BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Can big business solve unemployment?

08:45 UK time, Monday, 10 January 2011

Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to establish the "most pro-business, pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda ever unleashed by a government". How can the jobs market be stimulated?

The Prime Minister has meet with bosses of some of the UK's biggest firms to look at what more the government can do to create jobs in the private sector.

Senior executives of the firms David Cameron met are promising to create thousands of jobs and apprenticeships in an attempt to generate some confidence in the economy.

But Labour said the government's cuts would stifle economic growth.

Are you looking for work? What can this jobs summit achieve? Is this the right economic strategy? Should employment laws be reformed?

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 11

  • Comment number 1.

    yay - filling shelves, that's really the kind of jobs we need and why we are asking our children to pass test after test at school. Will they need A-levels for that?

    We need better businesses to come back to the UK, there needs to be real jobs out there that show our children it is worth to do well at school.

  • Comment number 2.

    This is what is going to happen those in the private sector earning above minimum wage will be forced to work in supermarkets on minimum wage, welcome to slave nation Britain. You have been warned.

  • Comment number 3.

    No. Unless it happens to be totally owned by, run by, and only interested in, the UK.

  • Comment number 4.

    The most effective way to solve unemployment - is to stop selling off our existing companies eg Cadburys, Jaguar etc., and to revitalise our own industrial manufacturing capability.

    Whatever happened to - Special Development Areas - New Business Start-up Grants - Job creation Grants etc.

    Ask yourself the basic question - Why should we be importing food - milk - elecricity - gas - oil / Why should our Fishing Fleets be idle - Why have we no industrial manufacturing capability left - Why are we falling lower and lower down the league of manufacturing economies !

    The shckles of Europe - control - regulate - restrict and confine our very strengths and capabilities and drain us financially to the point of annihilation !

    Where are these Business Experts who are supposed to be in charge of our industrial developent - Where are they - ?????

    In reality they are out here - Ignored - Disregarded and treated like dirt !!

    Come down out of your ivory towers and fulfill your promises - Stop talking down to your workers - We elected you - We can easily de-elect you - So Start Performing - Get Real - The solution is staring you in the face !!!

  • Comment number 5.

    This way has to be better than Labour's chuck money at the problem policy.

    Involving big business is one idea, but for me the problem is cultural too.

    Too many people think that the state should step in and provide and, as a result, abdicate any personal responsibility for themselves.

    Also, a root and branch review of local government incompetence and money wasting, another hang over from labour, needs to be conducted and audited.

    Perhaps, as a result, business can step in and provide services that local goverment seem to be unable to provide effectively.

  • Comment number 6.


    David Cameron is due to meet business leaders to discuss plans to create thousands of new jobs.

    Jobs for who David? Eastern European migrant workers from the rest of the EU? Maybe Turks if you can get agreement that Turkey should join the EU.

    Or perhaps you are thinking that these can be second jobs so that we can afford to buy the petrol/train tickets so that we can go to work?

  • Comment number 7.

    It might helpt, just a bit, but I don't for a moment think it can and will solve the problem entirely.

    The only thing that will help Britain's economy really is if we have something of economic value to other countries, a resource, or electronics/engineering that sort of thing, however, in our globalised world a whole lot of of the things we used to produce in the UK were outsourced abroad where they could be produced cheaper, so we don't have a whole lot of anything left to offer the rest of the world...I think that's why we have such a large public sector in the UK, because it was the only place left to get jobs!

    Of course, now that the supermarkets have utterly destroyed the traditional UK high street, I suppose they can afford to create a few extra jobs for all the unemployed greengrocers and butchers!

  • Comment number 8.

    Can big business solve unemployment?
    Yes in the long term, but Bureaucracy needs to be reduced and it will be difficult in the short term, Labour's IR35 implementation needs changing for example, along with a lot of H&S legislation'

  • Comment number 9.

    3. At 09:23am on 10 Jan 2011, Daisy Chained wrote:
    No. Unless it happens to be totally owned by, run by, and only interested in, the UK.


    So a business that doesn't want to be a business for very long, then?

  • Comment number 10.

    The UK has some of the most flexible employment laws in Europe. Easy to hire and easy to fire. Big business knows this already and that is reflected in the awful rates of pay here. If some jobs become more expensive to fill, big business sends those jobs outside the EU where pay conditions are worse. It's all about paying as little to the workers as can be got away with.

    The hiring bosses have the upper hand, the hired help know it. Giving more money to big businesses is just helping the shareholders, not the workers. Stat after stat from DWL and others prove it. And its always been like that, and always will be.

    If there is one thing the government should learn, is to step away from a free economy and let business do what it does best because good companies carry its best workers along with them. However, letting so many global players take over British businesses means global shareholders get the benefit and profits don't get spent here. That's where the government should stick its nose.

  • Comment number 11.

    Selling off public services to the private sector: I thought that was the plan, Dave. Honestly, this man is either totally incompetent or deeply vindictive.

  • Comment number 12.

    At least it's a better idea than Labour had - which was to create thousands and thousands of public sector non-jobs.

  • Comment number 13.

    Small businesses are more likely to make a significant impact on unemployment. However, it's harder for a PM to 'meet with small businesses' - an individual small business may just make one or two extra jobs with appropriate help, whereas a single large business may be able to make hundreds or thousands of jobs. However, there are far more small businesses than large businesses, and the jobs that a large business will create are more likely to be lower end jobs, whereas jobs in small businesses are more likely to be a wider range, with more prospect for improvement.

    Employment laws do need reform. At the moment, for a small employer it is far too complicated, expensive and time consuming to employ someone.

    If you are a one-man business who is too busy to do the work available to you, it is more cost effective to turn work down, than it is to take on an employee. Taking on your first employee will mean that half your time will be spent meeting the regulations for that first employee, and the other half will be spent training the first employee, so you're suddenly paying two wages for the same amount of work... Even if/when the first employee is trained, you are paying twice as much for only 1 1/2 times as much work, which is not cost effective. This is just stupid.

    For a business with 10,000 employees, then another employee is nothing as you're already handling all the regulations, but for a sole trader, the regulations are a big discouragement to employing and growing.

    Allow small businesses (say 10 employees or less) to "opt out" of much employer legislation and they'll grow. As long as potential employees know what their employers 'rules' are, surely it would be better for someone to be employed even with 'at will' employment rules than not to be employed at all.

  • Comment number 14.

    If 'BIG Business' could solve unemployment, we would not have an unemployment problem. Asking business to help others is like inviting a hyena for lunch.

  • Comment number 15.

    What needs to be sorted is the fact that working can actually make one better off than on benefit... (Or is it only me that feels this way?) Something concrete needs to be done to motivate people into getting and keeping a job - like income tax relief, or such like... Please Dave, cum on now - prove your worth (and ours)...!

  • Comment number 16.

    Students will pay tens of thousands of pounds for a degree and pay off the debt by parking supermarket trolleys.

    What a wonderful country this has become, I blame Bliar & New Labour for causing our current entirely predictable problems but have no confidence in the current governments will or ability to restore this country to a first world economy.

  • Comment number 17.

    4. At 09:25am on 10 Jan 2011, David Bale wrote:
    The most effective way to solve unemployment - is to stop selling off our existing companies eg Cadburys, Jaguar etc.


    These businesses were owned by shareholders (or in the case of Jaguar, the Ford Motor Company, who acquired it in the 1980s), they were not "our" companies. In a state in which private property rights are respected then these owners are perfectly entitled to sell their property to whoever they wish to. If you wish to restrict what shareholders can do with their property then you can expect a huge outflow of investment from this country as shareholders take their money elsewhere in the world.

    If you seriously think the state should have a role in industry then experience tells us this is a very bad idea. If you wish to wait 6 months for a new phone line and be restricted to a choice of two expensive phones, then feel free to advocate renationalising BT. When the state owned British Leyland it produced badly designed cars (such wonders as the allegro, Marina, Princess) at poor quality and high cost. It was loss making.

    State owned industries are run for the benefit of the bureaucrats and workers not for the benefit of the taxpayer and the consumer. Such businesses tend to be very inefficient and unresponsive.

  • Comment number 18.

    How can businesses make jobs ? the whole jobs market has been under threat for years now because its all about downsizing and cutting down to the bone to make a bigger profit , wages bill goes up and up and jobs fall victim , we have hardly any manufacturing left and what jobs!we could have ... call centres are shipped out abroad even big name banks do this always about saving money what for ?? oh yes the big bonus culture , i could never see the point of losing jobs and then having to pay people to stay home , there are jobs to be done maybe not brain surgery etc but we need to stop getting snobby about who works where , we all need to live and need an income . but this issue is huge its about the EU and immigration, wars being fought that take lives as well as the ability to work for our wounded men when they return home , i dont know what has happened to our governments these days we have a coalition for lords sake lets use it for the GOOD of the country not the party .

