Young jobless total trebles in two years in Bradford district (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

The leader of the council is suggesting that Bradford should have a different solution to the rest of the country to solve youth unemployment. However he doesn't suggest what the 'bespoke' solution for Bradford should be.

It seems far too easy to blame it on the current government when youth unemployment has been rising for 2 years.
The coalition have only been in power for 2.5 years and the time it takes for changes in economic policy to take effect means it can't all be laid at their door. (Mr Sutcliffe- I'm talking about you and the government you were part of)

so Galloway does exist!! I thought he ws going to get Bradford sorted out, get Westfield or whoever now owns the site to start work. Maybe that little venture will create several hundreds of jobs in it's construction and thereafter.

Bespoke would mean investment and development in this case, and investment would mean the stuck in the mud Westfield development which would create thousands of jobs during and after construction, it would also stimulate other support services and industries locally creating additional jobs in the thousands. But with no investment there is no development and Bradford has become cesspit of gambling shops and pawnbrokers!

A national fall in unemployemnt anounced...BUT in Bradford!

jobless in bradford west?
obviously, illegal immigrant central!!
jobless will go up when we keep allowing pawn shops and bookies everywhere!

32 people found work in Shipley?

Hold the front page!

Bradfords only new industry is taxi - shop - restuarant or telephones.
Who would come here?
Government cannot create industry - it is people who do that
Bradford needs more integration and business that can employ local people and I do not think George Galloway will do much to encourage that.
Saltire Bantam has a point - local traders seem to quote by phone - then when you ask for an invoice they have to add VAT - of course cash is paid.

The poor excuse of a local government that Bradford has become has wasted money on regeneration schemes where money has been lost due to bad management and allocation, read that how you may!

But they've not had the clout to deal with the real issues facing the population! We live in a consumer society, the wheels in the cogs of economy are powered by spending... With nowhere to spend people travel to Leeds or Manchester only to further isolate Bradford.

You can't blame the people, Bradford was a thriving city 15 years ago!

It's not the public who left a whole in the ground, it's the local government officials, hardly any of which who live in Bradford!!!

Gorgeous George says its a national disgrace.

Aye George, it is - and who should we blame ? Councillors, MP's ???

Certain areas of Bradford (definately Gorgeous George's constituancy) are real dumping grounds, for those who have no where else to go to.

A 3-fold rise in 2 years, shows that those in charge (that includes you George!!!), are not addressing the real problems.

Wonder if some of it is connected to the schools pushing kids into training schemes/NVQ's etc that they don't really want to do and then sacking it to sign on, my daughter a couple of years ago was consistently being pushed into social care, she joined the Navy and told the tutors at school that was her plan, but they kept trying to get her to do a Health & Social Care diploma, it ended up nasty as I had to visit the school and tell the tutor to do one, its the stats that the schools want you see, makes them look good.

.... and the young and unskilled keep on arriving from all parts of the globe ... meanwhile the money runs and Bradford continues to decay.
.
Why would you invest in Bradford? It's a complicated place with too many cultural and social problems, huge levels of dishonesty and crime, too much trouble - the futures very bleak indeed!

"He said Bradford’s local Job Centres should be allowed to abandon the Government’s national work programme and develop a bespoke solution for the district."

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE GEORGE, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED YOU TO SIGN EDM 1072 A.S.A.P., WHY HAVEN'T YOU?????

http://www.parliamen
t.uk/edm/2012-13/107
2

BertSanders wrote:
Bradfords only new industry is taxi - shop - restuarant or telephones.
Who would come here?
Government cannot create industry - it is people who do that
Bradford needs more integration and business that can employ local people and I do not think George Galloway will do much to encourage that.
Saltire Bantam has a point - local traders seem to quote by phone - then when you ask for an invoice they have to add VAT - of course cash is paid.

Don't knock taxi's, retaurants and takeaways they must be good businesses to get into. I can't afford these things myself but, despite huge poverty and deprivation in Bradford, it would seem that there are lots of people that can. These businesses appear to be doing really well and don't seem to have to work too hard either.
.
Does anyone else notice how many taxi's are parked in driveways in neighbourhoods both day and night and on the side of main roads whilst the drive has a nap, reads a paper or has a lengthy telephone conversation.
.
I drive past restaurants and take aways and they're empty.
.
And these people have homes and families to keep. How do they do it? Um?

Reading this rather sad report, it strikes me that George Galloway is using his usual "jump on the bandwagon" trick, while offering nothing much in the way of remedial suggestions.
David Green is right, in that different areas should be able to tailor their approach to youth unemployment problems, different areas have different reasons for many of their problems and different potential to overcome them. However, I wouldn't expect much improvement any times soon, maybe the apprenticeship forums that we have recently read about, can make a small but welcome difference.

This incompetent shambles of a Government think the solution to unemployment is to force people to work in Poundland for no pay. It's a disgrace, and ought to prompt a National General Strike !!!

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"He said Bradford’s local Job Centres should be allowed to abandon the Government’s national work programme and develop a bespoke solution for the district."

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE GEORGE, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED YOU TO SIGN EDM 1072 A.S.A.P., WHY HAVEN'T YOU?????

http://www.parliamen

t.uk/edm/2012-13/107

2

Mainly because it was actually David Green who said that.

My bad. Nonetheless, George Galloway has not signed the EDM, and neither has Ed Millipede, so far only 17 Labour MPs have signed, why not all of them?

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR MP ASAP AND ASK HIM/HER TO SIGN EDM 1072 TO NULLIFY THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW WORK PROGRAMME REGULATIONS.

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR MP ASAP AND ASK HIM/HER TO SIGN EDM 1072 TO NULLIFY THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW WORK PROGRAMME REGULATIONS.

Would that be the program that puts long term workable adults into doing some work for their benefits

Whilst I can understand the arguments of certain companies receiving free labour I agree with the work side of it in its entirety

Why should someone receive benefits no questions asked when they capable of actually working?

And don't say "its my right"

Cos it isnt

tyker2 wrote:
so Galloway does exist!! I thought he ws going to get Bradford sorted out, get Westfield or whoever now owns the site to start work. Maybe that little venture will create several hundreds of jobs in it's construction and thereafter.

He definitely exists- he's made the front of the Guardian website today:

George Galloway has been accused of racism after walking out of a debate at Oxford University after discovering that his opponent was an Israeli citizen.
The Respect party MP for Bradford West – a vocal critic of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people – had been taking part in the debate at Christ Church college, speaking for the motion that "Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank", when he learned that Eylon Aslan-Levy, a student opposing it, was Israeli.
Galloway interrupted the third-year philosophy, politics and economics student at Brasenose college when Aslan-Levy used the word "we" in reference to Israel.
"You said 'we'," said Galloway. "Are you an Israeli?"
"I am, yes," Aslan-Levy replied.
"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry," Galloway said, standing and putting on his coat, then reiterating as he walked out: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis."


So Bradford West gets in the national media, but only in a story where the MP displays his lack of tolerance for other people. Something he claims to fight for!

@ Andy2010

If someone is required to do a job of work then they should be paid a wage.

Why should anyone work for £1.50ph when the minimum wage is £6.19ph; even apprentices get paid more!

In fact whilst was on the dole my job adviser explicitly told me that I could not do any work for a company whilst I was on JSA, he told me that if there was work available there then they would have to pay me.
And now here we are where they government is forcing people to do work that is not relevant to them and will not help them get a job.

This is forced labour no matter which way you look at it, bringing n "emergency" regulations doesnt make it legal!

There are lots of jobs if people look, go to the sun on line, there are thousands. But these MPs do nothing, only get fat cat wages for nothing !!!!!!

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ Andy2010

If someone is required to do a job of work then they should be paid a wage.

I couldnt agree more

JSA, Council tax Benefit, Housing benefit, free prescription, school dinners for children, Subsidised school uniform to name a few

These just about cover a wage dont they?

justjustice wrote:
Why should anyone work for £1.50ph when the minimum wage is £6.19ph; even apprentices get paid more!

In fact whilst was on the dole my job adviser explicitly told me that I could not do any work for a company whilst I was on JSA, he told me that if there was work available there then they would have to pay me.
And now here we are where they government is forcing people to do work that is not relevant to them and will not help them get a job.

This is forced labour no matter which way you look at it, bringing n "emergency" regulations doesnt make it legal!

see above.

Benefits are received which counteracts the wage difference in fact working at Poundland for nothing will actually mean you better off than someone working on min wage and supporting themselves.

An extremely disheartening article.

The fact that we have so many young unemployed is a disgrace but worse, it will likely store up 'problems' for the future.

Without the young having a 'stake' in society with their own job, related-income and home (and remember this is the generation likely to be -a first-worse off financially than their parents, probably staying at home for longer/unable to get a home of their own-and some depending on the 'Bank Of Mum & Dad', if their parents can afford it) some will undoubtedly become alienated from society.


What doesn't make sense is to ask the older generations to 'carry on working' for longer with young folk out of work. (And of course to ask people to do overtime when others can't get a job.)


Years ago, we were told the 'future' held more leisure time/less work/appliances making all our lives easier and more enjoyable.

The realitity is..

MORE years of work for some (the older generations whose pensions cannot be afforded)

LESS work for the young
(who need to learn new skills/be useful to society/gain a foothold in society and gain good 'habits'

LESS pay in a low income/long working hours economy

MORE debt as costs of living rise etc

LESS enjoyable/insecure times as mental illness/stress/anxie
ty/unhappiness generally soars!! (certainly in the 'West.')

NOT THE 'FUTURE' WE ALL HOPED FOR!!

@ Andy 2010

You are conflating State Benefits with Wages.

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ Andy 2010

You are conflating State Benefits with Wages.

No Im not. The benefits system is there to help people SHORT term who can work and long term for those who cannot

If you can work and are capable of doing so after 6 months or so of claiming I see nothing wrong with the DWP putting you into unpaid employment as the benefits you receive whilst doing this are technically a wage

Are you seriously suggesting the system of just give anyone benefits for life if that is a lifestyle they choose is the correct way of doing things.

of course it isn't

the back to work program at least makes the claimants put some effort in to receiving the benefits

I was unemployed only 2 days when left college and got a job in a greasy spoon as it meant earning, not claiming and getting out of the house. No matter how much i didnt want to work there/do that job, I did do it That's the problem there is jobs out there, it's just people don't want to take jobs that are hard/seen as degrading/not their thing etc. I was brought up to graft and do any job i was given 100% no matter what it was but not everyone has the same work ethic and there lies the problem people are expecting perfect jobs/loads of money, i've heard it many times when at the job centre 'I arnt doing that hard work for peanuts' 'I don't want to do packing' ..... IMO.

