• Labour - "We will guarentee every under 25 year old a job - and we'll pay for it"
    71 replies, posted
[B]Ed Miliband has pledged to "conquer" youth unemployment, as he said Labour would guarantee a job to unemployed young people if they came to power. The party's "real jobs guarantee" would offer six months' work to those aged 18 to 24 who had been jobless for a year. [/B]The Labour leader said said the "only answer to a job crisis was jobs" and [B]the £600m policy would be funded by a bankers' bonus tax[/B].Ministers say Labour cannot afford the pledge and its past plans have failed. [B]Meanwhile the coalition's £1bn Youth Contract, launched by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, will provide £2,275 to employers to take on a total of 160,000 18- to 24-year-olds for six months.[/B] In a speech to a one-day Labour conference in Coventry, Mr Miliband said that[B] if Labour were in power, the first line of its Budget would be "real jobs, real wages, a real chance for our young people".[/B] "To business we say, [B]we'll pay the wages, if you provide the training,[/B]" he said. "To young people:[B] if you're out of work for a year we'll guarantee you the opportunity to work.[/B]" Labour's plan would involve the government paying a business to cover 25 hours of work per week at the minimum wage for six months - [B]£4,000 per job[/B]. The firm would then cover a minimum of 10 hours a week training and development, focused on helping the young person to get a permanent job with them or another firm. But Mr Miliband also warned young people they have a responsibility to take the chance and that "[B]saying 'No' is not an option[/B]". [B]Those taking part will be expected to turn up for work, as well as looking for a full-time job and complete training, or face "tough consequences" - including possible benefit sanctions.[/B] However the party's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, appeared not to know the details of the policy when questioned about it on the BBC's Daily Politics. Asked how much Labour's bankers' bonus would raise, Ms Harman said: "I'll have to get back to you on that." She also appeared not to know how much the jobs policy would cost. She said it had been "worked out and fully costed" and apologised for not having the figure "at my fingertips". Shortly afterwards [B]she told the BBC News Channel that the bank bonus tax would raise at "a conservative estimate" about £1bn - however Labour expects it to raise £2bn[/B]. The Labour jobs initiative is[B] similar to the Future Jobs Fund scheme established by the last Labour government but scrapped by the coalition[/B], which said it was too short-termist and overly focused on the public sector But Labour say this scheme is more "intensive" than its predecessor, with guaranteed training and job help. Labour argues the government's scheme subsidises employers without creating new posts - while they would pay for the full wages and ensure that if not enough businesses came forward, the gap would be filled by the state and voluntary sectors. But Conservative Party co-chairman Baroness Warsi said the previous Labour government's Future Jobs Fund had [B]"squandered millions" on short-term placements[/B]. "[B]This government is committed to getting our country back on track. Labour must stop these irresponsible calls for more spending, more borrowing and more debt in the middle of a debt crisis.[/B]" And Conservative MP Stephen Hammond said Ms Harman's interview had "given the game away": "They want to use the banker's bonus tax, [B]but have already spent the money they've pledged 10 times over.[/B]" [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17394506[/URL]
can someone explain to an ignorant american what the Labour are
[QUOTE=BaconMan_lol;35163048]can someone explain to an ignorant american what the Labour are[/QUOTE] A joke
[QUOTE=BaconMan_lol;35163048]can someone explain to an ignorant american what the Labour are[/QUOTE] I'm not British, but it's my understanding that Labour is one of the big three political parties there. They controlled parliament for quite a while before being booted by a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberals (?). Labour is supposed to be in favor of middle and lower-class folks but has mostly fallen into the bureaucratic mess of western nations. Alot of their support dropped around that time. British folk feel free to correct me.
A little bit out of touch with reality aren't we labour party?
[QUOTE=BaconMan_lol;35163048]can someone explain to an ignorant american what the Labour are[/QUOTE] The embodiment of the anti-christ on earth.
That strikes me as a bit of an impossibility.
"We will guarantee every under 25 a job - then when we come to power we'll completely ignore it".
[QUOTE=SilverKnight;35163055]A joke[/QUOTE] Better than the other parties. Just need to get rid of Ed since he's just not leader material.
Meh, the usual bullshit promises that every opposition politician in any country throws out every once in a while.
[QUOTE=BaconMan_lol;35163048]can someone explain to an ignorant american what the Labour are[/QUOTE] There are 3 major groups in british politics. Tories (Conservatives) who are far right. Liberal Democrates which are inbetween and labour which are supposed to be mid-left but are more mid-right these days. British politics is easy to understand in the last 80 years. Labour gets in and spends the money and then tories are voted in and save money. Labour is the main reason our country is so screwed right now, they created tons of fake jobs, allowed open-door immigration without checks so we got a huge immigrant surge while they were in-power and they made so many dumb decisions that the money-greedy tories got in.
The idea of government paying wages is certainly plausible. The New Deal was basically the government providing wages through public corporations. In a way, this could bring about a win-win: the guaranteed jobs gets people into the market, and the government-paid wages allows for private business to gain more earnings due to not paying wages, which they can then put back into the economy, which will help in the long run (well...that's the plan anyhow. This has been shown to be pretty flimsy.) It's a fair idea on paper- but you have to have the wealth to pay the wages for it to work, and need to guarantee employers will spend the extra profits.
[QUOTE=SilverKnight;35163112]There are 3 major groups in british politics. Tories (Conservatives) who are far left. Liberal Democrates which are inbetween and labour which are supposed to be mid-right but are more mid-left these days. British politics is easy to understand in the last 80 years. Labour gets in and spends the money and then tories are voted in and save money. Labour is the main reason our country is so screwed right now, they created tons of fake jobs, allowed open-door immigration without checks so we got a huge immigrant surge while they were in-power and they made so many dumb decisions that the money-greedy tories got in.[/QUOTE] You got left and right mixed up there. Labour are supposed to be left and the tories are supposed to be right.
[QUOTE=SilverKnight;35163112]British politics is easy to understand in the last 80 years. Labour gets in and spends the money and then tories are voted in and save money. Labour is the main reason our country is so screwed right now, they created tons of fake jobs, allowed open-door immigration without checks so we got a huge immigrant surge while they were in-power and they made so many dumb decisions that the money-greedy tories got in.[/QUOTE] Dailymail reader?
[QUOTE=SilverKnight;35163112] Tories (Conservatives) who are far left.[/QUOTE] lolwut I'm American and even I know that the Conservatives are center-right. I even just confirmed that on Wikipedia: [quote]The Conservative Party, formally the Conservative and Unionist Party, is a centre-right political party in the United Kingdom that adheres to the philosophies of conservatism and British unionism.[/quote]
This is around right: [img]http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=SilverKnight;35163112]Tories (Conservatives) who are far left.[/QUOTE] what the fuck?
[QUOTE=matt.ant;35163162]This is around right: [img]http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif[/img][/QUOTE] Shame New Labour have gone, despite Iraq they did a lot of good.
I support Labour, but under our current leadership we playing a dangerous game of politics by promising these populist policies and ignoring the major issue that is threatening our country. Debt. We have a £170 billion deficit and a £1 trillion debt. Though the policy of cuts will be painful and put at risk growth it is one that is needed. You only have to look at Greece and see what happens when a country with large debts does not have a plan to deal with it.
[QUOTE=General Stanley;35163187]I support Labour, but under our current leadership we playing a dangerous game of politics by promising these populist policies and ignoring the major issue that is threatening our country. Debt. We have a £170 billion deficit and a £1 trillion debt. Though the policy of cuts will be painful and put at risk growth it is one that is needed. You only have to look at Greece and see what happens when a country with large debts does not have a plan to deal with it.[/QUOTE] Ed just doesn't have the charisma and seems to be intent on mimicking the Tories to try and get support from the right wing voters, his brother would have been a better choice.
I'm pretty sure broken promises are what got the current government hated by every single person.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35163215]Ed just doesn't have the charisma and seems to be intent on mimicking the Tories to try and get support from the right wing voters, his brother would have been a better choice.[/QUOTE] I agree that David would have been a much better leader, in character and policies. He also seems to accept a need for cuts. However, I wouldn't say Ed is mimicking the Tories at all. He in fact seems to me very left wing. Where I feel him and Balls are going wrong, is they aren't doing anything to ensure that the cuts which are inevitable are starting at the top, with those who can bare the brunt of it.
[QUOTE=General Stanley;35163308]I agree that David would have been a much better leader, in character and policies. He also seems to accept a need for cuts. However, I wouldn't say Ed is mimicking the Tories at all. He in fact seems to me very left wing. Where I feel him and Balls are going wrong, is they aren't doing anything to ensure that the cuts which are inevitable are starting at the top, with those who can bare the brunt of it.[/QUOTE] All this cutting is just going to cause us trouble later down the line, New Labour had the right ideas but sadly Gordon, while a great policy maker, was not very good at winning the people over, which is certainly shown in the whole "bigoted woman" incident.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35163377]All this cutting is just going to cause us trouble later down the line, New Labour had the right ideas but sadly Gordon, while a great policy maker, was not very good at winning the people over, which is certainly shown in the whole "bigoted woman" incident.[/QUOTE] Which is a shame because she was a nice woman, she invited him round for tea after that and admitted she felt sorry for him
[QUOTE=matt.ant;35163394]Which is a shame because she was a nice woman, she invited him round for tea after that and admitted she felt sorry for him[/QUOTE] She was pretty bigoted to be honest though, quite anti immigrant if I remember.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35163377]All this cutting is just going to cause us trouble later down the line, New Labour had the right ideas but sadly Gordon, while a great policy maker, was not very good at winning the people over, which is certainly shown in the whole "bigoted woman" incident.[/QUOTE] I think continued borrowing would cause greater problems down the line.
[QUOTE=General Stanley;35163427]I think continued borrowing would cause greater problems down the line.[/QUOTE] But we're letting all the services fall apart and we're going to have to pay out to fix them eventually. New labour had a fairly good way of fixing the recessioin problems any way.
they're charlatans like the other big parties, but at least they aren't tory charlatans.
I hate people who oppose the cuts because they don't understand that cuts have to be made. Labour got us far into debt by spending fuck-tons of money on places that didn't need it and now we're in the position where The coalition are making cuts to bring the budgets of these places back down to a sensible level.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35163476]But we're letting all the services fall apart and we're going to have to pay out to fix them eventually. New labour had a fairly good way of fixing the recessioin problems any way.[/QUOTE] Though services are being reduced, I think claiming we're are letting them "fall apart" is an exaggeration. As I said early though, these cuts do need to start at the top. I think one thing that needs to be seriously considered is reduction in public salaries over making people redundant, starting with a slash in MP salaries. If we don't tackle our debt now, it will be left to a future generation who will have to take deeper cuts and higher taxes. [editline]16th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The mouse;35163516]I hate people who oppose the cuts because they don't understand that cuts have to be made. Labour got us far into debt by spending fuck-tons of money on places that didn't need it and now we're in the position where The coalition are making cuts to bring the budgets of these places back down to a sensible level.[/QUOTE] I completely agree. It needs to stop being an ideological issue and instead one that we work together on in order to make it fair and as least painful as possible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.