Tuesday 4th April 2017

[seeingclearly]

French employment rate is even worse, around 65% when the UK's is 75%.

France in recent years is neither a success story, nor a model to follow.

The "employment rate" isn't a particularly enlightening statistic. It tells us nothing of under-employment. It also assumes all people would choose to work, when some may prefer to stay home and raise a family if they could afford to do so.

The point everyone is making is that France's higher unemployment rate doesn't necessarily mean they are in a worse state than us, anymore than it suggests they're doing any better.

Same GDP per capita. Therefore we have the same capacity to redistribute the same level of wealth to all our citizens, but are following different paths leading to very different outcomes, that's the point for me. It shows how significant political choices can be.

Oh, I think it does matter. It matters for long term social cohesion if you have large numbers of economically inactive people. See the banilieues. Bad for equality, bad for self worth.

There are, of course, lots of other factors in play, but on this I think the French have got the balance badly wrong.

As usual, talking nonsense backed up by rubbish. Our statistics hide huge numbers of economically inactive people. I know, because I have one such residing with me. Appears nowhere. A lot of old cobblers about older people too, who would usually not be harried into work that pays a pittance and gives them no security. (I have two carers who have nearly adult grandchildren, between them they have osteoarthritis, heart conditions and a severe deficiency condition, they are also the principal caregivers in their family setting.)

Comparing us to France (or the French to us) which has preserved quite large numbers of people who live in a more traditional way and where consumerism and daily living costs are different to here is a nonsense. And as for quoting the banlieues, well before making them economically active you have to have a policy of integration, and a commitment to equal rights, a very French failure. They are not there because of economic inactivity, there is economic inactivity in the banlieues because there simply is an absence of anything anyone would recognise as legitimate paid work.

Your failure to grasp any nuance as you ride your fools mount is all too obvious.

[SpinningHugo]

As usual, talking nonsense backed up by rubbish. Our statistics hide huge numbers of economically inactive people. I know, because I have one such residing with me. Appears nowhere. A lot of old cobblers about older people too, who would usually not be harried into work that pays a pittance and gives them no security. (I have two carers who have nearly adult grandchildren, between them they have osteoarthritis, heart conditions and a severe deficiency condition, they are also the principal caregivers in their family setting.)

Comparing us to France (or the French to us) which has preserved quite large numbers of people who live in a more traditional way and where consumerism and daily living costs are different to here is a nonsense. And as for quoting the banlieues, well before making them economically active you have to have a policy of integration, and a commitment to equal rights, a very French failure. They are not there because of economic inactivity, there is economic inactivity in the banlieues because there simply is an absence of anything anyone would recognise as legitimate paid work.

Your failure to grasp any nuance as you ride your fools mount is all too obvious.

All very interesting.

Personally, I'll take the data, and without further evidence I'll proceed on the assumption that the ONS is not made up of liars, and that our data is no more prone to inaccuracy skewed in one direction than is the French equivalent.

"I have a mate who is inactive" not, you know, being relevant statistical data.

[seeingclearly]

The point is not that the French 65% is good, but that a large proportion of our 75% is made up of low-pay insecure "employment".

Skills problem. The labour market isnt too wrong. Provided the pay continues to be properly topped up.

What do you mean, 'continues to be properly topped up'?

The evidence is that it is not continuing to be properly topped up at all, but that it is being hugely eroded, and infact the things we have considered as top-ups for decades, such as tax credits, housing benefit, and income support for those in part time work are now being actively used to depress incomes to unrealistic levels which might produce increases in GDP but diminish peoples lives significantly. Can I remind you that this is the week when George Osbornes legacy to those on low incomes will explode all over their lives, and that the tory refusal to give up on its truly intrusive and hideous UC rollout is just starting to bite. The conditionality is unprecendented in modern times.

[HindleA]

No serious person of good faith would deny that Government policy is actively lessening lives,both age wise and quality.End of.Eg.home dialysis proven health benefits and longer survival re hospital.Government policy which renders this not feasible therefore unequivocably shortens lives and quality.Just one example.

[SpinningHugo]

No serious person of good faith would deny that Government policy is actively lessening lives,both age wise and quality.End of.Eg.home dialysis proven health benefits and longer survival re hospital.Government policy which renders this not feasible therefore unequivocably shortens lives and quality.Just one example.

I am not sure I follow the grammar of that, but there is a difference between

1. Are Tory policies bad?

And

2. Is life expectancy falling?

Rejecting 2, doesn't entail rejecting 1.

[seeingclearly]

As usual, talking nonsense backed up by rubbish. Our statistics hide huge numbers of economically inactive people. I know, because I have one such residing with me. Appears nowhere. A lot of old cobblers about older people too, who would usually not be harried into work that pays a pittance and gives them no security. (I have two carers who have nearly adult grandchildren, between them they have osteoarthritis, heart conditions and a severe deficiency condition, they are also the principal caregivers in their family setting.)

Comparing us to France (or the French to us) which has preserved quite large numbers of people who live in a more traditional way and where consumerism and daily living costs are different to here is a nonsense. And as for quoting the banlieues, well before making them economically active you have to have a policy of integration, and a commitment to equal rights, a very French failure. They are not there because of economic inactivity, there is economic inactivity in the banlieues because there simply is an absence of anything anyone would recognise as legitimate paid work.

Your failure to grasp any nuance as you ride your fools mount is all too obvious.

All very interesting.

Personally, I'll take the data, and without further evidence I'll proceed on the assumption that the ONS is not made up of liars, and that our data is no more prone to inaccuracy skewed in one direction than is the French equivalent.

"I have a mate who is inactive" not, you know, being relevant statistical data.

I have not mentioned any inactive mates at all. Neither do I have one or know one. I have been following the data on mortality rates for a while now. ONS figures. There is a good article dated today, iirc, in which an ONS statistician references the way statistics are used and perceived. But I will let you find it yourself.

In fact the data does represent people. And not the kind of patronising waffle you push out.

Nobody today denies the statistical evidence that there was a 'lost generation' of young people around the recession in the early 90's. Anecdotally I can tell you of such a year group from one of the top schools in my region (and the country) where around half are now prematurely dead. It doesn't disprove that lost generation, it reinforces the fact it happened. In like fashion the rise in mortality rates will prove to be evidence for the vicious nature of our cuts, and as there is a new 'lost generation' in the making, I expect statistics will evidence that too. Neither the person I referred to nor Jeremy Corbyns views will disprove it, like my anecdote, they will serve to reinforce what has really happened. And your words will be dust.

[seeingclearly]

No serious person of good faith would deny that Government policy is actively lessening lives,both age wise and quality.End of.Eg.home dialysis proven health benefits and longer survival re hospital.Government policy which renders this not feasible therefore unequivocably shortens lives and quality.Just one example.

I am not sure I follow the grammar of that, but there is a difference between

1. Are Tory policies bad?

And

2. Is life expectancy falling?

Rejecting 2, doesn't entail rejecting 1.

If people who could reasonably have expected to survive longer prior to 1. are no longer surviving and there is statistical evidence to prove 2. it isn 't a matter of 'entailing rejecting' it is a matter of actively rejecting the evidence. As those of us who have been actively following the results of such policies for years, and have warned of such impacts, know only too well. Why do you think both the coalition and the current government singularly failed to produce any impact assessments. Everything that activists predicted in 2010 has come about, and more. But keep on spinning.....

[Tubby Isaacs]

The point is not that the French 65% is good, but that a large proportion of our 75% is made up of low-pay insecure "employment".

Skills problem. The labour market isnt too wrong. Provided the pay continues to be properly topped up.

What do you mean, 'continues to be properly topped up'?

The evidence is that it is not continuing to be properly topped up at all, but that it is being hugely eroded, and infact the things we have considered as top-ups for decades, such as tax credits, housing benefit, and income support for those in part time work are now being actively used to depress incomes to unrealistic levels which might produce increases in GDP but diminish peoples lives significantly. Can I remind you that this is the week when George Osbornes legacy to those on low incomes will explode all over their lives, and that the tory refusal to give up on its truly intrusive and hideous UC rollout is just starting to bite. The conditionality is unprecendented in modern times.

Slip of the "pen". I say elsewhere that tax credits need extending by raising taxes more generally. Nobody in "proper opposition" Labour seems to be saying that and it's important.

What do you mean depress "incomes"? These are parts of income. If you mean employers slash wages because the state tops them up, I don't agree. Tax credits diminish people's lives? What?

I'm perfectly aware of the Budget. I've criticized Labour for going after progressive NI rises with the Daily Mail instead of going for the awful regressive cuts. They went out of their way to mislead too. Result- the regressive cuts are coming in with virtually no public attention. That's not just the media. That's the inevitable result of populism on their part.

[Willow904]

French employment rate is even worse, around 65% when the UK's is 75%.

France in recent years is neither a success story, nor a model to follow.

Economically inactive can include gap years, early retirement, caring and, that old chestnut, raising a family. If these things are undervalued in relation to being in paid servitude work I think that may also be bad for social cohesion and self worth. People actually get greater satisfaction and self worth from volunteering than they do in the same role as employees. Work isn't fulfilling because it's paid but because of the independence that pay allows. If you are working part time and being hounded by the DWP to constantly look for more work in return for top up benefits to achieve a level of income on which you can survive, do you really have more self-worth than someone collecting social security to which they are entitled through contributions while they are between jobs? Just a thought.

It can indeed. French early retirement is a serious economic problem.

But the gap between 75% employment and 65% is huge. It isn't accounted for by people doing more charity work.[/quote]

I agree the gap is unlikely to be accounted for by people doing charity work, I was just challenging the assumption that higher employment rates are automatically benficial to society in the round, as it were. There was once a great deal of talk of the benefit of taking sabbaticals. Not so much these days.

As for what causes the difference - at least part is explained by higher numbers of part-time workers in the UK. That is to say, the same amount of work spread between more people leads to more people engaged in some amount of work. Fewer people being able to afford early retirement and more seriously ill people having no choice but to work because of less social security, fewer people with adequate savings etc. None of these things make the UK a better place to live in my opinion. Although youth unemployment in places like France is obviously bad, I'm not sure the subtle under-employment in this country that sees graduates take part-time jobs in coffee shops is much better, especially as it is less obvious, so there is less pressure on government to address it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Why are loads of economically inactive people missing from the data?

You know what "banlieu" means? Suburbs. It's like saying there's no work in Canning Town or Thamesmead. We're not talking about County Durham mining villages. The banlieux are in cities, lots of them fairly affluent.

