Politics Thread!

[gravy]

On unemployment, what’s happening is both expected and welcome. Unemployment was falling steadily for years, up to the end of 2014. But that clearly could not continue forever. There’s an obvious lower bound of zero but we never reach that; there are always some people out of work, so there is a natural rate of unemployment associated with the economy working well, which we seem to have hit. The rate is 5.6%, up from 5.5% last quarter but hardly a significant change. It has in effect stopped falling.

So the Tories are actually congratulating Labour and the SNP for the rise in unemployment?

[k345y]

As for the SNP their success had nothing to do with how left wing they were, everything to do with their support for Scottish nationalism. .

That's the second time you've said that and it's simply not true.
According to some a vote for the SNP is a nationalist vote, it isn't.
There's a rise in nationalism in Scotland but it's not the huge crashing wave the press like to say it is. The rise of the SNP in the last general IS down to Labour's abandonment of the left. The Tories are not an option so the SNP were the option, LibDem happily climbed into bed with the perceived enemy for their 15 minutes so the SNP adopting traditional left sided politics made them the only viable option. Add to that a fuckwit leader like Jim Murphy dictating to the electorate that Labour was the only option whilst leading a party who themselves were disenfranchised from the UK central, after he was a key member of that, well, it stands to reason that SNP were the option, not because the people of Scotland are being swept along with nationalism, because it was the only option to vote for policies that reflect the core fundamental political ideals of the people. It's most certainly not nationalism.

I actually find it quite offensive that a peoples' will is so easily dismissed as nationalism when it's not.
Corbyn will save the left in Scotland if Scottish Labour use him as a leader to emulate and we will see just how non-nationalist that the votes the SNP garnered were, purely traditionally left.

[pogo]

So the Tories are actually congratulating Labour and the SNP for the rise in unemployment?

To be fair that’s not “the Tories” but Justin Tomlinson, whoever he is.

“What we are seeing is that during that election period – and I know as a former businessperson myself – it’s not unreasonable when you’ve got an SNP-Labour anti-business agenda ahead in the polls that businesses pause,” he said.

“Since the Budget, since the decisive general election result we are now seeing those vacancies increasing again combined with strong economic growth and rising wages which looks like we will see further positive news coming forward.”

We might see further positive news but I don’t think unemployment will fall much more from current levels. 5%, the level before the crisis, is probably as low as it will go.

[(o)(o)]

So the Tories are actually congratulating Labour and the SNP for the rise in unemployment?

To be fair that’s not “the Tories” but Justin Tomlinson, whoever he is.

He's only Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Tory Minister.

Sounds a bit like you actually :

[pogo]

Corbyn will save the left in Scotland if Scottish Labour use him as a leader to emulate and we will see just how non-nationalist that the votes the SNP garnered were, purely traditionally left.

We will find out soon enough I think. The other candidates are getting increasingly desperate:
Labour leadership: Liz Kendall calls for voting pact with rivals to prevent Jeremy Corbyn win

Can only see that turning people off from her – not that she has much support at the moment anyway. They should remember when Labour tried such negative campaigning in May against the SNP it backfired badly.

The problem for all three (Kendall, Burnham, Cooper) has been they have been unable to articulate a positive message about what they will do. This is understandable, as we are likely almost five years from an election, lots of time to come up with a programme and sell it.

It contrasts though with Corbyn who has no problem coming up with an appealing set of policies he would implement. Doesn’t matter that they are largely unworkable policies jettisoned by Labour two decades ago, or that he will never get the chance to implement them.

[KlaxonCow]

Indeed, I think this choir chorus of "anyone but Corbyn!" from Blair and his Blair-ites probably has vastly more to do with why Corbyn is doing so well, than any infiltration of Tory voters into the process.

For the left of the party and the unions, who never much liked the Clause-4-less "New Labour" bollocks in the first place but only grudgingly tolerated it while Blair was winning with that formula, the fact that Tony Blair is now having kittens over Corbyn feels like a damn good reason to vote for him.

"The Blairites hate him? Good. You can count on my vote, Corbyn!".

The Streisand Effect, of sorts.

If you're trying so damn hard to prevent people from doing something, then people start doing that very thing in order to see what all the fuss is about / deliberately put the boot in as a protest against your attempts at censorship and prohibition.

[Dio]

Corbyn has become the only choice, frankly, the other three have out-blanded themselves into irrelevancy. Will be interesting. His underlying message is actually a strong one, but will it survive the filter of the right-wing media? And will he be too old (in his 70s) to be a serious PM candidate?

An article in the Guardian yesterday outlined what I think is the sensible way forward from here:
- Labour and the Libdems form three parties out of the confused mess they have now: socialists, social democrats and liberal democrats
- Formal pact at the next election by all non-Tory parties for a government which will implement electoral reform; once that is implemented, the government no-confidences itself.
- One candidate from those three runs in each seat
- The future of the country is in consensus government via coalition.

The current situation is basically unfair madness. The big umbrella parties make no sense in the modern world, but nothing else functions in FPTP.

[(o)(o)]

Corbyn has become the only choice, frankly, the other three have out-blanded themselves into irrelevancy. Will be interesting. His underlying message is actually a strong one, but will it survive the filter of the right-wing media? And will he be too old (in his 70s) to be a serious PM candidate?

Those are concerns... he could do with being 10 years youngers.. and the media will go after him mercilessly as they did with Milliband (more to do with his downfall than his actual policies IMO.. OMG his nose whistles hold the front pages!) ... is Corbyn fit and able to deal with that at his age five years from now? Dunno.. I don't see it.. but Attlee was older I think. I just wouldn't be surprised if he wins then steps down before elction.

The current situation is basically unfair madness. The big umbrella parties make no sense in the modern world, but nothing else functions in FPTP.

If Labour get in, changing that should be a top priority, but I can't see Tories holding on to a majority anyway.. hung parliaments and coalitions are likely with FPTP it's a freak of nature that Tories bagged this one.

[pogo]

An article in the Guardian yesterday outlined what I think is the sensible way forward from here:
- Labour and the Libdems form three parties out of the confused mess they have now: socialists, social democrats and liberal democrats
- Formal pact at the next election by all non-Tory parties for a government which will implement electoral reform; once that is implemented, the government no-confidences itself.
- One candidate from those three runs in each seat
- The future of the country is in consensus government via coalition.

There are so many things wrong with that it’s unclear where to start. For one the Labour party were and still are one of the main beneficiaries of FPTP. The different leadership candidates all think they can win and win in 2020 under FPTP. They would never agree to that. The Lib Dems would jump at the chance but they hardly matter. And the SNP? They might hold the balance of power after 2020, but benefit even more from FPTP.

I can’t see Labour coming to a friendly agreement after an acrimonious split. And doing anything like that would lose them support. How many people would not vote for a “socialist” (i.e. hard left) candidate, or the Lib Dems again, if that was their only choice on the left? Plus it would leave room for other parties to gain votes and seats. The Greens in particular but really any where voters feel they have no-one that represents them. Respect might see it as an ideal opportunity.

And would they think they would win another referendum? Probably the opposition would be even stronger for an even more radical system. There’s no constitutional obligation to have a referendum but they could hardly ignore the last one after the clear decision and precedent. If they think it was on the wrong question/system then just re-run it with the right PR system.

[merman]

On unemployment, what’s happening is both expected and welcome. Unemployment was falling steadily for years, up to the end of 2014. But that clearly could not continue forever. There’s an obvious lower bound of zero but we never reach that; there are always some people out of work, so there is a natural rate of unemployment associated with the economy working well, which we seem to have hit. The rate is 5.6%, up from 5.5% last quarter but hardly a significant change. It has in effect stopped falling.

