Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Not convinced.

LOL.

Dont you mean you dont understand how this could happen under a Tory Government.

sticky - an awful lot of questionable stats there (e.g. open to interpretation), but if i have read that correctly, if you are awarded (not quite the right word it has to be admitted) an ESA, then quite rightly you come off the unemployment register - though elsewhere i am sure you have told us about how difficult it is to get ESA (with which i concur, at least partially)

however, is not a key question as to what WRAG is actually defined as

all those stats really are awfully messy and confusing, as indeed i am sure they are meant to be - not through you it has to be said

where you and i agree, at least to some extent, is the number of people in part-time work
i would maintain that part-time is most assuredly better than no-time, and further it should not be forgotten that there are at least a significant number of people who are unwilling to work more than 16 hours a week, because it affects the level of benefit that they can claim

==============

anyway, if the economy is genuinely improving, which i would categorically say that it is, albeit more slowly north of watford (can't be helped; it just is so), then slowly but surely there will be an increase in the number of (proper) job vacancies .... whether or not those who are very comfortable on benefits + a bit of cash-in-hand work would be happy to apply or even take such work is another matter altogether

==============

i only went quiet because i went to the gym, went back to the office for an hour or so, came home and made the dinner - and only then, because the other option was even worse (corrie or something) - switched on my pc :-)

The increase in employment and consequently the reduction in unemployment is real. The increase in employment is 75% full time.

75% of what?

of the increase.

Yes they did, they created a business atmosphere in which thousands of new jobs were created.
bet that doesn't stand up to the most minimal of scrutiny .... have you forgotten how the economy plummetted, and though the loss of jobs lagged, as does the re-creation of same, the consequences of GB's policies were disastrous

Fact is Tories are in power and transfering people from unemployment to sickness benefits so as to make the employment figures look better just as did Thatcher.

The figures above I admit are a little complex for the lay man but its the truth, for god sake this is a government department that as produced them.

Are you really questioning the part Thatcher played in creating Incapacity Benefit as an alternative life style.

Thats where it all began. Thats why we have never recovered.

She changed and industrial nation into a nation of Services.

Its not a case of part time or full time.

The truth is set in stone above and it will get worse.

No need to blame Labour Cyners the Tories are in their fourth year of government. Its too easy to pass the buck.

The above is camplete nonsense.

This account fits what I believe to be the case. It covers the whole history up to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacity_Benefit

READ AGAIN HAYS..............

In April 2011 a rolling program began under which all existing Incapacity Benefit claimants are to be re-assessed using the WCA. Those who pass the assessment will be moved to ESA. Those who fail will be disqualified from both ESA and IB. They may be able to apply for JSA if they satisfy its conditions. This process is intended to be completed by March 2014............ENDS

WAY OUT OF DATE ASWEL.

OR SHOULD SAY ids MAKING A COMPLETE MESS OF IT.

Its obvious you cant get your head around this matter Hays.

I dont mean to be rude but youd be better just accepting your lot are fiddling and call it a day.

nb, IB or disablement benefit are not Incapacity benefit, I think this is what is confusing you.

Its obvious you cant get your head around this matter Hays.

I dont mean to be rude but youd be better just accepting your lot are fiddling and call it a day.

nb, IB or disablement benefit are not Incapacity benefit, I think this is what is confusing you.

I think you are just looking for fiddling where none exists. The same applies to the Thatcher period.

Ohhhhhh stop talking silly.

After the growth figures released this morning, George Osborne was always likely to enjoy his bout with Ed Balls at today's Treasury questions. So loud was the roar from the Conservative benches when Balls stood up that the Speaker was forced to interject immediately, assuring them "you've got the man at the box for whom you were waiting".

Once the Tories had settled down, Balls began his question by noting that "after three damaging years of flatlining", today's growth figures were "welcome" (prompting another roar), before challenging Osborne on the "dodgy figures" used last week to claim that living standards were rising. Osborne, in full assassination mode, welcomed the "very important Labour economic announcement" that Balls will remain "in his job" and declared, "what they need on the other side of the House is new crystal balls". As Tory MPs guffawed, an unamused shadow chancellor replied: "very good, very good, Chancellor, a joke about my name being called Balls, fabulous."

Sorry but out of your depth on this subject, and you obviously dont understand it.

No probs as I said earlier rather complex.

You are just using the complexities to convince yourself that there is fiddling where there is none.

Wont be saying that when it is brought up in PMQs and on front page of all rags tomorrow.

Could be very damaging for the Tories. Espcially given that ESA support is a much costlier benefit that JSA.

Ed Balls has learnt “absolutely nothing” from the years leading up the economic crisis, the PM said, after the shadow chancellor insisted Labour did not spend to much money while in power.

The party should have spent even more in some parts of the public sector, Mr Balls said on Sunday.

Mr Cameron told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I saw what Ed Balls said yesterday, which as far as I could see was that, if he had his time over again, he would probably spend even more.

"I think these people seem to have learnt absolutely nothing from what went wrong with our economy, that the problems were based on too much borrowing, too much spending, too much debt.