: The roots of the long-term unemployed army and the legion of
school-leavers classified as NEETS lies in the Thatcher era, which not
only destroyed the natural employments of the workingclass and created
structural unemployment.  To  cover this  disaster, the Tories attempted
to disguise the massive employment by allowing sickness benefit to
balloon

 Thatcher  set the stage for Major, Blair and Brown to follow suit and
expand on the disastrous policies she had initiated such as
privatisation of strategic industries, the export of jobs and the
adoption of an open door immigration policy. Much of this disastrous set
of policies was made possible by her embrace of the Single European Act.

Attempts to portray any of our present economic and social woes as the
consequence of socialism is a nonsense. We had more or less full
employment from 1945 until 1975,  by which time the oil price shock had
filtered through to the economy in general. Even then, by 1979 there
were only a few more than 1 million unemployed and that was an honest
figure because all the ways of hiding unemployment such as long term
sickness benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
used.

RH


-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:31:01 +0100, Robert Henderson
 wrote:

>Attempts to portray any of our present economic and social woes as the
>consequence of socialism is a nonsense. We had more or less full
>employment from 1945 until 1975,  by which time the oil price shock had
>filtered through to the economy in general. Even then, by 1979 there
>were only a few more than 1 million unemployed and that was an honest
>figure because all the ways of hiding unemployment such as long term
>sickness benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>used.


It sounds the same as here in the US. The dereg, globalization crowd
had their day and ran things into the ground. They've left us in debt
and shambles. And now they seek to blame someone else?

"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
news:U7rSL3dFU5hIFwC7@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>:  Even then, by 1979 there
> were only a few more than 1 million unemployed and that was an honest
> figure because all the ways of hiding unemployment such as long term
> sickness benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
> used.

What was the employment rate in 1979? It's currently about 75%.

Robert Henderson wrote:

[ ... ]

> ... We had more or less full employment from 1945 until 1975...

It's easy to see that you were in London during that period (or the bit 
that overlaps your lifetime).

"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
news:U7rSL3dFU5hIFwC7@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>: The roots of the long-term unemployed army and the legion of
> school-leavers classified as NEETS lies in the Thatcher era, which not
> only destroyed the natural employments of the workingclass and created
> structural unemployment.  To  cover this  disaster, the Tories attempted
> to disguise the massive employment by allowing sickness benefit to
> balloon
>
> Thatcher  set the stage for Major, Blair and Brown to follow suit and
> expand on the disastrous policies she had initiated such as
> privatisation of strategic industries, the export of jobs and the
> adoption of an open door immigration policy. Much of this disastrous set
> of policies was made possible by her embrace of the Single European Act.
>
> Attempts to portray any of our present economic and social woes as the
> consequence of socialism is a nonsense. We had more or less full
> employment from 1945 until 1975,  by which time the oil price shock had
> filtered through to the economy in general. Even then, by 1979 there
> were only a few more than 1 million unemployed and that was an honest
> figure because all the ways of hiding unemployment such as long term
> sickness benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
> used.


The disguising of unemployment was actually rooted in the Atlee era, 
Robert - it's called "nationalisation". That explains your laughable 
assertion that there was only one million unemployed in 1979. Government 
employed miners extracted coal and it was transported on the government 
trains, to the government power stations, which powered the government steel 
works, which produced the government steel which travelled on the government 
trains to the government car works which produced government subsidised cars 
that cost more than a Volkswagen which lasted three times as long.



Privatisation didn't cause *real* unemployment, because the people put on 
the dole *were unemployed anyway*. If three men do one man's job, then two 
of those three men are *unemployed*.



If I were to take office tomorrow, of the 800,000 people that Blair took on 
since taking office, I would sack all the diversity trainers, gender 
awareness advisors and all the other non-jobbers and that would leave about 
100,000 once I'd employed a few more nurses, teachers, policemen and 
doctors. And I would be under no illusion that whilst I had only transferred 
these people to the dole proper, from their current super-dole, in twenty 
years' time some idiot would be making pompous, matter-of-fact 
pronouncements about how I had set in motion the conditions that meant he 
couldn't get work.



You suffer from a lack of personal responsibility, Robert.

Robert Henderson  wrote:


> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million 
> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the 
> ways of hiding unemployment such as long term sickness 
>benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>used.
>

My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was 
several million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.

[fu set uk.p.m]
 

-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

Robert Henderson wrote:
> : The roots of the long-term unemployed army and the legion of
> school-leavers classified as NEETS lies in the Thatcher era, which not
> only destroyed the natural employments of the workingclass and created
> structural unemployment.  To  cover this  disaster, the Tories attempted
> to disguise the massive employment by allowing sickness benefit to
> balloon
> 
>  Thatcher  set the stage for Major, Blair and Brown to follow suit and
> expand on the disastrous policies she had initiated such as
> privatisation of strategic industries, the export of jobs and the
> adoption of an open door immigration policy. Much of this disastrous set
> of policies was made possible by her embrace of the Single European Act.
> 
> Attempts to portray any of our present economic and social woes as the
> consequence of socialism is a nonsense. We had more or less full
> employment from 1945 until 1975,  by which time the oil price shock had
> filtered through to the economy in general. Even then, by 1979 there
> were only a few more than 1 million unemployed and that was an honest
> figure because all the ways of hiding unemployment such as long term
> sickness benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
> used.
> 

There is something else afoot - a change in the culture that employers 
would take on someone with no bits of paper and train them for the job. 
The majority of people did not have decent grades, just as they don't 
now. The major difference is that when we left school at 16 with 
appalling grades or no grades, we were not scorned by employers and 
agencies - we were seen as valid and employable. In spite of my only 
getting 2 E's and a D at O level, I walked into office jobs with no 
problem at age 16, and that was during economically hard times. Few if 
any 16 year olds would sign on because we were all in work. A few went 
and did A levels, a few went to college. Even banks and the civil 
service had age 16 entry level posts.
Now if you walk into an employment agency, they will laugh at you and 
tell you to come back when you are 18, even if you *do* have good 
grades. Employers generally aren't interested in you (barring those who 
can only employ 16-18 year olds, like Macdonalds) until you are 18, even 
if you have good grades. Some claim that they have no insurance for 
under-18's - I don't know if it's true.
This culture has extended to adults now, who are expected to have NVQ's 
in litter-picking before they are allowed to work, or one of those 
health and safety card things (unless they are Polish of course and then 
they just walk into the jobs and get the bits of paper after, if at 
all.) Jobs which were traditionally done by thick 16 year olds, like 
factory, shop and office work, just don't exist anymore, of if they do, 
they are filled by you-know-who or people with good grades.
To add insult to injury, 16-18 year olds cannot claim JSA (in spite of 
the hysteria in the rags which has made people believe that they 
(NEET's) are all scrounging off the taxpayer), which means that unless 
they are bright enough to go to college or A level, they are hanging 
about on the streets with no money.
I don't understand why the culture of work has changed so radically in 
this country (for centuries, young and stupid people were considered 
good fodder for work). Maybe something to do with a government that just 
could not resist labelling and grading everything and everybody. I wish 
it hadn't because I think we have created a generation of useless and 
unproductive, hopeless people whose hands are tied, and who take 
constant criticism before they have even had a change to enter the 
workplace.
I would not blame them if they stick two fingers up and tell us to get lost.

Dr Quite wrote:
> "Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
> news:U7rSL3dFU5hIFwC7@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> :  Even then, by 1979 there
>> were only a few more than 1 million unemployed and that was an honest
>> figure because all the ways of hiding unemployment such as long term
>> sickness benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>> used.
> 
> What was the employment rate in 1979? It's currently about 75%. 
> 
> 

A lot lower. I used to go out job-hunting and get two or three job 
offers by 4pm - start the following monday.
That was in the days when you got wages in cash in brown envelopes and 
didn't have to leave a paper-trail for the Blairites to snoop at.

Sleepalot wrote:
> Robert Henderson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million 
>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the 
>> ways of hiding unemployment such as long term sickness 
>> benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>> used.
>>
> 
> My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was 
> several million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.
> 
> [fu set uk.p.m]
>  
> 

It went up after 1979. I left school (unqualified) in 1978, never ever 
was unemployed or knew anybody who was unemployed, and claiming benefits 
was not something that even crossed our minds...

