UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

It is a completely absurd policy based on the limited information available (note: it is only a proposal and one can only hope it remains that way). It is completely backwards. Youth unemployment is something that needs to be solved through increasing enticements for businesses to replace old with young and through job creation. Why should under 25s be treated any differently than any other age group in regards to eligibility for unemployment benefits? It makes no sense at all.
 
It's no surprise Cameron has a disconnect with the lives of ordinary young people and continues to push these policies which negatively effect them. He grew up in wealth, with parents who supported him. He was educated in one of the finest schools in the country which develops the individual (not just their education), and pushes its pupils to be confident, assertive and goal orientated. All followed up by a degree at Oxford.

Now I'm not slating him for having a fantastic education (far from it), but Cameron has never had to worry about financial hardship, has always had parents who pushed him and explained the value of networking, and has never been short of 'someone who knows someone'. Yet he holds all young people to these high standards, and assumes they have the same opportunities open to them, and so sees high youth unemployment as something borne entirely out of laziness and a 'benefits culture' rather than a lot of other issues relating you young people and their work skills (and of course the shaky jobs market outside of the SE).
 
I was recently unemployed and on the JSA. I was having many many interviews at the time and was pretty successful in putting in strong applications and eventually had a good result and got a job. At the time I needed the benefit money to pay to go to interviews - travel into central london being so expensive from the outer counties, I also needed to get new shirts, make sure I was smart and presentable... all the normal stuff. My problem wasnt a lack of training or a direction. I was just part of the natural friction in the labour force and was a skilled graduate looking for niche, specialised employment opportunities. I have met several people, graduates from top tier universities in core subjects as well as postgraduate students with Masters and research qualifications in similar situations to me who are simply in-between university and employment and need a little financial aid to help the job search.

Unfortunately the council made me attend this compulsory "training" course designed for the youth unemployed. The whole thing was incredibly patronising and it was such a waste of time when I could have actually been applying for jobs. We spent one afternoon doing "IT Training" learning how to use Gmail learning stuff like sending emails, adding attachments and basic shit like that. This is to a group of 18-24 year olds who are part of the most computer literate generation we have ever had. The course was 3 days a week for 4 weeks. I eventually left because it was detracting from the useful things I wanted to do like research companies, market research and learn Java/VBA.

There is no doubt that people there with me needed help, lacked qualifications and wanted direction as they looked for employment but the "course" put on for us was completely useless and restrictive. Compare me (a graduate student) with an 18 year old who was planning to be a professional footballer before things fell through and now needs a new direction. We may both be under-25 but our needs and requirements are completely different and the type of aid and assistance we need are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Obviously at the practical end, tailoring unemployment/benefit policy for individuals own specific needs and requirements is incredibly difficult to do but thats the challenge. Im sure Labour's policy is a bit more nuanced that "Scrap benefits for all under 25 year olds" but the real problems I saw lay in the details of the implementation.
 
zomgbbqftw said:
It's a Labour policy...
Click to expand...

Lets not take tabbo Telegraph headlines too seriously now.

"Considering". But they'd best be bloody careful about what particularly they're considering about it. I was an unemployed 20-something, and just assuming you can sponge off a parent is a politician disconnect classic. Emboldening shitty "work for dole" schemes is skeezy shit in the extreme which swings the corporation serving balance far too on the nose for us individual pukes to swallow.

I certainly feel like there is no longer a political party I can earnestly give my support to though these days. Russel Brands and Morrissey's vacuous REVOLUTION bullshit aside, I do wish people of a little better standing and prepared to play the game longterm could rise the ranks and found another political force but that seems like dream-talk rather than reality. Good thing Clegg cut the Lib Dems throat eh.

Not had kids yet, but I do worry just what exact dystopian future they're going to be born into this rate. Forced internships to 25! Are you thinking about sex that isn't vanilla because our machines can check! The NHS used to be WHAT?!
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/royal-mail-privatisation-taxpayers-robbed-2835804

Oh hey another disastrous privatization that was only sold off for the sake of selling it off.

I also find it funny that Major is criticizing Cameron more than Miliband is, but even though Miliband sucks I still can't believe that the Tories could win next election with their government looking like this, the crippling austerity, the shameful privatization of public services not even Thatcher would consider selling off, and the overall miserable standard of living in the UK today. They should be swept out like they were in 97.
 
WayneMorse said:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/royal-mail-privatisation-taxpayers-robbed-2835804

Oh hey another disastrous privatization that was only sold off for the sake of selling it off.

