Golden Years

But the quote referred to the private sector as well which has actually created many more jobs to offset any reduction in the public sector.

Don't forget, the UK had experiences a huge increase in public sector jobs with the then Labour government using it to buy votes as they did with the instance access to the UK for the newly arrived countries.
No small part of the latter was T Blair wanting to look the "good European" to bolster his hopes of becoming the EU President.

Cape Blue

If the Police could not find any workers at £19,971 they would have to start paying nearer the £23,124 to get new recruits.

If, because of a surplus of labour, they can find plenty of workers at £19,971 they do not have to pay more.

The surplus of labour ensures the pay rate for new recruits stay at the bottom of the band. It also ensures that the band ceiling does not need to rise as much as it would otherwise need to - i.e. the £23,124 does not need to go up much as they already have no problem getting new recruits.

Cape Blue

Immigrants are not responsible, surplus labour though persistent high net immigration is - otherwise DPD would not have been able to get staff to work for such poor conditions and would have had to change practises a long time ago.

Golden Years

Actually, it does.
How do employment statistics compare over your ten year period?
They seem to have risen by over 2,500,000!
So, "those who still have a job" must be the norm rather than the exception.

EMR

Where are you talking about.
The UK has record numbers in work and unemployment at least a million lower than your figure.
All this during our years of EU membership and high net immigration.

Golden Years

I said EMPLOYMENT numbers were up 2,500,000 over the last ten years.

DaveLovesDee

The private sector has increased the number of jobs, often by offering part-time hours instead of full-time. Two employees on 20 hr contracts can be scheduled to work together at the same time, whereas a single 40hr employee can't.

Public sector services and jobs have been cut in the name of austerity, and the users of these services are struggling.

Red Eric

But the quote you highlighted specifically referred to public sector workers and their wages in that sector over a 10 year period.

And you're contradicting Cape Blue, who claims that all the new jobs created are a direct result of mass-uncontrolled immigration of unskilled non-contributors generating more jobs for other immigrants to fill.

Have you any evidence for either of those assertions? I would have thought them the oddest things for anybody, of any political persuasion, to actually give any credence to, let alone politicians themselves.

DaveLovesDee

Channel 4 Fact Check: How many public sector jobs did Labour create?

Bear in mind that this report is from 2010.

Red Eric

Yes, sorry, I wasn't disputing either the non-appliance of the available FoM controls or the additional public sector jobs.

It was the allegations of the motive of attempting to buy Labour votes from those people that I'm contesting.

Golden Years

The quote was "What about 'austerity', which has seen public sector (and many other workers) pay increase by only 1% (or lower) every year for most of the last 10 years (for those who still have a job)."

The assertions about Labour hoping to buy votes through increased public sector jobs and uncontrolled immigration (there was a third one that I can't immediately recall) were common knowledge at the time. Look at the numbers quoted by DaveLovesDee where it shows public sector jobs rose by 16% whilst private sector ones only rose by 4%.

Cape Blue

Proponents of mass immigration use the lump of labour fallacy argument to show that each immigrant doesn't "take" a British job, because their very presence in the UK also creates another one.

I merely look at that in reverse and see that the reason we need more migration is to service the migrants that came before.

Red Eric

And?

Actually, I suppose I'm being a bit presumptuous here in assuming you know the purpose of parentheses in a sentence.


Ahhh, the assertions were common knowledge. OK, then, I see now. And your memory's a bit hazy about another assertion.

Oh, well, that clears it up completely then. Thanks very much.

Can I just clarify one point for you, though. Citizens of member states of the EU don't get votes in UK general elections, so even if they were daft enough to want to vote on the basis of who "let them in", they couldn't have voted for a Labour government anyway.

Red Eric

I'm sure Golden Years will take account of those facts when he posts about such matters in future.

I'll remind him again if he doesn't.

Golden Years

I know what brackets mean in a sentence. If you have "public sector workers" on one hand and then you add "and many other workers" it is obvious that they are not public sector but private sector. Unless you have a different understanding?

As for the EU citizens, they do get to vote in local elections which are still very important to Labour at a constituency level and, of course, Irish, Cyprus, Malta and many qualifying Commonwealth country citizens get to vote in general elections.
I'll dig out some more background when I get chance but we are heading for the airport first thing tomorrow so you might start with https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-adviser.html to get a flavour for the vindictiveness of that Labour administration.

No comment about the 16%/4% split in public/private job creation under Labour?