Maria wrote:
> Sleepalot wrote:
>> Robert Henderson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million 
>>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the ways of 
>>> hiding unemployment such as long term sickness benefit, training 
>>> schemes and extended education had not been
>>> used.
>>>
>>
>> My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was 
>> several million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.
>>
>> [fu set uk.p.m]
>>  
>>
> 
> It went up after 1979. I left school (unqualified) in 1978, never ever 
> was unemployed or knew anybody who was unemployed, and claiming benefits 
> was not something that even crossed our minds...

Precis of the figures here...
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/issue-briefs/economy/employment/unemployment/unemployment-$366619.htm

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:39:51 +0100, Sleepalot 
wrote:

>Robert Henderson  wrote:
>
>
>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million 
>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the 
>> ways of hiding unemployment such as long term sickness 
>>benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>>used.
>>
>
>My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was 
>several million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.

Erm during the Tories spell in office the unemployment figures were
"adjusted" downwards on 30 occasions.
>

In message , Sleepalot 
 writes
>
>
>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million
>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the
>> ways of hiding unemployment such as long term sickness
>>benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>>used.
>>
>
>My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was several 
>million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.

No, the fiddling of the figures began under Thatcher,. RH
serious
>[fu set uk.p.m]
>

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message , Maria 
 writes
>>
>
>There is something else afoot - a change in the culture that employers 
>would take on someone with no bits of paper and train them for the job.

This is a large factor in cementing the abuses arising from Thatcherism, 
but it extends far beyond the unskilled.. Credentialitis is stifling 
employment generally because people are devoting far too much time 
obtaining qualifications and employers employing largely on the pieces 
of qualification paper they see before them. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Maria  wrote:

>Sleepalot wrote:
>> Robert Henderson  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million 
>>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the 
>>> ways of hiding unemployment such as long term sickness 
>>> benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>>> used.
>>>
>> 
>> My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was 
>> several million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.
>> 
>> [fu set uk.p.m]
>>  
>It went up after 1979. I left school (unqualified) in 1978, never ever 
>was unemployed or knew anybody who was unemployed, and 
>claiming benefits was not something that even crossed our minds...

I left school in '79. I recall being worried about the worsening 
unemployment situation. I was unemployed for several months
in 1980. 

# I am the one in ten... UB40 
When was that released? 1981
http://www.ub40.co.uk/discography/lyrics/presentarms/oneinten.php

-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

Maria  wrote:

>Maria wrote:
>> Sleepalot wrote:
>>> Robert Henderson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million 
>>>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the ways of 
>>>> hiding unemployment such as long term sickness benefit, training 
>>>> schemes and extended education had not been
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was 
>>> several million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.
>>>
>>> [fu set uk.p.m]
>>>   
>> It went up after 1979. I left school (unqualified) in 1978, never ever 
>> was unemployed or knew anybody who was unemployed, and claiming benefits 
>> was not something that even crossed our minds...
>
>Precis of the figures here...
>http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/issue-briefs/economy/employment/unemployment/unemployment-$366619.htm

Ah right. My recollection is shifted by one gov. term. 
Unemployment rises started in the late '70s, but really
got bad under the tories in the early '80s, and it was
the tories who were adjusting the unemployment figures.

My appologies for causing confusion.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

Robert Henderson  wrote:

>In message , Sleepalot 
> writes
>>
>>
>>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million
>>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the
>>> ways of hiding unemployment such as long term sickness
>>>benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>>>used.
>>>
>>
>>My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was several 
>>million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.
>
>No, the fiddling of the figures began under Thatcher,. RH
>serious
>>[fu set uk.p.m]

Yep, sorry.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

Paul C  wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:39:51 +0100, Sleepalot 
>wrote:
>
>>Robert Henderson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Even then, by 1979 there were only a few more than 1 million 
>>> unemployed and that was an honest figure because all the 
>>> ways of hiding unemployment such as long term sickness 
>>>benefit, training schemes and extended education had not been
>>>used.
>>>
>>
>>My recollection is rather different: I believe unemployment was 
>>several million, and the figures had been "adjusted" 17 times.
>
>Erm during the Tories spell in office the unemployment figures were
>"adjusted" downwards on 30 occasions.
yep, sorry.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

On 24 Jul, 08:38, Robert Henderson 
wrote:
> In message , Maria
>  writes
>
>
>
> >There is something else afoot - a change in the culture that employers
> >would take on someone with no bits of paper and train them for the job.
>
> This is a large factor in cementing the abuses arising from Thatcherism,

It wasn't Thatcher. She inherited a basket-case economy that couldn't
even keep its employed people going to work to collect the rubbish or
to bury the dead. She took that basket-case economy and did what she
had to do with it.

