Nicktendo86
Member
This got a good chuckle from me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
This got a good chuckle from me.
Nicktendo86
Member
The Cowboy
Member
Anyone on a workfare scheme is classed as employed despite working for their benefits, anyone who's on a sanction is not classed as receiving benefits/unemployed (and the JC/DWP tries anything to give these - even changing laws to make what was once OK not OK to issue around 100,000 sanctions from a year ago).
I wouldn't trust the figures.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
160k out of 30.09m people in employment. So basically nothing.
Anyone who tries to downplay these positive figures deserves ridicule which is why Labour have not done so.
The Cowboy
Member
Its a bit more than nothing, and I recon anyone trying to downplay the effect of sanctions and workfare to the figures deserves ridicule.
Also, its kind of interesting that:
Happened around the same time that the massive sanction backlog (which they could now issue after they changed to laws regarding sanctions) from last year started to be done.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_338181.pdf
Have a read through the release.
Anyway, you have a base misunderstanding over how the unemployment figures are actually calculated. It is a quarterly figure based on (Job Creation) + (Change in Inactivity Rate) - (Population Growth) = Unemployment growth/contraction.
Over the past quarter the economy created 250,000 jobs. The inactivity rate went down by 41,000 and the population grew by 110,000. 250,000 - 41,000 - 110,000 = 99,000 reduction in unemployment.
Whatever you are talking about is a statistical blip. The overall picture over the last year or so has been a massive recovery in the jobs market, which is why Labour have welcomed it and latched onto low pay growth rather than attacking the headline unemployment rate.
On a personal level the stuff you mention may be important, but in terms of the national picture it means basically nothing.
What you are talking about may have had a larger effect on the claimant count which declined while the headline rate increased, which is why the claimant count is a worthless statistic.
Also, the effect of any sanctions on unemployed people usually has the opposite effect on the headline rate as it forces people to actively look for a job, taking them out of the inactivity column and into the job-seekers column. If 100k people who were previous inactive were forced to look for work it would cause a 100k rise in unemployment because of the corresponding decrease in the inactivity rate.
Like I said, the way the figures are calculated are not as simple as saying there are x many people who now work than didn't so the unemployment rate went down by x.
Have a read through the release.
Anyway, you have a base misunderstanding over how the unemployment figures are actually calculated. It is a quarterly figure based on (Job Creation) + (Change in Inactivity Rate) - (Population Growth) = Unemployment growth/contraction.
Over the past quarter the economy created 250,000 jobs. The inactivity rate went down by 41,000 and the population grew by 110,000. 250,000 - 41,000 - 110,000 = 99,000 reduction in unemployment.
Whatever you are talking about is a statistical blip. The overall picture over the last year or so has been a massive recovery in the jobs market, which is why Labour have welcomed it and latched onto low pay growth rather than attacking the headline unemployment rate.
On a personal level the stuff you mention may be important, but in terms of the national picture it means basically nothing.
What you are talking about may have had a larger effect on the claimant count which declined while the headline rate increased, which is why the claimant count is a worthless statistic.
Also, the effect of any sanctions on unemployed people usually has the opposite effect on the headline rate as it forces people to actively look for a job, taking them out of the inactivity column and into the job-seekers column. If 100k people who were previous inactive were forced to look for work it would cause a 100k rise in unemployment because of the corresponding decrease in the inactivity rate.
Like I said, the way the figures are calculated are not as simple as saying there are x many people who now work than didn't so the unemployment rate went down by x.
Nicktendo86
Member
The 'cost of living crisis' is a bit of a scam as well, the government have made differences in freezing council tax and cutting income tax. Hey, after all this talk of the evil energy companies we received £107 today from British Gas as out electricity bills came in under the estimate. Happy days!
Edit: I should say this post is a little tongue in cheek but I do think Labour are overblowing the problem.
Edit: I should say this post is a little tongue in cheek but I do think Labour are overblowing the problem.
