Labour admits the Tories were right all along

[Alf Bentley]

 

 I'd dispute that it was "artificial" as the growth was perfectly real and we did have something to show for it, albeit temporarily (improving living standards, lower unemployment, better public services, limited redistribution to the poorest).

Very small improvement in service compared to the increase in funding

DK about "very small", but certainly too small given the funding - agreed.

 

I accept that it was unsustainable long-term, running even a small deficit during a boom and allowing too much private debt to accrue through excessive financial deregulation (though the banks must take their share of the blame for that). However, public infrastructure and services like education desperately needed investment - and sometimes you need to spend in the short-term to earn more in the long-term. That said, they should have increased tax revenues (in my view) or cut more (in yours, I assume).

Or not increase spending in the first place.

Right v Left political disagreement with you there - society needed the investment & private sector wouldn't have done it as not profitable.

 

However...

- The Tories would have liked even more financial deregulation, and Cameron committed himself to matching Labour's spending plans before the financial crash changed everything;

Saying the Tories would have been worse is a pathetic argument. They didn't because they weren't power, Labour did it's their fault.

Financial deregulation was the fault of successive govts, Con & Lab, when each was in power. I just don't like Cameron's pious humbug, to use a Dickensian word...and, yes, NuLab are just as guilty of humbug. Main party politics is the epitome of cynicism.

 

- Labour ran a surplus 1998-2001 and a deficit smaller than Major's 2002-2007; the deficit only ballooned with the 2008 financial crash, which accounted for about 75% of it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

No comment on this one, I notice, Webbo...inconvenient facts?

 

- Our shrinking manufacturing base and cheap imports are largely structural:

So unemployment is unavoidable no matter who is in power, is that what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. As an advanced/late stage capitalist country, about 80% of our GDP is likely to come from the service sector, not manufacturing (though our manufacturing is under-performing). Many of those services should be advanced services where China & Bangladesh lack the experience/expertise...but not everyone will be capable of performing such services so, to avoid unemployment, as a society, we should be prepared to pay lower-skilled people to perform services that improve everyone's quality of life and give them employment/status/pride (e.g. helping the old/ill/isolated, maintaining parks/public footpaths, developing/running children's facilities).

 

the UK is in advanced/late stage capitalism so is dominated by the service sector, unlike growing China, never mind low-cost Bangladesh; we also have an economy dominated by a financial sector that prefers high gains in the short-term to investment for sustained development (the German preference)

- There's nothing inherently efficient or inefficient about either public or private spending. The mix of the two is a matter of political preference. What does matter is whether the spending is well-directed and well-controlled...and Labour has a lot to answer for on that last point, with billions pissed up the wall on PFI schemes to avoid scaring the Daily Mail with tax rises

Scare the Daily Mail or the voters, the majority of which don't read the Mail?

You're right there: the voters - and Labour was very cowardly over facing voters with hard choices; though the Mail is still the most electorally influential (and socially/intellectually poisonous) publication in the country, as most people buy The Sun for light entertainment.

 

- Redistribution is an interesting one: Labour redistributed limited amounts from the rich to the poor, which would actually be a good idea now, in a recession, as the poor have a higher propensity to spend, boosting demand. The Tories are doing the opposite, presumably based on the theory that rich entrepreneurs will invest, kick-start the economy, trickle-down effect etc.

That is simply not true.Also I'm sure I read although I can't be bothered to look for the figures, that the gap between rich and poor grew under Labour.

The rich/poor gap did indeed grow under Labour - because the wealth of the super-rich grew massively, and continues to do so under the Tories. The bottom 10% (mainly working poor, not those on benefits) saw significant improvements under Labour due to minimum wage/tax credits/childcare. Most others saw only minor change. You'd need a lot of analysis to sort out what the Coalition have done (raising tax threshold & eliminating child benefit/winter fuel payments for well-off v. cutting benefits & tax credits, real wage cut, tax cuts for super-rich, slashing public services)...but I think you'd still find the Tories doing what they are there for, distributing from the poor to the rich.

 

As for capitalism being the best system available, until recent years I'd have agreed, subject to there being more democratic regulation of that system, preferably internationally.

 

However, climate change and the depletion of resources may well change that judgment - though, of course, technological or political advances may put global capitalism back on track. If some dire but realistic predictions are correct, resource wars and population movements could lead to economic meltdown and bloody mayhem within 100 years, leaving billions dead and ending the whole of human civilisation. If that is the outcome, then capitalism won't look like such a great system.... 

