Looking grim for Labour

[bpoolrover]

Thanks for that billy,is there anywhere I can look on the internet to get a completely unbiased opinion on the finances of both parties

[BillyStubbsTears]

Phew.

Politics and unbiased?

You'll be lucky.

The simple situation is that the Tories think that we should cut the deficit as rapidly as possible, whereas Labour think it should be cut more slowly (ignore the people who say that Labour doesn't care about the deficit - that's politicking).

On the surface, the Tory approach seems more sensible. If you're in debt, you want to get out of debt as rapidly as possible. So you cut your expenditure. But doing that with a nation's finances has consequences. Because the Government spending underpins a lot (and I mean A LOT) of economic activity. So if you cut Government spending, you put people out of work. Then they have less money. So they buy less things. So the people who they used to buy from might lose their jobs. So the Govt gets less tax. So the Govt has less money to pay its bills, so the debt doesn't get reduced as quickly as you hoped.

And in the meantime, we all get poorer.

That is EXACTLY what Labour in 2010 were predicting would happen if the Tory deficit reduction plans were put into practice. That's pretty much exactly what happened from 2010-2013, when the Govt eased up on the cuts and the economy started growing.

The Tories would say that Labour's plans were to keep borrowing and spending and that eventually, we'd come to a point where no-one would lend to us anymore because we'd hit the buffers. Cameron had a genius phrase when he said that we'd "max'd out our credit card". No sensible economist could read that without laughing, because a country isn't like an individual, but it sounds good and it chimes with people.

The truth is that there's no independent, unbiased analysis available. Some economists say that the debt and deficit are irrelevant as long as they are not wildly out of control (and for comparison, our current Govt debt isn't remotely as bad as Greece, Italy or even Japan. Or even our own debt at the end of WWII, which was REALLY scary.) Others say that at a certain level of debt, very bad things start to happen.

But the simple answer is that the Tories would cut VERY hard and get the debt down quickly, arguing that we need to do that for future prosperity and accepting (although not publicly) that this means pain today. Labour would cut less hard and get the debt down more slowly, accepting the risks for the future, but balancing that with a stronger economy today.

PS:

LAST election, the nearest thing you'd find to an independent analysis of each parties' spending, tax and borrowing plans was the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

I can't find the original report easily, but here's a report in the Guardian about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/28/general-election-2010-spending-cuts-ifs


But it's not simple. There's no "One side is right, the other side is wrong" result. That's why politics is so f***ing messy. My take is to look at who will win and who will lose from each side's proposals.

[bpoolrover]

Again thanks billy for the effort replying,eventually  i will make a descion and let u no lol,1 final question if u don't mind where do ukip come into this if anywhere? I no they won't win but they seem to have wind in there sails

[IC1967]

Could I ask u both a question billy and IC1967,your both obviously very passionate about this,what I'm finding is if you vote labour or conservative no 1 ever has anything good to say about the other party and also nothing bad to say about thier own party so my question is could either of you do that? Feel free of course to ignore my question I'm just intrigued?

I'll spare you the family history but would just say I come from a typical Labour background. I can say plenty bad about the Tories, it's just that I consider them to be the least worst option available to us. For example they are over stuffed with rich ex public schoolboys who haven't got a clue about normal life for the normal working man. They are more likely than Labour to support our totally unfair aristocratic led class system. They are quite happy for the bulk of the wealth of the country to reside in the hands of the few. There's plenty more I could say about what I don't like about them. The only good thing I could say about Labour is that their hearts are in the right place but their heads are shoved so far up their arses it is untrue.

The fundamental fact is though that for all their faults, the Tories nearly always do a much better job of managing the economy. Because of this there is more money to go around to fund public services such as the NHS. There is one fundamental measure of how successful governments are and it is this. How did unemployment fare during their term in office? Do you know that under every Labour government, unemployment was higher at the end of their term in power than it was at the start of their term in power? This is conclusive evidence that they don't know how to manage the economy and for all their good intentions they always leave public services and people's standards of living in a mess.