"the benefits you receive whilst doing this are technically a wage"

Then yes you ARE conflating State Benefits with wages!

It's very noble of you, as a taxpayer, to take the stance that it is perfectly alright to use taxpayers' money to subsidize private companies' over-heads.

@ ButtersBulls11

I am very sorry to hear of your unhappy homelife. Perhaps you should consider getting help from Relate?

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"the benefits you receive whilst doing this are technically a wage"

Then yes you ARE conflating State Benefits with wages!

It's very noble of you, as a taxpayer, to take the stance that it is perfectly alright to use taxpayers' money to subsidize private companies' over-heads.

I said if you read back the companies stance aside

Like the previous poster stated there is nothing wrong with people working for "nothing" when they are in receipt of benefits which support there home etc etc.

The scheme isn't designed to be long term its just designed to get long term claimants back into some sort of work to give them experience no matter how simple that experience might be.

When you haven't got a job there is NO job that is beneath you. Hopefully the back to work program them means the claimant goes onto full time employment somewhere so whats the problem?

The system may not be perfect but its a darn sight better than just paying benefits no questions asked for however the claimant claims.

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ ButtersBulls11

I am very sorry to hear of your unhappy homelife. Perhaps you should consider getting help from Relate?

you really are workshy arent you

The poster simply put what is right and that they woudl simply do any job to makes end meet.

You clearly are the type that expects to walk into a job (thats if you can be bothered) on a high salary for little work.

@ Andy2010

"its a darn sight better than just paying benefits no questions asked for however the claimant claims."

But questions ARE asked! A great many questions, on the forms one completes in order to make a claim, or over the telephone, and EVERY time a person attend to sign-on, questions are asked. Only if the required answers are given (truthfully) can a Benefits claim be paid.

Mr Galloway said it was a similarly “distressing” story in his constituency.

He said: “That number has virtually quadrupled in two years. And when you’ve been unemployed for that length of time it’s even more difficult to find a job. You’ve a better chance of finding Shergar."

Complete nonsense. I signed up to reed.co.uk a few months ago because I want a change of career. I recieve e-mails at least once a week with jobs that offer Immediate starts and require no previous experience. Why can't the jobless of Bradford take these jobs?

@ Andy2010

ButtersBulls11 stated that he preferred to spend his time in a greasy spoon rather than in his own home. To me that says he has a problematic home life.

@ parz

I just looked at reed.co.uk and the job vacancies they have are no different to the ones I apply for every week, but do not get, on other job sites. I am required to apply for 10 jobs per fortnight and to record these applications and retain evidence, which I do, yet no one at the Jobcentre ever has the time, or can be bothered, to inspect that evidence. I have hundreds of confirmation emails thanking me for my application, and hundreds saying that my application was unsuccessful.

My comment was merely to clarify that I would prefer to be working and earning my own money than sat at home waiting for the 'right job to come up' like so many do. There are jobs out there its just people dont want to do them simples

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ Andy2010

"its a darn sight better than just paying benefits no questions asked for however the claimant claims."

But questions ARE asked! A great many questions, on the forms one completes in order to make a claim, or over the telephone, and EVERY time a person attend to sign-on, questions are asked. Only if the required answers are given (truthfully) can a Benefits claim be paid.

You know exactly what I meant so stop trying to be clever

to clarify I meant why should benefits be paid out indefinitely to some people

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ parz I just looked at reed.co.uk and the job vacancies they have are no different to the ones I apply for every week, but do not get, on other job sites. I am required to apply for 10 jobs per fortnight and to record these applications and retain evidence, which I do, yet no one at the Jobcentre ever has the time, or can be bothered, to inspect that evidence. I have hundreds of confirmation emails thanking me for my application, and hundreds saying that my application was unsuccessful.

Fair dues to you if you're applying. But If you've applied for "hundreds" of them and been turned down for all of them, particularly if they're no experience required, then I would suggest that the problem is you, not the jobs market. There's only one common denominator in that equation buddy. Next time you recvieve a rejection, ask for feedback. Most employers are happy to offer constructive feedback these days.

@ Parz

"Why can't the jobless of Bradford take these jobs?"

Barriers to employment are many and varied; lack of skills/experience/qu
alifications/driving licence/transport, criminal record, etc etc.

Superdoo wrote:
Well said Andy2010. I'm sick of people saying benefits are their right. No they are not. Short term assistance was the original idea but some seem to think it's a lifestyle choice. Educated and motivated young people will find work as there is lots out there and the rest will go to pot but who cares - survival of the fittest and all that. We only want the best and the fact there is so much competition might put off all those 3rd world Eastern Europeans from joining the queue.

I’ve only ever known one world! However I do not feel it is right in any way that it’s ok for… “Eastern Europeans from joining the queue”. Moreover any foreigner from anywhere to join the queue!

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ parz

I just looked at reed.co.uk and the job vacancies they have are no different to the ones I apply for every week, but do not get, on other job sites. I am required to apply for 10 jobs per fortnight and to record these applications and retain evidence, which I do, yet no one at the Jobcentre ever has the time, or can be bothered, to inspect that evidence. I have hundreds of confirmation emails thanking me for my application, and hundreds saying that my application was unsuccessful.

This shouldnt be about just obtaining the proof to show the job centre staff it should be about yourself trying everything under the sun to get a job any job for your self worth

And you clearly arent trying hard enough. At lunch today I went to a local sandwich shop in Calverley which was advertising in the window for a job serving customers with no experience required 30 hours a week. If I was you I would have been first through the door asking for the job. Also my local pub is currently recruiting two bar staff and my local coop is recruiting also

So you clearly arent trying hard enough as I seen these three jobs in the past week

The reason why people such as myself do not get the job is not difficult to understand. Employers currently have the advantage and are able to pick and choose, so they will naturally go for younger people with more recent experience and qualifications.

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ Parz "Why can't the jobless of Bradford take these jobs?" Barriers to employment are many and varied; lack of skills/experience/qu alifications/driving licence/transport, criminal record, etc etc.

Agreed, but as stated, the jobs I was referring to are no experience/skills require posts. If people are unable to find employment because of a criminal record/no qualifications etc then frankly thats on them and the government/employers cannot be blamed for that. I have qualifications because I worked hard for them in school and 6th form, they could have done the same. If they have a criminal record, it's because of thier actions. Lack of transport/driving licence? How about a bus? Or good old fashioned walking.

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
The reason why people such as myself do not get the job is not difficult to understand. Employers currently have the advantage and are able to pick and choose, so they will naturally go for younger people with more recent experience and qualifications.

As we both know, you're being economical with the truth there. You have happily bragged on here about how you haven't worked for years. You've always blamed the hateful Tory government for all your troubles yet have never explained why in all the years Labour was in power you didn't work either.

hubby has been unemployed for 2 1/2 years now, doesn't get benefits cos I work full time, he's applied for all sorts of jobs, would prefer clerical, but has applied at burger king, subway, pubs, cleaning companies, etc. Dont dare say he's not trying his best to get a job. he gets some interview, often through to a 2nd interview, but feedback he gets (when people bother to reply to his request for feedback) is that there's someone else more suitable for that position, often, more recent experience is cited as a reason.

So, can all those people who claim that there's plenty of jobs out there, and people just dont want them, tell me how my hubby can actually get a job, cos it's obviously not that easy!

bfd lass wrote:
hubby has been unemployed for 2 1/2 years now, doesn't get benefits cos I work full time, he's applied for all sorts of jobs, would prefer clerical, but has applied at burger king, subway, pubs, cleaning companies, etc. Dont dare say he's not trying his best to get a job. he gets some interview, often through to a 2nd interview, but feedback he gets (when people bother to reply to his request for feedback) is that there's someone else more suitable for that position, often, more recent experience is cited as a reason.

So, can all those people who claim that there's plenty of jobs out there, and people just dont want them, tell me how my hubby can actually get a job, cos it's obviously not that easy!

Agree.

Outraged English Subject wrote:

bfd lass wrote: hubby has been unemployed for 2 1/2 years now, doesn't get benefits cos I work full time, he's applied for all sorts of jobs, would prefer clerical, but has applied at burger king, subway, pubs, cleaning companies, etc. Dont dare say he's not trying his best to get a job. he gets some interview, often through to a 2nd interview, but feedback he gets (when people bother to reply to his request for feedback) is that there's someone else more suitable for that position, often, more recent experience is cited as a reason. So, can all those people who claim that there's plenty of jobs out there, and people just dont want them, tell me how my hubby can actually get a job, cos it's obviously not that easy!

Agree.

Also agreed. And again, fair dues to your husband for putting the effort needed in, which is a lot more that some people do.

My problem is with quotes like the one from Galloway, which suggest that there are no jobs out there at all and its all the governments fault and ramble ramble ramble. It's quotes and attitudes like that that take all onus away from the job seekers, and instill this belief that a job should be simply provided to them on a plate with no effort on thier part.

I notice that the government actually has a budget surplus this month.
This could be the case every month if they stopped paying for every lazy sponger to sit at home drinking and smoking dope.
If somebody has a criminal record which is preventing them from gaining employment, then it should also bar them from getting state hand-outs as well.
People not seriously seeking employment, like some on here, should be placed in workhouse type accommodation, thereby saving the state a fortune and alleviating the housing shortage at the same time.

Parz wrote:

Outraged English Subject wrote:

bfd lass wrote: hubby has been unemployed for 2 1/2 years now, doesn't get benefits cos I work full time, he's applied for all sorts of jobs, would prefer clerical, but has applied at burger king, subway, pubs, cleaning companies, etc. Dont dare say he's not trying his best to get a job. he gets some interview, often through to a 2nd interview, but feedback he gets (when people bother to reply to his request for feedback) is that there's someone else more suitable for that position, often, more recent experience is cited as a reason. So, can all those people who claim that there's plenty of jobs out there, and people just dont want them, tell me how my hubby can actually get a job, cos it's obviously not that easy!

Agree.

Also agreed. And again, fair dues to your husband for putting the effort needed in, which is a lot more that some people do.