You can't live your life on a maybe.

Agree absolutely. Sorry if this comment made me seem a misery; in fact, I'm a happy-go-lucky optimist - and will be dead before any such armageddons occur, even if they do. You can still ponder where humanity might be heading, though, especially with a 9-year-old...

 

Somehow we need a shift from "standard of living" to "quality of life", but how, when material growth/increased profits is the motive force of the all-powerful capitalist system?

Any suggestions? Can't think of any myself...

 

[Rincewind]

Maybe we should just pay for hostels in the winter. You might be onto something there. Wouls save a fortune.

It's a call someone has to make. Either choose what to cut now or be forced to cut everything in 20 years and start seeing people die in the street when they can't get a basic operation.

Ever visited a country where there is no welfare state at all? You might find it interesting.

You would be amazed at the effort previously incapable people suddenly find when they don't get a penny in handouts.

 

How true. It's amazing how many people recover from depression and mental illness suddenly aquire an IQ in the to 100 after suffering years of abuse when told they are getting nothing to help them.

Oh it's wonderful to live in a civilised caring country.

And those that lose their homes after becoming redundant or have their hours cut and fall behind with mortgages well it's their own fault. They should have seen it coming 30 years before when taking the carpentry apprenaship and did a course in call centre advisor just in case of this happening. So stupid some people not to plan ahead.

I have now been convinced and see the light.

[Webbo]

- Labour ran a surplus 1998-2001 and a deficit smaller than Major's 2002-2007; the deficit only ballooned with the 2008 financial crash, which accounted for about 75% of it: http://www.guardian....#zoomed-picture

No comment on this one, I notice, Webbo...inconvenient facts?

 

Labour promised to match The Tories spending plans for the first 2 years during the 1997 election which tbf they did, which accounts for the surplus.

 

There was a recession in the early/mid 90s which accounts for most of the deficit under Major but it was coming down towards the end. Labour ran a deficit during a boom so it's not a strictly fair comparison.

 

Somehow we need a shift from "standard of living" to "quality of life", but how, when material growth/increased profits is the motive force of the all-powerful capitalist system?

Any suggestions? Can't think of any myself...

 

As I said earlier, capitalism is evolution. The world won't stop suddenly,something will occur and we'll all survive because there isn't any alternative.

[Guest MattP]

How true. It's amazing how many people recover from depression and mental illness suddenly aquire an IQ in the to 100 after suffering years of abuse when told they are getting nothing to help them.

Oh it's wonderful to live in a civilised caring country.

And those that lose their homes after becoming redundant or have their hours cut and fall behind with mortgages well it's their own fault. They should have seen it coming 30 years before when taking the carpentry apprenaship and did a course in call centre advisor just in case of this happening. So stupid some people not to plan ahead.

I have now been convinced and see the light.

No one denies those things can happen.

So ill ask again.

What would you cut from instead to feed your recent incessant desires to help the homeless?

Have you spent any time in a country that has little or no welfare state?

[Captain...]

No one denies those things can happen.

So ill ask again.

What would you cut from instead to feed your recent incessant desires to help the homeless?

Have you spent any time in a country that has little or no welfare state?

Quite bizarrely we have come back round to the start, labour saying they will not increase spending where the Tories cut it without finding the money from somewhere else.

So what do you cut? Where do you find the money to say for the fair and social equally society we all want?

The first thing I would look to stop is the tax dodging by the big companies, Google, Amazon, boots, Starbucks, top shop and many more owe this country a fortune in tax.

The other thing I would cut is the billions we spend a year on maintaining our 'nuclear deterrent'.

But failing all that I would actually borrow money to get us out of this economic slump. And once we are out of it then pay off the deficit, neither labour or the conservatives are willing to do this but I do think you should borrow money in a recession and pay it off during a boom, that is where labour fvcked up. Not that they borrowed money, but that the didn't pay it back while the good times were rolling in.

[Guest MattP]

Quite bizarrely we have come back round to the start, labour saying they will not increase spending where the Tories cut it without finding the money from somewhere else.

So what do you cut? Where do you find the money to say for the fair and social equally society we all want?

The first thing I would look to stop is the tax dodging by the big companies, Google, Amazon, boots, Starbucks, top shop and many more owe this country a fortune in tax.

The other thing I would cut is the billions we spend a year on maintaining our 'nuclear deterrent'.