  • Comment number 19.

    What about declaring a party political truce until the country is back on it's feet. In return maybe the Bankers will defer bonuses until they are back in a lending frame of mind.
    It is really distressing to watch politicians squabble over trivial idealistic positions when the country is clearly bleeding.
    Direct action needs to be taken to stimulate growth in the private sector and getting everyone on board.
    That means enabling and gently forcing unemployed British people to go back to work without becoming worse off.
    It also means getting to grips with immigrants filling low paid jobs, living in relative squalour, filling this land with people who have no real connection with our way of life, our laws, tax systems and the principals and morals of the Great British people.
    It is a mammoth task to turn around the welfare system and the state of mind of our jobless citizens.
    It will not happen while our political parties squabble incessantly to get votes for votes sake.

  • Comment number 20.

    Big businesses, bring back manufacturing in full swing back to Britain.
    Britain once a proud nation of a lot of manufactured goods, is just
    non-existent in "Made in England/UK" labels.
    Reduce the cheap imports from China and make more new jobs on the shopfloor to get Britain moving into new age manufacturing.
    Globalisation is okay to some extent but too much of balance shift to Asian countries for manufacturing is harming our economy.

  • Comment number 21.

    Here's what businesses do. They keep costs as low as possible. One way of achieving this is to minimise the number of people they employ. When employers collectively do this, employment is minimised and unemployment is maximised.

    Forcing people to work is kind of futile when employers don't need to employ more people. Another approach is to force employers to employ more people. Enforcing the European Working Time Directive would be a step in the right direction.

    Employment should be more evenly distributed across the population.

  • Comment number 22.

    It will only solve the unemployment problem when benefits are considerably less than the minimum wage.

  • Comment number 23.

    This is boring drivel again !! the cream and best skilled workers shoving trollies round whilst all the skilled jobs go to foreign workers . Why does Cameron insist on changing all the promises before the election ? we need to get out of the EU fast ; stop most immigration and get our own workforce employed . Everyone else can see this but once again they are scared of upsetting someone ; do what your paid for manage our country properly.

  • Comment number 24.

    4. At 09:25am on 10 Jan 2011, David Bale wrote:

    Why have we no industrial manufacturing capability left - Why are we falling lower and lower down the league of manufacturing economies !"

    Because it's too expensive to employ someone in the UK, it's cheaper to employ someone in India, China or eastern Europe. For small businesses, it's also too complicated, so it's a lot more difficult for them to grow to become bigger.

    'Grants' will only help short term. Take away the excess cost and regulation, and you won't need grants. The regulations are a strong force, encouraging sole traders to stay as sole traders (where there is almost no regulation), rather than employing 1 more person (where there is oodles of regulation). Grants are effectively saying "we know we've made it so difficult to employ new people, so we'll pay you to cover all the excess cost of employing someone, but only for a bit, after that, you'll have to pay for it yourself".

  • Comment number 25.

    Once again a concentration on ‘Big Business’, once again an out of touch administration. Do they not know that over 70% of the employment out there is in small/very small business and it is these business that can react and grow quickly (proving finance is available) to create additional real jobs.
    Also Once again focus on internal service business, not business that make something that can be exported and solve the on going balance of payment problems.

  • Comment number 26.

    A significant contributor is the loss of British jobs overseas, whether this is call centres in India or manufacturing in China. Firms can just move something offshore of decide to buy from overseas and leave a pile of unwanted people and the UK with a huge benefits bill. It also produces lots of customer service issues as evidenced by the number of organisations that now claim that all their call centres are in the UK.

    Without putting this trend into reverse we are headed for an economy that comprises only roles in providing services that need to be done at the point of delivery- restaurants, delivery services and so on, and jobs counting money which is increasingly made elsewhere.

    Our government needs to influence this or it will achieve nothing at all. It probably involves a series of favourable tax treatments for firms that actually make things in the UK, and a series of disincentives for companies that want to sell in the UK but make and/or service those sales from overseas. I do not see why companies here should be able to decide simply to ship jobs offshore whilst leaving the task of supporting its ex -workers to the public purse. Maybe if they were taxed an extra £10k per year for every job exported , or if they faced large import duties that made their products less competitive, the economics of "offshore" would look rather different.

    The answer, in part at least is protectionism and it is the opposite way to that emerging from the EU.

  • Comment number 27.

    "1. At 09:11am on 10 Jan 2011, Bubble Works wrote:
    yay - filling shelves, that's really the kind of jobs we need and why we are asking our children to pass test after test at school. Will they need A-levels for that?

    We need better businesses to come back to the UK, there needs to be real jobs out there that show our children it is worth to do well at school."

    Shelves do need to be filled so we do need people to do that. Do you look down on people who do such jobs? If not, why belittle what they do? Besides, they may well be setting out at 'the foot of the ladder' on a career in retail, not to mention learning the complexity of stock control.

    But you are right about the need to attract businesses and people to the UK. And how are we to do that? By listening to the tub-thumping 'put up taxes' rhetoric of the left? If YOU were an aspiring executive and had a choice between two countries, one with a 40% top tax rate and the other with 50% and cries from the left for even higher rates, where would you chose?

  • Comment number 28.

    David Cameron is due to meet business leaders to discuss plans to create thousands of new jobs. How can the jobs market be stimulated?

    It's no use creating jobs in superstores like Asda and Sainsburys if people do not have the money to spend because of government tax hikes. Most people are cutting back on spending and are paying off their mortgages, rather than spending on the high street.

    I closed down a successful small company I had started from scratch because of Labour's tax hikes and I am considering moving abroad to a fairer tax regime.

  • Comment number 29.

    The Tories under Margaret Thatcher "gutted" this country of maufacturing industries and the happy contented workforce that were employed, whole swathes of the country were left barren and skilled workers to wither. Financial services were the order of the day, suited and booted, a whole new generation of spivs that in end destroyed not only this country but the whole of the Western World's economies and beyond. Now the "cash cow" of the City is dead and on life support, industry flown out of the window thanks to M H Thatcher, what are we left with, ever burgeoning Supermarkets full of either imported goods or goods purchased at rock bottom prices here, the Supermarkets wealding their power to keep local producers on the breadline, where is the growth from this apart from stacking shelves. There is no money to finance all but essential services, hundreds if not thousands will be out of work and their skills wasted, because for sure there will not be a sudden surge in business start up's, there is no market and the finance is not forthcoming. We are looking a very bleak future a future that has its fortune decided by the past.

  • Comment number 30.

    10. At 09:36am on 10 Jan 2011, Trina wrote:

    The UK has some of the most flexible employment laws in Europe. Easy to hire and easy to fire."

    Have you ever run a business? It is certainly not easy to hire OR fire in the UK. Maybe if you're a huge business it is easy to hire, but it is not easy to fire even then. For small businesses, both hiring and firing is extremely complicated and risky. Businesses go under because they can't fire people when they need to. Businesses refuse to hire because employment legislation is too complex.

    If the UK is such a bad place to work, why do we have lots of European migrants coming here to work? They seem to find even the minimum wage good enough to work, live here AND save up/send money home.

  • Comment number 31.

    How can the jobs market be stimulated?

    By having industry that makes things more useful and important than pitza & beefburgers.

    Its really too late. Our cutting edge technology is still active but the resulting work building things that keeps the wider population employed is going to cheaper economies abroad The residual service jobs, (toilet cleaners, shelf fillers etc.) are being done by immigrants (for all sorts of reasons)

    Too late, the great Thatcherite experiment (we don't need to make anything other sectors can float the economy) was wrong. The rich/poor gap widens and the economy continues down.

    What are we going to make now? Where is the investment coming from when China fills the demand perfectly? When the employment base of this country is able to work for £2 -3 an hour and the economy reflects that earning power real work might return. Trouble is all the skills will be or are already gone. Shipbuilders & other engineering skills are nothing like those needed to make a beefburger.

    I notice P & O just had 2 new muliti million pound super ferries built in Finland. I guess we should have let them build the aircraft carriers, too. Doing it ourselves only prolongs the death of our last gasp ship building. Alternatively just take the Great out of Britain ! More tinkering & committees won't have any impact.

  • Comment number 32.

