What this report by the BBC doesn't mention is that its not all white British against the rest.
The survey shows that there is tension between different communities, especially within the West Midlands where there is increased tensions between Black and Asian communities, this manifested itself at the height of the 2011 riots.
The Guardian has a slightly different slant on the report
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 … in-britain
Oh by the way it doesn't mention that it's not all British against the rest is because that doesn't come into it at all, they say "People were asked whether they would describe themselves as prejudiced "against people of other races"." no mention of white British at all. Nothing to suggest that they had not asked Asians who said they were prejudiced against Africans.
Don't look for controversy where none exists.
Good catch, everybody always claims they know of media manipulation, but as soon is something tugs their heart strings, everybody forgets.
The conclusions were made by a research organisation called NatCen which is 3/4 funded by HM government (the taxpayer).
Rather than publishing their so called findings in the normal way in a few months time they decided to drop it on the desk of left leaning media outlets. Maybe they thought it would counter the rise in support for parties calling for lower immigration?
The BBC is not left leaning, the Guardian hardly at all.
I don't know where you have got your ideas from John but the BBC is politically left leaning. The Guardian is the voice of the left of centre.
Why would these two media outlets report only part of the findings of the report?
a) Because it suited their own political slant
b) Because that is all they were given by NatCen
You mean anybody who is impartial is left leaning? I suppose I'll go along with that.
I think you need to look up impartial John.
Then maybe watch the BBC news for an hour or two.
And in what way do they not treat all rivals equally?
What would you recommend as an impartial news source? Sky perhaps?
Oh dear, it looks as if you might be right and I owe you an apology Silver-
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ … 1401187298
It appears that the BBC is extremely biased!
Well it was the single biggest issue of the night (UKIP).
A well worded and possibly correct petition.
I seem to recall though that non of the candidates except UKIP and the BNP really wanted to be interviewed, not to sure why, however the panel; in the studio where very vociferous, mostly against the UKIP spokespersons.
And yes I did stay up until 3pm flicking channels between Sky and BBC news, god (if there is one) knows why?
But that is the whole point. It was only the single biggest issue of the night because the BBC made it so.
It was indeed a big issue but bigger than the trouncing of the Tories, the almost total decimation of the lib dems who were incidentally left behind the entirely unmentioned Green party, the rise in support for the labour party ? I hardly think so.
John the share of the vote for the Labour party was insignificant compared with UKIP, I don't think anyone was surprised that they done well but I do think the politicians and the media were surprised at just how well they did.
As I said I stayed up until 3am and remember that all party's seem to get rather a lot of attention, especially after a result was announced
That night UKIP were the big story, I doubt if there would have been any complaints if they were not mentioned at all. Nobody ever seems to complain when Labour or the Conservatives take up most of the news time normally.
You're suddenly very supportive of the left leaning BBC aren't you?
Not really John, just telling it as I saw it on that particular evening/early morning.
You saw what was presented to you by right leaning media channels!
Have a look at what the Greens achieved in the same election (no good looking to the BBC or Sky to find out) and tell me if you still think UKIP did so well.
Green party ......7.87% of the vote.............................down 0.75%.....3 MEP's ....+1
UKIP.................27.49% of the vote............................up 10.99%.......24 MEP's...+11
Sorry john am I missing something?
You talking local or European elections?
If European the Greens ended up with more seats tan the lib dems and a higher percentage of the vote.
Locally the ended up with more control of local councils than UKIP who ended up with control of none.
How nice for them (the Greens that is) maybe they will make a change in the councils they control, I do hope so, it would be so refreshing in the face of the LabCon onslaught.
They'll certainly have a more positive affect than UKIP.
When you say positive John how would that be?
I hear they want to ban motor vehicles, reduce household waste, tax us more to implement green policy and turn the lights out all over the country!!!!
Give me the socialist any day...........................Maybe not!
Positive n not driving us back into the 19th century, without the charity.
