Warrington South Labour man gives backing to jobs plan

Warrington Guardian: Nick Bent Nick Bent

NICK Bent, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Warrington South, has welcomed his party’s plans to tackle youth unemployment.


Ed Miliband along with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves announced plans that will see every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months given a paid starter job.


If they choose not to take up the role they will lose their benefit.


Here in Warrington there are 575 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work.


Nick Bent said: “Every young person deserves a chance to get on in life and make the most of their talents and only Labour will make sure they get that chance.”


The compulsory jobs guarantee will also apply to adults aged 25 or over claiming jobseeker’s allowance for two years or more and will be funded for the whole of the next Parliament by bringing back a tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for people earning more than £150,000.
 

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:21pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website.
Still Grumpy
Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website. Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 2

1:06pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Karlar says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website.
Still Grumpy
Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case? Karlar
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Tue 11 Mar 14

fedster says...

Ed Miliband along with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves announced plans that will see every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months given a paid starter job.


If they choose not to take up the role they will lose their benefit.


Here in Warrington there are 575 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work.


Nick Bent said: “Every young person deserves a chance to get on in life and make the most of their talents and only Labour will make sure they get that chance.”

nice double negative

lets kick that enthusiasm out of them now hey.

theirs a difference between getting a job you dreamed of and even worked hard for education wise.


and end up doing what your told for another 35 years.
Ed Miliband along with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves announced plans that will see every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months given a paid starter job. If they choose not to take up the role they will lose their benefit. Here in Warrington there are 575 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work. Nick Bent said: “Every young person deserves a chance to get on in life and make the most of their talents and only Labour will make sure they get that chance.” nice double negative lets kick that enthusiasm out of them now hey. theirs a difference between getting a job you dreamed of and even worked hard for education wise. and end up doing what your told for another 35 years. fedster
  • Score: -3

1:26pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

Karlar wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website.
Still Grumpy
Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?
Disagree Karlar this idea is far better than what the Conservatives are doing which is basically, and can only be described, as fudging unemployment figures and believe me they are big style! Cameron and Co have not tackled unemployment not one bit in fact they have made it worse and covered this up at the tax payers expense (great expense) to get through the election. Only my opinion, but this is the best thing Labour has come up with to tackle youth unemployment.
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?[/p][/quote]Disagree Karlar this idea is far better than what the Conservatives are doing which is basically, and can only be described, as fudging unemployment figures and believe me they are big style! Cameron and Co have not tackled unemployment not one bit in fact they have made it worse and covered this up at the tax payers expense (great expense) to get through the election. Only my opinion, but this is the best thing Labour has come up with to tackle youth unemployment. GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 5

1:31pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

fedster wrote:
Ed Miliband along with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves announced plans that will see every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months given a paid starter job.


If they choose not to take up the role they will lose their benefit.


Here in Warrington there are 575 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work.


Nick Bent said: “Every young person deserves a chance to get on in life and make the most of their talents and only Labour will make sure they get that chance.”

nice double negative

lets kick that enthusiasm out of them now hey.

theirs a difference between getting a job you dreamed of and even worked hard for education wise.


and end up doing what your told for another 35 years.
Enthusiasm of what signing on for more than 12 month? Come on fedster
[quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote: Ed Miliband along with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves announced plans that will see every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months given a paid starter job. If they choose not to take up the role they will lose their benefit. Here in Warrington there are 575 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work. Nick Bent said: “Every young person deserves a chance to get on in life and make the most of their talents and only Labour will make sure they get that chance.” nice double negative lets kick that enthusiasm out of them now hey. theirs a difference between getting a job you dreamed of and even worked hard for education wise. and end up doing what your told for another 35 years.[/p][/quote]Enthusiasm of what signing on for more than 12 month? Come on fedster GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 4

1:58pm Tue 11 Mar 14

PageA says...

How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well
How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well PageA
  • Score: -2

2:11pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well
PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though.
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well[/p][/quote]PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though. Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 3

2:25pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Karlar says...

