Well if Labour keep this up I think I’ll be voting for them at the next GE!

Iam64

Agree with you FGT that Dodds acted in her beliefs and principles. I’d have preferred to see her work with the reality

I would agree with you.It would have been better for her to get on with the job.All her resignation means is that somebody else will step in and do it.
Defence has to come first.Am sure that the more important things in matters of aid will continue but will be ‘triaged’.

“I simply don't understand how one generation after another can remain unemployed... or are they, basically, unemployable?”.

Some are unemployable, they take jobs but then don’t turn up after a few days, they have a whole dictionary of lame excuses. We needed a cleaner half a day a week when my wife was ill, a young woman took the job, nice girl but did not turn up on time once, sometimes not at all. Many are on drugs and can’t be relied on to do anything responsible, a lot are ex prisoners too.
In this town since the Poles went home after Brexit businesses really struggle for staff, retail, pubs, restaurants and hotels.

I hope the government can address the life on benefits issue. My experience confirms how hard it is for genuine claimants yet those who set out to remain on benefits know how to exploit the system

In this town since the Poles went home after Brexit businesses really struggle for staff, retail, pubs, restaurants and hotels.

‘Hospitality’ and retail are poorly paid, initially physically taxing, have unsocial hours and employees have to deal with an increasingly unpleasant UK public. I don’t think people are as prepared to be treated like subservient serfs by both employers and customers as they may have been a few decades ago.

LizzieDrip

OMG FriedGreenTomatoes😱 I need to go and have a lie down after reading your post🤣🤣🤣

There’s a long way to go before next GE but… fair play to yer!

😳 me too.

Ah well, any attention is better than no attention.

David49

“I simply don't understand how one generation after another can remain unemployed... or are they, basically, unemployable?”.

Some are unemployable, they take jobs but then don’t turn up after a few days, they have a whole dictionary of lame excuses. We needed a cleaner half a day a week when my wife was ill, a young woman took the job, nice girl but did not turn up on time once, sometimes not at all. Many are on drugs and can’t be relied on to do anything responsible, a lot are ex prisoners too.
In this town since the Poles went home after Brexit businesses really struggle for staff, retail, pubs, restaurants and hotels.

Some are unemployable...

Yes, I suspect that's the case.

And I also suspect that those who are employable, those with skills, are possibly given a harder time because in theory, they should be able to find work and thus make the job of the staff easier - I think they might just 'give up' with the 'unemployable' who might have made a fine-art out of avoiding work, and have more tricks up their sleeve than the staff.

My partner, though his skills were niche was nevertheless skilled and competent. He didn't want to lose those skills but might have had to take any job available had he not seen the ad for the job in Yorkshire - he was certainly being pressured, in a way that I don't believe the so-called 'unemployable' are.

Another family member, from my previous marriage, really was unemployable. However, he was very willing - just not able, and had a succession of menial jobs to which he turned up on time, but just couldn't hold them down. He was a genuine scatterbrain and treated work as if it were a social event. His jobs lasted a week or two, at the most, though on one occasion he managed long-term employment... for a month. It became something of a family joke.

He must have been an utter nightmare in the employment office, he also treated the interviews as some sort of social event...

The problem is that our society is based on people working in exchange for the money they need to survive. There may be different or better ways to do things, but this is what we've got.

In return we get looked after by the welfare state, whether that's in the form of the NHS, pensions, education, defence, law and order, benefits etc etc, as well as having spending money to buy the things we want, as well as those we need.

As long as everyone plays ball and contributes there is (or should be) enough to go round, but when people - some of whose MH issues are caused by the stress of working - see others opt out and get given a similar lifestyle they will be resentful. This leads to extremism, riots and so on, particularly when there is less than is needed in the exchequer, so services are cut.

I think that this is where the Left can fall down. People with satisfying work often don't understand what it's like to get up at 4.00am to do a 12 hour shift in a factory on minimum wage, so it's easy for them to talk about work being good for us. It can come across as incredibly condescending, as does sneering at people who resent immigrants doing work that they used to do for more money. I don't blame immigrants, but my job was never at risk from people offering to do it more cheaply. I am not accusing anyone on here of not understanding - I am thinking of conversations I've had with friends around things like Brexit and pensions. I have to bite my tongue a lot.

The balance is difficult. Someone has to do jobs at all levels, and IMO it makes sense to pay people more for taking more responsibility/getting higher qualifications etc, and that is largely what happens. The problem is when people don't pay, (whether they are unemployable or not 😀) but still get back. The result of that is that many of those who do pay in can't get treatment they need on the NHS, or have had to wait an extra 6 or 7 years to get a pension - because people are treated the same whether they have contributed financially or not.

We keep hearing about 'difficult decisions', and this is one of them. Can we let old people do without a basic standard of living, or let children go hungry because they (or their parents) haven't paid into the Welfare State? I wouldn't vote for that. But at the same time, doesn't there have to be some way to make it fair, and ensure that as many people as are able to pay their share? There should be higher taxation for those with more money, and that should be progressively applied. Nobody should earn too little to pay tax after working a full week, but neither should there be a tax incentive to work part-time, and childcare should not be a deterrent to work either.

Before anyone pounces, I am not suggesting (and have never suggested) that mothers go back to work when their babies are tiny - not at all. Parents should be supported through the early years with affordable (or free) childcare, and for a while it might make sense to subsidise part-time work. All I am saying is that this should not go on for decades, as the result is that there is too much of a burden on those who do work, and not enough in the kitty for the services many people spend a lifetime working for. What the government call 'working people' have carried the can for too long.

Having said all of that, automation has done away with many of the very routine jobs that used to employ those who struggle with responsibility, and AI will doubtless get rid of more, so the structure of society may change anyway.

Before anyone pounces, I am not suggesting (and have never suggested) that mothers go back to work when their babies are tiny - not at all.

The difference is thst, until 2010, women needed 39 years of NI contributions to qualify for a full State Pension. They generally had to retire at 60, even if they could work on, they could not pay NI contributions.

That meant, in the main, they could barely fit in 39 years of contributions, especially if they went to college and did not start work until age 21. Taking a career break to look after under 5s meant they lost out on years of contributions, hence that is why HRP meant they were not penalised. That probably works out cheaper, too, than providing nursery care.

Ys, I am talking about now, and what could be done moving forward - there is nothing that can be done about what happened in the past.

“Another family member, from my previous marriage, really was unemployable. However, he was very willing - just not able, and had a succession of menial jobs to which he turned up on time, but just couldn't hold them down. He was a genuine scatterbrain and treated work as if it were a social event. His jobs lasted a week or two, at the most, though on one occasion he managed long-term employment... for a month. It became something of a family joke.”

The girl we had as a cleaner was a scatterbrain for sure, entirely pleasant and helpful when she was there but hopelessly unreliable. She took a job as as a care worker after us and lasted a week.

It's not the very small amount of women in high earning households who dont work who are the main cause of there being 'not enough in the kitty'

No, it’s the fact that too few people of all ages pay in, but everyone takes out. As soon as long-term sahps are mentioned people leap to their defence, but they are just one section of the population who contribute to the problem. The ‘unemployable’, the people who are too anxious to work, and many other groups (and individuals) who remain ‘economically inactive’ for years are part of it too.

As I keep saying, I don’t know the answer, as forcing people to work is pointless, and we can’t have a system which allows people to starve for lack of contributions, or penalise the sick.

It can’t carry on as it is though. We’ve seen how many young people resent ’boomers’, and people of all ages suffer from lack of services. There is a lot of discontent and frustration, but money has to come from somewhere.

Taking a career break to look after under 5s meant they lost out on years of contributions,

No it didn’t. NI contributions were credited to the nonemployed mother until her youngest child was, IIRC, 18.

MaizieD

^Taking a career break to look after under 5s meant they lost out on years of contributions,^

No it didn’t. NI contributions were credited to the nonemployed mother until her youngest child was, IIRC, 18.

HRP wasn't introduced until April 1978.
There must be many Gransnetters whose had a family well before that date, stayed at home to look after their babies and little ones. They may have returned to work after a few years but before 1978, without any NIC being made, therefore missed out on a full pension now.

I sometimes wonder if I've wandered over to Mumsnet by mistake 🤔

Allira

MaizieD

Taking a career break to look after under 5s meant they lost out on years of contributions,

No it didn’t. NI contributions were credited to the nonemployed mother until her youngest child was, IIRC, 18.

HRP wasn't introduced until April 1978.
There must be many Gransnetters whose had a family well before that date, stayed at home to look after their babies and little ones. They may have returned to work after a few years but before 1978, without any NIC being made, therefore missed out on a full pension now.

I sometimes wonder if I've wandered over to Mumsnet by mistake 🤔

I don't think things like this should divide on generational lines. I may be getting on, but I have children who have a right to be considered, too, as do most of us.

There is nothing that can be done about what happened 50 years ago - we can't make policy looking backwards all the time.

We keep hearing about how future generations won't have a pension, or that it will be means-tested, which would be even worse. Why should people who have paid in every year of their working lives be told that they can't have a pension because the money has to go to those who didn't pay in? I know that's not policy (yet) but it's the same principle as saying that only some pay in and we all take out.

Doodledog I and many 1,000’s of women planned their finances around retiring at 60 when their state pension was due.

The government changed that, so no doubt they can change anything else to do with pensions if they so wish?

Indeed. I also hoped to retire at 60, but was told that there is not enough money to pay for it.

Dickens I found this an interesting (part) article in the Telegraph this morning. Identifying a whole cohort of employment-averse younger people. Doubtless some on benefits.

Personally I still think mental health now allowed to be labelled as a ‘disability’ has fuelled this exponential rise in unemployment figures/benefit claims. Yes there are some genuine cases but when, as a society did we become suddenly so very sick? It beggars belief. I think lack of face to face proper doctor assessments, on line applications without rigorous checks has allowed this chaos to flourish. Sorry but I do think malingerers are citing ‘mental health issues’. It’s the new backache. It can’t be disproven really, can it?

Anyway apologies ahead of my very long post as I’m adding the cut & paste. I can’t use a link because it’s behind a paywall.

Those uninterested can of course just decline to read on …

“Britain now has almost a million 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training (known as Neet), according to the latest Office for National Statistics numbers. That is the highest level since 2013, when the economy was still reeling from the financial crisis. A big difference is that in 2013, most people in that group were looking for a job but struggling to find one.

Today, that has flipped and the majority – some 595,000 of the 987,000 Neets – are classed as economically inactive, meaning they are not hunting for a job nor hoping to apply for an educational course. Young men are more likely than women to be a Neet (14.4pc compared with 12.3pc), a phenomenon that head teacher Caroline Barlow last year said was partly down to a culture of low expectations for male students.

This is not a footloose and fancy-free cohort living for the next party or beach holiday. Nor are they simply lazy. The rise in inactivity is linked to a post-pandemic mental health crisis. A survey of 500 Neets by the King’s Trust charity last week found that almost one in three would like to work but said their poor mental health prevented it. Half of respondents said they felt hopeless about their future because they were unemployed. The King’s Trust has said that this group is more likely than their peers to feel as if they have failed in life. Getting this group into work would give them a sense of purpose, life skills and confidence. Instead, Neets are stepping into adulthood feeling lost and adrift, and so a vicious cycle starts.

The Government has outlined plans for a benefits crackdown and a “youth guarantee” to ensure all those who are able to can access either work or training. But to be a success, this plan needs bosses willing to hire. Instead, the managers who have traditionally given these school leavers their first jobs are now reluctant. They blame the £25bn increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions (NICs) coming into force in April, which disproportionately affects people on low wages and in part-time work. They also point to Angela Rayner’s looming Employment Rights Bill, which they fear could make hiring someone who is inexperienced more trouble than it is worth. Under the reforms, employees will be able to claim full sick pay and take employers to tribunal from day one on a job.

The NICs raid already means the cost of employing a worker on 15 hours a week will rise by 73pc, according to UKHospitality. As employing staff becomes more costly, it is completely understandable that companies will start turning away less experienced candidates, particularly if Labour’s workers’ rights overhaul means they cannot easily get rid of someone if they hire a dud candidate. Rayner’s workers’ rights revolution risks becoming a charter for youth unemployment.

Warnings about this have been reverberating for months. Lord Wolfson, the chief executive of Next, has expressed concerns about plans to ban “exploitative” zero-hour contracts as part of the overhaul. “We offer staff extra hours in the run-up to Christmas. If the legislation is going to mean that those hours have to be contractually binding for ever then we just won’t be able to do it at all, it would be impossible,” he told the BBC this year.”

Doodledog

Indeed. I also hoped to retire at 60, but was told that there is not enough money to pay for it.

Well we all know that is untrue.

Any government whatever colour rosette they wear will find money, after all it creates and controls sterling, it’s a sovereign currency.

We have to pay a little more in income tax.

What is so difficult about that?
I can remember when income tax was much higher than present day rates.

Barleyfields

Agreed Doodledog. And PN, I assume you have heard of contraception, which enables one to control the period over which children are born (or not) pretty accurately? Certainly worked well for me.

What I meant is that you cannot necessarily have children on demand so that they are born close together and the shortest time taken off work.

Could anyone explain why my post was deleted?

Allira

We have to pay a little more in income tax.

What is so difficult about that?
I can remember when income tax was much higher than present day rates.

It’s a balancing act though Allira

I know that some smaller businesses will struggle with the employers NI increases next month.

It will probably determine their company policy regarding taking on new employees.

It is always the middle income folks that are well and truly screwed when taxes are increased, not rich enough to employ fancy tax lawyers.

As usual the mega rich and multinationals will get off relatively unscathed.

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog I and many 1,000’s of women planned their finances around retiring at 60 when their state pension was due.

The government changed that, so no doubt they can change anything else to do with pensions if they so wish?

You got a higher pension to compensate.

Governments are allowed to change benefits just as insurance companies can. Just look at the changes made by bringing in Universal Credit. This was a Conservative (coalition) government and perhaps that is why it's not discussed but it can and has been seen as one of the most damaging changes for claimants in the UK.

PoliticsNerd

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog I and many 1,000’s of women planned their finances around retiring at 60 when their state pension was due.

The government changed that, so no doubt they can change anything else to do with pensions if they so wish?

You got a higher pension to compensate.

Governments are allowed to change benefits just as insurance companies can. Just look at the changes made by bringing in Universal Credit. This was a Conservative (coalition) government and perhaps that is why it's not discussed but it can and has been seen as one of the most damaging changes for claimants in the UK.

Yes waspi women got a higher pension.

Yes, I said in my post that the government of the day can change whatever it wishes.

Sorry I cannot see your point?