Labour are going to crash the economy/jobs market.

[Batmanisaplaceinturkey]

Just a few of the changes
-Making it harder to dismiss a bad hire.
-SSP a percentage of earnings, available from day one of sickness.

And now plans to raise employers NI.

All very well if the employer is Amazon or Google but not so much the independent coffee shop down the road, the plumbers merchant, the cobblers, the florist etc. More expenses and red tape for them but who cares eh. Even if they do survive their costs will have to rise.

Labours plans will have unintended consequences.

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.

Exactly we need those SMEs to thrive

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

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

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

You can easily get a sicknote from a pharmacist, nurse, physiotherapist. GPs also give them out easily, no questions asked. All you have to do is ask for one.
Also, the government do not reimburse sick pay. They used to, for small employers, but that was stopped years ago.

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. 🙄😆

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.

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.