Green shoots?

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25294524

 

The growth in job vacancies hit the fastest rate in 15 years in November, according to the latest survey from the body that represents recruitment firms.

Its job vacancies index, which uses data from 400 recruitment firms, rose to the highest level since July 1998.

The strongest demand was for engineers, followed by nursing staff and other medical and care workers.

The report also showed that growth in salaries for permanent staff was the highest in six years.

[bridge too far]

Good news if they're full time, permanent jobs with proper contracts. However:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-25297504

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25287068

[buctootim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25294524

 

This isnt a political point, just an observation - its odd that one of the main areas of jobs availability is in the NHS given expenditure is flat in real terms. I wonder if a lot of those staff imported from abroad in recent years are now going home.

 

Edit. I suppose they could be private care home workers, ageing population and all that.

Edited 9 December, 2013 by buctootim

[trousers]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2013/sty-employment.html

 

[trousers]

http://www.cityam.com/article/1387330717/fourth-quarter-growth-set-be-boosted-strong-factories

 

MANUFACTURERS are recording some of the strongest growth on record this quarter, with output rapidly rising as order books are still filling up.According to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), output has held at the 18-year high recorded last month, with order books at a similar level.

The robust figures recorded suggest that British manufacturing will make another positive contribution to GDP in the final three months of the year.

Every trend recorded by the CBI had a positive reading, with export orders at their strongest level for two years. All the survey’s six indicators are above average, except for stock adequacy.

Despite the recent drop in inflation, expectations for output prices have reached their highest level since February.

“While risks remain in the Eurozone and beyond, this survey provides further evidence that the recovery is becoming more embedded,” added Stephen Gifford, the CBI’s director of economics.

Industry body EEF suggests that 2014 might be an even brighter year for the UK’s factories, projecting 2.7 per cent growth for the sector, a faster increase than the 2.4 per cent that is expected for the economy as a whole.

[bridge too far]

Interesting article by a Conservative:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=625383b=facebook

[Whitey Grandad]

Interesting article by a Conservative:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=625383b=facebook

 

They keep repeating lies in the hope that they will be believed, but who is telling the lies here? It appears to me that theses dates and figures have been carefully selected.

[OldNick]

8.92million not working!!! How many of those are relying on the state ?

[bridge too far]

8.92million not working!!! How many of those are relying on the state ?

 

Given that we've got an aging population, I imagine a lot of them will be pensioners like me! And, maybe, students and parents on parental leave? I think from memory that the provision of the state pension costs hugely more than all the other welfare benefits put together.

[trousers]

Interesting article by a Conservative:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=625383b=facebook

 

Quoting rogue Tories from 2012?

 

Quick, someone make the Labour Party aware of this article so they can derail the Tory propaganda campaign...

[CB Saint]

They keep repeating lies in the hope that they will be believed, but who is telling the lies here? It appears to me that theses dates and figures have been carefully selected.

 

like claim one where he says labour inherited a debt of 42% and left one of 35% of GDP. What he fails to mention is that they also inherited a budget surplus which was improving and left a deficit that was worsening.

[hutch]

like claim one where he says labour inherited a debt of 42% and left one of 35% of GDP. What he fails to mention is that they also inherited a budget surplus which was improving and left a deficit that was worsening.

Buying votes doesn't come cheap these days, eh?

[buctootim]

8.92million not working!!! How many of those are relying on the state ?

 

Life must be very unpleasant if your first assumption is always that someone is sponging off you. About 3 million of those are aged 16-22 and in further or higher education and about another 1 million are long term sick or disabled with another c1m early retired. That leaves about 4m million - mostly parents raising kids and being supported by their partners - the bastards.

[Whitey Grandad]

Life must be very unpleasant if your first assumption is always that someone is sponging off you. About 3 million of those are aged 16-22 and in further or higher education and about another 1 million are long term sick or disabled with another c1m early retired. That leaves about 4m million - mostly parents raising kids and being supported by their partners - the bastards.

 

Harriet Harman once described women who stayed at home with the kids and didn't go out to work as 'a problem'.

