the employment market

[Feedback]

Today we learn from figures provided by the ONS that unemployment is up, the number of job vacancies is down and that wage growth is flat against inflation and the general consensus is that the current trend could continue for some time.

This is obviously not good reading and the current government and chancellor really do have to get to grips with what is going on, and starting implementing policies that favour growth, productivity enhancements and improvements in real life terms, and not enact dogmatic policies for the sake of it. There also has to be a paradigm shift with focus on improving working opportunities for the young.

[jon1959]

Re: the employment market

Today we learn from figures provided by the ONS that unemployment is up, the number of job vacancies is down and that wage growth is flat against inflation and the general consensus is that the current trend could continue for some time.

This is obviously not good reading and the current government and chancellor really do have to get to grips with what is going on, and starting implementing policies that favour growth, productivity enhancements and improvements in real life terms, and not enact dogmatic policies for the sake of it. There also has to be a paradigm shift with focus on improving working opportunities for the young.

What are the 'dogmatic policies' they are enacting 'for the sake of it'?

Not saying they aren't - but I don't see it. I am no fan of this government. There is timidity, there is incompetence, there is political confusion (and cowardice), there is a leaning in to the interests of lobbyists, funders and powerful corporations (especially those circling the 'Trump trade deal').

But however self-destructive or inept there is some method and purpose to their madness. I can't fit your description to the reality.

[Feedback]

Re: the employment market

What are the 'dogmatic policies' they are enacting 'for the sake of it'?

Raising tax/NI thresholds and rates for the sake of it. Who knew that putting an extra burden on employers via NIER increases would mean wages and salaries would stagnate.

It is anathema to this government (and most Labour governments previously) that the best way to bring down the deficit whilst slowing the debt growth without impacting demand side is via increases to productivity and growth. They have opted to take money out of the economy at a time when the economy was fragile

Not saying they aren't - but I don't see it. I am no fan of this government. There is timidity, there is incompetence, there is political confusion (and cowardice), there is a leaning in to the interests of lobbyists, funders and powerful corporations (especially those circling the 'Trump trade deal').

But however self-destructive or inept there is some method and purpose to their madness. I can't fit your description to the reality.

That is because you don't want to see it. Not everything has to be about tax rises.

Yesterday, I think it was Baloo (but that is not the point I am making if this happens to be incorrect before anyone latches on to it and fails to see the point being made) was discussing the tax gap....and contrary to what some would have you believe, its not the wealthy or criminals that create the tax gap, its the non collection of corporation tax from small businesses. Clearly small businesses are already struggling with the tax burden that is upon them (in some cases up to 55-60% of all cash collected by business has to be paid to the treasury in the form of, inter alia, VAT, corp tax, PAYE, rates...). so what does this government do, despite the warning signs that businesses are struggling already with the tax burden...they raise taxes even more via increases to employers NICs.

[jon1959]

Re: the employment market

We could (maybe) have an interesting discussion about the political and budgetary options open to the government, what they claim the purpose and effect will be and what opponents claim will be the real impact. We could go on about fiscal drag and stealth taxes. We could argue about the spending priorities - health, potholes or warships. That is all fine. But I was just asking why you think the government is acting 'for the sake of it'. Other than repeating the phrase you have not explained or justified it.

I assume we have a different understanding of the meaning of those words. To me I thought you were saying the government was doing things because that is what they always do - out of habit - with no projections of the impact; whether more money for the Treasury to spend on public services or job losses because of additional employer costs.

You can (and do) disagree with their budget decisions (I do too) but it seems odd to claim they put them forward 'for the sake of it'. There was a projection of the expected changes to tax income and a general pitch about how that income would be used - backed up by the Blue Book. There may be all sorts of unintended consequences, or likely impacts not acknowledged, but none of it was done 'for the sake of it'.

The government is incompetent and lacks any political vision - but it is not totally rudderless. It does things for a purpose - just not the purpose you or I (for very different reasons) would support.

[Feedback]

Re: the employment market

We could (maybe) have an interesting discussion about the political and budgetary options open to the government, what they claim the purpose and effect will be and what opponents claim will be the real impact. We could go on about fiscal drag and stealth taxes. We could argue about the spending priorities - health, potholes or warships. That is all fine. But I was just asking why you think the government is acting 'for the sake of it'. Other than repeating the phrase you have not explained or justified it.

I assume we have a different understanding of the meaning of those words. To me I thought you were saying the government was doing things because that is what they always do - out of habit - with no projections of the impact; whether more money for the Treasury to spend on public services or job losses because of additional employer costs.

You can (and do) disagree with their budget decisions (I do too) but it seems odd to claim they put them forward 'for the sake of it'. There was a projection of the expected changes to tax income and a general pitch about how that income would be used - backed up by the Blue Book. There may be all sorts of unintended consequences, or likely impacts not acknowledged, but none of it was done 'for the sake of it'.

The government is incompetent and lacks any political vision - but it is not totally rudderless. It does things for a purpose - just not the purpose you or I (for very different reasons) would support.

We clearly have differing views, but in my opinion Labour = tax rises. Always has been. If you disagree then it should be easy to show me where a Labour government has reduced tax rates and increased allowances and reliefs. Tax rises are Labour's panacea for all ills and its the only weapon in their arsenal. How many times do we hear from Labour and generally those on the left that the answer to better public services is more taxes, people paying more in tax than what they do now. Its not always the answer, and we have seen that taxing employers that are already taxed far too high is now having a significant impact on general and wage growth.

When will Labour and some on the left ever learn that growth and improvements to productivity, along with eliminating waste, are the best methods of reducing the deficit.