I believe you will find that Labour's figures like those of the Lib/Cons are built out of straw. In other words they too are fudged. Remember also Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's bagman so like his master he is prone to financial flights of fantacy and fallacy. EB says Labour's scheme will be funded by a "tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for people earning more than £150,000." But many of the more experienced and impartial beancounters have shown there will be a shortfall. So how will this be made good?
I believe you will find that Labour's figures like those of the Lib/Cons are built out of straw. In other words they too are fudged. Remember also Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's bagman so like his master he is prone to financial flights of fantacy and fallacy. EB says Labour's scheme will be funded by a "tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for people earning more than £150,000." But many of the more experienced and impartial beancounters have shown there will be a shortfall. So how will this be made good? Karlar
  • Score: -2

2:30pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Karlar says...

aplogies "fantacy" should read "fantasy". = the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
aplogies "fantacy" should read "fantasy". = the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things. Karlar
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

Karlar wrote:
I believe you will find that Labour's figures like those of the Lib/Cons are built out of straw. In other words they too are fudged. Remember also Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's bagman so like his master he is prone to financial flights of fantacy and fallacy. EB says Labour's scheme will be funded by a "tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for people earning more than £150,000." But many of the more experienced and impartial beancounters have shown there will be a shortfall. So how will this be made good?
If you earn £150k plus why would you need a pension? Don't spend your money daft, I don't. Have you any real evidence to back up your statement that Lib/Lab unemployment figures are fudged because I could tell you a few home truth's about what the Cons are doing and I believe you would be quite shocked.
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: I believe you will find that Labour's figures like those of the Lib/Cons are built out of straw. In other words they too are fudged. Remember also Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's bagman so like his master he is prone to financial flights of fantacy and fallacy. EB says Labour's scheme will be funded by a "tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for people earning more than £150,000." But many of the more experienced and impartial beancounters have shown there will be a shortfall. So how will this be made good?[/p][/quote]If you earn £150k plus why would you need a pension? Don't spend your money daft, I don't. Have you any real evidence to back up your statement that Lib/Lab unemployment figures are fudged because I could tell you a few home truth's about what the Cons are doing and I believe you would be quite shocked. Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 5

2:44pm Tue 11 Mar 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well
PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though.
Still Grumpy
i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well[/p][/quote]PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper PageA
  • Score: -1

2:48pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Karlar says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Karlar wrote:
I believe you will find that Labour's figures like those of the Lib/Cons are built out of straw. In other words they too are fudged. Remember also Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's bagman so like his master he is prone to financial flights of fantacy and fallacy. EB says Labour's scheme will be funded by a "tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for people earning more than £150,000." But many of the more experienced and impartial beancounters have shown there will be a shortfall. So how will this be made good?
If you earn £150k plus why would you need a pension? Don't spend your money daft, I don't. Have you any real evidence to back up your statement that Lib/Lab unemployment figures are fudged because I could tell you a few home truth's about what the Cons are doing and I believe you would be quite shocked.
Still Grumpy
I don't earn anywhere near a third of that sum, but that still didn't stop Gordon Brown pillaging my and many others' meagre pension arrangements when Lab were in power. That's why I query the oily ease with which Ed Balls' latest announcement slipped off his tongue. I don't need convincing about the Lib/Con's fudged home truths, all our poltical parties - whatever the colour of their rosettes - use smoke and mirrors to get their messages across. I am too long in the tooth to be shocked by political chicanery it's endemic in this country and not just at a national level, the local ones are steeped in it.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: I believe you will find that Labour's figures like those of the Lib/Cons are built out of straw. In other words they too are fudged. Remember also Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's bagman so like his master he is prone to financial flights of fantacy and fallacy. EB says Labour's scheme will be funded by a "tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for people earning more than £150,000." But many of the more experienced and impartial beancounters have shown there will be a shortfall. So how will this be made good?[/p][/quote]If you earn £150k plus why would you need a pension? Don't spend your money daft, I don't. Have you any real evidence to back up your statement that Lib/Lab unemployment figures are fudged because I could tell you a few home truth's about what the Cons are doing and I believe you would be quite shocked. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]I don't earn anywhere near a third of that sum, but that still didn't stop Gordon Brown pillaging my and many others' meagre pension arrangements when Lab were in power. That's why I query the oily ease with which Ed Balls' latest announcement slipped off his tongue. I don't need convincing about the Lib/Con's fudged home truths, all our poltical parties - whatever the colour of their rosettes - use smoke and mirrors to get their messages across. I am too long in the tooth to be shocked by political chicanery it's endemic in this country and not just at a national level, the local ones are steeped in it. Karlar
  • Score: 5

3:28pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well
PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though.
Still Grumpy
i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper
Sorry PageA I still have to disagree I do believe that once some one realises that at the end of the week they get a wage and can go and buy clothes etc and go for a drink with their mates their mind set will change. let's face it you can not do that with a measly £110 a fortnight which is what they get at the moment. I am not interested where the money comes from, well not as much as Karlar seems to be, I am more interested in giving youngsters a chance. A lot of the youngsters stated above probably do lack in education or qualifications and that is why they have been on the dole for 12month or more. I never stated I am Labour just I do think this a productive idea which I back. Give people a chance and they could shine? Remember Paul Potts Carphone Warehouse to multi millionaire! Not for one second saying this is the same thing but you just never know.
Still Grumpy (but with Labour on this one)
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well[/p][/quote]PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper[/p][/quote]Sorry PageA I still have to disagree I do believe that once some one realises that at the end of the week they get a wage and can go and buy clothes etc and go for a drink with their mates their mind set will change. let's face it you can not do that with a measly £110 a fortnight which is what they get at the moment. I am not interested where the money comes from, well not as much as Karlar seems to be, I am more interested in giving youngsters a chance. A lot of the youngsters stated above probably do lack in education or qualifications and that is why they have been on the dole for 12month or more. I never stated I am Labour just I do think this a productive idea which I back. Give people a chance and they could shine? Remember Paul Potts Carphone Warehouse to multi millionaire! Not for one second saying this is the same thing but you just never know. Still Grumpy (but with Labour on this one) GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Nick Tessla says...

This will be used by some, if not all, of the employers to get cheap labour - including the same employers who are the biggest benefit scroungers through the benefits that their present employees have to claim in order to subsidise their low wages.
This will be used by some, if not all, of the employers to get cheap labour - including the same employers who are the biggest benefit scroungers through the benefits that their present employees have to claim in order to subsidise their low wages. Nick Tessla
  • Score: 11

4:04pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Karlar says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well
PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though.
Still Grumpy
i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper
Sorry PageA I still have to disagree I do believe that once some one realises that at the end of the week they get a wage and can go and buy clothes etc and go for a drink with their mates their mind set will change. let's face it you can not do that with a measly £110 a fortnight which is what they get at the moment. I am not interested where the money comes from, well not as much as Karlar seems to be, I am more interested in giving youngsters a chance. A lot of the youngsters stated above probably do lack in education or qualifications and that is why they have been on the dole for 12month or more. I never stated I am Labour just I do think this a productive idea which I back. Give people a chance and they could shine? Remember Paul Potts Carphone Warehouse to multi millionaire! Not for one second saying this is the same thing but you just never know.
Still Grumpy (but with Labour on this one)
I'm all for encouraging youngsters and anyone else to become usefully employed and I believe we should be pulling out all the stops to bring this about. As Page A says the more people earning the better it will be for the country. But glossing over how this objective is funded is unacceptable. This country got into its present financial mess because, amongst other things, Labour failed to properly cost what it wanted to fund. We don't want to tread that path again.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well[/p][/quote]PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper[/p][/quote]Sorry PageA I still have to disagree I do believe that once some one realises that at the end of the week they get a wage and can go and buy clothes etc and go for a drink with their mates their mind set will change. let's face it you can not do that with a measly £110 a fortnight which is what they get at the moment. I am not interested where the money comes from, well not as much as Karlar seems to be, I am more interested in giving youngsters a chance. A lot of the youngsters stated above probably do lack in education or qualifications and that is why they have been on the dole for 12month or more. I never stated I am Labour just I do think this a productive idea which I back. Give people a chance and they could shine? Remember Paul Potts Carphone Warehouse to multi millionaire! Not for one second saying this is the same thing but you just never know. Still Grumpy (but with Labour on this one)[/p][/quote]I'm all for encouraging youngsters and anyone else to become usefully employed and I believe we should be pulling out all the stops to bring this about. As Page A says the more people earning the better it will be for the country. But glossing over how this objective is funded is unacceptable. This country got into its present financial mess because, amongst other things, Labour failed to properly cost what it wanted to fund. We don't want to tread that path again. Karlar
  • Score: 2

