If Osborne's "policy" - I use quotes advisedly - is bearing fruit, then they are strange, and bitter, fruit.

Good. I hope Titan and your other offspring have to stack shelves, part time, for an agency etc when, even after studying and doing well at school/university, they can't find a decent job.

Your applause then will be magnificent to hear.

We aren't living off the wealth accumulated in Victoria times. They did build some of the early infrastructure granted, although that has all been repaired and upgraded lots of times.

Just working longer hours does not make you a more productive or prosperous society. It's the amount of productivity, ie how much output you can produce from given inputs, that really matters. People say the steel industry in Sheffield has declined but it produces more steel per year these days than it ever has done in history, and more high tech advanced steel products as well. It just doesn't need as much labour input because it is now more efficient.

The wealth and prosperity of society on aggregate has increased significantly over recent decades. Most of this has been due to technological advances, which complement more highly skilled workers, but replace lower skilled workers. That means those at the top with the higher skills have enjoyed the benefits as their labour is worth more and also there is more demand for them hence driving up their wages. Whilst the rest have found the demand for their jobs decreasing and their wages decreasing.

Being pedantic, your statement is not quite the truth, its not common knowledge but supermarkets (or at least the two of the top four that I have knowledge of) DO tend to directly employ ALL of the people in their supermarkets and direct production factories, whereas in their warehouses its more often the fact that agency staff far outnumber direct employees.

I don't know why that should be exactly but I can guess, in fact its not a guess because I know the evidence is there in front of me every time I do my job within their walls, the majority of supermarket jobs are part time (it has to be said, often at the choice of the employee too) whereas warehouses operate on much tighter schedules and are more reliant on having the correct number of bodies on the ground to run smoothly, I say bodies because often it doesn't matter who that body is as long as there is one on site to meet the contract, this is the nature of agency work. The production units aren't so much about bodies on the ground but skill sets on the line hence the need for more control by the employer.

Titan is more likely to find himself a job as a picker in a warehouse than a 20 hour a week shelf stacker.

Titan is training to (hopefully) become a high paid professional. If he passes his exams, etc he'll start off n twice the average salary with scope for rapid improvement in pay over the subsequent few years. Mind you, he disn't seem too happy with how last weeks set of exams. went.

Young Miss D didn't want to go to University this year. She has deferred until next year. So, she started tooking for jobs this week working in shops. She took CVs round to local businesses and those in the adjacent town. She's just been 'phoned up by one asking her to start tomorrow. Delivered CV Thursday. Interviewed friday. Offered job today. So, so far as I can see Osborne has got thing going. Let's hope Miss D can work accurately and quick enough now she's going out into that real world.

There are loads of decent jobs around for people who fulfil the criteria.

I think we do still live, in effect, off the capital created in Victorian times. That gave the UK the "deep pockets" which has seen it through various crisis. It also created the financial infrastructure that has hitherto kept capital flowing though these Isles.

I agree that high-tech / high added value is where our short term future lies. The point is though that our lead in those areas will be rapidly eroded by the rise of the Far East and we will therefore more and more have to compete on labour price as our leadership in other areas disappears. You only need to look back to how quickly Japan went from a second rate producer to a qulaity one that left us standing to see the potential of China (which, I believe, take away our eminence in the finanial / capital markets over the next 20 years).

So because your daughter has got a job working in a shop for a year Osborne has got things going?

Will this "decent job" pay enough to allow Miss D to be completely self sufficient and pay to rent a flat, pay for her own food, heating, clothing, and travel etc?

Or will it simply allow her to live at home, with you effectively subsidising all the above and just give her some spending money to fund luxuries and nights out?

That bit sounds familiar.

She wants to save up for a month's tour of China, having just had a couple of weeks there.

But I do know people who work in supermarkets on the shop floor and have flats, kids, etc. They work hard and don't moan about the jobs not being "decent." Interstingly, most of the people I'm thinking of are not British.

So I will take that as a "no" then. Your daughters "decent job" isn't going to pay her a living wage.

Are these the type of friends you meet in inefficient A&E waiting rooms?

We didn't have to borrow heavily to build the post-war prosperity, oh no.

