Mintball wrote:Here's a thing: why do we keep responding to someone who has so little respect for the rest of the users of this forum and for their own 'arguments' that they have admitted they cannot be bothered even using basic correct punctuation?

JerryChicken wrote:And why was that ?

You can't just wave numbers around like a flag above your head unless you're prepared to stop and think about what it is you're trying to say, there is an obvious reason why unemployment rose from 2008 to 2010 and its the same reason why it has stayed pretty much static from 2010 to 2012 and if any political party wants to take the blame or the credit for that figure then by all means, sew it to their flag and wave it.

The important and most pertinent point that you should be addressing is what can be done to reduce the numbers - assuming that you believe they should be lower in the first place ?

Quote:not least because under Labour, unemployment was reduced.

samwire wrote:does unemployment not count in a recession or something? are they simply a 'price worth paying'?
this statement is simply a lie. nothing more, nothing less. now, you as do several others may like to pretend that 2008-2010 didn't happen, but it did.

JerryChicken wrote:Amazingly I've talked you completely around in a circle, you now seem to be trying to prove to me that unemployment rose in 2008 to 2012 because of the two recessions that occured in that period ?

I already know that, THAT is the point that I was trying to make to you when you asked why unemployment was so high in 2010

Your second quote is not one of mine.

samwire wrote:i know exactly why unemployment went up. it's what tends to happen in a recession. i never asked why unemployment was so high in a recession. you should stop banging your head against the wall, it prevents you reading what's actually written as opposed to what you want to see.

i know the second quote isn't yours, it's from someone who thinks 1.7m/2.0m is a bigger number than 2.5m.

JerryChicken wrote:So you've answered (at last) your own original question.

Good, are we done ?

samwire wrote:not really, no. these stats, whichever you choose show unemployment higher when labour left power than when they arrived. are you suggesting those poor sods who lost their jobs from '08 onwards shouldn't be counted?

JerryChicken wrote:Really ?

The punctuation thing again, putting a question mark at the end of a sentence, sort of turns it into a question you see.

JerryChicken wrote:Deary me, you try and engage some grown up conversation but its not long before the playground kicks in is it ?

Quote:I already know that, THAT is the point that I was trying to make to you when you asked why unemployment was so high in 2010 :WALL: