Were all suffering from [ithe politics of envy[/i mind.

Well he has achived one thing!. Me and you are agreeing on something.
We both have much the same view on him.

I wonder if that's a case of too much variety? I find the same in my industry at times - I've worked in more roles than anyone I know but that sometimes goes against me. The longest role I've had is my current position of 5 1/2 years - that's mainly due to working overseas and switching roles within the same company a few times. I know the fields I'm good in but if someone's being doing it none-stop for 10 years I'm at a disadvantage.

Conversely, I also imagine the first few roles you mention such as labourer are inundated with applicants at the moment - including entry-level labour from schools and colleges (and yes, possibly from Europe). I know every single lad in our team working in similar roles has lost work and suffered problems throughout the last few years, often more than once. As a result most have had to take work that involves weekends (team selection is a nightmare!).

Anyway, congrats on finding a temp job and good luck. As I always tell my friends and myself when looking - it might take a hundred applications, but you only need to get the right job once.

Could it be that you're putting 'Anakin Skywalker' on your CV? Put me off, that would.

I think it's a good move, I work with a lot of young unemployed people and for many of them the thought of getting a job doesn't even cross their mind because their parents and relatives don't work. If it manages to instill a work ethic into even a few of them then it's worthwhile.

To those who say we are subsidising the supermarkets -I agree. However I'd be much happier knowing that my contributions to the economy are at least going on even a dubious social mobility scheme than just being handed out without any meaningful checks that they are even looking for work. Maybe if the Labour government hadn't been quite so free and easy with taxpayers money in the first place, we wouldn't be in quite the pickle we find ourselves in at present.

Doesnt seem like they are asking for a lot to be honest.

Are this country's problems unconnected to the global financial crisis - or did Tone and Gordy cause that too?

£22k would, sensibly, get you a mortgage of £66k. And we all know how easy it is to get on the property ladder that way, eh? Rent, of course, is so, SO much cheaper.

I dont get what part of a livable wage, and conditions which allow you a family life is supposed to be greedy?

Did i miss the vote where we decided that most people having a decent quality of life was less important than a ridiculously small minority living in decadence?

Hmmmm. Government debt was higher the last time the Tories were in power than at any time under Labour's last spell in power except for 2009.

Now what might have happened in 2008 to make government debt rise? I honestly can't think of any global event that might have led to the UK government having to spend more money.

Damn those reckless, free-spending, irresponsible lefties. If only the Tories had been in then debt would have fallen, as their record shows. Right?

That's nonsense! Next thing you'll be claiming is that debt rose under decent, right-wing conservative administrations in the US - and that would obviously be ridiculous!

Oh ...

What? A right-wing administration? In America? A Republican? Recklessly handing out tax breaks to rich people whilst spending huge amounts of money on a few wars?
I don't, nay, I won't believe it. It was Tony Blair, Gordon Brown & Ed Milliband's fault. It must have been. A right-wing, conservative called Dave told me. I believe everything he tells me.
Damn those Europeans for causing the British economy to go down the krapper.

Damn those European [isocialists[/i, you mean.

You mean our fellow lefty, G8, European neighbours?





Merkel - Social Conservative
Sarkhozy - UMP (French Conservative Party)
Berlusconi - PoF (Italian Coservative Party)

Thems the ones!

You must have noticed how the global recession passed them by due to their fiscal responsibleness?

He told me the same thing too so it must be true.

This CURRENT crisis is due to the rest of the world though and is totally unconnected with what happened when Labour caused the world to stop turning in '07 - Dave told me that too.

In the lead up to the election, a lot of people fell for that line but the pickle is actually the result of certain bankers gambling with money they didn't have.
The Labour government did the right thing at the right time by recapitalising British banks ... and Ozzie still hasn't said what he would have done.