People's real incomes are projected to rise next year for the first time in 3 years. Ed M is as unpopular a leader as Clegg and far more unpopular than even Dave. George is easing off the custs / difficult decisions until post 2014. These factors plus some massaging of taxes, etc pre-election suggest a Tory outright victory at the next election. If the Tories kick out Dave and put Boris in, it'll be a landslide. Labour are in last chance saloon when it comes to changing leader.

Projected by whom?


Unpopular with you, you mean?


Post-2014 is 2015, i.e. probable election year.
If you are right (a very big IF) then Osborne's political nous will be even worse than his economic nous.
It is accepted wisdom within the tories that you do the unpopular stuff early.
2015 is not early.


Boris is only popular in London.

1. As reported in the press within the last 3 days.
2. Ditto. A poll.
3. You reckon (Boris)? I think you'll find he appeals across the board - he's a reminder of what the English are all about - prepared to speak out, eccentric, etc. That ppeals to the nostalgic; and his celebrity status appeals to the youth.

Oh, what a shock: no links to these polls and stories.

Dally-world must be a very strange place.

Meanwhile in the real world wehave Ed M ahead of Dave C:

[urlhttp://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3030/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-August-2012.aspx[/url

and Ed B ahead of George O:

[urlhttp://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2976/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-June-2012.aspx[/url

Once the Olympic spirit has worn off and the government makes its next inevitable screw up I would expect the Tories approval ratings to resume their southward trend.

The polls above show even with a "feel good" factor from the Olympics and parliament having been in recess for the summer the government still lags behind the opposition.

You missed out 2(a).

The Times / Sunday Times are subscriber. In any event, I actually buy 'papers to read. It's hard to link to a paper that's in the bin!

The poll I saw was within the last few days - possibly Sunday Times. GO was by far the most unpopular politician listed.

Quote ="Dally"The poll I saw was within the last few days - possibly Sunday Times. GO was by far the most unpopular politician listed.'" I guess you mean this one, where there is one point difference between Cameron and Miliband? ukpollingreport.co.uk/ You take one point difference in a poll to mean that Miliband is "far more unpopular" ? Also, how you can use a poll that suggests Con 34%, Lab 44%, LibDem 9% and UKIP 7% as evidence to point to a "tory outright victory" in a "landslide", I really don't know.

Quote ="Dally"The poll I saw was within the last few days - possibly Sunday Times. GO was by far the most unpopular politician listed.'" I guess you mean this one, where there is one point difference between Cameron and Miliband? ukpollingreport.co.uk/ You take one point difference in a poll to mean that Miliband is "far more unpopular" ? Also, how you can use a poll that suggests Con 34%, Lab 44%, LibDem 9% and UKIP 7% as evidence to point to a "tory outright victory" in a "landslide", I really don't know.

Quote ="El Barbudo"I guess you mean this one, where there is one point difference between Cameron and Miliband? ukpollingreport.co.uk/ You take one point difference in a poll to mean that Miliband is "far more unpopular" ? Also, how you can use a poll that suggests Con 34%, Lab 44%, LibDem 9% and UKIP 7% as evidence to point to a "tory outright victory" in a "landslide", I really don't know. '" The link isn't working (the link within your linked piece), so I'm not sure if that's the one or not, Certainly, I don't recognise the content against the article I read.

Quote ="El Barbudo"I guess you mean this one, where there is one point difference between Cameron and Miliband? ukpollingreport.co.uk/ You take one point difference in a poll to mean that Miliband is "far more unpopular" ? Also, how you can use a poll that suggests Con 34%, Lab 44%, LibDem 9% and UKIP 7% as evidence to point to a "tory outright victory" in a "landslide", I really don't know. '" The link isn't working (the link within your linked piece), so I'm not sure if that's the one or not, Certainly, I don't recognise the content against the article I read.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... NTCMP=SRCH Could be this one. Although as I recall the article I saw has Ed M and Cleggers on the same.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... NTCMP=SRCH Could be this one. Although as I recall the article I saw has Ed M and Cleggers on the same.

I find Boris very entertaining on HIGNFY but I wouldnt vote for the Tory tw*t in a million years.

So ... still no link to any poll that bears any resemblance to your analysis.