Depends who you know really. Inflation has been out performing wage increases by a fair margin for a while now so it's a definite issue for lower income earners.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Yes, I think it is overblown. Looking through the official data. October saw YoY pay growth of 1.4% in the private sector. The industry dragging everyone down was mine (financial services), but we're heading into a financial services boom, I can see it everywhere in the City, bars are packed again on Fridays, restaurants are louder and tip boxes/jars in cafés are fuller than they used to be.
Manufacturing employees saw pay growth of 1.9% YoY, which is not too far below inflation of 2.1% and retail/other service employees saw a 3% rise which is massive.
Labour are onto a loser if they keep overplaying this card in 2014 because wages are recovering. Our index was positive for November, but we don't include the public sector. I feel that this point will ring hollow for private sector employees in 2014, which is 25m people. Public sector wages are depressed though, for sure, but I think the general feeling is that people think they are overpaid anyway. The best chance for the Tories to win in 2015 is by pitting the private sector against the public sector and by riling up the unions affiliated to Labour. Dirty tactics, but workable for sure.
Yup, I think there needs to be a big rise in the minimum wage to make up for lost time. It's all well and good that the situation forwards will get better, but over the last year or so people have had to dip into savings to pay bills and commuting costs so in order for the net cash position for people on low income to recover the minimum wage must rise by 6% this year to £6.70. Businesses can eat the cost as profits are rising at a much faster rate than this.
Manufacturing employees saw pay growth of 1.9% YoY, which is not too far below inflation of 2.1% and retail/other service employees saw a 3% rise which is massive.
Labour are onto a loser if they keep overplaying this card in 2014 because wages are recovering. Our index was positive for November, but we don't include the public sector. I feel that this point will ring hollow for private sector employees in 2014, which is 25m people. Public sector wages are depressed though, for sure, but I think the general feeling is that people think they are overpaid anyway. The best chance for the Tories to win in 2015 is by pitting the private sector against the public sector and by riling up the unions affiliated to Labour. Dirty tactics, but workable for sure.
Yup, I think there needs to be a big rise in the minimum wage to make up for lost time. It's all well and good that the situation forwards will get better, but over the last year or so people have had to dip into savings to pay bills and commuting costs so in order for the net cash position for people on low income to recover the minimum wage must rise by 6% this year to £6.70. Businesses can eat the cost as profits are rising at a much faster rate than this.
Nicktendo86
Member
Inflation has outstripped my wage increases INA big way but I've found savings elsewhere, freeze in council tax etc, have helped. Don't get me wrong, it is really tough out there for low income households. I agree with zomg and his desire to see a raise in the minimum wage. Especially here in London...
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
CyclopsRock
Member
I think, at any given time, there are about 3 MP's actually listening to what's going on. The rest are playing angry birds and fiddling about.
First of all; I'm supposed to be convinced by like four screencaps with no explanation or clue about what had just been spoken about? (This is a sub-clause of 'lol, guido fawkes').
Second of all; even the speaker commented negatively on the fact that there were no ministers present at such an important debate. IDS scurried out part-way through (how appropriate that his initials sound like an uncomfortable bowel complaint). And did you see the content of the Tories' speech?
Third of all; even a ten year old child is familiar with the maxim that two wrongs don't make a right. So Labour MPs laugh at them too? That's horrible too.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
No, you're not - the vile reporting happens on both sides.
"even the speaker" possibly a subset of "lol, John Bercow"
In all probability neither the tories nor the opposition were laughing at anyone other than their opposite numbers. It is a whole load of a fuss about nothing.
(Sorry for telegraphic response, am freezing in the back room of the shop and my fingers about to fall off).
Nicktendo86
Member
I don't understand what that motion was supposed to accomplish? How can the government reduce the need for food banks? I also thought that the rise in food bank usage was due to the government relaxing some regulations or something? Must admit I have not been paying too much attention.
The Cowboy
Member
By changing/reversing the things they did to increase the dependency on using food banks.