There are other reasons why the Tories are the better option. They at least try and get the country to live within its means. Labour think its OK to live beyond our means and fund this by borrowing monumental amounts of money. Do you know that thanks to all this borrowing we now spend more on paying the interest on our debts than we do on schools? Labour like to put up taxes (under Gordon Brown they were brilliantly sneeky at this). Tories like to cut taxes.

I am of the belief that money is better in the hands of the individual than in the hands of government. You only have to look at all the incredible waste of taxpayers' money that goes on whichever party is in power. The more money the individual keeps then the harder they are likely to work and so a virtuous circle is established whereby more tax is collected. Labour like to over tax the rich. Its a good soundbite. They do this despite overwhelming evidence that once you do this the rich find tax avoiding measures or leave the country which damages the country and job prospects of everyone and results in less tax being collected from the rich.

At the end of the day both parties have huge faults. I let my head rule my heart and side with the Tories because they have unequivocally shown they are much better at managing the economy. Just remember one thing that proves this beyond all doubt. EVERY LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN UNEMPLOYMENT RISE AT THE END OF THEIR TERM IN OFFICE. If they had a clue about what they were doing with the economy this would not be the case. If we don't have a strong economy then all aspects of our quality of life start to go down the toilet. So my advice would be to hold your nose and vote Tory. In marginal seats vote tactically to keep Labour out. In strong Labour seats vote UKIP to send a message.

UKIP come into it as they want us out of Europe. I believe we would be much better off out of Europe in a type of EFTA trading deal. UKIP and the Tories are prepared to let us have a referendum. Labour aren't. Another black mark against them. They think they know better than the general public.

[bpoolrover]

Thanks for that mick much appreciated

[Filo]

And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures


http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

[IC1967]

And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures


http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

I agree that true unemployment is much higher than what is officially reported. It is unfair to just blame the Tories for this. I agree they started the massaging of figures but Labour did nothing to put this right. What is undeniable is that unemployment has fallen a great deal during this government's term in office. How quick all you lefties are to forget the predictions by Mr Balls that this would not happen. He also predicted no growth. We've now got the fastest growing economy of all major economies. Just goes to show that Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to the economy.

[Filo]

And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures


http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

I agree that true unemployment is much higher than what is officially reported. It is unfair to just blame the Tories for this. I agree they started the massaging of figures but Labour did nothing to put this right. What is undeniable is that unemployment has fallen a great deal during this government's term in office. How quick all you lefties are to forget the predictions by Mr Balls that this would not happen. He also predicted no growth. We've now got the fastest growing economy of all major economies. Just goes to show that Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to the economy.

ZERO HOUR CONTRACTS!


People forced to take these contracts, leaving them in real terms less than the minimum wage!

[BillyStubbsTears]

The usual straw man argument from Mick on unemployment.

The measure of unemployment at the end of a period is meaningless in itself. It says nothing other than what unemployment was at that point in time. It's more instructive to see what happened to unemployment over a duration.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/uk-unemployment-18701999.html?m=1
Consider the past 100 years. Countries typically have high unemployment at the end of a major war as they go through the trauma of switching from a militarised workforce to a civil one. After WWI, we had horrific unemployment as the Govts (mainly Old Liberal and Tory) slashed spending (Google the Geddes Axe). That gave us a generation of extreme poverty. After WWII we had a remarkable experience of low unemployment and high growth, underpinned by a new way of running the country, where we taxed heavily and redistributed wealth to ensure that we really WERE all in it together.
That lasted until the mid 70s. From then, there was a worldwide move away from the state control of the economy towards a freer one, with lower taxes and people encouraged to keep more of their money. Look at what happened to unemployment over the next 20 years. We had an near-unprecedentedly sustained period of dreadfully high unemployment. Areas like Donny took the brunt of that.

Most of that occurred under the Tories. It's fine to say that unemployment was only a bit higher at the end of their term in 1997 than it was when they started in 1979. But that ignores the fact that for every one of those 18 years, it was WAY higher than when they came to office. That's not some abstract issue. Those unemployed people represent wasted potential and wasted lives.

