If the aim is to get people into work to cut the benefit budget then work has to pay enough to live on.
If the aim is to get people into work then you'd expect they wait for the results of the 'Keep Britain Working' review (being run by the former chair of JLP) which was set up to study just this.
Toxic rhetoric around benefit cuts has stirred up hatred against disabled people, Tanni Grey-Thompson has said, as campaigners called the government’s planned welfare changes “brutal and reckless”.
Lady Grey-Thompson, a Paralympic champion and cross-bench peer, said she had been contacted by disabled people saying they had been shouted at in the street by passersby telling them they were “going to get their benefits cut”.
This is what buying into this frame of reference does.
Labour is now a party of spreading hatred against minorities because their approach to the economy doesn't work and they refuse to raise taxes on the well- off so they're reduced to attacking vulnerable people either to rob them or as a populist distraction to try and gain more right wing votes.
Utterly unspeakable. The whole lot - the whole thing. Way to the right of Thatcher. I just hope the ghost of Bevin can be summoned to haunt them into insensibility.
Utterly unspeakable. The whole lot - the whole thing. Way to the right of Thatcher. I just hope the ghost of Bevin can be summoned to haunt them into insensibility.
Bevin would certainly want to help those who needed help but he would not have tolerated those perceived to be workshy
You're swallowing their shit without so much as an artificial flavouring. I would seriously reconsider that. They have no interest in anything other than avoiding taxing their ultra-rich paylords. Which is beyond disgusting in any politician, but Labour ones in particular.
You're swallowing their shit without so much as an artificial flavouring. I would seriously reconsider that. They have no interest in anything other than avoiding taxing their ultra-rich paylords. Which is beyond disgusting in any politician, but Labour ones in particular.
My post did not even discuss the taxing of the ultra-rich so what am I supposed to be swallowing ?
You're swallowing their shit without so much as an artificial flavouring. I would seriously reconsider that. They have no interest in anything other than avoiding taxing their ultra-rich paylords. Which is beyond disgusting in any politician, but Labour ones in particular.
My post did not even discuss the taxing of the ultra-rich so what am I supposed to be swallowing ?
The idea that the problem is the "workshy", or that these proposals are intended to help those in "genuine" need.
It's deserving and undeserving poor all over again, topped with a thick layer of victim blaming.
Utterly unspeakable. The whole lot - the whole thing. Way to the right of Thatcher. I just hope the ghost of Bevin can be summoned to haunt them into insensibility.
Bevan, too. He'd probably be able to find the words to describe them; I'm all out.
You're swallowing their shit without so much as an artificial flavouring. I would seriously reconsider that. They have no interest in anything other than avoiding taxing their ultra-rich paylords. Which is beyond disgusting in any politician, but Labour ones in particular.
My post did not even discuss the taxing of the ultra-rich so what am I supposed to be swallowing ?
The idea that the problem is the "workshy", or that these proposals are intended to help those in "genuine" need.
It's deserving and undeserving poor all over again, topped with a thick layer of victim blaming.
Show me the post where I have said that I support the proposals.
Part of the point of dogwhistles like 'workshy' is their deniability. It's a good idea in general though, not to dog whistle if folk don't want others to think they're calling the dog.
Your statement Bevin would certainly want to help those who needed help but he would not have tolerated those perceived to be workshy read as though you believed that some on benefits are "workshy."
You have said Show me the post where I have said that I support the proposals.
You may not have explicitly said that you support the proposals, but that was the clear inference to be drawn from your reference to "the workshy."
If that was not the clear inference, why throw that sentence into the discussion? What was the point of your post? If you are speculating on what the ghost of Bevin, as referenced by Thunderbunk, might or might not do, please address that point clearly.
You needed more than a one-line comment to contribute usefully here.
Having sown confusion, you should clarify your meaning, not add another unhelpful one-liner.
Well well well what a surprise not. More cuts. I never expected this lot to do that. (Sarcasm). They really do sound more like the Cons every day.
Their strategy is mostly; try and get NHS waiting lists down, don't raise any taxes, try and get business to provide part of the social safety net (i.e do it via regulation rather than financial means).
I don't think the latter will work, not least because growth is being stifled by wealth and income inequality. I think the net impact of their changes will less rather than more redistributive, and will thus further impact growth.
They'll then hope to fight the next election on; Reform? Aren't they crazy? But yeah, push them left, eh?
Well well well what a surprise not. More cuts. I never expected this lot to do that. (Sarcasm). They really do sound more like the Cons every day.
Their strategy is mostly; try and get NHS waiting lists down, don't raise any taxes, try and get business to provide part of the social safety net (i.e do it via regulation rather than financial means).
