Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to press ahead with savage welfare cuts, describing the current system as “unsustainable, indefensible and unfair”.

Although I always worked hard and tried to do a good job, I still found many jobs soul destroying and pride never came into it. So obviously did not have the right attitude.

At least I was able to keep a roof over our heads, buy food and pay bills even if it meant taking on weekend or evening work in addition to my day job. I didn't usually have to do it for too long to get us out of a hole but now it is a way of life for many people.

I naively hoped that things might improve for the next generation, especially for women. How wrong I was!

Luckygirl3

There is a young man round here who works for a courier company - I am sure he would be classified as having a dead end job in may people's eyes.

But he does it well and thoroughly - he greets me by name - he puts parcels where I can reach them if I am out - he asks how I am - he smiles - he uses his intelligence and imagination of he finds me not in. We all love him round here, and I am sure he gets lots more job satisfaction by doing his job well. He certainly gets lots of good feedback from us all and can go home each evening knowing his job has been well done and he has made a difference to people's lives.

Hear, hear!

I think that is the intention, Doodledog, but reading/hearing it so soon after the sweeping changes in the US, it is bound to conjure up similar spectres in the UK.

He hasn't exactly "vowed to press ahead with savage welfare cuts"

Note these emphasised phrases (my emphasis) in what he said "“A wasted generation. One in eight young people not in education, employment or training and the people who really need that safety net still not always getting the dignity they deserve.
“That’s unsustainable, it’s indefensible and it is unfair – people feel that in their bones.
“It runs contrary to those deep British values that if you can work, you should. And if you want to work, the government should support you, not stop you.”

The OP is an inflammatory post (as so many of FGT's posts are. I suspect that it is FGT's intention to get another argument animated thread going.) The news item is also inflammatory. - The way the Telegraph reports it is again as could have been predicted.

Wyllow3

Babs03

For approx 15 years we have faced swingeing cuts, and been told it has to be done, but as was said on the politics show yesterday, when does austerity end and all the money saved with these cuts actually filter through to the public?
Nothing is improving, public services are on their knees, bills are sky high, and yet we are told worse times are ahead.
Isn’t there a case for borrowing to spend more rather than just cut, cut, cut, because a confident public buy, buy, buy, and do the economy benefits.
Am sure my idea will be shot down in flames, but let’s be honest, the present death by a thousand cuts isn’t working either.

I've read what say Maizie says on borrowing many times, trouble is tbh I don't understand enough about it so can't join in properly tho feel inclined to agree up to a certain point.

Basically, 'borrowing' is the sale of government bonds (and the provision of government savings accounts), originally, when currency was still on the gold standard and governments theoretically had a finite amount of money, it was done to raise money to finance government spending. Wealthy people bought them because they provided them with a safe and reliable income from the interest paid on them. So, although the money was 'borrowed' people actually wanted to invest money in the government and didn't necessarily want to be paid back.

The 'not wanting the money paid back' applies just as much today as it did 100+ years ago. The 'danger' people see in bonds is that the government won't be able to pay the interest on them. Which, in a stable economy where governments issue their own money, is highly unlikely.

It's also proposed that the interest payments divert government money from spending on other things. But, as the government can issue money any time it cares to, this is unlikely too. Unless, as in the austerity years, and sadly with the current government, a political choice is made not to spend new money into the economy.

I am appalled by the idea of cuts to welfare; our system is hardly over generous as it is, thanks to previous tory cuts and several of the reasons people have already noted for the payment of PIPs are a result of those previous cuts. Government not spending enough on health care or the agencies set up to help people 'back into work'.

If the government has to find money from somewhere to pay for increased defence spending I think they should be looking at taxing the wealthy more. Just as Keynes advised in his WW2 publication 'How to Pay for the War. He said it was unfair for the less well off to bear the brunt of the expense of the war.

There is plenty of scope for taxing the wealthy more; even equalising the rates charged on earned and unearned income would make a big contribution.

Apologies for boring people about government borrowing. If our patriots who have then are really worried about the government shelling out money in interest perhaps they should ask for repayment of their Premium Bonds.

Barleyfields

I couldn’t agree more with all you have said Baggs. Even the most mundane job should be something you take pride in and do to the best of your ability. A lot of us feel that about housework, for which we don’t get paid.

First thing Starmer has said that I have agreed with - I hope something is actually done about the people who can work but won’t.

My late MIL was German and she often told us how shop assistants were so much better trained in what they were selling than over here.

She gave the example of a young girl she knew who was not academic and worked in a shoe store. She was taught all about different leathers, fitting shoes, how the shoes were made etc. there was nothing she didn’t know about footwear and took great pride in her job.

In our small village I know of three graduates who have been without jobs since leaving university one, two and three years ago. They seem unprepared to take anything that will just give them a wage, they want a lot more than the minimum wage as they have a degree, no into work skills as none have ever had a part time job or have ever ventured outside their middle class bubble. Parents are tearing their hair out but continue to support them by providing holidays etc. Where is the incentive to work?