Everyone knew (including Labour, Darling did say so) that spending would have to be reduced.
The question was, by how much and over what period of time to do it.
Dave and co., convinced enough people that it needed to be done fast (despite the high probability of utterly knackering growth in the process, as we are now seeing and as many predicted). He and his millionaire cabinet are untouched by all this (but are of course, all in it together) and are using the excuse of debt reduction to dismantle any part of the welfare state that they can. e.g. The NHS, schools, the safety net of benefits (except, of course, those that the middle class voters get, like child benefit) whilst raising VAT (which hits the poorest smack in the area of necessities but the rich only in losing a tiny amount of luxury, and then only perhaps ... incidentally, just look back at the history of VAT, who introduced it and who has always raised it? I'll give you a clue, never Labour) ... and all while Dave and co. are positing ideas like reducing the 50p top rate of tax and doing bvgger-all about offshoring of profits to avoid tax (e.g. Vodaphone, Tesco etc ... and, let's not forget, Virgin, who have just bought a chain of banks from us, nice and cheap).

But we must remember that it's all Labour's fault for running up a debt lower than the tories had.

Great news, chuffed for you mate.

Hope it goes well and try not to swear too much.

not at all, I left the discussion because the Sin Bin is full of people who blame everything on someone else and take no personal responsibility for their position, I don't agree with a lot of what the ConLib government are doing, but I didn't see much positive action from Labour during their tenure either, politicians are all idealists, does anyone really think Ed Milliband genuinely cares, it's an ego trip for all of them.

I'm glad Annakin has a job over the Christmas period, hopefully it will develop into something longer term.

Do you write Cameron's U-turn speeches?

nope, I haven't U turned as far as I can see.

we don't share the same politics, we know that cod'ead, unfortunately for us neither of our politics works entirely, we'll keep the cycle of the conservatives shrinking the public sector "Labour" in and they'll spend, spend, spend, then we'll have another financial crisis (maybe national and not global) and the whole orry cycle will start again.

we're all a bit daft to expect anything different, in honesty.

Hang on a minute, Standee: so are you saying that, in the context of this thread, you:

a) agree with the taxpayer subsidising massively profitable businesses by giving them free labour;

b) really believe that someone with a family and a partner in a job should go halfway around the country to find another job, and that it will be perfectly easy for them to get and pay for additional accommodation etc;

c) that someone in the above situation should simply uproot their family to go wherever there's a job of any variety – regardless of the partner then losing a job and the impact on the children, including their education;

d) that either of b) and c) are someone refusing to take personal responsibility;

e) that a married couple (to borrow from the specific example here) need to know that they have 20 year's security ahead of them before having a child;

f) and in relation to e) where do they find that security, given the decline in job security in the UK over the last 30 years?

a) I agree with the taxpayer paying for a limited period of time where someone is expected to evidence their ability to do a job, what I don't agree with is their being no set criteria for acceptance as a permanent employee, if an individual on a placement achieves certain goals then they should get a job, otherwise, as you say, it's just subsidising big business, which is wrong.

b) yes, people should be prepared to move, digs are not that expensive if you look hard enough, even in central London, but it's far easier to sit at home and sponge of the state whilst posting on an internet forum how hard done by you are.

other points all combined) too many people in the UK, and the Western world as a whole, see a family as a right, it isn't, it's a decision and not one that should, in my opinion, be subsidised at every step by the state. Many people bemoan their inability to afford their family expenses, but they are unrealistic about what they should actually expect. Apparently if you spend more than 10% of your income on something then you are in poverty for that (fuel for example) a lot of people are in Sky, Bright House and Beer and Cigs poverty by that measure.

I think society as a whole needs a reality check, if you're not part of the solution, you are the problem. As Annakin has done, get on your bike and all that.

This winner of this week's broad-brush award for not actually grasping the issue.

Incidentally, have you compared vacancies against unemployed recently?
It's currently 1 vacancy for 5 unemployed.
i.e. 4 in every 5 can't get a job.
Not won't, but can't.

But, hey, that's their own fault, they are not living in the real world?
I would suggest their world is grindingly real.