4:17pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country.
Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.
If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country. Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me. Freeborn John
  • Score: 5

4:18pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

Karlar wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
PageA wrote:
How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well
PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though.
Still Grumpy
i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper
Sorry PageA I still have to disagree I do believe that once some one realises that at the end of the week they get a wage and can go and buy clothes etc and go for a drink with their mates their mind set will change. let's face it you can not do that with a measly £110 a fortnight which is what they get at the moment. I am not interested where the money comes from, well not as much as Karlar seems to be, I am more interested in giving youngsters a chance. A lot of the youngsters stated above probably do lack in education or qualifications and that is why they have been on the dole for 12month or more. I never stated I am Labour just I do think this a productive idea which I back. Give people a chance and they could shine? Remember Paul Potts Carphone Warehouse to multi millionaire! Not for one second saying this is the same thing but you just never know.
Still Grumpy (but with Labour on this one)
I'm all for encouraging youngsters and anyone else to become usefully employed and I believe we should be pulling out all the stops to bring this about. As Page A says the more people earning the better it will be for the country. But glossing over how this objective is funded is unacceptable. This country got into its present financial mess because, amongst other things, Labour failed to properly cost what it wanted to fund. We don't want to tread that path again.
Never said I was voting Labour or agree with their other policies Karlar I just stated I think this is a good idea and to be fair a sound way of financing the project. This will affect me financially but I still believe it's a good idea and obviously well timed by Labour. Look at the positives rather than the negatives many of these youngsters are being subsidised by their parents anyway or they are committing crime, so surely this has to be a good thing?
Still Grumpy (and still not convinced this is not a good idea)
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well[/p][/quote]PageA I am sure you even understand that WBC could employ a lot of youngsters doing gardening etc across the town. Other companies can expand and learn some of these youngsters skills where they would not be able to do if they had to pay them a wage. I think this is a good idea and will get many youngsters in the mind set that work is better than committing crimes or bumming around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Only my opinion though. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]i don't disagree with the need to get young people working Grumpy... Just not convinced that this is a good way forward. Surely we need more than this to convince young people that work is better than crime or dossing about. I'm just not convinced that keeping somebody busy doing a job they don't want for 6 months is going to change their outlook on life. I think the problem lies a bit deeper[/p][/quote]Sorry PageA I still have to disagree I do believe that once some one realises that at the end of the week they get a wage and can go and buy clothes etc and go for a drink with their mates their mind set will change. let's face it you can not do that with a measly £110 a fortnight which is what they get at the moment. I am not interested where the money comes from, well not as much as Karlar seems to be, I am more interested in giving youngsters a chance. A lot of the youngsters stated above probably do lack in education or qualifications and that is why they have been on the dole for 12month or more. I never stated I am Labour just I do think this a productive idea which I back. Give people a chance and they could shine? Remember Paul Potts Carphone Warehouse to multi millionaire! Not for one second saying this is the same thing but you just never know. Still Grumpy (but with Labour on this one)[/p][/quote]I'm all for encouraging youngsters and anyone else to become usefully employed and I believe we should be pulling out all the stops to bring this about. As Page A says the more people earning the better it will be for the country. But glossing over how this objective is funded is unacceptable. This country got into its present financial mess because, amongst other things, Labour failed to properly cost what it wanted to fund. We don't want to tread that path again.[/p][/quote]Never said I was voting Labour or agree with their other policies Karlar I just stated I think this is a good idea and to be fair a sound way of financing the project. This will affect me financially but I still believe it's a good idea and obviously well timed by Labour. Look at the positives rather than the negatives many of these youngsters are being subsidised by their parents anyway or they are committing crime, so surely this has to be a good thing? Still Grumpy (and still not convinced this is not a good idea) GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 3

