Damien on… Full Employment
The two words “job creation” are now part of every political stump speech, but the two words you will NEVER hear from a politician are “full employment” – WHY? Buckle up…
To illustrate the answer, we need to invent a small town. Let us call it Anytown. It has 1,000 jobs and 990 workers, meaning when a worker needs a job, they have ten to choose from. This creates a situation where employers are vying for staff, producing high wages and good working conditions.
But then a company sheds twenty workers.
Overnight, the situation CHANGES. Now, when a job is advertised, TEN applicants turn up. This enables ALL companies to immediately LOWER wages – and working conditions.
And all it took was a 2% drop in the number of available positions.
Now as all grown-ups know, politicians and business-owners are inextricably linked – often, they are one and the same. Thus it can be seen why politicians DREAD the concept of full employment.
In Britain, the balance tipped in the early Seventies. Thanks to early automation and forays into “outsourcing” – suddenly there became fewer vacancies open than there were people to fill them. At which point, Britain began its slow descent into the huge steaming pile of crap it is neck-deep in today.
And while the British Party remains in power, nothing will change. A SECOND party is required.
Elsewhere in these columns I have described the phenomenon of the British Party, but since you are HERE – a recap.
For the last CENTURY, Britain has been ruled by a single party. It has two wings; Labour and Tory.
In theory they are TWO “opposing” parties, but over the last hundred years each have steadfastly refused to “out” each other’s sleaze and corruption (use “unparliamentary language”) and every time their wing was in power, moved the electoral boundaries to benefit them.
This last would be fine if the next ruling wing moved them BACK, but they merely move MORE boundaries to benefit THEM.
The net result of which has been to establish the “safe seat” system, where either wing of the British Party can rule with about 40% of the popular vote, but any second party would require a whopping SIXTY.
In this writer’s (sadly, long) lifetime, it has been tried twice. And both attempts crumbled to dust.
In the Eighties, the Gang Of Four got about 25% of the vote – barely less than Labour received – but while Labour ended up with hundreds of safe seats, the Alliance party received fewer than the fingers of a clumsy sawmill operator.
And as they always do, the British public bleated about this obvious corruption – but did nothing.
Then, some 25 years later, along came Sell-out Cleggy (“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m so, so, sorry…”) – about whom I have ALSO written in these columns…
Perhaps, in another quarter-century, it will be third time lucky.