Labour are going to crash the economy/jobs market.

Not sure why my message was deleted for simply stating the fact that Clavinova has been popping up on political or economic threads for years attempting to defend Brexit, reptitively copy and pasting content from websites that the poster often hasn't even understood; and the irony of this posted accusing others of having an agenda considering this consistent pattern for years now where the poster continually tries to defend Brexit by selectively quoting often spurious sources, always in support of their agenda of obsessive Brexit support, and in spite of the enormous weight of evidence and analysis from every credible economic source or academic paper which demonstrate just how harmful to the UK's economy Brexit has been.

Nobody respected within finance, economics or international trade disputed this would be the case before the British public decided to engage in this masochism, and the facts have proved them all correct, unsurprisingly. As I said, one would hope such posters might have given up trying to defend the indefensible by now, but apparently not. Tiresome.

SunriseMonsters
Jesus Christ, haven't you given this up yet since your absurd posts before and during the entire Brexit fiasco?

That's funny because I didn't post anything about Brexit until mid-2018 so you have mixed me up with somebody else. Presumably you were busy arguing with other posters for over two years before you came across me.

All comparisons are based on modelling, by necessity

That's not what you posted at all - you said the forecasts were 'surprisingly accurate'. How do you know if they are accurate or not?

What do you think the OBR does?

Well, I know that the OBR's Brexit estimate hasn't been modelled by the OBR - I expect you knew that already, or perhaps you didn't? The OBR doesn't have the resources to model its own Brexit hit, so the often quoted 4% is an 'assumption' based on the average of a range of external forecasts.

I bet you're one of those who deny climate science as well for the same reasons

Again, I think you've mixed me up with somebody else.

Facile and childish in the extreme

I don't know why Full Fact bother when they have you instead (i linked to a Full Fact article).

By your logic we should just ignore economics and large chunks of science as well.

On the contrary, I have made sure that my dc have had the best science extra-curricular opportunities available. Economists I find can be variable in quality and often swayed by their political viewpoint, agenda or the source of their funding.

Jesus Christ, haven't you given this up yet since your absurd posts before and during the entire Brexit fiasco? One would think that by now you'd be so embarrassed at how wrong you turned out to be that you'd have crawled under a rock, or at least name changed. But no, here we are again, with facile and absurd posts.

What do you think economics is? Of course we can't set up an alternative timeline and actually play out in reality different timelines, this isn't Back to the Future. All comparisons are based on modelling, by necessity. All future decision have to be modelled in the same way. What do you think the OBR does? The BoE? Every investment organisation on the planet?

How do you think anything where the effects of different scenarios need to be analysed is examined? Do you think people have access to some kind of multiverse where ever possible combination of events has played out in actual fact, or do you think they use modelling? I bet you're one of those who deny climate science as well for the same reasons.

Facile and childish in the extreme. By your logic we should just ignore economics and large chunks of science as well. Nobody should ever look at the expected effects of any decision and how it may play out because it hasn't actually happened yet, and when it has happened we should say "well, we can't possibly analyse causes and effects and the impact of a decision because we haven't actually LIVED the alternative". Pathetic. 🙄😆

Yes to all of that - and in the case of ‘skivers’ that keep being referred to, there will still be probationary periods.

These SMEs employ more people than the big boys. Yes they’re very important.

I actually did quote the wrong post,I'm so sorry X

Exactly we need those SMEs to thrive

Again you seem to have in your head that "employers" are all massive companies employing people on minimum wage in unskilled roles. Whereas I have clearly been talking about the microbusinesses and SMEs who might have a team of 10 or fewer. They are probably highly skilled and hard to replace. The people who started and own and run the companies work just as hard and probably harder than "the working people" (the government's definition) who they employ. What are the employers if not working people? Or do they all sit round eating caviar and raking in their millions while the underlings toil beneath them?

THESE are the companies that Labour are completely failing to acknowledge, and when they do, are failing to differentiate them from the Tescos and Amazons of this world. From their messaging so far they think that only massive companies and the public sector exist.

As another PP mentioned, employers don't create jobs, the market does. If they fail to comply with regulation they will be dealt with. Personally I don't really want to live in a country where people (usually the hardest working in the most essential of roles) are exploited so openly.

SunriseMonsters
[Brexit] is worse than that. It's 4% of GDP. £124bn per year currently of GDP lost. The overall tax rate for the UK economy is 35.3% so that is nearly £44bn of lost tax revenue just this year as a result of Brexit. Getting higher year after year...
It's not just been "found". It's been well documented and analysed ever since Brexit. In fact, it was forecast surprisingly accurately beforehand. Hardly new information to anybody with a basic grip on economics.

The figures and studies you refer to are not 'surprisingly accurate' at all - they are simply another set of estimates which may or may not be accurate. The post-Brexit estimates use modelling to create a synthetic (or doppelgänger UK) and the media wrongly report this modelling as fact;

Full Fact
What Was Claimed
There has been an annual £40 billion tax drop because of Brexit.

Our Verdict
This figure is based on a counterfactual estimate of the extra amount of tax revenue that might have been generated annually had the UK not voted to leave the EU. The actual amount of tax revenue generated in the UK has increased.

This analysis is among a range of models which have attempted to estimate the potential impact of Brexit on the UK economy, many of which offer varying conclusions.

Crucially, this is not the same as saying that the UK’s tax revenue has actually fallen by this much since the EU referendum. This was not made clear in the Guardian’s article.

Inaccurate use of statistics without appropriate context can damage public trust in both the statistics and intermediaries like national newspapers. Caveats and context should always be included when claims are made, and oversights rectified when they occur. We’re grateful to The Guardian for correcting the article.

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-revenue-Brexit/

Stop tarring "employers" all with the same brush!

They are not the enemy. They're providing employment. As someone mentioned earlier SMEs and micro businesses are 50% of the workforce.

In the same way you can't just instantly fill a role though you should also not be able to instantly dismiss someone or not even offer them a proper working contract. It goes both ways, for too long employers have been having their cake and eating it.

You're missing the point I made.

Small businesses need reliable tight knit teams. Absence is very hard to fill.

What about the inconvenience and disruption? You can't just instantly fill a role, especially one which its occupant has only just been appointed to.

SSP is not recouped from the government except in certain cases, but I agree with everything else you say.

Also, regarding NI hike, what they've basically done is said 'right, employers have had years to pay people fairly, since they won't, we'll make them pay' and seized the money themselves. If they won't give it to workers they can bloody well give it to the government. Greedy twats.

People: (vote for the party of the workers)
Party of the workers: (strengthen worker's rights)
People: (shocked pikachu face)

Those situations wouldn't be affected by this as the government pays for maternity pay (and also maternity does not equate to sickness, so not sure why you're bringing that up?). And to claim sickness you have to prove you are unwell with a doctor after a certain number of days off. Also sick pay is only a percentage of your pay, not all of it, and it also paid by the government. The hand-wringing on this thread is of a different nature.

What is “this” in this global statement? I don’t see anything yet to support “petty minded imbeciles”, or the next bit, which is nebulous.

Nope, just a realist.
It was obvious this was going to happen.

Ted Heath was Tory PM. The 3 day week lasted from 1.1.74 to 7.3.74.

An independent source I was looking at prior to the General Election had a good, fully evidenced comparison of how the UK economy has fared under governments of different colours. It found that Labour governments actually came out on top, notwithstanding they've had fewer years in power. The narrative that Tories are better with the economy is a false one.

But UK economies tend to go in circles of boom and bust, whichever way you look at it. Periods of relative stability, high employment, high house prices, good prospects wherever you turn, followed by (for a variety of reasons) what we're seeing now. I will judge Labour's handling of it at the end of their term(s) in office.

I have to admit, even as a lifelong Labour supporter, I am unconvinced about an employers' NI increase. I agree with their other policies to protect/ extend employees rights though.

@VeronicaWouldntStandForThat as they say nowadays, are you ok? Or just got up on the wrong side of the bed?

They don't want businesses to grow. The petty minded imbeciles want anyone with 'more than' to lose it to the state.