What Mick wants you to believe is that it's the end condition that matters. That's like looking at someone's speed at the end of a long race and deciding on that measure alone who is the better runner.

Actually, we're going through a mini version of that right now. We have had 3 years of unnecessarily high unemployment and low growth since 2010. Things then improved from 2013, and we're expected to agree that this means that the right policies have been used. It's the race analogy again. If you're in a marathon and you jog for 20 miles then sprint for the final 6, it doesn't make you a strong runner. If you run hard and well for 20 miles then slow down in the final 6, it doesn't make you a bad runner.

[IC1967]

And here's how the Tories doctored the unemployment figures


http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

I agree that true unemployment is much higher than what is officially reported. It is unfair to just blame the Tories for this. I agree they started the massaging of figures but Labour did nothing to put this right. What is undeniable is that unemployment has fallen a great deal during this government's term in office. How quick all you lefties are to forget the predictions by Mr Balls that this would not happen. He also predicted no growth. We've now got the fastest growing economy of all major economies. Just goes to show that Labour haven't got a clue when it comes to the economy.

ZERO HOUR CONTRACTS!


People forced to take these contracts, leaving them in real terms less than the minimum wage!

I hope you are not suggesting that the huge increase in employment is mostly down to zero hour contracts. That would be totally absurd. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), based on a poll of 1,000 workers, reported in August 2013 that only 3-4% of the workforce, work under the terms of a zero-hour contract. It is also a legal requirement that the minimum wage should be paid. Of course some employers will break the law and pay less.

There are pros and cons to zero hour contracts. The main pro is that it offers both workers and employers the flexibility to work only the hours that either party requires. The downside is that employers can exploit vulnerable workers which I agree does happen sometimes.

I believe there are more people in work than would otherwise be the case if it were not for zero hour contracts. On the whole they are a good thing. That's not to say some reform isn't needed.

According to research by the CIPD only 16% of workers on zero hours contracts felt they didn't get enough hours. So on balance I would say they are working pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-hour_contract

[IC1967]

The usual straw man argument from Mick on unemployment.

The measure of unemployment at the end of a period is meaningless in itself. It says nothing other than what unemployment was at that point in time. It's more instructive to see what happened to unemployment over a duration.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/uk-unemployment-18701999.html?m=1
Consider the past 100 years. Countries typically have high unemployment at the end of a major war as they go through the trauma of switching from a militarised workforce to a civil one. After WWI, we had horrific unemployment as the Govts (mainly Old Liberal and Tory) slashed spending (Google the Geddes Axe). That gave us a generation of extreme poverty. After WWII we had a remarkable experience of low unemployment and high growth, underpinned by a new way of running the country, where we taxed heavily and redistributed wealth to ensure that we really WERE all in it together.
That lasted until the mid 70s. From then, there was a worldwide move away from the state control of the economy towards a freer one, with lower taxes and people encouraged to keep more of their money. Look at what happened to unemployment over the next 20 years. We had an near-unprecedentedly sustained period of dreadfully high unemployment. Areas like Donny took the brunt of that.

Most of that occurred under the Tories. It's fine to say that unemployment was only a bit higher at the end of their term in 1997 than it was when they started in 1979. But that ignores the fact that for every one of those 18 years, it was WAY higher than when they came to office. That's not some abstract issue. Those unemployed people represent wasted potential and wasted lives.

What Mick wants you to believe is that it's the end condition that matters. That's like looking at someone's speed at the end of a long race and deciding on that measure alone who is the better runner.

Actually, we're going through a mini version of that right now. We have had 3 years of unnecessarily high unemployment and low growth since 2010. Things then improved from 2013, and we're expected to agree that this means that the right policies have been used. It's the race analogy again. If you're in a marathon and you jog for 20 miles then sprint for the final 6, it doesn't make you a strong runner. If you run hard and well for 20 miles then slow down in the final 6, it doesn't make you a bad runner.

Look. It's very simple. Whenever Labour leave office unemployment is always higher than when they take office. It has happened every single time. This is not a coincidence. How anyone can try and argue that this doesn't prove they always mismanage the economy is unbelievable. The Tories always have to sort out the problems left behind by Labour. Always. It takes time to get things sorted out. Given the last big mess left behind by Labour (they really took the biscuit this time), it is remarkable we are doing so well. This is a testament to the Tories ability to manage the economy properly.

