Obelix Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 For the reasons already discussed on many threads in this forum, I don't think you can blame the last government for the situation today. If your beloved tories were in government during that time are you saying that things would have been better? Why are things much worse under this government, why haven't things got better, why is borrowing up? etc You think a deal of things that are not patently true Mecky. Let me clarify again.... Labour spent vast sums of money keeping people in non-jobs because that bought them votes. When they left office, like Old Mother Hubbard the cupboards were bare and there was a note saying, Sorry, there's no money left. That sort of situation takes a long time to recover from. If the conservatives were in power - and they are not my "beloved Tories" we don't have a beloved leader we leave that to North Korea - then we wouldn't have made stupid statements like the end of boom and bust. We would have saved during the boom, spent during the bust, and flattened and smoothed the vicissitudes of the market. Something that Labour still don't appear to appreciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 8, 2013 Author Share Posted April 8, 2013 The Tories created a vast client class of people on incapacity benefit in the 1990s. Labour's mistake was to cement the process of discarding people onto the scrapheap. Lots of interesting theories about why the numbers claiming rose so much in the 90s. The obvious one is that it helped massage unemployment figures. Hmmmm, maybe. Another is that the Tories were actually pretty successful at getting women into the workforce and that squeezed opportunities for more marginal job candidates. ---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 15:15 ---------- You think a deal of things that are not patently true Mecky. Let me clarify again.... Labour spent vast sums of money keeping people in non-jobs because that bought them votes. When they left office, like Old Mother Hubbard the cupboards were bare and there was a note saying, Sorry, there's no money left. That sort of situation takes a long time to recover from. If the conservatives were in power - and they are not my "beloved Tories" we don't have a beloved leader we leave that to North Korea - then we wouldn't have made stupid statements like the end of boom and bust. We would have saved during the boom, spent during the bust, and flattened and smoothed the vicissitudes of the market. Something that Labour still don't appear to appreciate. I can just imagine IDS ranting out these words off his face on a bottle of vintage champers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I'm sure you can. That doesn't make it any less true though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 The Tories created a vast client class of people on incapacity benefit in the 1990s. Labour's mistake was to cement the process of discarding people onto the scrapheap. Lots of interesting theories about why the numbers claiming rose so much in the 90s. The obvious one is that it helped massage unemployment figures. Hmmmm, maybe. Another is that the Tories were actually pretty successful at getting women into the workforce and that squeezed opportunities for more marginal job candidates. The graph on page 5 illustrates that nicely. From 1971 to 2011, the economic activity rate among women rose from 59 percent to 74 percent while the female employment rate rose from 56 to 69 percent. In the same period, the economic activity rate among men fell from 95 percent in 1971 to 83 percent in 2010 and the employment rate fell from 92 to 75 percent. When viewed in terms of the UK industrial structure, this shift can be fairly characterised as a decline in male - dominated sectors such as manufacturing and a corresponding rise in female - dominated sectors such as personal services. The vast majority of both changes took place in the 1970s and 1980s. The UK female participation rate rose 7.4 percentage points in the 1980s and only 1.4 percentage points in the 2000s. ---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 15:39 ---------- If the conservatives were in power - and they are not my "beloved Tories" we don't have a beloved leader we leave that to North Korea - then we wouldn't have made stupid statements like the end of boom and bust. We would have saved during the boom, spent during the bust, and flattened and smoothed the vicissitudes of the market. Something that Labour still don't appear to appreciate. Many of the people I know that vote Conservative run their home like this, save in the good times, spend saving in the bad times to smooth their household income. Many of the people I know that vote Labour spend it when they get it and use the good times to borrow more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 8, 2013 Author Share Posted April 8, 2013 Many of the people I know that vote Conservative run their home like this, save in the good times, spend saving in the bad times to smooth their household income. Many of the people I know that vote Labour spend it when they get it and use the good times to borrow more. I don't think can generalise like that. But what about this as a little experiment although I'm not sure how we'd get the data. During the housing bubble, under Labour, how many people in each part of the country took out self-cert mortgages without proof of income. What areas have