UK unemployment highest since 1994!

[Filo]

When surprise, surprise, the Tories were in power!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Largely alot of it youth unemployment aswell.  We're now starting to realise a legacy of the labour years you could argue - let's throw everyone into university to decrease the jobless numbers.  Getting jobs for graduates is very very difficult, not impossible but very difficult.

A second point is the pointless cutting of jobs.  I've seen organisations (a lot in the public sector too) cutting jobs to save money when it's more cost efficient to keep some of those jobs.  I mean it's all well and good blaming the public sector cuts, but we could well argue that the public sector in this country is still as big as its ever been.  We now have to live with the legacy of all the previous governments in destroying our manufacturing background.  A trip down Wheatley Hall Road summarises that fairly well.

[RedJ]

Largely alot of it youth unemployment aswell.  We're now starting to realise a legacy of the labour years you could argue - let's throw everyone into university to decrease the jobless numbers.  Getting jobs for graduates is very very difficult, not impossible but very difficult.

A second point is the pointless cutting of jobs.  I've seen organisations (a lot in the public sector too) cutting jobs to save money when it's more cost efficient to keep some of those jobs.  I mean it's all well and good blaming the public sector cuts, but we could well argue that the public sector in this country is still as big as its ever been.  We now have to live with the legacy of all the previous governments in destroying our manufacturing background.  A trip down Wheatley Hall Road summarises that fairly well.

Yeah but just think, when they're in university, quite a lot of them get part time jobs anyway, to help them get by when they've pissed away what money they get loaned. Not saying it'll take massive chunks out of it, but something to remember.

That and half the places won't take on anyone without experience, when as a youngster, you can only GAIN experience by doing the bloody job... as I've said before.

[Glyn_Wigley]

We're now starting to realise a legacy of the labour years you could argue - let's throw everyone into university to decrease the jobless numbers.

Yep, it's so much better that they're on the dole instead.

[Sprotyrover]

We're now starting to realise a legacy of the labour years you could argue - let's throw everyone into university to decrease the jobless numbers.

Yep, it's so much better that they're on the dole instead.

Fork out £300 pw for your average Public sector job or £58 pw for the good old Dole its a no brainer really  good ole Tories B)

[Donnywolf]

When surprise, surprise, the Tories were in power!

.... ah BUT .... ah BUT dont forget Labour / New Labour respectively were in power immediately before both Tory terms ... and as I always get sick of hearing Cameron and his boys say quote \"what a mess they left us in\" unquote

[Barmby Rover]

Largely alot of it youth unemployment aswell.  We're now starting to realise a legacy of the labour years you could argue - let's throw everyone into university to decrease the jobless numbers.  Getting jobs for graduates is very very difficult, not impossible but very difficult.

A second point is the pointless cutting of jobs.  I've seen organisations (a lot in the public sector too) cutting jobs to save money when it's more cost efficient to keep some of those jobs.  I mean it's all well and good blaming the public sector cuts, but we could well argue that the public sector in this country is still as big as its ever been.  We now have to live with the legacy of all the previous governments in destroying our manufacturing background.  A trip down Wheatley Hall Road summarises that fairly well.

Not all governments, one in particular. 1979-1984, and done for a purpose. To destroy the union movement in this country so that employers could exploit a pool of cheap labour without any intererence. All subsidised by wasting away any oil money we had. This time round they haven't got any more assets to strip from the state and give away to their friends.

[Mr1Croft]

Largely alot of it youth unemployment aswell.  We're now starting to realise a legacy of the labour years you could argue - let's throw everyone into university to decrease the jobless numbers.  Getting jobs for graduates is very very difficult, not impossible but very difficult.

A second point is the pointless cutting of jobs.  I've seen organisations (a lot in the public sector too) cutting jobs to save money when it's more cost efficient to keep some of those jobs.  I mean it's all well and good blaming the public sector cuts, but we could well argue that the public sector in this country is still as big as its ever been.  We now have to live with the legacy of all the previous governments in destroying our manufacturing background.  A trip down Wheatley Hall Road summarises that fairly well.

Not all governments, one in particular. 1979-1984, and done for a purpose. To destroy the union movement in this country so that employers could exploit a pool of cheap labour without any intererence. All subsidised by wasting away any oil money we had. This time round they haven't got any more assets to strip from the state and give away to their friends.

The desctruction of the unions and the NUM in particular was inevitable once Thatcher was named leader of the Tories. They brought down the Heath Government when she was education minister.

That said 1979-84 is a remarkable term of office, and one that would have resulted in a landslide for Labour had she not been very lucky in the offshore oil, the faulklands war, and a standoff with King Arthur that she was more determined to win. The Oil in particular funded her economic policy of squeezing the state and letting the invisible hand control the markets. By 83 the world was falling in on her, she was voted most unpopular Prime-Minister since polling began. Any other PM would have had their Chancellor rolling out white papers covering up the change in economic policy, but she stood firm and said \"squeeze a little more\".

In terms of unemployment, its interesting looking at the rise in unemployment, and the amount of people that have been kicked off the sick. The figures are almost identical, just the youth un-employment keeps rising, which tells us that those kicked off the sick either aren't claiming jobseekers or have gone into work.

We aren't alone however, we are probably already over the 7 Billion mark of world wide population but we only have enough resources for 4 Billion world-wide, people are living longer and the banks are still given too much control. The Government are slowly trying to ignite the rise of the private sector, they are injecting the funds, but the businesses aren't growing, and the riots over the summer did nothing to grow small business in our cities.

[Glyn_Wigley]

By 83 the world was falling in on her, she was voted most unpopular Prime-Minister since polling began. Any other PM would have had their Chancellor rolling out white papers covering up the change in economic policy, but she stood firm and said \"squeeze a little more\".

That's odd, I remember her increasing her parliamentary majority by 40-odd seats in the '83 election...!

[Pintolager]

By 83 the world was falling in on her, she was voted most unpopular Prime-Minister since polling began. Any other PM would have had their Chancellor rolling out white papers covering up the change in economic policy, but she stood firm and said \"squeeze a little more\".

That's odd, I remember her increasing her parliamentary majority by 40-odd seats in the '83 election...!

And wasn't at least part of the reason for that to do with the Falklands War?

[Barmby Rover]

A war neatly started when there was an agreement on the table that Francis Pym had agreed,cabled to Thatcher at which point she sinks a ship moving AWAY from the Falklands that triggers off a war that she knows can be won, and covers herself in blood and the flag by sinking The Belgrano. Before that move she would have been voted out of office. Funny what goes through politician's minds when making key decisions ...

[Glyn_Wigley]

A war neatly started when there was an agreement on the table that Francis Pym had agreed,cabled to Thatcher at which point she sinks a ship moving AWAY from the Falklands that triggers off a war that she knows can be won, and covers herself in blood and the flag by sinking The Belgrano. Before that move she would have been voted out of office. Funny what goes through politician's minds when making key decisions ...

Much as Thatcher needs to be condemned for allowing the sinking of the Belgrano, the 'war' started when the Falklands were illegally invaded by Argentina.

[Mr1Croft]

By 83 the world was falling in on her, she was voted most unpopular Prime-Minister since polling began. Any other PM would have had their Chancellor rolling out white papers covering up the change in economic policy, but she stood firm and said \"squeeze a little more\".

That's odd, I remember her increasing her parliamentary majority by 40-odd seats in the '83 election...!

Excuse me, that should say 81, it was 1982 that transfored her premiership...

[Filo]

There was no General election in 81!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Despite the huge popularity boost that Thatcher got from that escapade in the South Atlantic, it's not widely remembered that the Tories' vote share in the 1983 Election went DOWN compared to 1979.

Maggie took 42.4% of the vote in 83. In the vast majority of previous post-War elections, she would have lost by a country mile with that vote. As it was, she got a majority of about 150 and could do what she damn well wanted for the next 5 years.

She was never a popular PM, even after the Falklands. She just had the great good fortune to be in charge when the Left had taken leave of its senses. Had the Left been united and strong, she would have lost in 83, or at least been kept in check by having a far smaller majority.

The older I get, the more I realise that the people really to blame for the devastation that Maggie visited on our area were actually the self-righteous, self-important politicians of the Left, who tore the Labour party apart and destroyed any credible opposition to her. Benn, Jenkins, Owen etc. They are the ones who deserve to rot in hell. All of them egomaniacs, convinced that they were right and prepared to sacrifice places like South Yorkshire to prove it.

