Dreaming of job creation

Tony Goldsmith

What on earth has the Tory party become?? I completely despair of the present Conservative leadership. Can you just imagine for a moment what the situation would be if Margaret Thatcher was now leader of the opposition. She would take this useless Labour government to pieces. Brown would be a broken man within days. Instead we have absolutely nothing but silly PR stunts and cowardly silence. We keep hearing all this crap about how Cameron can’t reveal his hand because Brown would steal his ideas. What complete codswallop, as if Browns going to steal ideas about massive tax cuts and rolling back the bloated public sector. The Conservative leadership needs to get out and sell Conservative ideas just like they did in 1979. There are enough voters out there not part of Labours public sector client state that will vote and bring victory. It worked in 1979 and will work again if only Dave Cameron would get out and show a bit of political courage. He must surely realise now that victory will have to be won, sitting back and waiting for it to simply fall into his lap isn’t going to work, it is time for Dave to get some cojones and start by replacing Osborne.

Adam

You are right in your analysis and if Cameron and Osborne had more time, they could have come up with a more complete proposal. They have been bounced into this by Brown's flirtation with tax cuts in the last few days and the success of Obama's message in the US. I'm just glad there wasn't more talk of sharing the proceeds of growth or matching Labour's spending plans until 2011! Cameron and Osborne have been so far off the pace on the economy that any proposal even if half baked is welcome by us Tories. And we continue to dream....

mac

Cameron and Osborne have the look of Jermyn Street mannequins. Presumably, it's a tactical decision to leave the running to Cameron because Brown's taken the economic lead and not the Chancellor. But what he's offering isn't effective.

The Tory approach is desperately thin gruel and one can guess that Brown-Mandelson-Campbell strategy meetings are increasingly relaxed. There's no threat from the Tories and the MSM is under control with an abundance of compliant mouthpieces. All that remains is to calibrate and refine Campbell's new propaganda grid in ordr to whittle the Tory lead away still further, and to ratchet up the diet of disinformation in preparation for saturation lying before the GE.

It's complacent to think that the Recession will torpedo this government and that they'll sink themselves; they'll make the lies ever bigger, building on themes that Brown has now got away with for 6 weeks.

Surely the men in grey suits are growing restive? They should be.

This

TrevorsDen

I am not interested in you being an equal opportunity nit picker.

Of course these employers may take on staff anyway ... but Mr nit picker - if you give people tax cuts or bigger tax credits ... will they spend the money or pay off debts or put it under the mattress?

Well??

And what use is a tax cut to someone on the dole. Give a tax cut to someone in employment - why? People in work are usually quite well off in a depression

As Brown realises - we are in a war here and you are a useful idiot. Nit pick your way out of that.

Punk Economist

Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

(Not Swedish)

Ruairidh

This measure is a step in the right direction but it is too timid, too marginal and too beaurocratic.

It annoys me (as an ex government employee) that the Tory leadership talk about reducing government ‘waste’ and then go and design delicate little nuanced policies that will require armies of civil servants to manage them. This is one example but others are the ‘first time buyer’ stamp duty tax break or the (now ditched) VAT on flights and flying quotas. As already pointed out this policy is flawed because it provides perverse incentives (why keep staff on when you can sign someone on a temp contract then when the tax exception expires get rid of them and hire another). Do you counter these with yet more complexitiy and regulation or let the unintended consequences proliferate? The Tories should be simplifying and reducing the tax code not adding silly faddish exceptions and exemptions.

Another problem with these targeted proposals is that by definition they have a smaller target audience than a simpler broader one. That may be more ‘fair’ to a redistributionist socialist but it doesn’t seem fair to me. So far as a homeowner with a job I’ve not heard a Tory tax proposal that will benefit me.

I know the mantra here is responsibility and Cameron et al don’t want to go promising the earth because they will look imprudent and risk a ‘tory cuts’ backlash but this kind of proposal is a poor effort. The inheritance tax proposal was simple and look at the reaction that had. It grabs the imagination much more than this.

C Powell

It's better than nothing, I suppose, but a missed opportunity, as others have said.

(1) It's overly complicated.
(2) It does nothing for those who are in work but struggling to pay bills - increasing personal allowances would be more helpful.
(3) It does nothing to address the fact that we don't save enough and are being landed with enormous debt i.e. even higher taxes than now and sooner than we imagine.

Removing tax from savings (perhaps to an upper limit) would help the prudent/pensioners and make it worthwhile to save again. It would show that the Conservatives care about sound money and the people who are trying to do the best for themselves and their families. And if we save banks can lend and companies have money for investment. We're not going to get the economy going again without such saving: borrowing money to spend (especially when most of that spending was wasted by government) is what got us into this mess and, as sure as hell, is not the right way to get us out of it, particularly not with the levels of debt we have now.

Agree with Tony that the Tories have been pathetic over the last few weeks. They really need to up their game; they have a real fight on their hands and aren't, to my mind, showing that they have the ruthlessness and steel to sock it to the government or the passion and anger at the waste of the last 11 years or the real desire to make changes for the better. It's all footling around at the edges.

Do they really want power, in short? And do they know why and what they're going to do with it, if they get it? If they do they've failed to communicate it.

I think we risk getting Labour in by default next time: New Labour's New Stasi-state, poor, spied on and bossed around. For God's sake, Dave, get a grip!!

Dalesman

I'm still waiting for Cameron & Co. to tear Brown apart. What are they waiting for?

This bit of tinkering will do nothing for most of the population.

Sir Buffy de Vere Spoofington, Bt

You must admit, though, that Young David does look prime ministerial in that suit.

FFScotland

It looks to me that Cameron has dusted off a policy made earlier for a different purpose of social engineering. He's recast it as a fiscal boost and added claims of it being "funded".

