets. Minimum wage increases and NI increases have had a definite negative impact on the jobs market. Even Angela Rayner has acknowledged the problems as well as energy costs and business rates. Bit ironic of her really, as her employment rights bill will just exacerbate the problem" It was already a difficult environment before the tens of billions of additional cost dumped on business by a tax obsessed government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this?" my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄" Doesn’t that show that she was being underpaid rather than benefits being too high? The pay gap between bosses and staff has never been greater, this also leads to in work benefits which in effect subsidize rich companies ( i am looking at you Amazon etc) profits . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 more years ...Starmer will be riding high at the time of the next election. He isnt going anywhere .. he s not a quitter like Cameron May Johnson Truss and Sunak." Labour party rules make it harder to get rid of a leader. Starmer is a dead duck walking. If Labour has any self-respect the party should get rid asap. Probably after May elections. They are no longer the party of working people...they are destroying jobs! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 more years ...Starmer will be riding high at the time of the next election. He isnt going anywhere .. he s not a quitter like Cameron May Johnson Truss and Sunak." He will be gone after the election results soon. Liebour are turning on him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fourteen years of Tory government and it's all Labour s fault now.Grow up." Tories didnt cause this exteme cristis Starmer and Liebour can take all the credit for this disaster. Wouldnt we all love to go back to pre elections times | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fourteen years of Tory government and it's all Labour s fault now.Grow up. Tories didnt cause this exteme cristis Starmer and Liebour can take all the credit for this disaster. Wouldnt we all love to go back to pre elections times" You have spelled Labour wrong again please spell it properly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. Most people on universal credit are in work. " Working part tine and refusing to work extra in case theh lose benefits | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fourteen years of Tory government and it's all Labour s fault now.Grow up. Tories didnt cause this exteme cristis Starmer and Liebour can take all the credit for this disaster. Wouldnt we all love to go back to pre elections times" You are correct, history, consequences and knock on effects all ended as soon as Labour won. They entered a hermetically sealed world where everything they say or do is immediately enacted and impacts everything all the time forever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I bet they can spell words correctly." Ok Terry! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like quite a few Labour councillors will add to the ever-growing unemployment figures in May. Poetic justice" 👎👎👎👎 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a direct consequence of Reeves' budgets. Minimum wage increases and NI increases have had a definite negative impact on the jobs market. Even Angela Rayner has acknowledged the problems as well as energy costs and business rates. Bit ironic of her really, as her employment rights bill will just exacerbate the problem" I don’t think it is all down to that, there have been reports in the media for a while now that some companies have been using AI to replace, or as a substitute for taking on Junior staff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment Ooh, whi was running the country 5 years ago 🤔. That was start of COVID. But your question isn't relevent or current. Liebour are in power NOW and what's happening now, esp for the young people is very relevent"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄" That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. " Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So you think reform are going to dramatically reduce unemployment? Farage is a posh schoolboy who rarely attends the commons or his constituency. Just remember the European court of human rights protected so many people from discrimination and if you think it's all about immigration you are sadly deluded. Not saying Labour have got it right but seriously do you believe a rich far right politician believes in the common people?" Who mentioned Reform? Who suggested Reform would do better? Whenever anyone criticises the current Government the paranoia surfaces and the anti Reform posts begin. (I don’t vote Reform) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment" Quite so. Tax employment, levels go down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. " Yes, and for some, it's extremely profitable, especially now they have ended the two child benefit cap, as "some" with many children will be very well off! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a direct consequence of Reeves' budgets. Minimum wage increases and NI increases have had a definite negative impact on the jobs market. Even Angela Rayner has acknowledged the problems as well as energy costs and business rates. Bit ironic of her really, as her employment rights bill will just exacerbate the problem I don’t think it is all down to that, there have been reports in the media for a while now that some companies have been using AI to replace, or as a substitute for taking on Junior staff." It's not even that advanced yet. The real killer at the moment is no company is backfilling roles at all as there is zero confidence in the economy (and I don't mean just here, but globally). We are seeing the major British banks come out with statements about needing to develop their own payment systems as they are concerned about the US cutting nations off from accessing visa and MasterCard as leverage. No one can risk money on hiring. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! " Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can always make this underpaid argument. Take the child care space. They lose staff to higher paying sectors like retail all the time. Now suggest to parents that they pay 50 a week more for little Wendy's attendance and they laugh in your face, even if they agree that the staff are underpaid. That's the reality in thin margin business. Hit these businesses with higher energy, staffing, and regulatory costs and it becomes uneconomic very quickly." I understand the small business issue, I have knowledge of several businesses that reach a ‘too much work for a one man band, but not enough to pay staff’ grey area, this is where government intervention should be, not subsidizing national & international big business with UC top ups | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Half of people on Universal Credit have jobs. What sort of country is it where you have a job but still have to claim benefits. This has happened because of immigration, which has caused insane increases in house prices and rents while wages have stagnated for 20 years. I don't blame immigrants either btw, it's up to the government to sort these issues out and they've fucked everything up. Especially that lying prick Boris Johnson." It is multi factorial, to blame immigration ignores selling council houses and not replacing, ignores the shift from manufacturing to service industries, ignores the widening gap between the top and bottom wages in organizations often subsidized by UC, ignores privatization taking money out of the public realm and loading it with debt… often another low wage UC supported employer..there are more of course and you are correct that government of any type should sort this out.. but who & how? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance" People who are new to a job or career aren't being underpaid, they're being remunerated in accordance with their work output, which won't be at 100% as they're still on the learning curve and climbing the ladder. The encouragement to advance themselves is the prospect of higher earnings. It might not seem fair to some, but it's a system that's worked for centuries and ensures jobs for all. The alternative isn't appealing, as highlighted by the current 5-year high in unemployment. Remove that incentive, and work opportunities are destroyed. This Labour government is at fault because they fail to grasp the practicalities facing employers and ignore established employment customs and practical economic principles. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The far right daily mail readers want these poor young people doing national service or scrubbing the streets with a toothbrush for their benefits. What's wrong with being a street cleaner? It's honest work ... Don't be such snob." Nothing wrong with cleaning streets. A respectable and worthwhile job. But with a toothbrush? In one village, where I lived briefly, we had a street warden. A very respectable middle-aged lady who kept the village streets immaculate. As for national service I, as an army veteran, think that is a ridiculous idea. The armed forces are a dedicated profession body of willing dedicated personal. Not a melting pot for every unhappy, unwilling or bone-idle yobs. Certainly think more encouragement should be given to apprenticeships. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Half of people on Universal Credit have jobs. What sort of country is it where you have a job but still have to claim benefits. This has happened because of immigration, which has caused insane increases in house prices and rents while wages have stagnated for 20 years. I don't blame immigrants either btw, it's up to the government to sort these issues out and they've fucked everything up. Especially that lying prick Boris Johnson." There's a bit more nuance to this. Immigration in the 2000s tapped into hard working, driven people from Eastern Europe, and they really helped to revitalise some tired UK towns. It seemed like more of the same was required, but you cant keep those levels up when the financial crash led to massive local government cuts. I'm not surprised why people were angry come the Brexit vote, and they found the easiest target. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance People who are new to a job or career aren't being underpaid, they're being remunerated in accordance with their work output, which won't be at 100% as they're still on the learning curve and climbing the ladder. The encouragement to advance themselves is the prospect of higher earnings. It might not seem fair to some, but it's a system that's worked for centuries and ensures jobs for all. The alternative isn't appealing, as highlighted by the current 5-year high in unemployment. Remove that incentive, and work opportunities are destroyed. This Labour government is at fault because they fail to grasp the practicalities facing employers and ignore established employment customs and practical economic principles." But i fail to see why compared to the top teir in many organizations is paid so much more. I have no problem with grades & scales, I don’t understand how this government is ignoring employment customs etc, as someone commented above wages have largely stagnated…for the majority of the workers but increased hugely for management, particularly CEOs etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance People who are new to a job or career aren't being underpaid, they're being remunerated in accordance with their work output, which won't be at 100% as they're still on the learning curve and climbing the ladder. The encouragement to advance themselves is the prospect of higher earnings. It might not seem fair to some, but it's a system that's worked for centuries and ensures jobs for all. The alternative isn't appealing, as highlighted by the current 5-year high in unemployment. Remove that incentive, and work opportunities are destroyed. This Labour government is at fault because they fail to grasp the practicalities facing employers and ignore established employment customs and practical economic principles. But i fail to see why compared to the top teir in many organizations is paid so much more. I have no problem with grades & scales, I don’t understand how this government is ignoring employment customs etc, as someone commented above wages have largely stagnated…for the majority of the workers but increased hugely for management, particularly CEOs etc" Is the briefing that they are considering not increasing the minimum wage for under 18 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Half of people on Universal Credit have jobs. What sort of country is it where you have a job but still have to claim benefits. This has happened because of immigration, which has caused insane increases in house prices and rents while wages have stagnated for 20 years. I don't blame immigrants either btw, it's up to the government to sort these issues out and they've fucked everything up. Especially that lying prick Boris Johnson. There's a bit more nuance to this. Immigration in the 2000s tapped into hard working, driven people from Eastern Europe, and they really helped to revitalise some tired UK towns. It seemed like more of the same was required, but you cant keep those levels up when the financial crash led to massive local government cuts. I'm not surprised why people were angry come the Brexit vote, and they found the easiest target. " I can confirm that. In the 2000s I was in the hotel business. The influx of East European workers, especially Poles and Hungarians, was an absolute godsend. The came legally via agencies. Were invariably cheerful, hard-working, efficient and reliable. No not turning up to work or phoning in sick when they had a hangover. Mr Farage made a fuss about them back then. Said they shouldn't be here and were 'stealing' jobs from British workers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance People who are new to a job or career aren't being underpaid, they're being remunerated in accordance with their work output, which won't be at 100% as they're still on the learning curve and climbing the ladder. The encouragement to advance themselves is the prospect of higher earnings. It might not seem fair to some, but it's a system that's worked for centuries and ensures jobs for all. The alternative isn't appealing, as highlighted by the current 5-year high in unemployment. Remove that incentive, and work opportunities are destroyed. This Labour government is at fault because they fail to grasp the practicalities facing employers and ignore established employment customs and practical economic principles. But i fail to see why compared to the top teir in many organizations is paid so much more. I have no problem with grades & scales, I don’t understand how this government is ignoring employment customs etc, as someone commented above wages have largely stagnated…for the majority of the workers but increased hugely for management, particularly CEOs etc" The pay disparity between CEOs and average workers is a result of various factors, including changes in corporate management, tax policies, and labour market dynamics. In the UK, CEO pay has risen significantly over the past few decades, while average wages have grown more slowly. The government's approach to executive pay has been to encourage transparency and shareholder oversight. Employment customs and pay scales vary widely across organisations, and the gap between top-tier management and other employees has widened in many sectors. CEOs have significant responsibility and impact on company performance, which contributes to their high salaries. Companies need to attract and retain top talent in a competitive market, and pay is often tied to performance factors, such as share price or profit growth. Additionally, CEOs' skills and experience are highly sought after, driving up their market value. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The far right daily mail readers want these poor young people doing national service or scrubbing the streets with a toothbrush for their benefits. Many countries ask their citizens to contribute to voluntary community projects in exchange for benefit payments, It helps hard pressed local councils and is not restricted to scrubbing the streets " I’m not saying that this is the answer But Logically Gives the unemployed person a purpose Reduces the costs of outside contractors for the councils And for those that are simply avoiding the work ethic will maybe just give them food for thought that they could be getting paid a proper days money instead of voluntary unpaid I know not everyone who receives benefits is in a position where they can give voluntary work maybe due to child care disability including mental illnesses there are a great many factors to be taken into account But I personally know enough ponces who don’t fall into any such bracket that are more than capable of giving voluntary work Me personally if I was unemployed would gladly donate my time to give myself a purpose But then I’m not a lazy sit about moping type of person and daytime tv is my worst nightmare | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment Ooh, whi was running the country 5 years ago 🤔" Conservative was the party running the country, but alas. Unemployments rates have