They brought in the under occupancy fee that affects mainly the poor (it only affects council/association housing and people getting housing benefits) by making them pay between £10 and £25 a week of their income to pay towards rent if they have a spare room (even if there is no smaller places to move to or if that spare room is actually used for other reasons - like having shared custody) - if you don't you can (and do) get evicted (someone actually killed themselves over this because they couldn't take the stress - by walking into a motorway), they made it so even on the lowest benefits you have to pay some council tax, they've changed the laws on benefit sanctions so they can issue more of them (they actually kept a huge backlog last year that couldn't be issued and then changed the laws this year so they could issue them), they've introduced workfare to force people to work up to 30 hours a week for their basic benefits (works out around £2 an hour), during this you still have to look for work (if you don't do enough - sanctioned) and they raised benefits lower than the rate of inflation (things cost more and benefits didn't increase enough to match this).
Simply put, from April this year the poorest have a lot less income now because of changes this government introduced, and as such more of the poor now need food banks
-
Its amazing how completely messed up the leadership is at the moment, its like they're trying their hardest to screw over the poor as much as they can just to see what happens (I would say its borderline evil, but it really isn't borderline at all)..
Little Old Man
Member
Does the National Office of Statistics have any measure for underemployment?
Except that the Indy is also carrying the story, making referencing to jeering and laughing in particular when stories about people fighting over supplies of vegetables in Tesco. The fact that there are screencaps of some Labour MPs laughing is a total non-story without context. It's like Staines' subsequent and even more sad attempt to 'gotcha' the Labour party by posting photos of them looking happy while visiting food banks.
So you think that the minister most responsible for the welfare of the poorest people in society not even sticking around to hear the end of the debate about the damage he's caused is insignificant? I'm not sure what the take-home point from your argument is.
Given that it's become somewhat de rigueur for Tories to laugh and cheer while Osborne announces bold new ways to inflict misery on the poorest people in society, I'm not really sure I agree.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is clearly something you feel very strongly about, but generally speaking, the welfare reforms are some of the most popular that have been enacted. You may think that the reforms that have been enacted are so far into the territory of "evil" (though, honestly, I'd quite like to know what you'd consider not evil, given the circumstances - what'd they have had to have done to get your nod?) but you have to take a big chunk of the country along with the leadership in that judgement.
But furthermore, the people are getting food. Everytime an extra person goes to a food bank, it means two things: That one person can't afford all the food they need, and that they're now getting it. I think the real problem that people beating the food-bank gong have is that they feel the government has abdicated its responsibilities by not directly feeding people, or otherwise giving them the money they need to feed themselves. Obviously there are a myriad of causes - incomes going down due to benefit changes are one, but not necessarily the largest. Food prices have doubled in the last 10 years - which, incidentally, has been the time where, in the UK, foodbanks have seen their rise - not to mention a pretty big recession that caused unemployment to shoot up and wages to fall. 35% are referred due to benefit delay (though this is confusing, because obviously the higher the price of food, the more immediate-a problem this is - if food were half the price, some delays could be ridden out, were it to double again then even fewer could) but this is an issue of delivery rather than policy; That is to say that the DWP fucked up the implementation of the policy, and says little as to the quality of the policy changes themselves (about 15% are referred due to the actual changes themselves). There are also political issues at hand - Labour saw a huge rise in the percentage of people going to food banks (about 1000% increase, in six years, though in absolute terms the numbers were nothing like we see now. But they did everything they could to stop people being referred to them, because they have all the negative press that we are currently seeing the Tories receive. Finally, add to this that the furor around them is seeing a lot more people become aware of their existence - and they did scarcely exist 10 years ago - and about 3 new ones are opening every week, so naturally the numbers of people they can provide for are also going up. I say all this not to say it's not a problem, simply that the causes are far more nuanced than simply "naughty IDS".
As it stands, the food is being provided by charity, churches, by local communities, by local businesses (large and small) etc - in other words, it's being provided by people that a) choose to help and b) can afford to. In my eyes, this is preferable to it being funded via taxation, whereby everyone from minimum wage workers to single mums living on benefits buying anything with VAT end up paying for it. These charities and local communities can't build HS2, or Crossrail, or a third runway or Boris island. They can't build new nuclear power stations or, like, fighter jets. They can do this, so let's let them, and allow the government to spend their fairly limited funds on all the other shit.
