'There are no unemployed people' - Philip Hammond - Polidicks

[QUOTE]“Where are all these unemployed people? There are no unemployed people. We have created 3.5m jobs since 2010. This economy has become a jobs factory.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In fact, there are about 1.42 million unemployed people in the UK and many more who are underemployed and would like more hours.[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/19/there-are-no-unemployed-in-uk-says-philip-hammond-tv-gaffe[/URL] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42042769/philip-hammond-says-there-are-no-unemployed-people?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcbusinessnews&ns_source=facebook[/url]

Let's hope you're unemployed next, since you clearly can't do your job.

Somewhat out of context. He was saying that driverless cars won't result in mass job loss, as it hasn't in the past with large shifts in technology. So he was saying 'Where are all these unemployed people? There are no unemployed people.' in relation to previous paradigm shifts in tech. Still a stupid way to phrase it.

Being reliant on income support because you're working a shitty underpaying slave wage doesn't count. As with half the policies this government has undertaken the statistics for this are skewed.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52906929]Being reliant on income support because you're working a shitty underpaying slave wage doesn't count. As with half the policies this government has undertaken the statistics for this are skewed.[/QUOTE] Don't forget how being forced into unpaid slave labour by Jobseekers for less than minimum wage also doesn't count as unemployed.

That title is clearly out of context

[QUOTE=Occlusion;52906860]Somewhat out of context. He was saying that driverless cars won't result in mass job loss, as it hasn't in the past with large shifts in technology. So he was saying 'Where are all these unemployed people? There are no unemployed people.' in relation to previous paradigm shifts in tech. Still a stupid way to phrase it.[/QUOTE] It still doesn't really work out. Most of the automation so far was about making workers more productive, but this time it's about outright replacing a lot of jobs on a large scale. It's still possible to handle that with education incentives to make it easy to switch into other fields if I'm not mistaken, but that requires some government intervention to be affordable.

There are no dead people says man who is alive. Seriously, what kind of fucking logic is that? How can no one be unemployed when there are clearly homeless people in the streets?

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;52907090]There are no dead people says man who is alive. Seriously, what kind of fucking logic is that? How can no one be unemployed when there are clearly homeless people in the streets?[/QUOTE] "Where are all the homeless people? There are no homeless people! Even if there were, they couldn't be in the streets, there are no streets!" The kind of retort i'd expect from someone with logic out of a satire. He'd know there are unemployed if he actually lost his job.

oh sweet i apparantly got a job that's a surprise to me when do i start i hope its a job as bikini inspector

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;52907090]There are no dead people says man who is alive. Seriously, what kind of fucking logic is that? How can no one be unemployed when there are clearly homeless people in the streets?[/QUOTE] Can't be arsed to look out the window of his limo as he gets driven around

[QUOTE=Karmah;52906976]That title is clearly out of context[/QUOTE] It represents the absolute lack of any coherent thought or consideration for reality the Conservative government currently has. The lot of them have their fucking head in the clouds and think it's still 1980.

[QUOTE=Occlusion;52906860]Somewhat out of context. [B]He was saying that driverless cars won't result in mass job loss, as it hasn't in the past with large shifts in technology.[/B] So he was saying 'Where are all these unemployed people? There are no unemployed people.' in relation to previous paradigm shifts in tech. Still a stupid way to phrase it.[/QUOTE] In previous mass shifts in technology there were new jobs to replace those old jobs. For instance, horse carriages were replaced with cars, both of which required someone to operate the vehicle, but obviously you had to learn how to drive a car to adapt to this new technology. Unfortunately, driverless vehicles will never require anyone to operate them. And so most driving jobs, which is the most common occupation for men, will no longer exist. Resulting in mass unemployment of all of those people. I'm not sure where they're going to go, but they'll have to find somewhere to work.

[QUOTE=Occlusion;52906860]Somewhat out of context. He was saying that driverless cars won't result in mass job loss, as it hasn't in the past with large shifts in technology. So he was saying 'Where are all these unemployed people? There are no unemployed people.' in relation to previous paradigm shifts in tech. Still a stupid way to phrase it.[/QUOTE] ya but there's quite a lot of unemployed people due to technological paradigm shifts. Even if we weren't moving away from coal, you don't need thousands of people to mine the shit anymore, just a few dozen to run the machines that mine the seam and bring it up to the surface. Automation IS affecting accessability to what factory jobs we do have, CnC opperators are pretty much the majority of my plant's workforce, and its worse in other places. Underemployment is really a bitch though and we're not going to tackle it anytime soon with the conservative economics, or even the centralist liberal economics as they don't have any ideological solution to these problems.

[QUOTE=Karmah;52906976]That title is clearly out of context[/QUOTE] i haven't seen the extended context but based on the sentences before and after that, the title is entirely fitting for everything that he said ok I watched the full video, and no, what he said is still utterly inexcusable and the title fits entirely

[QUOTE=Karmah;52906976]That title is clearly out of context[/QUOTE] Either way, He's still lying. If a Tory opens his mouth to talk about unemployment, it's a safe bet he's about to start telling porkies. The Conservatives are notorious for either creating or doing nothing about problems faced by ordinary people, preferring instead to concentrate all of their effort into fudging the statistics to give the impression they are doing a good job. I'm not on job seekers allowance. I had to get off of the dole and try to fend for myself, because the job centre assigned me an unpaid "workfare" position, I was essentially working a part time job (with all of the travel costs involved), on top of my mandatory "30 hour a week job search" for no pay other than my standard jsa. I didn't leave on principle, I simply could not afford the extra expenditures attending this mandatory unpaid placement required. I still don't have a job, I'm still struggling to keep out of abject poverty, but because of the way the Conservatives measure employment statistics, I'm not on jsa, so I count as being gainfully employed on the books. They made the support for unemployed people so awful that it drove vulnerable people away, or made it impossible for them to remain unsanctioned for any length of time- and then wrote that up as successfully reducing unemployment because the number of people on the dole was ~at a record low!!~.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52908134]Either way, He's still lying. If a Tory opens his mouth to talk about unemployment, it's a safe bet he's about to start telling porkies. The Conservatives are notorious for either creating or doing nothing about problems faced by ordinary people, preferring instead to concentrate all of their effort into fudging the statistics to give the impression they are doing a good job. I'm not on job seekers allowance. I had to get off of the dole and try to fend for myself, because the job centre assigned me an unpaid "workfare" position, I was working essentially working a part time job (with all of the travel costs involved), on top of my mandatory "30 hour a week job search" for no pay other than my standard jsa. I didn't leave on principle, I simply could not afford the extra expenditures attending this mandatory unpaid placement required. I still don't have a job, I'm still struggling to keep out of abject poverty, but because of the way the Conservatives measure employment statistics, I'm not on jsa, so I count as being gainfully employed on the books. They made the support for unemployed people so awful that it drove vulnerable people away, or made it impossible for them to remain unsanctioned for any length of time- and then wrote that up as successfully reducing unemployment.[/QUOTE] They made me do the same thing, but I got a job elsewhere a week into it. It apparantly used to be even worse than before. I was assigned to a charity but it used to be that even companies for profit could get themselves some slaves at the job centre.

I guess I don't exist... but I like existing, not-existent people can't play video games or eat cake...

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52908134]Either way, He's still lying. If a Tory opens his mouth to talk about unemployment, it's a safe bet he's about to start telling porkies. The Conservatives are notorious for either creating or doing nothing about problems faced by ordinary people, preferring instead to concentrate all of their effort into fudging the statistics to give the impression they are doing a good job. I'm not on job seekers allowance. I had to get off of the dole and try to fend for myself, because the job centre assigned me an unpaid "workfare" position, I was working essentially working a part time job (with all of the travel costs involved), on top of my mandatory "30 hour a week job search" for no pay other than my standard jsa. I didn't leave on principle, I simply could not afford the extra expenditures attending this mandatory unpaid placement required. I still don't have a job, I'm still struggling to keep out of abject poverty, but because of the way the Conservatives measure employment statistics, I'm not on jsa, so I count as being gainfully employed on the books. They made the support for unemployed people so awful that it drove vulnerable people away, or made it impossible for them to remain unsanctioned for any length of time- and then wrote that up as successfully reducing unemployment because the number of people on the dole was ~at a record low!!~.[/QUOTE] I recently wrote to my MP (a Tory, Pauline Latham) about some issues I encountered with recruitment agencies using shitty loop holes to get around basic employee rights, and being able to deduct from my wages whenever they felt like it. She just responded with a copy and pasted reply about a topic loosely related to my letter. Clearly couldn't even be bothered to read the letter. I feel very represented for sure.

Even after Marr interjects that there are lots of unemployed people, he doesn't row back.

[QUOTE=Grizz;52908474]Even after Marr interjects that there are lots of unemployed people, he doesn't row back.[/QUOTE] Which leads me to believe that Philip doesn't have a paddle to row with...

[QUOTE=Morgen;52908413]I recently wrote to my MP (a Tory, Pauline Latham) about some issues I encountered with recruitment agencies using shitty loop holes to get around basic employee rights, and being able to deduct from my wages whenever they felt like it. She just responded with a copy and pasted reply about a topic loosely related to my letter. Clearly couldn't even be bothered to read the letter. I feel very represented for sure.[/QUOTE] Pauline Latham is a pretty useless politician when it comes to representing anyone outside her voter base. She's always voted against any welfare payments (including education maintenance, and lowering the cap on the amount individuals can claim). This is in a constituency in the top five areas of Derbyshire on Universal Credit. [editline]20th November 2017[/editline] Remember this when election time comes

This man is the most competent person on the Cabinet. [i]Shit.[/i]

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;52909546]Pauline Latham is a pretty useless politician when it comes to representing anyone outside her voter base. She's always voted against any welfare payments (including education maintenance, and lowering the cap on the amount individuals can claim). This is in a constituency in the top five areas of Derbyshire on Universal Credit. [editline]20th November 2017[/editline] Remember this when election time comes[/QUOTE] I voted labour in the past, and will continue to do so. She just convinced me that I made the right decision of who to vote for.

[QUOTE=Jon27;52909809]This man is the most competent person on the Cabinet. [i]Shit.[/i][/QUOTE] His budget went down well with some help from his colleagues. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc6M5NWfZDw[/media]