It's certainly always been my main aspiration in life to own a budgie.

Aspiration and social mobility are important things

 

Take the typical council house owner over the years, probably a lorry driver or a car plant worker or a bricklayer, previously they would have had no hope of owning their own home so life was devoid of aspiration, they work hard, retire, die, nothing to show for it, but being able to buy their own council house helped aspiration, their kids then take it over, kids that again would have been trapped in council accommodation with no hope of ever owning their own home, instead they can climb the housing ladder

 

Most people in life want to own their own home, have a good job, have a couple of kids and a dog and budgie, why should an entire sector of the population be deprived of that opportunity?

 

Maggie set a whole section of the working class free

 

so if she was so in favour of tax-payer paid equality of the social classes why didnt she join the Labour party....and why limit it just to council tenants in council housing? why not council tenants abjectly poor in rented non-council accomodation. where's their aspiration? Or young people with no jobs living with parents for decades? where's theirs? why not just be fair about it and give everyone on low wages a present of a few grand? enough for a deposit so they can get a deposit for a mortgage and buy their own privately-funded housing and free up the decades-long waiting lists for council houses. Now that's far more logical and aspirational to the Tory ideal (working hard to achieve, not expecting to get something for nothing) and boosts the property market too.

 

No logic to it at all, just trying to justify non-logical non-free-market policy when it's designed to buy lifetime voters and stick it in the back to local government. Even staunch Tory councils (one of whom I work for), who have to now pay a fortune to build more social housing to replace rapidly-lost housing stock, can recognise it's not actually helping to reduce council tax or solve any of the social problems....

How is it a weak economic recovery?

 

The government has seized on the recent strong economic indicators as a vindication of its fiscal austerity policy. It argues that the pickup in growth has been achieved despite higher taxes and spending cuts that have seen the fiscal deficit almost halve from 11 percent of GDP in 2009 to around 6 percent currently. However, much of the discretionary fiscal tightening has been postponed to after the next parliamentary elections in 2015. The government has also recently introduced schemes to subsidize the housing sector, supporting home buyers and helping to bring down banks’ financing costs and mortgage rates. These schemes are contradictory to the government’s austerity policies. They may be helping to boost sentiment ahead of the elections, but they also raise questions about the sustainability of the recovery and concerns about a boom and bust cycle in the real estate market, which has been an Achilles’ heel of the UK economy in the past.

 

Massive under-investment in infrastructure, industry, and energy will all come back to haunt the government in the next 18 months. You can't base a recovery on a housing boom (that will quickly turn into a crash once household spending budgets are constrained by further increases to energy bills and a loss in disposable income thanks to flat wages and rising inflation).

 

Banks remain overleveraged with unrecognized losses and considerable exposure to undercapitalized European counterparties. It is fragile and it is weak.

How is it a weak economic recovery?

Massive under-investment in infrastructure, industry, and energy will all come back to haunt the government in the next 18 months. You can't base a recovery on a housing boom (that will quickly turn into a crash once household spending budgets are constrained by further increases to energy bills and a loss in disposable income thanks to flat wages and rising inflation).

 

Banks remain overleveraged with unrecognized losses and considerable exposure to undercapitalized European counterparties. It is fragile and it is weak.

 

Unemployment is dropping like a stone, there is 30m in work for the first time ever

 

Exports are their highest for 15 years

 

Non EU exports are at their highest ever

 

None of those key indicators are really related to the housing market

Unemployment is dropping like a stone, there is 30m in work for the first time ever

That has to be the single most idiotic thing you've come up with since you came back.

 

There are over 400k more people in the country than LAST SUMMER, to start with.

Unemployment is not dropping like a stone Craig.

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/labourmarketsummaryaprilopt3_tcm77-306862.png

Unemployment is not dropping like a stone Craig.