I have several friends who receive Attendance Allowance. This is not means tested, why not? The friends do have health problems but are all well above the poverty line and could easily fund the extra help they need such as a cleaner, gardener or ready meals. They treat it as a treat-fund, not what it was designed for.

Putting this in Chat doesn’t mean it’s not news n politics FGT.

Starmer didn’t announce ‘savage cuts’. He’s absolutely right in describing our benefits system as unsustainable. Is it fair that people who find themselves out of work for the first time, having worked and paid in to the system, find themselves struggling on lower benefits than others who are long term unemployed.
I hope the review will address for example, the DLA/PIP payments drug addicts with eg kidney disease are benefitting from. Also explore whether investing in parenting skills classes will benefit children and families so we have less children needing extra benefits because of ADHD.

I recognise the scenario on attendance allowance described by Gin, though i recognise the costs involved in means testing

Yes, NHS delays and long covid are factors but so is the fact that there are people who have no intention of working, well other than cash paid jobs alongside their benefits.

We need a safety net, people should be treated with dignity and the expectation should be we all work unless there are significant reasons preventing it.

MaizieD wrote Apologies for boring people about government borrowing. If our patriots who have them are really worried about the government shelling out money in interest perhaps they should ask for repayment of their Premium Bonds.

Could not agree more. $5 billion a year in interest aka prize money that is distributed so unevenly most people receiving little or nothing.

According to Disability Rights UK:

… children’s disability benefits remain a relatively small part of public spending … the cost £4 billion in 2023-24…

Which would people rather? Support for children with disabilities or a gambling fund for people who can afford to loan the government £50,000 (£100,000 for couples) with no need of a guaranteed return in the hope of winning an occasional prize.

Repay the damn things and if the Government feels it needs to raise that 130 billion it can issue some bonds of equal value. Call them Defence Bonds or Social House Building Bonds.

Then at least all the investors would receive an equal ROI.

Putting this in Chat doesn’t mean it’s not news n politics FGT

Wherever I place my threads I seem to generate opprobrium Iam. 😂

We need a safety net, people should be treated with dignity and the expectation should be we all work unless there are significant reasons preventing it.

So sensible.
No one could argue against that Iam.

But with so many NEETS who is going to guide us gently to this Utopia?

Keir Starmer of course FriedGreenTomatoes2.
At least he’s naming it, knowing full well it’s very complicated. I imagine we all want a safety net for emergency need and established appropriate benefits for those of us with long term health or disability needs that mean we can never work.

I started in social work/probation in 1978. It was very unusual to be involved with families where no one worked. There were always the individuals whose drinking, temper, frequent prison sentences meant steady employment, for some any employment, was impossible. Some families struggled on the dole, with food parcels and essentials like beds provided by the DSS,charity or the local authority. Drink a problem in some, usually the dad. Drugs were rare.
I retired in 2012 by which time it was common to be,involved with families 4th generation unemployed. It was unusual not to have a family member dependent on drugs and alcohol. In many families, both parents were problematic users.

I don’t envy the government for trying to rebuild public services , increase defence spending and tackle the problems in society that con tribute to this unsustainable spend on benefits.

I have been saying for years that I don't think that is unreasonable that people who get up at 5.00am so they can get to work on time to do a 12 hour shift feel resentment, particularly when their (often low) wages are taxed, yet their neighbour, who 'chooses' not to work pays nothing but gets the benefits of living in a society that provides all the things that HMRC say taxes pay for.

We are seeing a lurch to the Right and to extremism. People have had enough of living in a low-wage economy which does not encourage people to work. Tax and NI credits can make it pointless for some people to work, or to increase their hours, as childcare is punishingly high. Rents are also extortionate in many cases, so people are working to pay landlords and nurseries. Utilities such as energy and water get more and more expensive as shareholders take higher and higher profits. Councils can't provide the services people need, yet CT bills are going up for those who pay them.

A system like ours, that attempts to look after the vulnerable, and those who need temporary help during hard times, must have enough contributors to cover the costs, or there is not enough to pay for those who need it. It comes down to ratios. Those who pay in have to pay enough to support themselves as well as extra to cover those who are not contributing. When there are more in the 'not contributing' category than can be supported, the system fails, and that is what we are seeing.

Of course there are jobs that few people really want to do, but as long as it is possible to claim MH-based reasons for their being unsuitable some will avoid them and others be obliged to take them. It is unfair, KS is right.

There will always be those who need to be protected, such as the sick, the disabled and carers for the very young, the sick and disabled, and they should have enough support to let them live decently (as opposed to a subsistence living), but people should no longer be able to choose not to contribute and expect to have others pay for them. It cascades down to pensions, as if fewer people pay in it becomes more expensive to pay out, so pensioners get less money, and things like WFP get cut.

I don't want to see 'savage cuts' to disability payments, or to short-term benefits for people who need them; but I support a review of a system that pays people to do nothing.