I also find it funny that Major is criticizing Cameron more than Miliband is, but even though Miliband sucks I still can't believe that the Tories could win next election with their government looking like this, the crippling austerity, the shameful privatization of public services not even Thatcher would consider selling off, and the overall miserable standard of living in the UK today. They should be swept out like they were in 97.
Click to expand...

The easy reply to that is - their policies are working. The IMF recently stated that Britain's deficit will shrink at the fastest rate in the developed world this year - at a rate that is recommended (and not unlike the US where it seems they are cutting too quickly). Then you have the OCED revising down global economic growth forecasts, but revising up the UK's growth from 0.8% to 1.4%, and then stating that the growth next year would be 2.4%, above economists expectations.

So if they deserve to be swept out as you say - to be replaced by the remnants of the Blair/Brown government that left this country with the kind of defect that we have now, and can be identified as a root cause of the crippling austerity and miserable standard of living in the UK today - why are we seeing Labour policy think-tanks coming out with proposals to scrap benefits for under 25s? Surely you would associate that kind of proposals to the "Eton Boys"?

Or perhaps, now we're seeing the "working people's" Labour Party come out with such policy, does it mean that such decisions are *shock* the right thing to do?
 
Its also worth noting that the welfare reforms are some of the coalition's most popular with the public - its a case of one of those issues that the left feel strongly one way about and the public feel mildly in the other direction (the right wing equivalent being membership of the EU).

Wayne - you can't really believe all that stuff you just wrote can you?
 
jamieson87 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

It is a laundry list of wishes without any proper costing and just seems absurd, just looking at the main points that the BBC have put up:

BBC said:
Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds. Why not do this now?
Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament. Fair enough but will lose jobs
Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax" to be abolished in first year of an independent Scottish parliament. Needs to be costed
Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation. Needs to be costed
Review UK plan for increasing state pension age to 67. Needs to be costed
Minimum wage to rise at least in line with inflation. Needs to be costed
Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation. Needs to be costed
BBC Scotland replaced at the start of 2017 with a new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the rest of the BBC. God know how much this would cost
Single tier state pension of £160 per week from April 2016. Pensions would be a nightmare to sort out
Royal Mail returned to public ownership. What? How would this work?
Pound to be retained under "currency union". No chance of this working, who would govern interest rates etc? BoE?
New employment measures to help more women into work. Such as?
Scottish citizens entitled to Scottish passport at the same as UK one. Fair enough
Scottish Defence Force to enlist 15,000 regulars and 5,000 reservists. What for?
Scottish-born British citizens living in another country will automatically be Scottish citizens. ok
British citizens living in Scotland considered Scottish citizens, including those holding dual nationality. ok
Click to expand...

Seems to be basically we will cut all of your taxes, raise benefits, and Alex Salmond will personally dive you to work every morning. It's just too good to be true, something has to give. And this isn't even taking the question on % of national debt to take on... I am not saying Scottish independence wouldn't work, far from it, but the SNP seem to think they can say Scotland will be some sort of paradise with no taxes and benefits for all, it is just so unrealistic.
 
I'm yet to be convinced Salmond actually wants independence. He has to push for it, but it is better for him and the SNP politically if they don't have it. Ludicrous demands help when it comes to negotiating with Westminster exactly what powers Holyrood can have...
 
Dan27 said:
Sounds like a "lure the Yes vote win, fix it at a later date" kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Yep. If the SNP came out and said 'look, there will be issues, we may have to raise some taxes or some benefits will have to be squeezed but the benefits of us deciding our own future and being in charge of fiscal policy etc will be worth it' I could respect them, but the ludicrous claims they have been coming out with are just a joke. Look, as an Englishman I feel this is a question for the Scots and I should keep my nose out to an extent (I say to an extent as this decision will affect the whole of the UK) but I don't understand how anyone can take the SNP seriously.
 
Nicktendo86 said:
It is a laundry list of wishes without any proper costing and just seems absurd, just looking at the main points that the BBC have put up:



Seems to be basically we will cut all of your taxes, raise benefits, and Alex Salmond will personally dive you to work every morning. It's just too good to be true, something has to give. And this isn't even taking the question on % of national debt to take on... I am not saying Scottish independence wouldn't work, far from it, but the SNP seem to think they can say Scotland will be some sort of paradise with no taxes and benefits for all, it is just so unrealistic.
Click to expand...

There's a lot to take in in the white paper issued today, give it a few days to be digested and wait to see if answers are forthcoming. I thought Salmond and Sturgeon were well presented today and were quick on the draw, and I think they're in a stronger position with the Scottish people than you might get the impression from the media to be honest.

(Disclaimer, I'm Scottish but I've been out of the country since 2000 and although I don't have a vote here I am interested in how it turns out.)

Also, this isn't solely about the SNP. The first government could be red, green or blue.
 
8bit said:
There's a lot to take in in the white paper issued today, give it a few days to be digested and wait to see if answers are forthcoming. I thought Salmond and Sturgeon were well presented today and were quick on the draw, and I think they're in a stronger position with the Scottish people than you might get the impression from the media to be honest.

(Disclaimer, I'm Scottish but I've been out of the country since 2000 and although I don't have a vote here I am interested in how it turns out.)

Also, this isn't solely about the SNP. The first government could be red, green or blue.
Click to expand...

Indeed but it sure felt like a SNP manifesto. You're right though of course, needs to be digested over the next few days.
 
Didn't the numbers breakdown demonstrate that benefit tourism is a fabricated problem and that these 'tourists' have actually contributed a net profit since 2000? I might be misremembering things, though.
 
BX_fEp7IgAAob11.png
 
Boris Johnson invokes Thatcher spirit with greed is good speech

Boris Johnson has launched a bold bid to claim the mantle of Margaret Thatcher by declaring that inequality is essential to fostering "the spirit of envy" and hailed greed as a "valuable spur to economic activity".

In an attempt to shore up his support on the Tory right, as he positions himself as the natural successor to David Cameron, the London mayor called for the "Gordon Gekkos of London" to display their greed to promote economic growth.

Delivering the annual Margaret Thatcher lecture, Johnson also called for the return of a form of grammar schools.

He qualified his unabashed admiration for the "hedge fund kings" by saying they should do more to help poorer people who have suffered a real fall in income in recent years. But he moved to forge his own brand of Conservatism, which contrasts with the early modernising of the prime minister, by claiming that it was "futile" to try to end inequality.

In highly provocative remarks, Johnson mocked the 16% "of our species" with an IQ below 85 as he called for more to be done to help the 2% of the population who have an IQ above 130.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ is he being serious?
 
CyclopsRock said:
Boris has always been unabashedly pro-enterprise. Good on him.
Click to expand...

How is saying this...

In highly provocative remarks, Johnson mocked the 16% "of our species" with an IQ below 85 as he called for more to be done to help the 2% of the population who have an IQ above 130.
Click to expand...

Okay in any way?


So I think with these inflammatory comments Boris is hinting that he's gonna return to Westminster in 2015.
 
WayneMorse said:
How is saying this...



Okay in any way?


So I think with these inflammatory comments Boris is hinting that he's gonna return to Westminster in 2015.
Click to expand...

If you feel the need to selectively quote, then I can do the same

He made clear, however, that Thatcherism needed to be updated for the 21st century. "I hope there is no return to the spirit of loadsamoney heartlessness – figuratively riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless – and I hope that this time the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed, valid motivator though greed may be for economic progress, as for what they give and do for the rest of the population, many of whom have experienced real falls in their incomes over the last five years."
Click to expand...

The article needs to be read fully before anyone fires up the outrage bus IMO.
 
What a brazenly cuntish speech. Why would 'the Gordon Gekkos of London' behave any differently? How would he do that? It is hateful and bizarre waffle that flatly ignores the evidence that Thatcherism (under Tory and Labour governments) has widened inequality.
 
Yenrot said:
"Whatever you may think of the value of IQ tests it is surely relevant to a conversation about equality that as many as 16% of our species have an IQ below 85 while about 2% have an IQ above 130,"

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-inequality-recipe-destroying-social-mobility
Click to expand...

Those proportions he's quoting aren't a result of any phenomenon in the population, they're a result of how IQ works. It's a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Those proportions he quoted are an inevitable result of the way the test is done. If the intelligence of the population shifted the results would change to preserve those proportions.

He's just said something completely meaningless. This is why I hate IQ as a measure. People really don't get how it works.
 
You can all read the speech itself, in fact, which I think is great, on the whole. He actually says nothing about helping the 2%, so I have no idea where that came from. He did, however, say this:

"It seems to me therefore that though it would be wrong to persecute the rich, and madness to try and stifle wealth creation, and futile to try to stamp out inequality, that we should only tolerate this wealth gap on two conditions: one, that we help those who genuinely cannot compete; and, two, that we provide opportunity for those who can."