shot up now Labour takes control! See the logic there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance People who are new to a job or career aren't being underpaid, they're being remunerated in accordance with their work output, which won't be at 100% as they're still on the learning curve and climbing the ladder. The encouragement to advance themselves is the prospect of higher earnings. It might not seem fair to some, but it's a system that's worked for centuries and ensures jobs for all. The alternative isn't appealing, as highlighted by the current 5-year high in unemployment. Remove that incentive, and work opportunities are destroyed. This Labour government is at fault because they fail to grasp the practicalities facing employers and ignore established employment customs and practical economic principles. But i fail to see why compared to the top teir in many organizations is paid so much more. I have no problem with grades & scales, I don’t understand how this government is ignoring employment customs etc, as someone commented above wages have largely stagnated…for the majority of the workers but increased hugely for management, particularly CEOs etc The pay disparity between CEOs and average workers is a result of various factors, including changes in corporate management, tax policies, and labour market dynamics. In the UK, CEO pay has risen significantly over the past few decades, while average wages have grown more slowly. The government's approach to executive pay has been to encourage transparency and shareholder oversight. Employment customs and pay scales vary widely across organisations, and the gap between top-tier management and other employees has widened in many sectors. CEOs have significant responsibility and impact on company performance, which contributes to their high salaries. Companies need to attract and retain top talent in a competitive market, and pay is often tied to performance factors, such as share price or profit growth. Additionally, CEOs' skills and experience are highly sought after, driving up their market value. " All nicely put and the usual argument, it all falls over when there are problems, usually CEO claims no knowledge, keeps job, pension etc, or walks away keeps pension and steps into a similar job. They get the big money because they self regulate & set their own terms, holding shareholders to ransom. Also why is pay so high to attract the best talent at that level, but not at regular employee level? Where does that start? Position? After a wage point in particular? Why doesn’t pay peanuts & get monkeys not apply at lower levels? Don’t companies want best talent at all levels? Are we assuming that money isn’t a motivator at low levels or that it only becomes a factor at a certain level? Do you want a CEO who is only there for the money? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unemployment always rises under Labour governments. They are the party of excessive welfare and Immigrants. " Was Thatcher conservative? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unemployment always rises under Labour governments. They are the party of excessive welfare and Immigrants. Was Thatcher conservative?" “Always” under Labour is not the same as “only” under Labour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment Ooh, whi was running the country 5 years ago 🤔 Conservative was the party running the country, but alas. Unemployments rates have shot up now Labour takes control! See the logic there?" Its not as if the last tory government ran the country into the ground for 14 years or anything obviously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄" She didn't need to wait for a Leibour governement to do that. But she had to pretend to have lost her job otherwise she would've got zero benefits - that fiddle worked also under Tories as well. The real problem is that no party dares changing the benefits system - easier to keep sinking into more debts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just come back from Spain. Place was full of British immigrants living there. Most make no attempt to integrate . Most make no attempt to learn Spanish and many just want to eat an English diet. Of course Farage wouldnt see a problem with them. He no doubt he would call them ex pats ... but lets call them British immigrants. " Hmmm, swap the word British for black/brown/muslim etc and your generalisation and you sound exactly like what you term a fascist/racist in your many prolific rants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Swap a racist for a migrant any day." Thanks for volunteering.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. Most people on universal credit are in work. Part time or full time? I know people that went from full time to part time for free rent. . You cant be part-time unemployed. These are those who are NOT working" This guy is stupid only befits is unemployment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Next you will be calling those low achieving middle aged angry white men who climb up lamposts "patriotic" ... you know the saddos who have nothing better to do but to climb up lamposts and festoon them with tatty flags in the middle of the night. Inadequates. " Yes but look at all those extra jobs they're creating in China due to demand for the Union flag !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just come back from Spain. Place was full of British immigrants living there. Most make no attempt to integrate . Most make no attempt to learn Spanish and many just want to eat an English diet. Of course Farage wouldnt see a problem with them. He no doubt he would call them ex pats ... but lets call them British immigrants. " Are the British there illegally or not is the question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unemployment always rises under Labour governments. They are the party of excessive welfare and Immigrants. Was Thatcher conservative? “Always” under Labour is not the same as “only” under Labour." So pretty much under either of the two then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unemployment always rises under Labour governments. They are the party of excessive welfare and Immigrants. Was Thatcher conservative? “Always” under Labour is not the same as “only” under Labour. So pretty much under either of the two then." Absolutely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just come back from Spain. Place was full of British immigrants living there. Most make no attempt to integrate . Most make no attempt to learn Spanish and many just want to eat an English diet. Of course Farage wouldnt see a problem with them. He no doubt he would call them ex pats ... but lets call them British immigrants. Hmmm, swap the word British for black/brown/muslim etc and your generalisation and you sound exactly like what you term a fascist/racist in your many prolific rants." You only appeared here a few days so how could you possibly know who is prolific or not?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal or legal ... most British immigrants dont integrate." Yet this fella throws a hissy fit if one dares to say this about any non Brit in the UK. His lot are a joke. Thank God they’ll soon be confined to the sewer of history. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You only appeared here a few days so how could you possibly know who is prolific or not? "A few days was all that was needed to witness his bile. Like you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"True" Thanks for agreeing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Angry angry .. are you climbing up lamposts in the middle if the night festooning them with tatty flags? Thats a saddo" Don’t need to Mr Angry. The Welsh are not shamed to hate our flag and country by the woke, not even by the awful Welsh Labour government, woke extraordinaires. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Swap a racist for a migrant any day." You might get a racist Immigrant. '10 a penny while stocks last' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Expect yet another U-turn on minimum wage policy. Losing count how many they're up to now! To quote Starmer about Johnson and his government - "To correct one error, even two, might make sense. But when they've notched up 12 U-turns and rising, the only conclusion is serial incompetence" " It’s 15 now I believe, 16 with NMW and by the look of it 17 with Chagos. Looks as though Starmer & his minions have misled The Don and lied about the legal advice. The silly little barrister. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance People who are new to a job or career aren't being underpaid, they're being remunerated in accordance with their work output, which won't be at 100% as they're still on the learning curve and climbing the ladder. The encouragement to advance themselves is the prospect of higher earnings. It might not seem fair to some, but it's a system that's worked for centuries and ensures jobs for all. The alternative isn't appealing, as highlighted by the current 5-year high in unemployment. Remove that incentive, and work opportunities are destroyed. This Labour government is at fault because they fail to grasp the practicalities facing employers and ignore established employment customs and practical economic principles. But i fail to see why compared to the top teir in many organizations is paid so much more. I have no problem with grades & scales, I don’t understand how this government is ignoring employment customs etc, as someone commented above wages have largely stagnated…for the majority of the workers but increased hugely for management, particularly CEOs etc The pay disparity between CEOs and average workers is a result of various factors, including changes in corporate management, tax policies, and labour market dynamics. In the UK, CEO pay has risen significantly over the past few decades, while average wages have grown more slowly. The government's approach to executive pay has been to encourage transparency and shareholder oversight. Employment customs and pay scales vary widely across organisations, and the gap between top-tier management and other employees has widened in many sectors. CEOs have significant responsibility and impact on company performance, which contributes to their high salaries. Companies need to attract and retain top talent in a competitive market, and pay is often tied to performance factors, such as share price or profit growth. Additionally, CEOs' skills and experience are highly sought after, driving up their market value. All nicely put and the usual argument, it all falls over when there are problems, usually CEO claims no knowledge, keeps job, pension etc, or walks away keeps pension and steps into a similar job. They get the big money because they self regulate & set their own terms, holding shareholders to ransom. Also why is pay so high to attract the best talent at that level, but not at regular employee level? Where does that start? Position? After a wage point in particular? Why doesn’t pay peanuts & get monkeys not apply at lower levels? Don’t companies want best talent at all levels? Are we assuming that money isn’t a motivator at low levels or that it only becomes a factor at a certain level? Do you want a CEO who is only there for the money?" CEOs aren't unanswerable, they hold ultimate responsibility for every aspect of the enterprise they are in charge of. Boards hold them to account and demand answers, pay is tied to long-term performance. The global market for CEOs drives up salaries. It's about recognising different market dynamics, not assuming money's a motivator at certain levels. Companies want the best talent at all levels; pay just reflects different factors, including competition, responsibility and skills. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unemployment always rises under Labour governments. They are the party of excessive welfare and Immigrants. Was Thatcher conservative?" Unemployment was pretty high in the later '70s under Callaghan's chaotic government. And in those dismal days half the people who were in work were almost forever on strike. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently all of the boat people are highly skilled doctors, surgeons and engineers... The only problem is, when they destroyed their passports, they accidently destroyed their medical school papers... " Is your news on a 24 month delay? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a direct consequence of Reeves' budgets. Minimum wage increases and NI increases have had a definite negative impact on the jobs market. Even Angela Rayner has acknowledged the problems as well as energy costs and business rates. Bit ironic of her really, as her employment rights bill will just exacerbate the problem" Exactly this^ as someone running a company the Amount of tax and stealth tax is unsustainable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember the Conservative Party posters of the early 80’s ‘Labour isn’t Working’ showing line of people at a job centre. 14% unemployment in parts of the north east at that time. " I remember those. 1.5 million unemployed. Shortly afterwards Thatcher took it to over 3 million. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember the Conservative Party posters of the early 80’s ‘Labour isn’t Working’ showing line of people at a job centre. 14% unemployment in parts of the north east at that time. I remember those. 1.5 million unemployed. Shortly afterwards Thatcher took it to over 3 million. " That conveniently neglects to highlight that part of the reason for high unemployment was the failure of the huge nationalised industries inherited from Labour, which were financial black holes with overpaid, unaccountable managers and workers alike. These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along. They were inefficient, under-invested, and uncompetitive, with restrictive union practices and excessive wage demands pricing them out of the market. Production costs exceeded revenue, and they couldn't survive without massive subsidies. It was a recipe for disaster, created by Labour and their union sponsors. These industries were outdated, producing substandard output, and were no longer viable in their existing form. Closure or privatisation was inevitable, and it allowed for much-needed modernisation, more flexible labour markets, and the emergence of new, globally competitive industries that could support themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember the Conservative Party posters of the early 80’s ‘Labour isn’t Working’ showing line of people at a job centre. 14% unemployment in parts of the north east at that time. I remember those. 1.5 million unemployed. Shortly afterwards Thatcher took it to over 3 million. That conveniently neglects to highlight that part of the reason for high unemployment was the failure of the huge nationalised industries inherited from Labour, which were financial black holes with overpaid, unaccountable managers and workers alike. These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along. They were inefficient, under-invested, and uncompetitive, with restrictive union practices and excessive wage demands pricing them out of the market. Production costs exceeded revenue, and they couldn't survive without massive subsidies. It was a recipe for disaster, created by Labour and their union sponsors. These industries were outdated, producing substandard output, and were no longer viable in their existing form. Closure or privatisation was inevitable, and it allowed for much-needed modernisation, more flexible labour markets, and the emergence of new, globally competitive industries that could support themselves. " To quote "These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along." Just like the farming has always been. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To quote "These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along." Just like the farming has always been. " Farming gets subsidies because it's inherently unpredictable, with weather and market fluctuations impacting production. We need a certain level of self-sufficiency in UK farming for resilience, particularly in times of uncertainty. Subsidies also promote environmental stewardship, support rural communities, and encourage sustainable practices. In the UK, this support's been crucial, and post-Brexit policies continue to focus on these goals. Farming's unique challenges and benefits to society make subsidies a necessary support mechanism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I came across an article that we now have a 100 billion black hole since liebour came in power. " Not to kink shame but that's a pretty unusual one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To quote "These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along." Just like the farming has always been. Farming gets subsidies because it's inherently unpredictable, with weather and market fluctuations impacting production. We need a certain level of self-sufficiency in UK farming for resilience, particularly in times of uncertainty. Subsidies also promote environmental stewardship, support rural communities, and encourage sustainable practices. In the UK, this support's been crucial, and post-Brexit policies continue to focus on these goals. Farming's unique challenges and benefits to society make subsidies a necessary support mechanism. " What's funny is those that argue about farming subsidies are also the ones bleating about "protecting our countryside" yet haven't the capacity to put two and two together | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I came across an article that we now have a 100 billion black hole since liebour came in power. " Funny how that 100bn black hole existed in 2010 and 2026, almost as if there is always 100bn more being spent than brought in.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 more years ...Starmer will be riding high at the time of the next election. He isnt going anywhere .. he s not a quitter like Cameron May Johnson Truss and Sunak." If he loses next election he won’t be leader long. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment" Not true. High unemployment peaks under Torries, and austerity has made situation whereby state subsidizes workers on low wages even worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I came across an article that we now have a 100 billion black hole since liebour came in power. Funny how that 100bn black hole existed in 2010 and 2026, almost as if there is always 100bn more being spent than brought in...." 1980tys, 2008, COVID, quantitative easing, 2011. All on Tory watch all gave us (the country) bigger debts since the war and all ensured bankers and corporate backers made millions. Who was in power? Where are they now? Where is their wealth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don’t need to work under labour get benefits instead. You honestly believe this? my sister does, she quit her job and went on benefits, she’s now better off financially than she was when she was working 🙄 That shows you how shit the employment market actually is in reality. Ask yourself just why the employment market is in such a state?? The answer is that Starmer's policies have disastrously backfired, hitting young people hardest with unemployment rising to a 5-year high - though that peak was actually in the midst of the global crisis of the Covid pandemic! By hiking Employer National Insurance and minimum wage increases, Labour have created a "tax on jobs", with the dire effect of pricing out entry-level staff. This "woke economics" prioritises social ideals over economic reality, harming the very workers Labour claims to support! Highlighting just how out of touch this government is with reality along with their gross incompetence at managing every aspect of this country!! Why oh why is it ok to underpay those just starting on the job/career pathway? The bosses moaning about paying a wage that allows their workforce to live are responsible for the widening gap between the top and the bottom so happy to overpay themselves and set up other less taxable remuneration schemes plus a good pension, but can’t pay newbies a couple of quid more….thats what wrong with governance People who are new to a job or career aren't being underpaid, they're being remunerated in accordance with their work output, which won't be at 100% as they're still on the learning curve and climbing the ladder. The encouragement to advance themselves is the prospect of higher earnings. It might not seem fair to some, but it's a system that's worked for centuries and ensures jobs for all. The alternative isn't appealing, as highlighted by the current 5-year high in unemployment. Remove that incentive, and work opportunities are destroyed. This Labour government is at fault because they fail to grasp the practicalities facing employers and ignore established employment customs and practical economic principles. But i fail to see why compared to the top teir in many organizations is paid so much more. I have no problem with grades & scales, I don’t understand how this government is ignoring employment customs etc, as someone commented above wages have largely stagnated…for the majority of the workers but increased hugely for management, particularly CEOs etc The pay disparity between CEOs and average workers is a result of various factors, including changes in corporate management, tax policies, and labour market dynamics. In the UK, CEO pay has risen significantly over the past few decades, while average wages have grown more slowly. The government's approach to executive pay has been to encourage transparency and shareholder oversight. Employment customs and pay scales vary widely across organisations, and the gap between top-tier management and other employees has widened in many sectors. CEOs have significant responsibility and impact on company performance, which contributes to their high salaries. Companies need to attract and retain top talent in a competitive market, and pay is often tied to performance factors, such as share price or profit growth. Additionally, CEOs' skills and experience are highly sought after, driving up their market value. All nicely put and the usual argument, it all falls over when there are problems, usually CEO claims no knowledge, keeps job, pension etc, or walks away keeps pension and steps into a similar job. They get the big money because they self regulate & set their own terms, holding shareholders to ransom. Also why is pay so high to attract the best talent at that level, but not at regular employee level? Where does that start? Position? After a wage point in particular? Why doesn’t pay peanuts & get monkeys not apply at lower levels? Don’t companies want best talent at all levels? Are we assuming that money isn’t a motivator at low levels or that it only becomes a factor at a certain level? Do you want a CEO who is only there for the money? CEOs aren't unanswerable, they hold ultimate responsibility for every aspect of the enterprise they are in charge of. Boards hold them to account and demand answers, pay is tied to long-term performance. The global market for CEOs drives up salaries. It's about recognising different market dynamics, not assuming money's a motivator at certain levels. Companies want the best talent at all levels; pay just reflects different factors, including competition, responsibility and skills. " But CEOs are not held to account, as I mentioned above, shuffled off or put on gardening leave keeping all their benefits, see the privatised water companies, see too many to mention whose top guys claim they didn’t know (why? What are you paid for?), or knew but could not do anything when things were going pear…same question. If they are so effective why is growth flat or tiny except in CEO pay packages? We reward failure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment" Sadly so true.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I came across an article that we now have a 100 billion black hole since liebour came in power. Funny how that 100bn black hole existed in 2010 and 2026, almost as if there is always 100bn more being spent than brought in.... 1980tys, 2008, COVID, quantitative easing, 2011. All on Tory watch all gave us (the country) bigger debts since the war and all ensured bankers and corporate backers made millions. Who was in power? Where are they now? Where is their wealth? " Lichetenstein, channel islands, dubai, bvi, cayman, switzerland, IOM....and all still living in their mansions in trust. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember the Conservative Party posters of the early 80’s ‘Labour isn’t Working’ showing line of people at a job centre. 14% unemployment in parts of the north east at that time. I remember those. 1.5 million unemployed. Shortly afterwards Thatcher took it to over 3 million. That conveniently neglects to highlight that part of the reason for high unemployment was the failure of the huge nationalised industries inherited from Labour, which were financial black holes with overpaid, unaccountable managers and workers alike. These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along. They were inefficient, under-invested, and uncompetitive, with restrictive union practices and excessive wage demands pricing them out of the market. Production costs exceeded revenue, and they couldn't survive without massive subsidies. It was a recipe for disaster, created by Labour and their union sponsors. These industries were outdated, producing substandard output, and were no longer viable in their existing form. Closure or privatisation was inevitable, and it allowed for much-needed modernisation, more flexible labour markets, and the emergence of new, globally competitive industries that could support themselves. " We don’t seem to have many of those… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour tend to favour the unemployed and scroungers over the people who actually pay taxes and contribute to society. They rely on votes from the dregs of society to stay in power " Really I thought you'd be voting Reform not Labour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour tend to favour the unemployed and scroungers over the people who actually pay taxes and contribute to society. They rely on votes from the dregs of society to stay in power Really I thought you'd be voting Reform not Labour. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember the Conservative Party posters of the early 80’s ‘Labour isn’t Working’ showing line of people at a job centre. 14% unemployment in parts of the north east at that time. I remember those. 1.5 million unemployed. Shortly afterwards Thatcher took it to over 3 million. That conveniently neglects to highlight that part of the reason for high unemployment was the failure of the huge nationalised industries inherited from Labour, which were financial black holes with overpaid, unaccountable managers and workers alike. These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along. They were inefficient, under-invested, and uncompetitive, with restrictive union practices and excessive wage demands pricing them out of the market. Production costs exceeded revenue, and they couldn't survive without massive subsidies. It was a recipe for disaster, created by Labour and their union sponsors. These industries were outdated, producing substandard output, and were no longer viable in their existing form. Closure or privatisation was inevitable, and it allowed for much-needed modernisation, more flexible labour markets, and the emergence of new, globally competitive industries that could support themselves. We don’t seem to have many of those…" Perhaps that's because the success of these new industries has gone totally unnoticed on your radar! The UK has actually seen significant growth in areas like immersive technology, language learning software, and 3D printing. The service sector drives our economy, accounting for 80% of GVA. We have thriving industries in aerospace, automotive, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. As of January 2025, there were actually 5.7 million private sector businesses in the UK, although many are now seriously challenged under the changes made by this government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment" What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment" Plenty of reasons for bouts of un-employment but it would seem with Liebour, its almost part of their policies. World Wide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime " Well, you need to consider the context behind those unemployment figures. By the late 1970's Labour's nationalisation policies and the trade unions' actions had crippled British industry, leading to a massive economic crisis. Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime " Actually it's very similar. 17% youth unemployment stats by 1984 compared with 16.1% now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime Well, you need to consider the context behind those unemployment figures. By the late 1970's Labour's nationalisation policies and the trade unions' actions had crippled British industry, leading to a massive economic crisis. Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? " Thatcher caused the highest unemployment by closing down the pits, steelworks, car factories and paid for it by selling off the countries assets at nock down prices. Profits from North sea oil and gas were squanderd. She couldn't survive without coal as most power stations needed it, she imported coal from Poland and steel for making cars from Australia. Utility companies were given to the French, Germans and Italians, now we're paying higher energy bills. Even BT was given away, the Railway was harder to do but they did it and now it's coming back to government ownership. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime Well, you need to consider the context behind those unemployment figures. By the late 1970's Labour's nationalisation policies and the trade unions' actions had crippled British industry, leading to a massive economic crisis. Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? Thatcher caused the highest unemployment by closing down the pits, steelworks, car factories and paid for it by selling off the countries assets at nock down prices. Profits from North sea oil and gas were squanderd. She couldn't survive without coal as most power stations needed it, she imported coal from Poland and steel for making cars from Australia. Utility companies were given to the French, Germans and Italians, now we're paying higher energy bills. Even BT was given away, the Railway was harder to do but they did it and now it's coming back to government ownership" That's a blinkered Leftist simplistic perspective of reality! By 1979, in the final days of the Labour government of 'Grim Jim' Callaghan, the UK was effectively bankrupt and the "sick man of Europe" due to a refusal to face economic reality. Propping up the coal, steel, and car industries with massive taxpayer subsidies was a classic case of prioritising feelings and nostalgia over hard facts; these sectors were globally uncompetitive and losing millions of pounds every single day. Thatcher didn't "destroy" these industries so much as she stopped forcing the tax-paying public to pay for their inevitable collapse, eventually shifting the country towards a modern, high-skill service economy that could actually compete on the world stage. ?Privatisation was not about "giving away" assets but about ending the era of state-run stagnation. Under government control, utilities like BT were notoriously slow and inefficient, with long waiting lists for basic services because the state lacked the capital to innovate. By moving these into the private sector, the UK invited the massive infrastructure investment and competition necessary for the digital age. Whilst critics attempt to claim North Sea oil was squandered, in reality it actually served as the financial engine that funded the transition, paying for the social security and redundancy costs of a workforce moving from 19th-century manual labour into 21st-century industries. Ultimately, the 1970s proved that a 'feelings-first' economic policy is a fantasy. Propping up failing industries wasn't compassion; it was a national-scale version of the modern HR mindset—forcing the public to pretend that uncompetitive businesses were successes just to avoid a difficult conversation. By prioritising the 'feelings' of the unions over the hard facts of the global market, the UK almost drifted into a total national collapse. Thatcher simply stopped the bullying of the taxpayer and forced the country to acknowledge the truth: you cannot subsidise the 19th century and expect to thrive in the 21st! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? Thatcher caused the highest unemployment by closing down the pits, steelworks, car factories and paid for it by selling off the countries assets at nock down prices. Profits from North sea oil and gas were squanderd. She couldn't survive without coal as most power stations needed it, she imported coal from Poland and steel for making cars from Australia. Utility companies were given to the French, Germans and Italians, now we're paying higher energy bills. Even BT was given away, the Railway was harder to do but they did it and now it's coming back to government ownership. " More coalpits closed in the 1970s under the Wilson/Callaghan governments than they did under Mrs Thatcher's. Greedy Unions and a compliant weak government had made home produced coal too expensive. Hence it was being brought in from abroad. Mrs T's policies were harsh but necessary. A lot of people were being employed in non-jobs. Also non-stop strikes were crippling the economy so orders could not be met and we were losing trade. As for de-nationalisation it many ways it was necessary. State owned utilities were badly run. Their chairman were often failed former government ministers who were clueless. The original intention was to privatise these companies but keep them in British ownership. A lot of foreign investment and take-overs happened after Mrs T. Also selling off the nationalised industries and utilities did not happen overnight. It was a slow process that continued into the Major and Blair years. Some successful and others not so. No government gets things exactly right. Circumstances rarely allow it which is why so many election promises get broken. Irrespective of which party makes them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime Well, you need to consider the context behind those unemployment figures. By the late 1970's Labour's nationalisation policies and the trade unions' actions had crippled British industry, leading to a massive economic crisis. Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? Thatcher caused the highest unemployment by closing down the pits, steelworks, car factories and paid for it by selling off the countries assets at nock down prices. Profits from North sea oil and gas were squanderd. She couldn't survive without coal as most power stations needed it, she imported coal from Poland and steel for making cars from Australia. Utility companies were given to the French, Germans and Italians, now we're paying higher energy bills. Even BT was given away, the Railway was harder to do but they did it and now it's coming back to government ownership. " The share floatations was open to British citizens in several cases , what did those people do , they took the short view and sold off for jam today . Then bore their kids with if I kept my BT shares scenario | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Old people working to prop up their pensions take jobs away from the young. "Plenty of pensioners can't make do on their state pensions ... The poor old sods can't afford to retire from work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Old people working to prop up their pensions take jobs away from the young. "Exactly. We should be consigned to workhouses and fed on gruel and water. Bread on special occasions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember the Conservative Party posters of the early 80’s ‘Labour isn’t Working’ showing line of people at a job centre. 14% unemployment in parts of the north east at that time. I remember those. 1.5 million unemployed. Shortly afterwards Thatcher took it to over 3 million. That conveniently neglects to highlight that part of the reason for high unemployment was the failure of the huge nationalised industries inherited from Labour, which were financial black holes with overpaid, unaccountable managers and workers alike. These industries were total economic failures, relying on millions in taxpayer subsidies just to limp along. They were inefficient, under-invested, and uncompetitive, with restrictive union practices and excessive wage demands pricing them out of the market. Production costs exceeded revenue, and they couldn't survive without massive subsidies. It was a recipe for disaster, created by Labour and their union sponsors. These industries were outdated, producing substandard output, and were no longer viable in their existing form. Closure or privatisation was inevitable, and it allowed for much-needed modernisation, more flexible labour markets, and the emergence of new, globally competitive industries that could support themselves. We don’t seem to have many of those… Perhaps that's because the success of these new industries has gone totally unnoticed on your radar! The UK has actually seen significant growth in areas like immersive technology, language learning software, and 3D printing. The service sector drives our economy, accounting for 80% of GVA. We have thriving industries in aerospace, automotive, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. As of January 2025, there were actually 5.7 million private sector businesses in the UK, although many are now seriously challenged under the changes made by this government. " If they are thriving then surely paying a little extra tax so that their goods and services can be produced by a healthy workforce and distributed through hi quality connections or on well maintained roads etc isn’t too much to ask. I do believe that small businesses need more help rather than more tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime Well, you need to consider the context behind those unemployment figures. By the late 1970's Labour's nationalisation policies and the trade unions' actions had crippled British industry, leading to a massive economic crisis. Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? Thatcher caused the highest unemployment by closing down the pits, steelworks, car factories and paid for it by selling off the countries assets at nock down prices. Profits from North sea oil and gas were squanderd. She couldn't survive without coal as most power stations needed it, she imported coal from Poland and steel for making cars from Australia. Utility companies were given to the French, Germans and Italians, now we're paying higher energy bills. Even BT was given away, the Railway was harder to do but they did it and now it's coming back to government ownership. The share floatations was open to British citizens in several cases , what did those people do , they took the short view and sold off for jam today . Then bore their kids with if I kept my BT shares scenario " Very few reached ‘Sid’ most were bought up by dealers who knew they were undervalued…. Because they did the evaluation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime Well, you need to consider the context behind those unemployment figures. By the late 1970's Labour's nationalisation policies and the trade unions' actions had crippled British industry, leading to a massive economic crisis. Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? Thatcher caused the highest unemployment by closing down the pits, steelworks, car factories and paid for it by selling off the countries assets at nock down prices. Profits from North sea oil and gas were squanderd. She couldn't survive without coal as most power stations needed it, she imported coal from Poland and steel for making cars from Australia. Utility companies were given to the French, Germans and Italians, now we're paying higher energy bills. Even BT was given away, the Railway was harder to do but they did it and now it's coming back to government ownership. The share floatations was open to British citizens in several cases , what did those people do , they took the short view and sold off for jam today . Then bore their kids with if I kept my BT shares scenario Very few reached ‘Sid’ most were bought up by dealers who knew they were undervalued…. Because they did the evaluation." Public Participation: The offer was massively oversubscribed, with roughly 2.1 million to 2.4 million private investors securing shares, many of whom were first-time investors. Employee Take-up: Nearly 96% of eligible BT employees (approximately 184,000 employees and 25,000 pensioners) became shareholders, in addition to the general public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment" It was really clear that we would end up here, especially after the Labour Party got too close to Farage's arse and agreed with Brexit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs " Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. " 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. " The difference is that when you worked two jobs that meant you could afford to live. Some these days are working two jobs and still needing to claim credit to be able to live. They could just claim benefit but chose to work too. There has always been people that just claimed the dole, its nothing new is it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. The difference is that when you worked two jobs that meant you could afford to live. Some these days are working two jobs and still needing to claim credit to be able to live. They could just claim benefit but chose to work too. There has always been people that just claimed the dole, its nothing new is it. " How do you know 'I could afford to live'? (Life can be like a game of snakes and ladders .... I knew the snakes very well in my younger years) Yes, of course, people have been on the dole since it became an option ... But when over 10 million people of working age are not in work, including 2.8 million claiming to be too sick to work, and the best part of another 2 million on the dole ... then we have a serious problem. It's unsustainable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Highest unemployment for over 5 years and even higher amongst the young. Usual high unemployment under a labour goverment What a load of rollocks, nothing like the unemployment figures during Thatcher and Tebit regime Well, you need to consider the context behind those unemployment figures. By the late 1970's Labour's nationalisation policies and the trade unions' actions had crippled British industry, leading to a massive economic crisis. Thatcher's government inherited a dire situation and implemented tough reforms to turn things around. The high unemployment was a symptom of deeper problems, not the fault of the Thatcher government. Maybe take a look at the root causes rather than just comparing numbers? Thatcher caused the highest unemployment by closing down the pits, steelworks, car factories and paid for it by selling off the countries assets at nock down prices. Profits from North sea oil and gas were squanderd. She couldn't survive without coal as most power stations needed it, she imported coal from Poland and steel for making cars from Australia. Utility companies were given to the French, Germans and Italians, now we're paying higher energy bills. Even BT was given away, the Railway was harder to do but they did it and now it's coming back to government ownership. The share floatations was open to British citizens in several cases , what did those people do , they took the short view and sold off for jam today . Then bore their kids with if I kept my BT shares scenario Very few reached ‘Sid’ most were bought up by dealers who knew they were undervalued…. Because they did the evaluation. Public Participation: The offer was massively oversubscribed, with roughly 2.1 million to 2.4 million private investors securing shares, many of whom were first-time investors. Employee Take-up: Nearly 96% of eligible BT employees (approximately 184,000 employees and 25,000 pensioners) became shareholders, in addition to the general public." Other sell offs as egalitarian? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. " What’s that phrase? Oh yes privatize the profit, nationalize the debt…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. Or the overpaid bosses… 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. The difference is that when you worked two jobs that meant you could afford to live. Some these days are working two jobs and still needing to claim credit to be able to live. They could just claim benefit but chose to work too. There has always been people that just claimed the dole, its nothing new is it. How do you know 'I could afford to live'? (Life can be like a game of snakes and ladders .... I knew the snakes very well in my younger years) Yes, of course, people have been on the dole since it became an option ... But when over 10 million people of working age are not in work, including 2.8 million claiming to be too sick to work, and the best part of another 2 million on the dole ... then we have a serious problem. It's unsustainable " I know you could afford to live simply by the fact you are alive me old mucka | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. The difference is that when you worked two jobs that meant you could afford to live. Some these days are working two jobs and still needing to claim credit to be able to live. They could just claim benefit but chose to work too. There has always been people that just claimed the dole, its nothing new is it. How do you know 'I could afford to live'? (Life can be like a game of snakes and ladders .... I knew the snakes very well in my younger years) Yes, of course, people have been on the dole since it became an option ... But when over 10 million people of working age are not in work, including 2.8 million claiming to be too sick to work, and the best part of another 2 million on the dole ... then we have a serious problem. It's unsustainable I know you could afford to live simply by the fact you are alive me old mucka "Well, there was that ... I did learn to basically exist within my very limited means for a period during the mid-90s. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. The difference is that when you worked two jobs that meant you could afford to live. Some these days are working two jobs and still needing to claim credit to be able to live. They could just claim benefit but chose to work too. There has always been people that just claimed the dole, its nothing new is it. How do you know 'I could afford to live'? (Life can be like a game of snakes and ladders .... I knew the snakes very well in my younger years) Yes, of course, people have been on the dole since it became an option ... But when over 10 million people of working age are not in work, including 2.8 million claiming to be too sick to work, and the best part of another 2 million on the dole ... then we have a serious problem. It's unsustainable I know you could afford to live simply by the fact you are alive me old mucka
Well, there was that ... I did learn to basically exist within my very limited means for a period during the mid-90s.
I know the feeling, ran up quite some debt on cards just to keep going.
I was lucky to get out of that in the end, very lucky.
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you make it more expensive to employ people with higher minimum wage and more employers national insurance then there will be less people in jobs Yes imagine trying to give people a living wage so they don't have to claim benefits while doing two jobs. 'They' don't 'give people a living wage' though, do they ... 'They' just price potential employees out of the market ... Which keeps them tied to the welfare state. And lots of us have worked two jobs (without claiming benefits) when things were tight, .... The world doesn't owe us a living or a free ride. The Welfare safety-net has become a first port of call for far too many who are happy to sponge off those who do get off their arses and put in a day's work. The difference is that when you worked two jobs that meant you could afford to live. Some these days are working two jobs and still needing to claim credit to be able to live. They could just claim benefit but chose to work too. There has always been people that just claimed the dole, its nothing new is it. How do you know 'I could afford to live'? (Life can be like a game of snakes and ladders .... I knew the snakes very well in my younger years) Yes, of course, people have been on the dole since it became an option ... But when over 10 million people of working age are not in work, including 2.8 million claiming to be too sick to work, and the best part of another 2 million on the dole ... then we have a serious problem. It's unsustainable I know you could afford to live simply by the fact you are alive me old mucka
Well, there was that ... I did learn to basically exist within my very limited means for a period during the mid-90s.
I know the feeling, ran up quite some debt on cards just to keep going.
I was lucky to get out of that in the end, very lucky.
"
I'll never forget a dark day at work in Sept 92, (12-hour shift), ... Those repeated announcements on the radio that Norman Lamont was raising the interest rate .. It was 10% when I'd clocked in, 15% by the time I clocked off.
I handed in the keys to my mortgaged flat 6 months later.
Crazy days and sleepless nights.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just come back from Spain. Place was full of British immigrants living there. Most make no attempt to integrate . Most make no attempt to learn Spanish and many just want to eat an English diet. Of course Farage wouldnt see a problem with them. He no doubt he would call them ex pats ... but lets call them British immigrants. Hmmm, swap the word British for black/brown/muslim etc and your generalisation and you sound exactly like what you term a fascist/racist in your many prolific rants." Spot on. I know quite a few Englidh people who live in Spain ( Benidorm & Torremilinos). They run cafes, bars businesses and all.speak Spanish. The poster you replied to was an Anglophobic bigot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No .. not all .. the quetion I refer to is about integrating. Legal or illegal British immigrants in Spain mainly cant be bothered to integrate." I know Brits who have integrated, run businesses in Spanish resorts and Speak Spanish Spare us your Anglophobic Bigotry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I know Brits who have integrated, run businesses in Spanish resorts and Speak Spanish Spare us your Anglophobic Bigotry. " He is not alone. There is a plethora of those ashamed of being English, the English flag, ashamed of the English Empire, ashamed of everything committed before they born. They are forever wringing their hands and embellishing themselves in self flagellating wokery.... They look for offence and are permanently offended on behalf of others.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No .. not all .. the quetion I refer to is about integrating. Legal or illegal British immigrants in Spain mainly cant be bothered to integrate. I know Brits who have integrated, run businesses in Spanish resorts and Speak Spanish Spare us your Anglophobic Bigotry. " Some do and some don't. Visited an elderly friend who had emigrated to Spain. Despite his age he learnt Spanish and got involved with the locals and was well respected. Nearby [Alicante area] there was what I can only describe as an English enclave where ex-pats made no effort to speak or integrate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
