Isn’t the 83% increase in youth unemployment since January proof enough that this government’s policies are a failure?

First topic message reminder :

The number of 16 to 24-year-olds looking for work increased by 67,000 in the quarter to September to 1.02 million, the worst total since comparable records began in 1992.
The unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year-olds is now 21.9%, also a record.
Total unemployment rose by 129,000 in the latest quarter to 2.62 million, the worst figure since 1994, giving a jobless rate of 8.3%, the highest since 1996.
Other data from the Office for National Statistics showed a 5,300 increase in the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in October to 1.6 million, the eighth consecutive monthly rise and the highest total since the start of 2010.
Meanwhile, the number of people in employment fell by 197,000 in the quarter to September to 29.07 million, the lowest figure for over a year.

For the full article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/youth-unemployment-level-shocking-6262890.html

The Labour Party has come up with a five-point plan for jobs:-
1. A £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people and build 25,000 more affordable homes.
2. Bringing forward long-term investment projects.
3. Reversing January's damaging VAT rise.
4. A one year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements, repairs and maintenance
5. A one year national insurance tax break for every small firm which takes on extra workers

For more details:-
http://www.labour.org.uk/plan

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said: "These figures show just how much our economy is being affected by the crisis in the eurozone". Yes of course, Mr Grayling, you can’t really blame Gordon Brown for all the ills of the world any longer, so let’s blame the eurozone. Why not try putting the blame where it really belongs for once – on this corrupt and incompetent Tory-dominated government of overgrown public schoolboys who haven’t a clue what to do? A PM whose CV includes ‘Black Wednesday’ and helping Carlton TV to lose millions of pounds, and a Chancellor whose previous work experience was helping in daddy’s wallpaper shop and folding towels in Selfridges. A clueless Foreign Secretary who announced to the world that Gaddafi was on his way to Libya, while Oliver Letwin and Vince Cable fill up public litter bins with confidential papers. And that’s before we mention Fox’s antics, Coulson, a Home Secretary who lies through her back teeth, Lansley dismantling the NHS, Hammond stashing his wealth overseas, and both Cameron and Hunt deep inside the pocket of the Murdoch family. How much longer must we suffer the worst government in living memory?

bobby wrote:atv I have just had a though (strange that innit) Is your vitriol against the Labour Party, Because you simply have a hatred of them, or is it that you are a genuine Conservative lover. I ask as you have never had anything good to say for the Tory's. All you are able to do is to attack Labour. Please answer as I am genuinely interested.

A Labour supporter having a thought is not strange, but I admit it is a bit unusual.

Before I start, I don't "hate" anyone or any party with the possible exception of the BNP, but even then I don't hate them, more what they stand for.

I wasn't much bothered when Tony Blair won the election in 1997, as I wasn't that much bothered in politics, but as time went on I and many others realised that New Labour wasn't all it cracked up to be, and yes I do know they won two other elections after that, but with a much reduced majority. You may also remember that New Labour lost many of their supporters, so it's not just me that started to question New Labour.

You ask I have never had anything good to say for the Tory's. I assume you mean the Coalition now and not the previous Tory Government.
Well for a start I disagree with the Winter Fuel Allowance cut and have voiced my opinion to Central Office, however I do agree with the benefit caps, and IMO it's not before time. When people on benefits can live a better life than people who work, something is wrong with the system, and many Labour supporters also agree with that, and if you don't believe me, go down to your local Labour club and ask the same question. In fact there is more vitriol against benefit cheats and immigration with imigrants taking their jobs from the Labour working class than from the average Tory.

It dosen't matter how you, or the two Ed's, or the whole Labour party come to that, try to dress it up, according to the polls more people believe the Coalition will hande the economy better than Labour, and until ypu can convince me otherwise, I will continue to vote Conservative.

When people on benefits can live a better life than people who work, something is wrong with the system

Only one person in eight receiving housing benefit is unemployed. Many of the people receiving disability living allowance are working.