 

...and a large proportion of those in work are doing part-time because they cant get full-time. My hours have been reduced (this was after my local gov wages were cut by 3k under a review) albeit by choice as I also have to care for both my parents when i'm not at work, alzheimers and disabled. I'm saving the taxpayer a fortune, doing a full-time job quicker, "leaner" (no-one fills in for me when i'm not there, or on holiday, it just piles up in waiting), and getting paid several thousand less while also saving taxpayer care costs....

 

I'm frazzled, on anti-depressants and struggling, and have been for the last few years. Buzzjack is one of my guilty pleasures when i have half an hour. Still, what a happy joyous place we can look forward to in the near future when all society's problems are solved by growing house prices.

 

Happily, I already comply with today's tut tutting Tories in suggesting children should be looking after elderly parents (which I actually agree with, whenever possible) but a good support system (not a 10-min visit) would help.

 

Still, gotta laugh, eh...?

 

 

Unemployment is not dropping like a stone Craig.

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/labourmarketsummaryaprilopt3_tcm77-306862.png

 

As those figures are from 6 months ago, it's probably worth mentioning the updated figures, taken this week from the BBC Website.

 

From those figures, it would appear that unemployment has dropped from 2.56 million (April Graph) to 2.49 million, a drop of 70,000 people in four months (presuming I've understood the timelines for both sources correctly). So it is dropping. Perhaps not as quickly as we might like it to, and definitely not 'like a stone', but falling

As those figures are from 6 months ago, it's probably worth mentioning the updated figures, taken this week from the BBC Website.

 

From those figures, it would appear that unemployment has dropped from 2.56 million (April Graph) to 2.49 million, a drop of 70,000 people in four months (presuming I've understood the timelines for both sources correctly). So it is dropping. Perhaps not as quickly as we might like it to, and definitely not 'like a stone', but falling

 

Well those were the last properly verified figures, the October 2013 figures are still preliminary - but yes it has fallen 70,000 on those - which exactly cancels out the rise of 70,000 in the above April 2013 figures. Ergo, ZERO change in the past year. Hardly 'falling like a stone' as Craig claims. :P

Unemployment is indeed falling, albeit fairly slowly. However, under employment, i.e. people working part-time who would like to be able to work more hours, is rising.

 

There are also hundreds of thousands of people on zero-hours contracts. Obviously some of them will be working each week (although, again, some of them may well like to work more) but others will often not work any hours. Conveniently for the government, these people still count as employed. A cynic might think that is why the government have no plans to restrict the use of these contracts.

Craig, you make Ric Holden look restrained when it comes to spin.

Craig, you make Ric Holden look restrained when it comes to spin.

 

I believe in talking up the economy and talking up Britain, the left and liberals believe in talking it down

That has to be the single most idiotic thing you've come up with since you came back.

 

There are over 400k more people in the country than LAST SUMMER, to start with.

 

Then the majority of new arrivals must have found jobs then because bar a couple of months the number unemployed has dropped almost month on month

 

Unemployment is still too high but if labour were in charge I have no doubt it would go up not down

...and a large proportion of those in work are doing part-time because they cant get full-time. My hours have been reduced (this was after my local gov wages were cut by 3k under a review) albeit by choice as I also have to care for both my parents when i'm not at work, alzheimers and disabled. I'm saving the taxpayer a fortune, doing a full-time job quicker, "leaner" (no-one fills in for me when i'm not there, or on holiday, it just piles up in waiting), and getting paid several thousand less while also saving taxpayer care costs....

 

I'm frazzled, on anti-depressants and struggling, and have been for the last few years. Buzzjack is one of my guilty pleasures when i have half an hour. Still, what a happy joyous place we can look forward to in the near future when all society's problems are solved by growing house prices.

 

Happily, I already comply with today's tut tutting Tories in suggesting children should be looking after elderly parents (which I actually agree with, whenever possible) but a good support system (not a 10-min visit) would help.

 

Still, gotta laugh, eh...?

 

You work in the public sector though, the public sector has been hit stronger by cuts and wage freezes than the private sector, the absolute bulk of the new jobs created have been in the private sector so your personal experiences as a public sector worker are not necessarily reflected in the private sector

Unemployment is indeed falling, albeit fairly slowly. However, under employment, i.e. people working part-time who would like to be able to work more hours, is rising.

