Who will pick our strawberries once we leave the EU? Per BBC News

This BBC report includes this section:

'So far, unemployed people in the UK have proven reluctant to take on these jobs.

"The English don't like to work like us," says Roxana. "They will never come to work on a farm.

"If they come, they want to be someone high [up], to be a supervisor or a manager, but not to pick."

Forklift truck team leader Andis Ivkins agrees. "I don't believe they'll send us home," he says. "I don't believe the English people will come and pick fruit."'

Rather than just accept these comments why does nobody ask WHY English people won't pick fruit, WHY unemployed English people are reluctant to work on a farm. Is it laziness, is it being told by family, television reality shows and elsewhere that they can live their dreams? Is it a result of an all 

must have prizes education system?

All good questions but not ones that the institutionally pro EU, pro immigration BBC will ever raise.

‘Unemployed Man Who Refused A Job Because He Didn't Want To Get Up At 8am’

listen to ‘Unemployed Man Who Refused A Job Because He Didn't Want To Get Up At 8am’ on Audioboo

LBC's Julia Hartley-Brewer was discussing whether benefit cards are a good idea but this call diverted the discussion somewhat as this caller revealed that he was recently offered a job, but didn’t want to have to get up at 8:00 in the morning. I think this makes the point about the difference between strivers and shirkers more eloquently than any politician’s speech.
As an aside can you imagine a BBC presenter being that shocked by such a caller? Most would side with him.

Missing something?

The BBC's report on the latest US jobs figures is still reporting that:

'The US unemployment rate fell last month to its lowest rate since January 2009, figures from the Department of Labor have shown, surprising analysts who had been expecting a small rise.

Last month's rate came in at 7.8%, down from 8.1% in August.

The latest numbers also showed that the US economy added a further 114,000 jobs in September, beating expectations.'

What is odd is that whilst Breitbart can manage to report that:

'...it turns out that number wasn't right. They forgot to include CALIFORNIA, the most populous and economically depressed state in the country. A source at the Labor Department brushed aside the omission by saying that, sometimes, if a state office is under-manned they don't complete all the jobless claims in time to report them to BLS.'

The BBC cannot find the time or space to report this. Now why would that be... The pro-Obama bias at the BBC is beyond a joke.

Rising unemployment?

The BBC push the idea that unemployment is the fault of the coalition government, the facts are at variance though...

Data from here.

The BBC's relentless pushing of pro-Labour propaganda is relentless and should be a matter for a Conservative government to oppose, the trouble this is in no way a Conservative government.

The one hundred and fifty fifth weekly "No shit, sherlock" award

This week's award goes to the Migration Advisory Committee, the government's official advisers on migration, for coming to the staggering conclusion that there is a link between immigration from outside the European Union and job losses among UK workers.
The MAC said there were 23 fewer UK jobs for every 100 migrants from outside the EU.

Immigration affects indigenous employment; "No shit, Sherlock"

The link between immigration, unemployment and the culpability of the last Labour government

What more needs to be said? The change in immigration policy as Labour tried to 'rub the right's nose in diversity' and to create a Labour voting client state of white British on benefits, whilst also increasing the profits of their corporate donors, was a disgrace and in a sane world would see Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the rest of those responsible on trial for their crimes against the country.

A national broadcaster interested in truth and fairness not attacking Conservatives at every turn and in supporting multiculturalism no matter what would give these sort of figures large exposure but the BBC have an agenda so this news will disappear almost without trace.

Bad news for the BBC/Labour (update)

Further to this post on the fall in unemployment I see that the contextual comments have started:

'While the number of unemployed men fell by 31,000 in the three months to the end of February, the number of jobless women rose by 14,000.

...

The ONS also said that the number people in employment rose by 143,000 to 29.23 million, compared with a pre-recession peak of 29.56 million recorded for the three months to the end of May 2008.

Total pay rose by 2% compared with a year earlier, well below the rate of inflation, as measured by the CPI index, which stands at 4%.