The Cowboy
Member
My response to that is simple.
And right now our leadership (the people in charge of our civilization) is treating its weakest members (the poor/vulnerable) like something they've wiped off their *expenses paid* shoes, they're causing people to starve, forcing them out of their homes, making them work for £2 an hour - and then laughing about it.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's a fairly weak response, because it assumes that if the government isn't doing something then nothing's happen. Quite clearly this isn't the case. Our "civilization" is providing for these people unable to provide for themselves. A people are not their government, and their actions are not defined by the actions of that government.
The Cowboy
Member
I would wager most people actually affected by what the government is doing would think its a pretty valid response.
The current leadership are the people who have put through these changes that are making it harder for the poorest to feed their children/themselves, making it harder for the poorest to stay in their homes and making the poorest work for almost a quarter of the national minimum wage..
The current leadership are the people who have put through these changes that are making it harder for the poorest to feed their children/themselves, making it harder for the poorest to stay in their homes and making the poorest work for almost a quarter of the national minimum wage..
Jezbollah
Member
Why do you think the Government is doing what they are currently doing?
CyclopsRock
Member
Well as I said above, there are a myriad of reasons for why people are going through tough times at the moment, and the benefit changes are only a part of it. Food prices have doubled in a decade, we had the largest GDP contraction since the 1920's and - yes - we've had government cuts which will inevitably affects those that are the main recipients of government spending the most. But to lay it all at the feet of "the current leadership" seems to suggest a willful ignorance of the context in which those decisions have been made.
Incidentally the minimum wage isn't £8, but I guess that's not really the point. Also, for the sake of ease, don't feel obligated to reply straight away! Editing in and out extra paragraphs is confusin' and leads to people missing points! We're a patient bunch.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Deliberate immiseration as part of the class war.
Nicktendo86
Member
Growth is bigger than thought, bit worrying however that the trade deficit is widening. Possible result of sluggish growth in the EU? Anyway, good news in general. I just hope the BoE stick to their guns and keep interest rates as low as possible for the time being...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25461227
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25461227
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Just trying to get my head around this food bank argument, quite apart from the who-is-laughing-at-who misdirection.
1) There's an increase in the use of food banks (at least as reported by TT)
2) Just because people are using food banks doesn't necessarily mean that they are dependent on using food banks (anyone with an ounce of sense would accept free food if offered)
3) Sure, some people are dependent on food banks or the equivalent
4) Beats me why a Labour opposition should consider it bad that the poor can get free food, however it is sourced
5) The very poor are going to dependent on something. And I don't understand why it is somehow better that they depend on, say, State aid rather than private donations. State aid after all may be pretty efficient at gathering, but is damned inefficient at distributing.
6) And yes, I do know people who use food banks, and people who need them (not necessarily the same people)
Seems to me that this is a not-very-effective political thingy, as proposing that the government "do something" about reducing food bank dependency without suggesting what the economic alternatives are and what is proposed instead is a bit of a copout.
1) There's an increase in the use of food banks (at least as reported by TT)
2) Just because people are using food banks doesn't necessarily mean that they are dependent on using food banks (anyone with an ounce of sense would accept free food if offered)
3) Sure, some people are dependent on food banks or the equivalent
4) Beats me why a Labour opposition should consider it bad that the poor can get free food, however it is sourced
5) The very poor are going to dependent on something. And I don't understand why it is somehow better that they depend on, say, State aid rather than private donations. State aid after all may be pretty efficient at gathering, but is damned inefficient at distributing.
6) And yes, I do know people who use food banks, and people who need them (not necessarily the same people)
Seems to me that this is a not-very-effective political thingy, as proposing that the government "do something" about reducing food bank dependency without suggesting what the economic alternatives are and what is proposed instead is a bit of a copout.
Nicktendo86
Member
Lol cheezmo u so crazyCHEEZMO;94272079 said:
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't really understand the furore over betting machines that has - seemingly randomly - popped up in the last day or so. What's actually prompted this, and why is it any different to any other form of gambling?