[trousers]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/12/ten-things-that-went-badly-right-in-2013/

 

This was supposed to be the year of strife, strikes, misery and more. Instead, to the surprise of Britain’s politicians, things have instead gone badly right.

[OldNick]

Life must be very unpleasant if your first assumption is always that someone is sponging off you. About 3 million of those are aged 16-22 and in further or higher education and about another 1 million are long term sick or disabled with another c1m early retired. That leaves about 4m million - mostly parents raising kids and being supported by their partners - the bastards.

bloody hell that comes to 9m the problem is getting worse by the day.

[bridge too far]

bloody hell that comes to 9m the problem is getting worse by the day.

 

OldNick showing his age by not understanding that 8.92 million is ALMOST 9 million and failing to understand the meaning of the word 'about'.

[trousers]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/06/uk-manufacturing-forecast

 

Britain's manufacturers will enjoy faster growth than those in Germany or any other western European economy this year from rising demand at home and abroad, according to a report.

In its annual survey of companies, manufacturers' organisation EEF found 70% of firms forecast an improvement in the economy in 2014, while just 5% thought conditions would deteriorate. The balance of 65% compares with the sombre outlook at the same time last year when the reading was just 7%.

The balance expecting a good year for manufacturing is 52% – up from zero this time last year.

"Manufacturers are telling us they expect to make a greater contribution to growth, investment and jobs this year," said EEF's chief executive Terry Scuoler.

The EEF, along with the thinktank Oxford Economics, has forecast that the British manufacturing sector, which accounts for 10% of the economy, will grow 2.7% this year. That puts it ahead of all other western European countries in the thinktank's forecasts. German manufacturing is expected to pick up by 1.6% with France at just 0.7%, level with Spain and just of Greece at 0.4%.

[pap]

The cost of 100 failures of Cameron's government:-

 

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/12/the-cost-of-cameron-100-worst-failures.html?m=1

[Whitey Grandad]

The cost of 100 failures of Cameron's government:-

 

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/12/the-cost-of-cameron-100-worst-failures.html?m=1

 

You would need years of indoctrination and red-tinted glasses to describe these as 'failures'. A lot of them look like bloody good ideas to me.

[pap]

You would need years of indoctrination and red-tinted glasses to describe these as 'failures'. A lot of them look like bloody good ideas to me.

What, like riff-raff having to use food banks?

[Whitey Grandad]

What, like riff-raff having to use food banks?

 

Isn't it a good thing that food banks are accessible?

 

I can't be bothered to counter them all because many are completely fatuous but #98 seems like a good thing and how can you blame Cameron for #100?

#10 - Corporation Tax, every year has been higher than the last year of Labour.

#11 - 'High Earners Tax Cut by 10%' - Tut, Tut. A cut from 50% to 40% is a reduction of 20%, not 10%. This is a good thing resulting in increased revenue. Who put it up to 50%?

#13 - removal of the empty bedroom subsidy, and quite right too.

#16 - What's wrong with that? Saving money taken from hard-working citizens!

#30 - encouraging businesses to hire more people

 

Only 'failures' if you don't like the policies.

[badgerx16]

I

 

I can't be bothered to counter them all because many are completely fatuous ....

Only 'failures' if you don't like the policies.

 

What about #1, #2, and #5 ?

[trousers]

What, like riff-raff having to use food banks?

 

What's something that was instigated and proliferated under Labour got to do with Cameron...?

[badgerx16]

What's something that was instigated and proliferated under Labour got to do with Cameron...?

http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats

"The Trussell Trust has seen a 76 percent increase in the number of foodbanks launched since April 2012"

"346,992 people received a minimum of three days emergency food from Trussell Trust foodbanks in 2012-13, compared to 128,697 in 2011-12 and up from 26,000 in 2008-09. Of those helped in 2012-13, 126,889 (36.6 percent) were children."

"Only four per cent of people turned to foodbanks due to homelessness; 30% were referred due to benefit delay; 18% low income and 15% benefit changes (up from 11% in 2011-12)"

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/one-food-bank-opening-uk-every-four-days-012533480.html#xEaW7MH

In 2010 there were 79 food banks in the UK. Now there are over 200 - 199 of them run with the help of the Trussell Trust .