What should happen now is wages start increasing in real terms, as firms need to pay people more to hire them and keep them, having run out of surplus unemployed people. And that too is happening; people are seeing real increases in their pay of 2.8%, again a level associated with a healthy economy.

There are other positive signs too. Almost all the jobs created in the last year are full time. The employment rate is still high, only 0.1% below the record level in the first quarter.

Tell that to the 25,000 extra unemployed people, who get less than the minimum wage.
Tell that to the thousands of young unemployed who still can't get a job.

[pogo]

Tell that to the 25,000 extra unemployed people, who get less than the minimum wage.
Tell that to the thousands of young unemployed who still can't get a job.

But there are not 25,000. For one that’s a very round number, only a crude estimate of the actual number. For another it’s an estimate in another sense, only a first estimate which could be revised away. The 0.1% from 5.5% to 5.6% is well within the margin of error.

Unemployment has reached what is normally called full employment. Not 100% as that is impossible: you will always have some people out of work for some reason or other, between jobs, taking time off, as well as job-seeking. It is good as at this level, without a large supply of unemployed, it becomes hard for firms to find people to take on. They have to pay more or offer better benefits, while the fewer job-seekers have more options. Wages and hours have been rising accordingly, while all the employment growth in the last year has been in full time jobs.

Full employment is not a fixed rate, but depends on the rate of benefits, what people are paid which depends on the minimum wage and taxes especially for the low paid. It rose a decade ago, as the minimum wage was introduced then increased ahead of inflation. This makes it hard to lower the unemployment rate when in full employment. Other things that should help as they improve the productivity and earning potential are more training, education and investment but their effect is less certain and long term, and often is skewed towards those who least need help, such as the already well educated middle class.

[tufty]

There are so many things wrong with that it’s unclear where to start.

You start by understanding the words. Once you're clear on the words, move onto the meaning of the sentences, and from there, on to the paragraphs. Once you think you understand the paragraphs, move onto the entire post. Then do it over again,and again, until you're sure you understand the message that was being made. Remember, most of the people here are cleverer than you, and their messages may be subtle.

Whilst doing this, it's important that you try to ignore the little man in the back of your head crashing cymbals together and shouting "Labour bad! Labour bad!". He's trying to put you off, and in this case (as in most of this thread) appears to have managed quite admirably.

You seem to have understood "blah blah blah Labour blah blah split blah blah get rid of FPTP blah blah SNP".

[KlaxonCow]

But there are not 25,000. For one that’s a very round number, only a crude estimate of the actual number. For another it’s an estimate in another sense, only a first estimate which could be revised away.

Wait a minute.

You were saying that having 25,000 unemployed people was a good thing and a welcome sign.

But now you're saying that, really, the 25,000 probably doesn't even exist in the first place and is just a statistical glitch that can be revised away.

So is this still a good and welcome thing? Or has that also disappeared too? Or is the fact that it never existed in the first place also a good and welcome thing as well?

It can be difficult keeping up with your arguments at times, pogo.

[pogo]

I’m saying we seem to have reached full employment which is a good thing. Once that happens wages should start rising again normally, which is happening. More people should be working full time if they want which is happening. Higher wages means more investment and training, which should help productivity long term.

Once we reach full employment the unemployment rate stops falling. But it will still vary, just around a level not continuously up or down. 25,000, or 0.1% is the sort of change you might expect, small, so small that it’s with normal margins of error so when the data is revised it could easily be revised away. The ONS characterises it thus:

The unemployment rate for those aged 16 and over for April to June 2015 was 5.6%. This was:
* little changed from January to March 2015 (5.5%)
* down from 6.3% for a year earlier

[zip accident]

I’m saying we seem to have reached full employment

Nope, that's 500,000 unemployed tops, and you can probably get lower than that.

which is a good thing.

Thatcher obviously didn't think so. Unemployment drives wages down, which is good for employers, so long as those employers aren't selling goods to their own workers, which in the long run they all are, which is why Thatcher was wrong.