Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden
> It seemed you were suggesting the gov doesnt act like that (employing the few needed to do the job) which is what I said.
No, that's not what I was suggesting.
A friend of mine works as a carer. Due the cuts in local authority budgets, the number of carers employed by the agencies the LA's use has also been cut, so she is having to do home visits that last less than 15 minutes to be able to get through the number of visits she's allocated during the day.
This sometimes means that an elderly person has to make a choice between either being washed or being fed because she doesn't have the time to do both!
Those carers jobs *ARE* needed, but in the quest for savings, fewer and fewer people are being forced to do more and more and, inevitably, the quality of the care suffers.
As for the unemployed, you still fall for the government's constant message that we must "do something" about the "scroungers" despite the fact that they are a tiny fraction of the overall total, yet IDS and his motley crew want us to treat them all the same, so we get the nonsense of people benefits being sanctioned for being late for a Job Centre appointment because they were at a bloody job interview!
> The gov cannot create jobs, only take them away.
That sounds like something that Tim Worstall would argue. I've already pointed out how cuts in Local Authority budgets have resulted in carers being made unemployed. Those are needed jobs, but they have been taken away.