My problem is with quotes like the one from Galloway, which suggest that there are no jobs out there at all and its all the governments fault and ramble ramble ramble. It's quotes and attitudes like that that take all onus away from the job seekers, and instill this belief that a job should be simply provided to them on a plate with no effort on thier part.

Also agree..fair play to your husband for trying his hardest to get a job but honestly in 2 1/2 years cant find anything...anything at all?

@ BD16

Not that it's any of your business, but during most of the New Labour years I was either living off of savings, or was in full-time Higher Education.

Well why don't they move to where the jobs are? That's what my son and daughter and two nephew and a niece have all had to do.

@ spearmint wino

Firstly, I don't know where that is, and secondly, are you going to pay me the £2000 or so that I would need for re-settlement costs? And thirdly, what makes you think that I would be any more employable in another area?

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ BD16

Not that it's any of your business, but during most of the New Labour years I was either living off of savings, or was in full-time Higher Education.

You said you were two old to get a job but since the 90's you have been in higher education and living off savings?

Wouldn't your time be more productive working especially as you stated you were older rather than being in higher education?

alfucham wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Another Landless Peasant wrote: @ Andy2010 If someone is required to do a job of work then they should be paid a wage.

I couldnt agree more JSA, Council tax Benefit, Housing benefit, free prescription, school dinners for children, Subsidised school uniform to name a few These just about cover a wage dont they?

free dental treatment

All could be worth for a single person the following annually.

JSA £3728
Housing Benefit £4368
Council Tax Benefit Estimate £800
Dental estimate £150
Prescriptions estimate £150

Total £9198

Working Man on minimun wage at 34 hours week is paid gross £10433

Tax threshold last year £7475 will reduce the working single mans wage by about £1000.

Meaning he comes home with about £9433.

The additional £235 allegedly in his pocket for working will be more than swallowed up by travel to work costs.
If the job was local the minimu8n that would be would be in the region of £1000 pounds a year with tax relief only for the self employed on travel expenses.

So for a single male to take a job locally (where there are few) he could be as much as several hundred pounds worse off than those that have.

Big Problem.

And travel to work costs are rising with train and fuel and car insurance.
Young are quoted several thousand to insure cars.
No working tax credit for under 25.

Lokks like we have created a nation that will be living with mum and dad for life.

Its a Mean Old Scene and its likely to get far worse in this City which appears beyond saving.

I know what the govt will think.

Bradford had billions in regeneration money in the last decade but the combined effotrs of our erstwhile leaders (retired bin man,retired bus driver and lady muck of the upper chamber)conspired to fritter squander and waste it.

Look at Eastbrook Hall fiasco.
Look at Westfield fiasco where the jobs of probably 15000 people wiped to create our very own ground zero.
No need for 9/11 here in Bradford.
Our own politicians can more than match that.
Look at the Odeon fiasco.
Look at the multi million pound cycle bridge and route connecting East to West Bowling that conveniently provides an escape route for all the drug dealers fleeing the police but is used by few travel to town bikers.
Look at how much of it was spent of it capitally refurbing all the tower blocks of Manchester Road occupied by third worlders where the chemists poll up dailly (hourly in some cases) to dispense the afflicted daily methodone.

Bradford Blew the money it was given to create zero long term sustainable jobs.

Council led projects through a private regeneration company with Ian Greenwood sat on the board.
He"s on the board at Odsal now so watch out for more taxpayer funds been directed into that black ho;e aftyer the council gave the Bulls £6 to £7 million to squander 10 years back.

Oh what a circus.
The fact is that there is a prediction that half Bradfords population within 10 years is to be made up of under 25"s.

With NO prospects whatsoever.

No skills,No incentives to work,No jobs anyway,Zero prospect of prospecters seeking to invest in a hole where drug dealing gambling gun running shootings (daily) anti social behaviour and an entirely threatening atmosphere everywhere and particularly in the centre.

Most decent people I know abandoned the idea of going into town in recent years.
It was not like this 15 years back when the grand Masterplan was dreamed up with David Green sat then on regeneration commitees.
Oh what a ruin you have made of my home city politicians of all pursuasions.

Hang your heads in shame.
How anyone from New Labour has the audacity to speak now of the issues largely orf their making is beyond me.

And the current incumbents are similarly clueless when it comes to the regions.

What did Cameron say a couple of years back.
We all need to get on our bikes and go to where the work is.
Idiot.

The North South divide will just get more acute.
Now we hear Camden Council are planning to send a few thousand North (targeting Bradford)with those that live in expensive houses in London.
The underclass types no doubt.

As if we had not enough of them already with thousands more daily coming off the production line.

A very depressing place indeed with a very depressing future

Spot on and sadly all so very true!

"A very depressing place indeed with a very depressing future."

Andy2010 wrote:

Parz wrote:

Outraged English Subject wrote:

bfd lass wrote: hubby has been unemployed for 2 1/2 years now, doesn't get benefits cos I work full time, he's applied for all sorts of jobs, would prefer clerical, but has applied at burger king, subway, pubs, cleaning companies, etc. Dont dare say he's not trying his best to get a job. he gets some interview, often through to a 2nd interview, but feedback he gets (when people bother to reply to his request for feedback) is that there's someone else more suitable for that position, often, more recent experience is cited as a reason. So, can all those people who claim that there's plenty of jobs out there, and people just dont want them, tell me how my hubby can actually get a job, cos it's obviously not that easy!

Agree.

Also agreed. And again, fair dues to your husband for putting the effort needed in, which is a lot more that some people do. My problem is with quotes like the one from Galloway, which suggest that there are no jobs out there at all and its all the governments fault and ramble ramble ramble. It's quotes and attitudes like that that take all onus away from the job seekers, and instill this belief that a job should be simply provided to them on a plate with no effort on thier part.

Also agree..fair play to your husband for trying his hardest to get a job but honestly in 2 1/2 years cant find anything...anything at all?

he lost his job through ill health, the first year, no one would even give him an interview, so no, nothing in 2 1/2 years, and not for lack of trying for anything. needs someone to be willing to give him a chance, but no one seems to want to do that. nearest he's got to working was ending up helping out at a jobs fair he visited recently.

Andy2010 wrote:

Another Landless Peasant wrote: @ BD16 Not that it's any of your business, but during most of the New Labour years I was either living off of savings, or was in full-time Higher Education.

You said you were two old to get a job but since the 90's you have been in higher education and living off savings? Wouldn't your time be more productive working especially as you stated you were older rather than being in higher education?

Unless the higher education was studying for a professional qualification perhaps, Accountancy Qualifcations for example. And it's well known that Graduates, wheter young or mature students, are more employable. I have no doubt that some of the jobs I've been turned down for in recent time have been filled by Graduate. Going into higher education is a smart move if you're wanting to increase your employability or improve on your current career.

birday wrote:

BertSanders wrote:
Bradfords only new industry is taxi - shop - restuarant or telephones.
Who would come here?
Government cannot create industry - it is people who do that
Bradford needs more integration and business that can employ local people and I do not think George Galloway will do much to encourage that.
Saltire Bantam has a point - local traders seem to quote by phone - then when you ask for an invoice they have to add VAT - of course cash is paid.

Don't knock taxi's, retaurants and takeaways they must be good businesses to get into. I can't afford these things myself but, despite huge poverty and deprivation in Bradford, it would seem that there are lots of people that can. These businesses appear to be doing really well and don't seem to have to work too hard either.
.
Does anyone else notice how many taxi's are parked in driveways in neighbourhoods both day and night and on the side of main roads whilst the drive has a nap, reads a paper or has a lengthy telephone conversation.
.
I drive past restaurants and take aways and they're empty.
.
And these people have homes and families to keep. How do they do it? Um?

I would not disagree with you. I mention cash business where tax is somewhat "negotiable" I am told there are more people working - a few less on benefits but still jobs are difficult, particularly in Bradford. I occasionally visit restuarants and notice that business seems good. There are jobs but nobody wants to start at minimum wage - and it does not make sense to do so when benefits give a better return ie JSA plus all the freebies that go with it.
Benefits and Pensions are good but it should be remembered the taxpayer is footing the bill - tax avoidence is well documented. The jobs mentioned fit well with claiming benefits as well and it would seem impossible to check them all. Houses are allocated to people who could not afford them if they had a job, as evidenced in Gloucestershire. It may be a good business decision to bo on benefits.

Parz wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Another Landless Peasant wrote: @ BD16 Not that it's any of your business, but during most of the New Labour years I was either living off of savings, or was in full-time Higher Education.

You said you were two old to get a job but since the 90's you have been in higher education and living off savings? Wouldn't your time be more productive working especially as you stated you were older rather than being in higher education?

Unless the higher education was studying for a professional qualification perhaps, Accountancy Qualifcations for example. And it's well known that Graduates, wheter young or mature students, are more employable. I have no doubt that some of the jobs I've been turned down for in recent time have been filled by Graduate. Going into higher education is a smart move if you're wanting to increase your employability or improve on your current career.

Oh i agree although retraining as say an accountant when you 50 year old is pretty pointless unless your already in a workplace that would support you through it.

In fact retraining to do anything when you 50+ is pretty pointless. Sad but true

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ BD16

Not that it's any of your business, but during most of the New Labour years I was either living off of savings, or was in full-time Higher Education.

If that's true, and I have my reservations, why did you once tell me that you'd been bought a suit for job interviews. That was only ever done for those that had been on benefits for years.

If you are a business owner and you are looking to open a new factory you are not going to waste your own money and build it in Bradford West. The fact that jihad George is there deters normal people from investing there. If you are a jewish person you won't invest money there because Galloway doesn't recognise the state of Israel and he also has very dubious opinions on womens rights.

Galloway says we may be on the verge of a triple dip depression. Where has he been? Bradford is into its third triple dip recession since The Hole appeared. Meanwhile Leeds goes from strength to strength.

angry bradfordian wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
so Galloway does exist!! I thought he ws going to get Bradford sorted out, get Westfield or whoever now owns the site to start work. Maybe that little venture will create several hundreds of jobs in it's construction and thereafter.

He definitely exists- he's made the front of the Guardian website today:

George Galloway has been accused of racism after walking out of a debate at Oxford University after discovering that his opponent was an Israeli citizen.
The Respect party MP for Bradford West – a vocal critic of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people – had been taking part in the debate at Christ Church college, speaking for the motion that "Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank", when he learned that Eylon Aslan-Levy, a student opposing it, was Israeli.
Galloway interrupted the third-year philosophy, politics and economics student at Brasenose college when Aslan-Levy used the word "we" in reference to Israel.
"You said 'we'," said Galloway. "Are you an Israeli?"
"I am, yes," Aslan-Levy replied.
"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry," Galloway said, standing and putting on his coat, then reiterating as he walked out: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis."


So Bradford West gets in the national media, but only in a story where the MP displays his lack of tolerance for other people. Something he claims to fight for!

How is being against Israel, 'racist'??

And good on George for not debating with those who support Israeli terrorism.

Saltaire Bantam wrote:
If you are a business owner and you are looking to open a new factory you are not going to waste your own money and build it in Bradford West. The fact that jihad George is there deters normal people from investing there. If you are a jewish person you won't invest money there because Galloway doesn't recognise the state of Israel and he also has very dubious opinions on womens rights.

Sorry but anyone that supports the Nazi-like government in Tel Aviv needs their heads examining.

SIMPLE AND EASY JUST CLAIM AND GET YOUR BILLS PAIDED FOR. WORKING AND SIGNING ON MAKES NO DIFFERENCE BILLS HIGH, COUNCIL TAX HIGH EVERYTHING SKY HIGH WHY......

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ spearmint wino

Firstly, I don't know where that is, and secondly, are you going to pay me the £2000 or so that I would need for re-settlement costs? And thirdly, what makes you think that I would be any more employable in another area?

London, Leeds, York and Nottingham. They have all left Bradford for work. No I am not going to give you £2k if that is what you think you need then look for a solution not an excuse. Finally anyone seriously looking for a career needs qualifications which I would assume you have, if not go back to college and get some.

The Hoffster wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
so Galloway does exist!! I thought he ws going to get Bradford sorted out, get Westfield or whoever now owns the site to start work. Maybe that little venture will create several hundreds of jobs in it's construction and thereafter.

He definitely exists- he's made the front of the Guardian website today:

George Galloway has been accused of racism after walking out of a debate at Oxford University after discovering that his opponent was an Israeli citizen.
The Respect party MP for Bradford West – a vocal critic of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people – had been taking part in the debate at Christ Church college, speaking for the motion that "Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank", when he learned that Eylon Aslan-Levy, a student opposing it, was Israeli.
Galloway interrupted the third-year philosophy, politics and economics student at Brasenose college when Aslan-Levy used the word "we" in reference to Israel.
"You said 'we'," said Galloway. "Are you an Israeli?"
"I am, yes," Aslan-Levy replied.
"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry," Galloway said, standing and putting on his coat, then reiterating as he walked out: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis."


So Bradford West gets in the national media, but only in a story where the MP displays his lack of tolerance for other people. Something he claims to fight for!

How is being against Israel, 'racist'??

And good on George for not debating with those who support Israeli terrorism.

Galloway is making Bradford related headlines for all the wrong reasons.

He was taking part in a debate on Israel leaving the West Bank. Who did he think he would be DEBATING against other than a supporter of Israel?
Or is he so full of his own self importance that he can't believe anyone would disagree with him?

Perhaps he should be in Bradford dealing with issues at the top of his constituent's concerns (like teenage unemployment) rather than things most people don't care about either way.

angry bradfordian wrote:

The Hoffster wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
so Galloway does exist!! I thought he ws going to get Bradford sorted out, get Westfield or whoever now owns the site to start work. Maybe that little venture will create several hundreds of jobs in it's construction and thereafter.

He definitely exists- he's made the front of the Guardian website today:

George Galloway has been accused of racism after walking out of a debate at Oxford University after discovering that his opponent was an Israeli citizen.
The Respect party MP for Bradford West – a vocal critic of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people – had been taking part in the debate at Christ Church college, speaking for the motion that "Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank", when he learned that Eylon Aslan-Levy, a student opposing it, was Israeli.
Galloway interrupted the third-year philosophy, politics and economics student at Brasenose college when Aslan-Levy used the word "we" in reference to Israel.
"You said 'we'," said Galloway. "Are you an Israeli?"
"I am, yes," Aslan-Levy replied.
"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry," Galloway said, standing and putting on his coat, then reiterating as he walked out: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis."


So Bradford West gets in the national media, but only in a story where the MP displays his lack of tolerance for other people. Something he claims to fight for!

How is being against Israel, 'racist'??

And good on George for not debating with those who support Israeli terrorism.

Galloway is making Bradford related headlines for all the wrong reasons.

He was taking part in a debate on Israel leaving the West Bank. Who did he think he would be DEBATING against other than a supporter of Israel?
Or is he so full of his own self importance that he can't believe anyone would disagree with him?

Perhaps he should be in Bradford dealing with issues at the top of his constituent's concerns (like teenage unemployment) rather than things most people don't care about either way.

There's only so much GG can do for this constituents.

What do you want him to *actually* do? - conjure up some jobs?

The Hoffster wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

The Hoffster wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
so Galloway does exist!! I thought he ws going to get Bradford sorted out, get Westfield or whoever now owns the site to start work. Maybe that little venture will create several hundreds of jobs in it's construction and thereafter.

He definitely exists- he's made the front of the Guardian website today:

George Galloway has been accused of racism after walking out of a debate at Oxford University after discovering that his opponent was an Israeli citizen.
The Respect party MP for Bradford West – a vocal critic of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people – had been taking part in the debate at Christ Church college, speaking for the motion that "Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank", when he learned that Eylon Aslan-Levy, a student opposing it, was Israeli.
Galloway interrupted the third-year philosophy, politics and economics student at Brasenose college when Aslan-Levy used the word "we" in reference to Israel.
"You said 'we'," said Galloway. "Are you an Israeli?"
"I am, yes," Aslan-Levy replied.
"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry," Galloway said, standing and putting on his coat, then reiterating as he walked out: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis."


So Bradford West gets in the national media, but only in a story where the MP displays his lack of tolerance for other people. Something he claims to fight for!

How is being against Israel, 'racist'??

And good on George for not debating with those who support Israeli terrorism.

Galloway is making Bradford related headlines for all the wrong reasons.

He was taking part in a debate on Israel leaving the West Bank. Who did he think he would be DEBATING against other than a supporter of Israel?
Or is he so full of his own self importance that he can't believe anyone would disagree with him?

Perhaps he should be in Bradford dealing with issues at the top of his constituent's concerns (like teenage unemployment) rather than things most people don't care about either way.

There's only so much GG can do for this constituents.

What do you want him to *actually* do? - conjure up some jobs?

A few weeks ago he was moaning about the council not spending their time lobbying at parliament. I thought that was meant to be his job as an MP!
When he got to ask a question at PMQ the other MPs were joking about the fact he's never in the Commons.

I could reverse your question and ask what do you actually expect he's going to do to stop the Middle East conflict? Neither side are likely to be listening to anything he's got to say.

ANYONE can get a job, as long they wish to do so. Too many bone idle whingers out there using every little thing as an excuse not to work. And as for all the benefit scroungers, they should have to do community service for their benefits otherwise they get nothing. This would instill a work ethic into people instead of the "take take take" ttitude most of the unemployed have. And if they refuse to do community service, renovate the old odeon into a big empty hall where they have to sign in at 9am and sign out at 5pm, and let them sit there being utterly bored stiff. They'll soon magically find a job...

angry bradfordian wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
so Galloway does exist!! I thought he ws going to get Bradford sorted out, get Westfield or whoever now owns the site to start work. Maybe that little venture will create several hundreds of jobs in it's construction and thereafter.

He definitely exists- he's made the front of the Guardian website today:

George Galloway has been accused of racism after walking out of a debate at Oxford University after discovering that his opponent was an Israeli citizen.
The Respect party MP for Bradford West – a vocal critic of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian people – had been taking part in the debate at Christ Church college, speaking for the motion that "Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank", when he learned that Eylon Aslan-Levy, a student opposing it, was Israeli.
Galloway interrupted the third-year philosophy, politics and economics student at Brasenose college when Aslan-Levy used the word "we" in reference to Israel.
"You said 'we'," said Galloway. "Are you an Israeli?"
"I am, yes," Aslan-Levy replied.
"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled, sorry," Galloway said, standing and putting on his coat, then reiterating as he walked out: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis."


So Bradford West gets in the national media, but only in a story where the MP displays his lack of tolerance for other people. Something he claims to fight for!

If he doesn't recognise Israel, why dd he ask if his 'opponent'w as Israeli?

If youth unemployment is so high, why are there so many young men working in empty takeaways and barbers?

Stevie-C wrote:
ANYONE can get a job, as long they wish to do so. Too many bone idle whingers out there using every little thing as an excuse not to work. And as for all the benefit scroungers, they should have to do community service for their benefits otherwise they get nothing. This would instill a work ethic into people instead of the "take take take" ttitude most of the unemployed have. And if they refuse to do community service, renovate the old odeon into a big empty hall where they have to sign in at 9am and sign out at 5pm, and let them sit there being utterly bored stiff. They'll soon magically find a job...

Just in the interest of clarity can you define what is a "benefit scrounger" what you consider "community service" and what constitutes "take take take attitude"?

allinittogether wrote:

Stevie-C wrote:
ANYONE can get a job, as long they wish to do so. Too many bone idle whingers out there using every little thing as an excuse not to work. And as for all the benefit scroungers, they should have to do community service for their benefits otherwise they get nothing. This would instill a work ethic into people instead of the "take take take" ttitude most of the unemployed have. And if they refuse to do community service, renovate the old odeon into a big empty hall where they have to sign in at 9am and sign out at 5pm, and let them sit there being utterly bored stiff. They'll soon magically find a job...

Just in the interest of clarity can you define what is a "benefit scrounger" what you consider "community service" and what constitutes "take take take attitude"?

I remember in the past working in shops, sometimes we'd get people come in and ask for applications. They'd often be brought back with the person stinking of booze or with not having washed, you know how smelly people do. They'd then ask us to sign something from the Jobcentre to say they applied. Knowing fully well we'd be put off hiring them from them coming in stinking like tramps. So we refused.

Ever been or worked in a Jobcentre? Same thing - people come in drunk or stinking. Often doing anything to avoid the prospect of employment.

And also the sort of people who drop children everywhere with no means or intention of paying for them.

Also, in relation to GG's latest outburst/ PR stunt, I'd like to see someone say "I don't talk to Pakistanis", and see what response we get from the usual whiners on here.