I don't think the latter will work, not least because growth is being stifled by wealth and income inequality. I think the net impact of their changes will less rather than more redistributive, and will thus further impact growth.
They'll then hope to fight the next election on; Reform? Aren't they crazy?
Some Businesses know how to ways around paying. Some are good some are not. The public/private partnership under Blair did not lead to any of his stated aims. The same will be true for Starmer. Businesses need to make money to survive. Those with shareholders are obliged to make a return on the money invested in them. We have seen too many private companies in utilities for instance prioritising shareholders and profits over service.
Well well well what a surprise not. More cuts. I never expected this lot to do that. (Sarcasm). They really do sound more like the Cons every day.
Their strategy is mostly; try and get NHS waiting lists down, don't raise any taxes, try and get business to provide part of the social safety net (i.e do it via regulation rather than financial means).
I don't think the latter will work, not least because growth is being stifled by wealth and income inequality. I think the net impact of their changes will less rather than more redistributive, and will thus further impact growth.
They'll then hope to fight the next election on; Reform? Aren't they crazy?
Some Businesses know how to ways around paying. Some are good some are not. The public/private partnership under Blair did not lead to any of his stated aims. The same will be true for Starmer. Businesses need to make money to survive.
As I said above; it won't work for numerous reasons, apart from the failure to find the magic growth button (and really I think they assumed growth would just 'revert to mean' once 'competent people' - them - were in charge) it looks like the world economy is about to tip into recession.
The only logical conclusion is that we have an invincibly stupid population who needs to be forced to the point of starvation to accept education. In the meantime we rely on educated people from elsewhere. I don't like saying this at all but it's just about the only explanation of that conundrum.
I know enough intelligent and well educated people who can't get a job to know it isn't that.
What do you think it is then? And how do you think it should be fixed?
The only logical conclusion is that we have an invincibly stupid population who needs to be forced to the point of starvation to accept education. In the meantime we rely on educated people from elsewhere. I don't like saying this at all but it's just about the only explanation of that conundrum.
I know enough intelligent and well educated people who can't get a job to know it isn't that.
What do you think it is then? And how do you think it should be fixed?
You mean "why do intelligent and well-educated people not have jobs"?
Lots of different reasons, but among them would be:
1. There are jobs for people with my skills, but not where I live, and I have family / caring responsibilities that makes moving somewhere else difficult.
2. There are jobs for people with my skills locally, but I'm old and nobody wants to hire me.
3. My skills are in a niche area that is currently in a period of low demand, so there may be plenty of jobs doing other things, but not what I'm good at.
And one of the challenges with 3 is that you say "well, OK, I'll get some generic job then", and you go along to interview for your generic job, and they look at your vast array of expertise in some small niche area and know full well that the minute an opportunity appears in your area, you'll be off, and so they don't hire you.
And there's an occasional contribution from
4. I've got lots of education, but less common sense than a chocolate teapot.
And quite possibly some "I need to hire 10,000 nurses, and what I've got is a pool of theatre critics."
And quite possibly some "I need to hire 10,000 nurses, and what I've got is a pool of theatre critics."
It's not quite that stark, but specifically in the case with nurses, the previous government restricted the number of training places available quite significantly which led to shortfall that extends into recent times.
And quite possibly some "I need to hire 10,000 nurses, and what I've got is a pool of theatre critics."
It's not quite that stark, but specifically in the case with nurses, the previous government restricted the number of training places available quite significantly which led to shortfall that extends into recent times.
I suspect salary attainable vs level of student debt has also been a major disincentive.
The only logical conclusion is that we have an invincibly stupid population who needs to be forced to the point of starvation to accept education. In the meantime we rely on educated people from elsewhere. I don't like saying this at all but it's just about the only explanation of that conundrum.
I know enough intelligent and well educated people who can't get a job to know it isn't that.
What do you think it is then? And how do you think it should be fixed?
Too few jobs. You've got hundreds of applications for every position. And you can't scattergun by making 100s of applications because an untailored application stands out and is binned. And there are multiple rounds of interviews, group and individual, so you simply cannot pursue multiple applications. Backsliderlet #1 finds the first stage these days is often a 20min interview online - no actual interviewer at the other end - and you have to get through that first before you even get to talk to the recruiter.
You can't - well you can, but you're wasting your time - go for basic jobs while waiting for the "good fit" to come along because employers won't take on people overqualified.
Another major thing is you're competing - even for "entry level" jobs - against people who already have experience in the job - perhaps a product of our "no more jobs for life expect to keep moving on" high churn jobs market.
