Monday, 20 April 2009

The UNEMPLOYMENT budget

The Budget is set to be announced, highlighting many problems, more expense and detailing how BrowLing have saved Britain.

The 'green shoots of recovery' have been spotted, and it appears a turnaround is not far off. However, unemployment is one area which will be last to be reversed. It is widely estimated that unemployment will continue to rise to 3,250,000 people.
Within twelve months...
House prices may begin to recover, slowly.
Mortgage approvals may increase, slowly.
Share prices will begin to recover, slowly.
Businesses will be able to access credit, and pressure on them will be eased, slowly.
Our massive national debt can then begin to be repaid, very, very slowly.

But unemployment will still rise and it is widely anticipated that this will be the single biggest problem, even after the 'green shoots' begin to flower.

My idea, that I have written to all the relevant ministers and local MPs with, and got no reply whatsoever is

FOR 6 MONTHS, ANYONE IN FULL TIME PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT CANNOT APPLY FOR A NEW JOB. (see the post below for full description)

I have written before about how to solve the unemployment crisis, but to little success in spreading my idea. I am no expert in politics, legislation or employment, so I am aware there will be limitations to my proposal, but in principle, it works, and would make a massive, massive dent in the unemployment figures (and, in turn, monies paid out in benefits).
Please read it and help with suggestions as I am struggling to find any crucial and defining arguments against why it would work.

3 comments:

James said...

It's an interesting idea, not one I'd support, but at least thought-provoking. It's also against the Treaty of Rome, so quite unlikely to happen.

subrosa said...

The problem is people leave jobs for various reasons and not just because they want another/better one. I see your logic though but as James says, there's sure to be something somewhere against it. If he hadn't mentioned the ToR I would have said something in the HR Act.

Political Dissuasion said...

But, as I've gone one to say in an update, the Public Sector employs a preferential/priority system in it's own employment structure, which obviously doesn't contravene any laws, so why would this one be different? Freedom of movement is just as affected under the public sector make-up than my proposal, so I'm sure there's a way past it...