Rambo wrote:
Also, in relation to GG's latest outburst/ PR stunt, I'd like to see someone say "I don't talk to Pakistanis", and see what response we get from the usual whiners on here.

And what about all those employers who dont hire Pakistanis, Indians, Africans Polish etc.

Of course they wont say that to you cos then you can file a suit against them, but we all know it happens. Why else is Bradford in the dumps? Why else is there stereotypical views of people from ethnics backgrounds. If noone will hire them they try the Job Centre, where they get no help, so they decide to deal drugs etc. They see they can make more money from that than on JSA or a 9-5 job.

So who really is to blame for these people gong into crime? Yes they had a choice, but the unwilling list of employers reduced that choice to the point that it's that or nothing.

Did you watch that racism in football programme? The guy was told a scout was explicitly told NOT to look for potential asian players. And the fact that he had never heard of a youth county football captain not being accepted by a pro team until he met that asain captain.


We all hear about how people arent looking for jobs, but never about the employers who refuse to employ people from certain backgrounds. Of course when asked why the employer comes back with the person not being what they were looking for, or not experienced enough, or not educated enough.

I say we should have a look at what type of person was hired in that person's place then! Are they more experienced or more educated? Most likely not and they are more likely to be white.

What do people expect when you discriminate against people, this is what you create!

Rambo wrote:
Also, in relation to GG's latest outburst/ PR stunt, I'd like to see someone say "I don't talk to Pakistanis", and see what response we get from the usual whiners on here.

Sorry , where ?

I dont recognise that state, ive been misled

Get back to work wrote:

Rambo wrote:
Also, in relation to GG's latest outburst/ PR stunt, I'd like to see someone say "I don't talk to Pakistanis", and see what response we get from the usual whiners on here.

Sorry , where ?

I dont recognise that state, ive been misled

I can say I don't recognise Pakistan.

justjustice wrote:

Rambo wrote:
Also, in relation to GG's latest outburst/ PR stunt, I'd like to see someone say "I don't talk to Pakistanis", and see what response we get from the usual whiners on here.

And what about all those employers who dont hire Pakistanis, Indians, Africans Polish etc.

Of course they wont say that to you cos then you can file a suit against them, but we all know it happens. Why else is Bradford in the dumps? Why else is there stereotypical views of people from ethnics backgrounds. If noone will hire them they try the Job Centre, where they get no help, so they decide to deal drugs etc. They see they can make more money from that than on JSA or a 9-5 job.

So who really is to blame for these people gong into crime? Yes they had a choice, but the unwilling list of employers reduced that choice to the point that it's that or nothing.

Did you watch that racism in football programme? The guy was told a scout was explicitly told NOT to look for potential asian players. And the fact that he had never heard of a youth county football captain not being accepted by a pro team until he met that asain captain.


We all hear about how people arent looking for jobs, but never about the employers who refuse to employ people from certain backgrounds. Of course when asked why the employer comes back with the person not being what they were looking for, or not experienced enough, or not educated enough.

I say we should have a look at what type of person was hired in that person's place then! Are they more experienced or more educated? Most likely not and they are more likely to be white.

What do people expect when you discriminate against people, this is what you create!

lol wot?

I was on about George Galloway and his refusal to debate with the Israeli as that is what has been making the news Despite knowing he would be debating with, shock, an Israeli.

Stevie-C wrote:
ANYONE can get a job, as long they wish to do so. Too many bone idle whingers out there using every little thing as an excuse not to work. And as for all the benefit scroungers, they should have to do community service for their benefits otherwise they get nothing. This would instill a work ethic into people instead of the "take take take" ttitude most of the unemployed have. And if they refuse to do community service, renovate the old odeon into a big empty hall where they have to sign in at 9am and sign out at 5pm, and let them sit there being utterly bored stiff. They'll soon magically find a job...

FANTASTIC NEWS!
now can you tell me where the job is for my hubby, who ISN'T claiming benefits, ISN'T scrounging, ISN'T a 'bone idle whinger' and ISN'T using anything as a excuse not to work and who IS working his arse off trying to find a job!
So, unless you're an employer who's willing to give him a job, your comment that 'ANYONE can get a job' is complete rubbish. What you really mean is that some people think some jobs are beneath them so wont take them. That may be true, but there's also a lot of other people like my husband that do not consider any kind of work beneath them, as long as it's legal.

On this stream there are some pretty nasty comments/opinions coming pouring from people who, because they're anonymous on here, feel they can do so with impunity.

Most are of the 'right' and hold fast to those views but others have been taken in by the Coalition's attempts to divide up those on benefits between the 'undeserving' and 'deserving' poor. (And create misplaced 'envy.' )

Because who REALLY should be envious about the meagre amounts people have to live on, on benefits?

This 'wheeze' was trotted out in Victorian days when of course the hated workhouse was a repository for many poor people. And the people who put them there were espousing the same cruel, mean philosophy being mentioned by some here.

The sad thing is not only is there is real viciousness/anger in some comments here but, if these people are REALLY so angry, WHY are they not focussing that anger on the REAL VILLAINS that have caused havoc in our country.

I refer to the financiers, the hedge-fund managers, the CEOS, the Conservative-minded, voting speculators who treated our economy like a 'blackjack table' in a casino!! The Tories who, even now WANT LITTLE/NO REGULATION AND WANT THE 'MARKETS' TO RULE!

It wasn't the less- well-off/poor who caused the finanancial 'melt-down' and the recessions. Generally, poorer people spend what they have here, in their local area.

The well off speculator will spend abroad and lay their ill-gotten gains in off shore bank accounts or spend on foreign jaunts with money taken out of our economy.

And of course, this Tory-led govt. has decided to reward many of the very well-off by giving them an extra tax break, by reducing income tax to 45% from 50%. Ironically, many govt. ministers will PERSONALLY benefit from a £40,000 bonus this year too.

Yet, is there ANY ANGER AT ALL being directed at the Tories because of that? Er....No!!

Then these Tories tell us ..er ..well we've got to reduce the tax of the super-rich..because if we don't..er..they might just leave the country (or find ways to avoid paying it)!! Well if they find ways to avoid paying it...find ways to go 'after them'...as you do with other tax payers..for goodness sake!

All the EVIDENCE in countries like Denmark/Sweden sugeests...no..they don't leave (when having to pay more tax) But also...why should we 'bend over backwards to appease such greed, when those same people who are wealthy and want to be ..EVEN MORE wealthy are asking us to believe the 'POOR MUST PAY FOR THE ACTS OF THE WEALTHY- GREEDY'?

Then we're told..oh ..it's the 'politics..of envy'!! **** RIGHT IT'S THE POLITICS OF ENVY!!

As a Tory once wrote in a book I read recently, 'Yes, it's class war...and we're winning it..ha ha!!'

Why shouldn't anyone be envious quite rightly at seeing how the this 'GOVERNMENT OF THE RICH FOR THE RICH' looks after its own and damns those it doesn't care about?

So I say again..yes..we've a right to feel angry and envious just now.

But I KNOW WHO I direct my anger towards and WHO I AM ENVIOUS OF....and it sure as h*** 'aint the poor and less well off!!

Cityman23 wrote:
On this stream there are some pretty nasty comments/opinions coming pouring from people who, because they're anonymous on here, feel they can do so with impunity.

Most are of the 'right' and hold fast to those views but others have been taken in by the Coalition's attempts to divide up those on benefits between the 'undeserving' and 'deserving' poor. (And create misplaced 'envy.' )

Because who REALLY should be envious about the meagre amounts people have to live on, on benefits?

This 'wheeze' was trotted out in Victorian days when of course the hated workhouse was a repository for many poor people. And the people who put them there were espousing the same cruel, mean philosophy being mentioned by some here.

The sad thing is not only is there is real viciousness/anger in some comments here but, if these people are REALLY so angry, WHY are they not focussing that anger on the REAL VILLAINS that have caused havoc in our country.

I refer to the financiers, the hedge-fund managers, the CEOS, the Conservative-minded, voting speculators who treated our economy like a 'blackjack table' in a casino!! The Tories who, even now WANT LITTLE/NO REGULATION AND WANT THE 'MARKETS' TO RULE!

It wasn't the less- well-off/poor who caused the finanancial 'melt-down' and the recessions. Generally, poorer people spend what they have here, in their local area.

The well off speculator will spend abroad and lay their ill-gotten gains in off shore bank accounts or spend on foreign jaunts with money taken out of our economy.

And of course, this Tory-led govt. has decided to reward many of the very well-off by giving them an extra tax break, by reducing income tax to 45% from 50%. Ironically, many govt. ministers will PERSONALLY benefit from a £40,000 bonus this year too.

Yet, is there ANY ANGER AT ALL being directed at the Tories because of that? Er....No!!

Then these Tories tell us ..er ..well we've got to reduce the tax of the super-rich..because if we don't..er..they might just leave the country (or find ways to avoid paying it)!! Well if they find ways to avoid paying it...find ways to go 'after them'...as you do with other tax payers..for goodness sake!

All the EVIDENCE in countries like Denmark/Sweden sugeests...no..they don't leave (when having to pay more tax) But also...why should we 'bend over backwards to appease such greed, when those same people who are wealthy and want to be ..EVEN MORE wealthy are asking us to believe the 'POOR MUST PAY FOR THE ACTS OF THE WEALTHY- GREEDY'?

Then we're told..oh ..it's the 'politics..of envy'!! **** RIGHT IT'S THE POLITICS OF ENVY!!

As a Tory once wrote in a book I read recently, 'Yes, it's class war...and we're winning it..ha ha!!'

Why shouldn't anyone be envious quite rightly at seeing how the this 'GOVERNMENT OF THE RICH FOR THE RICH' looks after its own and damns those it doesn't care about?

So I say again..yes..we've a right to feel angry and envious just now.

But I KNOW WHO I direct my anger towards and WHO I AM ENVIOUS OF....and it sure as h*** 'aint the poor and less well off!!

What a load of complete and utter biased gibberish

In addition I would say, that 'the rich' have largely had it their own way since the early 1980s to the present time.
'Reagan/Thatcher' policies have been responsible for creating the greater disparity between rich and poor from those times, which even Labour government did little to challenge.

In Britain Thatcher 'smashed' the post war consensus and lay the ground for what has become known as 'Selfish-Capitalism' which turned its back on what had happened previously.

This has led to the situation we find ourselves in today.