What to do about it? Now you're asking. Buggered if I know. I know it's tough out there and victim blaming 'solutions', like any simple solution, are simplistic and basically wrong.
The only logical conclusion is that we have an invincibly stupid population who needs to be forced to the point of starvation to accept education. In the meantime we rely on educated people from elsewhere. I don't like saying this at all but it's just about the only explanation of that conundrum.
I know enough intelligent and well educated people who can't get a job to know it isn't that.
What do you think it is then? And how do you think it should be fixed?
You mean "why do intelligent and well-educated people not have jobs"?
Lots of different reasons, but among them would be:
1. There are jobs for people with my skills, but not where I live, and I have family / caring responsibilities that makes moving somewhere else difficult.
2. There are jobs for people with my skills locally, but I'm old and nobody wants to hire me.
3. My skills are in a niche area that is currently in a period of low demand, so there may be plenty of jobs doing other things, but not what I'm good at.
And one of the challenges with 3 is that you say "well, OK, I'll get some generic job then", and you go along to interview for your generic job, and they look at your vast array of expertise in some small niche area and know full well that the minute an opportunity appears in your area, you'll be off, and so they don't hire you.
And there's an occasional contribution from
4. I've got lots of education, but less common sense than a chocolate teapot.
And quite possibly some "I need to hire 10,000 nurses, and what I've got is a pool of theatre critics."
We can add 1a - there are jobs for people with my skills, but I can't afford to live near enough to commute to them, because bizarrely despite my skills and experience the jobs in question are being posted at only marginally above minimum wage.
Around here, I've seen senior IT Sysadmin jobs at well under £35K. Given I work for an ICB I may be stuck applying for one of them soon.
Missed edit window to add - the narrative too often is "if people have the skills they can get the jobs". The truth is it's more "if people have the skills they qualify to compete with 500 other people for a job"
Missed edit window to add - the narrative too often is "if people have the skills they can get the jobs". The truth is it's more "if people have the skills they qualify to compete with 500 other people for a job"
And if they don't get it, they'll be humiliated and demonised and even starved - thanks to out right-wing media and right wing governments whipping up hate and suspicion against people who are unemployed.
Missed edit window to add - the narrative too often is "if people have the skills they can get the jobs". The truth is it's more "if people have the skills they qualify to compete with 500 other people for a job"
And if they don't get it, they'll be humiliated and demonised and even starved - thanks to out right-wing media and right wing governments whipping up hate and suspicion against people who are unemployed.
We can add 1a - there are jobs for people with my skills, but I can't afford to live near enough to commute to them, because bizarrely despite my skills and experience the jobs in question are being posted at only marginally above minimum wage.
Around here, I've seen senior IT Sysadmin jobs at well under £35K. Given I work for an ICB I may be stuck applying for one of them soon.
There are multiple fields in which the UK Job market is strangely inefficient - and where the same jobs appear in different strata with wildly different pay (and where that difference isn't easily attributable to location or business vertical). If you dip into jobs related sub-reddits it seems to be a persistent pattern.
When good jobs are sent abroad it should not come as a surprise that there are fewer available.
We need to creat jobs by seriously rebuilding our industries instead of importing things from abroad.
If we create jobs making things we currently import what makes you think they would be good jobs? Surely the reason they're made elsewhere is because it's cheaper.
When good jobs are sent abroad it should not come as a surprise that there are fewer available.
We need to creat jobs by seriously rebuilding our industries instead of importing things from abroad.
If we create jobs making things we currently import what makes you think they would be good jobs? Surely the reason they're made elsewhere is because it's cheaper.
These imports would not be cheaper if there were targetted tariffs. Without a successful private sector we are in trouble
When good jobs are sent abroad it should not come as a surprise that there are fewer available.
We need to creat jobs by seriously rebuilding our industries instead of importing things from abroad.
If we create jobs making things we currently import what makes you think they would be good jobs? Surely the reason they're made elsewhere is because it's cheaper.
These imports would not be cheaper if there were targetted tariffs. Without a successful private sector we are in trouble
As the Americans are discovering, the raw materials to make things will also be hit by tariffs and push the cost of manufacturing things at "home" sky high.
When good jobs are sent abroad it should not come as a surprise that there are fewer available.
We need to creat jobs by seriously rebuilding our industries instead of importing things from abroad.
If we create jobs making things we currently import what makes you think they would be good jobs? Surely the reason they're made elsewhere is because it's cheaper.
These imports would not be cheaper if there were targetted tariffs. Without a successful private sector we are in trouble
As the Americans are discovering, the raw materials to make things will also be hit by tariffs and push the cost of manufacturing things at "home" sky high.