Nicktendo86
Member
Labour need something to argue over as they lost the argument over the economy. They have nothing of value to say so are just making shit up now.
CyclopsRock
Member
Is that literally it? I assumed I'd missed some story in the Mirror about a granny dying under the weight of a fruity or something. Actually the Mail had a front page headline (why?!) which was "Britons pump £46billion a year into gambling machines with the amount wagered rising by nearly 50% in four years" and it stunk a bit to me...
An interesting side-effect of my girlfriend upping sticks and moving to Gibraltar to work in the gambling industry is that I now understand it quite a lot. All sorts of auto-mated, fixed-odd's gambling machines, whether they're fruities, routlette machines, straight up slots, online gambling etc where it's just a person vs a machine have a thing called the Return to Player percentage - RTP to those in the biz. This is the amount of money that the machines throws back out. And you know what? It's huge. The average is something in the region of 98%. Which I don't think the Mail article really mentioned - that £46bn was spent in these machines, but of that, about £45bn would have been spat straight back out. Now, when you consider that this leaves about a billion quid, you can see why the gambling companies offer such high ratios; The "problem", such as it is, is that it's often different people winning and losing the money. If you put £100 into a fruit machine (which all have the illusion of skill but are, of course, not skill based), you won't win back £98. Maybe you'll lose it all, and the next guy will put £100 and get back £196. Or maybe it'll take days. But as time progresses, the chances of you winning 98% of your stake back approaches 1. I think this is something that'll probably be kept fairly quiet.
Anyway, as a fun little christmas discussion point, what do we think about Balls? Will he stay in the job? I think he has to - Sacking your chancellor this close to an election (it's, what, 16 months away) does sort of suggest you lack economic credibility. On the other hand, he's such an arsehole and so unpopular with more or less everyone - the electorate, the rest of his party etc. And it may be worth Miliband facing up to the fact that, thus far, Labour have struggled to take control of the economic debate. It may make them lose face to lose him but it could also be an opportunity for a fresh start - none of that "too far, too fast" stuff, and just get in a new chancellor who can talk about making sure the cuts protect the weakest, support low wage earners etc. But then, even if that's an attractive idea, the question has to be... who? Darling can't do it, as much as I think he's quite a nice chap and will probably succeed with Better Together; It's hard to argue that you're not like New Labour when you have their last chancellor. But who else is there? Harman? She's having too much fun on the political sofa programmes. And Mrs Balls would be a bit of a kick in the knackers for Ed.
Mark Dromey? Fuck it, why not.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Looks like the big minimum wage rise is coming. The Times got a briefing this morning from a Treasury source. My guess is from £6.31 to £6.70, taking the annual wage from £13,125 to £13,936. A couple both earning the minimum wage would have a household income of just under £28k before tax and other deductions. Coupled with the £12bn in extra working age benefit cuts announced there is the hint of an election winning platform there for the coalition parties.
Also, Dave needs to fuck off with his oldies bonus. There needs to be a political stitch up across the board so all parties sign up to 1% rises for the state pension and no one party can make political capital out of courting the grey vote and bankrupt the nation in the process. The minimum 2.5% rise in the state pension promised by Dave will cost the state an extra £30-35bn over the five year period, over half of what is being saved from the extra benefit cuts. Limiting the rise to 1% keeps it to below £15bn. Fucking idiot.
Also, Dave needs to fuck off with his oldies bonus. There needs to be a political stitch up across the board so all parties sign up to 1% rises for the state pension and no one party can make political capital out of courting the grey vote and bankrupt the nation in the process. The minimum 2.5% rise in the state pension promised by Dave will cost the state an extra £30-35bn over the five year period, over half of what is being saved from the extra benefit cuts. Limiting the rise to 1% keeps it to below £15bn. Fucking idiot.
I hate the wooing of the grey fucking vote. Still youngsters need to get out and vote more to stop themselves getting fucked over.
Lovely death threats from last nights channel 4 show Benefits street
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/...ce-after-channel-4-programme-benefits-street/
Guess which party the people who run the production company support?
