Originally posted by vetran
View Post
Anyway, nice figures but you're missing the point - those are UK wide numbers.
I've personal experience of one of the areas decimated by the early Thatcher years - 30% unemployment there and it took decades to recover when eventually call centres and similar employment finally arrived.
The Thatcher government allowed many miners, steel workers and those from associated industried onto sickness benefit. Partly because quite a few of them were sick, but also because they were never likely to get another job. No jobs left in the area at all for those people even with 'retraining' and despite their strong work ethic, wanting to provide for their families.
This was also good for the government because it kept all those people out of the unemployment statistics (ref your post).
Unfortunately, the continuing lack of jobs and the raising of kids in unemployed households resulted in generational unemployment which became embedded as a normal way of life, rather than a safety net.
Just because you don't know people who didn't choose it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen of course.
As for you 'get on your bike' Tebbit-style quote, yes a lot of people did, like me. People who could - those who had the education, intellect or whatever to move on up.
However, people have family and friends in those areas, they don't have the skills or the money so they can't all move down South, and why should they?
Maybe if that Tory government has invested properly in those areas in the eighties, Boris wouldn't still have to be promising to 'level up' now.
I see you favour the continued rentier approach where landlords make all the money and people are kept without the ability to raise a deposit and actually buy their own house, for their own benefit.
Guessing there is some self-interest going on there.
Comment