To wonder what could Starmer do, to turn things around?

20 years’ time is ages in tech and AI terms, you probably don’t want to flood the workforce with graduates and new workers by that point

@EasternStandard

"Starmer ruled it out July 2022 and seems to have stuck to that

Probably a mistake for Labour"

Definitely a mistake. Joining the single market doesn't cost anything but it does create economic growth.

And what about in 20 years’ time, when we have millions more retirees , and thanks to the current low birth rate, not nearly enough young workers to replace them?

@BIossomtoes

"It doesn’t. Rail’s already being renationalised by not re letting contracts when they expire. Water is just taken back without recompense, the over generosity of years of dividends to its shareholders is the reason it’s deep in debt now, they’ve had enough money."

Absolutely no problem on rail re nationalisation by not re letting the contracts when they expire. It doesn't cost anything and is rather clever in that respect but it does raise the question of where the new state rail entity gets money from for investment other than borrowing it which impacts Government debt.

As for nationalising the water companies without any financial compensation that that would immediately destroy any foreign investor confidence in the UK, it would be strongly challenged in the courts and would have the effect of drastically reducing any other foreign investment in the UK. So it would cost more than it saves.

I think your point on water nationalisation is a very good example of how Labour completely fail to see the secondary economic impacts of their decisions.

I couldn’t be more unimpressed with this government if I tried. The budget was an absolute shambles. They never seem willing to own up if they get things wrong. They just double down or blame it on the last government. Starmer was visiting Zelenskyy recently. Our country is on the brink of bankruptcy. We should be prioritising our own country first before writing out cheques left right and centre to other nations. And don’t get me started on all the net zero climate change stuff. Just more misery in store for us, less freedoms and greater hardship. I will just wait patiently and vote for the party that has the best chance of winning against them at the next election. They will still probably going on about the elusive £20m black hole then.

Assuming that all of these young people are able to work and aren’t studying, that might tide us along for a while. But not in the long-term. There are more than 13.5 million baby boomers in the UK, who are either retired or approaching retirement age. There are also more than 4 million older retirees.

Starmer ruled it out July 2022 and seems to have stuck to that

Probably a mistake for Labour

The 9 million people that are economically inactive. You might be willing to write them off as unemployable but I'm not.

It doesn’t. Rail’s already being renationalised by not re letting contracts when they expire. Water is just taken back without recompense, the over generosity of years of dividends to its shareholders is the reason it’s deep in debt now, they’ve had enough money.

This in spades

Who would win?
I'm no KS fan or labour voter but the tories were decimated in the general election not even a year ago .

Who's going to do the work??
The 1.2m young people who don't have jobs.

Most controversial reduce the population by cutting legal immigration, birth rates already below replacement etc (less people = less pressure on infrastructure, services and resources). Again this will have an inflationary consequence.

OK, so the birth rate will continue to fall, and the percentage of the population who are retired will increase year on year.

Now, who’s going to do the work? Who’s going to harvest our crops, provide our medical care, provide personal care for our elderly, educate our children, collect our rubbish, clean our streets, keep our supermarkets stocked… Perhaps reducing legal immigration wasn’t such a good idea, after all.

@Needspaceforlego

"I think we need to renationalise things like rail, power and water? "

And where does the money come from to pay for this?

That would be the worst thing he could do. He's not there to be popular he's there to fix the country.

And be replaced by who?

Labour have a massive majority (so won't be going anywhere until 2029) and as inexperienced as Starmer is, he is a lot better than the alternatives in the Labour Party by a long way.

I think we need to renationalise things like rail, power and water?
Why are private business and other countries making profit from UK essential services?

Need to create more jobs, good paying jobs. Easier said than done.

Build more housing, increase supply reduce demand reduce cost.

Reconsider out of town developments, everything is out of town, traffic goes up and wonder why town and city centres are dying.

None of these things are a quick fix and the man's barely had 5mins

To add on headlines they also pick up and reflect back public mood. You get more clicks and profit by meeting demand

I know a fair few think he’s doing well on here but many feel differently and the media will show that

What could KS do?
He could fuck off?

You consistently write the worst takes possible across threads. It's almost amusing.

To be fair I think that Starmer's intentions are very good and that genuinely he wants to make life and the economy better for the majority.

The biggest problem is deep economic inexperience / knowledge and the inability to see the secondary impacts of Labour policies for example the NI increase on companies is a tax on employability and not profitability of companies.

Having just read the thread from the OP whose husband is going to earn over 100k I would say remove the cliff edges of benefits/childcare/tax and disincentives to earn over this.

Thar thread is full of people who earn over 100k so put more money into pensions, go part-time and do whatever is needed to ensure their taxable earnings don't breech 100k. How does that help productivity? Not to mention that these people contribute the most in terms of tax snd then are begrudge a couple of years of the childcare that most people get. (And I earn 20something K myself so no personal skin in the game(.

We should also expect parents to pay for their own kids when they can. Typically when families break up mum finds she can work a couple of days, get all her rent paid /most of her childcare and not be much worse off than she was or if she was full time. Any money from non resident parent (usually dad) "doesn't count" or affect benefits and is just extra.

If a separated parent wants to claim benefits then claiming child maintenance from non resident parent should be mandatory. This should be paid into a government account by the non resident parent and reduce the amount of top up benefits the taxpayer is paying. Non payment should be akin to non payment to HMRC. Just because you don't want to be with your partner anymore why should the tax payer take over paying for the kids? Parents who are self sufficient£jot claiming benefits can make what arrangements they like between them.

The housing crisis is an emergency and pre-fabs should be thrown up like they were after the war. The government can't afford to shell out every increasing amounts of housing benefit and a quick increase in affordable social housing could get that bill under control. There should be affordable modest options for everyone that wants and those on housing benefit.

The headlines thing is interesting, some do think he’s great if it wasn’t for that

Their policies have hit growth and that’s no good thing

True! 🤣

He could cure cancer and the headlines would be that he has destroyed the British pharmaceutical industry.