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/...ce-after-channel-4-programme-benefits-street/
Guess which party the people who run the production company support?
Jezbollah
Member
I still maintain the opinion that voter apathy will decide the next election. Labour are continuously finding it hard to differentiate the majority of their potential manifesto policies away from the coalition - Ed Balls was on Sky News stating that they would continue current government cuts for the first year of the new term - and I feel it will lead to a lot of disillusion on the part of a lot of potential Labour votes.
Another recent development that I thought was interesting was Nigel Farage's comments about immigration a few days ago, and his agreement with the principle of Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech. He got rather tripped up on that, and it looked like a step backwards in his quest for validity for UKIP.
The narrative for 2015 is going to be very interesting - the fight for Labour to regain their own union backing, their own voters and to shed the reputation of the Blair/Brown era, the efforts by the Tories to regain the support of those who have strayed to UKIP, and the struggle of Nick Clegg to remain leader of the Lib Dems given the "bridesmaid" status they currently have in terms of the coalition dynamic currently in place.
Can't wait for a UK Election OP to appear.
(also, Happy New Year to all!)
Another recent development that I thought was interesting was Nigel Farage's comments about immigration a few days ago, and his agreement with the principle of Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech. He got rather tripped up on that, and it looked like a step backwards in his quest for validity for UKIP.
The narrative for 2015 is going to be very interesting - the fight for Labour to regain their own union backing, their own voters and to shed the reputation of the Blair/Brown era, the efforts by the Tories to regain the support of those who have strayed to UKIP, and the struggle of Nick Clegg to remain leader of the Lib Dems given the "bridesmaid" status they currently have in terms of the coalition dynamic currently in place.
Can't wait for a UK Election OP to appear.
(also, Happy New Year to all!)
CyclopsRock
Member
It's hard to know how Labour will fare because we honestly don't know what their policies will be. At the moment, there's the coalition who are making cuts - and there are a lot of people out there that don't like the cuts they're making (be it their targets, their depth or their existence full stop) - but what's Labour's response? A few pound a month off your energy bills and a ban on betting machines? Hardly inspiring stuff, is it? If Labour want to come out of the shadow of the Blair/Brown era, they're going to need to announce some actual policies on the economy, and their time is running out. If they wait til to close to the election, it won't have time to enter the public mindshare.
I don't know. Do you?
pulsemyne said:
I don't know. Do you?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I think it will all come down to the last few months before the election. I sense that enough people want to vote Labour (or rather, vote against the Conservatives) but whether they will or not is another question.
There were some good rumblings last week about University fees from within Labour which could be a decent vote winner (if paired with other good ideas).
Nicktendo86
Member
The thing that makes me laugh the most is I've heard two things from Milliband this week; wanting to close the loophole which allows low skilled immigrants to undercut locals and the betting shop machines. BOTH of which were caused by Labour when in power! Fantastic election slogan idea: "we will reverse everything we did from 97-10, promise!"
To be honest, that would help them get my vote.
CyclopsRock
Member
The Sun were reporting this morning that the NMW might go up to £7.30 - a 99p increase. Huge if so.
Would be interesting to see if it would be a vote winner amongst those on minimum wage. I imagine it'd upset quite a few SMEs.
CyclopsRock
Member
C'est possible, but typically small and middle sized businesses are less likely than large ones to have staff on the minimum wage. As we've seen with Blockbuster, Game, HMV, Woolies etc, large companies aren't immune to the current situation but... the workers benefit, at least immediately.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
That is ridiculously high. there are a lot of people who earn between £6.50 and £7.30 who would also benefit from such a move. Cameron would be testing the resolve of the most ardent right whingers by increasing it by such a large amount, it would also probably lead to a big slow down in the jobs market for 21-25 year olds.
£6.70-6.80 is the right level, it balances an income boost for people who earn the minimum wage with being fiscally responsible.
CyclopsRock
Member
It all sounds rather a lot like an intentional "leak", a proverbial bone so that when they eventually reveal it to be closer to as you say, it can be them making a compromise with their backbenchers.