Robber Reeves mantra: "Boosting Growth"

I have serious concerns as to where all the construction workers are going to magically appear from to build the 1.5 million new homes?

Please reference your statement about the Guardian article..

I agree GrannyGravy. There is a serious shortage of skills and I know from people who have worked for us that many skilled tradesmen now refuse to work for the big house builders because they are badly treated. Labour seem to think that changing the planning rules will magically unlock building. It won’t.

As for the OP, what she says is par for the course. Total nonsense.

I agree with what you say and that Reeves needs to relax her fiscal rules.

I was just seeking to rebut the suggestion that state pensioners and anyone on disability benefits (which doesn’t automatically mean that someone is living in poverty e.g. those in receipt of Attendance Allowance) are “not expected to be included in boosting growth” when we know that many are very comfortable (if not wealthy in HMRC’s definition of the term) and might be encouraged to invest.

I certainly would were the government to create the money to invest in building more social housing.

I’m reading today’s article in The Guardian, headline: Recruitment report reveals rise in UK demand for construction workers and thinking about the one million young people aged 16-24 classified as NEET.

Also from that piece: sustained recovery in IT recruitment was still yet to arrive, “but there are still opportunities for such workers with 30,000 job postings for programmers and software development professionals and nearly 12,000 for IT business analysts, architects and systems designers.

Quite.

My "Quite" was to Anniebach.

The drop out rate amongst construction apprentices is 47%.

www.ableskills.co.uk/blog/can-the-private-training-sector-fill-gaps-left-by-apprenticeship-dropouts/

But are there real jobs for PIP claimants as Reeves seems to have shrunk the job market with an increase in employer’s national insurance? Left and right hand come to mind ….

A quick look at all the Guardian articles reveals the same ?? that are being asked within the Labour Party, and I don't think its a bad thing at all to have this debate. I think its healthy.

Some of the comments on the first page do seem a little bizarre however, given the endless GN threads about benefit cheats with examples including disability, and how so and so gets so much "how outrageous" and how "something should be done".

ronib read this Labour market overview from the ONS, which belies your post. There are plenty of vacancies?
www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/february2025
Also note the number of people who are not working, which is what we should be most concerned about. Job creation and support systems will be needed, which is why it’s important to wait until we know the detail of what is proposed.

ronib

But are there real jobs for PIP claimants as Reeves seems to have shrunk the job market with an increase in employer’s national insurance? Left and right hand come to mind ….

And wanting it both ways come to mind.

NIC only funds the NHS (partially - 33 billion allocated in 2023/24). The rest goes on contributory benefits. 95% of contributory benefits spending is the state pension and the number of state pensioners is growing.

The mere mention of the removal of the triple lock or means testing SP causes huge controversy (and rightly so) but what’s the answer beyond fundamentally changing how the NHS and contributory benefits are funded?

Churchview

The use of words like 'stealth taxes', 'raids' and 'robbers' just makes me think spin and tabloid rubbish.

Absolutely.

What I have heard from reliable sources (eg Wes Streeting on Kuenssberg) sounds sensible. The Right To Try thing, for instance, means that if someone takes a job that doesn't work out because of their disability they can go back on benefits without having to wait 5 weeks for the first payment. As it stands, a gap of 5 weeks with no money is bound to be a disincentive to seeing if a job is possible.

Moving money from paying people not to work into supporting them to do so seems to me sensible. There are not enough people contributing to the welfare state, and this has been the case for too long. I think there is a huge sense of entitlement amongst too many people, who expect others to work and pay taxes, but see it as a choice for themselves.

PIP for those who need it is absolutely essential, but it should not go to people like my daughter's ex SIL, who was 'unable to work' because of agoraphobia, yet could spend the day in town with her friends, or to a friend's son with social anxiety who didn't think he should have to take jobs where he might have to share an open plan office. He has a degree gained recently in a city centre university where he managed his social anxiety well enough.

I'm sure we all know of people like this. I know someone else who 'can't work' because of neurodiversity, but got a scholarship to do an MA as a mature student, which he completed recently with distinction. How can someone be well enough to do that, but not well enough to work, and why should they be paid to study when others can't afford to extend their education? As well as the fees (which, to be fair, were earned by ability, not paid out of benefits), he got free entry to various venues and conferences because he is unwaged - other students had to pay, and most of them were working as well as studying, so at a comparative disadvantage.

In an ideal world we should all be able to choose whether to work, and if we don't fancy it we should be able to spend our time following our interests; but in this world these things can only be done if someone pays, and why should it always be those in work who have to do it?

IMO Keir Starmer is absolutely right when he says that the current system is unfair. Yes, we should support those who need it, but working should not be an option for anyone capable of doing it.

A new report by The Centre for Social Justice, entitled Lost Boys, has revealed an alarming trend of disengagement among young men, namely that since the pandemic alone, the number of males aged 16-24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased by a staggering 40% compared to just 7% for their female peers.

Something is going on here. Benefits to NEETS enable ‘lifestyle’ choices. But how can we turn the tide?

ronib

But are there real jobs for PIP claimants as Reeves seems to have shrunk the job market with an increase in employer’s national insurance? Left and right hand come to mind ….

What we don't know is how many PIP claimants are already in work.

One of the stated objectives of PIP was to enable people to be sufficiently supported so as to be able to hold down a job.

PIP is not a means tested benefit and recipients have no obligation to inform the DWP that they are in work. Consequently there seem to be no statistics available to inform us . The perception that PIP is a malingerer's charter is sadly widespread (and seems to include the government). The truth, or otherwise, of this will probably never be determined...

In the meantime the government is steadfastly ignoring the possibility of making simple changes to the tax system which could generate sufficient from taxation of the wealthy to solve Reeve's financial problems... and obviate the perceived need to slash welfare benefits..

If you CAN work you have a moral obligation to do so.

ronib

But is the benefits unsustainable in the long term? What do you suggest the long term disabled do?
I would much rather spend £3 billion a year on our disabled population rather than send it to Ukraine for the next 100 years.

However the benefit changes are not designed to hit the “long term disabled” they are designed to try and get those in the “work related” groups on ESA or UC (those of working age) to prepare themselves for looking for suitable and sustainable paid work, with support.

There’s a huge proportion of 18-25 year olds with mental health issues who, with the right support and right job, could be in paid work and not 100% reliant on state benefits.

These young people need something to look forward to in their lives and financial independence.

The longer they stay out of work, the worse they will become and the harder it will be to find paid work.

Long term disabled people, with serious long term mental and physical health should not be affected, neither will pensioners.

The ethos is correct, let’s hope the approach and support will also be done correctly.

There are many many people in paid work with mental and physical health problems.

It’s about getting those who can work into paid work, and caring properly for those who are unable to work.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

If you CAN work you have a moral obligation to do so.

I agree!

FriedGreenTomatoes2

A new report by The Centre for Social Justice, entitled Lost Boys, has revealed an alarming trend of disengagement among young men, namely that since the pandemic alone, the number of males aged 16-24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased by a staggering 40% compared to just 7% for their female peers.

Something is going on here. Benefits to NEETS enable ‘lifestyle’ choices. But how can we turn the tide?

I haven’t read the whole 75 page report yet but a glance at the headings shows the problems the government is up against to try to turn things around.

One only has to read the sections on porn, stress and mental health and social media to see that the younger generation are exposed to things that we never were which are changing how they think and behave.

www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CSJ-The_Lost_Boys.pdf

So do I. I look forward to hearing what reforms are intended. People who genuinely cannot do any form of work should be unaffected, but those who can work but are unwilling to do so should have their benefits taken away.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

A new report by The Centre for Social Justice, entitled Lost Boys, has revealed an alarming trend of disengagement among young men, namely that since the pandemic alone, the number of males aged 16-24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased by a staggering 40% compared to just 7% for their female peers.

Something is going on here. Benefits to NEETS enable ‘lifestyle’ choices. But how can we turn the tide?

This does raise 2 interesting points. Firstly, what I have always suspected, that this "covid" generation were impacted by events.

And the second, why so many more young men than women?

Also, this govt scheme has been going for a very long time and should be better publicised

www.gov.uk/access-to-work

In additional every job centre has a least one specialised work coach, they used to be called “Disability Employment Advisors”

The previous govt shut down or refused funding, under austerity, for many schemes helping people with manageable health conditions back into paid work.

Barleyfields

So do I. I look forward to hearing what reforms are intended. People who genuinely cannot do any form of work should be unaffected, but those who can work but are unwilling to do so should have their benefits taken away.

It won't be a rapid process, as decisions in many cases about fitness to work are complex and take time, which means adequate staffing to make those decisions/interviews. We'll have to find out how the process is to be enacted.

Freya5

ronib

The Guardian is definitely off Labour today.

Just telling the truth.

Whose truth?

Cossy

Also, this govt scheme has been going for a very long time and should be better publicised

www.gov.uk/access-to-work

In additional every job centre has a least one specialised work coach, they used to be called “Disability Employment Advisors”

The previous govt shut down or refused funding, under austerity, for many schemes helping people with manageable health conditions back into paid work.

It's a great scheme but an expensive one therefore was cut in austerity.

Thats what I meant by saying its no good pursuing a back to work scheme that doesn't fund workers to do it.

If claimants are on Universal Credit, it’s a tapering benefit, it picks up income details directly from an HMRC feed meaning benefits continue until UC receives income details from HMRC, there is no 5 week gap.

Also PIP won’t stop as not means tested, so that would continue automatically in its own right until assessment period ends, anything between 1 & 10 years.

Also remember many people currently in receipt of both PIP and UC are already working, albeit low paid or part time jobs.