Barleyfields

I couldn’t agree more with all you have said Baggs. Even the most mundane job should be something you take pride in and do to the best of your ability. A lot of us feel that about housework, for which we don’t get paid.

First thing Starmer has said that I have agreed with - I hope something is actually done about the people who can work but won’t.

I have great hopes about this.
Well said Starmer. Now - you have a huge majority, let’s see the drive to do it. 🤞

Luckygirl3

I do find this media-speak - viz "savage" - what is actually happening is that the government is taking a look at the system and trying to make savings and looking at where people might better be served in other ways - e.g. help to get back to the workplace.

If they did not do this they would be criticised.

I agree with this.

Many people could work and want to work (earn more money, build self esteem, have access to training) if they could - they just need help to do so.

Some form of coordinated staged return, training, occupation health assistance, tailing off not sharp cliff edge of benefits such as free prescriptions could really help lots of people back to work.

Charities like these people provide a fantastic service that must have changed many lives suitedbootedcentre.org.uk/

Why is that charity only for young men?

"WE INSPIRE
At Suited & Booted, we believe in the power of a great outfit to transform lives. As a friendly and dedicated charity based in the Holborn area of London, we’re here to support vulnerable, unemployed, and low-income men on their journey to employment."

Wyllow3

Why is that charity only for young men?

"WE INSPIRE
At Suited & Booted, we believe in the power of a great outfit to transform lives. As a friendly and dedicated charity based in the Holborn area of London, we’re here to support vulnerable, unemployed, and low-income men on their journey to employment."

The female equivalents, like Dress for Success have been running for years, so I’d guess this is the male version of them, a bit later to the party?

Not a criticism of you Churchview but was rather shocked.

I looked this up on the Charity Commission:

Our objects are targeted at assisting men and youths, who are out of work, are in temporary or insecure work, have recently been discharged from the armed services or released from prison, or are otherwise classed by statute as being vulnerable, to find employment ...

Suited & Booted provides those referred to us by public agencies with suitable (donated) interview clothing, interview training and general mentoring.

This is made possible by Suited & Booted receiving donations of appropriate ‘office’ clothing and shoes, and by working with various City firms. Suited & Booted makes no charge for any of its services.

Our aim is to help our clients to achieve success by transforming their appearance and by boosting their morale and self-confidence. Volunteers help clients to select and be fitted with appropriate clothing from our stock of donated suits, shirts, ties, cufflinks and shoes, in preparation for their interview. As it is not always possible to fit clients entirely from donated stock, and as our clients need help for an interview which will usually take place immediately after their fitting, we aim in such cases, to purchase the necessary item of clothing at low cost on behalf of the client. It is our aim, however, to keep such purchases to a minimum.

tinyurl.com/y495tc7d

There are definitely charities doing the same for women *Wyllow3". I remember Dawn French raising awareness of them some years ago.

I only mentioned Suited and Booted as my husband donated his work clothes to them when he retired.

Its absolutely fine to have initiatives etc aimed at a particular sex, it's really important in fact. Women for example tend to out earn men in their twenties, the 'gender pay gap' hits later.

As long as both are helped thats fine by me.

Look after your own first I think. No point in throwing money at a lost cause.

Many assessments are done over the phone. That allows some welfare scammers to game the system. Starmer should ensure there is adequate staffing to make all assessments in person including home visits where necessary.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Barleyfields

I couldn’t agree more with all you have said Baggs. Even the most mundane job should be something you take pride in and do to the best of your ability. A lot of us feel that about housework, for which we don’t get paid.

First thing Starmer has said that I have agreed with - I hope something is actually done about the people who can work but won’t.

I have great hopes about this.
Well said Starmer. Now - you have a huge majority, let’s see the drive to do it. 🤞

Having a huge majority will get laws through, but makes no difference to the nitty gritty of making changes.

To make better, fairer, checking up assessments depends on having enough adequate, and sometimes adequately trained staff - which we don't have.

This is why I suggest caution in expectations. Not that the end goal isnt vital, but not at some magical speed.

Wyllow3

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Barleyfields

I couldn’t agree more with all you have said Baggs. Even the most mundane job should be something you take pride in and do to the best of your ability. A lot of us feel that about housework, for which we don’t get paid.

First thing Starmer has said that I have agreed with - I hope something is actually done about the people who can work but won’t.

I have great hopes about this.
Well said Starmer. Now - you have a huge majority, let’s see the drive to do it. 🤞

Having a huge majority will get laws through, but makes no difference to the nitty gritty of making changes.

To make better, fairer, checking up assessments depends on having enough adequate, and sometimes adequately trained staff - which we don't have.

This is why I suggest caution in expectations. Not that the end goal isnt vital, but not at some magical speed.

The biggest mistake would be speedy implementation I think, because otherwise people who genuinely need help will be denied it. I’d like to see a careful implementation which sets up support services, including for those with mental health conditions, then starts picking off the low lying fruit before the people with long term conditions.