As you say, lots of social policy in France is poor, and public attitudes are appalling. But it is harder to enter the labour market and create jobs there. Hollande to his credit has tried to address that, but got zilch credit.

[RogerOThornhill]

England has gone mad

https://capx.co/england-has-gone-mad/

An incandescent Theresa May, daughter of an Anglo-Catholic clergyman, denounced this thing that hadn’t happened as “absolutely ridiculous”. The Archbishop of York said Cadbury were “spitting on the grave” of the firm’s founder, John Cadbury, leading one of his descendants to point out that “as a Quaker, he didn’t celebrate Easter”. Finally, with the timing and political acumen for which he is renowned, Jeremy Corbyn weighed in to opine that this was “commercialisation gone a bit too far”. For your info, the website address for the egg hunt is easter.cadbury.co.uk, while the National Trust has gently pointed out that there are more than 13,000 references to Easter on its website.

Is it Brexit? It is Brexit, isn’t it? It’s done something to the English brain, like political bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Judgment, perspective and a sense of humour were once regarded as being among the finer qualities of the people of St George. Increasingly, for us Scots, it’s like having a drooling auntie living down below who shouts racist abuse out the window at random passing strangers.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Part time employment rate

France 14.4%
UK 24%

https://data.oecd.org/emp/part-time-employment-rate.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite a striking difference.

UK, as a percentage of working age, would be about 17%.
France would be about 9%.
(I think).

So that puts the UK full time at about 58%, France at 56%.

Do we know how much of each is underemployed?

[Tubby Isaacs]

You want a really frightening number about French young people?

18-24s

Macron 30%
Le Pen 30%
Melénchon 17%
Hamon 13%
Fillon 6%

Complete opposite of the UK in that respect. The youth unemployment rate may or may not have something to do with it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Actually, forget that. You don't have 30% of Greek youth voting Golden Dawn, do you?

[seeingclearly]

Skills problem. The labour market isnt too wrong. Provided the pay continues to be properly topped up.

What do you mean, 'continues to be properly topped up'?

The evidence is that it is not continuing to be properly topped up at all, but that it is being hugely eroded, and infact the things we have considered as top-ups for decades, such as tax credits, housing benefit, and income support for those in part time work are now being actively used to depress incomes to unrealistic levels which might produce increases in GDP but diminish peoples lives significantly. Can I remind you that this is the week when George Osbornes legacy to those on low incomes will explode all over their lives, and that the tory refusal to give up on its truly intrusive and hideous UC rollout is just starting to bite. The conditionality is unprecendented in modern times.

Slip of the "pen". I say elsewhere that tax credits need extending by raising taxes more generally. Nobody in "proper opposition" Labour seems to be saying that and it's important.

What do you mean depress "incomes"? These are parts of income. If you mean employers slash wages because the state tops them up, I don't agree. Tax credits diminish people's lives? What?

I'm perfectly aware of the Budget. I've criticized Labour for going after progressive NI rises with the Daily Mail instead of going for the awful regressive cuts. They went out of their way to mislead too. Result- the regressive cuts are coming in with virtually no public attention. That's not just the media. That's the inevitable result of populism on their part.

I asked a question prompted by a clear statement you made. " Providing the pay continues to be properly topped up. " Your words not mine. Every single form of top up has been agressively cut. It has and does depress incomes. If they are not longer there, or have significantly been reduced they are no longer the same level of top up, or may not be anykind of top up at all. Particularly at the low end of employment. i.e. they are no longer a part of income. I cwrtainly don't mean when employers slash wages because the state tops them up. I mean employers slash wages and the government slashes topups too, in colusion with each other. This has nothing to do with Labour, because they are not in government. The tories on the other hand do not give a fig for workers rights. The lack of public attention is, as you know, due to a failure to hold the media to account, and to insist on open accountable government. (I was in my far distant youth trained to be a journalist by the editor of a national non-British newspaper. In the days when journalism was more real. It was his avowal that the job of a news outlet was to help hold the powerful to account. Indeed in that nation the journalists and editors were, under far worse circumstances, both fearless and honest, and paid for it in large numbers with their lives. Here our problem is both lack of courage and moral backbone, and far too much easy living.)

Todays media outlets are not doing that, or they have come to the gruesome feast so late as to be useless. What use shouting about welfare reform in 2017 when it is five year old news that should have been honestly headlined then? What use talking about anything on the last day before implementation, when no miracles are going to occur? And blaming Labour now for the decisions of then is stupid. In truth the horse long since bolted.....and neither the people who left the door open or those who failed to prevent it are around. Five years is a long time in politics.

As for 'skills shortage'. Yes there are some engineered skills shortages designed to undermine established working conditions in a systematic way. The NHS is a good example of this. But in general there are hundreds of thousands of people with good skills being totally wasted because the tories have focused on breking up established work practices in favour of creating very low paid barely skilled jobs, because that gives them the figures they need, while neglecting or actively destroying areas of work that our trained people are good at, sciences, design, etc. being good examples. That the last two are major creators of work and innovation seem to be lost to most people, so university courses etc are being dumbed down to tory policy and intake limited too. People who used to be at the forefront of creating opportunity in these areas have been tearing their hair out at the sheer stupidity of it all, but here it is all Labours fault. And people like you and Hugo serve to reinforce the damage by not focusing on the real problem. Which is in fact that we have a rogue government that does not have the interests of this nation, or its people in mind at all.

