Chuka Umunna- Open Letter to Osborne

[Undesired Walrus]

Rising star here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/17/chuka-umunna-letter-george-osborne

Dear Chancellor,

Thank you for appearing in front of the Treasury select committee last Thursday. We were grateful for the chance to question you on your emergency budget and welcome your agreement to appear before us on a regular basis.

During our exchange, you insisted your budget was "progressive". You stood by your decision to apply a 10% cut to the housing benefit of those who have been on jobseeker's allowance for more than 12 months regardless of the effort they have put in to find work. You told us that it would "encourage people into work" and ultimately help make the efficiencies you want to impose (£210m over the course of this parliament from this measure alone).

Quite how pushing those already struggling to find work out of their homes and into the arms of loan sharks will "encourage" them escapes me and I said as much. You offered to write to me to outline your thinking on this. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[Darat]

Some of the comments are quite interesting.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Like what?

 

[Darat]

Have a read of "TheAngryTeen" comments.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'll make a daring bet:

Umunna- Next but one Labour leader.

 

[richardm]

Have a read of "TheAngryTeen" comments.

That's "Interesting" in the sense of "appalling and dismaying" then?

Edit: I did actually read all the comments, and honestly found them rather depressing for the most part. I wonder if the Times' Paywall has started to spread around the right wing nutters to places they wouldn't normally inhabit.

 

[Beerina]

1. There is a certain fraction of the population content to live on unemployment. Here in the US, I have met such a person, who described how he'd work for six months, or whatever the minimum is, then get them to fire him, and happily live on the 6 months of unemployment (the regular period not in a recession.)

What is this fraction? People of a scientific mind want to know before making decisions.

2. Beyond those types, supply and demand is fairly well established, so if you pay people to not work, you increase the demand on not working, and thus will increase unemployment. Before you beak off, this has absolutely nothing to do with the state of the economy, good or bad, nor the problems an unemployed person might encounter w.r.t. survival. It's all statistics and curves, as you know.

What is this fraction? People of a scientific mind want to know before making decisions.

3. High costs via laws and liability to hiring have been shown to increase unemployment over and over again. Unemployment, even in good times, is typically higher in these countries than in more fire-at-will countries, especially among younger people. Ironically, those young people don't want the laws removed because they still want to, eventually, get their foot in the door, and thus be employed for life.

This is a form of corruption, by the way.

 

[Raconteur]

2. Beyond those types, supply and demand is fairly well established, so if you pay people to not work, you increase the demand on not working, and thus will increase unemployment

Supply and demand doesn't come into it. There isn't a product or a service, so there is no supply... how can there be demand for unemployment?

High costs via laws and liability to hiring have been shown to increase unemployment over and over again. Unemployment, even in good times, is typically higher in these countries than in more fire-at-will countries

Can you tell me some of the countries that have at-will employment like the U.S.A.? That's an honest question, I don't know how employment laws vary. But I'd like to see the stats for unemployment in these countries. People of a scientific mind want to know.

This is a form of corruption, by the way

In what way?