Oh, maybe you can answer me this. How will leaving the EU stop foreigners coming to the country?
Who said it needs to be stopped? I think there is a general consensus that immigration needs to be controlled. However leaving the EU would negate the Schengen agreement so there would be no automatic right for anyone from the EU to come here.
Did you know the Green party are also in favour of a referendum on EU membership?
All right, how will leaving the EU control immigration?
Ask our colleagues on this forum, they aren't members of the EU but still have concerns about immigration.
As I said it would remove the right to automatic entry, which is something I believe doesn't happen anywhere else apart from the EU.
Our colleagues are concerned about immigration and they have controls in place, could you imagine the US response if Brazil for instance told them they couldn't stop any one from south America entering their boarders?
Illegal immigrants are a totally different kettle of fish, but once again the EU intervenes in decisions on deportation and asylum which again negates the wishes of the UK government and its subjects.
I thought the big problem in the US was that they couldn't stop south Americans.
But John they can remove them if the find them, they dont let anybody get in the way of them deporting anybody the deem unfit.
Of course there is no mention of White British, that would be deemed racist wouldn't it? However the report was released to garner the effect of people believing that very stereotype.
The controversy is in the fact that they gave the findings to the press the day after an anti immigration party done well at an election rather than waiting and releasing the report in the normal way. As I said for extra effect.
Ah I see, giving even more support for UKIP! And you reckon they are left leaning!
No John not more support, they want to reduce support for UKIP by inferring that anybody who votes for them must be racist.
Not really John its a psychological process called suggestion.
A measure used in many fields including military, security, advertising and it seems by politicians too.
No, the idea that saying that the country has become more racist will somehow undermine support for a racist party!
The suggestion that the party you vote for is racist is supposed to make you consider you are voting for the wrong party.
So you agree that the power of suggestion may work. Just keep telling people they are voting for a racist party even when there is no evidence to fact.
Why should you be put off from voting for a racist party because you admit to being a racist?
Heck, that's like suggesting that I would be put off voting for a socialist party if somebody pointed out that I was a socialist!
As for " no evidence" for the fact that UKIP is racist, you have to be joking.
So John you are openly saying that all UKIP voters are racists then?
Mind you that's the usual chant of the socialists when somebody doesn't agree with them on immigration. Either that or bigot!
So you are comparing socialism to racism in the social stigma stakes then. I know socialism was bad but not as bad as racism John surely.
I haven't seen any evidence of the party being racist, could you show me where they say they are racist in their literature then?
Are you a politician? You certainly twist like one. Actually probably all UKIP voters are racist but that was not what I said, I said that UKIP is a racist party. It isn't a matter of whether I agree or disagree on immigration, they are racist, see for isnstance Dave Small.
I am not comparing socialism to racism, to say that I am is divisive
UKIP is not a racist party and you cant prove it all you and your socialist friends are doing is rule bombing.
Am I to take it that any other party can be defined by the actions of just a few of its members? If so that would make any party morally repugnant, let he without sin cast the first stone!
It's hardly a few members, which I agree, would give it a pass. It is racist from the head down.
If you are blind to that racism then you are part of the problem.
BTW, it's not just socialists who see the party for what it is.
No John there are a few members, non of whom I recall have been charged with any offence under the racism act 1976. However I seem to remember at least 6 MPs from the Labour party being convicted of expenses fraud. I suppose that makes the Labour party a bunch of criminals then by you reckoning.
Expenses fraud! Isn't taking money for doing a job and then not doing that job the worst kind of fraud? BTW how many Tories done for expenses fraud? And how many Lib Dems?
As you are so fond of the Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … rence.html
Non were convicted John only 6 MPs were convicted of the crime whilst others piled on to say sorry and pay the money back.
Are you talking about attendance at the EU parliament? Because it seems to have been a little exaggerated by the other parties to make a point.
Funny how these revelations come out now, just after their best showing in an election.