[Willow904]

Part time employment rate

France 14.4%
UK 24%

https://data.oecd.org/emp/part-time-employment-rate.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite a striking difference.

UK, as a percentage of working age, would be about 17%.
France would be about 9%.
(I think).

So that puts the UK full time at about 58%, France at 56%.

Do we know how much of each is underemployed?

The only thing I could find was this from a couple of years ago by David Blanchflower. It has under-employment figures from across Europe. We're down at the bottom with countries with high unemployment, like France!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 11368.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition, 27 per cent of these under-employed workers in the UK are aged 25 or under, compared with only 15 per cent for the EU as a whole. Young British workers are particularly constrained by the lack of opportunity to work more hours.

[Willow904]

Actually, forget that. You don't have 30% of Greek youth voting Golden Dawn, do you?

That doesn't mean there isn't a connection in France, though, especially if Le Pen has been targeting the youth vote.

[PorFavor]

Up to 100,000 UK jobs at risk as Merkel and Juncker ally warns on euro clearing

EU lawmaker Manfred Weber says sector must relocate out of City of London after Brexit
(Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ber-brexit

[seeingclearly]

Willow, to comment on your posts in a non specific way. I agree that there needs to be leeway for people to manage their own lives and the support sometimes too. My. siblings generation had very odd employment records through the late 70's and 80's because truly the nature of employment had utterly changed, so the odd jobbed their way around things in spite of being well educated and in some cases very talented. Today they could not do that unless they had very well off parents. But then they were mostly free floating and glad to be adult and making their own lives and choices. Today many are still at home, and unsupported. It does not make for a healthy society, or help develop people as rounded individuals with a capacity to move forward, it just creates compliant workers or families who protect their square peg children. By many thousands. That this is all anyway a prelude to even less work doesn't even seem to figure, no-one is preparing for that future, those in work are pedalling harder and getting for the most part less secure and worse paid jobs. And the tory aim seems to be that we should be able to compete with nations that have millions of unskilled lowpaid workers doing jobs that are going to be lost to automation anyway. The US set on that path too. If France has got more people finding routes through and fewer in traditional employment then that leaves us as the people who are lagging behind, not them. But the truth is going to be worse for both countries, because in our first world delusion it is exactly that which has been lost, that it is us that have brought the world to this precarious place, and in such haste to accrue vast wealth that we haven't heeded the consequences. And all our politicians are guilty of this, even the better ones, they have failed hugely.

You are right. People need to have time to think, to find out what they really need, and see what is important. But our government has only one aim, to create a compliant population that will further its aims. The two are not compatible.

[SpinningHugo]

Part time employment rate

France 14.4%
UK 24%

https://data.oecd.org/emp/part-time-employment-rate.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite a striking difference.

UK, as a percentage of working age, would be about 17%.
France would be about 9%.
(I think).

So that puts the UK full time at about 58%, France at 56%.

Do we know how much of each is underemployed?

The only thing I could find was this from a couple of years ago by David Blanchflower. It has under-employment figures from across Europe. We're down at the bottom with countries with high unemployment, like France!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 11368.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition, 27 per cent of these under-employed workers in the UK are aged 25 or under, compared with only 15 per cent for the EU as a whole. Young British workers are particularly constrained by the lack of opportunity to work more hours.

That Blanchflower piece is interesting (he is very good on employment if a bit of a flake on other things). But NB that the figures are underemployed as a percentage of those in employment. The French rate even for that is higher than the UK,

[Tubby Isaacs]

Skills problem. The labour market isnt too wrong. Provided the pay continues to be properly topped up.

What do you mean, 'continues to be properly topped up'?

The evidence is that it is not continuing to be properly topped up at all, but that it is being hugely eroded, and infact the things we have considered as top-ups for decades, such as tax credits, housing benefit, and income support for those in part time work are now being actively used to depress incomes to unrealistic levels which might produce increases in GDP but diminish peoples lives significantly. Can I remind you that this is the week when George Osbornes legacy to those on low incomes will explode all over their lives, and that the tory refusal to give up on its truly intrusive and hideous UC rollout is just starting to bite. The conditionality is unprecendented in modern times.

Slip of the "pen". I say elsewhere that tax credits need extending by raising taxes more generally. Nobody in "proper opposition" Labour seems to be saying that and it's important.

What do you mean depress "incomes"? These are parts of income. If you mean employers slash wages because the state tops them up, I don't agree. Tax credits diminish people's lives? What?

I'm perfectly aware of the Budget. I've criticized Labour for going after progressive NI rises with the Daily Mail instead of going for the awful regressive cuts. They went out of their way to mislead too. Result- the regressive cuts are coming in with virtually no public attention. That's not just the media. That's the inevitable result of populism on their part.

I asked a question prompted by a clear statement you made. " Providing the pay continues to be properly topped up. " Your words not mine. Every single form of top up has been agressively cut. It has and does depress incomes. If they are not longer there, or have significantly been reduced they are no longer the same level of top up, or may not be anykind of top up at all. Particularly at the low end of employment. i.e. they are no longer a part of income. I cwrtainly don't mean when employers slash wages because the state tops them up. I mean employers slash wages and the government slashes topups too, in colusion with each other. This has nothing to do with Labour, because they are not in government. The tories on the other hand do not give a fig for workers rights. The lack of public attention is, as you know, due to a failure to hold the media to account, and to insist on open accountable government. (I was in my far distant youth trained to be a journalist by the editor of a national non-British newspaper. In the days when journalism was more real. It was his avowal that the job of a news outlet was to help hold the powerful to account. Indeed in that nation the journalists and editors were, under far worse circumstances, both fearless and honest, and paid for it in large numbers with their lives. Here our problem is both lack of courage and moral backbone, and far too much easy living.)