Harold Wilson has taken some stick over the years, but he managed to keep these hotheads in a single united party. As soon as he left the stage, these idiots tore the party apart and let Maggie off the leash. They should be tormented during every waking hour for what they did.

[Mr1Croft]

Despite the huge popularity boost that Thatcher got from that escapade in the South Atlantic, it's not widely remembered that the Tories' vote share in the 1983 Election went DOWN compared to 1979.

Maggie took 42.4% of the vote in 83. In the vast majority of previous post-War elections, she would have lost by a country mile with that vote. As it was, she got a majority of about 150 and could do what she damn well wanted for the next 5 years.

She was never a popular PM, even after the Falklands. She just had the great good fortune to be in charge when the Left had taken leave of its senses. Had the Left been united and strong, she would have lost in 83, or at least been kept in check by having a far smaller majority.

The older I get, the more I realise that the people really to blame for the devastation that Maggie visited on our area were actually the self-righteous, self-important politicians of the Left, who tore the Labour party apart and destroyed any credible opposition to her. Benn, Jenkins, Owen etc. They are the ones who deserve to rot in hell. All of them egomaniacs, convinced that they were right and prepared to sacrifice places like South Yorkshire to prove it.

Harold Wilson has taken some stick over the years, but he managed to keep these hotheads in a single united party. As soon as he left the stage, these idiots tore the party apart and let Maggie off the leash. They should be tormented during every waking hour for what they did.

Obviously I wasn't alive so never lived through that period, but studying and writing several peices on the Thatcher era it is probably one of the two most interesting times in Britian since 1945 (the other being the Attlee government of 1945).

What Labour struggled to come to terms with is how they, supposedly for the working class and equality, did not have a women leader. As Ladylike as Thatcher wasn't, she was a women and became leader of an old fashioned party that is probably the oldest political 'party' of the world.

Then again it is a myth to think that the Tory party was the party of the higher classes. to say they were in power for most of the 20th century (Labour had 3 terms as a majority in the commons before Thatcher, Wilson's second term failed as a majority with Callahagn and they lost the vote of confidence after the fallout of Europe) and the working class % of the voters was alwasy at least 85% untill after the Thatcher era and the emergence of the 'middle class'.

However to say that she destroyed places such as South Yorkshire is not entirely accurate but it isn't far from the truth, that considered how many working/middle class families in South Yorkshire had the oppertunity to buy their house under a mortgage before the boom and lending era that came about under Thatcher's stricken economic policy?

[Snods Shinpad 2]

...working/middle class families in South Yorkshire had the oppertunity to buy their house under a mortgage before the boom and lending era that came about under Thatcher's stricken economic policy?

Not sure how willfully depleting the countries social housing stock can be a thing to celebrate.

[Thinwhiteduke]

...working/middle class families in South Yorkshire had the oppertunity to buy their house under a mortgage before the boom and lending era that came about under Thatcher's stricken economic policy?

Not sure how willfully depleting the countries social housing stock can be a thing to celebrate.

Thanks to my parents being given the opportunity to buy their council property at a knock down price they were able to put me and my sister through quality further education and take us on holidays growing up etc.

Im not saying its a policy that worked for everyone....but it certainly benefited our family and its descendants.

[vaya]

Which may very well be the case in individual examples. However, the job of government is to work for the greater good, and the main effect of the ‘Right to Buy’ policy was to take a segment of housing out of affordable public control.

People may have benefited from their parents buying their council houses 25 years ago, but they’re paying for it now with an inability to get on the housing ladder, and a lack of public housing to fall back on. It’s subsequently driving rents up in the private sector, which in turn adds to the Welfare bill for housing-related benefits. People are getting trapped in a vicious circle which will only constrict as benefit cuts and caps are introduced.

The Coalition’s now managed to compound this by making the scrapping of previous administration’s targets for building affordable/social housing one of their first moves last year. The measures announced yesterday amount to an admission they’ve dropped the proverbial on this once as it’s stagnated construction.

Still though there’s no commitment to make any of this new housing either social or affordable. Measures aimed at getting people on the property ladder are only to facilitate involvement in the private sector. Those who still can’t manage to meet the criteria will continue to be further excluded.