There will be more to come as UKIP take more and more from the wholly inadequate mainstream parties. The big jump in support will be if Scotland votes to become independent. In that situation the Labour party will never be able to form a majority government ever again. Mind you it might if it starts listening to people and stops calling everyone names for having an opinion about something.
Do you really think UKIP are so different!
A party headed up by a public school educated toff with few policies but those that it has such as privatising the NHS and caning those on benefits.
That doesn't sound so very different from the other three to me.
Old policies john, we don't quite know what they will be doing for the General election as he ripped the old manifesto up proclaiming it crap. Maybe they will be listening to the people, that will secure them a few votes as the other seem to bludgeon through with their unpopular policies and close their ears to any dissent coming from the electorate.
May the management of the NHS needs privatising?
And those on benefits need reviewing regularly.
So you think the NHS should be turned over to the leaches and the unemployed should be punished even more!
But as for the rest you are right, they don't actually have any policies but the do have views and those views are totally repugnant.
Well John the NHS is already in the hands of the leaches! The unemployed john get unemployment benefit, those who wish not to be employed should get less. I think we have had this discussion before.....
Only if you are a liberal thinking no hope socialist without any idea of the real world.
Not entirely, but they soon will have entire control of your health and wallet.
Yes and I ask you again, how many are unemployed by choice
No need to privatise the NHS John, if they look towards the model now working well in Cambridge they will see there is another way. It seems to be doing very well since getting rid of the middle management leaches.
How many have been unemployed long term?
Only those who believe the propaganda blurted out by the mainstream mundane.
But all the main parties seem intent on privatising the NHS irrespective of any alternatives. That is not because it is broken but it is a massive chance to make a few people very much money.
The fact that some have been unemployed for a long time is not a slur on those unemployed but it is a slur on those cutting jobs in pursuit of higher profits.
You seem to believe rather too much in the propaganda spewed out by the mainstream media. Like UKIP is on the side of the working man, that long term unemployed are so purely because they love living off £70 a week, that the NHS would work so much better is profit were introduced into decision making and more.
The Main parties are looking at privatisation for a number of reasons John, cost, union power and the idea that a poor health service could cripple a government. Political parties are in the business of looking after their business first and then maybe do something for the people if they shout load enough.
It funny how all the parties are talking about looking at the concerns of people over immigration now rather than just calling everybody a racist.
I will agree that in some cases what you have stated has happened, I will even accept that some lost their jobs in the 2008 crash and following recession, but do you seriously believe that everyone who has been on welfare benefits for 7.8,9 or more years have really been trying hard to get a job?
Farage stated yesterday that they would be looking to take those on minimum wage out of taxation all together. I doubt there are many unemployed people who live on £70 a week John, do these ones live at home with their parents?
No the NHS would work better if the petty bureaucrats were removed from the system.
Labour introduced profit into the system in a big way through its program of building new hospitals like the QE in Birmingham, the company who built the hospital will make £500 million over the next 10 years. Its not the only one either, hospitals, GP surgeries, day care centres all financed along the same lines.
No, the main parties are looking at privatisation for one reason and only one reason and that is personal profit. The fact that successive governments have run down the health service is contrary to your claim that they fear a poor health service could cripple the government-they don't care. There are profits to be made. If they are afraid of union power they are afraid of democracy.
You accept that some lost their jobs as a result of the 2008 recession but you cannot believe that people have not been able to find work for 7,8,9 years! Arithmetic not your strong point is it?
Jobs have gone and they have not been replaced, where are people supposed to find employment remembering the tens of thousands who have been added to the workforce over those same years?
If you are over thirty five and without any especially sought after skills you can kiss the idea of gaming employment goodbye.
So Farage reckons he's going to take those on minimum wage out of taxation altogether! How does he propose to do that? Will he give them a card that excuses them from VAT, which costs those on the minimum wage more than the small amount of income tax they will pay, not forgetting that most will get more in tax credits than they pay in tax!