So let's be clear: It won't make the slightest difference to employment figures as companies will employ the same number of staff regardless of this tax break. For the same reason, there is no offsetting reduction in employment benefits and therefore this tax cut is not in any way "funded".

What it does do, is encourage employers to take on long term unemployed staff in preference to those in work or recently unemployed. This could be a good thing and worth paying for. But a fiscal boost, it ain't.

JR

Eh? This is almost unbelievably poor.

Ill thought through nonsence. If he wants to go down this route of trying to decrease unemployment he'd actually be better off doing a £2bn public works programme.

Yesterday I thought the Tories might actually propose something sensible - no chance, I actually trust Brown with the economy more now (dear god) - Cameroon and Osbourne are clueless.

Ruairidh - I can't agree with you more. This is a sort of quasi tax credit scheme for companies.

Hysteria

it's just pathetic - really. The right have a story to tell about balanced budgets, self reliance, tolerance, hard work etc. All we get from HM Loyal Opposition is blue-ish tinged social crap.

Did they learn nothing from the IHT announcement? You have to articulate a simple message for "Joe the Plumber" - nuanced carefully thought through policies are NOT GOING TO CUT IT!

UKIP/BNP - stand by for an increased vote, and so another four years of Brown - God Help Us.

c

Simple really, he doesn't want the job does he. Dave's bottling it.

strapworld

Tony Goldsmith,Mac,Ruairidh,
Dalesman,JR, Hysteria. Make points I greatly support. But 'c' really sums it up.

I admire trevorsden's loyalty, but surely the party must come first. Cameron has not got the backbone for a fight. This was so poor and weak I am afraid that (although this latest poll was weighted badly (see politicalbetting.com)- the conservatives have backed another loser.

How can he maintain Osborne in his role?

TGF UKIP

I'm plainly not needed here The Coffee House Chorus says it all.

When your Precious Pair can't even convince Speccie readers, Fraser, don't you begin to get even a little bit worried?

TGF UKIP

Hysteria, we are very often in agreement so I hope you'll understand when I suggest
you not fall into tne BBC/Labour/Blue Labour and Guardian trap of coupling the BNP with UKIP.

As I frequently make clear I am neither UKIP activist nor member but a quick look at the UKIP website and a quick scan of its 20 point policy summary will clearly demonstrate it to be currently the UK's only conservative party.

Equally, though, a look at the BNP website will reveal it to be essentially a left wing Party. Something the good Lord Tebbit never ceases to point out along with the fact that contra again to BBC propaganda Hitler was a left wing dictator and that Nazi was an abbreviation for National SOCIALIST.

wonderfulforhisage

Do wake up.

If Cameron cared how the Country was run he'd be delighted that Brown was stealing his policies.

Sadly it would seem that all he cares about is gaining power and wallowing (a la Bliar).

A true Heir to Bliar, say I.

Another statistics nerd

Leaving aside the efficacy of the proposals, I might be able to beat your statistics nerdiness.

My guess is that what they mean is that 350,000 more jobs will be created, rather than reducing the JSA claimant count by the same amount. You have to remember that the JSA count is a very high-churn number.

According to Nomis, the 140,000 increase over the past 12 months reflects 2.7m claims flowing on and 2.56m claims flowing off. 900k of those flowing off did so because they found work.

I assume what they're saying is that the 'off-flow for work' number will be 350k higher than it would otherwise have been, rather than "we'll cut unemployment by 350k". That said, it's extremely difficult to measure as the job creation number will likely fall, and so we'd have to guess what it would've been without it.

All that said, think of the deadweight here and the idea that it's self-financing falls apart, and assuming existing job creation would be 700k anyway (as the Tories assert), that's £2bn of the cost given away; the supposed saving of £8,100 p.a. on the marginal 350,000 increase forgets the fact that most of those helped will not be those facing lng-ter unemployed. But like I say, efficacy's another question.

Hysteria

sorry TGF - that was not my intent - I am well aware of the distinction.

I was trying to make a point that alternative parties will attract voters who one could reasonably expect would be voting Tory - and so split the vote and due to our bloody stupid system will let Labour in with - what? 25% of the vote?

As mentioned elsewhere - even the hard-core Tories in this blog are getting mighty pissed off and will seek an altrnative - any alternative.

Ken

Of course Cameroon doesn't want the job. Who would when atomic fallout is about to smother the country. At least five more years of gruesome McGringer will mean he has to clean up his own poo and in doing so forever bury Marxist-Socialist Labour in the poubelle ...

JR

Fraser - just checked the Tories maths on the financing of the package - it's worse than Brownies.

First of all they have assumed no deadweight, then they have used the discredited (even he doesn't believe it anymore) Freud calculation of £8000 savings (including additional taxation) per annumn for a JSA claimant going back into work.

Another stats nerd has broken it down above but actually on those assumptions above they also need to assume a 300,000 reduction in the JSA count compared to not doing the policy. It's complete rubbish. I really, really hope they and their researchers don't actually believe in this policy and it was a political move. If they are genuinely proposing this then I never want to live under a Governement of this shower of Conservatives.

FFScotland

I had a look into the deadweight calculations for wage subsidy schemes. They depend on asking the employer, "Would the vacancy exist without the subsidy?"

When I am asked if I would have done X if the offer wasn't available, I always answer "No". This, I hope, encourages people to give me more offers.

Am I a bad person?

FFScotland

Another problem with wage subsidy schemes, apparently, is that take-up is low.

Employers tend not to want to take on long term unemployed, even with a subsidy. The risk is too high. And they can't be bothered with government bureaucracy, or it's not worth having to deal with internal HR or budget processes.

This means, of course, that Cameron's scheme costs less and does less. He wouldn't stand much chance of signing up 350 000 subsidised employees, even ones that fill vacancies that were open anyway.