For more info./arguments against the 'right wing' 'supporters' of selfish-capitalism.'

"SELFISH CAPITALISM" by OLIVER JAMES

Andy2010 wrote:

Cityman23 wrote:
On this stream there are some pretty nasty comments/opinions coming pouring from people who, because they're anonymous on here, feel they can do so with impunity.

Most are of the 'right' and hold fast to those views but others have been taken in by the Coalition's attempts to divide up those on benefits between the 'undeserving' and 'deserving' poor. (And create misplaced 'envy.' )

Because who REALLY should be envious about the meagre amounts people have to live on, on benefits?

This 'wheeze' was trotted out in Victorian days when of course the hated workhouse was a repository for many poor people. And the people who put them there were espousing the same cruel, mean philosophy being mentioned by some here.

The sad thing is not only is there is real viciousness/anger in some comments here but, if these people are REALLY so angry, WHY are they not focussing that anger on the REAL VILLAINS that have caused havoc in our country.

I refer to the financiers, the hedge-fund managers, the CEOS, the Conservative-minded, voting speculators who treated our economy like a 'blackjack table' in a casino!! The Tories who, even now WANT LITTLE/NO REGULATION AND WANT THE 'MARKETS' TO RULE!

It wasn't the less- well-off/poor who caused the finanancial 'melt-down' and the recessions. Generally, poorer people spend what they have here, in their local area.

The well off speculator will spend abroad and lay their ill-gotten gains in off shore bank accounts or spend on foreign jaunts with money taken out of our economy.

And of course, this Tory-led govt. has decided to reward many of the very well-off by giving them an extra tax break, by reducing income tax to 45% from 50%. Ironically, many govt. ministers will PERSONALLY benefit from a £40,000 bonus this year too.

Yet, is there ANY ANGER AT ALL being directed at the Tories because of that? Er....No!!

Then these Tories tell us ..er ..well we've got to reduce the tax of the super-rich..because if we don't..er..they might just leave the country (or find ways to avoid paying it)!! Well if they find ways to avoid paying it...find ways to go 'after them'...as you do with other tax payers..for goodness sake!

All the EVIDENCE in countries like Denmark/Sweden sugeests...no..they don't leave (when having to pay more tax) But also...why should we 'bend over backwards to appease such greed, when those same people who are wealthy and want to be ..EVEN MORE wealthy are asking us to believe the 'POOR MUST PAY FOR THE ACTS OF THE WEALTHY- GREEDY'?

Then we're told..oh ..it's the 'politics..of envy'!! **** RIGHT IT'S THE POLITICS OF ENVY!!

As a Tory once wrote in a book I read recently, 'Yes, it's class war...and we're winning it..ha ha!!'

Why shouldn't anyone be envious quite rightly at seeing how the this 'GOVERNMENT OF THE RICH FOR THE RICH' looks after its own and damns those it doesn't care about?

So I say again..yes..we've a right to feel angry and envious just now.

But I KNOW WHO I direct my anger towards and WHO I AM ENVIOUS OF....and it sure as h*** 'aint the poor and less well off!!

What a load of complete and utter biased gibberish

So you're saying we SHOULDN'T feel anger towards those who caused all the troubles in our economy and envy towards those still trying to grab more themselves when actually their extremely-rich anyway...??

To those NOT of thge 'rabid-right' and their 'fellow travellers':
]
Incidently, the book "Selfish Capitalism by Oliver James" is published by Vermiion and can be picked up your local library.

(Interestingly, even the 'Daily Mail' gave the author some praise!!)

Remember those on the 'right' PREFER opponents to be less clued-up. This book 'arms' with real facts and well-argued, thoughtful opinion to defeat many of the anti-working class 'views' put forward on here!!

Cityman23 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Cityman23 wrote:
On this stream there are some pretty nasty comments/opinions coming pouring from people who, because they're anonymous on here, feel they can do so with impunity.

Most are of the 'right' and hold fast to those views but others have been taken in by the Coalition's attempts to divide up those on benefits between the 'undeserving' and 'deserving' poor. (And create misplaced 'envy.' )

Because who REALLY should be envious about the meagre amounts people have to live on, on benefits?

This 'wheeze' was trotted out in Victorian days when of course the hated workhouse was a repository for many poor people. And the people who put them there were espousing the same cruel, mean philosophy being mentioned by some here.

The sad thing is not only is there is real viciousness/anger in some comments here but, if these people are REALLY so angry, WHY are they not focussing that anger on the REAL VILLAINS that have caused havoc in our country.

I refer to the financiers, the hedge-fund managers, the CEOS, the Conservative-minded, voting speculators who treated our economy like a 'blackjack table' in a casino!! The Tories who, even now WANT LITTLE/NO REGULATION AND WANT THE 'MARKETS' TO RULE!

It wasn't the less- well-off/poor who caused the finanancial 'melt-down' and the recessions. Generally, poorer people spend what they have here, in their local area.

The well off speculator will spend abroad and lay their ill-gotten gains in off shore bank accounts or spend on foreign jaunts with money taken out of our economy.

And of course, this Tory-led govt. has decided to reward many of the very well-off by giving them an extra tax break, by reducing income tax to 45% from 50%. Ironically, many govt. ministers will PERSONALLY benefit from a £40,000 bonus this year too.

Yet, is there ANY ANGER AT ALL being directed at the Tories because of that? Er....No!!

Then these Tories tell us ..er ..well we've got to reduce the tax of the super-rich..because if we don't..er..they might just leave the country (or find ways to avoid paying it)!! Well if they find ways to avoid paying it...find ways to go 'after them'...as you do with other tax payers..for goodness sake!

All the EVIDENCE in countries like Denmark/Sweden sugeests...no..they don't leave (when having to pay more tax) But also...why should we 'bend over backwards to appease such greed, when those same people who are wealthy and want to be ..EVEN MORE wealthy are asking us to believe the 'POOR MUST PAY FOR THE ACTS OF THE WEALTHY- GREEDY'?

Then we're told..oh ..it's the 'politics..of envy'!! **** RIGHT IT'S THE POLITICS OF ENVY!!

As a Tory once wrote in a book I read recently, 'Yes, it's class war...and we're winning it..ha ha!!'

Why shouldn't anyone be envious quite rightly at seeing how the this 'GOVERNMENT OF THE RICH FOR THE RICH' looks after its own and damns those it doesn't care about?

So I say again..yes..we've a right to feel angry and envious just now.

But I KNOW WHO I direct my anger towards and WHO I AM ENVIOUS OF....and it sure as h*** 'aint the poor and less well off!!

What a load of complete and utter biased gibberish

So you're saying we SHOULDN'T feel anger towards those who caused all the troubles in our economy and envy towards those still trying to grab more themselves when actually their extremely-rich anyway...??

Who re "those" you speak of

You seem annoyed that some people have money or are rich...so what

Most of them worked hard or are extremely clever in order to establish their wealth. Theres the wealthy "elite" in every aspect of society from Trade Union officials, Bankers, Politicians, Directors, Drug Dealers, Advisors blah blah blah.

Do I feel anger towards these people....no not at all. I was brought up to look after myself and as much as obviously I would like more of the money I earn (who wouldnt) I accept to pay my part. Trust me most of the people moaning about tax avoidance etc if they had the ways and means to pay less tax they would without a shadow of a doubt

The world throughout history has always been about the rich and the poor and always will be so instead of winging about "capitalism" or the bankers etc etc etc try to make something of your life to enable you enough money to live happily as that seems to be your issue.

Bottom line is Rich / Poor....has always been the case and is human instinct...whether right or wrong its the way things are so if you cant beat em join em

All the ingredients are coming together for another 1981. Will today's youth be brave enough to carry the ball? Will they have the fortitude of their Grandparents? They have been chucked on the scrap-heap and only they can do anything about it! I wish them luck!

TirNaNog wrote:
All the ingredients are coming together for another 1981. Will today's youth be brave enough to carry the ball? Will they have the fortitude of their Grandparents? They have been chucked on the scrap-heap and only they can do anything about it! I wish them luck!

Will they educate themselves and have the gumption to carve a future and career for themselves.

Yes they will...well the ones with anything about them will

bfd lass wrote:

Stevie-C wrote:
ANYONE can get a job, as long they wish to do so. Too many bone idle whingers out there using every little thing as an excuse not to work. And as for all the benefit scroungers, they should have to do community service for their benefits otherwise they get nothing. This would instill a work ethic into people instead of the "take take take" ttitude most of the unemployed have. And if they refuse to do community service, renovate the old odeon into a big empty hall where they have to sign in at 9am and sign out at 5pm, and let them sit there being utterly bored stiff. They'll soon magically find a job...

FANTASTIC NEWS!
now can you tell me where the job is for my hubby, who ISN'T claiming benefits, ISN'T scrounging, ISN'T a 'bone idle whinger' and ISN'T using anything as a excuse not to work and who IS working his arse off trying to find a job!
So, unless you're an employer who's willing to give him a job, your comment that 'ANYONE can get a job' is complete rubbish. What you really mean is that some people think some jobs are beneath them so wont take them. That may be true, but there's also a lot of other people like my husband that do not consider any kind of work beneath them, as long as it's legal.

Interesting! I think Stevie-C is an employer, and shall soon be back on here with a job offer, I am sure of it!

Will the young unemployed do what my parents did, leave 'mother' and go looking for work, or will they stay at home and blame everyone but themselves?

Colin Allcars wrote:
Will the young unemployed do what my parents did, leave 'mother' and go looking for work, or will they stay at home and blame everyone but themselves?

the latter

The regeneration budget should be diverted to create jobs. Empty buildings should be commandeered promoting a plethora of employment initiatives. Management teams should be formed by University graduates as part of their course, bringing new ideas into the market place. Links with investors should also be sought, as well as engaging local businessmen.

Welfare-to-work scheme 'is failing'

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-21
532191

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Welfare-to-work scheme 'is failing'

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-politics-21

532191

No it isnt

Depending on the reports you read its success rate is between 3-15% so therefore even if middle ground 8% its working !

@ spearmint wino

Go back to college and get some qualifications? OK, are you going to pay my course fees then? There is very little funding available for post-graduate degrees.