Todays media outlets are not doing that, or they have come to the gruesome feast so late as to be useless. What use shouting about welfare reform in 2017 when it is five year old news that should have been honestly headlined then? What use talking about anything on the last day before implementation, when no miracles are going to occur? And blaming Labour now for the decisions of then is stupid. In truth the horse long since bolted.....and neither the people who left the door open or those who failed to prevent it are around. Five years is a long time in politics.

As for 'skills shortage'. Yes there are some engineered skills shortages designed to undermine established working conditions in a systematic way. The NHS is a good example of this. But in general there are hundreds of thousands of people with good skills being totally wasted because the tories have focused on breking up established work practices in favour of creating very low paid barely skilled jobs, because that gives them the figures they need, while neglecting or actively destroying areas of work that our trained people are good at, sciences, design, etc. being good examples. That the last two are major creators of work and innovation seem to be lost to most people, so university courses etc are being dumbed down to tory policy and intake limited too. People who used to be at the forefront of creating opportunity in these areas have been tearing their hair out at the sheer stupidity of it all, but here it is all Labours fault. And people like you and Hugo serve to reinforce the damage by not focusing on the real problem. Which is in fact that we have a rogue government that does not have the interests of this nation, or its people in mind at all.

7

Ah, you mean the cuts of top ups depress incomes? Of course I agree with that. And I appreciate you took me at my (mispoken) word. But I hope you appreciate that generally I'm a strong supporter of in work tax credits, and I think it's a hugely underrated achievement of the Labour government.

It's because I want more investment in science etc that I get irritated by McDonnell announcing (with as far as I can tell, no reference to members) that he's going to chuck billions more at well-off pensioners. Sure, McDonnell would improve stuff by ending the idiotic policy on overseas students, but otherwise there's nothing on paying for stuff we need.

I'm afraid I see that as very much part of the real problem.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Actually, forget that. You don't have 30% of Greek youth voting Golden Dawn, do you?

That doesn't mean there isn't a connection in France, though, especially if Le Pen has been targeting the youth vote.

Funny that they're susceptible to it though. France does have more of the sort of problems she's targetting than other places, I suppose.

Everywhere parties like the PS are struggling, but the "outside left" vote in France is lower than I thought it would be among the young- barely any different to the general population. I suppose having some old left intellectual type like Melenchon isn't as attractive to young people as something more like Podemos?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Part time employment rate

France 14.4%
UK 24%

https://data.oecd.org/emp/part-time-employment-rate.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite a striking difference.

UK, as a percentage of working age, would be about 17%.
France would be about 9%.
(I think).

So that puts the UK full time at about 58%, France at 56%.

Do we know how much of each is underemployed?

The only thing I could find was this from a couple of years ago by David Blanchflower. It has under-employment figures from across Europe. We're down at the bottom with countries with high unemployment, like France!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 11368.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition, 27 per cent of these under-employed workers in the UK are aged 25 or under, compared with only 15 per cent for the EU as a whole. Young British workers are particularly constrained by the lack of opportunity to work more hours.

Good find, thanks.

So that would suggest lots of those UK part time workers are doing hours they're broadly happy with?

Am I missing something, or is that not really a hidden army? Though his point about under 25s is well made.

[tinyclanger2]

Great to come home and read yet another what I can only describe as a bilateral monologue.

[tinyclanger2]

Fortunately I'm not remotely obsessed with Brexit:

“EU citizens decide on their own money,” Weber said during a press conference in Strasbourg on Tuesday. “When the UK is leaving the European Union it is not thinkable that at the end the whole euro business is managed in London. This is an external place, this is not an EU place any more. The euro business should be managed on EU soil.”

Such a development would be a huge blow to the British economy. Six months ago, the head of the London Stock Exchange, Xavier Rolet, said at least 100,000 positions could be lost if the City’s clearing houses lost their ability to process euro-denominated transactions.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ber-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All going swimmingly. Like we knew it would.

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 64156.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In an open letter, MPs warn that the [immigration] target is “economically damaging” because the UK needs migrant labour and could be “socially divisive” because it is based on the false premise that migrants are a “negative” for the country.

Open Britain, the successor to the Remain campaign in last year’s referendum which now urges a soft Brexit, and The Independent, are launching a petition to rally public support for ditching the target and to highlight the positive contribution made by immigrants, often vilified in populist politics.

Dearie me.
(shaking head, what-is-the-world-coming-to style emoticon)

[PorFavor]

Fortunately I'm not remotely obsessed with Brexit

Well, I've certainly never noticed your mentioning it before.

[tinyclanger2]

Spanish navy ship illegally enters UK waters in Gibraltar after Brexit war threat, says government
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 66576.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good job there's nothing better for us to spend our time/money on than all this bollox.

[Tubby Isaacs]

In other news, the dreadful David "liberal mugged by reality" Goodhart has made an arse of himself on Twitter again. When he claimed ""falling relative pay for basic jobs in recent years" he actually meant before 1997. Which is interesting, since his whole schtick is "the Poles did it".