Analysts said this provided further evidence of the squeeze consumers were feeling in their spending power.

Despite the fall in the number of unemployed, analysts warned that the jobless number was likely to rise again.

"We retain the view that unemployment is headed up over the coming months," said Howard Archer at IHS Global Insight.

"We suspect that likely below-trend growth will mean that the private sector will be unable to fully compensate for the increasing job losses in the public sector that will result from the fiscal squeeze that is now really kicking in."

The government is starting to introduce spending cuts designed to bring down the budget deficit.

Have you been affected by unemployment? Are you still looking for your first job? Should the government focus on youth unemployment? Send us your comments and experiences using the form below.'

 Speedy work BBC, let no good news under a Tory government be left unexplained.

Bad news for the BBC/Labour

When inflation was going up along with unemployment the Labour/BBC line was that this was dreadful economic new and showed that the Tories policies weren't working and that economic expansion policies were needed. Now inflation has dropped (yes it is still far too high and this could be just a blip) and unemployment is down as well, how will the BBC report the news.

At the moment the news is reported without comment or spin:

'UK unemployment fell by 17,000 in the three months to the end of February to 2.48 million, official figures show.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the jobless rate among men had fallen, but had risen among women.

Youth unemployment stood at 963,000, with the jobless rate for young people remaining above 20%.

The number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance fell by 700 between February and March to 1.45 million, the ONS said.

Total pay rose by 2% compared with a year earlier.

The latest figures mean that the overall rate of unemployment in the UK now stands at 7.8%.'

I wonder how long before a Labour spokesman is quoted counselling caution or some other siren voice of despair is given a platform to criticise?

David Cameron slaps down Ed Miliband

It is worth watching the whole piece to see how Ed Miliband and Ed Balls react to being corrected; they sit looking smug and shaking their heads but deep in their hearts they must know that they and Labour have been rumbled for the chancers that they are.

Just remember that one statistic - that youth unemployment rose by 40% under the last Labour government and their scheme in which 279,000 people took part led to only 3,800 of them getting a permanent job - "not good enough"

Nearly but it's actually worse than that

David Vance on A Tangled Web picks up on something that is in today's Express newspaper:

' Britain’s culture of benefits dependency is exposed today as new figures show 1.6 million “workers” never had a job.

Relying on the rest working hard to pay their way, it is now clear that generations have embraced a life of idleness funded by the taxpayer.

The findings will appal the millions of families who are seeing their wages plundered by the Government to meet the country’s £200billion annual welfare bill. And they reveal an urgent need for reform if Britain is to claw its way out of recession and wean people off state-funded handouts.

Analysis by the Department of Work and Pensions shows that more than 700,000 young people between 16 and 24 have not held a job, while more than 800,000 adults from 25 to 64 survive on benefits. The 2010 data shows an increase of 300,000 non-workers on the 2009 total when 1.3 million people were recorded as never having had a job.'

David Vance writes:

'So, we have 1.6 million who don’t/won’t work meanwhile we have over a million coming into the UK to do the jobs that allegedly Brits won’t do? It all sounds rather odd. The facts are simple. Labour created a dependency culture, many embraced it, the cost is massive and it has to come to a shuddering halt. If people will not work, the State does not owe them a living. Under Labour, the UK became the sick man of Europe, again.'

He's right, but it is worse than that, Labour have created a 'client state' of people dependant on state benefits, those who enjoy the fruits of immigration and those paid by the state to manage the whole system. This 'client state' votes Labour and is what kept the Conservatives from forming a government by themselves. Until this issue is tackled this will be a one term Conservative lead government, however dire a Labour leader Ed Miliband is.

