UK jobs market recovery 'to stall'

[User removed 4]

Confirmed, Robinson is a raging Tory.

This should not be allowed. Political reporters should be neutral.

didnt hear you complaining about andrew marr, who didnt appear anywhere near as impartial as nick robinson.

 

[magicman555]

hello bushy....that you....its wallis here

 

[User removed 4]

hello bushy....that you....its wallis here

hello mate , hows life in hh? hows the burell coping with being decorated ?

 

[magicman555]

hello mate , hows life in hh? hows the burell coping with being decorated ?

not too bad mate.have u not seen it yet? its better than before. do lots of food in there now too till quite late too. ul have to come and see it for yourself. haha

 

[simmo]

I think you need to go back and read all the posts again!!!! You will see that little Simmo seems to think that the National Debt is all down to Labour, ie that there was no national debt when labour took office in 1997. He then backtracks and starts going on about how the debt has risen based on Titanics misquoted figure from £830m to £1.5t. Both figures are wrong, the former of which Titanic corrected.

So I see no reason to step back from calling Simmo ignorant. His posts seem to be knee jerk reactions to other posts with no foundation, knowledge or research!

So my big mistake in my earlier threads was saying that the debt was £165Bn rather than saying the defecit (at around election time) was £165Bn, wow, big deal!

I also quoted Titanic's figures (about the national debt when maybe I shouldn't have) but looking at Titanics figures it would seem to have gone up from £830Bn to £1.45TN i.e around a 40% in the last 13 years.

But still you try and pick up on this to basically hide the fact of what the thrust of my argument is that Labour's running of the economy has been abysmal over the last few years. I tell you what I will throw a few other things about Labour's running of the economy that the non Labour voters of the general public are not happy with, how about the raiding of private pension schemes by Gordon Brown and the selling of Britain's gold at it's lowest levels, but still eh we have free access to museums and fox hunting has been banned so it was well worth it!

You should also know, naive Drew that 99% of us in the private sector do not work in banks and have had two years of businesses failing (my Dad's), redundancies (my brothers), pay freezes (myself) and overall standards of livings falling. While the public sector seem to have been shielded from this due to the fact that Labour continued to pour money into them but they weren't geting enough revenues from the individual income tax payers and the private sector business taxes (yes the evil private sector) to pay for this and this has now led us to having a defecit of £165Bn (and an overall national debt of £1.45TN) which the Tories now have to fill (that makes a change!).

 

[ROSM]

Whilst worrying about pensions raids (a v v bad thing) and selling off gold , where do we stand on the selling of the family silver by the conservative governments? In some cases they sold what they didn't even own (Trustee Savings Bank for example).

I personally dont mind Nick Robinson, Tory or otherwise. The BBC usually rotate their lead polictical commentators and Marr was a Left so he was followed by Robinson. I think they both do a good job. ITV nearly dropped a clanger though when they tried out Daisy Mcandrew (a Lib dem), they soon trudged her off to 'Business'.

 

[Simster]

This kerfuffle over Marr and Robinson - both excellent political journos, whatever their persuasions. Surely only this "Helter" simpleton has a problem with either of them. And presumably the similarly tediously myopic (but not as aggressive) "simonsimon".

 

[simmo]

Whilst worrying about pensions raids (a v v bad thing) and selling off gold , where do we stand on the selling of the family silver by the conservative governments? In some cases they sold what they didn't even own (Trustee Savings Bank for example).

Pray tell what family silver is that?

Could it be the poorly run, union dominated, nationalised industries that had a monopoly over any choice of service that an individual required, that more often than not ran at massive losses that the tax payer ultimately had to fund and that the individual basically had zero ownership of nor say about how it operated (eventhough after privitisation if you wanted to buy shares and thereby own a portion of it in that company you could). Also another good side effect after privitisation was that this allowed others to compete in any market (e.g gas you don't have to go to British Gas now there are other choices which may be better for you) and allowed competition into any industry.

I agree some did not go well, e.g Railways, but overall the premise of extra competition in any industry surely has to be a good thing for us as individuals, as it gives us choice. When everything is nationalised you have no choice you must go to the state supplier and they can offer you the sh1t1est service they want and you have no oppurtunity to go anywhere else.

 

[ROSM]

Pray tell what family silver is that?