[Whitey Grandad]

What about #1, #2, and #5 ?

 

Those are purely subjective figure. Child poverty? Give me a break. A child in poverty these days is one who doesn't have their own bedroom, television, Xbox, mobile phone... Like many others, when I was young we had a toilet at the bottom of the garden.

 

We're not going to go through all of these are we? We really don't have the time...

[badgerx16]

Those are purely subjective figure. Child poverty? Give me a break. A child in poverty these days is one who doesn't have their own bedroom, television, Xbox, mobile phone... Like many others, when I was young we had a toilet at the bottom of the garden.

 

You need to take off your blinkers Whitey.

[trousers]

http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats

"The Trussell Trust has seen a 76 percent increase in the number of foodbanks launched since April 2012"

"346,992 people received a minimum of three days emergency food from Trussell Trust foodbanks in 2012-13, compared to 128,697 in 2011-12 and up from 26,000 in 2008-09. Of those helped in 2012-13, 126,889 (36.6 percent) were children."

"Only four per cent of people turned to foodbanks due to homelessness; 30% were referred due to benefit delay; 18% low income and 15% benefit changes (up from 11% in 2011-12)"

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/one-food-bank-opening-uk-every-four-days-012533480.html#xEaW7MH

In 2010 there were 79 food banks in the UK. Now there are over 200 - 199 of them run with the help of the Trussell Trust .

 

Why did we need foodbanks at all between 2000 and 2010? Surely one foodbank is one foodbank too many?

[Whitey Grandad]

You need to take off your blinkers Whitey.

 

Are you really, in all honesty, with a straight face, trying to say that children in the UK today are poor? If so, then you haven't been around enough.

[trousers]

Are you really, in all honesty, with a straight face, trying to say that children in the UK today are poor? If so, then you haven't been around enough.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100251750/2013-the-year-when-the-ugliest-political-emotion-pity-made-its-comeback/#disqus_thread

 

One of my abiding memories from childhood is of the time my dad told the local priest to sling his hook. A newbie in our parish in a rough-ish part of north-west London, the priest was knocking on the doors of the most churchgoing families and introducing himself. Standing imperiously in our living room, he asked my dad where he was from in Ireland. "Connemara", my dad replied. Whereupon the priest put on his best sad face and said: "Aah – from one rough part of the world to another, oh dear." My dad – a lifelong despiser of pity – told him to get out. "We don't need people like that feeling sorry for us", he told me and my brothers, "especially when there's nothing to be sorry for!" The priest was all enthusiastic smiles and handshakes when we arrived at Mass the following Sunday.

Maybe this is one of the reasons I have always hated pity. In my view, there's no uglier emotion in the pantheon of political feelings than pity, especially for "the poor", whom it treats as an agency-lacking blob that must be cooed over and cared for by better-informed sections of society. The high-handed manner in which that priest expressed his feelings of sorrow for us – even though we had a nice house, an actual minibus (you need one when you have a family of eight), a TV and so on – taught me at a very early age that pity is a most selfish emotion. It's not about helping the pitied but rather about making the pitier himself feel puffed up, through allowing him to make a big, public display of his ability to feel bad for the less well-off. As the old saying goes, "Friends help; others pity".

Sadly, pity made a massive comeback in 2013. Where in recent decades this nauseating, vicarious emotion was the preserve of priests and certain charities, this year it went mainstream, informing the vast bulk of the Left's and liberals' response to the recession and government cuts. A borderline Dickensian sensation of sorrow for "the poor" has crept into everyday commentary. Nowhere is this clearer than in the discussion of food banks. Hysterically, a new billboard advert produced by Church Action on Poverty declares "BRITAIN ISN'T EATING". "Thousands are going hungry because of benefit changes", it says, next to a picture of a long line of faceless victims – "the poor" – queuing up for grub, giving the completely baseless impression that poor folk in Britain are actually starving.