Only a fool would risk all that by putting Labour back in power.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Once again, you can take the word of a Bettaware salesman, or you can ask the head macroeconomic professor at Oxford University. As it happens, he was discussing the legacy left by Labour and the record of the Tories just yesterday.

 http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-mythical-debt-crisis.html?m=1

And before our Bettaware salesman starts moaning about this being another lefty, Prof Wren-Lewis is on record as having been critical of Brown's record as Chancellor. He's no Labour-lover. But he's apoplectic about Osborne's record.

[IC1967]

Once again, you can take the word of a Bettaware salesman, or you can ask the head macroeconomic professor at Oxford University. As it happens, he was discussing the legacy left by Labour and the record of the Tories just yesterday.

 http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-mythical-debt-crisis.html?m=1

And before our Bettaware salesman starts moaning about this being another lefty, Prof Wren-Lewis is on record as having been critical of Brown's record as Chancellor. He's no Labour-lover. But he's apoplectic about Osborne's record.

You are trying to use diversionary tactics again because you can't defend the indefensible. The main thrust of my point of view is that Labour always increases unemployment. Always. Therefore they are incompetent at running the economy. The link you've posted does not discuss this issue so why are you posting it?

Guess when unemployment started rising last time. You'd be forgiven for thinking it was as a result of the financial crisis that Labour blame on the bankers. You probably think it must have started going up in 2008 when the financial crisis hit. You'd be wrong. True to their previous record, Labour started mismanaging the economy well before this. Unemployment actually started going up in 2005. Yes that's right, 3 years before the financial crisis. This is despite them increasing public sector employment massively on borrowed money. Labour increased public sector employment by nearly one million. This cost a fortune and we are still paying the bill. Despite this, unemployment was still higher when they left office than it was when they started.

It is impossible for anyone to defend Labour's record on unemployment. It is impossible therefore not to conclude that Labour are financially incompetent and should be kept away from power indefinitely.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/how-many-public-sector-jobs-did-labour-create/2860

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

As ever, your inability to follow a train of logic is a wonder to behold.

Consider the following scenario. A benevolent and wise leader rules a country and ensures that the economy works so well that there is zero unemployment. Then war is declared on his country and an enemy carpet bombs, destroying all economic activity. There is 100% unemployment. The ruler dies a week later.

By your logic, the fact that there was 100% unemployment on the day of his death "proves" that he was incompetent.

[IC1967]

What is it that you don't understand? Unemployment hasn't just gone up the odd time when Labour have been in power. It's happened every single time. It even happened last time when they created nearly one million non jobs in the public sector. A truly appalling record. There is a pattern of behaviour here. It's easy to see.

I have concluded that you must be insane. Have you heard of this definition?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

Giving power to Labour over and over again and not expecting unemployment to go up is insane.

[BillyStubbsTears]

f***ing hell Mick, it's hard work again.

I assume you DO know that unemployment has also been higher at the end of every Tory Govt since WWII than it was when they came to power?

You DID know that before you started this pointless discussion didn't you?

Does that mean anything about the Tories' economic competence? Of course not. A snapshot of what unemployment levels were on two particular days tells you nothing at all.

What matters is what happened in between and what external events affected things.

In 1979, the Tories came to power with unemployment at 5.4%. It had been falling steadily for 2 years, but it was still at historically high levels. The Tories had a brilliant election poster with a huge dole queue under the banner "Labour isn't working". Genius.

What happened then? The Tories were in power for 216 months. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of those months, unemployment was higher than it was when they took office. It reached 14% within 3.5 years of them taking power.

Do I blame them entirely for that? No I don't. That would be stupid. There were two deep worldwide recessions during their time in power. Unemployment was high in every major industrialised country. But I DO blame them for allowing our unemployment to be among the highest in the developed world for 18 years. That was a result of their deliberate policies.

