These lengthy prison sentences for rioters

Ilovecheese

I don't think Rachel Reeves has ever hidden the sort of person she is. She has wanted for a long time to be "tougher than the Tories ".
She doesn't seem to be a very imaginative economist.

The tougher than the Tories trope wins Labour some Brownie points pre-election.

They, Labour, are in a no-win situation. If they continue with this model of economics, they will lose both traditional Labour voters as well as those who couldn't make up their minds but hoped for better things from the party.

If they go down the more left-wing path towards economics that look anything like socialism - Starmer will be accused of Corbynomics.

Let's face it, what we have is a Labour party in government following the same free-market economic policy bolstered by the 'small state' - in spite of the recent pay awards.

How many times does one have to patch and repair the same pair of trousers falling apart at the seams before it becomes obvious that they need chucking out and replaced by a new pair?

By how much will the wealth-gap narrow; just what are the 'life-chances' for those in the de-industrialised areas of the north east, midlands - the north; when are rental prices going to become affordable for the average worker; when will we reach that capstone where employees are actually paid a wage that doesn't require a top-up from the state?

I know Rome was not built in a day, but the signs aren't good so far.

But then, British voters have already swallowed the Tory creed that they are the natural party of government and the only one that can be trusted with the economy. Even when self-indulgent, lying and/or incompetent politicians espouse the mantra.

We prefer what we call the middle-ground but that has been shifting to the right for years now.

What always puzzles me is that quite often, those with the least in economic terms - those with the most to lose in terms of welfare, healthcare, housing, etc, are the ones who vote for the very party that will ensure they remain impoverished in all of those areas. Just dangle a carrot or a scapegoat - get-Brexit-done and build-back-better... and the losers - and I use the word in the its true sense, not as a derogatory slur - are hooked.

The problem is that Labour is Tweedledee and the Tories are Tweedledum (or the other way round) - but both are operating the same clapped-out machinery.

I don't think Rachel Reeves has ever hidden the sort of person she is. She has wanted for a long time to be "tougher than the Tories ".
She doesn't seem to be a very imaginative economist.

Iam64

Sorry - blinking predictive text, it said MazieD before posting

😂😂😂

Sorry - blinking predictive text, it said MazieD before posting

Mailed, your knowledge of economics is streets ahead of mine. I fear your analysis may be right

My plan would be to increase the state pension. It’s shamefully low, increase it so the winter fuel allowance is not needed. People in the fortunate position I am, having a work pension as well as my state pension, would pay more tax.

Is this something that could improve our current situation. Nobody can manage on a basic state pension unless they qualify for pension credits. It shouldn’t be necessary

Iam64

Let’s give Rachel Reeves chance to draw breath. I’m writing to my newly elected Labour MP about hmp/norway issues.
We were having the same debates about restorative justice and the kind of prisoners madmumofboys mentioned in 1977 when I was working with offenders. It’s depressing that this country seems unable to be guided by research and what works in Scandi countries.
Austerity was totally unnecessary. It was a political policy to destroy our public services.
It succeeded - what a mess we are in

I don't feel inclined to give her time to draw breath, Her first , frankly politically damaging, action in withdrawing the WFA, her insistence on sticking to those dreadful fiscal rules, and her enthusiasm for involving 'business' to provide funding, at a cost to the government and to enrich the private sector, seem to me to be economically insane and not likely to have the desired result at all.

I had hoped she'd loosen up once in office, but she seems to get worse, rather than better.

The nub of the problem, as far as I can see, is that initiatives to provide rehabilitation, education etc. for prisoners is

a) That it isn't a vote catcher

b) that initiatives have to come from government by way of government ministers and ministerial projects tend to be short term, rather than long term strategy, they can be abandoned with a change of minister, and there is no guarantee that a long term strategy would be honoured by subsequent governments. They also depend on whether or not the minister can persuade the Treasury to allow for them in the departmental budgets.

And, of course, if the minister has sufficient ability to drive the project in the face of inevitable scepticism about its usefulness from those who have worked in the field for many years.

The more I read about how government 'works' the more I fear that it doesn't really work very well at all. 🙁

Let’s give Rachel Reeves chance to draw breath. I’m writing to my newly elected Labour MP about hmp/norway issues.
We were having the same debates about restorative justice and the kind of prisoners madmumofboys mentioned in 1977 when I was working with offenders. It’s depressing that this country seems unable to be guided by research and what works in Scandi countries.
Austerity was totally unnecessary. It was a political policy to destroy our public services.
It succeeded - what a mess we are in

I agree MissAdventure, and it does make sense. As long as people are denied the basics there will be disaffected people who are easily persuaded that they have no stake in society. People need hope, and a sense that what they hope for is possible.

Molly it would be a good idea to raise the personal tax allowance so that the low paid don't pay as much, and increase the rate at the top end.

But she can't fix years of austerity with more austerity. I actually think she rather enjoys seeing herself as tough.

It did, MissAdventure

And none of that made sense...

