There are no unemployed people in Britain

[Robin-H]

I think he tried to play it down, make light of the situation, make out that things are not as bad as they are......make of that as you wish

 

Unemployment figures have been consistently falling for some time.

 

Do you think Hammond thought to himself that it would be better for him to pretend that there were no unemployed people in the country to 'play down' what is actually something that he could have boasted about had he just quoted the figures, or that it was just clumsy phrasing and meant in the context of shorthand typists (which is quite obvious if you watch it..). Which is more believable?

[banjodeano]

Unemployment figures have been consistently falling for some time.

 

Do you think Hammond thought to himself that it would be better for him to pretend that there were no unemployed people in the country to 'play down' what is actually something that he could have boasted about had he just quoted the figures, or that it was just clumsy phrasing and meant in the context of shorthand typists (which is quite obvious if you watch it..). Which is more believable?

 

Thanks Robin...i did actually watch and listen to what he said,

he didnt actaully mean it in the context of a shorthand typist, as you can see from the dismayed expression of the person that was interviewing him, he was dismayed by the comment,

as i said.............

he stated that this government had to make sure that the people had the skills, capabilities, and the tools they need to evolve, to learne new careers, and then he stated "where are the unemployed"? implying that there isnt any, because everyone has the new skills in which he mentioned prior....

[RiffRaff]

Reminds me of the old story about the fight and eventual victory for 'votes for women', emancipation and the like.

Our women folk were fed up of being dictated to by men, but thousands later became shorthand typists....

[Robin-H]

Thanks Robin...i did actually watch and listen to what he said,

he didnt actaully mean it in the context of a shorthand typist, as you can see from the dismayed expression of the person that was interviewing him, he was dismayed by the comment,

as i said.............

he stated that this government had to make sure that the people had the skills, capabilities, and the tools they need to evolve, to learne new careers, and then he stated "where are the unemployed"? implying that there isnt any, because everyone has the new skills in which he mentioned prior....

 

Then as I stated before, I worry for people's comprehension skills.

 

The intention was perfectly clear to me and to thousands of other people. The only people who don't seem to realise the context in which he said it are people trying to capitalise (poorly) on his poor phraseology. If that's the most people can come up with to criticise he must be doing a good job.

 

Meaning is not confined to each individual sentence, or the immediate preceding sentence. Meaning can be derived from the totality of what people at the time. It was perfectly clear what his meaning was.

 

Are you again claiming that Hammond was trying to imply that there weren't any unemployed people in the country? Really?

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 08:31 ----------

 

Thanks Robin...i did actually watch and listen to what he said,

he didnt actaully mean it in the context of a shorthand typist, as you can see from the dismayed expression of the person that was interviewing him, he was dismayed by the comment,

as i said.............

he stated that this government had to make sure that the people had the skills, capabilities, and the tools they need to evolve, to learne new careers, and then he stated "where are the unemployed"? implying that there isnt any, because everyone has the new skills in which he mentioned prior....

 

And how on earth does the expression of the person interviewing him reveal the context in which Hammond was talking? Are they linked by a hive mind? Like I said, clumsy phrasing, nothing more.

[I1L2T3]

I listened to pretty much the whole exchange on the radio last night, and even with context the choice of words seemed pretty poor and out of touch.

 

But there are bigger fish to fry. Let’s move on, and let Hammond get on with opposing hard Brexit

[Flanker7]

I listened to pretty much the whole exchange on the radio last night, and even with context the choice of words seemed pretty poor and out of touch.

 

But there are bigger fish to fry. Let’s move on, and let Hammond get on with opposing hard Brexit

 

Sums up many Conservatives.

 

The 'poor choice of words' reveal their real life concerns.

'out of touch' like most politicians.

 

However, Hammond is May's biggest fish and disliked by the Exiteers. Watch them carve strips off him today in the crucial cabinet meeting.

Its started already with former Tory minister saying the voters will 'go bananas'* if the government offers £40bn.

*Ironic choice of words - ask Boris if its a straight or bent banana!

[Flexo]

Economists define "maximum employment" or "full employment" as there being less than 5% unemployment. That's where almost everyone who wants to be in work, is in work. There is always a portion of the potential workforce who are waiting for a particular type of job, engaged in their own projects, taking a break from work or are unemployable layabouts.

 

So whilst it's not true to say "there are no unemployed people", it is true that the UK's economy is somewhere around full employment.

[onewheeldave]

Unemployment figures have been consistently falling for some time.

 

 

The figures have, but they're fixed and bear no relation to the actual numbers of unemployed.

 

Plus, as Anna says-

There are 1.4 million unemployed. There are also huge numbers now self employed who are basically having to scratch a living from 0 hours contracts and the 'gig' economy. Then there are the one's who are valiantly trying to start their own businesses with their savings and redundancy money, but the success rate is very low.

 

Then add in the vast numbers who simply can't/won't engage with the humiliating 'signing on' process, who also aren't included in the unemployment figures even though they have no job.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 10:52 ----------

 

 

Do you believe he gives a toss about unemployed people or people who have to wait 6 weeks for a benefit payment, whilst being threatened with eviction or people who die whilst waiting for benefits.

 

Thanks for the link. I've shared it on Facebook and suggest others do the same.

 

Current total number of deaths attributed to 'welfare reform' is now approaching 90,000. That's holocaust level, happening now, in Britain 2016.

 

Mass death, by political bureaucracy.

[RiffRaff]

I once asked a pal - who was in a fairly high-up position in the DWP - what percentage of the population could the benefits system 'afford' to be out of work.

His answer surprised me : 10%

[Robin-H]

The figures have, but they're fixed and bear no relation to the actual numbers of unemployed.

 

Plus, as Anna says-

 

Then add in the vast numbers who simply can't/won't engage with the humiliating 'signing on' process, who also aren't included in the unemployment figures even though they have no job.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 10:52 ----------

 

Thanks for the link. I've shared it on Facebook and suggest others do the same.

 

Current total number of deaths attributed to 'welfare reform' is now approaching 90,000. That's holocaust level, happening now, in Britain 2016.

 

Mass death, by political bureaucracy.

 

Oh so the figures are fixed! That's quite sensational news that would undoubtedly make the headlines. I suggest you forward all your evidence to the BBC or the Guardian. Please elaborate - how are they fixed exactly? Is the ONS not independent? Who was your whistleblower?

 

As for your 90,000 figure for 'deaths attributed to welfare reform' which you liken to the holocaust...

 

That 90,000 figure is the total number of the people who have died whilst claiming incapacity benefit since 2011.

 

People die all the time - people are more likely to die if they have an illness that would qualify them for incapacity benefit.

 

Are you suggesting that being on incapacity benefit should make people immortal? If you're not (which I sincerely hope you aren't) then you can't blame the government that people die..