Why do you keep waving Labour at me? You don't think I'm a Labour supporter do you? I haven't forgotten Thatcher claiming Tony Blair and New Labour as her greatest achievement.They are no longer any different from the Conservatives or the Lib Dems or UKIP even.
I suppose we could have this argument for ever but its a fact that year on year spending has increased in the NHS. How you can say its in decline shows that you have been listening to the unions. Their members have become so expensive to employ that the government decided to import cheaper staff.
Unions are not democratic John, who ever told you that.
So what you are saying is that those who became unemployed in 2008 couldn't find a job in the next few years but the 1 million immigrants who have landed on these shores since then have all come here and found work? And I think 5 years is long enough to retrain to do a job.
He said he was looking at raising the personal allowance to take minimum wagers out of income tax.
I'm with you on the VAT john, it would be nice to get rid of it or at least reduce it, how many government jobs would we have to get rid of to afford to be able to abolish the VAT then?
Tax credits? I thought all those minimum wage immigrants who come to do the jobs lazy British workers wont do didn't get any benefits? How do they afford to live on £6.31 an hour?
Sorry John I forgot you were a committed socialist, which party are the socialist party now then and how many MP's do they have?
Of course spending has increased on the NHS. New cures are found, new treatments, we're living longer and then there is PFI. Would you expect spending to decline? And of course spending to provide none NHS services with a profit doesn't come cheap.
At least I have been listening to the unions rather than gaining all my knowledge from the likes of the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. Rates are set for NHS employees and are the same no matter your country of origin.
You reckon unions aren't democratic, are you sure you know what is democratic? Would that be depriving a large percentage of the workforce of a say in their work or removing protection from unfair treatment?
Where do you actually get your information from? Who are all these people claiming benefits for 7, 8, 9 years?
Aren't you aware that the average JSA claim lasts just 13 weeks. Actually only about 0.1% of claimants spend anything like the length of time that you quote claiming and as JSA only accounts for less than 3% of the welfare budget you are getting in froth about nothing.
Rather than raising the personal allowance to save those on the minimum wage nothing when all is said and done he would be much better off raising the minimum wage to a level were workers actually paid a little more tax and the rest of us were saved from giving handouts to bosses who use tax credits and other forms of welfare as an excuse to save money and increase their profits.
Lazy British workers! You ought to stop reading right wing newspapers and re-spouting their drivel.
Because I am a socialist I am disenfranchised, the capitalists are winning. but I'll never be like you and have to vote for my enemies. You think they are on your side, or you on theirs but really they don't give toss just as long as they can carry on robbing you with your consent.
How much do you think spending should increase then to sae the NHS? And who is the enemy of the NHS?
I listened to the unions for years, if you remember I told you that I was a shop steward and convener for the TGWU, there is nothing democratic about unions John, autocratic yes democratic no. In actual fact my 10 years as a union representative completely changed my view on unions and socialism in general.
I accept that it costs no more or less to employ people from other countries so why if it costs the same haven't we been able to train and employ some of the millions of unemployed that have persisted over the past 15 yrs?
I get my figures frim the ONS John, maybe you should take a look sometime. There are 2.5 million people without a job, if the JSA average is 13 weeks does that mean that all of those 2.5 million will get a job within 13 weeks or will they just go on to another benefit?
I agree John the NMR should be raised and to a level where it takes people out of the benefit trap. But I still think the lower personal tax allowance should be raised also.
I also agree about those companies who use tax credits as a profits boost however successive governments have failed to do anything about it and indeed made the situation worse by offering cheap endless labour to these companies.
I don't believe for a moment that British workers are any worse or better than any from other parts of the world, I think the only problem the British workforce has shown is an unwillingness to be mobile.
Disenfranchised and demeaning then John!
I have changed my opinion as I said, I do not believe that socialism has an answer and so do many others or the socialists would have a party that is strong and taking seats. As I am more inclined to vote right of centre I think UKIP suits my political stance at the moment, it does not have all the answers but it does seem to appeal to many people who see what's actually happening in the country, things that people see and experience, they are fed up with being called racist because they have an alternative view on the politics that affect them everyday.
