Thread 21 Starmer - Casting Nasturtiums

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5298316-thread-20-starmer-spring-statement?page=40&reply=143217222

Respectful and supportive discussion of things political and beyond

Cat, dog, flowers, haberdashery tax most welcome

FFS, asylum seekers do not take our jobs

I did though when I came over here, worked long hours for a shit wage and worked my way up.

No ideal but preferable over forced labour or leaving them destitute.

Wouldn't it be amazing to actually see them held to account?

So, what is your solution?

The 'don't want to work' rhetoric is simplistic and shortsighted. If you want long term unemployed people to work (and we do, if they can), you need to understand and address the barriers they face. That will take effort, investment and support. We have had 14 years of bashing the unemployed with financial punishment and it has achieved fuck all. Advocating for more of the same, and harder, and louder, is stupid and immoral. This government has chosen the stupid path. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea which will work should put that same shoe on, because it will fit like a glove.

Yep. Phillip Hammond said that Osborne's attempt to shave £12bn ff the welfare bill failed to save even half of that and obviously did nothing to help the ongoing situation.

This.

if we paid enough to live off it wouldn’t be an issue.

We are calling out for people to take the lowest paid jobs in society. If someone can come here and be free from persecution and film an empty position and contribute to society - that’s not a bad thing.

I mentioned above I recently had to go to the council office and ask about housing for me and disabled son. It was a horrid experience. I was made to feel like I had to justify why living on the first floor in a HA flat wasn’t suitable for a wheelchair user, why I didn’t own, have a higher paid career (whilst raising said disabled child abalone since he was a year old).

I contribute to society in my way. I don’t claim benefits (ds gets pip) but I also cannot afford to buy (2 bed around here is £250k for a wreck) and renting privately isn’t any better as could and up homeless or if I went into private I’d actually be entitled to UC to pay my rent.

So I’d stop being a net contributor.

We really need to aspire to raise everyone above the average wage. Leave no one behind.

Even if a vast swathe of the 1.5 million got jobs at minimum wage, many would still need UC to top them up due to the insane rental market or because they have children etc. Then there is the fact that some of those 1.5 million will never be employable and no amount of stick will change that.

The benefits issue is far more complex than just getting people into jobs.

On the subject of jobs and roles ... seems there is a reason not everyone is good with computers.

https://scitechdaily.com/new-study-a-lack-of-intelligence-not-training-may-be-why-people-struggle-with-computers/

That does make sense. 25 years ago I was happily building pcs and tinkering with the the complexities of installing hardware drivers in exactly the right order not to have to start again because plug and play was nothing of the sort and experimenting with Linux (did not like!). If a graphics card malfunctioned (they often did, then) I would enjoy the challenge of debugging it.

Then I had babies and my ability to hyper focus disappeared and by the time I got back to having a bit of time to tinker, everything was a bit more slick and I found myself a lot less sharp. I find myself FFSing at things no more taxing than filling in forms, these days.

Jobs taken up by asylum seekers/migrants at minimum wage would still need to be topped up but then you're adding to the population as well which means more demand for housing etc.

You keep making this point but still haven't told us what your solution is.

Asylum seekers do not add that much to the population and as far as I can see there is no evidence that they all work minimum wage jobs.

Immigrants have visa rules to adhere to. They can't just claim benefits either.

Having babies "adds to the population" (a phrase redolent of Dickens).

Our Royal family are descended from immigrants. So the sky is the limit, it seems.

Paid for by tax payers

Even that is not as simple as you say. Every western nation is sitting on a demographic time bomb. Our working age populations are too small to sustain the non-working age population. And there are no simple solutions, because the problem is already there. Even if all women of childbearing age started pumping out babies in quads, we would still hit all kinds of trouble.

But meanwhile we do need people to work. That means those who are currently not working, many of whom will need investment and support, and it would be handy if it also meant asylum seekers. BTW, do please bear in mind that all asylum seekers are immigrants, but not all immigrants are asylum seekers. In fact they are a tiny proportion of the total, so I do not understand why you are so laser focused on them as the problem.

With free houses, cars and goats. Not to mention Cornwall.

Our working age populations are too small to sustain the non-working age population.

As a statement, there are several conditionals you can attach to that. The primary being "if we want to maintain our standard of living".

If we are happy to accept a lower standard of living, then we could accept a decline in the population.

So far all the signs are we are quite happy with a reduced standard of living, so - as you note - it's not as simple as that.

I agree with that caveat. I made the point to counter the age old trope of 'the country is full'. It isn't.

What a coincidence then that boat crossings shot up, exactly as we left the EU in 2021.

Prior to this, the feeling was that there was no point in giving yourself up to the authorities, as one could be returned... once we lost this, open season on turning up at the border ensued.

That was the deterrent we had, which people who voted for Brexit took away.... it doesn't matter we didn't send back everyone, the fact was it was too big a risk to take.

But i don't expect Brexit supporters to acknowledge this, few will ever accept they were duped, infact they double down and now back Reform

"Fool me once, shame you, Fool twice...." was never so true!

Government considers nationalising British Steel

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vnz4jy97no

It's a bit bloody late - but as a lefty I approve of this.
But please God can they do the same with the utilities and enable the key services required by the UK to actually be under the control of those whose interests are UK centered, rather than being owned by cynical asset strippers with no interests other than fat dividends and bonuses for themselves and their mates.
Thames Water - looking at you...

I thought that was always the intention, along with water and rail.