the highest levels of personal debt etc... It may be the best way to determine where the most financially reckless live. I think they will be everywhere to be honest, regardless of political persuasion. The bigger the wage to house price ratio the bigger the numbers of self-certs would be my hunch. ---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 17:11 ---------- I'm sure you can. That doesn't make it any less true though. The bit about Tories saving for a rainy day. When was that? For what it's worth I agree governments should set aside surpluses, maybe convert them into gold and other assets for when the country hits difficult times. It's classic Keynesian economics. I don't think the Tories are Keynesians and I don't think you knew you were either. The Tories are more into classical economics which in general terms holds that the budget will balance every year, with market forces free to bring about the necessary adjustments to keep it in equilibrium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 The graph on page 5 illustrates that nicely. From 1971 to 2011, the economic activity rate among women rose from 59 percent to 74 percent while the female employment rate rose from 56 to 69 percent. In the same period, the economic activity rate among men fell from 95 percent in 1971 to 83 percent in 2010 and the employment rate fell from 92 to 75 percent. When viewed in terms of the UK industrial structure, this shift can be fairly characterised as a decline in male - dominated sectors such as manufacturing and a corresponding rise in female - dominated sectors such as personal services. The vast majority of both changes took place in the 1970s and 1980s. The UK female participation rate rose 7.4 percentage points in the 1980s and only 1.4 percentage points in the 2000s. ---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 15:39 ---------- Many of the people I know that vote Conservative run their home like this, save in the good times, spend saving in the bad times to smooth their household income. Many of the people I know that vote Labour spend it when they get it and use the good times to borrow more.[/QUOTE] How do you know the intimate details of people's finances and their voting intentions? Do all Conservatives you know work in the private sector, and all the Labour ones work in the public sector. Are the well off people Tory, and all poorer people are Labour Coincidentally Mr SMith how did your Tory friends behave in the early 1970s and late 1980s when there were big credit bubbles. Did their voting intentions change also? Do you only know 2 types of people? Do the people that only exist in your imagination believe you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Yes you have. As you quoted yourself it's 1% of workless households, not 1% of ALL households. Maybe you wanted it to be 1% of all households to fit in with your belief system. The reality is it's 0.06% of all households. So what you are saying is that there are 15,000 household in the UK where for 2 generations not a single person in those households has got their back off the mattress and done a single days work. Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 How do you know the intimate details of people's finances and their voting intentions? Do all Conservatives you know work in the private sector, and all the Labour ones work in the public sector. Are the well off people Tory, and all poorer people are Labour Coincidentally Mr SMith how did your Tory friends behave in the early 1970s and late 1980s when there were big credit bubbles. Did their voting intentions change also? Do you only know 2 types of people? Do the people that only exist in your imagination believe you? Do you feel better now you have got that rant off your chest. ---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 17:45 ---------- I don't think can generalise like that. But what about this as a little experiment although I'm not sure how we'd get the data. During the housing bubble, under Labour, how many people in each part of the country took out self-cert mortgages without proof of income. What areas have the highest levels of personal debt etc... It may be the best way to determine where the most financially reckless live. I think they will be everywhere to be honest, regardless of political persuasion. The bigger the wage to house price ratio the bigger the numbers of self-certs would be my hunch. It would be an interesting set of figures for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 8, 2013 Author Share Posted April 8, 2013 So what you are saying is that there are 15,000 household in the UK where for 2 generations not a single person in those households has got their back off the mattress and done a single days work. Incredible. 15,000 is an estimate. It does sound a lot but the real story here is that 99.94% of families are not like the Philpotts. And that is great news although to does blow a hole in the benefits narrative the Tories are trying to create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 So what you are saying is that there are 15,000 household in the UK where for 2 generations not a single person in those households has got their back off the mattress and done a single days work. Incredible. The interesting figure would how many children the first and second generation had because 15,000 households can easily be 100,000 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.