LOL you'd swear black's white! The figures don't lie. The Work Programme is a failure. To deny that is just idiotic. hahahahha

The usual right-wing morons on here, spouting the usual moronic rabid Tory drivel. You've been busted, we all see through your lies and nonsense. The illusion isn't working. You all talk out of your backside, and you bloody well know it! But it is all collapsing around your ears. LOLOLOLOL

"Today’s damning report from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reveals the shocking revelation that Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship Work Programme is performing significantly worse than if the DWP had done nothing at all."

http://johnnyvoid.wo
rdpress.com/2013/02/
22/is-workfare-behin
d-the-work-programme
-disaster/

OK lets just say it puts just 1% off benefits.

Well its worth it then

Would you rather people are just given benefit forever ?

Yes you probably would but you will find the majority are sick to death of people not pulling their weight

Oh and nothing to do with the Tories....usual Labour drivel

@ Andy2010

So it's worth spending Billions £££s of taxpayers' money, in a en economic depression, just to reduce unemployment by 1% ??? The figures show that more people find work without the Work Programme than with it. The figures show that unemployment numbers would be less if the DWP did nothing. And you think that's a success? Wake up for God's sake. They're pouring BILLIONS OF POUNDS down the drain! It is purely about diverting taxpayers' money into the hands of private profit-making companies and their greedy shareholders, who then invest it offshore and pay no tax. You've been had.

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ Andy2010

So it's worth spending Billions £££s of taxpayers' money, in a en economic depression, just to reduce unemployment by 1% ??? The figures show that more people find work without the Work Programme than with it. The figures show that unemployment numbers would be less if the DWP did nothing. And you think that's a success? Wake up for God's sake. They're pouring BILLIONS OF POUNDS down the drain! It is purely about diverting taxpayers' money into the hands of private profit-making companies and their greedy shareholders, who then invest it offshore and pay no tax. You've been had.

OK lets say 3% as stated in the BBC report. How many claimaints does that equate to?

You stated the figures would be less if they did nothing? Explain that logic please? how is that even accountable?

If even one person gets a job through the scheme its worth. As for the cost personally I couldnt care less

The figures given to more laughable causes.....Unions...
...EU.....Foreign subsidies...wars....
.dwarf in comparison the cost of the scheme so in honesty no not bothered.

Lets just face facts....your a lazy workshy so and so who would rather sit there and blame everyone but them self for not having a job

Our governments since 1979 have broadly speaking, put the interests of the wealthy FIRST. Hence the phrase, "If voting really made a difference, they'd abolish it!"

They maintained the 'trickle-down effect' would mean ALL would benefit from the rich getting richer-it was a LIE!

Now we have a situation where the very democracy, most people cherish is is in 'jeopardy' basically because many don't trust politicians at all and believe they are out for themselves/and have 'other agendas'. And whilst it is still true some go in to politics to 'make a difference' too many have their heads turned and are 'starry eyed' by the corporations/interes
ts of the wealthy which are diametrically opposed to the interests of most ordinary people.

'Interests' of course is what REALLY drives politics and because there are fewer wealthy people desperate to hang on to their fortunes and totally against 'redistribution of wealth' which was a feature of all post war governments up to 1979, they HAVE to convince OTHERS to support the cause of 'hit the poor/less well off.' Cut their benefits/cut their wages etc.

They do this in the way some on here are trying, mostly based on 'myths' and lies' which make out the unemployed are all shirkers not worthy of support. 'CHAVS' is a phrase no doubt concocted by someone of this view who wishes to carry on the 'working class-bashing.'

Yet, to give an example, WHY is housing benefit so high? Is it because many less well off are getting large amounts from this benefit? No! It's because lots of private landlords are on a 'gravy train', charging extortionate rents!! No doubt many of' 'these' people love the free market, as it nets them a fortune!! So why don't the government bear down on these 'exploiters.'

Well, many Tories are 'exploiters' themselves and they don't take too kindly to 'regulation' in any of its forms.

Unrestrained free-market 'exploitation' is much more to their taste!!

And yes, to the 'poster' above who called me 'biased'-well of course I am..just like YOU!! (and everyone else who blogs on here) Show me the person on here who claims to be unbiased and I'll show you a liar!

I view politics through a socialist/green environmentalist perspective and that colours my 'world view.' I admit it. But to anyone out there who really believes anyone posting here is ..neutral...well...j
ust read again some of the 'rabid right' vicious comments written about the poor/less well off people above...and ..think again!!

@ Andy2010

I'm sorry but you're obviously not that bright. You don't personally care about the enormous cost of such utterly futile back-to-work schemes, yet it is people such as yourself who are paying for it! Read the BBC article, the figures show that fewer people would remain unemployed if the Work Programme did not exist. Fact. And of course it's not accountable, that's the whole point of the criticism. It is simply about creating a smokescreen whilst diverting huge chunks of public money into private hands, and for no result. Why you can't see the truth of that is beyond me.

bfd lass wrote:

Stevie-C wrote:
ANYONE can get a job, as long they wish to do so. Too many bone idle whingers out there using every little thing as an excuse not to work. And as for all the benefit scroungers, they should have to do community service for their benefits otherwise they get nothing. This would instill a work ethic into people instead of the "take take take" ttitude most of the unemployed have. And if they refuse to do community service, renovate the old odeon into a big empty hall where they have to sign in at 9am and sign out at 5pm, and let them sit there being utterly bored stiff. They'll soon magically find a job...

FANTASTIC NEWS!
now can you tell me where the job is for my hubby, who ISN'T claiming benefits, ISN'T scrounging, ISN'T a 'bone idle whinger' and ISN'T using anything as a excuse not to work and who IS working his arse off trying to find a job!
So, unless you're an employer who's willing to give him a job, your comment that 'ANYONE can get a job' is complete rubbish. What you really mean is that some people think some jobs are beneath them so wont take them. That may be true, but there's also a lot of other people like my husband that do not consider any kind of work beneath them, as long as it's legal.

The local car wash up my road are always advertising for staff. As are b&q. As are pub restaurants. As are any agency in the centre of bradford that offers shift work for just above basic wage for packing at the likes of princes and next. Or maybe hubby can find a job in what he is trained to do in previous jobs? I am not an employer, but i have never struggled to find work. Maybe i am simply just an extremely fortunate individual(!)

Stevie-C wrote:

bfd lass wrote:

Stevie-C wrote:
ANYONE can get a job, as long they wish to do so. Too many bone idle whingers out there using every little thing as an excuse not to work. And as for all the benefit scroungers, they should have to do community service for their benefits otherwise they get nothing. This would instill a work ethic into people instead of the "take take take" ttitude most of the unemployed have. And if they refuse to do community service, renovate the old odeon into a big empty hall where they have to sign in at 9am and sign out at 5pm, and let them sit there being utterly bored stiff. They'll soon magically find a job...

FANTASTIC NEWS!
now can you tell me where the job is for my hubby, who ISN'T claiming benefits, ISN'T scrounging, ISN'T a 'bone idle whinger' and ISN'T using anything as a excuse not to work and who IS working his arse off trying to find a job!
So, unless you're an employer who's willing to give him a job, your comment that 'ANYONE can get a job' is complete rubbish. What you really mean is that some people think some jobs are beneath them so wont take them. That may be true, but there's also a lot of other people like my husband that do not consider any kind of work beneath them, as long as it's legal.

The local car wash up my road are always advertising for staff. As are b&q. As are pub restaurants. As are any agency in the centre of bradford that offers shift work for just above basic wage for packing at the likes of princes and next. Or maybe hubby can find a job in what he is trained to do in previous jobs? I am not an employer, but i have never struggled to find work. Maybe i am simply just an extremely fortunate individual(!)

location of the car wash please?
he's applied at B&Q, taken cv round lots of pub restaurants, been into to lots of agencies that have windows full of jobs, passed them his cv, but is then told 'we don't have anything suitable at the moment but will let you know' - he does keep chasing them up, but no joy yet.
As I'd put in my first post, he would prefer clerical as that was his previous experience, but has applied at all sorts of different places,inc burger king, subway, cleaning companies, security etc.
the simple fact is that a 49 year old, who lost last job through ill health and hasn't worked in 2 1/2 years is not on the top of anyone's 'most desirable employee list'.

The once great Bradford is a victim of past Governments boom & bust politics and now there is no functioning or joined up Government in Bradford...The MP's see the citizens as voting fodder only and the biggest 'industry' here now is crime & punishment...so sad

alfucham wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Another Landless Peasant wrote: @ Andy2010 If someone is required to do a job of work then they should be paid a wage.

I couldnt agree more JSA, Council tax Benefit, Housing benefit, free prescription, school dinners for children, Subsidised school uniform to name a few These just about cover a wage dont they?

free dental treatment

All could be worth for a single person the following annually.

JSA £3728
Housing Benefit £4368
Council Tax Benefit Estimate £800
Dental estimate £150
Prescriptions estimate £150

Total £9198

Working Man on minimun wage at 34 hours week is paid gross £10433

Tax threshold last year £7475 will reduce the working single mans wage by about £1000.

Meaning he comes home with about £9433.

The additional £235 allegedly in his pocket for working will be more than swallowed up by travel to work costs.
If the job was local the minimu8n that would be would be in the region of £1000 pounds a year with tax relief only for the self employed on travel expenses.

So for a single male to take a job locally (where there are few) he could be as much as several hundred pounds worse off than those that have.

Big Problem.

And travel to work costs are rising with train and fuel and car insurance.
Young are quoted several thousand to insure cars.
No working tax credit for under 25.

Lokks like we have created a nation that will be living with mum and dad for life.

Its a Mean Old Scene and its likely to get far worse in this City which appears beyond saving.

I know what the govt will think.

Bradford had billions in regeneration money in the last decade but the combined effotrs of our erstwhile leaders (retired bin man,retired bus driver and lady muck of the upper chamber)conspired to fritter squander and waste it.

Look at Eastbrook Hall fiasco.
Look at Westfield fiasco where the jobs of probably 15000 people wiped to create our very own ground zero.
No need for 9/11 here in Bradford.
Our own politicians can more than match that.
Look at the Odeon fiasco.
Look at the multi million pound cycle bridge and route connecting East to West Bowling that conveniently provides an escape route for all the drug dealers fleeing the police but is used by few travel to town bikers.
Look at how much of it was spent of it capitally refurbing all the tower blocks of Manchester Road occupied by third worlders where the chemists poll up dailly (hourly in some cases) to dispense the afflicted daily methodone.

Bradford Blew the money it was given to create zero long term sustainable jobs.