Could it be the poorly run, union dominated, nationalised industries that had a monopoly over any choice of service that an individual required, that more often than not ran at massive losses that the tax payer ultimately had to fund and that the individual basically had zero ownership of nor say about how it operated (eventhough after privitisation if you wanted to buy shares and thereby own a portion of it in that company you could). Also another good side effect after privitisation was that this allowed others to compete in any market (e.g gas you don't have to go to British Gas now there are other choices which may be better for you) and allowed competition into any industry.

I agree some did not go well, e.g Railways, but overall the premise of extra competition in any industry surely has to be a good thing for us as individuals, as it gives us choice. When everything is nationalised you have no choice you must go to the state supplier and they can offer you the sh1t1est service they want and you have no oppurtunity to go anywhere else.

I admire the way you passionately argue (albeit on occasions with erroneous figures) for your ideologies.

The gas and electricity companies were not poorly run, union dominated companies. What privatisation hasn't achieved is real competition or a better user experience in those markets. The split between energy generation, networks/distribution and customer markets has actually caused inefficiencies which are passed on to the customer. The OFGEM DPCR process is a poorly aimed rabbit punch which is trying to bring together monoliths. Therefore as a rule old gas companies are usually cheaper for electricity and old electricity companies are usually cheaper for gas. The next benefit/difference amongst them on a combined tariff is marginal.

The number of end user successful privatisations can be counted on the fingers of one hand;

- british airways
- BT
- Steel
- water (and this is a stretch)

The privatisation programme as planned by Keith Joseph was an ideological driven approach to bring in cash given back to a percentage of the population rather than one to improve the position for the wider populous.

Privatisation doesn't in itself bring competition. It doesn't even support it. Only deregulation actually does that and then monopolies (now in the hands of shareholders) can undertake activity that damages competition. Just look at the bus networks.

 

[Stoo82]

Confirmed, Robinson is a raging Tory.

This should not be allowed. Political reporters should be neutral.

Thats funny. Becuase if you read his blog from last year. Everyone thinks hes Labour.

Funny init.

 

[drew]

Pray tell what family silver is that?

Could it be the poorly run, union dominated, nationalised industries that had a monopoly over any choice of service that an individual required, that more often than not ran at massive losses that the tax payer ultimately had to fund and that the individual basically had zero ownership of nor say about how it operated (eventhough after privitisation if you wanted to buy shares and thereby own a portion of it in that company you could). Also another good side effect after privitisation was that this allowed others to compete in any market (e.g gas you don't have to go to British Gas now there are other choices which may be better for you) and allowed competition into any industry.

I agree some did not go well, e.g Railways, but overall the premise of extra competition in any industry surely has to be a good thing for us as individuals, as it gives us choice. When everything is nationalised you have no choice you must go to the state supplier and they can offer you the sh1t1est service they want and you have no oppurtunity to go anywhere else.

Competition is good is it? In the energy supply, has competition kept the prices down? In the water industry, where is the competition?

How has competition helped Royal Mail? Royal Mail has to provide daily doorstep deliveries yet the couriers and other service providers can cherry pick. If there was true competition you would lose the daily doorstep delivery.

As for the whole privatisation, the industries were poorly run but the scheme only worked because we, the British taxpayer, wrote off massive debts. I also don't remember many strikes in the water industry or even the energy providers.

The railways was a disaster but you just seem to dismiss this as a bit unfortunate. It's ludicrous that it is cheaper to fly to some parts of this country rather than go by rail.

 

[simmo]

I admire the way you passionately argue (albeit on occasions with erroneous figures) for your ideologies.

The gas and electricity companies were not poorly run, union dominated companies. What privatisation hasn't achieved is real competition or a better user experience in those markets. The split between energy generation, networks/distribution and customer markets has actually caused inefficiencies which are passed on to the customer. The OFGEM DPCR process is a poorly aimed rabbit punch which is trying to bring together monoliths. Therefore as a rule old gas companies are usually cheaper for electricity and old electricity companies are usually cheaper for gas. The next benefit/difference amongst them on a combined tariff is marginal.

The number of end user successful privatisations can be counted on the fingers of one hand;

- british airways
- BT
- Steel
- water (and this is a stretch)

The privatisation programme as planned by Keith Joseph was an ideological driven approach to bring in cash given back to a percentage of the population rather than one to improve the position for the wider populous.