Overmanning was the scourge of the 1970's. It head to be dealt with -
there was no choice.

Today we have a global economy. And for those of you that dont know
what a global economy is, every time you see the phrase "global
economy" transpose those words with "competitive world" - that's what
a global economy is.

And, the far east's thick sixteen years olds are more competitive than
the UK's.  Its as simple as that. That's why when you buy a 42" flat
screen TV for less than £500 it wasn't built by the yob's loitering
outside the local corner-shop. It was built by people who are
competitive - as ever would be the case in any economy.

Labour's failure (for the young) is that "education education
education" has failed to make the young competitive in terms of their
employability. If they were competitive they'd be employed.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT), aiguru@lycos.co.uk wrote:

>On 24 Jul, 08:38, Robert Henderson 
>wrote:
>> In message , Maria
>>  writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >There is something else afoot - a change in the culture that employers
>> >would take on someone with no bits of paper and train them for the job.
>>
>> This is a large factor in cementing the abuses arising from Thatcherism,
>
>It wasn't Thatcher. 

Yes it was

>She inherited a basket-case economy that couldn't
>even keep its employed people going to work to collect the rubbish or
>to bury the dead. 

A couple of minor happenings that the right wing press took up and
magnified and left an indelible impression on the brain cell of the
simple minded

>She took that basket-case economy and did what she
>had to do with it.

5 million unemployed.
School leavers with no jobs to go to and no places in further
education. Dumped on the scrap heap at 16 and told it was their own
fault and they should get on ther bikes and look for work. The entire
manufacturing base of north east england destroyed to the extent it
still has not  fully recovered today. Men and women cast onto the
scrap heap then told it was their own fault while the tory government
fiddled the unemployment figures and increased the tax take to a level
not seen before or again until Blair.

>
>Overmanning was the scourge of the 1970's. It head to be dealt with -
>there was no choice.

There is overmanning and there is having enough staff to share the
work and take over when someone falls ill. It means a lower pay
economy but lower unemployment *and* a more efficient system. 200 low
paid nurses are better than 100 high paid ones but they need to be
able to exist on the pay. That only works where the productive sector
are not supporting a massive sector of overpaid parasites. 
>
>Today we have a global economy. And for those of you that dont know
>what a global economy is, every time you see the phrase "global
>economy" transpose those words with "competitive world" - that's what
>a global economy is.

We don't have a global economy. We have a system where the powerful
can move resources around the world because that's the way they fixed
it between themselves. A global economy would mean free movement of
goods and labour. We don't have a global economy just a global con. 
>
>And, the far east's thick sixteen years olds are more competitive than
>the UK's.  Its as simple as that. That's why when you buy a 42" flat
>screen TV for less than £500 it wasn't built by the yob's loitering
>outside the local corner-shop. It was built by people who are
>competitive - as ever would be the case in any economy.

The local economy has to be competitive. It's no good trying to
compete with another economy when your own is hiving off over half
your income to pay for all the parasites. Non productive state
employees who get double or treble or even more then retire ten years
before the prole on a bigger pension than the prole's salary.  

>
>Labour's failure (for the young) is that "education education
>education" has failed to make the young competitive in terms of their
>employability. If they were competitive they'd be employed.
>
>
That's not just labour's failure. That was Thatcher's failure. 

1980s children left school with no jobs to go to and no places in
further education. 

While I would happily see Blair dangling from a rope I'd much prefer
to hoist up Thatcher and her goblins first.

"Thored"  wrote in message 
news:5fjh84d5pj6svolvjpqs5fpssopk4og099@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT), aiguru@lycos.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On 24 Jul, 08:38, Robert Henderson 
>>wrote:
>>> In message , Maria
>>>  writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >There is something else afoot - a change in the culture that employers
>>> >would take on someone with no bits of paper and train them for the job.
>>>
>>> This is a large factor in cementing the abuses arising from Thatcherism,
>>
>>It wasn't Thatcher.
>
> Yes it was
>
>>She inherited a basket-case economy that couldn't
>>even keep its employed people going to work to collect the rubbish or
>>to bury the dead.
>
> A couple of minor happenings that the right wing press took up and
> magnified and left an indelible impression on the brain cell of the
> simple minded
>
>>She took that basket-case economy and did what she
>>had to do with it.
>
> 5 million unemployed.
> School leavers with no jobs to go to and no places in further
> education. Dumped on the scrap heap at 16 and told it was their own
> fault and they should get on ther bikes and look for work. The entire
> manufacturing base of north east england destroyed to the extent it
> still has not  fully recovered today. Men and women cast onto the
> scrap heap then told it was their own fault while the tory government
> fiddled the unemployment figures and increased the tax take to a level
> not seen before or again until Blair.
>
>>
>>Overmanning was the scourge of the 1970's. It head to be dealt with -
>>there was no choice.
>
> There is overmanning and there is having enough staff to share the
> work and take over when someone falls ill. It means a lower pay
> economy but lower unemployment *and* a more efficient system. 200 low
> paid nurses are better than 100 high paid ones but they need to be
> able to exist on the pay. That only works where the productive sector
> are not supporting a massive sector of overpaid parasites.
>>
>>Today we have a global economy. And for those of you that dont know
>>what a global economy is, every time you see the phrase "global
>>economy" transpose those words with "competitive world" - that's what
>>a global economy is.
>
> We don't have a global economy. We have a system where the powerful
> can move resources around the world because that's the way they fixed
> it between themselves. A global economy would mean free movement of
> goods and labour. We don't have a global economy just a global con.
>>
>>And, the far east's thick sixteen years olds are more competitive than
>>the UK's.  Its as simple as that. That's why when you buy a 42" flat
>>screen TV for less than £500 it wasn't built by the yob's loitering
>>outside the local corner-shop. It was built by people who are
>>competitive - as ever would be the case in any economy.
>
> The local economy has to be competitive. It's no good trying to
> compete with another economy when your own is hiving off over half
> your income to pay for all the parasites. Non productive state
> employees who get double or treble or even more then retire ten years
> before the prole on a bigger pension than the prole's salary.
>
>>
>>Labour's failure (for the young) is that "education education
>>education" has failed to make the young competitive in terms of their
>>employability. If they were competitive they'd be employed.
>>
>>
> That's not just labour's failure. That was Thatcher's failure.
>
> 1980s children left school with no jobs to go to and no places in
> further education.
>
> While I would happily see Blair dangling from a rope I'd much prefer
> to hoist up Thatcher and her goblins first.

Well said that Man

Oops, you said "her goblins", I thought you meant by her goblins :-))

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:17:11 +0100, "John Bennett"
 wrote:

>
>"Thored"  wrote in message 
>news:5fjh84d5pj6svolvjpqs5fpssopk4og099@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT), aiguru@lycos.co.uk wrote:
>

>> further education.
>>
>> While I would happily see Blair dangling from a rope I'd much prefer
>> to hoist up Thatcher and her goblins first.
>
>Well said that Man
>
>Oops, you said "her goblins", I thought you meant by her goblins :-)) 


Goblins as in nasty evil creatures who take part in cabinet meetings.

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message , Maria 
>  writes
>>>
>>
>> There is something else afoot - a change in the culture that employers 
>> would take on someone with no bits of paper and train them for the job.
> 
> This is a large factor in cementing the abuses arising from Thatcherism, 
> but it extends far beyond the unskilled.. Credentialitis is stifling 
> employment generally because people are devoting far too much time 
> obtaining qualifications and employers employing largely on the pieces 
> of qualification paper they see before them. RH

That's just poor management, where those handling recruitment have no 
idea what the jobs involve, and must rely on 'qualifications'.

The person managing the vacant position must have most of the say in 
recruitment, and must him/herself know exactly what the job entails i.e. 
must be able to actually do it. Where those conditions don't apply, and 
that's a fairly widespread situation now, then the recruiters must rely 
on hearsay about the candidates' abilities, not being qualified 
themselves to assess those abilities directly.

The Peter Principle...