FULL EMPLOYMENT? When was the last time that was reality - in any country bar the Soviet Union?
It's an economic term of art, and may not mean what you think it does. In particular it does *not* refer to a situation in every single person in the labour pool has a job. It's about eliminating *cyclical* unemployment, and unlike "everyone has to have a job" it is not an obviously-bonkers policy objective.
Hah! Next they are going to come up with supply side reform policies to reduce the NAIRU!
When over 2m don't have a job and there are 3x generations of families that have no experience of working - I'd say that's not FULL EMPLOYMENT by anyone's yardstick.
It's a silly 70s nirvana that demeans those who are actually trying to make a go of it and spend 3 months on the dole between jobs.
I seem to recall Ed's best mate François Hollande promising a big reduction in unemployment, using much the same methods as Ed seems to favour. I wonder how that is going?
So those 2.5m people were a figment of the ONS imagination?
Seriously - on the trolling stakes, you're scoring 0/10.
Give up or try a great deal harder.
I'll post it again. Try reading the words this time, preferably in order, and see how it goes-
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
No Carl, I'm asserting that 2.5m people is eons from Full Employment - not the slack in the system as churn in the market.
Really, PB is rather too sophisticated an audience for this sort of simplistic stuff.
The problem with 'full employment' is that you can't just 'create' a supply of jobs...well you can, but creating productive ones, especially in deprived areas is either hugely expensive on the state, or very very difficult to achieve.
Much like the magic money tree, labour seem to believe in the magic job tree.
So those 2.5m people were a figment of the ONS imagination?
Seriously - on the trolling stakes, you're scoring 0/10.
Give up or try a great deal harder.
I'll post it again. Try reading the words this time, preferably in order, and see how it goes-
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
Really, PB is rather too sophisticated an audience for this sort of simplistic stuff.
Here's that Leftwing simpleton troll Milton Friedman.
there is what the free market economist Milton Friedman termed a "natural rate" of unemployment, where nobody stays out of work for long, unemployment fluctuates between 5% and 6% with jobless workers quickly being hired in growth sectors of the economy.
Of course Friedman may be a little lowbrow for high minded masters of sophisticated political debate like yourself.
" I always thought that any further investigaiton of submissions is totally random. "
No, it's not random, but not mechanistic either.
Figures that are manifestly implausible are more likely to be picked up - so My was right to think about it - but there is nothing unreasonable about a claim of a round 10,000 if it fits the other circumstances. (Of course if he lives on the Eddystone Lighthouse and only takes shore leave once a year...)
We have seen figures recently showing that UKIP draws a significant proportion of its support from the working class.
So expect UKIP to take votes from Conservative right wingers, Labour working class and Lib Dem protesters.
It would be reasonable to assume that UKIP's working class support comes disproportionately from former Tories and former BNP voters, with some from the "plague on all your houses" position formerly occupied by the Lib Dems. Labour is likely to suffer least.
So those 2.5m people were a figment of the ONS imagination?
Seriously - on the trolling stakes, you're scoring 0/10.
Give up or try a great deal harder.
I'll post it again. Try reading the words this time, preferably in order, and see how it goes-
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
Really, PB is rather too sophisticated an audience for this sort of simplistic stuff.
Here's that Leftwing simpleton troll Milton Friedman.
there is what the free market economist Milton Friedman termed a "natural rate" of unemployment, where nobody stays out of work for long, unemployment fluctuates between 5% and 6% with jobless workers quickly being hired in growth sectors of the economy.
Of course Friedman may be a little lowbrow for high minded masters of sophisticated political debate like yourself.
I always thought that an unemployment rate of about 2% equated to effectively zero unemployed because of the argument above. Didn't think it was as high as 5 - 6% though.
The problem with 'full employment' is that you can't just 'create' a supply of jobs...well you can, but creating productive ones, especially in deprived areas is either hugely expensive on the state, or very very difficult to achieve.
Much like the magic money tree, labour seem to believe in the magic job tree.
Well it's certainly true with hindsight that the low levels of unemployment under the previous Government were largely built on an unsustainable City boom.
It's arguable whether that was preferable to higher unemployment or not.
A reminder to those simple souls who have forgotten just how much of a hilarious liabilty Maria Hutchings was and just how rattled by UKIP the tory party are.
Richard N is right, the rise of UKIP is of course an absolute gift to Labour. But I expect many will drift back to the Tories come the business end of the Parliament.