The government is the enemy of the NHS. The Uk spends around 9% of GDP on healthcare, ythe US around 16% of GDP, I'd rather have our system.If we increased spending to US levels without bunging the money to shareholders or insurance companies then I'd be more than happy.
What didn't you like about the TGWU then? Oh and unions aren't actually synonymous with socialism.
Training costs money, it's much cheaper to let somebody else do the training and then just steal the person.
Funny. i saw nothing at the ONS to support your claim that many had been out of work for 7, 8, 9, years.
No, average does not mean that everybody will find a job within 13 weeks, that would mean a much lower average. It means that some will find a job within days and others might struggle for a year or more, some, a very few might even take ten years.
You say that the British worker is unwilling to be mobile, what about the millions who've taken advantage of open borders and moved to other countries for work? What about the rest who might like to be mobile but are constrained by the cost of doing so?
Do you know that a recent government survey showed a majority (about 60%) of the population favour the renationalisation of utilities, the railways, Royal Mail etc. There is no party to represent them though is there? Have you ever thought that that figure is similar to the number who do not vote?
UKIP do not have any answers apart from more of the same.
I don't call people racist for having a different view unless that different view is that foreigners are somehow inferior to us and the source of all our problems.
To increase the NHS budget other budgets would have to reduced, which ones would you chose?
I didn't like the attitude of the hierarchy who saw the membership as a means to a political end. Ands yes I did know that not all unions are synonymous with socialism.
So you do agree that its cheaper to employ foreign staff then it is to take on UK staff? I thought you said it wasn't!
Firstly you say there is no such thing as long term unemployed and then you say it may take people up to ten years to get a job. Confused??
So what you are telling me is that an unskilled worker will travel half way around the world to take a low paid job in the south east but someone sees it as unproductive to move from say Leeds to do the same!
Of course people leave the country for many reasons, some for better remuneration, some for better climate and some because they have retired.
I am not surprised about the renationalisation issue John, I think many people in favour of it may have forgotten just how bad it was or just wasn't born when the unions ruled the country.
Of course foreigners are not inferior, who ever said that? That's what the mainstream PC politicians would like you to think that people believe, the truth is that people are blaming the government for the immigration policies that they have pursued not the immigrants who have taken advantage of the policies.
A lot of people still have pride in their nation and believe that the EU have carried on an unsustainable policy. Instead of attacking poverty and unemployment in the poor member states they just move the problem o the richer more prosperous ones.
Budgets to reduce? How about bank bailouts? Do you realise that the latest bank bail out would have funded the unemployment benefits for the next 150 years? But really, why should you have to cut other budgets? Increase employment and you would increase income for the NHS as well as reduce demand for the services.
Then you are confusing hierarchy with root and branch trade unionists. That's like saying that because our MPs are all on the take then all the rest of are as well.
No, I didn't say it was cheaper to employ foreign staff, I said they saved training costs. Different thing.
I said it may, I didn't say it did. If it takes one person ten years to find a job then hundreds would have to find jobs in less than 13 weeks to bring the average down to 13 weeks.
Not, what I am saying is how do you expect somebody to move from one end of the country (where there are no more likely to be any jobs) when they do not have any money to do so?
The unions have never ruled this country. And how bad was it? Electricity is now so high that most people have to pay it weekly or monthly-it's a major expense for many, gas that is even more expensive. Water that costs me more than my electricity and railways that receive twice the subsidy that they received when publicly owned. What else was so terrible about those times? Ah yes, full employment, resasonable incomes for most.
I love this cry from the socialist of its all the banks fault. I bet you don't think it would of affect more people if the government let those banks collapse do you? Where do you keep your money John, under the bed! How much would the £ actually be worth with no banking system to back it up.