To be honest, putting to one side for a fleeting moment the real terms and real time misery being inflicted all over the place by current US tariff idiocy, IMO there’s at least a tiny glimmer of silver lining in providing a worked example of the downside for modern times.
It *ought* to put back to bed what is (in honesty) a superficially enticing idea. So it’s depressing the fox needs to be shot again, but given it apparently does…
When good jobs are sent abroad it should not come as a surprise that there are fewer available.
We need to creat jobs by seriously rebuilding our industries instead of importing things from abroad.
Let's not forget that it was the Tories under Thatcher who systematically dismantled our heavy industry. That party has been in power for 31 of the last 46 years, so we are largely talking damage inflicted by them.
I also recall we were told that after Brexit companies wouldn't be sold off to EU owners again. Which, funnily enough, has turned out to be a lie as well.
Given that Blair was pretty Thatcherite and Starmer is a red tie Tory, how the hell are we going to stop flogging off the family silver abroad?
We certainly can't expect people to wave their Union Flags and "Buy British" if they can't afford to.
When good jobs are sent abroad it should not come as a surprise that there are fewer available.
We need to creat jobs by seriously rebuilding our industries instead of importing things from abroad.
If we create jobs making things we currently import what makes you think they would be good jobs? Surely the reason they're made elsewhere is because it's cheaper.
These imports would not be cheaper if there were targetted tariffs. Without a successful private sector we are in trouble
We have a successful private sector. The problem is that it's been successfully funneling the proceeds of that success to the already wealthy for the last 40+ years. Massive gains in productivity have increased profits but real wages have stagnated.
With due respect, rather than fixating on blame for past ills, surely it would be better that time is spent looking at the shifting world order and how we try to build resilience?
Today's news tells us that Ms Reeves is being urged to back-off on plans to tax the Tech giants to appease the US and (so the argument goes) avoid tarriffs. My instinct would be to say this will not work because (a) we are dealing with someone set to permanent random mode, and (b) it would be seen (correctly) as weakness so further pressure may be exerted.
Still the fact we are more a service economy than a manufacturing one and have to rely on imports a lot is Thatcher’s fault. If we are to reverse that we need to get her worshipers in the Cons on our side.
We where we are. Labour government which behaves more like a Con one.
I agree with not cutting the tech tax just to appease Trump. I'd not be opposed to a deal with the tech giants that they can avoid some or all of that tax if they take adequate steps to deal with the problems their business models create - enforcing age restrictions on access, taking significant steps to reducing harmful content and compliance on UK legislation re: hate speech, functioning systems to reduce misinformation etc.
With due respect, rather than fixating on blame for past ills, surely it would be better that time is spent looking at the shifting world order and how we try to build resilience?
It is important to understand past failures in order to both remedy them and avoid repeating them.
Further, people emerging with their reputations intact after policy failure has a deleterious effect both on public discourse/understanding and sets future incentives.
It's widely recognised by economists that the austerity was both bad policy (unless your goal was narrowly to shrink the state), resulted in nearly 15 years of economic stagnation and represents a lost opportunity to invest at a point where interest rates were at historical lows.
Avoiding a proper reckoning has meant that the architect of that policy continues to appear in the media giving out economic advice, while the current chancellor has the political space to enact a similar set of policies (against a backdrop of economists in the FT pleading her to reconsider and telling her that she can't cut her way to growth).
With due respect, rather than fixating on blame for past ills, surely it would be better that time is spent looking at the shifting world order and how we try to build resilience?
It is important to understand past failures in order to both remedy them and avoid repeating them.
I agree, but understand and move on. Furthermore, the economic woes are not the only failures of the period 1980-now - I would say we need to take a long, dispassionate look at the education system, the insistence on "uni for all" (and in case you missed it there's another massive scandalous fraud being unearthed there), the complete lunacy of being the only EU state to allow unfettered immigration from new member states post 1997, and the development - encouragement almost - of a mindset that certain jobs were beneath Brits.
Further, people emerging with their reputations intact after policy failure has a deleterious effect both on public discourse/understanding and sets future incentives.
I agree, but there are more names that should be in the frame than just that of Mrs Thatcher.
It's widely recognised by economists that the austerity was both bad policy (unless your goal was narrowly to shrink the state), resulted in nearly 15 years of economic stagnation and represents a lost opportunity to invest at a point where interest rates were at historical lows.
I agree - and again, it is politicians of all stripes that should be in the dock on this one.
