Andy Burnham's new cabinet - who's in, who's out.

So completely unethical then and potentially exploitative?

You do realise such schemes have been tried and failed?

Many studies have found that compulsory work schemes have only a small or short-lived effect on moving people into sustained employment. as mentioned earlier, If benefit claimants do work that would otherwise be done by paid employees, employers or public bodies may reduce hiring.

Supervising placements, arranging work, monitoring attendance and handling appeals can make schemes expensive as mentioned . Where is the money coming from?

People may be unemployed because of ill health, disability, caring responsibilities, lack of transport, or a shortage of local jobs. Mandatory work does not solve these underlying issues.

Time spent on compulsory work may leave less time to apply for jobs, attend interviews or gain qualifications that improve long-term prospects.
There are often reports of increased stress, poorer mental health and a feeling of being punished rather than supported, especially if sanctions are imposed for non-compliance.

Targeted support would be better such as skills training, apprenticeships, wage subsidies, childcare support and personalised job coaching. There is more evidence of this improving long-term employment than forced manual labour.

The litter pickers? No the reward for their labour is that they get their benefits paid. (Although we need to cut that down a bit because it’s currently way to generous).

Where are yours?

And are you going to pay these people minimum wage per hour?

Oh gosh it will require some management and coordination so we must immediately reject it!

Who is going to supervise such teams? Pay for PPE and equipment? Training? Councils are cash strapped as it is.

There are people already employed in minimum wage jobs clearing drains. They probably claim housing benefit because their private landlord has put the rent up for the second time this year. Most of the social housing in their area has been sold and council waiting lists are years long.

Well putting aside the sick, aged, and disabled; that leaves a good chunk of capable individuals who can work.

We need to ideally reduce benefits to these people to encourage them to work. Some may be incapable of holding down a job, in this instance a swap of labour for benefits would be worth exploring. Picking up litter, clearing drains, removing graffiti; that sort of community enrichment in return for their welfare.

What’s your answer then? Miracles for people too sick to work? Culling pensioners? Stopping higher education in its tracks? You’re very good at identifying problems apparently, so what are your solutions?

Our economy can’t carry the weight of working age economically inactive + growing number of pensioners.

Economic inactivity has remained pretty flat for decades.

^Long-term sickness and being a student were the leading reasons for
economic inactivity in March to May 2026, with 30% of economically inactive
people saying they were inactive because of a long-term illness and 27%
saying it was because they were a student.^

^The number of people who were economically inactive due to a long-term
illness rose from mid-2019 and reached its highest level in September to
November 2023 since the ONS series began in 1993. As shown in the chart
below, there has been a slight fall since then, but levels remain high.^

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/timeseries/lf2m/lms

There are lots of reasons why someone might be an economic drain.

Students, low paid workers, retired, disabled, feckless and lazy.

We have 10m working age who are economically inactive. A good chuck are feckless and lazy benefit scroungers. We need to be honest about this, and do something to address it.

How would society function without cleaners, carers, nursery staff and bin men? They are just asking important for society to function and it’s not their fault that they are not paid a living wage in order to house and feed themselves.

What a load of tosh!

Oh course, 'Two Tier Kier' and 'Never Here Kier' has never been belittled in the press... and what about 'Bojo, the Clown?'

Get a grip!

You were also critical of the people taking up the opportunities.

"Many beneficiaries do of course love Thstcher for the benefit they personally felt from such schemes"

People feeling like they have a stake in society is a benefit for everybody.

@NorthXNorthWest I absolutely am critical of the policies, for example in a previous post I said that not reinvesting in housing by governments of all colours was criminal. That is if they had to put the policy in place at all. I disagreed with the privatisation of public services too.

I didn’t, but I was pretty skint in the 1980s

Totally the same thing.🙄

The people who were offered the chance to buy shares or own their home were often being offered something many had never expected to experience in their lifetimes - a small but important degree of control over their own future and financial security. They don't deserve your contempt. Whether you intended it or not, your first post came across that way. If your criticism is of the policy, then direct it at the politicians who designed and implemented the policy, and then failed to replace the council homes that were sold. Blame every other administration that came after them and also failed to replace the housing.

I suspect the real difference between us is that you place greater emphasis on state hand outs, whereas I'd rather see people given a hand up and the tools and the opportunity to build security, become more self reliant and feel they have agency. I would rather scarce resources like council housing ringfenced for those who have no other choice.

Shows how they view Scotland if becoming a business minister in Westminster is seen as a better job than head of labour in Scotland

north only stretches so far I guess

Thank you @BrandiedAromatics. Still talking speculatively but sounds likely doesn’t it. I’m a bit shocked to be honest, but I probably shouldn’t be. Jobs for the boys and girls who supported or contributed to this takeover. As Sarwar did effectively when he said what he did re Starmer. New politics my arse.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar set to become a minister in Burnham's government - BBC News

I can’t seem to find out much about this Sarwar news - is it just speculation!? If so - normal day to day constitutional practice? aye that’ll be right …

A net drain is a net drain.

But that’s not what you said!

You’re right - it includes all of these folk.

That graph does not specifically represent working parents.

It could include pensioners with low incomes, unemployed people,
disabled people unable to work, people working part time or on low wages (so tax payers are topping up private companies).Some students and other low-income households.

Pensioners by far receive a lot more from the state than working parents. They also cost the NHS the most.