[Mr1Croft]

Which may very well be the case in individual examples. However, the job of government is to work for the greater good, and the main effect of the ‘Right to Buy’ policy was to take a segment of housing out of affordable public control.

People may have benefited from their parents buying their council houses 25 years ago, but they’re paying for it now with an inability to get on the housing ladder, and a lack of public housing to fall back on. It’s subsequently driving rents up in the private sector, which in turn adds to the Welfare bill for housing-related benefits. People are getting trapped in a vicious circle which will only constrict as benefit cuts and caps are introduced.

The Coalition’s now managed to compound this by making the scrapping of previous administration’s targets for building affordable/social housing one of their first moves last year. The measures announced yesterday amount to an admission they’ve dropped the proverbial on this once as it’s stagnated construction.

Still though there’s no commitment to make any of this new housing either social or affordable. Measures aimed at getting people on the property ladder are only to facilitate involvement in the private sector. Those who still can’t manage to meet the criteria will continue to be further excluded.

But the policy didn't just sell council houses and be done, it caused an escalation of lending to people who before wouldn't touch you as a barge pole. It did in effect bring the level of an average working class family up. It would be a myth to say no-one fell through the cracks, but this is a prime example of what Thatcher did to hit the final nail into the coffin of Communism. The new right ensured that encouraging ownership makes people feel better about themselves, and to be given more choice makes us feel more free. We rent/buy something from the private sector, and you consider it yours, but buying or renting from the public and it's still seen as 'theirs'.

Of course what happened is the Third Way came in devolved power and it failed in finidng a partner between the public and private sectors of the Markets, critics argued that the Market had too much or too less power. Government (through devolved power and encouraging the Third way political economy like Clinton in the US) grew too big and relied heavily on taxes to fund itself, once Labour realised rising taxes would destroy them, the brought in the University top-up fees and the era of increasing borrowing began. What we are seeing now is Government trying to (as a result of the third way) not make the public pay any more to the state, and give us the choice of a market, however the market is rising prices ecverywhere and as a result of what the New Right and the Third Way did to British manufacturing we are seeing the figures of unemployment rocket with less factories and warehouses.

America is the same, between Regean and Clinton and Bush, constantly tossing between the two political econonmies they now find themselves in a huge market bust, that has deprived the public as much as the private.

The question in the UK is of course, how does the Government create jobs in an era of Globalisation where the market controls so much more than the politicians does? Remember there is no obligation to live in this country, most of the work is in developing countries and we only stay here by choice, manufacturing companies however choose not to, and their are more than right to say so.

If you don't own your house, struggling to get on the property ladder, and quite frankly constantly moaning that you can't get a job, move to India, get a job with Dyson manufacturing Dryers and Hoovers...

[vaya]

Few points:

1) “But the policy didn't just sell council houses and be done, it caused an escalation of lending to people who before wouldn't touch you as a barge pole” – this is how we ended up in credit crunch, with banks encouraged to lend to people who patently couldn’t afford it, but who in turn had little option but to borrow to get on the ladder.

2) Thatcher had little to do with the downfall of communism, other than to provide handy bases for the USAF. This was mainly down to Reagan deciding to out-spend rather than out-fight the Soviet Bloc, and massive structural problems with Communism itself. I doubt very much that the Kremlin was reeling each time a two-bed semi on the Windmill estate was sold off.

3) Increased borrowing began long before top-up fees. I don’t think they were either the cause or cure for it.

4) You appear to be advocating deporting the jobless to India. How will this work in practice?

[Mr1Croft]

Can't say I don't agree with that post, but as I say lending was good things for people at the time.

Agree with your post on Communism, I was just iterating how the New Right had spread across the western society which did cause the fall of communism, we probably never had a direct influence.

I possibly worded my post wrong on terms of borrowing the point I was trying to get across is that bigger government needs more money to fund itself thus the borrowing and top up fees as an example.

The last bit is a harsh truth, there is no law demanding people stay here they do so by choice, jobless or not...

[vaya]

Surely being jobless would preclude people from having the financial capability to up sticks and move to abroad?
 
How would this affect the UK economy? - it's basically an admission that the current administration is incapable of instilling growth and the only way to forward is to send the workforce overseas.