I'm surprised you can sleep easily in your bed knowing that this sick government which you support is taking money from cancer patients and disabled children, that battered women are being turned away from refuges because there's been a 30% cut in their funding, that wounded soldiers are being sacked and that Cameron is the biggest liar ever to hold the office of Prime Minister. What did he tell us about his plans for the NHS before the election? Your idea of "having thoughts" seems to be swallowing all the propaganda which this government and its friends in the tabloid press spew out.

You should try reading Dr Jill Segger's excellent open letter to Iain Duncan Smith and see the devastation and misery that he's causing. Tough on benefit claimants and soft on banker bonuses will be how this government will be remembered.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t314p180-will-the-cruel-tory-welfare-reforms-save-any-money

Then perhaps we can get back to youth unemployment, which is the subject of this thread....

[quote="Ivan Then perhaps we can get back to youth unemployment, which is the subject of this thread....[/quote]

As for the jobs created under Labour, figures from the ONS show that 97% went to immigrants, which is one of the reasons why we've got a massive youth unemployment problem that started in 2004.Official figures revealed that more than nine out 10 of the 1.7 million jobs added to the economy since 1997 have gone to workers from overseas.
They also showed that nearly 300,000 fewer British-born workers were employed in the private sector than when Labour came to power.
Now who was it that said “British jobs for British workers”, Oh yes Gordon Brown. What more proof do you need that Labour the working man's party, has left British workers in a worse position than when Labour took office 13 years ago.

The Eurozone is apparently in danger of collapse, precisely because the originating member-countries retreat behind their borders when there's trouble.

British unemployed are free to visit all other EU countries searching for work. Who loses by having East European immigrants here to clean our cars, wash-up in our hotels or restaurants and wipe the arses of the elderly whom we don't want to look after for ourselves?

Who is the loser, apart from those who would always have been one of life's losers anyway?

It is indeed fortunate for Cameron that none of Britain's problems is in any way the fault of his government.

And thank heavens we have people available on the boards to tell us so...

atv, have you got a brother in Jersey.

Apart from incomers, most inhabitants on Jersey are related to most of their fellow Islanders. Fart in St.Helier and your cousin in St. Brélade will know about it before the echo dies.

Latest data from the Office for National Statistics show that Britain’s unemployment surged by 48,000 in the final quarter of 2011 to touch 2.67 million. This equates to an overall unemployment rate of 8.4%, the highest in 17 years.
In January, Jobseeker's Allowance claimants increased for the 11th month in a row adding 6,900 to bring the total to 1.6 million. Women continue to be most affected by the deterioration in the labour market, accounting for two-thirds of the increase in unemployment. This increase has been attributed to job cuts in the public sector, where more women tend to work.
The ONS data also showed that a record number of people are engaged in part-time work because of the unavailability of full-time jobs. Their numbers climbed by 83,000 in the fourth quarter to touch 1.35 million.
Youth unemployment rose to 1.04 million in the three months ended December 2011, adding 22,000 to the total of jobless youths. However, this figure includes 307,000 full-time students hunting for jobs.
Looking at the quarterly data, however the 48,000 rise in unemployment was the smallest quarterly increase since last summer. Employment numbers grew by 60,000 to 29.13 million, as the proportion of the workforce in paid work rose across the UK, the chief contributor being part-time worker numbers increasing by 90,000 to 6.6 million. The employment rate rose by 0.1 percentage point in the final quarter of 2011 to 70.3%.
Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud said, "The latest figures show some encouraging signs of stability despite the challenging economic climate. With more people in employment and a rise in vacancies, it is clear the private sector is still creating jobs.”
But at the same time, Freud cautioned against complacency: “With more people in the labour market we know that competition for those jobs is tough and we will continue to make it our priority to find people work” he said

.... and now for a GOOD NEWS story about people losing their jobs ....

When a Company fails, a firm of Insolvency Practitioners will take charge and liquidate the assets. One such is the firm called Begbies Traynor, whose name has been connected with winding-up several famous Companies in the last few years.

However, everyone has been trading cautiously since the Credit Crunch of 2008, and there have been fewer Company Failures, as a result of which 31 accountants have lost their jobs at Begbies in the past nine months.

Sorry for them, but glad for the healthier aspect of British Business.

Having just heard the this governments cliam that the latest rise in youth unemployment is the result of students looking for part time jobs, I have to ask how are these unemployment figure worked out?

Is done on those claiming Jobs Seekers Allowance or just on those who register with Job Centre?

The unemployment rate has increased to a near 17-year high after another rise in the jobless total to almost 2.7 million. More
that from virginmedia.com

Seems it only took the Torys 2 years to get unemployment back to the kind of figures they enjoy!

Quote Astra.

now for a GOOD NEWS story about people losing their jobs ....

When a Company fails, a firm of Insolvency Practitioners will take charge and liquidate the assets. One such is the firm called Begbies Traynor, whose name has been connected with winding-up several famous Companies in the last few years.

I believe most of us agree this Government is bankrupt. Should we not send in Begbies Traynor. At least give those 31 Accountants their jobs back. Oh. Of course, another 600+ for the employment total - MP's seeking part-time work at Tesco's. On second thoughts many of them 'moonlight' anyway. Can't win can we.



I

The Government isn't Bankrupt as long as the HMRC knows where we all live.

by oftenwrong Today at 5:17 pm



The Government isn't Bankrupt as long as the HMRC knows where we all live.
I was thinking more in terms of morals.

Morals in Government?

The last time you had that was in Classical Greece, where Laws were made by an assembly of the entire population in the Agora.

The internet provides a facility for universal government BY the people and FOR the people, but I don't expect many in Westminster to vote for that.

Re: Isn’t the 83% increase in youth unemployment since January proof enough that this government’s policies are a failure?
by oftenwrong Today at 10:47 pm




Morals in Government?

You know what Pope said. 'Hope springs eternal in the human breast'.

But then I suppose there are exceptions to everything:(

trevorw2539 wrote:by oftenwrong Today at 5:17 pm



The Government isn't Bankrupt as long as the HMRC knows where we all live.
I was thinking more in terms of morals.

Trevor
I Would say its economic policy is utterly bankrupt. as it hangs on Government borrowing and not any sort of economic fiscal growth. The failed to turn what GDP that was handed into any real economic growth. The UK needs some sort of economic policy that had MANAGEMENT and leadership within it. all this sitting on your hands hoping something may happen is a waste of public office in my view.

astradt1 wrote:Having just heard the this governments cliam that the latest rise in youth unemployment is the result of students looking for part time jobs, I have to ask how are these unemployment figure worked out?

Is done on those claiming Jobs Seekers Allowance or just on those who register with Job Centre?

Hi astradt1
a very good point. as its very hard today to work out what the true figures are.

Concerned teachers have suggested that GCSE English exams were marked too harshly this year after schools reported an unprecedented number of fails among their pupils.

Here we go, the examiners have adhered to the governments wish that fewer pupils have the opportunity to go for A levels at further education colleges.
These measures will also be used when examiners mark A level papers.
All designed IMO to cut the numbers getting to university. On top of that the university fees are out of reach of many poorer students.

Is it not the reason for these measures have been taken to keep the "lower order" numbers in check, as they are able if qualified to take professions/jobs that squeeze some of the "higher order" out of the rush to grab the best well paid jobs?
So much for helping the average youngster get into decent work. Perhaps the idea is that they should be put into a such a desperate situation that they would be fighting among themselves to get the odd lavatory cleaning job that might just come along if they are lucky at below min wage standards.

The slimy Gove wants a return to 0-level and A-level GCE exams, which were current fifty years ago and devised to test the top 25% academically, as a part of the University Entrance process.

There's nothing wrong with the Pursuit of Excellence but this Tory-led Coalition seems hell-bent on consigning most kids to the scrap-heap as a component of its survival-of-the-fittest dogma.

I totally agree OW their is nothing wrong with the Pursuit of Excellence as long as this is not at the cost of everyone else. but I feel that this has a great deal more to do with ideological right wing dogma and very little to do with Eduction and the well being of the UK children in general. but then I know that we both can see though this utter rot OW?

As this Tory-led Coalition has been going on and on about how many are passing there GCE GCE exams while telling the whole world this was due to the last government Eduction policy. Now they are up-set that too many failed the GCE exams or got the wrong marks.

Hell its like a re-run of there economic policy. as its everyone else that is failing and once more with nothing to do with them.... Gee O what shock and horror this news must come to the British Public..... NOT.

Its just amazing how everyone else is to blame from the economy to Eduction to lazy workforce too the weather or the Queen.

When will they learn that we are just not very interested in this stupid right wing blame game. as it just does not wash any more.

Finally, somebody has dared to say the education (comprehensive) system has failed the youth, presently under the labour mantra kids are leaving university with little ability in anything other than how to fill out an unemployment form. None of them have been taught anything of use and none of them have the aspiration to want to succeed (the world owes me a living syndrome). The rich must have been laughing their socks off at Blair/Brown when they pushed for more university places for people without the gumption for the work ethic as part of the course.

Back to reality, only the gifted kids should go to uni, if that's 25% of kids fine, if it was 10% of kids fine at least they have a chance of competing against the wealthy families that (like it or lump it) hold a distinct advantage over a working class kid. Give your time and support to those that have a chance and stop wasting time and money on those without the "getup and go" to make something of themselves

Uni Graduates gifted or not are finding difficulties in finding work. The whole Tory ideology on the subject is to decrease the numbers of those young people gaining degrees who will compete for the top jobs and professions that the wealthy ones are normally guaranteed to aquire, ( many through who they know and not what they know) when the country is booming.

oftenwrong wrote:The slimy Gove wants a return to 0-level and A-level GCE exams, which were current fifty years ago and devised to test the top 25% academically, as a part of the University Entrance process.

There's nothing wrong with the Pursuit of Excellence but this Tory-led Coalition seems hell-bent on consigning most kids to the scrap-heap as a component of its survival-of-the-fittest dogma.

I actually think the 'O'level and CSE system was better than the one size fits all system (GCSE's) that replaced it. It was a truer, fairer, and more flexible system. The academically inclined kids could realise their potential and take all subjects at 'O' level, and for others decent CSE grades demonstrated suitability for employment for those leaving school at 16.........of course many pupils took a combination of some CSE's and some 'O' levels - they were forwarded for 'O' levels if they demonstrated an aptitude for a particular subject.

There should be no doubt that the introduction of the GCSE has dumbed down our education system.

tlttf wrote:Finally, somebody has dared to say the education (comprehensive) system has failed the youth, ....
Back to reality, only the gifted kids should go to uni, if that's 25% of kids fine, if it was 10% of kids fine at least they have a chance of competing against the wealthy families that (like it or lump it) hold a distinct advantage over a working class kid. Give your time and support to those that have a chance and stop wasting time and money on those without the "getup and go" to make something of themselves

The last sentence is still referring to "selection", which is what has always caused so much trouble. The "eleven-plus" was said to have scrapped the chances of kids who were slow developers, and subsequent efforts at "streaming" produced howls of protest. There have been scholarships and bursaries for several hundred years, and many people consider that to be as good a scheme as any other as a reward and incentive for excellence.

Unfortunately OW, we all know that life itself is about selection. I was lucky insofar as my daughter received both a scholarship and bursary when she left her primary school, if she hadn't contrarily to what Ivan believes there wasn't a decent school available within Kensington/Chelsea. I still believe children develop at different speeds, yet those with ability should always have the door left open or them, it then becomes their option as to whether go for higher education or not.

On another note, if the government paid unemployment benefits to teenagers on condition they accepted a job where they could learn a trade, would you think it a good idea or would you believe they were looking for slave labour?

There have been so many Youth Employment initiatives under various governments, the surprise is that Job Centres are still considered necessary.