4:21pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

Freeborn John wrote:
If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country.
Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.
With you on the migrant subject whatever party brought it in or promotes it now!
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country. Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.[/p][/quote]With you on the migrant subject whatever party brought it in or promotes it now! GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 4

8:46pm Tue 11 Mar 14

local man says...

Its just a policy proposal to grab a few headlines and votes, a better idea is to create the right conditions for sustained economic growth and stop trying to spend more than we have. Rather than try and make companies take people on we need to pay less in benefits to the 'won't work' brigade and tax those who do work less. I'm sick of hearing about people who make more money than many hardworking people without lifting a finger. There's benefit Streets in every part of the country and we have more than our share.
Its just a policy proposal to grab a few headlines and votes, a better idea is to create the right conditions for sustained economic growth and stop trying to spend more than we have. Rather than try and make companies take people on we need to pay less in benefits to the 'won't work' brigade and tax those who do work less. I'm sick of hearing about people who make more money than many hardworking people without lifting a finger. There's benefit Streets in every part of the country and we have more than our share. local man
  • Score: 5

8:59pm Tue 11 Mar 14

old-codger says...

Karlar wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website.
Still Grumpy
Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?
Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all.
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?[/p][/quote]Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all. old-codger
  • Score: 3

12:40pm Wed 12 Mar 14

WAFiver says...

Shouldn't the headline be:
"Wannbe politician (with no experience) greases his way into headlines by agreeing with his bosses"?
And hasn't the money to pay for this previously been allocated to other headline grabbing promises?
Labour spending money that they haven't got, several times over?
Who'd have thought that they'd do a thing like that.
Deja vu politics.
Remember people, and learn.

Oh, and the ConDems are no better, Ukip are a one trick (UK pedigree) pony.

Where are the real alternatives?
Shouldn't the headline be: "Wannbe politician (with no experience) greases his way into headlines by agreeing with his bosses"? And hasn't the money to pay for this previously been allocated to other headline grabbing promises? Labour spending money that they haven't got, several times over? Who'd have thought that they'd do a thing like that. Deja vu politics. Remember people, and learn. Oh, and the ConDems are no better, Ukip are a one trick (UK pedigree) pony. Where are the real alternatives? WAFiver
  • Score: 6

11:42am Thu 13 Mar 14

Karlar says...

old-codger wrote:
Karlar wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website.
Still Grumpy
Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?
Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all.
And you believe them?
[quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?[/p][/quote]Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all.[/p][/quote]And you believe them? Karlar
  • Score: 1

7:54pm Thu 13 Mar 14

old-codger says...

Karlar wrote:
old-codger wrote:
Karlar wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website.
Still Grumpy
Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?
Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all.
And you believe them?
I wouldn't believe a politician if he told me his name, I do believe however that the promises made before an election should be legally binding and adhered to by whichever party got into office, I say office because if I say (power) it may go to their heads. I wouldn't vote for Nick Bent if he was the only candidate standing for any party.
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?[/p][/quote]Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all.[/p][/quote]And you believe them?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't believe a politician if he told me his name, I do believe however that the promises made before an election should be legally binding and adhered to by whichever party got into office, I say office because if I say (power) it may go to their heads. I wouldn't vote for Nick Bent if he was the only candidate standing for any party. old-codger
  • Score: 2

8:12pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Karlar says...

old-codger wrote:
Karlar wrote:
old-codger wrote:
Karlar wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website.
Still Grumpy
Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?
Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all.
And you believe them?
I wouldn't believe a politician if he told me his name, I do believe however that the promises made before an election should be legally binding and adhered to by whichever party got into office, I say office because if I say (power) it may go to their heads. I wouldn't vote for Nick Bent if he was the only candidate standing for any party.
History will show that many promises made by politicians (local and national) at many elections have never been honoured after them. In fact they all (every party) often resort to newspeak justify their failures to live up to their own electoral promises.
[quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: Seems a good idea from what I have read on Labour's website. Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Even if it means yet another Gordon Brown type raid on pensions as seems to be the case?[/p][/quote]Tax relief on pension contributions for people earning £150 per year, Not robbing pension pots at all.[/p][/quote]And you believe them?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't believe a politician if he told me his name, I do believe however that the promises made before an election should be legally binding and adhered to by whichever party got into office, I say office because if I say (power) it may go to their heads. I wouldn't vote for Nick Bent if he was the only candidate standing for any party.[/p][/quote]History will show that many promises made by politicians (local and national) at many elections have never been honoured after them. In fact they all (every party) often resort to newspeak justify their failures to live up to their own electoral promises. Karlar
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Sat 15 Mar 14

fedster says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
fedster wrote:
Ed Miliband along with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves announced plans that will see every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months given a paid starter job.


If they choose not to take up the role they will lose their benefit.


Here in Warrington there are 575 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work.


Nick Bent said: “Every young person deserves a chance to get on in life and make the most of their talents and only Labour will make sure they get that chance.”

nice double negative

lets kick that enthusiasm out of them now hey.

theirs a difference between getting a job you dreamed of and even worked hard for education wise.


and end up doing what your told for another 35 years.
Enthusiasm of what signing on for more than 12 month? Come on fedster
the enthusium of training or educating themselves for a job they want.

instead of being told what they have to do.

This country is now going ott with kids education parents will face fines nad even prison for taking there kids on a holiday in term time.

Iam sorry not everyone can afford to pay 500 quid for a bloody caravan.

and now this.

I remember the days or apprenticeships and then yts

apprenticeships 2 to 3 years to complete training (and end up with a skill that was useful)
YTS
payed 30 quid a week for slave labor and yet less than 40% left after 12 month course with an appropriate course qualification.



pagea has a point with this quote

How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well



at the end of the day its not important to give quality goods and service any more its all about the mighty pound.

so as page said how many companies will jump at the chance for some cheap labour.

rather than employ someone on nmw.

but when we got rid of some of the big industries (who by the by used to support apprenticeships) again in the old days.

but with out such industries who are going to train the youth for the future.

all good and well doing the theory work in a room. but its the actual practical work that helps get a job.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote: Ed Miliband along with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves announced plans that will see every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months given a paid starter job. If they choose not to take up the role they will lose their benefit. Here in Warrington there are 575 people aged between 16 and 24 who are out of work. Nick Bent said: “Every young person deserves a chance to get on in life and make the most of their talents and only Labour will make sure they get that chance.” nice double negative lets kick that enthusiasm out of them now hey. theirs a difference between getting a job you dreamed of and even worked hard for education wise. and end up doing what your told for another 35 years.[/p][/quote]Enthusiasm of what signing on for more than 12 month? Come on fedster[/p][/quote]the enthusium of training or educating themselves for a job they want. instead of being told what they have to do. This country is now going ott with kids education parents will face fines nad even prison for taking there kids on a holiday in term time. Iam sorry not everyone can afford to pay 500 quid for a bloody caravan. and now this. I remember the days or apprenticeships and then yts apprenticeships 2 to 3 years to complete training (and end up with a skill that was useful) YTS payed 30 quid a week for slave labor and yet less than 40% left after 12 month course with an appropriate course qualification. pagea has a point with this quote How's this going to work then? Two young people go for the same job..one is perfect for the role, the other isn't but has been unemployed for 12 months. The employer gives it to the Young Person with the funding attached to them rather than the right person for the job? or just create a job to keep them busy for 6 months and take the money? Not sure this is going to end well at the end of the day its not important to give quality goods and service any more its all about the mighty pound. so as page said how many companies will jump at the chance for some cheap labour. rather than employ someone on nmw. but when we got rid of some of the big industries (who by the by used to support apprenticeships) again in the old days. but with out such industries who are going to train the youth for the future. all good and well doing the theory work in a room. but its the actual practical work that helps get a job. fedster
  • Score: 0