The Tory problem is the more momentum UKIP have, the more they feel like a serious party worthy of real allegiance rather than a hissy protest receptacle.
Assuming the next election is already lost for the Tories, they probably need to squeeze UKIP down to single figures at least to avoid a total humiliation. Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
Why do you think IDS's reform to the benefits system is a lurch to the right? The people most satisfied with these reforms will be the working class, and I wouldn't considered them to be all right-wingers.
And the people most adversely affected by them will be working class too: working class people in work.
Temporarily yes, but as the income tax threshold rises to £10,000 and - hopefully - the economy begins to heal, lower-paid working class people should gradually become better off in work than they have ever been (my guess is that VAT will return to 17.5% at some point and future govt's will do more to help with energy and care costs, which will also help poorer working people), which makes the reforms neutral in terms of their politics. Certainly not right wing, possibly even slightly left wing.
After all, surely it isn't a classically left-wing or socialist policy to allow (some) people to be better off on state benefits than they would be in lower-paid jobs? Which has certainly become the case over the past fifteen years.
I can see the merit and genuine concern in what Gordon Brown was trying to achieve in giving poor and unemployed people a helping hand, but the system has become abused and therefore needed reform. IDS's reforms look - on the face of it - a step in the right direction.
Despite all the bluster and outrage from the Owen Jones' and Mark Serwotka's of this world, I suspect that all three parties agree that the welfare state is becoming increasingly unaffordable, that making work a better financial option that unemployment is a good thing, and that the lives of many hitherto poor and hopeless people may well be transformed if the government gets this right.
Much of the outrage against IDS appears to be knee-jerk anti-Toryism. Benefits are going up by 1% this year. It's not as if the Tories are planning to kill the first born of all council house tenants.
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
Though I'm sure you knew that. Didn't you?
"It doesn't mean every single person has a job" is correct, "the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible" is incorrect. Perhaps it would be closer to say "economically desirable" - at least for the likes of Friedmanites who believe in a non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment and who argue that cutting unemployment below a particular level is dangerous as it stokes inflation. But their conclusion isn't that it is *impossible* to create those extra jobs, just that it's a sign of an overheating economy that is performing at or above its capacity.
And there are people who would contest "desirability" of unemployment. Chartalists and their ideological descendents often argue for a "job guarantee" scheme to supplement or replace long-term unemployment benefit, for instance. MMTer Bill Mitchell's stance on these issues is at http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?cat=23 ... but note that this is very different to the policy objective of eliminating *cyclical* unemployment.
For a contrarian stance, there's always Chris Dillow (the most reasonable Marxist on the web?). He argues that unemployment can actually be a good thing, since it increases public utility by allowing the unemployed to have more leisure time, while the marginal gains to the economy from putting people into marginal, minimum pay jobs - either for employers' profits, the employees themselves, or the taxpayers who would otherwise have to pay their benefits - are de minimis. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/04/scrounging-how-big-an-issue.html
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 3m The £891 figure for family losses under coalition used by Mili pledge card presumes that Labour would have made no cuts at all. Disingenuous
The notion of creating PSector jobs to replace private sector one was laudable ideologically. But...
Let's take the NE - an area that was previously very enterprising and now according IIRC to YouGov subsamples is rather averse to welfare handouts.
As a Geordie myself, I can empathise here. Look after the downtrodden, but give the rest a sound kick up the arse if I'm tolling away whilst they watch Jeremy Kyle and their neighbours.
Alfred Doolittle talked much sense. He was 73 when he did this role - wot a player.
I doubt that Labour will target full employment. Labour seems to be heading towards promoting the living wage, and targeting higher wages and full employment simultaneously sounds like a fool's errand to me.
We have seen figures recently showing that UKIP draws a significant proportion of its support from the working class.
So expect UKIP to take votes from Conservative right wingers, Labour working class and Lib Dem protesters.
It would be reasonable to assume that UKIP's working class support comes disproportionately from former Tories and former BNP voters, with some from the "plague on all your houses" position formerly occupied by the Lib Dems. Labour is likely to suffer least.
In Eastleigh, UKIP took votes quite evenly across party lines.
Lord Ashcroft's callback poll found UKIP having won: 22% 2010 Con voters, 19% 2010 LD voters, and 17% 2010 Lab voters.
The facts of welfare spending as opposed to PB tory anecdote.
How soon before the tory party give the elderly, the disabled and vulnerable children 'a sound kick up the arse whilst they watch Jeremy Kyle and their neighbours' ?
So cynical. Are you not excited by the economic nirvana that Labour are promising us?
No more boom and bust, no nasty cuts, full employment, living wages for all. It only took a leader as bold and visionary as Ed M to promise it and now we can rest confident he will deliver.
Yep it's a matter of debate exactly where "full employment" lies.
Though the overwhelming consensus is that it's a non-zero rate (though Plato is too sophisticated to accept that).
As far as policy objectives go, it's definitely a desirable aim. How to achieve it is a different matter altogether!
Indeed. Note it is different from 'full employability' which has generally been the aim of most recent modern governments (ie giving them skills etc).
The real questions are 1) what would be level of unemployment be (I presumable sub 1m as a ballpark for those temporary out of jobs?) 2) How would you do that?
Especially when you're talking about targeting those which are believed to be currently 'unemployable', or long term unemployed (and a lot are for a reason).
I always thought that an unemployment rate of about 2% equated to effectively zero unemployed because of the argument above. Didn't think it was as high as 5 - 6% though.
My copy of Blanchard and Johnson summarises the debate as 6% on the high side, and a couple of percent on the low side, and notes that the issue remains controversial. (It's a "mainstream" economics book, so no room for the MMTers and their target of 0% though!) As Charles pointed out, the rates may not be set in stone anyway - that's one of the points of structural reforms of the economy.
(for absolute clarity: the % figures I am talking about here are the the debate on what the policy objective should be)
So cynical. Are you not excited by the economic nirvana that Labour are promising us?
No more boom and bust, no nasty cuts, full employment, living wages for all. It only took a leader as bold and visionary as Ed M to promise it and now we can rest confident he will deliver.
Does anyone know what proportion of Sun readers vote and what proportion of Guardian readers vote?
There was a post with a polling breakdown of party support and newspaper affiliation (primarily lib dem) posted on here not that long ago though I'm afraid I can't remember who posted it.
My copy of Blanchard and Johnson summarises the debate as 6% on the high side, and a couple of percent on the low side, and notes that the issue remains controversial. (It's a "mainstream" economics book, so no room for the MMTers and their target of 0% though!) As Charles pointed out, the rates may not be set in stone anyway - that's one of the points of structural reforms of the economy.
As I understand it, the reasons why the sort of unemployment rates achieved post-War (1-2%) are now considered considerably beyond what is achievable even in the good times, are not universally agreed upon. There are plenty of candidates but the mixture of factors is debated - so, for example, greater market fluidity, the entry of more women into the work force, trade unions and employment protection of various kinds, the balance between different types of jobs, and, of course, definitions of unemployment (or economic inactivity, or whatever other measure).
[I understand your concerns because it reminds me of a time many years ago when i was doing a set of accounts of a decent sized business and the the result was zero - i.e. nil profit, nil loss. I added £42 of spurious income to avoid suspicion!]
Hah! I was really startled when the round 10,000 popped out, the big fat zero must have made you reach for the calculator again.
Many thanks to people who made suggestions this thread. You're a great community. Anorak's made me giggle but others very reassuring.
I believe that I am legally obliged to declare my tax situation as truly as possible, which means 10,000 miles it is. Think I will try using the train a bit more next year!
Interesting article by David Smith in the ST yesterday (non paywall below) on falling consumer debt and a debunking of the Help to Buy "sub prime" myth.
"The Help to Buy scheme unveiled by George Osborne in the budget takes it further and has produced a curious reaction. The centrepiece of the scheme - £12bn of government guarantees to support £130bn of new mortgages over three years - seeks to address the mortgage famine that has so depressed housing activity.
Some of the criticism, suggesting it will create a sub-prime crisis in Britain, is preposterous. If we see mortgage lenders doling out loans to borrowers with no income, no jobs and no assets, America’s infamous Ninja borrowers, you might believe it. But that is not going to happen."
Here's that Leftwing simpleton troll Milton Friedman.
there is what the free market economist Milton Friedman termed a "natural rate" of unemployment, where nobody stays out of work for long, unemployment fluctuates between 5% and 6% with jobless workers quickly being hired in growth sectors of the economy.
Of course Friedman may be a little lowbrow for high minded masters of sophisticated political debate like yourself.
carl, Friedman is refering to NAIRU [Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment] not to "full employment".
Full employment is a lower number - essentially just the natural churn rate which, IIRC, is seen as closer to 2-3%.
If Labour is prepared to accept 2.5m as "full employment" that suggests a depressing poverty of ambition.