But oftenwrong, the "Youth Employment initiatives" are a sham, the best illustration of this was in 1998 when Gordon brown`s cynically-named "New Deal" was introduced. It was brought in for young people in April 1998, then extended to adults in June 1998. This was a time of relatively low unemployment because we were in a boom, which greatly troubled the ruling class who wanted interest rates to go up in order to raise unemployment. The minutes of June 1998 meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England reveal a concern that wage rises indicated a need for unemployment to rise:

“the earnings data suggested that it was more likely that unemployment was below the rate compatible with stable inflation. In that case, it was probable that unemployment would have to rise to hit the inflation target on a sustainable basis.”
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/minutes/Documents/mpc/pdf/1998/Mpc9806.pdf

The Bank of England raised interest rates to 7.5% that month in its bid to raise unemployment, and when the Treasury Select Committee`s Report was published on 29th July 1998, MPs on the committee noted that the Monetary Policy Committee`s position was that “unemployment must rise if the inflation target is to be met”.

July to September 1998 was marked by an unusually open debate in the mainstream media on the amount of unemployment needed to control wage inflation.
On August 7th the Guardian reported on an interview Gordon Brown had given the previous day. Headed “UK will avoid recession, says Brown”, the article, without mentioning prospects for unemployment or the New Deal said:

“Mr Brown said the economy was witnessing a “justifiable and necessary slowdown” but that he could see no signs that growth would grind to a halt. “I am confident that we are on track to avoid recession”"

and finished with a threat from Brown, predictably aimed at wages, not prices:

”the Chancellor repeated his warning that a failure to exercise pay moderation could trigger further tough action from the Bank.”

A week after this interview, economist Robert Chote noted in the FT how candid the Bank of England had been the day before (in both its inflation report and minutes)
(Unemployment must rise to hit inflation target, Bank warns, Financial Times – August 13, 1998)
He wrote:

“Unemployment will have to rise if inflation is to be stabilised at the government’s target rate, the Bank of England said yesterday. But it refused to predict by how much the jobless total would need to increase.
The Bank has rarely been as explicit as it was yesterday that unemployment must rise, but it remains reluctant to quantify the impact.”

Chote contrasted the Bank`s relative candour with that of Gordon Brown whom he said:

”concedes that the economy faces a “necessary slowdown”, but becomes evasive when asked about the implication for unemployment.”

On September 25, the BBC, at least on its website, if not on its broadcasts, had apparently decided to ditch its bogus claim to “balance” in an article entitled “Why unemployment has to rise”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/179455.stm

“the Bank of England recognises that, however painful, unemployment has to rise for the government to hit its inflation target. And the bank is determined to reach this goal.”

Once again there was no mention of the New Deal or the Chancellor`s thinly-veiled support for the Bank`s only means of achieving an inflation target set by the government.[b][i]

More about the use of unemloyment to push wages down can be read here:
http://thetruthaboutunemployment.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/what-causes-unemployment-2/

Assuming that the soubriquet "jobseeker" is a genuine statement of personal circumstances, I am of course totally sympathetic with anyone without work, having found myself in that position more than once during a lifetime of ducking and diving. To the person without a wage, Unemployment is at 100%.

References to "1998" are ignoring the reality of reduced prospects dating from much earlier. Successive Tory governments have conspired to maintain a large pool of compliant unemployed people, disguising their efforts with such titles as "YTS" or "Work experience" etc.

atv,

Well for a start I disagree with the Winter Fuel Allowance cut and have voiced my opinion to Central Office

...in a sarcastic tone - Why? Is it 'cos it effects you? Aw! Diddums!

The internet provides a facility for universal government BY the people and FOR the people, but I don't expect many in Westminster to vote for that.

Now wouldn't that be a good initiative for Labour to offer - comments threads on proposed legislation?

That way all the hard work currently done by the professional law-makers in the upper house could be outsourced to cheerful opinionates, like ourselves, who would do it all for free!

Sorted