[SpinningHugo]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-04/jere ... eadership/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know many here will agree with him. Even I do in some ways.

But this really isn't helpful. It makes Labour look desperate.

If you don't like the media, you at least have to fake it. He can't.

[Willow904]

Part time employment rate

France 14.4%
UK 24%

https://data.oecd.org/emp/part-time-employment-rate.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite a striking difference.

UK, as a percentage of working age, would be about 17%.
France would be about 9%.
(I think).

So that puts the UK full time at about 58%, France at 56%.

Do we know how much of each is underemployed?

The only thing I could find was this from a couple of years ago by David Blanchflower. It has under-employment figures from across Europe. We're down at the bottom with countries with high unemployment, like France!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 11368.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition, 27 per cent of these under-employed workers in the UK are aged 25 or under, compared with only 15 per cent for the EU as a whole. Young British workers are particularly constrained by the lack of opportunity to work more hours.

Good find, thanks.

So that would suggest lots of those UK part time workers are doing hours they're broadly happy with?

Am I missing something, or is that not really a hidden army? Though his point about under 25s is well made.

I read it differently. For a country that has such low unemployment, why are so many people in the UK working fewer part-time hours than they want? Surely under-employment is a problem where unemployment is high, like France, part and parcel of not enough work generally. With comparatively less competition for work, how is it we have similar under-employment rates? Lack of childcare? Employers seeking maximum flexibility, reduce NI? Our benefits system? What? Curious. And a ticking time bomb. Lack of full-time, secure work for young people in the UK means a generation unable to save for a pension or save up to buy a house. It means lower job expectations throughout life, too, as they miss opportunities to work their way up and gain experience. And it is hidden. No one worries about young people on zero hours in coffee shops in the same way they worry about them being stuck on the dole, although the opportunities to move into well paid, full-time work may be just as restricted.

[seeingclearly]

Skills problem. The labour market isnt too wrong. Provided the pay continues to be properly topped up.

What do you mean, 'continues to be properly topped up'?

The evidence is that it is not continuing to be properly topped up at all, but that it is being hugely eroded, and infact the things we have considered as top-ups for decades, such as tax credits, housing benefit, and income support for those in part time work are now being actively used to depress incomes to unrealistic levels which might produce increases in GDP but diminish peoples lives significantly. Can I remind you that this is the week when George Osbornes legacy to those on low incomes will explode all over their lives, and that the tory refusal to give up on its truly intrusive and hideous UC rollout is just starting to bite. The conditionality is unprecendented in modern times.

Slip of the "pen". I say elsewhere that tax credits need extending by raising taxes more generally. Nobody in "proper opposition" Labour seems to be saying that and it's important.

What do you mean depress "incomes"? These are parts of income. If you mean employers slash wages because the state tops them up, I don't agree. Tax credits diminish people's lives? What?

I'm perfectly aware of the Budget. I've criticized Labour for going after progressive NI rises with the Daily Mail instead of going for the awful regressive cuts. They went out of their way to mislead too. Result- the regressive cuts are coming in with virtually no public attention. That's not just the media. That's the inevitable result of populism on their part.

I asked a question prompted by a clear statement you made. " Providing the pay continues to be properly topped up. " Your words not mine. Every single form of top up has been agressively cut. It has and does depress incomes. If they are not longer there, or have significantly been reduced they are no longer the same level of top up, or may not be anykind of top up at all. Particularly at the low end of employment. i.e. they are no longer a part of income. I cwrtainly don't mean when employers slash wages because the state tops them up. I mean employers slash wages and the government slashes topups too, in colusion with each other. This has nothing to do with Labour, because they are not in government. The tories on the other hand do not give a fig for workers rights. The lack of public attention is, as you know, due to a failure to hold the media to account, and to insist on open accountable government. (I was in my far distant youth trained to be a journalist by the editor of a national non-British newspaper. In the days when journalism was more real. It was his avowal that the job of a news outlet was to help hold the powerful to account. Indeed in that nation the journalists and editors were, under far worse circumstances, both fearless and honest, and paid for it in large numbers with their lives. Here our problem is both lack of courage and moral backbone, and far too much easy living.)

Todays media outlets are not doing that, or they have come to the gruesome feast so late as to be useless. What use shouting about welfare reform in 2017 when it is five year old news that should have been honestly headlined then? What use talking about anything on the last day before implementation, when no miracles are going to occur? And blaming Labour now for the decisions of then is stupid. In truth the horse long since bolted.....and neither the people who left the door open or those who failed to prevent it are around. Five years is a long time in politics.

As for 'skills shortage'. Yes there are some engineered skills shortages designed to undermine established working conditions in a systematic way. The NHS is a good example of this. But in general there are hundreds of thousands of people with good skills being totally wasted because the tories have focused on breking up established work practices in favour of creating very low paid barely skilled jobs, because that gives them the figures they need, while neglecting or actively destroying areas of work that our trained people are good at, sciences, design, etc. being good examples. That the last two are major creators of work and innovation seem to be lost to most people, so university courses etc are being dumbed down to tory policy and intake limited too. People who used to be at the forefront of creating opportunity in these areas have been tearing their hair out at the sheer stupidity of it all, but here it is all Labours fault. And people like you and Hugo serve to reinforce the damage by not focusing on the real problem. Which is in fact that we have a rogue government that does not have the interests of this nation, or its people in mind at all.