Privatisation doesn't in itself bring competition. It doesn't even support it. Only deregulation actually does that and then monopolies (now in the hands of shareholders) can undertake activity that damages competition. Just look at the bus networks.

Thankyou for your generous comments I take that as a compliment, but in your earlier thread you were stating about family silver (as if they were some sort of asset) but state run British monopolies that were sold off in the 80's were anything but family silver, on the whole they were poorly managed, union dominated huge loss making organistations.

It is purely your opinion as to whether it has brought real competition, I know I could change my supplier of gas/electricity/phone service at the drop of a hat.

You don't think it is better for an individual to have a choice of say 6/7 companies vieing for their business rather than one whom has runs a monopoly. You may argue about the price of your gas bill now etc. but if British Gas had a monopoly over all our supply they could charge triple/quadruple/10 times/100 times what anyone else does and we as users would have no choice but to use them.

And also what is wrong with these companies actually trying to operate as a proper business i.e try to balance the books as they would do under privitation rather than run as a loss making organisation that will always be bailed out by the tax payer?

At the end of the day is it better for the customer to have a choice of more than one supplier to go to? Yes or No? In any industry?

 

[simmo]

Competition is good is it? In the energy supply, has competition kept the prices down? In the water industry, where is the competition?

How has competition helped Royal Mail? Royal Mail has to provide daily doorstep deliveries yet the couriers and other service providers can cherry pick. If there was true competition you would lose the daily doorstep delivery.

As for the whole privatisation, the industries were poorly run but the scheme only worked because we, the British taxpayer, wrote off massive debts. I also don't remember many strikes in the water industry or even the energy providers.

The railways was a disaster but you just seem to dismiss this as a bit unfortunate. It's ludicrous that it is cheaper to fly to some parts of this country rather than go by rail.

If I am not happy with the service Royal Mail provides I can use TNT/DHL/UPS. I as an individual (or as a company) am not bound to use their sh1tty service if they run a monopoly. I am led to beleive this has happened recently as the Post Office has lost it's Amazon(?) contract to DHL I think becuase they went on that stupid strike around Xmas time and that pushed Amazon to look elsewhere, talk about turkeys voting for Xmas.

British Gas if it was a monopoly could charge me £15,0000 a year for my Gas if there was no competition and I could do sweet FA about it, but because there is EDF, Scottish Gas, South Eastern Gas, Southern Gas, etc. etc. I can choose to use them and as a result they (and British Gas becuase it is not a monopoly) have to offer viable figures in respect to their competitors.

I remember strikes in British Steel/British Leyland (Rover)/British Rail though.

 

[Simster]

British Gas if it was a monopoloy could charge me £15,0000 a year for my Gas if there was no competition and I could do sweet FA about it, but because there is EDF, Scottish Gas, South Eastern Gas, Southern Gas, etc. etc. I can choose to use them and as a result they (and British Gas becuase it is not a monopoly) have to offer viable figures in respect to their competitors.

This is nonsense. State owned BG didn't charge 15k a year, and had the added benefit of being owned by all of us. i.e. Any profits were ploughed back into the service, not into the pockets of share holders.

 

[Billy the Fish]

The ideal scenario would be for the state to be capable of running a profitable business. That way prices could be kept lower and the main focus could be to keep prices low the consumer.

Unfortunately that has proved to be impossible as you just end up with giant monolith companys unable to adapt quickly to market forces and unable to keep it's workforce under control because of union power. I work with alot of ex BT employees and their stories from the 70s and 80s are unbeliveable by todays standards. No wonder some of them still don't want to do any work.

What we've ended up with has gone too far in the wrong direction though. Everyone's main priority is the shareholder, and in turn profit. The utilities are basically running a cartel and the railways have us over a barrel - they can put prices up way over inflation every year and we can't do anything about it. Also most of these companies are foreign owned which i have a problem with.

i'd like to see something more like the way social housing is being run

 

[ROSM]

Thankyou for your generous comments I take that as a compliment, but in your earlier thread you were stating about family silver (as if they were some sort of asset) but state run British monopolies that were sold off in the 80's were anything but family silver, on the whole they were poorly managed, union dominated huge loss making organistations.

It is purely your opinion as to whether it has brought real competition, I know I could change my supplier of gas/electricity/phone service at the drop of a hat.

