"Ian Smith" <***@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message news:***@ubuntu...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:03:30 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:26:43 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:24:34 GMT
Post by Ian Smith
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment;
there are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of
working age across the UK. They are the ones who have been
recategorized by government to make unemployment figures look
better. Presumably Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share
(i.e. 800,000). Such blatant dishonesty by those who represent
us. However, sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet will
not make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have
somewhat misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the
govrnment has. Bad though some of the figures are (eg a proportion
of the long term sick could be working) you seemed to suggest that
all these people were being paid for staying at home which is
untrue. I'm not suggesting there is not a problem but you have to
keep perspective. The figure includes students; people in early
retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on
shorter term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for
relatives etc. The numbers of people being economically inactive
went up by 360,000 in the 5 years up to 2004. However a massive
310,000 of these were attributable to the increase in students
whilst only 10,000 was an increase in the long term sick.
Thank you for that. Granted, there are many different types of
"economically inactive"; some of which are important functions of
society, and some not. I think my point still stands about the
government unemployment figures being nonsense, since they
themselves admit to the 9 million total; which cost the taxpayers
c.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£50billion per year to support. Obviously, there are millions
capable of working, and should, but don't. So, our answer is import
millions to do their work. Utter madness.
Come on - just admit you got your figures wrong.
Either that or go find out how many students, carers, mothers of small
children, the genuine sick, blind and other disabilities, workers
changing jobs, people leaving her majesty's forces and seeking work,
people made redundant, for whatever reason, and actively seeking work.
Folks leaving the education system and not yet found a job. Then
subtract those figures from the number quoted as unemployed. Here is a
wee hint for you about Carers : -
"Carers save the UK economy Ã‚Â£87 billion a year
Unpaid carers are now saving the UK Ã‚Â£87 billion every year in
potential care costs, which amounts to more than the government's
total spend on the NHS in the last financial year. These new figures,
Cite - http://www.carers.org/
Then of course there are those who have served their country for
around 50 years and who paid tax, NI Stamp and what not, all their
working life. You know, the ones who paid for your nursery, primary
and secondary schooling, early medical cover and all the other things
you got while your mother was not working to keep you. Then there was
the family allowance, tax rebates and allowances your parents got
when you were young. Then, of course, if you married the same goes
for your wife and any kids you both may have had together. Who the
hell do you think financed all such things? The plain fact is we have
just about as full employment now as we are ever likely to get. And
as noted above the Carers alone are saving the government more each
year than the government spends on Healthcare in a year.
I got none of my figures wrong, since they are not mine. Do you accept
that 9 million are "economically inactive" or not? It is a number
admitted by the government. Although, as I've said before, you should
take anything the government says with a pinch of salt these days. The
question really is, how many of the 9 million would be classified as
unemployed, if the government were honest about it?
Honest about what?
The figures include, "Job Seekers".
Just remember that not everyone who is not working for a living are
sponging upon the taxpayer. Many of us pay tax on our incomes - as I
do, and I paid tax on it when I spent 50 odd years earning it and
never had a day's unemployment in my life.
Of course "not everyone" (of the 9 million) is sponging upon the
taxpayer. I didn't say that anywhere. My point is entirely that "full
employment" (or anywhere near it) is a myth in this country, and
the ruling party, in keeping with tradition, has obfuscated the figures
to make itself look good, win votes, create a "client state" of
benefits claimants, gain power, etc. The sad/inconvenient reality is
that there are the "forgotten millions" who should/would like to be
working, but are not; despite official statistics which declare them
not to exist.
I am patriotic towards Scotland, its traditions, and way of life. I
have deep respect for those who went before me and helped build up our
society. What pisses me off is the current trend in which it is all
being dismantled for the sake of political ideology (and the political
gravy train). What a f*cking sh*te way to run a country.
http://www.1r5.net + 1.000 pinches of salt
There are very few fit people who want work who do not get it.
There are many disabled people who want work who don't get it.
This is very often due to the utterly biased view of most employers who
often underestimate the capabillities of disabled people.
In most cases office type work is done sitting down so the only reason to
refuse a wheelchair bound person an office job is that of access to the
Answering phones can be done by blind people.
Why, then, are so many blind people, who want to work, unemployed?
My next door neighbour is having work done on drainage, a patio and a
The workers are Poles.
My other next door neighbour just remarked yesterday that these men were
hard workers while he had just passed three local unemployables in the
village. Each with a litre bottle of, "Buckfast", grasped in their hands.
However, there are very few of that kind in the village these days and they
are treated as lepers.
I'm almost certain that even taking away the benefit from those few would
cause them to seek employment but would, most likely, see a great rise for
the village crime statistics.
Probably the same couls be said about the unmarried parents of the village.
The prostitution figures would go from zero in an upward direction if we
took their benefits away and it would only be their children who would
Whatever else the proportion of these people is tiny in relation to the
Auld Bob Peffers,