Labour came to power in 1997 with unemployment at 7.2%. It had been falling steadily for 4 years from the horrific levels of 1993 after the 90-92 recession. The Tories deserve a lot of credit for engineering that fall under Ken Clarke's sensible economic policy (a refreshing change from the mad experimental phase under Maggie in the 80s). Under Labour, unemployment continued to fall until 2001, then it levelled out at 5-5.7% until 2008. For 11 years, we unemployment that EVERY SINGLE DAY was lower than it was on any single day under the previous Tory Govt.

There was then the worst worldwide recession since the 1930s. Unemployment rose pretty much everywhere in the Western world. In the USA it rose to 10%. In France to 9.5%. In Canada to 8.7%. In Italy to 9%. In Spain to 18%. In fairness, it didn't increase by much in Germany, but unemployment was already above 8% and it went up to about 9%.

In the UK, unemployment rose to 8%. So, under Labour, in the worst recession in 80 years, unemployment was a little over half what it was under the Tories in 1982.

Do I think Labour were totally blameless? No of course not. Do I think the Tories were entirely to blame for 1982? No of course not.

Do I think people who latch onto one statistic and build an entire thesis out of it are intellectually bankrupt d**kheads? Of course I do.

[IC1967]

You, statistics and damned lies. The phrase rolls seamlessly off the tongue. Lets look at the most recent history of unemployment shall we. The current rate is 6.2% which is lower than when the coalition came to power and it is still falling. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

While we're at it did you know that every time Labour has left office the deficit and national debt have always been higher than when they took office? More damning evidence of their financial incompetence.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

You are utterly beyond belief. Point out a SINGLE lie in that post of mine.

You, on the other hand, dissemble and spout shit as easily as you breathe.

Debt. Taking the absolute level of debt as a measure, it has gone up under EVERY single Govt since the War. But taking the absolute level is stupid, because it takes no account of inflation or of our national income.

Using inflation-adjusted figures and putting the debt into equivalent of 2005 prices, the following happened to our Govt debt under Labour

1945-51: fell from £685bn to £605bn.

1964-70: fell from £465bn to £365bn

1974-1979: rose from £308bn to £311bn.

1997-2010: rose from £440bn to £730bn.

Under the Tories

1951-64: Fell from £605bn to £465bn

1970-74: Fell from £365bn to £308bn

1979-97: Rose from £311bn to £440bn

See the pattern? Debt fell dramatically during the post-War Keynesian period. And it has risen remorselessly and dramatically during the period when it was supposed to be controlled by market forces. Under BOTH Labour and the Tories.

I'm happy to discuss any of this. But you are not interested in that. You spout lies and assume that everyone who reads them is as thick as you and will accept them. You are contemptible. Your approach is not about establishing truth. It's about being a Kitson.

[IC1967]

Look, anyone can make statistics suit whatever point of view they want. You are an expert at this. I don't care if you believe me. I know my facts.

I have more than proved my case. Take my advice and let it go. This can't be good for your blood pressure.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

You know the square root of f*** all. You prove it regularly. Then you limp off out of a discussion when you've been made to look daft.

Tune in next week for the next episode of Slap Mick Down. On a theme of his choice.

[IC1967]

Hahaha. You do make me laugh.

[IC1967]

Right. You've asked for it. Here is a list of Tory governments from 1922 up to 1990 listing the yearly average of unemployment.

1922-1924 14.3% down to 10.3% (a fall of 3%)
1924-1929 10.3% up to 10.4% (a rise of 0.1%)
1951-1964 1.3% up to 1.7% (a rise of 0.4%)
1970-1974 2.7% down to 2.6% (a fall of 0.1%)
1979-1990 5.7% up to 5.8% (a rise of 0.1%)

Now by any stretch of the imagination that is a pretty impressive record. The worst that has happened is that unemployment rose by 0.4% from 1951 to 1964. Not a large rise over such a long period. In every other period it has fallen or only gone up by 0.1%. Note, it fell from 1970-1974 putting the lie to Billy's assertion that every Tory government has seen a rise since WWII. The rise of 0.1% from 1924-1929 and 1979-1990 is so small as to be statistically insignificant. As I said earlier, unemployment will also be much lower at the end of this government's term in office than it was when they started out.