 

There are also hundreds of thousands of people on zero-hours contracts. Obviously some of them will be working each week (although, again, some of them may well like to work more) but others will often not work any hours. Conveniently for the government, these people still count as employed. A cynic might think that is why the government have no plans to restrict the use of these contracts.

 

I know a couple of people who are on zero hours contracts, both carers, and they have work coming out of their ears, often not finishing till after 9pm, ok carers might not be in the same boat as people employed by Sports Direct but with retail sales rising at the highest level for 15 years according to a survey i read in Daily Mail Online (not their survey before you say its just the Daily Mail) I would imagine the zero hours contract workers in retail are not just sitting at home

Zero hours contracts are convenient

 

Convenient for the employer as he doesn't have to fork out for stuff like holiday pay, sick pay, maternity leave, redundancy etc

 

Convenient for the employee as they can build their hours around their commitments like having kids/picking kids up from school, caring for an elderly relative etc, it helps end the 'latchkey kid' culture and improves family life compared with the mum having to do a 9-5

 

Its a win win situation both for the employer who is not burdened with extra costs and win win for the employee who is not forced to work inconvenient hours for them

 

Plus zero hours contracts are voluntary, the DWP have said that no one faces sanction for refusing a zero hours contract job so those that are on zero hours contracts are doing so on own free will

Edited October 19, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

Zero hours contracts are convenient

 

Convenient for the employer as he doesn't have to fork out for stuff like holiday pay, sick pay, maternity leave, redundancy etc

 

Convenient for the employee as they can build their hours around their commitments like having kids/picking kids up from school, caring for an elderly relative etc, it helps end the 'latchkey kid' culture and improves family life compared with the mum having to do a 9-5

 

Its a win win situation both for the employer who is not burdened with extra costs and win win for the employee who is not forced to work inconvenient hours for them

 

Plus zero hours contracts are voluntary, the DWP have said that no one faces sanction for refusing a zero hours contract job so those that are on zero hours contracts are doing so on own free will

Do you really believe the tripe you come out with?

 

Zero hours contracts can be convenient for both sides. However, in many cases they are totally one-sided, benefitting the employer but not the employee. Care workers are a very strange example for you to choose as they are often treated particularly badly. Many of them are not paid for the time they have to spend travelling between clients which can mean they are effectively paid less than the minimum wage.

 

You seem to think that people on these contracts negotiate their hours with their employer. That may be true for some but most people are simply told (often at very short notice) what their hours will be. Thy then have to attempt to make arrangements for childcare etc.

The thing with zero hour contracts is that employers who use them tend to use them for the vast majority of staff. I know people who work at Wetherspoons on a zero hour contract. I spoke to one of them at length and he said staff wouldn't know what hours they're working in a week until a couple of days before it started, sometimes you were given around 50, the next it could be less than 15. If you refused hours you'd spend a few weeks without anything resembling decent hours or full time hours as there were other people that would take them, so being able to plan your life easier is a load of utter bollocks. You can't do anything at anything other than short notice.

Then the majority of new arrivals must have found jobs then because bar a couple of months the number unemployed has dropped almost month on month

 

Unemployment is still too high but if labour were in charge I have no doubt it would go up not down

Because history suggests unemployment is always high when Lab... oh wait.

Some good points about zero hour contracts (ZHC) - they don't always benefit the employee, but they almost always benefit the employer. The government is keen to encourage these contracts as they are attractive to employers and also count as 'full time employed' for the statistics (the only thing they care about) and so skew our interpretation of how unemployment is doing. Now Craig, there is a vast difference between 'talking the economy up' and what you're doing which is simply making things up or exaggerating the truth.

 

According to the ONS, in 2010 168,000 were on ZHC which had increased by 2012 to 250,000 (0.84% of all employment). There are no figures for 2013 available yet..