Just a question arising from the case of the Algerian street cleaners

We keep being told that, as a country, we need immigrants to do the work that the British are not trained to do. Really, is that really why Veolia Environment Services employ Algerian nationals as street cleaners? Are there really no British unemployed capable of cleaning the streets of London? Similarly are there really no British unemployed capable of issuing parking tickets in the City of Westminster, thus necessitating us importing 'skilled' labour from Africa? Why are we importing labour to do unskilled work whilst simultaneously paying Britons to be unemployed?

Labour's legacy - "We have spent, spent and spent again"

Unemployment

I noted in the months leading up to the general election how every piece of bad economic news was excused by the BBC with an explanation of the special factors at work or that the figures could have been worse. The release of the unemployment figures yesterday that showed that the unemployment total was now at its highest level since December 1994 received no such mitigation; I wonder why? Could it be that now the election is over and Labour are out of power there is no need to pretend that all is well?

More bad economic news

Gordon Brown's week just gets worse, his Labour party are now third in the opinion polls although thanks to the bias inherent in the electoral system Labour could still be the largest party in the new House of Commons, inflation is up more than expected and now unemployment is back above 2.5 million the highest since 1994.

Still to come this week are the latest statistics on retail sales and borrowing figures for the last full financial year and then on Friday (but Thursday for Gordon Brown so he has the figures before the second leaders' debate) the first official estimate of first quarter gross domestic product (GDP).

Hiding the true unemployment figures

Labour's lies about who has benefited from its creation of 2.5 million jobs are well documented but less well known are the way that it has quite deliberately created a client state of people whose livelihoods depend upon payments from the state. I have remarked upon this phenomena before but an article on Burning Our Money caught my eye today:

'How many of our 6m public sector jobs are just another form of welfare?

The reason I ask is that listening to today's BBC coverage of the continuing debate over National Insurance Contributions (NICs), the question didn't get a mention.

...

This is public employment as welfare. And when we look a the high dependence on public sector jobs in the depressed regions of Britain today, we can see it's more than an empty slogan.

The one slight snagette is that welfare employees still need paying .... Which means that someone else has to part with the fruits of his own labour in order to provide the wherewithal. And all he'll get in exchange is the sight of another new pyramid, or if he's lucky, a government promise to repay the loan in some distant future, probably in debased coinage.

Getting low skill, low productivity, welfare dependents into work is going to be one of the very toughest challenges facing Cam's government. Given the catastrophic fiscal legacy, leaving them on the public payrolls will not be an option.'

IF, and it is still a big if, the Conservatives do win this general election then the exposing of the lies and manipulations that have been at the heart of Labour policy and actions for the last 13 years must be a top priority. The whole country must be made aware of what has really been happening and the culpability of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson in the ruination of this land. Of course I hope that a way is found to have the three of them (and there are others) tried and convicted for their crimes against the UK; an idle pipe-dream, probably but not a total impossibility?

What the BBC and Labour don't tell us about unemployment

Here's some interesting facts about UK unemployment and employment:

'1. There are fewer people employed than at any time in the last 12 years
The employment rate in the three months to January 2010 is 72.2% - it fell by 54,000 on the quarter to reach 28.86m.

3. If you work in the private sector, wages are going down … in the public sector, they're going up
Average weekly earnings in the private sector are £426 per week - down 0.7% on January 2009. In the public sector, they're higher - £461 per week, up 4.1% on Jan 2009.

4. Public sector jobs are still going up
6m people are employed in the public sector - +46,000 on the year. 21.1% of us work in the public sector. The biggest percentage increase has been in the NHS - up by 4% on the year to 1.6m people in January. In contrast, private sector employment is down by 527,000.

7. There are more long-term unemployed
Those unemployed over six months has gone up by 58.7% to 549,000 people.

8. More of us are part-time
Part-time jobs are up - by 1.3% or 87,000 on the year. Meanwhile full-time employment has gone down by 3.4% (-642,000).

9. There are less young people employed
Employment is down for 16-17 year-olds (by 22.2% or 109,000) and 18-24 year-olds (down 6.6% or 237,000)'

Thanks to My Thoughts My Country for the spot and for some great information on other matters, a site that is well worth a visit.