I always thought that an unemployment rate of about 2% equated to effectively zero unemployed because of the argument above. Didn't think it was as high as 5 - 6% though.
It doesn't - carl has muddled up NAIRU and full employment.
1) The final sentence is "If done right, full employment could be the silver bullet, not just for the welfare debate that Labour has manifestly failed to win, but for a better kind of economy." Note the subclause.
2) Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it entered office. If Ed Miliband is to make a persuasive commitment to full employment, he's going to have to explain why his government would be different from every other Labour government so far.
Unemployment is quite a key indicator for Labour, and Labour governments tend to last until it rises, at which point the electorate vote us out. You can probably find similar indicators for departing Tory governments (inflation?). Measuring the effectiveness of governments at the point they are removed isn't really a useful tool - averaging over their period in office probably is.
That said, I think "full employment" is only a realistic goal if drawn in very wide terms - everyone who's not had a job for six months and is eligible for JSA having an agreed training or other work-preparatory activity.
My copy of Blanchard and Johnson summarises the debate as 6% on the high side, and a couple of percent on the low side, and notes that the issue remains controversial. (It's a "mainstream" economics book, so no room for the MMTers and their target of 0% though!) As Charles pointed out, the rates may not be set in stone anyway - that's one of the points of structural reforms of the economy.
As I understand it, the reasons why the sort of unemployment rates achieved post-War (1-2%) are now considered considerably beyond what is achievable even in the good times, are not universally agreed upon. There are plenty of candidates but the mixture of factors is debated - so, for example, greater market fluidity, the entry of more women into the work force, trade unions and employment protection of various kinds, the balance between different types of jobs, and, of course, definitions of unemployment (or economic inactivity, or whatever other measure).
Yes - one factor IMO is a cultural change to a climate in which making people redundant is much easier. Up until the early 1980s it was very much frowned upon for large employers to make people of working age redundant. Many companies (and particularly nationalised industries, which then employed millions of people) kept people on the payroll who were doing little or no work. Nowadays such people would probably be considered unemployable This also partly explains the culture of worklessness that has grown up - in the post war period jobs were often secured through contacts and family links - being able to do much work was not always a requirement. This would not be the case to the same extent today.
The world is a worse place without strong politicians like Thatcher. She had a vision of what Britain should be and she made it happen. The same cannot be said for our current or former lot.
Love her or hate her Maggie was one of the greats.
I will look on with much interest to see how the left handles her death. I hope we're not in for a 'dance on her grave' festival. It would look mean and petty.
I think I can sympathise with some posters here with respect to avoiding the hysteria from both sides that will follow the announcement today of the death of Margaret Thatcher.
Will anyone be brave enough to speak ill of Saint Nelson when he snuffs it? I look forward to the hypocrisy shown to Maggie and the world's living saint.
1) The final sentence is "If done right, full employment could be the silver bullet, not just for the welfare debate that Labour has manifestly failed to win, but for a better kind of economy." Note the subclause.
2) Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it entered office. If Ed Miliband is to make a persuasive commitment to full employment, he's going to have to explain why his government would be different from every other Labour government so far.
Unemployment is quite a key indicator for Labour, and Labour governments tend to last until it rises, at which point the electorate vote us out. You can probably find similar indicators for departing Tory governments (inflation?). Measuring the effectiveness of governments at the point they are removed isn't really a useful tool - averaging over their period in office probably is.
That said, I think "full employment" is only a realistic goal if drawn in very wide terms - everyone who's not had a job for six months and is eligible for JSA having an agreed training or other work-preparatory activity.
Nick - unemployment tends to be higher under Tory governments as (1) it's higher when they take office, as mentioned upthread, and (2) Tory governments are usually elected to 'fix' the economy, which often requires allowing unemployment to rise further for a short period. Labour isn't then elected again until it's 'safe' to do so.
Wasn't a state funeral planned (or at least offered) for Thatcher? If so, presumably in about 7-10 days time.
From a political betting point of view, her death shouldn't have many direct effects - hardly anyone is likely to change or gain an opnion they didn't have before - but it could have an indirect impact if someone senior in one or other of the parties says or does something particularly tasteless or stupid.
Tories always overcompensate for their guilt in removing Margaret.
There can be no overcompensation, tim.