    How are they going to solve the problems of jobs for people who are under experienced, over qualified, and too old.
    Supermarkets will not take on over qualified workers, particularly if they have little experience of retail (personal experience here). Difficult proving being aged 52 has an effect as well. But with raising the retirement age, business attitudes to alder workers needs looking at.

  • Comment number 33.

    "25. At 09:49am on 10 Jan 2011, A Smith wrote:
    Once again a concentration on ‘Big Business’, once again an out of touch administration. Do they not know that over 70% of the employment out there is in small/very small business and it is these business that can react and grow quickly (proving finance is available) to create additional real jobs."

    Did you read ths story? A few lines in....

    "The government is also said to be considering ways to make the labour market more flexible, including making it easier for small firms to hire and fire staff."

    So of course the government is aware of the needs of the small business. Cameron can't meet with everybody at the same time!! It seems your need to criticise measn you can't even be bothered to read the whole story or give Cameron a little time.

  • Comment number 34.

    8,16,20 hour contracts with a possibility of full time work at Chritams or during the 'sales' period. Pay at just above the National Minimum wage. It's got to be the way to stimulate the economy-NOT.

    Most of the employers mentioned are service industries, where are the big manufacturers. Sorry they were once state owned and sold off to the highest bidders who then took them abroad. Even Royal Mail's bidders are likely to be from outside the UK.

    This is the same 'flexible' job market promised by John Major.

    On top of this the CBI want to revert to it's employees having to work for two years before having the right to go to employment tribunal for unfair dismissal as well as having to pay up front fees to take a case.

    Regressive taxes, regressive employment laws, House prices falling, inflation rising, best estimates of unemployment peaking at 2.7 million, and that's just benefit recipients.

    What exactly did we elect in May? Not a government that looks after people who need to work for a living. Just a Governement that protects Bankers, Big Business and Big moneybags independantly wealthy investors.


  • Comment number 35.

    I doubt it. I have received a job alert this morning for an IT position. If you are qualified you might earn up to £45,000. If not, depending upon your experience, you might earn between £17,000 to £27,000 once qualified.

    But a contribution may be required if you need training. So presumably the less you will earn the higher the contribution might be. Is this something the government would meet on your behalf? Would they lend you the money?

    Ok, if you can see a career ahead of you it may be a sensible thing to do. But this is not a franchise you are buying into. Nor is there any mention of the contribution gradually being repaid so that you do not go there to train and then leave immediately. But does anyone else think that in the current climate it is a little cynical?

    Apart from that - too many positions were created too fast by Labour in the public sector. It created a false view of the employment market. Whilst the private sector might have gradually soaked up many people, it cannot cope with a flood, which is what it is now being asked to do. Unlike the public sector, private businesses can go under much more quickly and probably with no bailing out so they are unlikely to try and take on more staff than they need.

    I am also aware of the view that there are "lots of jobs out there". There aren't. Careful checking of websites for jobs have revealed an identical (and very specific) job description for a position where I did get to second interview, but now with different agencies each week. If you attempt to apply a message comes up to say that the position has been filled. I have since spotted a few others. The JobCentre confirmed my view that many jobs currently advertised do not exist, have been copied from another advertisement or were filled long ago.

    Now you need to use "networking". Anyone remember the complaints about the "old boys network"?!








  • Comment number 36.

    We have a portion of the population who are disabled benefits. They cannot work.

    Apart from that group we have able workers who either cant or wont get a job. The cant group cant compete with the imported workforce. The rest are irrelivent and can starve. Those who make up the lazy were highly visible on the HYS concerning the jobless doing something for the community for a few short weeks of the year. Basicly the scroungers I dont want to be giving money to.

    I have genuine sympathy for those who cant get a job because of their education or imported competition, but absolutely zero for the lazy and bone idle.

    Big businesses are the solution because that is the only sector which makes money to pay for its workers. Labour demonstrated the problem of employing in the public sector without the money to pay for them. The trouble is that the jobs must be accessible to the people here. Instead of allowing people here to be pushed out or only creating skilled jobs we need low skilled jobs and a welfare system which supports those who cant get employment.

  • Comment number 37.

    22. At 09:48am on 10 Jan 2011, kaybraes wrote:
    It will only solve the unemployment problem when benefits are considerably less than the minimum wage.

    =====================================================

    Do you think that will create jobs? However low salaries may be, employees still cost employers money. Therefore, if there is no need, they will not take them on.





  • Comment number 38.

    What big business? consecutive governments over the past 50 years(especially Labour) have managed to bring our once proud nation to its knees by selling off everything they possibly could including all 'big business'.

  • Comment number 39.

    Back to the 30's people

    Destroy the social conscience - after all we haven't a society have we?

    Work houses anyone?

    The Condems are a disaster.

  • Comment number 40.

    29. At 09:52am on 10 Jan 2011, jack wrote:

    The Tories under Margaret Thatcher "gutted" this country of maufacturing industries "

    All Margaret Thatcher did was to stop giving tax payers' money to failing state owned businesses. If the businesses had been able to stand on their own feet they would have continued (as many did). The ones that closed only did so because they were losing money hand over fist and were unsustainable, inefficient businesses, and the previous Labour government was paying them massive subsidies to keep going without having anywhere to get that money from.

    The last Labour government did the same, but by employing people in unnecessary public sector 'state' jobs rather than unprofitable public sector 'manufacturing' jobs. Again, by paying them with money it didn't have, just to make it look as if unemployment was down - knowing that when the reckoning came, they wouldn't be in office, so the Conservatives would get the blame again.

    The blame isn't with the Conservatives trimming the unaffordable employees, but with Labour taking those employees on in the first case, rather than making the environment for real job growth.

    Labour consistently work by bribery, and, unfortunately, most of the population can't see that that's what it is until it's almost too late.

  • Comment number 41.

    Stop selling off british owned industries to foreign companies and keep the profits in this country.

  • Comment number 42.

    "29. At 09:52am on 10 Jan 2011, jack wrote:
    The Tories under Margaret Thatcher "gutted" this country of maufacturing industries and the happy contented workforce that were employed"

    Oh, yeah, the 'happy contented workforce' that Thatcher inherited...

    Remember the 'winter of discontent'?

    Number of strike days lost 1970 to 1979 in the UK - the ten years before Mrs T - 128.528 million.

    Number of strike days lost 1988 - 1997 the last 10 years of the Conservative government - 14.184 million. In fact more strike days were lost to the UK economy in the winter of discontent than were lost 1988 - 1997.

    Happy contented workforce? Badly run nationalised industries where the workers were led by union leaders with political agendas that saw British industry collapse.


  • Comment number 43.

    29. At 09:52am on 10 Jan 2011, jack wrote:

    "The Tories under Margaret Thatcher 'gutted' this country of maufacturing industries and the happy contented workforce that were employed, whole swathes of the country were left barren and skilled workers to wither."

    True to a point. UK plc was subsidising them to keep them going and, thanks to the UK being left in a similar financial crisis, it wasn't feasible to maintain this. People wanted coal, etc. but weren't prepared to pay the prices that would have been charged for them as they were so expensive to produce. Making them private by selling/closing them takes the burden off UK plc freeing up cash to help fix the problems.

    "Financial services were the order of the day, suited and booted, a whole new generation of spivs that in end destroyed not only this country but the whole of the Western World's economies and beyond. Now the 'cash cow' of the City is dead and on life support, industry flown out of the window thanks to M H Thatcher, what are we left with, ever burgeoning Supermarkets full of either imported goods or goods purchased at rock bottom prices here, the Supermarkets wealding their power to keep local producers on the breadline, where is the growth from this apart from stacking shelves."

    Maggie Thatcher's fault that manufacturing was too expensive to maintain? Keep dreaming.

    "There is no money to finance all but essential services, hundreds if not thousands will be out of work and their skills wasted, because for sure there will not be a sudden surge in business start ups, there is no market and the finance is not forthcoming. We are looking a very bleak future a future that has its fortune decided by the past."

    I forgot that Labour have been in power for 13 years and Maggie left 20 years ago. Surely if Labour were so wonderful, they'd have solved this in that time. Creating non-jobs in the public sector is NOT a solution. It is shifting the expense of jobs onto the tax-payer. We need innovation and enterprise. Something that has been dumbed down out of people by the education system and the politically correct culture not to compete.

    Instead of trying to blame someone who hasn't been in power for 20 years, how about facing up to the reality that Labour have messed the economy up (yet again) and we have to get this country both viable and profitable? Things have been done wrong in the past and need putting right. Living in the past and pointing the finger isn't helping anyone. It's people like you who hold this country back with your 'it is someone elses fault' attitude and corridor view of the history. How about supporting innovation and generating private sector jobs that generate tax revenue that can plug the holes Labour punched in the economy. I repeat, creating public sector non-job bloat is not a solution. It's an expensive statistical exercise, nothing more.

