![]() |
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,048
![]() |
The government likes to pedal their manipulated figures on how few unemployed people there are, we are apparently so wealthy that we have to import cheap labour from abroad, nothing to do with costs of course!
What UKIP needs to do is look beyond the strict criteria people need to be counted as unemployed and come up with an accurate figure on how big the British unemployment figure is. My guess is it will probably be a lot more than 2.5 million. Book a news conference and announce the findings. This successful economy myth must be smashed once and for all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: england
Posts: 238
![]() |
Anyone that follows the news should know that the unemployment figures are a complete sham, and have been for years. In 2001, the Guardian published an article stating that in the UK 7% of the UK working age population were claiming sick benefit - something in the region of around 1,750,000 people, that is over and above the 'official figures of around 1,600,000. Those stats then were compared to the percentages classed as sick in Germany- approx 2%, and France at around 0.3%.
In Scotland the figures (Jan 2005) are even worse, with 266,000 people classed as sick, with 688,00 classed as economically inactive. It is not hard to summerise a true unemployment rate of around 3-3.5 million, not incomparable with the figures under Thatcher the Snatcher. Let us also remember that labour in the 80's complained bitterly at the way in which the Tory government constantly changed unemployed calculations. Yet, to my knowledge, much of those calculations are still in use under new Labour. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,319
![]() |
I think you will find that 1.5 million more people are on incapacity benefit than in 1991.
Which means either a) there are a lot of people who should not be on b) the NHS is really messing up c) there was a war we can not remember d) People's lifestyle's are really messing up our health compared to the 1980's. I would go for (a) particulary as I can not believe the others.
__________________
More people + no new homes = housing shortage. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Uber Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 22,896
![]() |
Girl Friday wrote above: Anyone that follows the news should know that the unemployment figures are a complete sham.
My reply: It's the same in France. Over there, they used to reduce the figure my putting youth INTO phpbb_military service. I believe conscription was recently got rid of in France - so, no doubt, now they'll be looking at how the UK Government manipulates the unemployment figures over here and hoping for a few tips from them. :shock: |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: england
Posts: 238
![]() |
It may also interest people that something like 25 million people in the UK claim some sort of benefit - TWENTY FIVE MILLION!
If the 2005 Scotland figures are taken on a scale, it would not be too difficult to imagine the the Scottish figures being 10-12 times for the Uk as a whole, so 266,000 times 10 gives 2 2/3 of a million on the sick, and god knows how many 'economically inactive'. The more worrying figures are those that show how many jobs are dependent on consumer credit - I mean, why should anyone have to buy their daily essentials with a credit card? This is the REAL economic timebomb waiting to explode. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and Politigg
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]