Unemployment higher than under Tories

[expat]

Here's a radical thought...instead of having lawyers or historians or politics graduates running the economy, how about finding someone who is actually qualified in economics?

Harold Wilson.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Harold Wilson.

Roy Hattersley - Old Skool innit?

He won a scholarship to Sheffield City Grammar School and went from there to study at the University of Hull. Having been accepted to read English at Leeds University,[2] he was diverted into reading Economics when told by a Sheffield colleague of his mother that it was necessary for a political career.

[Cyberman]

You shouldn't have bothered - your first post makes it painfully clear that you are a prize cock.

I'm just more logical in my thought than yourself and I do not insult. Try it yourself sometime. :smug

[Green Mango]

Labour raised sickness benefit and 1 million unemployed moved over to the sickness benefit, you have to add at leat that many to the 2.26 million.

[Cyberman]

Labour raised sickness benefit and 1 million unemployed moved over to the sickness benefit, you have to add at least that many to the 2.26 million.

Those on sickness benefit is closer to 3.5 million. Add that to what could be 4 million on JSA and unemployment benefits by the end of 2010/11 and unemployment will be really appalling.

[TimberWolf]

Those on sickness benefit is closer to 3.5 million. Add that to what could be 4 million on JSA and unemployment benefits by the end of 2010/11 and unemployment will be really appalling.

Basically we are all going to get poorer aren't we? What will happen to stocks and shares? And how does one go about converting pounds into Chinese currency?

[Bagpuss]

CyberBory. Wow even mild mannered carlin thinks you're a cock!

And you ARE a cock

[Gonzo]

Here's a radical thought...instead of having lawyers or historians or politics graduates running the economy, how about finding someone who is actually qualified in economics?

Bottom line is that none of the offerings really has a clue about economics. The garbage that comes out of their mouths on the subject shows that.

Which is kinda worrying really.

The trouble is that Economics is not a science.

However much they like to dress it up with their "economic laws", these are not laws that people with a mathematics or physics background would recognise, it is really just opinion.

Sure, you can (and should) learn some lessons from the past but that doesn't change the fact that the future is one great leap into the unknown and economists will be of only limited assistance.

[DodgyAgent]

Here's a radical thought...instead of having lawyers or historians or politics graduates running the economy, how about finding someone who is actually qualified in economics?

Bottom line is that none of the offerings really has a clue about economics. The garbage that comes out of their mouths on the subject shows that.

Which is kinda worrying really.

John Reid claimed £29.99 for the book Economics Explained



He's your man

[Bagpuss]

Labour raised sickness benefit and 1 million unemployed moved over to the sickness benefit, you have to add at leat that many to the 2.26 million.

Invalidity and other social securities have been around 2-4 million for decades. Labour moved more onto long term sick, but these people were long term unemployed, they never counted in official unemployment figures anyway.

From the 80s to now true unemployment has been between 4 and 6 million. Which goverment is in, doesn't make much difference to te long term unemployed figure. However the unemploymeny figure (JSA) ebs and flows with the ecomomic cycle.

Don't expect the Tories to start counting true unemployment by moving social security claimants back into the figures