You don't think it is better for an individual to have a choice of say 6/7 companies vieing for their business rather than one whom has runs a monopoly. You may argue about the price of your gas bill now etc. but if British Gas had a monopoly over all our supply they could charge triple/quadruple/10 times/100 times what anyone else does and we as users would have no choice but to use them.

And also what is wrong with these companies actually trying to operate as a proper business i.e try to balance the books as they would do under privitation rather than run as a loss making organisation that will always be bailed out by the tax payer?

At the end of the day is it better for the customer to have a choice of more than one supplier to go to? Yes or No? In any industry?

The term 'family silver' was coined by Harold Macmillan when asked his view of Thatcher Government privatisation.

You can keep repeating your phrase about poor run and union dominated til you're blue in the face (as well as rosette) but as I've already given my view that was not the case in all the circumstances. BA are having more issues with Union's now than they ever did as a nationalised company.

You've also ignored my point that privatisation didn't increase competition. It is possible to have competition in a market where a nationalised company is a player. In the same way it is possible to have a monopoly of a privatised company.

Only when we get some understanding from you on this can we ever get to a reasoned debate about whether privatisation has been a good thing and if so, for whom?

 

[simmo]

This is nonsense. State owned BG didn't charge 15k a year, and had the added benefit of being owned by all of us. i.e. Any profits were ploughed back into the service, not into the pockets of share holders.

I am not saying they did charge £15K a year, what I am saying is if they had a monopoly they would be able to do this and we have no choice to go anywhere else.

However what they more often than not did do, was offer an appaling service BT for e.g. when they had a monopoly in respect of phones were dreadful. There is no incentive on any state run provider that has a monopoly to offer you any decent level of service nor value for money because there are no market forces affecting it (i.e they can offer a level of service and charge as they please) because we as individuals have no choice to go elsewhere.

 

[glasfryn]

BBC News - UK jobs market recovery this is happening due to the economic policy of our present government. Said policy is unwise, and will harm those in society least equipped to suffer further harm, all while failing to achieve the policy's stated aims. The continuing victory of short-sightedness and alarmism in our political process is to be lamented.

Labours economic policy for recovery was working. Gordon Brown practically BEGGED Cameron not to take £6million odd out of the economy and now we are seeing why. Double dip here we come. The number of unemployed 18-24-year-olds is already ...nearly one million. Thinking of sitting in education to avoid all this mess? Forget about it, all the 'safe' courses are well over subscribed and the number of university places has been reduced by 10,000.

The Government have also scrapped recruitment subsidies for firms who are willing to take on anyone who has been out of work for six months or more as well as the youth guarantee, which promises work, training or an internship to 18-24-year-olds struggling to get a job. I would not want to be graduating now. The Tories and the 'Liberal' Democrates have essentially destroyed the hopes of an entire generation of young people... just as Margaret Thatcher did in the 80s.

Cutting jobs, cutting help for the unemployed. David Cameron, take a bow.. and enjoy the applause of everyone who was quite frankly THICK enough to vote for you.

RANT OVER.

Yes I agree with you .........................but what else did you expect?

 

[Simster]

I am not saying they did charge £15K a year, what I am saying is if they had a monopoly they would be able to do this and we have no choice to go anywhere else.

However what they more often than not did do, was offer an appaling service BT for e.g. when they had a monopoly in respect of phones were dreadful. There is no incentive on any state run provider that has a monopoly to offer you any decent level of service nor value for money because there are no market forces affecting it (i.e they can offer a level of service and charge as they please) because we as individuals have no choice to go elsewhere.

Yes, I understand the benefits of competition. I really am right with you there. But it is my belief that this cannot really work with public utilities.

You don't lay five sets of gas pipes under the roads. So who owns them? One of the utility firms presumably. Do you actually know? But the point is, this is a sort of contrived competitions isn't it. You simply cannot have multiple firms growing organically to provide proper competition.

And ultimately, these public utilities are now answerable to private share holders, not 80 year old Doris who has had to wait two weeks in December for some heating because her local utility company paid out dividends instead of upgrading the gas piping in her area which has now subsequently burst.

Competition - yes please, as long as public welfare cannot be seen to be compromised

 

[BLOCK F]

Yes I agree with you .........................but what else did you expect?

Glasfryn,I voted for the Conservatives and do not consider myself 'thick',nor do I consider everyone who voted Labour 'thick'.
Perhaps we just happen to have a different take on things!