Yet the BBC still push the Labour line that the recovery has started and that ll will be well under Gordon Brown's continued Premiership. It won't be, the UK economy is more screwed than most people realise but that won't stop the BBC supporting their political friends.

The BBC admit...

The BBC have an interesting piece on comparing the economy in 1997 and 2010, take a look:
Inflation: 1996 ~ 1.9% 2010 ~ 3.0%
Government borrowing: 1996/97 ~ £27bn 2009/10 ~ £178bn
National Debt: 1996/97 ~ £347bn 2009/10 ~ £799bn
Growth: 1997 ~ +3.0% 2009 ~ -5.0%
Interest Rates: 1997 ~ 5.94% 2010 ~ 0.5%
Health Spending: 1996/97 ~ £42.8bn 2009/10 ~ 119bn (Do you feel the NHS is three times better?)
Education Spending: 1996/97 ~ £37.8bn 2009/10 ~ £88bn
Average House Price: 1997 ~ £55,621 2010 ~ £161,320
Unemployment: Jan 1997 ~ 2.23 million Jan 2010 ~ 2.45 million
Personal Debt: 1997 ~ £492bn 2010 ~ £1,460bn

So it's inflation up by 57%, Government borrowing up by 659%, National Debt up by 230% and Growth down from a healthy 3% to negative growth of 5%.

In return for that we have interest rates down albeit because the economy is tanking, massively increased spending in health and education (might this have anything to do with the deficit and National debt being raised?).

Average house prices are up thanks to Gordon Brown's deliberate creation of a housing bubble and I think that might be somewhat linked to the almost trebling of personal debt.

Unemployment is only slightly up but I think that figure needs to viewed with some suspicion bearing in mind the off-the count figures.


So 13 years of Labour rule - on balance good or bad for the economy?

Confused by the unemployment figures?

Burning Our Money has a great analysis and explanation of how unemployment can be down:

"Conclusion? The next time some government minister or apologist spouts all that stuff about how brilliantly they've managed to stop unemployment rising in this recession, you need to remember two key points:

1. Unemployment has been artificially held down by a wholly unsustainable 300,000 recruitment binge in the public sector - a binge that will have to be reversed after the election.
2. Real unemployment - including the 370,000 growth in the number of so-called economically inactive - has increased by 750,000 in the last year.

Michael Foot remembered

Amidst all the fond reminiscences about Michael Foot; his consistency and steadiness of belief being two of his key traits, I don't remember these quotes being recalled:

"The country has a right to hear from the P.M. whether she and the Government envisage the official figure rising to that total."

That was Michael Foot questioning Margaret Thatcher as to whether unemployment would reach 3 million (Hansard 24/06/1981).

There you go, Michael Foot seeker of truth, fighting for the downtrodden.


But hold on what's this?

"No, I will not amke such a prediction. It would not be sensible. Indeed, I do not think that any Government has made predictions of the character suggested."

That was Michael Foot refusing to predict unemployment levels himself just six years earlier (Hansard 28/10/1975).

There you go, Michael Foot hider of truth, fighting for his government.


Michael Foot; was he right in 1981 and wrong in 1975?

"The continued growth in the number of long term unemployed shows that Labour is failing to support the people who need their help the most..."

Not my words but those of the Labour Work and Pensions Secretary and unfortunate wife of Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper. The full quote as found at the top of page 13 in today's Metro online is:

"The continued growth in the number of long term unemployed shows that Labour is failing to support the people who need their help the most. Unless ministers wake up and stop treating these people like a statistic we risk losing a generation to a culture of worklessness."

Well said Yvette, good of you to realise that your Labour government are "treating these people like a statistic", are you preparing to cross the floor of the House and join a party that is taking unemployment seriously or are you just positioning yourself and hubby for the fight with the Milibands and Harriet Harman in the post election leadership battle?