I'd say you'd have to include many of the so-called Watchdogs which allowed barely disguised hollowing out of certain sectors - water being the classic example - and the complete failure of bodies such as the medical Royal Colleges to point out the complete disconnect between needing more trained staff yet being complicit in no new training places being funded, and the time bomb of a massive reduction in hospital beds at a time when the population was not only increasing but getting older and needing more in-hospital care.
Avoiding a proper reckoning has meant that the architect of that policy continues to appear in the media giving out economic advice, while the current chancellor has the political space to enact a similar set of policies (against a backdrop of economists in the FT pleading her to reconsider and telling her that she can't cut her way to growth).
Which architect are you thinking of? I can give you a list of at least 10, and not all politicians.
The unpalatable truth is that we all want the government to fund more of whichever is our pet hobby horse but few of us are prepared to pay more tax. It isn't just that politicians lie to the electorate: we, the public, lie to ourselves. The classic example being the nonsense surrounding social care: we all want granny to be looked after, most people aren't prepared/can't afford to do it themselves, and everybody wants "the state" to pay for it so we can inherit granny's house: that is a square and nothing will make it a circle. And the same goes with prisons - nobody wants to pay for more, decent, prisons, let alone have them built anywhere near where they live. I could go on ...
I for one would pay a bit more tax if it lead to better public services. I think the time when ordinary people didn’t want to pay some extra tax has gone. We want better services and understand that to get those we need to pay a bit more. The problem is people don’t trust politicians to spend it on what is needed. It used to be that someone dodging tax was seen as someone sticking it to the system. That is not the case anymore.
With due respect, rather than fixating on blame for past ills, surely it would be better that time is spent looking at the shifting world order and how we try to build resilience?
It is important to understand past failures in order to both remedy them and avoid repeating them.
I agree, but understand and move on. Furthermore, the economic woes are not the only failures of the period 1980-now - I would say we need to take a long, dispassionate look at the education system, the insistence on "uni for all"
Such a "look" would need to start with myth-busting. No UK government has ever had a "uni for all" policy. Nor has there ever been (to forestall the next myth) a "50% going to university" target. The target was "50% with some experience of higher education". That means N/SVQ level 4, it means HNCs completed part time while working. It's not, and never has been, "push everyone through A-levels and on to 3-4 year undergraduate degrees".
With due respect, rather than fixating on blame for past ills, surely it would be better that time is spent looking at the shifting world order and how we try to build resilience?
It is important to understand past failures in order to both remedy them and avoid repeating them.
I agree, but understand and move on. Furthermore, the economic woes are not the only failures of the period 1980-now
It's a major failure which dominates the political landscape, and many other issues are either insignificant by comparison or downstream of it.
I agree, but there are more names that should be in the frame than just that of Mrs Thatcher.
To a point; but it's important to name those that continue to have an outsize influence on the political landscape (and to be clear my issues are with that entire period, including much of Blairism so-called, not just whatever went on in the 80s).
Which architect are you thinking of? I can give you a list of at least 10, and not all politicians.
In this particular case Osborne - primarily because while there were intellectuals who had always pushed for austerity - he was the one who implemented, and clearly used it as a cover to do what he wanted to do anyway - which is shrink the state. He's also the one who keeps re-appearing in the media as a pundit.
I wouldn't have any objection if you want to add the Tufton St organisations to that list, that the IEA/TPA/ASI continue to be taken seriously - especially after the Truss debacle - really underscores the malaise in the media.
The unpalatable truth is that we all want the government to fund more of whichever is our pet hobby horse but few of us are prepared to pay more tax. It isn't just that politicians lie to the electorate: we, the public, lie to ourselves.
This doesn't appear to be true; while it shows up in push polling on the narrow issues of taxes, longitudinal surveys that cover a range of issues as well as their salience consistently show that most people are in favour of more spending, even if that meant taxes would rise. Here's the BSA for instance:
With due respect, rather than fixating on blame for past ills, surely it would be better that time is spent looking at the shifting world order and how we try to build resilience?
It is important to understand past failures in order to both remedy them and avoid repeating them.
I agree, but understand and move on. Furthermore, the economic woes are not the only failures of the period 1980-now - I would say we need to take a long, dispassionate look at the education system, the insistence on "uni for all"
Such a "look" would need to start with myth-busting. No UK government has ever had a "uni for all" policy. Nor has there ever been (to forestall the next myth) a "50% going to university" target. The target was "50% with some experience of higher education". That means N/SVQ level 4, it means HNCs completed part time while working. It's not, and never has been, "push everyone through A-levels and on to 3-4 year undergraduate degrees".