  • Comment number 44.

    41. At 10:06am on 10 Jan 2011, paddinton53 wrote:
    Stop selling off british owned industries to foreign companies and keep the profits in this country.


    Well that would mean foreign countries would stop British companies buying up their companies and repatriating profits made in those countries to the UK.

    How do you think Vodafone became the largest mobile operator in Europe? How do you think Tesco became one of the largest retailers in the world? Or HSBC became one of the world's largest banks or Aviva one of the world's largest insurers: by buying up local companies and setting up local operations.

    Be very careful what you wish for.

  • Comment number 45.

    The tories' want every rich person house-hold, to have welsh servants like the old days? or maybe all the young people who cant' afford to go to university should apply for the big business jobs in the supermarkets ? but what will all the illegals do?? The only way to have proper jobs in the U.K. is to stop imports and start making goods again? But Big business will not do that ? Cheap wages, no heatlh and safety for workers, and no tax to pay thats why they is no jobs for young people.

  • Comment number 46.

    3. At 09:23am on 10 Jan 2011, Daisy Chained wrote:
    No. Unless it happens to be totally owned by, run by, and only interested in, the UK.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I wholehearterdly agree. Almost the entire manufacturing industry has been sold off and as a result thousands of so-called non-jobs created.
    What this country needs is to create jobs that are actually of benefit to everyone. Exportable goods. We need to be able to sell to the world. You can't sell the output of a "diversity officer". Real jobs, real opportunities. All we need to address then is competitiveness. If the Chinese can make something for tuppance an hour, we need to be able to as well. Which in this grossly overtaxed country is going to be difficult. We shouldn't be relying on cheap labour from Ukraine etc.

  • Comment number 47.

    John Lewis and supermarkets? Does David Cameron really think all the people sacked from the public sector can just take up till jobs? Great vision from our leader there.

    Surely logic would state that with jobs being cut and people being squeezed due to various factors there would be less being spent and less requirement for till jobs anyway.

    Cameron needs to be looking at ways to help innovative companies who're going to manufacturer the next big thing. He also needs to look at how the UK can be more competitive and try and encourage the companies that have left to come back.

  • Comment number 48.

    "39. At 10:04am on 10 Jan 2011, RichardGrey wrote:
    Back to the 30's people

    Destroy the social conscience - after all we haven't a society have we?"

    That old chesnut again. "there's no such thing as society". Quoted below is what Mrs Thatcher ACTUALLY said in the interview that was "twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" to quote Kipling. Read the whole thing and then tell me what was wrong with what Mrs T was saying....



    "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!" "

  • Comment number 49.

    "consecutive governments over the past 50 years(especially Labour) have managed to bring our once proud nation to its knees by selling off everything they possibly could"

    I think you'll find it was Thatcher that sold off the majority of what this country had. Which is why we're now getting screwed by massive utility bills and train fares as the private sector needs its big profits.

  • Comment number 50.

    Of course not.

    a) Because successive governments, certainly from the wretched Thatcher onwards, have destroyed our manufacturing base so there is just not the range of industry out there to generate the number and variety of jobs we need. Any so called jobs will be low paid, dead end service industry jobs, not much offering proper training or prospects. Thatcher, in an act of consummate vandalism, also sold off utilities - just the sort of industry that, in the public sector, would be developing proper training schemes and job development programmes.

    b)Because, in the end, 'big business' - or indeed any sort of business - is in it for its own profit and the money it can make for shareholders. Such enterprises are not going to generate jobs unless there's something in it for them. And there won't be.

  • Comment number 51.

    28. At 09:51am on 10 Jan 2011, Dave wrote:
    It's no use creating jobs in superstores like Asda and Sainsburys if people do not have the money to spend because of government tax hikes. Most people are cutting back on spending and are paying off their mortgages, rather than spending on the high street.


    Even the unemployed have to buy food so supermarkets are one of the few businesses able to expand, most other areas will contract as more and more public sector workers are made unwmployed and so won't be able to employ more people. Of course supermarkets sell more than food and one way they can expand in non food areas is by undercutting traditional suppliers using economy of scale The unemployed have to buy more than food occasionally and when they do they need to buy cheap. So jobs in high street food shops, farming, furniture shops, hardware shops, music shops (like HMV), and every other area supermarkets are expanding into will decrease. A proportion of people in these areas, but not all, will be re-employed by the supermarkets on minimum wage or thereabouts, higher level jobs in these areas will continue to disappear because the supermnarkets alreasy have the back room infrastucture where these higher level jobs were so they don't need to employ those people.

  • Comment number 52.

    Big business is as frightened about the economy as the rest of us. The private sector isn't the strong saviour of the public sector the Tories hoped it would be. People are buying less, moving home less, investing less. The economy is faltering and the Tories are continually trying to pull the rug up from beneath the private sector's feet.

  • Comment number 53.

    Oh, and the actual "There is no such thing as society" quote itself came from the following. Again, read the whole thing and say what is wrong with what is being said by Mrs T

    "...But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

  • Comment number 54.

    38. At 10:04am on 10 Jan 2011, dennis wrote:
    What big business? consecutive governments over the past 50 years(especially Labour) have managed to bring our once proud nation to its knees by selling off everything they possibly could including all 'big business'.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Blair & Brown policies to small business was the main reason I closed down my company in the UK and moved it and me to the Philippines two years ago. My company employed 8 workers all earning over £50K a year but Labour made it so difficult with red tape and increased taxes on small companies that it was not worth continuing to do business in the UK. My company now employs 15 workers on about £4K a year, profits have increased immensely as I still serve the same clients as before. There are several other Brits here who have done exactly the same as me.

    The government needs to cut red tape and lower taxes for small companies as they employ more than the bigger companies and in general pay higher wages.

  • Comment number 55.

    Before the usual "we don't make anything anymore" rhetoric is regurgitated again, please see the CIA Factbook on the UK:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Britain is the 10th largest exporter in the world. It is also #3 in the world on both inward investment (ie foreign investment in the country) and outward investment (ie investment made by UK entities in foreign countries). Were state sequestration or control of industries to become government policy you can say "bye bye" to most of those trillions of dollars of investment. How would that help UK business and employment?

  • Comment number 56.

    There is work out there if people are prepared to accvept it. When thay are not the positions will be filled by people who will, then those without work complain.
    People in this country are pricing themselves out of the market, see driver council bin lorry starting wage £26K pa (£520 per week) West Midlands. Bin men £20K pa (£400 per week) to move wheeled bins from kerb to back of lorry, press button and then put back to kerb.
    Its not about poorly paid its about wage inflation driven by the unions, wage equality but everybody expects wages to go up, not downwards.

  • Comment number 57.

    No self respecting businessman will create more jobs at the request of a politician. If they see a profitable venture, then they'll do it. David Cameron should concentrate on making the public sector more efficient and reducing red tape for the private sector. Market forces will then create jobs.

    Steven Quas Collins

  • Comment number 58.

    Shops? that`s it Dave a nation of shop assistants and shelf fillers on a fiver an hour and as for Microsoft a few IT jobs,what about industrial manufacturing,construction.
    There is none or very little thanks to Maggie Thatcher she run down the manufacturing and the her buddies in the banking sector seen off the rest even the call centre`s went abroad for cheaper labour who all read off the same script.Even clothes,carpet(sweat shops and using of child labour).
    Even the NHS and private care centres want to bring in cheap labour from non EU countries instead of training people from UK to do the job and paying the going rate.
    Sorry no faith in the private sector.

    And why pay younger people that want to work dole money while making people work till there 66,it would have been better to let people retire at 65 and pay them or shore up there pension till there 66 would have been cheaper and a moral booster for both old and young.

  • Comment number 59.

    40. At 10:04am on 10 Jan 2011, Paul wrote:
    29. At 09:52am on 10 Jan 2011, jack wrote:

    The Tories under Margaret Thatcher "gutted" this country of maufacturing industries "

    All Margaret Thatcher did was to stop giving tax payers' money to failing state owned businesses...

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    She destroyed almost every industry almost overnight. Sure, they were run inefficiently, but the answer was to gradually streamline those businesses. Closing mines and steelworks overnight threw tens of thousands of people on the scrap heap with no possibility of becoming re-employed because there was nothing in place for job creation and retraining. This country under the Tories has always been a disaster.
    If Beeching hadn't destroyed the railways, we'd have a fully-integrated workable public transport system that would enable people to travel without relying on their cars. But of course, as I've said before, you can't tax public transport to the same degree.

