BAE - well over 1,000 UK jobs going

[Sidney1st]

Why wasn't it a problem for Labour?
It was still there..

[Damo]

1400 jobs lost in the uk thanks to Labour, nobody bats an eyelid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -cuts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CombatClaret]

It's not just zero hour contracts, it's people who once would have a job and sallary now 'self employed part time' because companies have far less obligation to a person that way.

Of those X new jobs my mate has six just to himself to make a living including Deliveroo Rider, Landscape Gardener, Teaching Assistant, Tourist Attraction Attendant etc.

[aggi]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1002641 ... sit_plant/

You've linked to the wrong story

[Sidney1st]

I think its FedEx that have their drivers classed as self employed.

Hair salons do the same sometimes.

[Sidney1st]

Is that to story about ford closing its plants in the UK?

Upthebeehole has been educated about that one already.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Governments of all parties in recent years have done nothing about this. The steady flow of cheap labour into the UK (and from within the UK to be fair) have not incentivised companies to be productive. I firmly believe Brexit will help our productivity issue but only because it will force our governments and our people to stand on their own feet. Brexit isn’t the main issue here.

Companies need to invest, in capital and long term thinking, then the workers become more productive, GDP growth goes up and so does real wages.

[dsr]

It's not just zero hour contracts, it's people who once would have a job and sallary now 'self employed part time' because companies have far less obligation to a person that way.

Of those X new jobs my mate has six just to himself to make a living including Deliveroo Rider, Landscape Gardener, Teaching Assistant, Tourist Attraction Attendant etc.

There are a lot fewer people on bogus self-employed contracts than there used to be. It must be twenty years or so since they cracked down on "personal services" contracts. Any company paying what are in effect wages but claiming their staff are self-employed, are taking a big risk - if caught, they pay all the tax lost, all the NIC (employee's and employer's), and penalties.

[Rowls]

We're the only European economy that couples positive GDP growth with shrinking wages. So all those jobs are great because to earn a decent living for a family in this country you're going to need more than one of them.

What about? What about? What about?

Let's address your whataboutery:

Wages are not shrinking. They are growing.

Depending on which measure you use, wage growth was outstripped by inflation between 2009-2014 but growth outstripped inflation from 2014 until now. Inflation has picked up slightly and is currently pretty much level with inflation.

Go on, Rowls. If the economy is going great guns, and all these awesome new jobs are increasing tax revenue then explain why we can't afford to feed poor people any more.

I'm not aware of anyone starving in the UK. If you know differently then tell us. The poorest in society are actually the most likely to be fat, obese and clinically obese. The UK does not have a problem with affording to feed poor people.

This tickled me. In defending the Government Rowls most left wing examples (to prove it as universally accepted) reporting is The Spectator and the Telegraph.

I get the impression Rowls doesn't often move in circles that could tell you where the nearest food-bank is. Rowls doesn't just tow the tory line it wouldn't surprise my if he helped bloody draw it. This country is bombing to an abis through the total ineptitude of the Tory Party. They're too busy checking their own annals to run a bloody paper round. It is going to get worse, a lot worse. AND I VOTED BREXIT. This has nothing to do with Brexit, the common market or freedom of movement. This is purely to do with having a Government that is not fit for purpose.

This post is rather amusing elwa. For a number of reasons. But just to put you right - you get entirely the wrong impression of me. I know about the problems faced by poor people far better than most and have spent many, many years working in the sector and helping people.

The articles I linked are mainly factual. If you want to criticise them then go ahead but merely pointing out the name of the publications doesn't count as a criticism.

We're being told that we have record low unemployment which means we're supposed to have shy-high employment, yet apparently we can't afford the record low unemployment benefits no when we could afford it in the past when unemployment was higher and emplouyment was lower. So that means revenue per employee is shrinking, which implies wages are shrinking. Which will get worse when brexit-induced inflation really bites.
Therefore we can't afford to feed our poor people now like we could in the past because wages are shrinking.

To address only the bit I've bolded in the quote above: There is absolutely no need for you to make -incorrect- inferences on why tax revenues dropped. They dropped because the government cut income tax for the first £12,000 of earnings. This was a major expense that manifested in lower tax revenues.

But there is an even better upside - Increasing the tax threshold was THE most important factor in the UK creating those 3,000,000 jobs. It will deliver better tax returns in the long term but the short term success is that there are 3,000,000 jobs out there.

3,000,000 life opportunities.

3,000,000 chances for people to have meaning and dignity in life.

You'd do well to join them.

This isn't the kind of thing you'd normally post
A Britain which is semi-detached from Europe would not have the same growth and job creation potential we have seen in recent years – and this needs to be recognised when we get to a referendum on EU membership in 2016 or 2017.

The article was written by a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy. I disagree with his final prediction but the majority of the article isn't about predictions - it's about how the UK government created 3,000,000 jobs.

***********************

To finish off I find it remarkable that people who are anti-Conservative think they have some kind of platform to attack the government on when it comes to employment.

The government's record on employment since 2009 has been exemplary and an unmitigated success story.

The people who seek to attack the government's job creation and employment record must struggle to grasp reality. It is one area where the record is simply outstanding.

I can only conclude that the people attacking the government on this matter have some kind of derangement whereby inside their heads they imagine the government hasn't created 3,000,000 jobs and that unemployment isn't at record lows and the number of people in work isn't at an all-time record high.

It just bizarre and idiotic.

[Imploding Turtle]

What about? What about? What about?

Let's address your whataboutery:

Wages are not shrinking. They are growing.

Depending on which measure you use, wage growth was outstripped by inflation between 2009-2014 but growth outstripped inflation from 2014 until now. Inflation has picked up slightly and is currently pretty much level with inflation.

I guess the only place to begin with this butchering of the facts is with the start. Nothing about my post was whataboutism.

Depending on which measure you use? How about the office of national statistics? Wage growth august to august 2.1%, inflation 2.7%. That's wage shrinkage. Wages and inflation are not level.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... iness-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflatio ... on/aug2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

The Typhoon (eurofighter) has been a financial disaster and will continue to drain MOD resources for many years to come. Another failed European project, another project where the tax payer hasn't got value for his money. The cost of the Typhoon far outweighs what the USA has paid for their F-22 Raptor aircraft. The Raptor is a far more up to date and superior aircraft in every aspect.

[UpTheBeehole]

The Typhoon (eurofighter) has been a financial disaster and will continue to drain MOD resources for many years to come. Another failed European project, another project where the tax payer hasn't got value for his money. The cost of the Typhoon far outweighs what the USA has paid for their F-22 Raptor aircraft. The Raptor is a far more up to date and superior aircraft in every aspect.

You could argue that the taxpayer never receives value for money from spending billions on defence.

We don't get to have a go in a Typhoon, we can't have a cruise in an aircraft carrier, we don't get to go and play with a Trident nuclear missile.

We haven't had an invasion attempt in the majority of the population's lifetime, and the only wars we have been involved in are when we are the aggressors.

We could strip the defence budget to a fifth of what it is and still not have to worry about getting involved in a war. We could spend those billions on something actually useful to the general populace.

[ElectroClaret]

Confirmed...(BBC). Almost 2,000 posts to go in military, maritime and intelligence.

750 at Warton and Salmesbury where parts of the Typhoon are made.

[aggi]

Depending on which measure you use, wage growth was outstripped by inflation between 2009-2014 but growth outstripped inflation from 2014 until now. Inflation has picked up slightly and is currently pretty much level with inflation.

I'm not aware of anyone starving in the UK. If you know differently then tell us.

Didn't we cover this last week? It's somewhat more complex than that, the main driver of the poor getting richer is that older people's pensions are increasing. Non-retired households still aren't onto the same levels as they were previously.

As for people starving in the UK, I guess you may be a little detached given that you don't live in the UK. There's a park not far from my flat where upwards of 50 people are sleeping rough each night, there's a shop around the corner from my office which has a covered front where half a dozen people were sleeping, the bin rooms of the estate next door have people sleeping in them, All Soul's Church (next door to the BBC) has people sleeping in the porch each night.

These people may not all be starving, although many are, but even if they're not they've given up basic amenities such as a roof over their head to feed themselves.

[blackburnturfite]

And how many workers at BAE Systems,as sad as it is in the good days, when work was at it's best, when the Building Trade has been in recession,have knocked the price down to the bare minimum, and walked away smiling at their achievement, or used Foreign workers for a cheaper quote. and it isn't very pleasant to have a cloud like this hanging over you, i know from past experience, and do hope there is light at the end of the tunnel, HONEST.

[Rowls]

Didn't we cover this last week? It's somewhat more complex than that, the main driver of the poor getting richer is that older people's pensions are increasing. Non-retired households still aren't onto the same levels as they were previously.

As for people starving in the UK, I guess you may be a little detached given that you don't live in the UK. There's a park not far from my flat where upwards of 50 people are sleeping rough each night, there's a shop around the corner from my office which has a covered front where half a dozen people were sleeping, the bin rooms of the estate next door have people sleeping in them, All Soul's Church (next door to the BBC) has people sleeping in the porch each night.

These people may not all be starving, although many are, but even if they're not they've given up basic amenities such as a roof over their head to feed themselves.

No we didn't cover it last week.

But the main driver of lower income working households getting richer is paying less tax and working more. This is separate to pensioner households. In fact lower income workers were they only demographic who did not lose out during the recession - their income grew whilst others fell.

Homelessness as you've described it is a separate issue to unemployment. The main factor here is drug and alcohol misuse and abuse. I know this because I've worked in the sector. You appear not to have this kind of knowledge so I'll take your comments about "detachment" with a massive pinch of salt.

[Sidney1st]

Some homeless people eventually get so used to living outside on the streets they prefer it.

[JohnMcGreal]

Some homeless people eventually get so used to living outside on the streets they prefer it.

Are you being serious here?

[Imploding Turtle]

Are you being serious here?

I think it's a funny joke.

[ClaretEngineer]

Are you being serious here?

He's going to come in for some flack now.

I mean he didn't even link a Guardian article. Major faux pas my friend.

[aggi]

No we didn't cover it last week.

But the main driver of lower income working households getting richer is paying less tax and working more. This is separate to pensioner households. In fact lower income workers were they only demographic who did not lose out during the recession - their income grew whilst others fell.

Homelessness as you've described it is a separate issue to unemployment. The main factor here is drug and alcohol misuse and abuse. I know this because I've worked in the sector. You appear not to have this kind of knowledge so I'll take your comments about "detachment" with a massive pinch of salt.

Here we go, I quoted you and everything http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ns#p527899" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For the source https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ending2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The economic downturn had a larger effect on non-retired households, with median income in 2015/16 still 1.2% lower than pre-downturn levels in 2007/08 while the income for retired households grew by 13.0% over the same period.

As for homelessness, your experiences don't appear to tie in with the statistics https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... rms-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/236823/ ... d_2017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The government’s welfare policies have emerged as the biggest single trigger for homelessness now the economy has recovered, the study says, and they look likely to increase pressure on vulnerable households for at least the next two years.

[gandhisflipflop]

It's all trumps fault.

[UpTheBeehole]

750 going at Salmesbury and Warton
400 at Brough
245 at Marham and Leeming
340 in Portsmouth
180 in London

[Rowls]

aggi

Nothing you have quoted in either of those examples counters what I have said.

You are conflating sleeping rough with the official definitions of "homelessness". Which demonstrates your lack of experience in the matter and explains your error.

[Imploding Turtle]

Uh-oh. This thread upsets my preferred narrative. I must bring up Trump to deflect discussion.

[Sidney1st]

Are you being serious here?

Yup.
There's a couple in Didcot who sleep in the same shop doorway every night, they've done it for years.
They've been rehomed a couple of times but always end up sleeping back in the same doorway.
They struggle so much to adjust back to what we'd consider a normal life that they give up and return to the streets, they're used to it and prefer it in some ways.

I don't need to link an article or some other report, try talking to people instead, you'll find it's much more informative.

[Sidney1st]

750 going at Salmesbury and Warton
400 at Brough
245 at Marham and Leeming
340 in Portsmouth
180 in London

They'll do it again in a few years, it's a regular enough occurrence I wouldn't panic about it.

[UpTheBeehole]

Sidney's classic single-point-of-reference argument coming back for a rewind!

[Imploding Turtle]

Yup.
There's a couple in Didcot who sleep in the same shop doorway every night, they've done it for years.
They've been rehomed a couple of times but always end up sleeping back in the same doorway.
They struggle so much to adjust back to what we'd consider a normal life that they give up and return to the streets, they're used to it and prefer it in some ways.

I don't need to link an article or some other report, try talking to people instead, you'll find it's much more informative.

So what point are you trying to make? That some homeless people want to be homeless so lets not do anything to help them. Or is your point something else? What is it?

[aggi]

aggi

Nothing you have quoted in either of those examples counters what I have said.

You are conflating sleeping rough with the official definitions of "homelessness". Which demonstrates your lack of experience in the matter and explains your error.

OK, fair enough, I'm aware that there is a difference. Welfare cuts are driving homelessness and homelessness is increasing, is that an indicator that more people than ever are employed with a living wage and tax revenues are up (where this conversation started). If so, why is this happening?

And on the first point which you've conveniently ignored?

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm going to head on over to the Mental Health Day thread and tell people who cut themselves even after trying to stop that we no longer want to help them because obviously it's what they want. Because that's the country we are now. I'm not really

[Rowls]

OK, fair enough, I'm aware that there is a difference. Welfare cuts are driving homelessness and homelessness is increasing, is that an indicator that more people than ever are employed with a living wage and tax revenues are up (where this conversation started). If so, why is this happening?

The report you quoted is so humdrum it's almost untrue. It says that new benefit rules have made referrals to prevent homelessness have gone up. You'd expect this whenever they change the rules - it takes time for people to adapt. More families are being re-housed to prevent homelessness but whenever that happens they are recorded by Crisis (the compilers of the report) as being "homeless".

You could easily say that the report highlights the referral system working very effectively, even if that might sound insensitive. It's never a desirable system but no new system will be 100% seamless.

Other than that is shows the homeless rate remaining very steady.

And on the first point which you've conveniently ignored?

I explained this already. You have provided nothing to counter what I said. We both agree with the bit about pension households also experiencing small increases.

I said that low income working households experienced small increases in income during the recession.

You haven't challenged that, less still provided anything to argue the point.

[Rowls]

I'm going to head on over to the Mental Health Day thread and tell people who cut themselves even after trying to stop that we no longer want to help them because obviously it's what they want. Because that's the country we are now. I'm not really

If you ever worked with homeless people and realised how difficult it is to house somebody long-term homeless. And then had them basically move out of the house and live on the streets again -of their own volition- you'd realise how dispiriting and pointless it is.

And there is always a family or somebody else who that house could have been allocated to.

And all the work, time and effort you expended (which is paid by taxpayer) is completely wasted.

And you do it again.

And again.

And again.

These kind of cases are completely dispiriting and exhausting.

Nobody is going to stop trying to help these people but there comes a point in life when people have to want to help themselves too.

I'm not sure you appreciate that.

[Imploding Turtle]

If you ever worked with homeless people and realised how difficult it is to house somebody long-term homeless. And then had them basically move out of the house and live on the streets again -of their own volition- you'd realise how dispiriting and pointless it is.

And there is always a family or somebody else who that house could have been allocated to.

And all the work, time and effort you expended (which is paid by taxpayer) is completely wasted.

And you do it again.

And again.

And again.

These kind of cases are completely dispiriting and exhausting.

Nobody is going to stop trying to help these people but there comes a point in life when people have to want to help themselves too.

I'm not sure you appreciate that.

If you ever worked with drug addicts and realised how difficult it is to help a drug addict keep themselves clean. And then had them basically relapse inso drug abuse again -of their own volition- you'd realise how dispiriting and pointless it is.

My point? Just because some addicts relapse doesn't mean you give up on all of them.

[Rowls]

If you ever worked with drug addicts and realised how difficult it is to help a drug addict keep themselves clean. And then had them basically relapse inso drug abuse again -of their own volition- you'd realise how dispiriting and pointless it is.

My point? Just because some addicts relapse doesn't mean you give up on all of them.

You've misunderstood.

A relapsed drug addict isn't taking up a clean house that somebody else could have used.

Sobriety is not a limited resource. Housing is.

[Imploding Turtle]

You've misunderstood.

A relapsed drug addict isn't taking up a clean house that somebody else could have used.

Sobriety is not a limited resource. Housing is.

Sure. Because relapsing addicts take up no limited resourses whatsoever. Isn't that right?

[Rowls]

Sure. Because relapsing addicts take up no limited resourses whatsoever. Isn't that right?

OK be deliberately obtuse then.

[Imploding Turtle]

OK be deliberately obtuse then.

No need to get upset because you forgot that time, effort and money spent on helping addicts get clean before they relapse are limited resources.

Why can't you treat homeless people who are housed but then end up homeless again as just people who have relapsed? It doesn't necessarily mean they want to be homeless any mroe than a relapsed addict wants to fall off the wagon.

But yeah. Just say i'm being deliberately obtuse. That'll help the conversation.

[Sidney1st]

Sidney's classic single-point-of-reference argument coming back for a rewind!

Which part of the discussion are you referring too?

You get upset when I've used multiple references in the past to wipe the floor with you.

[Sidney1st]

So what point are you trying to make? That some homeless people want to be homeless so lets not do anything to help them. Or is your point something else? What is it?

I merely pointed out that some people prefer to live on the streets, not my fault some of you don't believe it or understand it.

[marvbfc]

They wouldnt give me a job when I applied. FCK em.

As if any more proof was required that Saxo is a bellend.

[UpTheBeehole]

Which part of the discussion are you referring too?

You get upset when I've used multiple references in the past to wipe the floor with you.

Your single point of reference of the Didcot door-sleeper. You then apply this as a broad stroke, just as you do with the NHS because you ended up being treated privately, and countless other examples.

You've never wiped the floor with me, and you never will.

[ClaretEngineer]

As if any more proof was required that Saxo is a bellend.

Seems the Equal Opportunities Act doesn't stretch quite far enough to cover the condition known as ''bellendery.''

[marvbfc]

To be fair CE - BAe aren't the only people who won't employ him.

[Imploding Turtle]

I merely pointed out that some people prefer to live on the streets, not my fault some of you don't believe it or understand it.

What's your point though? I understand what you're saying i'm just trying to understand why you chose to say it in the context of the conversation.

If you want people to understand your point then don't be such a **** to people who are simply asking you to explain what it is.

[Rowls]

If you want people to understand your point then don't be such a **** to people who are simply asking you to explain what it is.

Irony overload.

[Sidney1st]

Your single point of reference of the Didcot door-sleeper. You then apply this as a broad stroke, just as you do with the NHS because you ended up being treated privately, and countless other examples.

You've never wiped the floor with me, and you never will.

Demolished you with the car industry a little while ago when you were complaining about something you clearly knew little about.
A factory closing I think it was or Land Rovers investment in a new factory in eastern Europe and I pointed out with several examples​ that it's quite common for car manufacturers to close UK plants and move abroad.

NHS - plenty of info out there that they've been farming our work to private hospitals , I use my own example and those of people I know because it's fact, you don't like it, not my issue.

Homelessness - Rowls has also stated some people can't readjust to what we'd call a normal life, so I'm not alone in my opinion and from the looks of it Rowls has more knowledge than I do about it.

Have we covered everything?
You're the one who can't deal with either single or multiple points of examples during a discussion​, that's been proven on several occasions.
Even with this thread about BAE I've proven they've done the same thing for decades, but you've not mentioned that part, guessing it doesn't suit an agenda you may have.

Have a good day, I think we are done now.

[Imploding Turtle]

Irony overload.

Find one example of when i've been a **** to someone who simply asked me to explain my point.

[Sidney1st]

What's your point though? I understand what you're saying i'm just trying to understand why you chose to say it in the context of the conversation.

If you want people to understand your point then don't be such a **** to people who are simply asking you to explain what it is.

The discussion was then talking about people being homeless, can't feed the poor etc.

Some people like to live on the street, so there will always be a degree of homelessness.

That's all I was saying, take some time to digest that info.

As for how I treat people, look in the mirror before pointing the finger at anyone else, you're one of the worst on here for attempting to degrade people or figuratively shouting over them to dismiss their opinion.

[aggi]

I explained this already. You have provided nothing to counter what I said. We both agree with the bit about pension households also experiencing small increases.

I said that low income working households experienced small increases in income during the recession.

You haven't challenged that, less still provided anything to argue the point.

Well you said Wages are not shrinking. They are growing

You also suggested that many more people were in employment (which I'd agree with) and these were not low value jobs

I said:

The economic downturn had a larger effect on non-retired households, with median income in 2015/16 still 1.2% lower than pre-downturn levels in 2007/08 with reference to the ONS

These things can't all be true