Council led projects through a private regeneration company with Ian Greenwood sat on the board.
He"s on the board at Odsal now so watch out for more taxpayer funds been directed into that black ho;e aftyer the council gave the Bulls £6 to £7 million to squander 10 years back.

Oh what a circus.
The fact is that there is a prediction that half Bradfords population within 10 years is to be made up of under 25"s.

With NO prospects whatsoever.

No skills,No incentives to work,No jobs anyway,Zero prospect of prospecters seeking to invest in a hole where drug dealing gambling gun running shootings (daily) anti social behaviour and an entirely threatening atmosphere everywhere and particularly in the centre.

Most decent people I know abandoned the idea of going into town in recent years.
It was not like this 15 years back when the grand Masterplan was dreamed up with David Green sat then on regeneration commitees.
Oh what a ruin you have made of my home city politicians of all pursuasions.

Hang your heads in shame.
How anyone from New Labour has the audacity to speak now of the issues largely orf their making is beyond me.

And the current incumbents are similarly clueless when it comes to the regions.

What did Cameron say a couple of years back.
We all need to get on our bikes and go to where the work is.
Idiot.

The North South divide will just get more acute.
Now we hear Camden Council are planning to send a few thousand North (targeting Bradford)with those that live in expensive houses in London.
The underclass types no doubt.

As if we had not enough of them already with thousands more daily coming off the production line.

A very depressing place indeed with a very depressing future

Couldn't agree more. Future ethno-demographic profile of this city represents a time bomb and disaster waiting to happen.

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ Andy2010

I'm sorry but you're obviously not that bright. You don't personally care about the enormous cost of such utterly futile back-to-work schemes, yet it is people such as yourself who are paying for it! Read the BBC article, the figures show that fewer people would remain unemployed if the Work Programme did not exist. Fact. And of course it's not accountable, that's the whole point of the criticism. It is simply about creating a smokescreen whilst diverting huge chunks of public money into private hands, and for no result. Why you can't see the truth of that is beyond me.

Reading the posts of AnotherLandlessPeasa
nt it is hardly surprising that he has not found a job. Attitude or what? Shame he can't be self-employed as a professional winger but why bother given that he's sponsored to do so by the taxman. Given his claim to have spent so long in full-time education he's obviously had plenty from the system already. I do wonder what he has given in return. Strikes me that ALP and his victim mentality wants it all one way.

Bradford's woes go back a long way when there was a failure to address the change in Industrial requirements. The savage decline in the Textile Industry was not countered by investment in other areas. The we lost Baird TV and Lucas which threw many thousands of skilled workers onto the dole. Thatcher effectively stopped retraining by abolishing the Skill Centers, the one out at Low Moor was particularly effective, and replacing them with useless NVQs.
One training instructor described NVQ in bricklaying as follows;
NVQ level 1, knows which end of a trowell to hold.
NVQ level 2, can build a low wall.
NVQ level 3, wall doesn't fall over.
Now we hear that hundreds of youngsters are being 'encouraged' to take on NVQ's that will lead nowhere, does Bradford really need 500 Nail Technicians and Beauty Therapists?
Too many pie in the sky schemes dreamed up by overpaid 'consultants' who have scant knowledge of Bradford and its people have all fallen by the wayside. The Council wasting the Airport windfall on the 'City Park' when it could have done so much more to invest in growth.
A catalogue of errors, mismanagement and outright disaters and I fear that Bradford will take decades to recover.

glorious1911 wrote:

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
@ Andy2010

I'm sorry but you're obviously not that bright. You don't personally care about the enormous cost of such utterly futile back-to-work schemes, yet it is people such as yourself who are paying for it! Read the BBC article, the figures show that fewer people would remain unemployed if the Work Programme did not exist. Fact. And of course it's not accountable, that's the whole point of the criticism. It is simply about creating a smokescreen whilst diverting huge chunks of public money into private hands, and for no result. Why you can't see the truth of that is beyond me.

Reading the posts of AnotherLandlessPeasa

nt it is hardly surprising that he has not found a job. Attitude or what? Shame he can't be self-employed as a professional winger but why bother given that he's sponsored to do so by the taxman. Given his claim to have spent so long in full-time education he's obviously had plenty from the system already. I do wonder what he has given in return. Strikes me that ALP and his victim mentality wants it all one way.

I posed a very simple Yes or No scenario to our beloved ALP.

The question was very similar to:

"Are you actively trying and seeking to find work or are you a useless sponger who simply goes through the motions".

It was dressed up with different words, but the meaning was the same. The reason for the question was to determine (IMO) whether he was deserving of support by way of my taxes, or whether he was worthy of my contempt as a waste of space.

He has yet to answer. The one response I received was similar to "Get off my case,Who are you, my counsellor?".

That response leads me to believe his response to be negative and as such he belongs in the latter category.

W

Cityman23 wrote:
Our governments since 1979 have broadly speaking, put the interests of the wealthy FIRST. Hence the phrase, "If voting really made a difference, they'd abolish it!"

They maintained the 'trickle-down effect' would mean ALL would benefit from the rich getting richer-it was a LIE!

Now we have a situation where the very democracy, most people cherish is is in 'jeopardy' basically because many don't trust politicians at all and believe they are out for themselves/and have 'other agendas'. And whilst it is still true some go in to politics to 'make a difference' too many have their heads turned and are 'starry eyed' by the corporations/interes

ts of the wealthy which are diametrically opposed to the interests of most ordinary people.

'Interests' of course is what REALLY drives politics and because there are fewer wealthy people desperate to hang on to their fortunes and totally against 'redistribution of wealth' which was a feature of all post war governments up to 1979, they HAVE to convince OTHERS to support the cause of 'hit the poor/less well off.' Cut their benefits/cut their wages etc.

They do this in the way some on here are trying, mostly based on 'myths' and lies' which make out the unemployed are all shirkers not worthy of support. 'CHAVS' is a phrase no doubt concocted by someone of this view who wishes to carry on the 'working class-bashing.'

Yet, to give an example, WHY is housing benefit so high? Is it because many less well off are getting large amounts from this benefit? No! It's because lots of private landlords are on a 'gravy train', charging extortionate rents!! No doubt many of' 'these' people love the free market, as it nets them a fortune!! So why don't the government bear down on these 'exploiters.'

Well, many Tories are 'exploiters' themselves and they don't take too kindly to 'regulation' in any of its forms.

Unrestrained free-market 'exploitation' is much more to their taste!!

And yes, to the 'poster' above who called me 'biased'-well of course I am..just like YOU!! (and everyone else who blogs on here) Show me the person on here who claims to be unbiased and I'll show you a liar!

I view politics through a socialist/green environmentalist perspective and that colours my 'world view.' I admit it. But to anyone out there who really believes anyone posting here is ..neutral...well...j

ust read again some of the 'rabid right' vicious comments written about the poor/less well off people above...and ..think again!!

Anyone who says "I view politics through a socialist/green environmentalist perspective and that colours my 'world view.' is everything that is wrong with country.
The socialist/environmen
talist point of view is what has done the damage to this once great country. It needs a good stiff dose of right wing politics to get it sorted out.
Survival of the fittest works in nature, the same should apply to the workers/ spongers here.

Shelfrhino wrote:

Cityman23 wrote:
Our governments since 1979 have broadly speaking, put the interests of the wealthy FIRST. Hence the phrase, "If voting really made a difference, they'd abolish it!"

They maintained the 'trickle-down effect' would mean ALL would benefit from the rich getting richer-it was a LIE!

Now we have a situation where the very democracy, most people cherish is is in 'jeopardy' basically because many don't trust politicians at all and believe they are out for themselves/and have 'other agendas'. And whilst it is still true some go in to politics to 'make a difference' too many have their heads turned and are 'starry eyed' by the corporations/interes


ts of the wealthy which are diametrically opposed to the interests of most ordinary people.

'Interests' of course is what REALLY drives politics and because there are fewer wealthy people desperate to hang on to their fortunes and totally against 'redistribution of wealth' which was a feature of all post war governments up to 1979, they HAVE to convince OTHERS to support the cause of 'hit the poor/less well off.' Cut their benefits/cut their wages etc.

They do this in the way some on here are trying, mostly based on 'myths' and lies' which make out the unemployed are all shirkers not worthy of support. 'CHAVS' is a phrase no doubt concocted by someone of this view who wishes to carry on the 'working class-bashing.'

Yet, to give an example, WHY is housing benefit so high? Is it because many less well off are getting large amounts from this benefit? No! It's because lots of private landlords are on a 'gravy train', charging extortionate rents!! No doubt many of' 'these' people love the free market, as it nets them a fortune!! So why don't the government bear down on these 'exploiters.'

Well, many Tories are 'exploiters' themselves and they don't take too kindly to 'regulation' in any of its forms.

Unrestrained free-market 'exploitation' is much more to their taste!!

And yes, to the 'poster' above who called me 'biased'-well of course I am..just like YOU!! (and everyone else who blogs on here) Show me the person on here who claims to be unbiased and I'll show you a liar!

I view politics through a socialist/green environmentalist perspective and that colours my 'world view.' I admit it. But to anyone out there who really believes anyone posting here is ..neutral...well...j


ust read again some of the 'rabid right' vicious comments written about the poor/less well off people above...and ..think again!!

Anyone who says "I view politics through a socialist/green environmentalist perspective and that colours my 'world view.' is everything that is wrong with country.
The socialist/environmen

talist point of view is what has done the damage to this once great country. It needs a good stiff dose of right wing politics to get it sorted out.
Survival of the fittest works in nature, the same should apply to the workers/ spongers here.

Laughable! You really are a throwback aren't you?
Next you'll be telling us real men don't eat quiche and that breakfast is for wimps.

If the greedy silly council had done its job with hole in the city then the young jobless figures would be less. if the shopping centre had been built it would have created a 1000 jobs.
Nationally the greed of the Chancellor has curtailed any recovery with its fuel duty tax & increase in VAT. Increasing the cost of transport has made everything more expensive, profit margins smaller,
taken money out of hard pressed families & in these circumstances would any dunce expect an economic miracle?

Feedback - don't make me laugh !

Parz is living in dreamland.

Employers can't be bothered to give feedback, they just use their standard replies to fob you off.

Anyway , this is irrelevant, because 95% of vacancies are advertised by agencies, not by employers. Agencies will not give you feedback, because you can never contact them to get it, they avoid you like the plague.
Also, many agencies tell you up front not to ask for feedback because they don't give it.