  • Comment number 60.

    The only way of increasing the availability of jobs is to reduce the cost of employment in the UK. The typical factory employee on £12k to £18k currently has to pay income tax of 20% plus National Insurance tax of 11% plus the employer National Insurance tax of 12.8%. So a low paid employee currently produces a tax income of 43.8% on any increase in earnings for the government. Anyone who thinks that we can carry on importing virtually all energy and manufactured goods from China, Japan and Germany without it causing our living standards to continually drop is living in a dream world. The UK's high energy prices combined with endless taxes and regulations are the sole reason we cannot compete with other countries. Unless this changes we are doomed to decline until our living standards drop below China's and then we can become a sub manufacturer for Chinese companies and a tourist destination for millions of Chinese tourists. Just look at the previous history of China to see what is awaiting us.

  • Comment number 61.

    Everyone has their part to play. I wonder just who is actually going to stand up and pull their weight, though?

    The financial industries need to start off by making money available for expansion both through direct loans and through the stock markets actually taking a lead rather than their present slack-jawed lazy and negative 'responses' to anyone else's efforts.

    The government needs to play its part by encouraging start-ups and expansions as well as requiring a living wage to be paid and prioritising the employment of job-seekers over those wishing to change jobs.

    A more professional approach from job centres would help as well. The so-called 'advisors' need to be pro-actively seeking opportunities for job seekers, instead of sitting back and leaving them to do everything and rarely even recalling what any given individual is actually looking for...

    And companies need to be ready to 'take a chance' - speculate to accumulate - hire the best and pay them accordingly.

  • Comment number 62.

    45. At 10:19am on 10 Jan 2011, Lewis Fitzroy wrote:

    The tories' want every rich person house-hold, to have welsh servants like the old days?"

    (Why Welsh? Are the Welsh especially good at housework or something?)

    What's wrong with someone who can afford it having a servant? Really? It creates a job. There should be minimum wage exemptions/modifications for people provided with board/lodgings as well.

  • Comment number 63.

    46. At 10:21am on 10 Jan 2011, Jeff Martin wrote:
    3. At 09:23am on 10 Jan 2011, Daisy Chained wrote:
    No. Unless it happens to be totally owned by, run by, and only interested in, the UK.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I wholehearterdly agree. Almost the entire manufacturing industry has been sold off and as a result thousands of so-called non-jobs created.
    What this country needs is to create jobs that are actually of benefit to everyone. Exportable goods. We need to be able to sell to the world. You can't sell the output of a "diversity officer". Real jobs, real opportunities. All we need to address then is competitiveness. If the Chinese can make something for tuppance an hour, we need to be able to as well. Which in this grossly overtaxed country is going to be difficult. We shouldn't be relying on cheap labour from Ukraine etc.


    China can make things for "tuppence an hour" due to two factors:

    1) a (currently) cheap labour force

    2) economies of scale gained by manufacturing for the whole world

    That's why ipods, computers, mobile phones etc are very cheap to amke there. If you seriously think we could ever manufacture these things for those prices AND have the GDP/capita we have now you must be smoking something.

    Were tariff or non-tariff barriers to be put in place to protect British Industry from such imports then expect them to be reciprocated. Then we would never get the economies of scale and would have British manufactured goods that cost three times what the rest of the world was paying.

  • Comment number 64.

    Businesses don't care about people and the unemployed. They only care about profits. They're money grabbing, profit seeking pigs.

    If Cameron thinks the unemployed should rely solely on these types for work, he's sorely naive and mistaken.

  • Comment number 65.

    Stop knocking simple jobs - most of us started out with these. I washed floors and made burgers too when I was a student. Didn't stop me doing considerably well much later. A foot on the ladder is what most young people are realistically aspiring to. Let's see some genuine development of on-the-job training schemes, and managerial re-training to prevent workplace abuse... Smiling staff are so much more efficient...!

  • Comment number 66.

    46. At 10:21am on 10 Jan 2011, Jeff Martin wrote:

    3. At 09:23am on 10 Jan 2011, Daisy Chained wrote:
    No. Unless it happens to be totally owned by, run by, and only interested in, the UK.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I wholehearterdly agree. Almost the entire manufacturing industry has been sold off and as a result thousands of so-called non-jobs created.
    What this country needs is to create jobs that are actually of benefit to everyone. Exportable goods. We need to be able to sell to the world. You can't sell the output of a "diversity officer". Real jobs, real opportunities. All we need to address then is competitiveness. If the Chinese can make something for tuppance an hour, we need to be able to as well. Which in this grossly overtaxed country is going to be difficult. We shouldn't be relying on cheap labour from Ukraine etc.

    ---------------------------------

    And will you 2 be the first to get a job below minimum wage and working 15 hrs a day just so you can afford to eat in this country (dunno about a roof though)?

    We cannot compete with cheap, mass produced products. What we can compete with is technical products which take a high degree of advanced skills. This is the way our exports have been going for a long time and how it should be going.

    We could open up new industries. Reduce the gun laws in this country and we could compete with the US in the firearms market. Its a global market which means exports and the funding from civilian buyers allows the businesses to improve research. Not forgetting the vast number of skilled and unskilled jobs which would open up.

  • Comment number 67.

    Oh do come on posters this is a government who have at least 17 millionaires in the Cabinet. Most of those inherited their wealth. They've no more idea how 80% of the population live,work and play than those on the opposition front bench whose numbers include people who've moved through the political system without actually doing a run of the mill job.

    Once again we get the organisations representing employers large and small bleating about "red tape" and regulation choking off employment. It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad. The regulations and "red tape" are there because employers cannot be trusted to deal fairly with their employees conditions and wages. So instead of sacking someone on day 364 of their employment they now want to increase it to day 729, they want to pay less than a minimum wage (which is already less than a living wage). Gradgrind and Bounderby still live. Who would have thought it 150 years after Dickens!!!

  • Comment number 68.

    Cameron should be encouraging Small businessess not big ones. If we want to get out of this mess and become a respected country again make it easier to start small businessess
    Look at the new expanding countries , India, China, South america What are they doing , they are manufacturing the very same things that Britain produced before Thatcher turned us into a service nation.
    Yet we still have pockets of old Britain left . Heavy engineering in the railway preservation sector for example yet we buy in nuts, bolts, washers from America its crackers the whole Big Bisiness regime.
    We want a govt that is interseted in this country not its future party political stability
    Big business idealogy is ruining this country Time to move over and let new minds with old ideas take over
    We were once a Great industrial nation We can be again

  • Comment number 69.

    There are no jobs in the UK.

    Companies are being sold off abroad by the day, and the work is going there too.

    Being unemployed again, I feel I have no hope, nomatter where or how hard I look/apply.

  • Comment number 70.

    59. At 10:33am on 10 Jan 2011, Jeff Martin wrote:

    She destroyed almost every industry almost overnight. Sure, they were run inefficiently, but the answer was to gradually streamline those businesses."

    Where was the time & money to do that?

    *LABOUR* should have done that while they had the chance. By the time the Conservatives came into office, it was too late, and changes had to be made quickly and dramatically.

    Labour have a consistent history of over-spending and not seeing that that's a problem, until it's too late.

  • Comment number 71.

    |"... making it easier to hire and fire ..."

    In the present situation where many businesses are short of work, it is likely that such changes would be used to fire workers rather than to hire them. So it is likely to create even more unemployment.

    Like other measures the coalition has taken this idea is driven by ideology, not the need to recover from recession.

  • Comment number 72.

    53. At 10:26am on 10 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:

    Oh, and the actual "There is no such thing as society" quote itself came from the following. Again, read the whole thing and say what is wrong with what is being said by Mrs T

    "...But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

    -------------------------

    What is wrong is that she states people should be responsible. Reading the self centred comments throughout numerous HYS's it is not surprising the only part these selfish people noticed was "There is no such thing as society".

    There are none so deaf as those who wont listen.

  • Comment number 73.

    How many small business will be put out of business as a result of the continuing expansion of these conglomerates gaining more and more power and influence. Will anyone be counting their loss?

    They are killing off our towns and vilaages now and this is without the Government giving them the green light to crush all competition.
    The ultimate goal of any capitalist is total domination and then we shall have no where else to go and no choice at all.
    The Government should be looking at helping small business not helping themselves by getting in to bed with big business.
    We need as a nation to become less reliant on goods from overseas and produce more of our own not less. These companies will only ever source where they can buy cheapest and with greatest profit.

    So students can look forward to getting into massive debt to work in a supermarket. Great prospects!

    David Cameron also said yesterday he wants to remove the higher rate of income tax (but keep Vat at 20%) to enable people to aspire. Does that mean we are moving to an egalatarian society, so we can all earn £100K working on a check out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This Government works on sound bites without really thinking it all through and the consequences of throwing a stone into a puddle and the ripples it generates.


  • Comment number 74.

    63. At 10:37am on 10 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:
    46. At 10:21am on 10 Jan 2011, Jeff Martin wrote:
    3. At 09:23am on 10 Jan 2011, Daisy Chained wrote:
    No. Unless it happens to be totally owned by, run by, and only interested in, the UK.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I wholehearterdly agree. Almost the entire manufacturing industry has been sold off and as a result thousands of so-called non-jobs created.
    What this country needs is to create jobs that are actually of benefit to everyone. Exportable goods. We need to be able to sell to the world. You can't sell the output of a "diversity officer". Real jobs, real opportunities. All we need to address then is competitiveness. If the Chinese can make something for tuppance an hour, we need to be able to as well. Which in this grossly overtaxed country is going to be difficult. We shouldn't be relying on cheap labour from Ukraine etc.

    China can make things for "tuppence an hour" due to two factors:

    1) a (currently) cheap labour force

    2) economies of scale gained by manufacturing for the whole world

    That's why ipods, computers, mobile phones etc are very cheap to amke there. If you seriously think we could ever manufacture these things for those prices AND have the GDP/capita we have now you must be smoking something.

    Were tariff or non-tariff barriers to be put in place to protect British Industry from such imports then expect them to be reciprocated. Then we would never get the economies of scale and would have British manufactured goods that cost three times what the rest of the world was paying.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I'm not suggesting we are in the position (at the moment) to mass-produce gadgets that cheaply, but everyday goods that we currently import from abroad, that we are perfectly capable of making here, we should be.
    What would be your solution to getting the unemployed back in employment?

  • Comment number 75.

    64. At 10:37am on 10 Jan 2011, U8860545 wrote:
    Businesses don't care about people and the unemployed. They only care about profits. They're money grabbing, profit seeking pigs.


    Apart from the use of pejorative language, you have stated the purpose of private enterprise: to make profits for its investors. What other blindingly obvious wisdom do you have for us today?

    However, businesses do have to care about people to some extent: few businesses are sustainable if they keep treating their employees badly; few businesses are sustainable if they treat actual or potential customers badly.

  • Comment number 76.

    Can big business solve unemployment?

    Big business cannot solve unemployment because Big business does not make the rules. The rules are made by government. The government makes the rules as to whether its worth working, or not. The coalition government has already decided that it does not pay people to work.

    If the government wants to increase productivity in the private sector, they have to give incentive for people to get out of bed. They have to decide to make it worth people's while to work by letting them keep more of their earnings. The classic way of achieving this is to reduce taxation.

  • Comment number 77.

    If we're talking specifically about the UK, it's an island society living mostly off the fat and wealth of previous centuries: centuries of industrial innovation mingled with empire building of dubious morality.

    With globalisation, the world has now changed irrevocably but the West in general is still deluded into thinking that the same world owes it a relatively easy and wealthy living. Simultaneously, almost the entire planet is hypnotised by self-centred consumerist materialism, leading to an over-valuation of employment: jobs=income=happiness: but this is an illusion.

    However unfairly wealth may still be distributed, the main mass of basic labouring and moderately-skilled jobs is now largely distributed 'overseas' among those who work hardest for the least monetary return, thanks (or no-thanks) to globalisation.

    Meanwhile the UK is still relatively well-off (even those on the dole have incomes vastly superior to round-the-clock workers in many countries) and really shouldn't complain. As is the way of things, it's in the relatively small club of wealthy nations and intends to protect its place, rather than justify it.

    Given the UK's history (e.g. the slave trade), citizens of that country would do better to display a bit more humility and rise above the money-driven consumerist self-centred rat race that ushered in globalisation and brought about the current troublesome global scenario that allows big business to play nation off against nation.

    As a planet, Earth (i.e. we humans) simply consumes too much: too much pollution, diminishing raw materials, expanding population... this will NOT CONTINUE because it simply CANNOT CONTINUE on a planet of finite resources. Something will give! Climate may already be a lost battle.

    And now we are seeing the fertile shoots of warfare as a result of this madness beginning to bite: growing and deep-seated ideological and economic tensions.

    People need to rise above parochial and limited concepts of the world such as the idea that big business may solve unemployment. Who cares? How many of you reading this are hungry or cold?

    Big business uses advertising to convince us that we need the products and services that businesses produce, and so we look for jobs in those businesses to earn the money to buy the products... and so it goes on...

    A mouse in a treadmill at least doesn't have such illusions of what's really happening.


  • Comment number 78.


    Surely we are near then end of the old economics based on the "Law of More and More" (endless old style growth), simply because we run out of resources, we are already seeing this with traditional fuels (eg: gas and oil) and key materials.

    Instead of creating masses of relatively mindless "virtual jobs" that needlessly increase travel, congestion, use of energy and resources, surely we should be building a better stronger more efficient internal economy based on improving the quality of life for all, not just making a greedy blind few rich.

    Why can't we more evenly share the tasks in society while still rewarding achievements?

    Is it really necessary for around one third of the population to be so poorly paid that they can't play a full part in society and the economy?

    Just how much difference would excessive pay and bonuses make invested well elsewhere rather than paid to already highly paid people?

    Isn't the greed motivator a key part of the problem because it relies on ignoring more important values and depriving others of a living wage?

  • Comment number 79.

    Phil Davies wrote:
    There is work out there if people are prepared to accvept it. When thay are not the positions will be filled by people who will, then those without work complain.
    People in this country are pricing themselves out of the market, see driver council bin lorry starting wage £26K pa (£520 per week) West Midlands. Bin men £20K pa (£400 per week) to move wheeled bins from kerb to back of lorry, press button and then put back to kerb.
    Its not about poorly paid its about wage inflation driven by the unions, wage equality but everybody expects wages to go up, not downwards


    -------------------------------
    £26k per annum - maximum mortgage £72,000. £20k oer annum- maximum mortgage £60,000.
    Houses falling in to these categories 1 bedroom or studio flats and 2 bedroom 1 reception ex local authority properties.

  • Comment number 80.

    30. At 09:53am on 10 Jan 2011, Paul wrote:

    10. At 09:36am on 10 Jan 2011, Trina wrote:

    The UK has some of the most flexible employment laws in Europe. Easy to hire and easy to fire."

    Have you ever run a business? It is certainly not easy to hire OR fire in the UK. Maybe if you're a huge business it is easy to hire, but it is not easy to fire even then. For small businesses, both hiring and firing is extremely complicated and risky. Businesses go under because they can't fire people when they need to. Businesses refuse to hire because employment legislation is too complex.

    If the UK is such a bad place to work, why do we have lots of European migrants coming here to work? They seem to find even the minimum wage good enough to work, live here AND save up/send money home.


    East European migrants come from economies where our minimum wage is quite good whereas for people who live here it's barely enoughto live on, if you work here for a short time (from those East European countries) and live as cheaply as possible in crap accommodation then even the quite small amount one can send home is worth enough in those economies to make it worthwhile. Also these people have no ties here and so are able to move to wherever the work is without giving it a second thought, a luxury not available to most of the resident unemployed.

    It is extremly easy to dismiss staff here who have been employed for less than a year and too difficult to dismiss those that have been employed for less than two years.

    There are responsibilities, regulations and complexities involved in hiring staff here, one of the reasons for this is the amount of abuse, particularly tax abuse, that has taken place in the past when it was easier. There is certainly room to make employing easier but governments become less inclined to do that when they realise the main loser is likely to be the taxman.

  • Comment number 81.

    Can big business solve unemployment?

    LOL,

    NO.

    When the coal mines & steel works closed down in the north the previous Tory policys and business was unable to create enough jobs for attrociously devastated villages/towns/citys/communities, even with large amounts of EU & government money.
    Labours solution was to move public service jobs and create more public service jobs in these areas.
    ConDems have now come along and basically destroyed many of these jobs thus reverting these areas back into 1980s status.

    A few jobs (thousands) may be created over the long term by business, but by NO MEANS anywhere near enough to make up for an endemic depressing status created via ConDem policy which has LITTLE real extra money to help with investment & job creation.

    Yes, the ConDems will wheel out a few businesses that have created jobs, but the TRUE REALITY is that with so many added costs to businesses and such detrimental effects caused by this ConDem government policys its basically like trying to stop the Titanic from sinking using blotting paper to fill the hole.

    This ConDem government is basically in DENIAL of ITS RESPONSIBILITY to put right the damage that it has essentially caused by its reractionary policys to pay off national debt.

    We are presently cutting £80 billion from expenditure, plus with European countrys implementing MANY huge cuts to expenditure at the SAME time, affecting and DEPRESSING ANY prospect of REAL economic growth & creating a further depressed market with falling jobs/wealth in these European countrys, our main export market.

    This on top of USA cuts & USA preferential treatment (trade barriers) to its own businesses, especially for major contracts, will further add to prolems also in Asia.

    MOST of the jobs created in UK are PART TIME and TEMPORY jobs, of LOWER wages than lost jobs.

    This will have a LONG TERM negative effect.
    It also means that MANY of these new jobs will be FURTHER subsidised via tax credits etc, which means more & more that preasure CONTINUES to build for HIGHER taxes on other workers to maintain this GROWING UNSUSTAINABLE problem of a LOWER wealth creating economy.

    Me personally, with such cuts to public services and with so MANY other ongoing economic problems I would have built into cuts, the USE of at least 2% even upto 5% of cuts, to re-direct into a LONG TERM ECONOMIC INVESTMENT PLAN. This money would be £1.6billion upto £4billion EXTRA for investing in new businesses & helping attract new business to UK.

    The MAIN problem with ConDem policys is that there is far far too LITTLE RE-INVESTMENT or REAL STRATEGY for the FACTUAL implementaion and outcome of creating the jobs we ACTUALLY/FACTUALLY need.

    Its all very well building shops & warehousing, but these just basically speed up the process of IMPORTING more goods and selling them, further damaging our already attrocious long term trade deficit and they do NOT even 50% balance out the LOSSES.

    Big business CANNOT solve unemployment on its own, even with a HALF competant government it would be a huge struggle and from what I can see, hear, read and understand, this government is running at around 25% competance levels, which is just NOT ENOUGH.

    When big business has serious problems & needs to cut jobs, this is generally done hand in hand with HUGE improvements to the overall business. Cutting expenses, cutting waste & repetative parts of the business, and INVESTING in areas which GUARANTEE significant improvement and return on investment.

    Currently our governments economic investment policy is creating a GUARANTEED NET LOSS RETURN via low paid UNSUSTAINABLE TAXPAYER SUBSIDISED jobs.

    Maybe, there is REAL and moral reasoning for even using lottery money to create jobs over a set period, because job creating actually and factually meets with most of the specific criterea for gaining lottery funds, namely helping communities. Part could be used to create a fund for business set ups, with loans at low re-payment so that ultimately the money is returned to the lottery with a small return and then still able to spend on other important community projects.

  • Comment number 82.

    71. At 10:43am on 10 Jan 2011, stanblogger wrote:

    |"... making it easier to hire and fire ..."

    In the present situation where many businesses are short of work, it is likely that such changes would be used to fire workers rather than to hire them. So it is likely to create even more unemployment."

    But not being allowed to fire people would create even MORE unemployment.

    If there's a company of 5 people which only has work and income to support 4, is it better to fire someone (and make one person unemployed) or not be able to fire them, and have the whole company go under (and make five people unemployed)?

  • Comment number 83.

    Cameron is once again lying. He knows very well that UK business be it big or small will take many years to replace the 330,000 jobs that his government is in the process of closing. He has managed to get the supermarkets to 'announce' new jobs to help him out. The jobs amount to around 25,000 this year with no guarantee that any more will be forthcoming. this is less than 10% of the jobs that will be needed. In addition the jobs are largely low paid ones with poor pensions not good replacements for the jobs that are being lost. Finally Cameron knows that it is naive in the extreme to think that business has any desire to solve this problem. Business exists to make profits for their shareholders by serving their customers. There is nothing wrong with that reality however Cameron should not deceive the country by implying that they can or will create more jobs as a priority. They will create jobs when there is a business need and in a recession that is going to be a low priority. Lies Lies and lies

  • Comment number 84.

    1. At 09:11am on 10 Jan 2011, Bubble Works wrote:
    yay - filling shelves, that's really the kind of jobs we need and why we are asking our children to pass test after test at school. Will they need A-levels for that?

    We need better businesses to come back to the UK, there needs to be real jobs out there that show our children it is worth to do well at school.

    ____________________________________________________________________
    You made some good points. However at the end of the day there are jobs out there for people who are willing to work hard at Uni. We are crying out for Doctors, nurses, surgeons, teachers and social workers. However most youngsters see this jobs as hard work and not glamourous so they refuse these careers. Therefore they opt for easy subject like Media and then wonder why they end up on the dole queue after graduation. They need to consider the facts - there are far more people than jobs and many jobs have become obselete and thus wake up and study something worthwhile!

    People laugh at Indians and Jews for being doctors, lawyers etc but they have sussed it out that's where the money and job security is. They should be the ones laughing!

  • Comment number 85.

    74. At 10:47am on 10 Jan 2011, Jeff Martin wrote:
    I'm not suggesting we are in the position (at the moment) to mass-produce gadgets that cheaply, but everyday goods that we currently import from abroad, that we are perfectly capable of making here, we should be.
    What would be your solution to getting the unemployed back in employment?


    You don't do it by trying to make stuff that other countries can make cheaper and at a higher quality. You do it by making it attractive to invest in more advanced technologies, by innovating and moving up the value stack. That requires a well educated workforce and many of the current unemployed are not well enough educated. Tuition fees may well make it harder to acquire these skills and incent those that do acquire them to move abroad! However, rather than importing labour with degrees to stack shelves in Tesco and ASDA or be care workers in care homes, the low skilled in this country need incentives to take such jobs. However attitudes to work may need to be sorted out as well!

  • Comment number 86.

    71. At 10:43am on 10 Jan 2011, stanblogger wrote:

    |"... making it easier to hire and fire ..."

    In the present situation where many businesses are short of work, it is likely that such changes would be used to fire workers rather than to hire them. So it is likely to create even more unemployment."

    Also, by making it easier to fire people you inherently make it easier to hire people as well.

    What if you are a company of 5 people, and you're getting a bit busy. There are two choices, either everyone work more, longer hours, fewer holidays etc, or employ someone else. If, when you employ someone, it is almost impossible to fire them for whatever reason (they are useless, the amount of work decreases etc) then you will choose the option of working more (or refusing work).

  • Comment number 87.

    Big business are interested solely in paying their top executives huge salaries and with pandering to share holders. The workforce is used as nothing more than cannon fodder, with no thought for the ramifications for the families affected. The only way this will stop is for the workforce to begin standing up for their rights again and using the massive power they have to gain fair treatment

  • Comment number 88.

    business,big or small can and will only solve unemployment if they are given carteblanch to make massive profits.the days of the perternal family firm.the works outings are long long gone hilda saw to that,no the minimum wage will go there will be no law to make firms reponsible for sickness or pensions or any kind of wellfare regarding there staff(does not include higher managment of course)relax the employment laws with the object of repealing any that are not to an employers liking,withdraw the right to refuse work on the pain of bennifit refusal,
    we have now created the correct enviroment for full employment."rock on dave".power to the people???

  • Comment number 89.

    22. At 09:48am on 10 Jan 2011, kaybraes wrote:

    It will only solve the unemployment problem when benefits are considerably less than the minimum wage.
    ====================================================================

    Kay I was an unemployed engineer for 7 months last year and the unemployment benefit was so low that I came near to losing my home and would of done if I was not offered a post last November and the fact that I used all of my savings to survive.

    The benefits did not give me a comfortable life as I had a living standard that required a mortgage and heating bills to pay like most workers.

    I would argue the reverse of your opinion that the minimum wage should rise above the standards of benefits making it better to be in work.

    However businesses are businesses and profit is the key, ask the banks. If they employer can employ cheap labour and these days they have to as everything you buy is manufactured using cheaper labour overseas. China and India does not have NI or social costs to consider and living costs are cheaper so labour costs are cheaper.

    The UK cannot compete in manufacturing and so we will have unemployed because we allow migrant unskilled workers into the UK which fill up the holes that the government could possibly 'offer' to the unemployed.

    I tried to get further training but as I am a white male of UK origin I did not fit the criteria. Had I been an asylum seeker or a single parent I would have fitted and been offered a course to improve my future prospects.

    Businesses will not be able to provide jobs where there is no demand for the product due to price when compared to overseas imports. Look at all that you have bought recently and you will see what I mean, internet shopping kills shops and therefore jobs. Imported items kill our possible industries but that is the way of the world today and I cannot see that changing in any way.

