Employment

Press, 21 August 1989, Page 12

Employment

Sir,—l have just completed reading the Budgets of both the Labour Party and the New Labour Party. Mr Caygill is unwilling to intervene in the economy on behalf of the unemployed. His Labour Government’s Budrat refuses any social spend-

ing to create jobs, but Labour Party philosophy states that “all people are entitled to dignity, self-respect and the opportunity to work.’’ Mr Caygill’s widely acclaimed Budget actually envisages a rise of 20,000 more unemployed within the year, although targeting a drop in unemployment numbers to below 100,000 by December, 1992. Meantime, the stated priorities are lowering inflation and the repayment of the public debt. I am heartened by the willingness of the New Labour Party to invest substantially in real job creation for the unemployed. The party’s alternative Budget recognises the plight of the unemployed and the party seems prepared to put its money where its mouth is. — Yours, etc., PAT CONSEDINE. August 15, 1989.

Sir, —You report a boast by the Labour Department of a reduction in the number of Christchurch jobless (August 17). To be recognised and computed as unemployed one must appear as such on the department’s lists. The sophistry used here is an ongoing red herring. The real situation is a “Peter to Paul” one, a redistribution of categories, in fact. It would be interesting to see a “movement table,” if such existed. This would show numbers currently on benefits, such as invalids; sickness, domestic purposes, de facto allowances, etc., who either now or in the past have wanted to work. The sheer misery and demoralisation of long-term dependency can, and does lead to sickness, and destructive lifestyles. The cynical among us might hold no brief for the deprived, but the cost in human terms is intolerable. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. — Yours, etc., RENEE W. ROBERTS. August 17, 1989.