I think the dissatisfaction with the education system starts way before advanced level. Being somewhat advanced in years I look to my children for more recent information and reaction to the exam system we have now, and their main beef is that it is unfair at GCSE level. As they say, some of their friends had little or no hope of getting the "magic five" at a level where any employer would see it as worthwhile, yet these friends of theirs were forced to prepare for exams they knew they were, effectively, going to fail - and they regard that as deliberate cruelty.
Meanwhile, what to do with the 50% without some experience of higher education? These children are not stupid, but shoehorning them into a system that only sees worth in a straight academic approach not only isn't fair, it isn't working for either the child or the country.
Originally posted by The Organist: The unpalatable truth is that we all want the government to fund more of whichever is our pet hobby horse but few of us are prepared to pay more tax.
In 1997, 63.5% of those who voted in Scotland voted in favour of Holyrood having "tax-varying powers" which was generally understood to mean "more tax."
As higher-rate tax payers the North East household pays more tax here in Scotland than we would if we lived in England and we are happy to pay it. We voted in favour of "more tax" in 1997, and have never wavered from that.
I also pay more tax in Scotland than I would elsewhere in the UK. I pay may taxes so that those less fortunate than myself can have some help, much of which can only be supplied by the state (other help, such as through foodbanks, can be provided by the third sector and I support these, but only the state can really manage to supply quality education for our children, universal health care, social services, disability benefits etc).
I'd happily pay more tax if that means better services to those in need (including overseas aid).
Comments
If the aim is to get people into work then you'd expect they wait for the results of the 'Keep Britain Working' review (being run by the former chair of JLP) which was set up to study just this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/18/tanni-grey-thompson-disability-campaigners-criticising-brutal-benefit-cuts
This is what buying into this frame of reference does.
Labour is now a party of spreading hatred against minorities because their approach to the economy doesn't work and they refuse to raise taxes on the well- off so they're reduced to attacking vulnerable people either to rob them or as a populist distraction to try and gain more right wing votes.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/19/reeves-to-reveal-biggest-uk-spending-cuts-since-austerity-in-spring-statement
Bevin would certainly want to help those who needed help but he would not have tolerated those perceived to be workshy
My post did not even discuss the taxing of the ultra-rich so what am I supposed to be swallowing ?
The idea that the problem is the "workshy", or that these proposals are intended to help those in "genuine" need.
It's deserving and undeserving poor all over again, topped with a thick layer of victim blaming.
Bevan, too. He'd probably be able to find the words to describe them; I'm all out.
Show me the post where I have said that I support the proposals.
Yeah, bunch of con artists indeed ... We could have done with our Winter Fuel Allowance ....Glad we voted Lib Dem!
@Telford, this is a discussion board.
Your statement Bevin would certainly want to help those who needed help but he would not have tolerated those perceived to be workshy read as though you believed that some on benefits are "workshy."
You have said Show me the post where I have said that I support the proposals.
You may not have explicitly said that you support the proposals, but that was the clear inference to be drawn from your reference to "the workshy."
If that was not the clear inference, why throw that sentence into the discussion? What was the point of your post? If you are speculating on what the ghost of Bevin, as referenced by Thunderbunk, might or might not do, please address that point clearly.
You needed more than a one-line comment to contribute usefully here.
Having sown confusion, you should clarify your meaning, not add another unhelpful one-liner.
Hostly hat off
North East Quine, Purgatory host
Their strategy is mostly; try and get NHS waiting lists down, don't raise any taxes, try and get business to provide part of the social safety net (i.e do it via regulation rather than financial means).
I don't think the latter will work, not least because growth is being stifled by wealth and income inequality. I think the net impact of their changes will less rather than more redistributive, and will thus further impact growth.
They'll then hope to fight the next election on; Reform? Aren't they crazy? But yeah, push them left, eh?
Some Businesses know how to ways around paying. Some are good some are not. The public/private partnership under Blair did not lead to any of his stated aims. The same will be true for Starmer. Businesses need to make money to survive. Those with shareholders are obliged to make a return on the money invested in them. We have seen too many private companies in utilities for instance prioritising shareholders and profits over service.
As I said above; it won't work for numerous reasons, apart from the failure to find the magic growth button (and really I think they assumed growth would just 'revert to mean' once 'competent people' - them - were in charge) it looks like the world economy is about to tip into recession.
What do you think it is then? And how do you think it should be fixed?
You mean "why do intelligent and well-educated people not have jobs"?
Lots of different reasons, but among them would be:
1. There are jobs for people with my skills, but not where I live, and I have family / caring responsibilities that makes moving somewhere else difficult.