All in all a much better record than Labour's.

Now. Let's look at Labour's record over the same period.

1929-1931 10.4% up to 21.3% (a rise of 10.9%)
1945-1951 1.3% up to 1.4% (a rise of 0.1%)
1964-1970 1.7% up to 2.7% (a rise of 1%)
1974 - !979 2.6% up to 5.7% (a rise of 3.1%)

All in all a piss poor record, one that they carried on with up until 2010. So a back of the fag packet calculation shows that overall the figures give the Tories a mean figure of
-2.5% and Labour a figure of +15.1%. Conclusive proof that the Tories have a much better record on unemployment than Labour.

I rest my case. Game, set and match.

[Filo]

Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.


Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!


Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!

[Serring]

Oh....wait.......

Look, anyone can make statistics suit whatever point of view they want......

...and not reference to Filo's post either but to IC's

[IC1967]

Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.


Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!


Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!

The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!

This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.

I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.

[Filo]

Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.


Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!


Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!

The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!

This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.

I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.

b*llocks!

How can they get a full time job when they are a full time carer!

[IC1967]

Oh....wait.......

Look, anyone can make statistics suit whatever point of view they want......

...and not reference to Filo's post either but to IC's

I'm not a big fan of using statistics but when Billy tells blatant lies and then accuses me of being the liar then I have to respond. He's lost every argument he's ever had with me and is desperate to win one. He will employ any means, fair or foul. He tries his best to belittle me and calls me all kinds of names. It's a good job I've got a really thick skin. When he loses the argument he then deploys condescension  and tries to bully me into submission and gets extremely frustrated when it doesn't work.

I am seriously worried for the man. I bet his blood pressure is through the roof and his teeth will be a right mess as he grinds away in his sleep. It's time for him to admit he has met his match. It's pointless him trying to defeat me. I always win. The reason is that I am not a hardcore leftie that thinks every other point of view is wrong before I get involved in a debate. I always consider all the points of view before deciding I was right all along.

I am the voice of reason and it is plain for all to see.

[IC1967]

Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.


Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!


Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!

The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!

This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.

I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.

b*llocks!

How can they get a full time job when they are a full time carer!

I could also ask how can they get a part time job when they are a full time carer? If they want to care for their loved one then that is very admirable. They should not be rewarded for this on borrowed money for which the taxpayer has to pick up the bill. Let's not forget the person that is being cared for also gets a lot of money off the taxpayer.

We should have a better care system so people don't need to become carers. I'd be all for giving care workers a huge pay rise. They do one of the more difficult jobs out there and are paid a pittance. I'd pay them at least £20 per hour.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

1) Your unemployment rate numbers are wrong.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-trends--discontinued-/january-1996/unemployment-since-1881.pdf

2) it doesn't matter what the rates were at the start and end of a Govt you terminal cretin. YOU have put up that metric to try to prove a point. But it's imbecilic.  It doesn't take into account the intervening period and the effect of external shocks beyond any Govt's control.

You have a childlike craving for simple, one dimensional solutions to highly complex problems.

[IC1967]

My figures are correct. Anyone can use the link you've posted and see that this is the case.

You say 'it doesn't matter what the rates were at the start and end of a Govt you terminal cretin'.

Moving the goalposts again are we now? I beg to differ. I think the unemployment rate is an excellent indicator of how well a government has managed the economy. I can't think of a better one.

The fairest way to measure how successful a government has been in this regard is to see what the rate was at the beginning of their term in office and what it was at the end. To get an accurate representation of the stats I've gone back over many decades. I can't be fairer than that.

OK there may well have been the odd external shock but that was the same for both parties. It is totally conclusive that the Tories have a brilliant record on unemployment and that Labour have a piss poor one.

I've totally proved my point and you have been rumbled. It is a fact that any government that keeps unemployment low or indeed gets it to fall is obviously excellent at running the economy. Any government that lets it rise every single time they are in office must be useless at running the economy. Now take a chill pill and calm down. I'm getting very concerned for your health.

Game, set and match.