    The UK benefits are low in comparison to Europe, the system needs to identify the lazy ones and the scroungers more. Then provide work which has a reasonable minimum wage for local unskilled workers. Migrant workers leave, as many Polish did when the Polish economy picked up. Unfortunately now many other Eastern Migrants have taken up their place and the UK claimants once again can say there are no decent jobs.

    Other European countries, Germany, Holland etc put a cap on unskilled workers the UK did not. No migrant worker should be able to claims funds from the state unless they have worked for 2 years and paid tax and NI. This might help.

    I do not know the solution but Mr Camerons pathway is not one of them.


  • Comment number 90.

    The government says small businesses will lead the country out of the mess created by the previous government. I run my own business and I have already closed down one successful business I started from scratch because of Labour's tax hikes. I ask the government to tell me why I should decide not to relocate my business to a fairer tax regime abroad like so many others have done? What is in it for me and my employees to stay in business in Britain?

  • Comment number 91.

    All sales outlets, such as supermarkets, do not create jobs. They are parasitic on money supplied by people who make things, like factories and farmers, and who provide services which allow people to make things, like bankers. If everybody sold things and nobody made things we would starve to death in weeks. The only things the government want made are things which burn wealth rather than create wealth, like aircraft carriers.

    The government don't seem to realise this. They don't realise the mess we are in, they don't realise the massive changes in the World, they don't realize the shortages of food and materials we are on the brink of, and they totally refuse to see the root cause, which is overpopulation. The people of this country are doomed unless we take more radical measures to become solvent.

  • Comment number 92.

    "5. At 09:28am on 10 Jan 2011, One in a million wrote:

    This way has to be better than Labour's chuck money at the problem policy.

    Involving big business is one idea, but for me the problem is cultural too.

    Too many people think that the state should step in and provide and, as a result, abdicate any personal responsibility for themselves. "

    ----------------

    And when the state is the root cause of people being unemployed why should they not step in and provide?

    I've just been made redundant and currently I see no reason to work my backside off for what is effectively peanuts in the grand scheme of things just to make someone else richer whilst I just about make ends meet. Unfortunately you require money to go into business yourself so that door is closed to me. So what can I do but abdicate any personal responsibility?

    Creating jobs is not going to happen. Private sector business is only interested in one thing - PROFIT for those at the top.

    Creating more jobs = more wages = less PROFIT.

    Yeah big business is really going to play the part of the Samaritan and give those of us currently out of work a job that we can have a life on. Not!

  • Comment number 93.

    I would like to be at the meeting....and see how 'Big Business' tell "Call me Dave" what they want.
    The power today is in the hands of global capitalists who have capital turnovers bigger than lots of country's.
    If Dave does not do what he is told then they threaten to uproot and take their business elswhere.
    They hold ALL the cards....it's called CAPITALISM and its not about employing anyone.

  • Comment number 94.

    79. At 10:56am on 10 Jan 2011, shillo wrote:

    Phil Davies wrote:
    There is work out there if people are prepared to accvept it. When thay are not the positions will be filled by people who will, then those without work complain.
    People in this country are pricing themselves out of the market, see driver council bin lorry starting wage £26K pa (£520 per week) West Midlands. Bin men £20K pa (£400 per week) to move wheeled bins from kerb to back of lorry, press button and then put back to kerb.
    Its not about poorly paid its about wage inflation driven by the unions, wage equality but everybody expects wages to go up, not downwards


    -------------------------------
    £26k per annum - maximum mortgage £72,000. £20k oer annum- maximum mortgage £60,000.
    Houses falling in to these categories 1 bedroom or studio flats and 2 bedroom 1 reception ex local authority properties.

    ---------------------

    If only labour had done something about the huge inflation of house prices which shot above the capability of normal people. Even during the good times people were complaining that houses were too expensive. I will have no chance yet I will be a first time buyer. For now I rent.

  • Comment number 95.

    79. At 10:56am on 10 Jan 2011, shillo wrote:

    £26k per annum - maximum mortgage £72,000. £20k oer annum- maximum mortgage £60,000.
    Houses falling in to these categories 1 bedroom or studio flats and 2 bedroom 1 reception ex local authority properties."

    So, you think a bin man should be living in luxury?

    Or rent - round here a decent 3 bedroom house is £400-£450 a month, so easily affordable on £20k pa.

  • Comment number 96.

    83. At 11:00am on 10 Jan 2011, Eddythered wrote:

    Cameron is once again lying. He knows very well that UK business be it big or small will take many years to replace the 330,000 jobs that his government is in the process of closing. He has managed to get the supermarkets to 'announce' new jobs to help him out. The jobs amount to around 25,000 this year with no guarantee that any more will be forthcoming. this is less than 10% of the jobs that will be needed. In addition the jobs are largely low paid ones with poor pensions not good replacements for the jobs that are being lost. Finally Cameron knows that it is naive in the extreme to think that business has any desire to solve this problem. Business exists to make profits for their shareholders by serving their customers. There is nothing wrong with that reality however Cameron should not deceive the country by implying that they can or will create more jobs as a priority. They will create jobs when there is a business need and in a recession that is going to be a low priority. Lies Lies and lies

    -------------------------

    Why dont you pay for these people to keep their jobs? Not enough money is collected via tax to support so many non-existent jobs. A public sector which grew without the funding is now contracting and having to take some jobs which otherwise would have been safe. All because labour failed to improve the jobs market.

    How would you like to be employed only to find out your job didnt really exist and cant be funded? That is exactly what labour did. Any party winning the election would have to tell this unfortunate truth.

  • Comment number 97.

    75. At 10:48am on 10 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:
    64. At 10:37am on 10 Jan 2011, U8860545 wrote:
    Businesses don't care about people and the unemployed. They only care about profits. They're money grabbing, profit seeking pigs.

    Apart from the use of pejorative language, you have stated the purpose of private enterprise: to make profits for its investors. What other blindingly obvious wisdom do you have for us today?

    However, businesses do have to care about people to some extent: few businesses are sustainable if they keep treating their employees badly; few businesses are sustainable if they treat actual or potential customers badly.

    ------

    Get real. Businesses would rather keep profits than hire people to fill in gaps that can be easily fulfilled from within or having existing employees doubling up. It's called making cost-effective decisions and making sure those profits remain fat and fill the pockets of those greedy directors who care about nothing else in life.

    Treat employees and customers badly? What planet do you live on, pal. My last job was working at a bookstore. The service was a joke and I often shared the complaints of the customers - products in shoddy condition, prices are a ripoff which you can get cheaper elsewhere. Again, businesses don't care, so long as the money is rolling in and the customers are sucking up to the 'sales' like sheep.

    Finally, as you are a fan of private enterprise, do you expect people who have worked in the public sector to flip burgers in their next job? You or anyone?

    The Tories are fools.

  • Comment number 98.

    Yes - any job is better than no job and in my experience its easier to get a new job when you are in a job.

    Too many people are picky about what they do.

    I work for a large leisure company and last year a third of our workforce was made redundant. I was put at risk but was very lucky to keep my job however I would have gone shelf stacking if necessary. I'm a graduate but don't feel I am owed anything or am above anybody else.

    I read an aritcle in a maagazine in 1996 saying that future graduates would be working on the checkouts in supermarkets - I must admit I did not realise it would be this soon.

  • Comment number 99.

    The PM MUST talk to anybody who will help put this country back into manufacturing. We for many years made nearly everything we needed and exported to the the world. The masses of skilled personel have been put on the back burners, doing jobs (if they have one) far beneath their capabilities, certainly not what they were trained for. China and other third world countrys stripped our workshops of machine tools at rock-bottom prices. I am sick, sick, sick of picking up anything that is sold in our shops and seeing that it was made abroad.

  • Comment number 100.

    80. At 11:00am on 10 Jan 2011, Freda Peeple wrote:

    They seem to find even the minimum wage good enough to work, live here AND save up/send money home.

    East European migrants come from economies where our minimum wage is quite good whereas for people who live here it's barely enoughto live on, if you work here for a short time (from those East European countries) and live as cheaply as possible in crap accommodation then even the quite small amount one can send home is worth enough in those economies to make it worthwhile."

    But they have to live here. So what if they are living in "crap accommodation"? They are living here, they are buying food etc, AND they have some money left over to send home to their families

    If someone from Poland can live here on minimum wage, then someone from the UK can live here on minimum wage. As far as I know we are the same species and have the same needs.

 

Page 1 of 11

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.