I don't think Reeves wants to take that route. There's so much to fix from years of austerity, and they have never pretended we can rapidly lift ourselves out of the mess left behind. What you say just above, Doodledog.

It needs to be from the cradle to the grave - everybodynhaving a basic standard of living that's affordable, and can be kept warm.

Everyone having access to education of a decent standard, and everyone being paid enough to pay their way; not to line the pockets of others, such as slum landlords.

Prompt action for those who haven't got the basics, and help for those who are falling behind.

I agree with you about Norway. I don't have any faith that Rachel Reeves believes in our welfare as a country though. Austerity damages our welfare and costs more in the long term, but that seems to be the direction she wants to go in.

Wyllow3

Prison reform advocates

"The most successful types of programs are psychological, occupational-based, and education-focused programs, which focus on the issues of the prisoner to help them improve themselves and become ready to re-enter society"

Norway has the least recidivism and its programmes

"Rehabilitation is one main aim in prison policy, along with punishment. It includes measures like work, education, programs, drug rehabilitation, gym and training. Health care, social welfare services, discussion groups; poetry, music, theatre, and radio productions are also part of this.

Question is, resourcing.

Norway has the least recidivism and its programmes

The thing is, Norway invests in its people - even those that end up in prison.

For example, it didn't splurge its sovereign wealth fund from gas and oil on tax cuts for the already wealthy, nor on benefits for the unemployed - as Thatcher did after 'de-industrialisation' in favour of the financial sector and services industry. The fund is squirreled away for future generations who will rely on the tech industries, etc, when the gas and oil industry inevitably declines.

In 2019, Norway also banned zero-hour contracts. It does not accept that you can contract someone to work for a business without guarantee of work or pay.

And there are other things - like work-life balance, etc.

People think Norway is a socialist paradise - it isn't, It functions on strong Capitalist principles, but believes that the welfare - education, health, etc, of its citizens, is important.

Doodledog I agree, but cynically I don’t think it’ll happen like that and those who will pay will include those for whom life is already a struggle.
Which means putting those just above the bottom of the pile in danger of moving down, not up.

Mollygo

^The sensible thing to do is to ensure that everyone gets access to healthcare, social welfare services, gym and training (or other leisure facilities) and can afford to eat without charity.^

Yes. But is there anyone on here who truly believes that at none of any tax rises will go into the pockets of those who do not need it, who know how to work the system or who are wealthy enough to employ someone to reduce any impact the tax rises might have?

No, there will always be those who wriggle out of paying tax - and you're right that they tend to be those who can afford to buy advice and expertise to protect their wealth. It's inevitable, but whilst there should be robust measures in place to tighten loopholes and catch evaders, the fact that such people exist shouldn't be a reason not to try to make life better for everyone else, and give those at the bottom of the pile more of a stake in society.

Perhaps more emphasis on restorative justice?
We need as a society to be more forgiving and caring to those who have lost their way. Everyone deserves a second chance.
My son is a prison officer. Some of the stories he tells me makes me want to weep. For example a 19 year old prisoner bought up in care from birth- prison was his 31 st placement in life.
Education and job training are essential and learning how to constructively use leisure time. But it all costs a lot of money.

We need more focus on preventing people going to prison. Scandi countries, the Netherlands all invest in early Years and public services. Their less punative more supportive approach is more effective and better for society than our more punative approach.

We need to invest in Early Years. The evidence from the sure start generation was positive. As was predicted when investment in programmes was funded.

It needs front loading, support services, drug/alcohol/mental health along side sure start type centres which did good work with vulnerable, hard to reach families.
Austerity is costing us a fortune e

The sensible thing to do is to ensure that everyone gets access to healthcare, social welfare services, gym and training (or other leisure facilities) and can afford to eat without charity.

Yes. But is there anyone on here who truly believes that at none of any tax rises will go into the pockets of those who do not need it, who know how to work the system or who are wealthy enough to employ someone to reduce any impact the tax rises might have?

That's a fair point. I wasn't thinking so much about saving the taxpayer as the frustration people must feel when they work full-time and get the same as a neighbour who works part-time and gets top-ups, but you're right that there needs to be flexibility in the system.

"nobody should be no better off working full-time as part-time."

I am not so sure about this Doodledog. people who work part time very often have caring responsibilities, which save the taxpayer a lot of money. I think it is probably more economic in the long run to top up their income with social security.

Mollygo

Wyllow3

It's a catch 22. (I don't disagree Molly, btw, at all)

It costs a lot of money to keep someone in prison for a year, and if we only turn out constant recidivists the problem just increases.

So what do we do?

The sensible thing to do is to ensure that everyone gets access to healthcare, social welfare services, gym and training (or other leisure facilities) and can afford to eat without charity.

This might mean us all paying more taxes, but it has to be worth going to work, and currently it isn't - nobody should have to rely on food banks and top-up benefits when they are working, and nobody should be no better off working full-time as part-time.