7

Ah, you mean the cuts of top ups depress incomes? Of course I agree with that. And I appreciate you took me at my (mispoken) word. But I hope you appreciate that generally I'm a strong supporter of in work tax credits, and I think it's a hugely underrated achievement of the Labour government.

It's because I want more investment in science etc that I get irritated by McDonnell announcing (with as far as I can tell, no reference to members) that he's going to chuck billions more at well-off pensioners. Sure, McDonnell would improve stuff by ending the idiotic policy on overseas students, but otherwise there's nothing on paying for stuff we need.

I'm afraid I see that as very much part of the real problem.

The pensions service is relatively unscathed at the moment, which is why it is easier for McDonnell to make firm statements on pensions. The changes surrounding working age people are a whole different ballgame. Osbornes legacy and the impact of Universal Credit are yet to kick in fully, the next year will be crucial, and it is harder to prognosticate for other groups. To say pensioners are well off is a bit of a catch all don't you think? Many are not in fact well off at all, but are still helping younger members of their families to survive the changes. The myth of the well off pensioner is well lodged in the British psyche but the truth on older people is a lot more complex. As is the myth of the Tory-voting pensioner. Both stereotypes that suit certain interests, but truly not representational of the reality.

As for paying for what we need. I remember Belgium running pretty smoothly for a while on no government at all. This thing about how we pay for things is also overegged, don't you think? Taxes will continue to be paid people will to greater or lesser degree continue to work, companies will trade and government will try and hold them to paying their way too, to a greater or lesser degree. And our markets will trade. In fact huge revenues are and will be generated. The question isn't how we pay or what we need, it is how we spend on what we need, whether we do that in the interests of our people or not, and whether there are gains to be made in the ways we spend. And the nature of the gains. Do they enrich our people or do they flow away never to be seen again.

Of course it is important that Labour develops credible fiscal policy, but given the tory predisposition for nicking Labour policies and repurposing them to suit their own agenda it isn't surprising if SC is playing things a little lose o his chest. If you are concerned about cuts to investment in science I suggest you attack those doing the cutting. It is hugely detrimental, and a policy that Labour had no hand in devising.

[HindleA]

https://www.runnersworld.co.uk/training ... o-solve-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PRE-MARATHON PARANOIA AND HOW TO SOLVE IT


"Will my roll ups still be smokeable at the end"

[HindleA]

Depends which pensions,of course,certain ones have just been gutted for the vast majority.They no longer call them pensions for a reason.

[seeingclearly]

@Willow. You ask about underemployment. What are the factors. Chief of these I believe is housing. The gap between being supported, especially for women with children not yet in their teens and not home owners, means they are stuck. 16-24 hours is not adequate to pay rent and over that is classed as fulltime and either way if they claim any benefit at all they will go on UC and have to do hours of jobsearch to justify their claims. Plus the work on offer has no prospects at all of ever earning more except through oing more hours. If that is not possible they are trapped. And then there is means testing. These factors were always present, but today they are totally punitive with the prospect of sanctions there for all newer claimants. Things are not set to improve.

[seeingclearly]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-04/jere ... eadership/

I know many here will agree with him. Even I do in some ways.

But this really isn't helpful. It makes Labour look desperate.

If you don't like the media, you at least have to fake it. He can't.

That is his USP. An inability to fake it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I read it differently. For a country that has such low unemployment, why are so many people in the UK working fewer part-time hours than they want? Surely under-employment is a problem where unemployment is high, like France, part and parcel of not enough work generally. With comparatively less competition for work, how is it we have similar under-employment rates? Lack of childcare? Employers seeking maximum flexibility, reduce NI? Our benefits system? What? Curious. And a ticking time bomb. Lack of full-time, secure work for young people in the UK means a generation unable to save for a pension or save up to buy a house. It means lower job expectations throughout life, too, as they miss opportunities to work their way up and gain experience. And it is hidden. No one worries about young people on zero hours in coffee shops in the same way they worry about them being stuck on the dole, although the opportunities to move into well paid, full-time work may be just as restricted.

I think childcare is a part of it. IIRC, single parents with kids under 4 were less likely to be in employment than ones of school age.

I expect there's a fair bit of regional variation with underemployment in the UK.

[SpinningHugo]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-04/jere ... eadership/

I know many here will agree with him. Even I do in some ways.

But this really isn't helpful. It makes Labour look desperate.

If you don't like the media, you at least have to fake it. He can't.

That is his USP. An inability to fake it.

Which is a liability in a politician imo. They need to be able to take sincerity, and make light of questions like that. It looks terrible.

[SpinningHugo]

This is not good

http://labourlist.org/2017/04/ken-livin ... ther-year/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

The pensions service is relatively unscathed at the moment, which is why it is easier for McDonnell to make firm statements on pensions. The changes surrounding working age people are a whole different ballgame. Osbornes legacy and the impact of Universal Credit are yet to kick in fully, the next year will be crucial, and it is harder to prognosticate for other groups. To say pensioners are well off is a bit of a catch all don't you think? Many are not in fact well off at all, but are still helping younger members of their families to survive the changes. The myth of the well off pensioner is well lodged in the British psyche but the truth on older people is a lot more complex. As is the myth of the Tory-voting pensioner. Both stereotypes that suit certain interests, but truly not representational of the reality.