Firstly only a small percentage of any bank staff receive the huge bonuses the left go on about, there are thousands if not tens of thousands that work in the banking industry in the UK that take home normal wages. How would they have fared if the banks would have gone bust?
If you are asking me if I think those top bankers in charge got of lightly then I would have to agree, personally I think they should have received long prison sentences but then were would all the Ex MP's find their future employment! (sarcasm)
How would you increase employment John?
I see no reason to increase the population by huge amounts whilst not being able to provide them with the employment they need to maintain the services they demand.
I am not confusing anything with anything, the grass roots take their direction from the leaders.
So are you talking about contribution based JSA or income based? People are moved of contributions based JSA if they fail to find a job within a certain period of time.
There certainly people who have been looking for work longer than the 13 weeks you stated and some have been looking for work for years. if I remember rightly you said yourself that some miners never worked again after the pit closures are you telling me they never received some form of benefits either?
I personally know quite a few ex Rover workers who haven't worked since the Longbridge plant closed and that's a little over 13 months.
So you think that someone up north couldn't afford to travel south for a job but someone from Romania has plenty of money to do it. You can substitute Romania for any country you like.
I seem to remember from my history lessons that in the 1930 men marched from up north to protest the government for work, how soft have we all become!
Where did you live in the 70's and 80's then John because I remember a different country to the one you are describing, Strikes, strikes and more strikes. I remember people moaning about the price of coal, oil, gas electricity. I remember people complaining that they had waited 4 weeks for the water board to come out to fix a leak. And I remember walking to work on numerous occasions because someone or other was on strike for some reason or other.
The unions and the strike culture turned this country from a can do nation to I wont do nation in less than 20 years.
Don't you think it affected anybody when the mines were allowed to close, when countless factories and other workplaces were closed. As the bank bailout cost every adult in the country £7000 the government could easily have compensated all the smaller account holders and still saved a fortune.
The whole banking system wasn't about to collapse, it was no more than a couple of banks.
How would I create employment? See the other thread I started tonight.
It doesn't matter if the JSA being claimed is contribution based or not, it is still JSA.
And you really don't understand averages do you? I never nobody had been looking for work for more than 13 weeks, thats an average, you know, you add upp all the people looking for work and then add up all the weeks they've been looking for work and then divide one by the other to reach an average. Sorry, I shouldn't get ratty with you for not understanding averages, I remember Blair saying that all school leavers would leave school with above average results.
If you think that everybody can afford to move wherever they like then there is really no point in me continuing is there?
Do you know that a lot of the strikes in the 70s and 80s were actually engineered by the employers to save money?
I bet the people that you knew who moaned about the cost of coal gas oil and electricity really wish it was that cheap again.
Again, you are spouting main stream media lies. The government and bosses did as much as anybody else to cripple the country. And to think that you chastised me for taking my news from the mainstream media!
It affected the miners John, they decided to go on strike and suffered the consequences of their action. many factories closed in the 80's I remember. I took a lot of machinery out of those factories to send to Asia because the labour costs were hugely cheaper there.
Why just the smaller account holders, don't those who have worked hard and been able to save £50K - 110k for their retirement deserved to be looked after as well? Or do you consider people with £100k in the bank to be rich?
The banks would have toppled like dominoes and that's the opinion of economists.
And your views are all about socialism which would stifle the economy not grow it and as a consequence would lose jobs. Unless of course the whole world became socialist over night.
Of course I understand averages John but you seem not to understand that not everybody gets JSA when they have been out of work. Are you seriously telling me that out of the 2,5 million unemployed they have only been unemployed for an average of 13 weeks? If that's so then we don't have an unemployment problem do we because everybody on the unemployed register will have a job in 13 weeks time.
No of course they wont some will be on there for years but will be moved to other benefits.
I didn't say they could move wherever they like I said move where the jobs are. It begs the question if the benefits ran out would people just stay in their cosy homes in the north and starve to death or would they try and move south and find employment?