12:54am Sun 16 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country.
Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.
FBJ...you're getting as bad as Fedster with your duff information. Can I suggest that YOU google Andrew Neather and his objections to the way that his comments were taken out of context by the right wing media. Like your climate change opinion your comment here is based upon outdated information. Sharpen up.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country. Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.[/p][/quote]FBJ...you're getting as bad as Fedster with your duff information. Can I suggest that YOU google Andrew Neather and his objections to the way that his comments were taken out of context by the right wing media. Like your climate change opinion your comment here is based upon outdated information. Sharpen up. PageA
  • Score: -2

9:20am Sun 16 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

PageA wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country.
Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.
FBJ...you're getting as bad as Fedster with your duff information. Can I suggest that YOU google Andrew Neather and his objections to the way that his comments were taken out of context by the right wing media. Like your climate change opinion your comment here is based upon outdated information. Sharpen up.
Mr Neather was naturally dismayed when his part in revealing the secret NuLabour policy on immigration came out, he was a full blown Labour apparatchik after all. I expect comment from anything Right of the Guardian horrified him.
Sharpen up...coming from a soft, pink lamb like yourself, that's tickled me!
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country. Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.[/p][/quote]FBJ...you're getting as bad as Fedster with your duff information. Can I suggest that YOU google Andrew Neather and his objections to the way that his comments were taken out of context by the right wing media. Like your climate change opinion your comment here is based upon outdated information. Sharpen up.[/p][/quote]Mr Neather was naturally dismayed when his part in revealing the secret NuLabour policy on immigration came out, he was a full blown Labour apparatchik after all. I expect comment from anything Right of the Guardian horrified him. Sharpen up...coming from a soft, pink lamb like yourself, that's tickled me! Freeborn John
  • Score: -1

9:45am Sun 16 Mar 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
PageA wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country.
Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.
FBJ...you're getting as bad as Fedster with your duff information. Can I suggest that YOU google Andrew Neather and his objections to the way that his comments were taken out of context by the right wing media. Like your climate change opinion your comment here is based upon outdated information. Sharpen up.
Mr Neather was naturally dismayed when his part in revealing the secret NuLabour policy on immigration came out, he was a full blown Labour apparatchik after all. I expect comment from anything Right of the Guardian horrified him.
Sharpen up...coming from a soft, pink lamb like yourself, that's tickled me!
There's a difference between 20 years experience and 1 years experience 20 times FBJ. Is that what he said then "oh I can't believe i've given the game away!!" You're deluded. You read what you want to read to suit your own agenda. Life don't work like that Forrest.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: If Labour hadn't sat down in 2000 and decided to flood the UK with migrants in order to render political opposition from the Right pointless, there'd be plenty of jobs for youngsters in this country. Google 'Andrew Neather whistleblower' if you don't believe me.[/p][/quote]FBJ...you're getting as bad as Fedster with your duff information. Can I suggest that YOU google Andrew Neather and his objections to the way that his comments were taken out of context by the right wing media. Like your climate change opinion your comment here is based upon outdated information. Sharpen up.[/p][/quote]Mr Neather was naturally dismayed when his part in revealing the secret NuLabour policy on immigration came out, he was a full blown Labour apparatchik after all. I expect comment from anything Right of the Guardian horrified him. Sharpen up...coming from a soft, pink lamb like yourself, that's tickled me![/p][/quote]There's a difference between 20 years experience and 1 years experience 20 times FBJ. Is that what he said then "oh I can't believe i've given the game away!!" You're deluded. You read what you want to read to suit your own agenda. Life don't work like that Forrest. PageA
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree