Supporting IDS and saying the cuts don't go far enough says loads about a person
The supposed cuts are ideological and not for finance and they serve to make poor people poorer and rich even richer
Foodbanks arose thanks to IDS and the libdems who enabled the tories to leech into power plus IDS lies loads
Sure, they're ideological. There's no law against ideology.
They're absolutely necessary, and if the dependency culture and work disincentive can be changed in the process, then it will have been an achievement. I very much doubt IDS will manage that, or that he will be in his position after the election no matter the outcome.
I think he's out of his depth, but the general approach is correct.
Supporting IDS and saying the cuts don't go far enough says loads about a person
The supposed cuts are ideological and not for finance and they serve to make poor people poorer and rich even richer
Foodbanks arose thanks to IDS and the libdems who enabled the tories to leech into power plus IDS lies loads
How on earth would that improve productivity? I'm not opposed to raising the min wage, but the plain fact is that there are jobs that would simply be uneconomic at £7.50.
What does the government use as the output measure for worker productivity?
If they are using a measure like goods and services sold or economic activity then more disposable income leads to more demand in the economy more sales and more economic activty and higher productivity due to the worker output going up.
When the economic downturn hit productivity fell. Was this due to a credit crunch a drop in demand and economic activity in the economy? Or did workers one day turn up to work and decide to be less productive?
Is our low productivity due in part to low demand in the economy due to low disposable income.
Food banks are the result of benefit changes, is obvious but they won't admit it, cutting benefits for poor far too much, it's hardly worth living for some these days. They want to do away with benefits altogether and just give for vouchers so you have no money left to enjoy yourself.
Sure, they're ideological. There's no law against ideology.
They're absolutely necessary, and if the dependency culture and work disincentive can be changed in the process, then it will have been an achievement. I very much doubt IDS will manage that, or that he will be in his position after the election no matter the outcome.
I think he's out of his depth, but the general approach is correct.
Yet more working people needing to claim benefits than out of work people, so were with knowing this does that does this fit in with the dependency culture fit, has IDS dealt with the main causes of people needing benefits, because i dont see he has, i see him attacking the people claiming benefits but not the people causing millions to need in work benefits
What does the government use as the output measure for worker productivity?
If they are using a measure like goods and services sold or economic activity then more disposable income leads to more demand in the economy more sales and more economic activty and higher productivity due to the worker output going up.
When the economic downturn hit productivity fell. Was this due to a credit crunch a drop in demand and economic activity in the economy? Or did workers one day turn up to work and decide to be less productive?
Is our low productivity due in part to low demand in the economy due to low disposable income.
Productivity has absolutely nothing to do with demand. It's why increased consumer spending in the UK merely widens our trade deficit as we import more goods.
A more coherent argument is that higher wages can lead to higher productivity because it motivates an employer to get more out of their staff, especially when there are tight regulations regarding hiring and firing. The downside of this is that it makes companies very reluctant to employ more people. You should talk to my Italian suppliers.
The irony is that if UK productivity improved, there would be more people unemployed. As it is, it's cheaper to employ another low wager than invest in making the existing workforce more efficient. The real goal is to achieve high output with a tight labour market at low unemployment - a very distant prospect in the current environment.
Sure, they're ideological. There's no law against ideology.
They're absolutely necessary, and if the dependency culture and work disincentive can be changed in the process, then it will have been an achievement. I very much doubt IDS will manage that, or that he will be in his position after the election no matter the outcome.
I think he's out of his depth, but the general approach is correct.
Cut welfare completely and more problems will arise. Rising crime for starters. Other services will have to take on more staff to deal with people needing more support. These services will need a bigger budget to deal with the extra workload. Cutting welfare won't make any difference to the long term economy. The same problems will still exist: low wages,high rent and high house prices.
Trevgo, I still fail to see how the majority of cuts that have been passed will help the debt when pensions and housing benefits inflate. Nor do I see how the link between cuts, debt reduction and incentive to work when in-work benefits are increasing due to stagnant/low wages. Getting a higher employment rate is always welcome in the long term but won't help the economy if they aren't paying tax and concurrently need government assistance. All you seem to propose is a race to the bottom for the already financially disadvantaged, demonstrated with a noticeably superior attitude displayed in your posts.
Massive increases in the welfare bill under the Conservatives and apparently that's fine and "necessary".
What more proof do you need that people who object to welfare only object to that aspect of it that improves a persons quality of life. They certainly have no problem with the financial cost.
It's equality they object too, there is a definite sense of pulling people down. It's deep and it's psychological and cannot be argued with.
The current ideology, and those who support it, a mirror image of the Old Labour extremism. A desire to keep people down and "controlled", only now it's coming from the Conservatives.
Productivity has absolutely nothing to do with demand. It's why increased consumer spending in the UK merely widens our trade deficit as we import more goods.
So can you tell me what the government uses as the worker output measure. Because it appears to be based on Gross Value Added, devided by the number of worker hours, and GVA is based off GDP. And GDP is very much dependent on spending in the economy which is dependent on demand in the economy which is dependent on disposable income.
GVA + taxes on products - subsidies on products = GDP
Worker productivity = GVA devided by worker hours.
Foodbanks arose thanks to IDS and the libdems who enabled the tories to leech into power plus IDS lies loads
Foodbanks, or their equivalent, have been around for centuries as churches, charities and other organisations have run soup kitchens and other ways to feed the hungry. It's only in the last few years that Labour have turned them into a political football.
Are Labour really going to ban people and businesses donating food through foodbanks? How on earth would that help anyone?
Foodbanks, or their equivalent, have been around for centuries as churches, charities and other organisations have run soup kitchens and other ways to feed the hungry. It's only in the last few years that Labour have turned them into a political football.
Are Labour really going to ban people and businesses donating food through foodbanks? How on earth would that help anyone?
Food banks and soup kitchens have never been the same thing soup kitchens were there many to feed the homeless living on the street, which does not included families as it is against the law for children to be homeless living on the street, food banks are for people to get food to take home to cook yourself.
Foodbanks, or their equivalent, have been around for centuries as churches, charities and other organisations have run soup kitchens and other ways to feed the hungry. It's only in the last few years that Labour have turned them into a political football.
Foodbanks are a political issue because of the sheer increase in numbers using them and the reasons why they are using them.
Trussel Trust data
Number of people using food banks in the UK.
Pre Recession
2007-8 13,849
During the Recession Q2 2008 - Q3 2009
2008-9 25,899
2009-10 40,898
After years of Coalition government.
GDP has remember recovered to pre Recession levels.
2013-14 913,138
Reasons for needing to use a food bank 2013-14
Benefit Delays 30.93%
Benefit Changes 16.97%
Low Income 20.9%
Foodbanks are a political issue because of the sheer increase in numbers using them and the reasons why they are using them.
Trussel Trust data
Number of people using food banks in the UK.
Pre Recession
2007-8 13,849
During the Recession Q2 2008 - Q3 2009
2008-9 25,899
2009-10 40,898
After years of Coalition government.
GDP has remember recovered to pre Recession levels.
2013-14 913,138
Reasons for needing to use a food bank 2013-14
Benefit Delays 30.93%
Benefit Changes 16.97%
Low Income 20.9%
interesting figures, but, how many food banks where there pre-recession? how many during the recession? and how many now?
Supporting IDS and saying the cuts don't go far enough says loads about a person
The supposed cuts are ideological and not for finance and they serve to make poor people poorer and rich even richer Foodbanks arose thanks to IDS and the libdems who enabled the tories to leech into power plus IDS lies loads
what???:o. you mean to say there were no food banks before IDS came into office? well, you learn something new everyday.
On Skint last week the couple had their benefits sanctioned so the fella went straight out on the rob to the supermarkets to make up for it. I've seen it loads of times you get the local ne'er do wells come in selling cheese, batteries, meat etc which you know has just been nicked from Tesco but it's a bargain.
If benefits get cut much more than this is going to be an epidemic, can't see the police responding as they're being cut, there are no jail places as they've been cut and no point taking out civil actions so the supermarkets and other businesses effected will just have to bear the brunt.
On Skint last week the couple had their benefits sanctioned so the fella went straight out on the rob to the supermarkets to make up for it. I've seen it loads of times you get the local ne'er do wells come in selling cheese, batteries, meat etc which you know has just been nicked from Tesco but it's a bargain.
If benefits get cut much more than this is going to be an epidemic, can't see the police responding as they're being cut, there are no jail places as they've been cut and no point taking out civil actions so the supermarkets and other businesses effected will just have to bear the brunt.
so they're not hungry then? wonder if they are nicking and selling it on the cheap for beer, **** or drugs money.
Comments
Succinct but unintelligible. What a surprise.
Sure, they're ideological. There's no law against ideology.
They're absolutely necessary, and if the dependency culture and work disincentive can be changed in the process, then it will have been an achievement. I very much doubt IDS will manage that, or that he will be in his position after the election no matter the outcome.
I think he's out of his depth, but the general approach is correct.
Indeed.
Those that support it are sick.
It's not even saving any money.
If they are using a measure like goods and services sold or economic activity then more disposable income leads to more demand in the economy more sales and more economic activty and higher productivity due to the worker output going up.
When the economic downturn hit productivity fell. Was this due to a credit crunch a drop in demand and economic activity in the economy? Or did workers one day turn up to work and decide to be less productive?
Is our low productivity due in part to low demand in the economy due to low disposable income.
Productivity has absolutely nothing to do with demand. It's why increased consumer spending in the UK merely widens our trade deficit as we import more goods.
A more coherent argument is that higher wages can lead to higher productivity because it motivates an employer to get more out of their staff, especially when there are tight regulations regarding hiring and firing. The downside of this is that it makes companies very reluctant to employ more people. You should talk to my Italian suppliers.
The irony is that if UK productivity improved, there would be more people unemployed. As it is, it's cheaper to employ another low wager than invest in making the existing workforce more efficient. The real goal is to achieve high output with a tight labour market at low unemployment - a very distant prospect in the current environment.
What more proof do you need that people who object to welfare only object to that aspect of it that improves a persons quality of life. They certainly have no problem with the financial cost.
It's equality they object too, there is a definite sense of pulling people down. It's deep and it's psychological and cannot be argued with.
The current ideology, and those who support it, a mirror image of the Old Labour extremism. A desire to keep people down and "controlled", only now it's coming from the Conservatives.
GVA + taxes on products - subsidies on products = GDP
Worker productivity = GVA devided by worker hours.
Foodbanks, or their equivalent, have been around for centuries as churches, charities and other organisations have run soup kitchens and other ways to feed the hungry. It's only in the last few years that Labour have turned them into a political football.
Are Labour really going to ban people and businesses donating food through foodbanks? How on earth would that help anyone?
Food banks and soup kitchens have never been the same thing soup kitchens were there many to feed the homeless living on the street, which does not included families as it is against the law for children to be homeless living on the street, food banks are for people to get food to take home to cook yourself.
Trussel Trust data
Number of people using food banks in the UK.
Pre Recession
2007-8 13,849
During the Recession Q2 2008 - Q3 2009
2008-9 25,899
2009-10 40,898
After years of Coalition government.
GDP has remember recovered to pre Recession levels.
2013-14 913,138
Reasons for needing to use a food bank 2013-14
Benefit Delays 30.93%
Benefit Changes 16.97%
Low Income 20.9%
interesting figures, but, how many food banks where there pre-recession? how many during the recession? and how many now?
what???:o. you mean to say there were no food banks before IDS came into office? well, you learn something new everyday.
There was no poverty, unemployment and hunger before IDS came into office and everyone had a fulfilling sex life. Can't you remember?
If benefits get cut much more than this is going to be an epidemic, can't see the police responding as they're being cut, there are no jail places as they've been cut and no point taking out civil actions so the supermarkets and other businesses effected will just have to bear the brunt.
so they're not hungry then? wonder if they are nicking and selling it on the cheap for beer, **** or drugs money.