But failing all that I would actually borrow money to get us out of this economic slump. And once we are out of it then pay off the deficit, neither labour or the conservatives are willing to do this but I do think you should borrow money in a recession and pay it off during a boom, that is where labour fvcked up. Not that they borrowed money, but that the didn't pay it back while the good times were rolling in.

 

Well we start with welfare, we start by trying dismantle this entitlement state that has been created, it's only getting bigger as the sink estates breed more and more. It will be harsh on some, very harsh for a while in fact but it won't take too long realise you won't get a free house and money for dropping out a kid. Will soon stop.

 

I agree on tax companies but what can we do? We are in the EU, we have a pact where these companies can pay into whichever country they want. You are a fervant supporter of us being in these trade pacts so good luck finging a way around it. Personally I'd have us out and we'd have a far more competitive corporation tax that we have currently and then we wouldn't see the dodging, then we can kick them out if they don't pay it.

 

Nuclear deterrant I'm not sure, it's the one thing Labour and the Tories agree upon and with the Lib Dems disastrous record on policy where they stand alone from the other two parties since 1939 (Iraq/Afghan apart) it almost convinces me we'll be under fire as soon as we remove it. It's a pretty volatile World and I like the fact we have defences in place to defend ourselves, you never know what nation will be allied with another in thirty years.

 

I just can't condone more borrowing, not at the level we are already at and not to mention the rates we would be borrowing at now being only a double A credit-rated country.

 

I wouldn't assume the good times are coming back now either, there is a new World order in place, India, China, Russia, Japan are all only growing, I think it's naive to think we'll be seeing anything like a boom again for a long time after what we did with the banking system and how much we are paying back.

 

You are completely right on with Labour, in fact they could have done everything people were demanding now from building Social Housing to paying off the debts owed by the NHS trusts during the boom years, no chance of that though, that won't keep you in power, they needed to pay their voting core.

[Jon the Hat]

The first thing I would look to stop is the tax dodging by the big companies, Google, Amazon, boots, Starbucks, top shop and many more owe this country a fortune in tax.

 

This is very easy to do!  Just stop buying from these companies.  You will find that most of the price difference between them and your high street / independent shop is the tax.

[leicsmac]

 

 

As I said earlier, capitalism is evolution. The world won't stop suddenly,something will occur and we'll all survive because there isn't any alternative.

 

Or we don't find a solution to a global problem due to inadequate planning and preparation time, and civilisation collapses. That can happen too. Personally I'd rather not play dice where the stake is human civilisation itself. Or perhaps we already are.

 

Well we start with welfare, we start by trying dismantle this entitlement state that has been created, it's only getting bigger as the sink estates breed more and more. It will be harsh on some, very harsh for a while in fact but it won't take too long realise you won't get a free house and money for dropping out a kid. Will soon stop.

 

I agree on tax companies but what can we do? We are in the EU, we have a pact where these companies can pay into whichever country they want. You are a fervant supporter of us being in these trade pacts so good luck finging a way around it. Personally I'd have us out and we'd have a far more competitive corporation tax that we have currently and then we wouldn't see the dodging, then we can kick them out if they don't pay it.

 

Nuclear deterrant I'm not sure, it's the one thing Labour and the Tories agree upon and with the Lib Dems disastrous record on policy where they stand alone from the other two parties since 1939 (Iraq/Afghan apart) it almost convinces me we'll be under fire as soon as we remove it. It's a pretty volatile World and I like the fact we have defences in place to defend ourselves, you never know what nation will be allied with another in thirty years.

 

I just can't condone more borrowing, not at the level we are already at and not to mention the rates we would be borrowing at now being only a double A credit-rated country.

 

I wouldn't assume the good times are coming back now either, there is a new World order in place, India, China, Russia, Japan are all only growing, I think it's naive to think we'll be seeing anything like a boom again for a long time after what we did with the banking system and how much we are paying back.

 

You are completely right on with Labour, in fact they could have done everything people were demanding now from building Social Housing to paying off the debts owed by the NHS trusts during the boom years, no chance of that though, that won't keep you in power, they needed to pay their voting core.

 

I honestly don't think a massive nuclear deterrent for our country is called for today. The principle of MAD is so etched into the minds of the leading nations that everyone knows just one nuke being fired in anger would mean The End. The threat these days is a group of ideological nutters getting their hands on a viable device, and that's a threat you can't really counter with nukes.

 

You could make the argument that we should keep them just in case there comes a time when we have to stand alone, but tbh if that happens I think we're fvcked anyway, nukes or no nukes. We're always going to be aligned or allied with one of the other nuclear powers, and if we're not that will mean the shite has hit the fan already anyway. 

 

I wouldn't get rid of them entirely, but I'd reduce them to purely token amounts and massively cut back on the budget. Would be one big saving.

[leicsmac]

This is very easy to do!  Just stop buying from these companies.  You will find that most of the price difference between them and your high street / independent shop is the tax.

 

Why is the obligation on me, the consumer, to enforce Government-made tax laws?

 

And one of the reasons why they can undercut most of the smaller shops and use destroyer pricing is through tax-dodging (and economies of scale).

[MooseBreath]

What's the global problem that might cause civilisation to collapse?

[leicsmac]

What's the global problem that might cause civilisation to collapse?

 

I dunno, you'd have to ask Alf - he brought the subject up. 

 

But I would say lack of hydrocarbon resources from consumption by fast-developing countries with big populations and overpopulation itself (resulting in wars to control the remainder of resources) could become a big problem in the next century, as well as changing climate. But of course those are both purely theoretical threats at this time, however there is a reasonable likelihood they will become real.

 

My point is that we should be looking at these threats and taking adequate planning now (which is not happening), rather than waiting until it could well be too late and hoping human ingenuity will pull our arses out of the fire at the last minute.

[Rincewind]

Some interesting callers to Radio Leicester. Some woman living in a quaint place called Barkby wants to do away without foreign aid despite it being pointed out that it consists of 0.7% of the economy.

Someone just been on from Braunston says the NWO is in control of the countries.

A woman says her benefit has fallen by £200 per month.

[MooseBreath]

I dunno, you'd have to ask Alf - he brought the subject up.

But I would say lack of hydrocarbon resources from consumption by fast-developing countries with big populations and overpopulation itself (resulting in wars to control the remainder of resources) could become a big problem in the next century, as well as changing climate. But of course those are both purely theoretical threats at this time, however there is a reasonable likelihood they will become real.

My point is that we should be looking at these threats and taking adequate planning now (which is not happening), rather than waiting until it could well be too late and hoping human ingenuity will pull our arses out of the fire at the last minute.

Innovative solutions to problems will be required; capitalism has proved to be the best system for generating rapid innovation in the history of the planet. So why are you suggesting something needs to change?

As it happens we already have plenty of solutions to any potential energy crisis. Gas fracking in the US has reduced gas prices overe to some 30% of what they were a few years back, there is an abundance of energy. We already have solar power, wind power, tidal power etc any and all of which is clean, sustainable and can be upscaled within a few years if and when required to cover any shortage.

Capitalism will continue to drive improvements in healthcare and food production and transport and technology and everything else we need to face the problems of a growing population (which will infact stop growing at some point in the next couple of decades anyway). There is no better system for dealing with those kind of issues.

[Guest MattP]

Some interesting callers to Radio Leicester. Some woman living in a quaint place called Barkby wants to do away without foreign aid despite it being pointed out that it consists of 0.7% of the economy.

Someone just been on from Braunston says the NWO is in control of the countries.

A woman says her benefit has fallen by £200 per month.

 

Just 0.7? That's about 7billion pounds then? Imagine what we could do with that a year.

 

It's no wonder you aren't remotly bothered about the financial state of the country if you think 0.7% of the economy can be thrown away on a whim. Incredible stuff.

 

£200 a month? Tell her to get used to £500 soon as we'll have to start cutting the deficit properly.

 

 

I honestly don't think a massive nuclear deterrent for our country is called for today. The principle of MAD is so etched into the minds of the leading nations that everyone knows just one nuke being fired in anger would mean The End. The threat these days is a group of ideological nutters getting their hands on a viable device, and that's a threat you can't really counter with nukes.

 

You could make the argument that we should keep them just in case there comes a time when we have to stand alone, but tbh if that happens I think we're fvcked anyway, nukes or no nukes. We're always going to be aligned or allied with one of the other nuclear powers, and if we're not that will mean the shite has hit the fan already anyway. 

 

I wouldn't get rid of them entirely, but I'd reduce them to purely token amounts and massively cut back on the budget. Would be one big saving.

 

Like I say, I'm open to this argument. It has to be a better one than 'tbh if that happens I think we're fvcked anyway, nukes or no nukes' for us to remove it mind.

 

Would you be happy for a World where the whole Western World put down it's nukes while North Korea and Iran worked on theirs? Do you think it's a bit immoral we drop ours just to save money and leave our deterrant in the hands of France and the US?

 

- There's nothing inherently efficient or inefficient about either public or private spending. The mix of the two is a matter of political preference. What does matter is whether the spending is well-directed and well-controlled...and Labour has a lot to answer for on that last point, with billions pissed up the wall on PFI schemes to avoid scaring the Daily Mail with tax rises

 

Sorry I missed this, you need to move into 2013 here Alf, the Mail has little political sway anymore and doesnt really care, they have the 'right minds' thing still going but most read that online without even going to the DM now. I worked at Northcliffe Media for 3 years, the target audience is middle aged women. It's like a glorified Heat magazIne half the time.

 

If you want to moan at middle aged white guys being racist and moaning on tax the Express is your bet now.

[leicsmac]

Innovative solutions to problems will be required; capitalism has proved to be the best system for generating rapid innovation in the history of the planet. So why are you suggesting something needs to change?

As it happens we already have plenty of solutions to any potential energy crisis. Gas fracking in the US has reduced gas prices overe to some 30% of what they were a few years back, there is an abundance of energy. We already have solar power, wind power, tidal power etc any and all of which is clean, sustainable and can be upscaled within a few years if and when required to cover any shortage.

Capitalism will continue to drive improvements in healthcare and food production and transport and technology and everything else we need to face the problems of a growing population (which will infact stop growing at some point in the next couple of decades anyway). There is no better system for dealing with those kind of issues.

 

Then why are energy prices continuing to rise here if this abundant energy is available now? From a bit of research I can agree the tech is in place and can become available - so why isn't it being used right now to provide a surplus and reduce prices? I'm guessing the NIMBYs have something to do with it. I'd rather us put our faith in a clean and renewable source like wind, tidal or solar rather than fracking, tbh - but that's water under the bridge. Getting nuclear fusion working properly would help out loads too. 

 

As for the rest - I admire your optimism and faith in human ingenuity, I really do, and I hope what you say does indeed come to be what happens. Because the alternative is ugly. Perhaps I'm too much of a cynic when it comes to human nature.

 

Just 0.7? That's about 7billion pounds then? Imagine what we could do with that a year.

 

It's no wonder you aren't remotly bothered about the financial state of the country if you think 0.7% of the economy can be thrown away on a whim. Incredible stuff.

 

£200 a month? Tell her to get used to £500 soon as we'll have to start cutting the deficit properly.

 

 

 

Like I say, I'm open to this argument. It has to be a better one than 'tbh if that happens I think we're fvcked anyway, nukes or no nukes' for us to remove it mind.

 

Would you be happy for a World where the whole Western World put down it's nukes while North Korea and Iran worked on theirs? Do you think it's a bit immoral we drop ours just to save money and leave our deterrant in the hands of France and the US?

 

 

Sorry I missed this, you need to move into 2013 here Alf, the Mail has little political sway anymore and doesnt really care, they have the 'right minds' thing still going but most read that online without even going to the DM now. I worked at Northcliffe Media for 3 years, the target audience is middle aged women. It's like a glorified Heat magazIne half the time.

 

If you want to moan at middle aged white guys being racist and moaning on tax the Express is your bet now.

 

Perhaps I'm being oversimplistic there but it's true. 

 

I'm not advocating that the entire Western world gives up its nukes (as you say the NK's or Iran - who don't have any and won't for a long time - won't give up theirs), I'm saying that our deterrent is too big and too expensive. And we're always going to be aligned with a nuclear power anyway, so why do we need such a large amount of missiles? What exactly are we deterring against? 

 

At the present time if someone launched a nuke at the UK they'd probably launch at the US too and the US would respond in kind. Even if they just launched at us and didn't launch at the US as well the US would be treaty-bound to respond on our behalf (if we had no nukes). And if in the future we have some kind of falling out with the US and lost that treaty (not that I think that'll happen), we'd either align ourselves with another nuclear power or assert total neutrality. And if that happened - again if someone was launching at the UK, they'd be launching at other places too and everyone would be screwed.

 

I think a massive nuclear deterrent in this country is a massive anachronistic waste of money in this day and age because both the threat of widespread nuclear war is really really small, and if it does break out everyone is going to get involved and whether we have nukes or not isn't going to matter to the survivors of the resultant holocaust.

 

The only reason I can think of for keeping it is the research and military jobs it sustains.

[Guest MattP]

You make a better case for removing it than most Mac.

[ealingfox]

What's the global problem that might cause civilisation to collapse?

 

Wouldn't cause civilisation to collapse but I could see something like epidemic disease providing a Malthusian check in the not too distant future, when overpopulation and resource consumption becomes too much. Would consequently alleviate a lot of economic problems too. 

[Webbo]

Or we don't find a solution to a global problem due to inadequate planning and preparation time, and civilisation collapses. That can happen too. Personally I'd rather not play dice where the stake is human civilisation itself. Or perhaps we already are.

Since history began there has always been an apocalypse just around the corner and yet we're still here. Life goes on because that's what humans do.

[Guest MattP]

George Osborne impresses me everytime I see him now, he has really grown into his role.

 

Jobseekers now won't be able to claim until they take English courses, actually bring a CV to the Job Centre and will have to start attending once a week rather than every fortnight. Superb.

 

I've actually got some hope now we are going to end up stopping this entitlement culture for a while.

[ealingfox]

George Osborne impresses me everytime I see him now, he has really grown into his role.

 

Jobseekers now won't be able to claim until they take English courses, actually bring a CV to the Job Centre and will have to start attending once a week rather than every fortnight. Superb.

 

I've actually got some hope now we are going to end up stopping this entitlement culture for a while.

 

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. It's pervaded every aspect of society now, people have to have stuff spoon-fed to them. The blame culture is everywhere. For instance, if a kid gets shite exam results what do the parents do? Blame the teachers, even though the way subjects are taught now is essentially rehearsing for the exam from the first week. What does someone do if they trip on a loose paving slab in the street? They don't curse their luck and tell themselves to be more careful, they sue the council. 

 

I'm all for the welfare state for people who really need it but the extent to which people want something for nothing, or to have stuff done for them these days is an absolute joke.

[leicsmac]

Since history began there has always been an apocalypse just around the corner and yet we're still here. Life goes on because that's what humans do.

 

Like I said, perhaps I'm a bit cynical regarding human nature. 

 

Believe me, the Government that promises and delivers mass employment, reduces individual tax as a result of that increased employment and encourages a higher minimum wage to lower the gap between rich and poor and encourage working rather than a life on benefits will have my vote.

[Webbo]

Like I said, perhaps I'm a bit cynical regarding human nature. 

 

Believe me, the Government that promises and delivers mass employment, reduces individual tax as a result of that increased employment and encourages a higher minimum wage to lower the gap between rich and poor and encourage working rather than a life on benefits will have my vote.

If it was that easy it'd been done years ago.

[leicsmac]

If it was that easy it'd been done years ago.

 

What's stopping it from being done? Other than the multinationals threatening to move their business elsewhere if their demands for low dodgable tax and low wages are not met?

[James.]

What's stopping it from being done? Other than the multinationals threatening to move their business elsewhere if their demands for low dodgable tax and low wages are not met?

 

Sounds a bit idealistic to me. For one the mass employment you refer to would probably drive down wages and as such reduce tax income or at best keep it the same, leaving little room for a cut.

 

Plus delivering on mass employment AND increasing minimum wage will surely put extra pressure on business profits and as such their ability to invest and grow.

 

I like it in theory but in reality not sure at all.

[leicsmac]

Sounds a bit idealistic to me. For one the mass employment you refer to would probably drive down wages and as such reduce tax income or at best keep it the same, leaving little room for a cut.

 

Plus delivering on mass employment AND increasing minimum wage will surely put extra pressure on business profits and as such their ability to invest and grow.

 

I like it in theory but in reality not sure at all.

 

Then get businesses to move into fields where there are more profits available, and which are more manpower-heavy. Like manufacturing for instance. Wait...we had a great manufacturing industry once, didn't we? 

 

But in any case we can't compete with the Chinese slave labour for manufacturing standard products any more so we have to find a niche market. Mass employment while keeping the minimum wage the same and lowering taxes from the increased work base is possible if the right industry is invested in initially.

 

As another point, I'd love to see how much profit an average business makes actually gets reinvested back into the business. 

 

I know the ideological policy of this Government is for large levels of unemployment in favour of 'streamlined' businesses generating a lot of profit, but it just gives me grief seeing people my age and older applying for jobs where there are a couple of hundred other applicants. The jobs market is saturated because no one is taking on and reinvesting, because everyone is scared. That then has a knock-on effect where people don't spend, and more frontline businesses go under, leading to more unemployment. And so on.