Robber Reeves mantra: "Boosting Growth"

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

FriedGreenTomatoes2

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

I agree!

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.

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

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..

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?

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.

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?

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.

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".

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 ….

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/

My "Quite" was to Anniebach.

Quite.

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.

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.

Please reference your statement about the Guardian article..

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?

It is tabloid rubbish Churchview

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

ronib

My husband thought that the Guardian is trying to influence opinion on cuts to disability benefits. That’s good isn’t it Casdon?

I’m not sure ronib. The PIP costs have been growing exponentially, and whilst I certainly wouldn’t want genuine claimants who are unable to work due to a disability to have their benefits stopped, I don’t think there is any doubt that the current system isn’t working, and that people are claiming PIP benefits who could be working with support. I want to wait until we hear the detail tomorrow before I leap on any bandwagons.

Economic growth is driven by consumer spending and business investment so the second paragraph is incorrect. Everybody has a part to play.

I don’t think Reeves understands the bit about growth being driven by consumer spending. Or by any spending by businesses or the state.

She has a magical belief in ‘business investment’ doing the trick, oblivious to the fact that businesses won’t invest until they are pretty well convinced that there is a market for them to profit from. In other words, that the aforementioned consumers, businesses and state have money they intend to spend.

Consumers are feeling the pinch and the fact that one in five UK citizens are living in poverty doesn’t improve confidence in the likelihood the consumer spending spree that would tempt investors.

The state is busy insisting that it’s going to seriously cut its spending, so where is the spending that is going to lead to growth meant to come from?

Economists are begging her to give up her ‘fiscal rules’, but Reeves is too stupid to see the illogic of her current course.

Rumour has it that not only are backbench MPs up in arms and ready to rebel over proposed cuts to benefits but some Cabinet ministers are strongly opposing departmental spending cuts. This could fizzle out, or it could cause serious damage to Reeves and Starmer.

Leaving aside the ranty nature of this late night post …

Economic growth is driven by consumer spending and business investment so the second paragraph is incorrect. Everybody has a part to play.

Witness the recent row over rumours about changing how much money can be held in tax free cash savings. What a furore that caused among people with tens of thousands stashed away.

You only have to read some of the discussion on here to see that a people are not spending in the economy as they could do or once might have done. e.g. people not going to cinema as much as they used to and the discussion about eating from the contents of a freezer as opposed to ordering takeaway food or going out to a restaurant. Just these two everyday things change they way that money is being put into the economy and local businesses, money which promotes growth through broader consumer spending.

My husband thought that the Guardian is trying to influence opinion on cuts to disability benefits. That’s good isn’t it Casdon?

Do you mean an opinion piece ronib? I’d pay an opinion article in the Guardian as much attention as I would one in any other paper - ie not much, because it’s one person’s view, and often it’s the controversial bile spitters.