I am minded of the words written by the second greatest Briton of all time:
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now. You all do know this mantle: I remember The first time ever Marg'ret put it on; 'Twas on a summer's evening, in her tent, That day she overcame the IRA: Look, in this place ran Hezza's dagger through: See what a rent the envious Meyer made: Through this the well-beloved Geoffrey stabb'd; And as he pluck'd his cursed steel away, Mark how the blood of Marg'ret follow'd it, As rushing out of doors, to be resolved If Geoffrey so unkindly knock'd, or no; For Geoffrey, as you know, was Marg'ret's angel: Judge, O you gods, how dearly Marg'ret loved him! This was the most unkindest cut of all; For when the noble Marg'ret saw him stab, Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms, Quite vanquish'd her: then burst her mighty heart; And, in her mantle muffling up her face, Even at the base of Winston's statua, Which all the while ran blood, great Marg'ret fell. O, what a fall was there, my countrymen! Then I, and you, and all of us fell down, Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us. O, now you weep; and, I perceive, you feel The dint of pity: these are gracious drops. Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold Our Marg'ret's vesture wounded? Look you here, Here is herself, marr'd, as you see, with traitors.
Comments
Really, PB is rather too sophisticated an audience for this sort of simplistic stuff.
Much like the magic money tree, labour seem to believe in the magic job tree.
there is what the free market economist Milton Friedman termed a "natural rate" of unemployment, where nobody stays out of work for long, unemployment fluctuates between 5% and 6% with jobless workers quickly being hired in growth sectors of the economy.
Of course Friedman may be a little lowbrow for high minded masters of sophisticated political debate like yourself.
" I always thought that any further investigaiton of submissions is totally random. "
No, it's not random, but not mechanistic either.
Figures that are manifestly implausible are more likely to be picked up - so My was right to think about it - but there is nothing unreasonable about a claim of a round 10,000 if it fits the other circumstances. (Of course if he lives on the Eddystone Lighthouse and only takes shore leave once a year...)
Hohoho!
She's a feisty lady.
It's arguable whether that was preferable to higher unemployment or not.
The Sun, more so. To think its malevolent influence will be gone by the next election is delicious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVnWLRVJkwM
She's a fiesty lady. *tears of laughter etc.* ;^)
After all, surely it isn't a classically left-wing or socialist policy to allow (some) people to be better off on state benefits than they would be in lower-paid jobs? Which has certainly become the case over the past fifteen years.
I can see the merit and genuine concern in what Gordon Brown was trying to achieve in giving poor and unemployed people a helping hand, but the system has become abused and therefore needed reform. IDS's reforms look - on the face of it - a step in the right direction.
Despite all the bluster and outrage from the Owen Jones' and Mark Serwotka's of this world, I suspect that all three parties agree that the welfare state is becoming increasingly unaffordable, that making work a better financial option that unemployment is a good thing, and that the lives of many hitherto poor and hopeless people may well be transformed if the government gets this right.
Much of the outrage against IDS appears to be knee-jerk anti-Toryism. Benefits are going up by 1% this year. It's not as if the Tories are planning to kill the first born of all council house tenants.
And there are people who would contest "desirability" of unemployment. Chartalists and their ideological descendents often argue for a "job guarantee" scheme to supplement or replace long-term unemployment benefit, for instance. MMTer Bill Mitchell's stance on these issues is at http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?cat=23 ... but note that this is very different to the policy objective of eliminating *cyclical* unemployment.
For a contrarian stance, there's always Chris Dillow (the most reasonable Marxist on the web?). He argues that unemployment can actually be a good thing, since it increases public utility by allowing the unemployed to have more leisure time, while the marginal gains to the economy from putting people into marginal, minimum pay jobs - either for employers' profits, the employees themselves, or the taxpayers who would otherwise have to pay their benefits - are de minimis. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/04/scrounging-how-big-an-issue.html
The £891 figure for family losses under coalition used by Mili pledge card presumes that Labour would have made no cuts at all. Disingenuous
Maths...not labours strong point.
The notion of creating PSector jobs to replace private sector one was laudable ideologically. But...
Let's take the NE - an area that was previously very enterprising and now according IIRC to YouGov subsamples is rather averse to welfare handouts.
As a Geordie myself, I can empathise here. Look after the downtrodden, but give the rest a sound kick up the arse if I'm tolling away whilst they watch Jeremy Kyle and their neighbours.
Alfred Doolittle talked much sense. He was 73 when he did this role - wot a player.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_Sj9o7DWJU
Yep it's a matter of debate exactly where "full employment" lies.
Though the overwhelming consensus is that it's a non-zero rate (though Plato is too sophisticated to accept that).
As far as policy objectives go, it's definitely a desirable aim. How to achieve it is a different matter altogether!
Lord Ashcroft's callback poll found UKIP having won: 22% 2010 Con voters, 19% 2010 LD voters, and 17% 2010 Lab voters.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Eastleigh-callback-poll-summary.pdf
How soon before the tory party give the elderly, the disabled and vulnerable children 'a sound kick up the arse whilst they watch Jeremy Kyle and their neighbours' ?
So cynical. Are you not excited by the economic nirvana that Labour are promising us?
No more boom and bust, no nasty cuts, full employment, living wages for all. It only took a leader as bold and visionary as Ed M to promise it and now we can rest confident he will deliver.
The real questions are 1) what would be level of unemployment be (I presumable sub 1m as a ballpark for those temporary out of jobs?) 2) How would you do that?
Especially when you're talking about targeting those which are believed to be currently 'unemployable', or long term unemployed (and a lot are for a reason).
Does anyone know what proportion of Sun readers vote and what proportion of Guardian readers vote?
I suspect quite a low proportion of Sun readers vote in local elections and a much higher proportion of Guardian readers will.
(for absolute clarity: the % figures I am talking about here are the the debate on what the policy objective should be)
It is great to be in Ipswich.
I am proud to be supporting Labour controlled Ipswich borough council.
It's doing a fantastic job.
There are lots of things which are laudable, but impractical.
Many thanks to people who made suggestions this thread. You're a great community. Anorak's made me giggle but others very reassuring.
I believe that I am legally obliged to declare my tax situation as truly as possible, which means 10,000 miles it is. Think I will try using the train a bit more next year!
http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2013-04-08/mayor-shoots-hoops/
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/001853.html#more
"The Help to Buy scheme unveiled by George Osborne in the budget takes it further and has produced a curious reaction. The centrepiece of the scheme - £12bn of government guarantees to support £130bn of new mortgages over three years - seeks to address the mortgage famine that has so depressed housing activity.
Some of the criticism, suggesting it will create a sub-prime crisis in Britain, is preposterous. If we see mortgage lenders doling out loans to borrowers with no income, no jobs and no assets, America’s infamous Ninja borrowers, you might believe it. But that is not going to happen."
Full employment is a lower number - essentially just the natural churn rate which, IIRC, is seen as closer to 2-3%.
If Labour is prepared to accept 2.5m as "full employment" that suggests a depressing poverty of ambition.
Ryan Bourne @RyanCPS
Tip to Ed Miliband on letting local people decide which shops shd be in an area: let shops open, and see whether people provide custom!
That said, I think "full employment" is only a realistic goal if drawn in very wide terms - everyone who's not had a job for six months and is eligible for JSA having an agreed training or other work-preparatory activity.
That's nothing - wait until Mandela snuffs it.
I anticipate some PBers will fail to notice the socially acceptable etiquette of not speaking ill of the dead whilst still warm either.
'Very sad to hear of the death of Margaret Thatcher, a great patriotic lady.' farage
I will look on with much interest to see how the left handles her death. I hope we're not in for a 'dance on her grave' festival. It would look mean and petty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/08/miliband-clegg-local-elections-cameron-madrid?commentpage=3
From a political betting point of view, her death shouldn't have many direct effects - hardly anyone is likely to change or gain an opnion they didn't have before - but it could have an indirect impact if someone senior in one or other of the parties says or does something particularly tasteless or stupid.
Tories always overcompensate for their guilt in removing Margaret.
There can be no overcompensation, tim.
I am minded of the words written by the second greatest Briton of all time:
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
You all do know this mantle: I remember
The first time ever Marg'ret put it on;
'Twas on a summer's evening, in her tent,
That day she overcame the IRA:
Look, in this place ran Hezza's dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Meyer made:
Through this the well-beloved Geoffrey stabb'd;
And as he pluck'd his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Marg'ret follow'd it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved
If Geoffrey so unkindly knock'd, or no;
For Geoffrey, as you know, was Marg'ret's angel:
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Marg'ret loved him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Marg'ret saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquish'd her: then burst her mighty heart;
And, in her mantle muffling up her face,
Even at the base of Winston's statua,
Which all the while ran blood, great Marg'ret fell.
O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us.
O, now you weep; and, I perceive, you feel
The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our Marg'ret's vesture wounded? Look you here,
Here is herself, marr'd, as you see, with traitors.
Now you may ask with good reason "What cuts?".