I cant see how engineering a strike could save money? it definitely didn't do that for British Leyland (Rover) it led ultimately to their down fall and eventual closure.
The people who moaned about the prices John still moan about them now, they were never really cheap and the service was poor in comparison with today. We do have some choice as well but there was absolutely no choice at all then.
Where do you get your media lies from then John? The socialist worker I suspect!
You missed my point completely. If the government was at all concerned about jobs they could have preserved the miners jobs for far less than it cost to abolish them and for only a fraction of the cost of bailing out the banks.
Small account holders are those which the government already guarantee their accounts for what is it , £80,000.
All the banks toppling is the opinion of some economists. Not surprisingly are as often wrong as they are right.
So you're saying that making more money available in the economy would not stimulate demand but stifle it?
Oh heck, you really don't understand averages do you? An average of 13 weeks unemployment does not mean that everybody on the register will have a job in 13 weeks!
I'll try again (and apologise to everybody else for my rather crude example) If you have a hundred unemployed who find work after exactly 20 weeks, that is a total of 2000 weeks and another 100 who claim for six weeks exactly, that is a total of 600 weeks. The total unemployment for the 200 is 2600 weeks, divide that 2600 by 200 which gives you 13 weeks. The average unemployment for that 200 is 13 weeks but you will notice that no individual has actually been unemployed for 13 weeks.
As for the moving thing, where are the jobs? You say move where the jobs are, I say what jobs? If you were to lose your job tomorrow, where would you move for similar work? What would you do about your house, would you try and sell it in a rather flat market, would you keep it on and rent another house in the place you moved to. Would you take your family with you or leave them behind?
When people go on strike they no longer get paid, the weekly wage bill for the likes of Ford must have been quite considerable.
Where do you get your media lies from? Don't bother to answer that, t's obvious from everything you believe.
Firstly they are two different time periods (the banks and the Miners) and secondly it was the intention of the NUM and the miners that they would get what they wanted or bring down the government. There was no such intention with the banks.
The miners contributed to there own downfall by going on strike and trying to alienate the nation in the process. Not everyone supported them and not everyone believes the union rhetoric.
So anyone with over £80k you would consider to be rich then!
Well the opinion of the economists is what governments go on John, right or wrong that's how they work.
When you say making more money do you mean taking more money of the middle income earners?
I understand the averages quite well John but you don't seem to understand is that there have been people on benefits for more than 13 weeks, more than 1, 2, 3, or more years yet you are focusing on those who receive JSA. And the other thing is there are some people who are on benefits who are not looking for work.
OK John I shall ask you the same thing, where were the jobs for the millions of migrants that have arrived here since 1997? Where have they lived since coming to the country? Do some of them still own property in their original countries?
My personal situation is that I work in an industry that I have never failed to find work in whether or not I have had to move or travel. And yes I have had to move around and move my family.
Other scenarios may be different but I know a few people who have moved south in the last 10 years, yes they have found it a struggle but it has worked out OK for them.
The housing market is picking up John but as I own it there may be a case for renting it out as the rental market is extremely buoyant at the moment.
I cant see the problem with someone moving from one rented accommodation to another if they are doing it for a reason and not just to change the view.
The very fact that you think employers want strikes just shows how skewed your thinking is.
The media lies John are exactly the same as the ones you see but we process them in different ways.
Take the latest about the Muslim extremists taking over Birmingham schools, you probably think its some right wing racist media plot to show Muslims in a bad light, I see it as exactly what it is, a plot by extremist Muslims to take over the education establishments in predominately Muslim area (because different nationalities don't intergrade into the area they make their own). We (as in everyone including Asians, Blacks Whites and anyone else who dared mention it) in Birmingham have been talking about it for ages.
The time period is irrelevant and had the government not been trying to bring down the miners then the miners would not have tried to bring down the government. That is all beside the point you made that the government had to bail out the banks to avoid unemployment. The truth is that they don't care about employment but as many of the government are bankers (rather than miners) they care very much about their own pockets.