Others have gone even further in promoting the Victorian-like idea that the emaciated urchins of poor Britain are desperately scrabbling about for scraps of food. "STARVING BRITAIN", said one newspaper headline recently, making you wonder if modern journalists know what starvation even means. How insulting to genuinely malnourished nations in the poorest parts of the world to describe Britons, who only a few months ago were being branded obese, as "starving". Poor Brits are "hungrier than ever", said the Independent. Than ever? Really? Including when there was no welfare system at all and everyone lived on a tiny farm, precariously grew their own food, and died when they were 31? There are "Dickensian levels of poverty" in London said a charity bigwig recently. Someone should buy him one of Dickens' novels for Christmas. There is simply nothing in today's Britain that compares with the child-labouring, raggedy, diseased conditions in which poor people lived in Dickens' times. We are witnessing the rise of competitive pity, with the well-to-do trying to outdo each other in their expressions of shrill sadness for the down-at-heel.

Meanwhile, caring commentary in 2013 has been packed with concern for "the poor". What a terribly dehumanising, undiscriminating phrase that is, lumping together as destitute pretty much everyone who doesn't own a 3D TV, regardless of whether they are genuinely poor or just working class (which is not the same thing). It is more than 200 years since Edmund Burke chastised those who used the term "the poor" to "excite compassion", without distinguishing between the genuine poor – "the sick and infirm; orphan infants; languishing and decrepit age" – and the man who works for a living "by the sweat of his brow". Yet we've learned nothing. Indeed, today the definition of poverty is constantly being expanded in order to co-opt more and more people into it. Now when people talk about poverty, they mean relative poverty, which means earning less than 60% of the median income. Which means that, according to Oxfam, "nearly 13 million people live in poverty in the UK".

This is clearly nonsense. The definition of poverty is forever being stretched largely to keep the poverty industry – those who make a cushy living from fretting over the hardships of "the poor" – in business. To these people, "the poor" aren't individuals with different levels of income and different needs; they're just big fat fodder for fundraising.

Left-leaning observers also cranked up pity for "the poor" this year. The impeccably posh Polly Toynbee now seems to write about nothing other than "the poor". A couple of years ago she outdid all the other Dickens wannabes by saying the Tories were coming up with a "final solution" for "the poor". I think she was referring to the fact that the Tories are quite modestly trimming some welfare benefits, though you could have been forgiven for thinking they were planning to put "the poor" into death camps. Owen Jones refers to "the poor" as "victims of social problems" and "vulnerable groups", lamenting that there is "no sympathy for them".

 

He's doing his best to change that by ratcheting up pity for these vulnerable, battered objects at every opportunity he gets. Labour MP Tristram Hunt recently went into full-on pity mode, writing about the "cold gruel" and "soiled cages" that the workhouse poor of Victorian England were subjected to, before telling us "the approach of David Cameron and George Osborne… reeks of the 1800s".

Such pity is the opposite of solidarity. Where solidarity is about recognising that a group of people have it within their power to run or change their lives, pity presents "the poor" as merely vulnerable entities, "bullied" by the rich and hated by the Cabinet, sad, hungry, destitute, forlorn, incapable and in need of help. It dehumanises the less well-off, sticking every one of them in a file marked "The Poor". It nurtures a vast system of paternalism, from the sweeping welfare state to numerous charities and campaign groups, whose livelihoods depend on the propagation of the idea that less well-off Brits are starving and helpless.

Such paternalistic pity for the poor has a long history, of course. Leon Trotsky slammed the early 20th century Fabians and other "socially-minded philanthropic bourgeois [individuals] who feel pity for poor folk and make a 'religion of his conscience' out of this pity". But for the latter part of the 20th century, such pity was kept in check by the fact that the working classes and less well-off had a pretty lively presence on the public stage. Who could pity people who were going on strike, demanding higher wages, making nice lives for themselves?

 

Today, it is the decline of such independent working-class politics, the withering of the political working man, the moral collapse of the trade union movement, that has allowed pity to surge on the Left once more. The Left now views workers as "The Poor", as the objects of brutal capitalism rather than the subjects of history. It calls into question their capacity to feed and look after themselves, never mind control their destinies. The less well-off should march into 2014 behind this banner: "Friends help; the Left pities."

Edited 6 January, 2014 by trousers

[badgerx16]

Are you really, in all honesty, with a straight face, trying to say that children in the UK today are poor? If so, then you haven't been around enough.

 

Yes I am - based entirely on my wife's experience in teaching primary school children in Fleetwood. I'm sorry if that doesn't match up with your rose-tinted view, but it is the reality. They may not be 'poor' in the third world experience, nor possibly when compared to Dickensian pen portraits of Victorian rookeries, but in comparative terms there is a great deal of poverty in some parts of this 'Green and Pleasant Land'.

Edited 6 January, 2014 by badgerx16

[pap]

Are you really, in all honesty, with a straight face, trying to say that children in the UK today are poor? If so, then you haven't been around enough.

 

I do think kids are a lot poorer than those of my generation. I had my old dear around to look after me 24/7. We seem to have more and more dual income families now, something we bucked the trend on.

 

You make two mistakes here, if I may be so bold.

 

First, an iPhone/TV isn't a parent.

Second, they are nowhere near a widespread as you might imagine.

 

My friends who work for social services think they have it pretty hard done by.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes I am - based entirely on my wife's experience in teaching primary school children in Fleetwood. I'm sorry if that doesn't match up with your rose-tinted view, but it is the reality. They may not be 'poor' in the third world experience, nor possibly when compared to Dickensian pen portraits of Victorian rookeries, but in comparative terms there is a great deal of poverty in some parts of this 'Green and Pleasant Land'.

 

The important word here is 'comparative'. If you are going to use a definition of poverty which is based on a fraction of the median national income then by definition 'ye have the poor always with you'.

 

I do think kids are a lot poorer than those of my generation. I had my old dear around to look after me 24/7. We seem to have more and more dual income families now, something we bucked the trend on.

 

You make two mistakes here, if I may be so bold.

 

First, an iPhone/TV isn't a parent.

Second, they are nowhere near a widespread as you might imagine.

 

My friends who work for social services think they have it pretty hard done by.

 

Of course it isn't, I exaggerate for dramatic effect.

 

Your friends would say that, wouldn't they.

[badgerx16]

The important word here is 'comparative'. If you are going to use a definition of poverty which is based on a fraction of the median national income then by definition 'ye have the poor always with you'.

 

Define poverty by standard of nutrition, housing, and domestic welfare - it exists, even if some choose to sweep it under the carpet.

[pap]

Your friends would say that, wouldn't they.

Of course they would. They see all the worst cases.

[Whitey Grandad]

Define poverty by standard of nutrition, housing, and domestic welfare - it exists, even if some choose to sweep it under the carpet.

 

But that's not how it is defined by those making the most out of it. If you use your measure then you'll find that the problem is much smaller than it's made out to be.

[Whitey Grandad]

Of course they would. They see all the worst cases.

 

I blame the parents.

[pap]

I blame the parents.

 

If only it were that simple, Whitey G.

 

Many parents are babies themselves, kids have been put on pedestals and people have lost the art of raising kids collectively.

 

Even at my ripe young age, I could expect to catch some sh!te off my neighbours if I was misbehaving as a kid. 99% of the time, my mum would agree with them.

[buctootim]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/06/uk-manufacturing-forecast

 

The Guardian. Lefty nonsense, I wouldn't trust it

[badgerx16]

But that's not how it is defined by those making the most out of it. If you use your measure then you'll find that the problem is much smaller than it's made out to be.

 

The child poverty stat comes from the Office for National Statistics.

[buctootim]

"The most commonly used way to measure poverty is based on incomes. A person is considered poor if his or her income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level is usually called the "poverty line". What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values."

 

The World Bank

[badgerx16]

"The most commonly used way to measure poverty is based on incomes. A person is considered poor if his or her income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level is usually called the "poverty line". What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values."

 

The World Bank

 

Obviously another bunch of agenda driven 'lefties'.

[Whitey Grandad]

"The most commonly used way to measure poverty is based on incomes. A person is considered poor if his or her income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level is usually called the "poverty line". What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values."

 

The World Bank

 

That is not the measure used in the UK.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Pay Review??

 

havent had a pay review for years.

 

lucky to be even getting one tbh. Had the same base salary for 6 years

 

Not get me wrong here, but reading that I'm not the only person in this situation is kinda comforting somehow. Comforting in a 'misery loves company' kinda way you understand.

[badgerx16]

That is not the measure used in the UK.

It's part of it:

A child is considered to be in severe low income and material deprivation if they live in a family that has a final material deprivation score of 25 or more and an equivalised household income below 50 per cent of median income

 

Material deprivation questions for children ;

Outdoor space or facilities nearby to play safely

Enough bedrooms for every child of 10 or over of a different sex to have their own bedroom

Leisure equipment such as sports equipment or a bicycle

A family holiday away from home for at least one week a year

A hobby or leisure activity

Friends around for tea or a snack once a fortnight

In winter, able to keep accommodation warm enough

Replace any worn out furniture

Replace or repair major electrical goods such as a refrigerator or a washing machine, when broken

Go on school trips

Toddler group/nursery/playgroup at least once a week

Fresh fruit and vegetables eaten by children every day

Warm winter coat for each child

[Whitey Grandad]

It's part of it:

A child is considered to be in severe low income and material deprivation if they live in a family that has a final material deprivation score of 25 or more and an equivalised household income below 50 per cent of median income

 

Material deprivation questions for children ;

Outdoor space or facilities nearby to play safely

Enough bedrooms for every child of 10 or over of a different sex to have their own bedroom

Leisure equipment such as sports equipment or a bicycle

A family holiday away from home for at least one week a year

A hobby or leisure activity

Friends around for tea or a snack once a fortnight

In winter, able to keep accommodation warm enough

Replace any worn out furniture

Replace or repair major electrical goods such as a refrigerator or a washing machine, when broken

Go on school trips

Toddler group/nursery/playgroup at least once a week

Fresh fruit and vegetables eaten by children every day

Warm winter coat for each child

 

None of these affect the calculations in item #5. And some of the items in this list are laughable.

[badgerx16]

None of these affect the calculations in item #5. And some of the items in this list are laughable.

 

Item #5 relates to child poverty and cites the ONS document https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206778/full_hbai13.pdf,

appendix 2 of which is where the questions were copied from.

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10554855/British-car-market-records-best-year-for-sales-since-2007-says-SMMT.html

[trousers]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/jobs-market-boom-sustained-by-midlands-and-the-north-9047795.html?origin=internalSearch

 

The UK economy is creating jobs at its fastest pace in almost four years, according to a new survey, with the strongest growth seen in the Midlands and the North.

The latest report by the accountants KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation shows the number of people taking on permanent positions last month rose at its quickest rate since March 2010.

The steepest increase was registered in the Midlands and the North. Those regions were also responsible for the fastest recorded rise in temporary posts since 1998.

The brighter jobs picture for regions north of London was supported by the specialist recruitment consulting firm Robert Walters yesterday, which reported that one of the best-performing parts of its domestic business in the fourth quarter of 2013 was Manchester.

[ecuk268]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/jobs-market-boom-sustained-by-midlands-and-the-north-9047795.html?origin=internalSearch

 

Would be interesting to see a breakdown of these new jobs. How many were full-time or zero-hours contracts. How many were minimum wage?

 

The tabloid media seems to delight in demonizing people on benefits, implying that the unemployed are the main problem. In fact the spending on unemployment benefit in 2012 was roughly £5bn. Spending on work-related benefits (tax credits etc) was £43bn and pensions was £88bn.

 

The taxpayer is subsidising employers who pay low wages and for, the first time, the number of working families below the poverty line exceeds those not in work.

 

Osborne says that he wants to reduce benefit spending by £25bn but doesn't mention the similar amount lost to corporate tax avoidance and cosy HMRC deals with the big corporations. But that might affect donations to the Tory Party.