'Course You have Mr. Smith

[Sukerkin]

Not!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22006841

This is the level of disconnect between those that would rule us and the reality they are forging for a great many of us.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't usually link to the Huffington as I know it makes some people froth at the mouth (which is not pretty ) but this is such a succinct distillation of the actual history I make my excuses and use it rather than write it up myself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/and...rm-common-people_b_3001507.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

[granfire]

where is his email?

I am feeling the urge to throw a 'triple dog dare' his way.

When will you be mad enough to start running for office?

I am thinking that could force him into unemployment a 3rd time....

seems like the people are not to crazy about his back peddle...

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'm curious, what's unemployment like over there? He says he wants to "incentivize" people to go to work but are they're actually jobs for them?

 

[Sukerkin]

Thanks to the destruction of our manufacturing base and the loss of the once Nationalised Utilities and Services {cheers, Maggie, good job :tdown:}, the employment opportunities over here are dire. The semi-skilled/skilled manual jobs in heavy industry are gone and what is left are service sector pseudo-jobs (call centres, fast food etc). The government has been cooking the unemployment books for so long no one really knows how bad things are anymore.

I shall dig up some current figures for you ... back in a bit.

 

[celtic_crippler]

The government has been cooking the unemployment books for so long no one really knows how bad things are anymore.

I shall dig up some current figures for you ... back in a bit.

They’ve been doing the same thing over here. The way they “define” unemployed is misleading but many don’t bother to actually look up this definition and as a result think the unemployment is lower than it actually is.

A more “telling” estimate, I’ve found, is to look at actual employment numbers as a ratio to those of working age who aren’t disabled.

Doing so in the States shows that “real unemployment” is closer to 15-20% instead of the professed 8%.

 

[Sukerkin]

Here's the 'friendly' face of the numbers from the BBC (essentially reporting the governments 'line') http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

A little nibbling around the edges from the TUC (via Huffington again, sorry ) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/22/tuc-self-employed-figures_n_2526838.html

Some light cast on one of the ways in which the true figures are massaged downwards http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/how-the-dwp-manufactures-falling-unemployment-figures/

Even the Daily Fail has something sympathetic to say on the matter (which is a shock diversion from their usual approach) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-25-hours-week-amid-struggle-time-jobs.html

 

[Sukerkin]

A good discussion piece in the Economist about the canker of long term unemployment http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/01/unemployment