As for paying for what we need. I remember Belgium running pretty smoothly for a while on no government at all. This thing about how we pay for things is also overegged, don't you think? Taxes will continue to be paid people will to greater or lesser degree continue to work, companies will trade and government will try and hold them to paying their way too, to a greater or lesser degree. And our markets will trade. In fact huge revenues are and will be generated. The question isn't how we pay or what we need, it is how we spend on what we need, whether we do that in the interests of our people or not, and whether there are gains to be made in the ways we spend. And the nature of the gains. Do they enrich our people or do they flow away never to be seen again.

Of course it is important that Labour develops credible fiscal policy, but given the tory predisposition for nicking Labour policies and repurposing them to suit their own agenda it isn't surprising if SC is playing things a little lose o his chest. If you are concerned about cuts to investment in science I suggest you attack those doing the cutting. It is hugely detrimental, and a policy that Labour had no hand in devising.

I take the point that perhaps cards are being played close to the chest for now. McDonnell has though indicated he doesn't want tax increases for people on regular incomes. The emphasis given to "closing tax loopholes" worries me that they seriously overestimate what they can get like that. Anyway, there needs to be somebody, if not McDonnell himself, facing up to the problem with tax revenues. I don't really see it.

I'm not saying all pensioners are well off. Lots are in poverty. I'm saying you concentrate on those- the admin is easy- and don't raise the "universal" pension via the hugely expensive and poorly targeted.

[PorFavor]

Labour suspends Ken Livingstone for a year over Hitler comments (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-comments

[seeingclearly]

Well, you are all happy with Brexit and knocking Corbyn, while the true nature of what is happening behind the statistics seems to escape you, even though a stream of excellent posts on the things that are damaging real humans in our country seem to pass you by. I assume from the lack of interest in even discussing such things except in the terms your heavenly twins set that I am in fact persona non grata here, in spite of having been an early member of this site. And in truth I never regarded this as a matter of war, but only of reinhabiting a space lost.

I will admit to not being a 'detail' person, preferring to observe the wood rather than a single tree. But to all those looking at and for statistics rather than people to verify what is happening to us all, I suggest that you look for pieces that explore the articles that recount the ONS difficulties with lack of statistics that should be provided by government, and the frustration of statisticians. I also recommend a visit to the wholly bizarre populist end of the ONS where statistics on everything unuseful and unusable for anything other than amusement can be found.

If I can locate it I wiil post one such frustrated statisticians piece on this subject. If not I will probably stay away until such time as your new leaders provoke me into speaking again.

[Tubby Isaacs]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-04/jere ... eadership/

I know many here will agree with him. Even I do in some ways.

But this really isn't helpful. It makes Labour look desperate.

If you don't like the media, you at least have to fake it. He can't.

That is his USP. An inability to fake it.

It's a problem. A PM doesn't spend all her time just talking to people they agree with.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Labour suspends Ken Livingstone for a year over Hitler comments (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-comments

Fair enough, I think.

He's a big man who's got out of shape.

[seeingclearly]

My last word, I promise. @Tubby. What ****ing Universal Pension?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well, you are all happy with Brexit and knocking Corbyn, while the true nature of what is happening behind the statistics seems to escape you, even though a stream of excellent posts on the things that are damaging real humans in our country seem to pass you by. I assume from the lack of interest in even discussing such things except in the terms your heavenly twins set that I am in fact persona non grata here, in spite of having been an early member of this site. And in truth I never regarded this as a matter of war, but only of reinhabiting a space lost.

I will admit to not being a 'detail' person, preferring to observe the wood rather than a single tree. But to all those looking at and for statistics rather than people to verify what is happening to us all, I suggest that you look for pieces that explore the articles that recount the ONS difficulties with lack of statistics that should be provided by government, and the frustration of statisticians. I also recommend a visit to the wholly bizarre populist end of the ONS where statistics on everything unuseful and unusable for anything other than amusement can be found.

If I can locate it I wiil post one such frustrated statisticians piece on this subject. If not I will probably stay away until such time as your new leaders provoke me into speaking again.

Who's happy with Brexit?

[Tubby Isaacs]

My last word, I promise. @Tubby. What ****ing Universal Pension?

Indeed.

My inverted commas show I agree with you.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Saw an interesting theory today. That Article 50 was written with Central European "populists" in mind, and designed so that they'd fall flat on their face when they inevitably left the EU.

As it happens, even when they get into government, like in Poland, they aren't that stupid.

We on the other hand...

[Tubby Isaacs]

Jonathan Portes‏ @jdportes 4h
More
Jonathan Portes Retweeted David Goodhart
Now it appears that my support for free movement in 2004 helped drive down wages for low paid *before 1997* But I'm a "pedant"

Ha ha.

Goodhart is the man in the pub given a media career.

[HindleA]

Depends on what you mean by targeted pension changes,I with no dependents,responsibilities,restrictions etc,would have gained,the vast majority have had theirs gutted.Bereavement pensions are contingent on sufficient NIC on a sliding scale/age of survivor,at least a recognition of decades of contribution-in our case sufficient for a full State pension was acknowledged,despite the propaganda Governments,and particularly Tory ones don't give a stuff about contributions and will limit,deny effect.as appropriate on political machinations.