2. There are jobs for people with my skills locally, but I'm old and nobody wants to hire me.
3. My skills are in a niche area that is currently in a period of low demand, so there may be plenty of jobs doing other things, but not what I'm good at.
And one of the challenges with 3 is that you say "well, OK, I'll get some generic job then", and you go along to interview for your generic job, and they look at your vast array of expertise in some small niche area and know full well that the minute an opportunity appears in your area, you'll be off, and so they don't hire you.
And there's an occasional contribution from
4. I've got lots of education, but less common sense than a chocolate teapot.
And quite possibly some "I need to hire 10,000 nurses, and what I've got is a pool of theatre critics."
It's not quite that stark, but specifically in the case with nurses, the previous government restricted the number of training places available quite significantly which led to shortfall that extends into recent times.
I suspect salary attainable vs level of student debt has also been a major disincentive.
Too few jobs. You've got hundreds of applications for every position. And you can't scattergun by making 100s of applications because an untailored application stands out and is binned. And there are multiple rounds of interviews, group and individual, so you simply cannot pursue multiple applications. Backsliderlet #1 finds the first stage these days is often a 20min interview online - no actual interviewer at the other end - and you have to get through that first before you even get to talk to the recruiter.
You can't - well you can, but you're wasting your time - go for basic jobs while waiting for the "good fit" to come along because employers won't take on people overqualified.
Another major thing is you're competing - even for "entry level" jobs - against people who already have experience in the job - perhaps a product of our "no more jobs for life expect to keep moving on" high churn jobs market.
What to do about it? Now you're asking. Buggered if I know. I know it's tough out there and victim blaming 'solutions', like any simple solution, are simplistic and basically wrong.
We can add 1a - there are jobs for people with my skills, but I can't afford to live near enough to commute to them, because bizarrely despite my skills and experience the jobs in question are being posted at only marginally above minimum wage.
Around here, I've seen senior IT Sysadmin jobs at well under £35K. Given I work for an ICB I may be stuck applying for one of them soon.
And if they don't get it, they'll be humiliated and demonised and even starved - thanks to out right-wing media and right wing governments whipping up hate and suspicion against people who are unemployed.
Because we are spongers, on our £91.05 a week.
There are multiple fields in which the UK Job market is strangely inefficient - and where the same jobs appear in different strata with wildly different pay (and where that difference isn't easily attributable to location or business vertical). If you dip into jobs related sub-reddits it seems to be a persistent pattern.
We need to creat jobs by seriously rebuilding our industries instead of importing things from abroad.
If we create jobs making things we currently import what makes you think they would be good jobs? Surely the reason they're made elsewhere is because it's cheaper.
These imports would not be cheaper if there were targetted tariffs. Without a successful private sector we are in trouble
As the Americans are discovering, the raw materials to make things will also be hit by tariffs and push the cost of manufacturing things at "home" sky high.
To be honest, putting to one side for a fleeting moment the real terms and real time misery being inflicted all over the place by current US tariff idiocy, IMO there’s at least a tiny glimmer of silver lining in providing a worked example of the downside for modern times.
It *ought* to put back to bed what is (in honesty) a superficially enticing idea. So it’s depressing the fox needs to be shot again, but given it apparently does…
Let's not forget that it was the Tories under Thatcher who systematically dismantled our heavy industry. That party has been in power for 31 of the last 46 years, so we are largely talking damage inflicted by them.
I also recall we were told that after Brexit companies wouldn't be sold off to EU owners again. Which, funnily enough, has turned out to be a lie as well.
Given that Blair was pretty Thatcherite and Starmer is a red tie Tory, how the hell are we going to stop flogging off the family silver abroad?
We certainly can't expect people to wave their Union Flags and "Buy British" if they can't afford to.
But that's OK, because she was blue.
We have a successful private sector. The problem is that it's been successfully funneling the proceeds of that success to the already wealthy for the last 40+ years. Massive gains in productivity have increased profits but real wages have stagnated.
Today's news tells us that Ms Reeves is being urged to back-off on plans to tax the Tech giants to appease the US and (so the argument goes) avoid tarriffs. My instinct would be to say this will not work because (a) we are dealing with someone set to permanent random mode, and (b) it would be seen (correctly) as weakness so further pressure may be exerted.
We where we are. Labour government which behaves more like a Con one.
It is important to understand past failures in order to both remedy them and avoid repeating them.
Further, people emerging with their reputations intact after policy failure has a deleterious effect both on public discourse/understanding and sets future incentives.
It's widely recognised by economists that the austerity was both bad policy (unless your goal was narrowly to shrink the state), resulted in nearly 15 years of economic stagnation and represents a lost opportunity to invest at a point where interest rates were at historical lows.
Avoiding a proper reckoning has meant that the architect of that policy continues to appear in the media giving out economic advice, while the current chancellor has the political space to enact a similar set of policies (against a backdrop of economists in the FT pleading her to reconsider and telling her that she can't cut her way to growth).
I agree, but understand and move on. Furthermore, the economic woes are not the only failures of the period 1980-now - I would say we need to take a long, dispassionate look at the education system, the insistence on "uni for all" (and in case you missed it there's another massive scandalous fraud being unearthed there), the complete lunacy of being the only EU state to allow unfettered immigration from new member states post 1997, and the development - encouragement almost - of a mindset that certain jobs were beneath Brits.
I agree, but there are more names that should be in the frame than just that of Mrs Thatcher.
I agree - and again, it is politicians of all stripes that should be in the dock on this one.
I'd say you'd have to include many of the so-called Watchdogs which allowed barely disguised hollowing out of certain sectors - water being the classic example - and the complete failure of bodies such as the medical Royal Colleges to point out the complete disconnect between needing more trained staff yet being complicit in no new training places being funded, and the time bomb of a massive reduction in hospital beds at a time when the population was not only increasing but getting older and needing more in-hospital care.
Which architect are you thinking of? I can give you a list of at least 10, and not all politicians.
The unpalatable truth is that we all want the government to fund more of whichever is our pet hobby horse but few of us are prepared to pay more tax. It isn't just that politicians lie to the electorate: we, the public, lie to ourselves. The classic example being the nonsense surrounding social care: we all want granny to be looked after, most people aren't prepared/can't afford to do it themselves, and everybody wants "the state" to pay for it so we can inherit granny's house: that is a square and nothing will make it a circle. And the same goes with prisons - nobody wants to pay for more, decent, prisons, let alone have them built anywhere near where they live. I could go on ...
Such a "look" would need to start with myth-busting. No UK government has ever had a "uni for all" policy. Nor has there ever been (to forestall the next myth) a "50% going to university" target. The target was "50% with some experience of higher education". That means N/SVQ level 4, it means HNCs completed part time while working. It's not, and never has been, "push everyone through A-levels and on to 3-4 year undergraduate degrees".
It's a major failure which dominates the political landscape, and many other issues are either insignificant by comparison or downstream of it.
To a point; but it's important to name those that continue to have an outsize influence on the political landscape (and to be clear my issues are with that entire period, including much of Blairism so-called, not just whatever went on in the 80s).
In this particular case Osborne - primarily because while there were intellectuals who had always pushed for austerity - he was the one who implemented, and clearly used it as a cover to do what he wanted to do anyway - which is shrink the state. He's also the one who keeps re-appearing in the media as a pundit.
I wouldn't have any objection if you want to add the Tufton St organisations to that list, that the IEA/TPA/ASI continue to be taken seriously - especially after the Truss debacle - really underscores the malaise in the media.
This doesn't appear to be true; while it shows up in push polling on the narrow issues of taxes, longitudinal surveys that cover a range of issues as well as their salience consistently show that most people are in favour of more spending, even if that meant taxes would rise. Here's the BSA for instance:
https://natcen.ac.uk/news/majority-britain-back-more-tax-more-spend
https://natcen.ac.uk/public-support-higher-taxes-remains-steady-whilst-dissatisfaction-nhs-grows
I think the dissatisfaction with the education system starts way before advanced level. Being somewhat advanced in years I look to my children for more recent information and reaction to the exam system we have now, and their main beef is that it is unfair at GCSE level. As they say, some of their friends had little or no hope of getting the "magic five" at a level where any employer would see it as worthwhile, yet these friends of theirs were forced to prepare for exams they knew they were, effectively, going to fail - and they regard that as deliberate cruelty.
Meanwhile, what to do with the 50% without some experience of higher education? These children are not stupid, but shoehorning them into a system that only sees worth in a straight academic approach not only isn't fair, it isn't working for either the child or the country.
The unpalatable truth is that we all want the government to fund more of whichever is our pet hobby horse but few of us are prepared to pay more tax.
In 1997, 63.5% of those who voted in Scotland voted in favour of Holyrood having "tax-varying powers" which was generally understood to mean "more tax."
As higher-rate tax payers the North East household pays more tax here in Scotland than we would if we lived in England and we are happy to pay it. We voted in favour of "more tax" in 1997, and have never wavered from that.
I'd happily pay more tax if that means better services to those in need (including overseas aid).