I wouold not consider anybody with more than £80k to be especially rich but most people with more than that will have their money protected anyway.
Sure governments go off what economists tell them , that's why they choose economists that say what they want to hear. All economists have at the end of the day (I can't believe I just said that!) is opinions.
No I don't mean taking more money off the middle income earners, I mean giving them more so that they will go out and spend it and generate more work.
I'm focusing on those receiving JSA because they are the ones that your media brand as scroungers. Those unemployed because they are carers or don't choose to work but don't claim benefits do not matter.
I really thought my demonstration of how you could have people claiming benefits for much more than 13 weeks but still have an average of 13 weeks would have been clear to you, obviously not.
Where are the skilled British construction workers, the drivers, the small shop keepers?
I still don't understand how you think moving from an area with no employment to another area with no employment will cure anything.
I don't think employers want strikes, I was just repeating what somebody who once worked at Fords told me, backed up by others who have told me similar stories.
I don't take in media lies of whatever persuasion, I talk to people and read many different sources to form my opinion. With regard to the Birmingham thing I know the whole thing was kicked off by an anonymous and unsubstantiated letter. Fine grounds for a witch hunt.
The miners had tried to bring down the government a few times pre 1980's John, they had some success in the past but I think they Picked a fight with the wrong government.
As we have managed very well since the pit closures I doubt it would have been the same though if a few banks went by the way.
Of course the government care about employment, that's where they get their money from?
How will you have it protected John? In a bank or property! Both which would be in a precarious position id banks started collapsing.
Agree. Economists will say what their paymasters or their own beliefs want them to say.
But the middle earners pay high taxes, would you reduce the top rate of income tax then?
Sorry John are you trying to explain why your explanation of averages refutes my statement that there have been people who have been out of work for more than a year or 18.104.22.168?
I know how averages work John and I know that you are trying to use the average to disprove my point.
All your skilled workers must be up north waiting for work to come to them John. Or are you telling me all the migrants were skilled workers filling the jobs that British workers couldn't be bothered to train for?
And I cant understand that you think that all areas in the UK had no employment but we needed millions of migrant workers to come here and fill the jobs that don't exist.
Are those people the workers who went on strike because Ford wouldn't drop to their knees and give them what they wanted.
Ford I believe were in the business of making cars so why would they want their workforce not to make any cars?
Well the media in general have reported very carefully in the radicalisation of Schools in Birmingham, very sensitive are the Muslims abut their religion. It was discussed in a security meeting (you do remember I work in education in B'ham don't you john?) about 5 years ago, if I remember rightly one of the governors (Asian) ask the question " how would the college deal with radicalisation by religious extremists?" He went on to explained why he asked the question, it turns out he was also a governor at one of those schools that are under special measures now.
I suppose its all about political slant then John isn't it?
You reckon we've managed well without coal! Have you actually had an electricity or gas bill recently?
If the government care so much about employment why are they so happy to put people out of work?
Why would property be in such a precarious position if two banks had gone to the wall? The remaining banks would have quickly bought up the assets (mortgages) of the failed banks. The mortgagees would hardly even notice that they now owed money to somebody else.
The midle earners pay as much tax as the high earners, rather than giving the high earners more tax cuts, give the middle earners more tax cuts.
My argument does not, and is not, intend to refute your statement that some have been employed for years. Just that a very small percentage of a small amount of expenditure is not worth beating yourself up over. You are just joining the tabloid froth about the scroungers on the dole. They don't exist to any significant extent, and certainly not enough to justify demonising all unemployed.
You seem to have forgotten that a previous Tory government stopped skill training especial in construction and allied trades.
Ford were in the business of making cars and selling them, making cars with nobody to buy them was a waste so when they had no orders they were happy not to have to pay their workforce for not producing cars.
All I know about the Birmingham thing was it was kicked off by an anonymous and unsubstantiated letter. I don't really have the interest or time to research it further.