A classic endorsement of the free market's ability to improve standards of living across the board. I suggest ya'll read the actual speech here rather than relying on the Guardian or The New Statesmen's opinion of it:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/boris-johnson-greed-can-be-good/

PS he didn't 'invoke' Thatcher really - this was at the annual Thatcher Lecture, the first since her death.
 
vcassano1 said:
It's pretty much the Brown 1997 strategy. No surprise really. What else are they going to say?
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. I shouldn't imagine there are too many within the Labour party who really think that more borrowing and spending is the way to improve the economy (as opposed to public services), let alone the actual public.

PS I just got home from Las Vegas after a 3 week stint in the US. I'm absolutely FUCKED. I'm DONE. I love craps.
 
CyclopsRock said:
Yeah, exactly. I shouldn't imagine there are too many within the Labour party who really think that more borrowing and spending is the way to improve the economy (as opposed to public services), let alone the actual public.

PS I just got home from Las Vegas after a 3 week stint in the US. I'm absolutely FUCKED. I'm DONE. I love craps.
Click to expand...
My wife is going for a business trip in March (lucky cow), any recommendations?
 
Nicktendo86 said:
My wife is going for a business trip in March (lucky cow), any recommendations?
Click to expand...

Just play Craps, day and night is my suggestion. If she's choosing the hotel, Monte Carlo, Bellagio, Venetian/Pallazo, Wyn/Encore, MGM Grand are all nice. Avoid Excalibur, Flamingo, Circus, Stratosphere. The rest (Paris, Luxor, NyNy etc) are all kinda. novelty hotels but also all very nice.

Also, I shot a bunch of guns. A p228, an MP5 and an M4. Maybe she's into that...
 
CyclopsRock said:
Yeah, exactly. I shouldn't imagine there are too many within the Labour party who really think that more borrowing and spending is the way to improve the economy (as opposed to public services), let alone the actual public.

PS I just got home from Las Vegas after a 3 week stint in the US. I'm absolutely FUCKED. I'm DONE. I love craps.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there aren't that many people with common sense in the Labour party, agreed.
 
Interesting to see UKIP finally eating more into Labour. I think when they shot up last year it was always going to impact the Tories more but the reality is that it's not just little-Englander's that care about immigration. Not all of the UKIP gains have come from the Tories but it's interesting to see this.

I maintain, though, they'll crumble at the GE in 2015. I think the very most they'll get is one seat, wherever Farage goes for. FPTP isn't good for UKIP (nor the Greens or any small party, which is why they only won where Lucas was standing, though being in super-young, super-gay Brighton obviously helped). The same cycle always repeats; UKIP poll better, make a killing in the European Elections, then never win a seat in Westminster. Given that so much of the UKIP gains have come at the expense of the Tories, I think a lot of people will look at Ed and think "Do I want to let this guy be PM by splitting the right?"
 
WayneMorse said:
Boris Johnson invokes Thatcher spirit with greed is good speech



Jesus Christ is he being serious?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course he is.

Tell me, without the basic human instinct to succeed and strive to better ourselves through reward where would we be as a race?

If we lived in a world where everything was given to us then eventually there would be nothing to receive because who would provide it? We need a society which strives to provide its citizens the best tools to enable them to better themselves with as much help as possible if things go wrong. If we weren't greedy as a race and always looking for more this would never work.

There are individuals in our society who get out of bed early every morning, work all day and risk their own money in the pursuit of bettering themselves and there are those who simply cannot be bothered or have tried to succeed and failed. We need a society which balances the needs and expectations of all those people in equal measure. There's no point taking the hard workers rewards and just giving it to the idle, but I don't think any hard worker resents sharing a little with the man who's tried and failed.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25184750

Latest manufacturing figures. In summary:

PMI for November reported as 58.4 - highest since February 2011
PMI for October revised up to 56.5
The employment sub-index rose from 51.9 to 54.5 - sector creating 5,000 jobs per month
New orders sub-index rose from 61.3 to 64.6 - highest level in more than 19 years
Growth forecast for 2.7 for 2014

Good news.
 
CyclopsRock said:
True - you wouldn't have to worry about hard workers in your society ;-) ;-) ;-)
Click to expand...

Indeed. If one feels that humanity is made up of rational actors in pursuit of self-interest, then surely they will work hardest when a person's success is tied directly to their productivity. Socialism is the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
254K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
My French assistant has a thing for me...
3
6K
Yoshi replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Something wrong with the Funny post thread?
0
1K
Amakusa replied
Top Bottom