Labour isn't Working - Thread 37

[NoWordForFluffy]

In Nuthatch's absence, I've been asked to start the new thread!

A chat thread for those of us who don't like this Labour government.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5548208-labour-isnt-working-thread-36?page=1

I don't think there's anything in the site guidelines about "helpfulness", or lack thereof.

Benefits have never been paid in person. Giros and order books were posted out before money was paid direct into bank accounts. There was more scope for fraud, not less. Paying benefits in person at the local office would be extremely expensive.

I didn't say anything was against site guidelines? I was giving an opinion.

I have seen some pensioner bashing on these very threads!

Yes, I agree, and I think that’s a widespread view on the voting right and voting left. That simple truth gets lost in the left-wing rhetoric about employment law, rights and state welfare support.

Do you jump in to 'educate' when you see it on other threads too? Or just this one?

Labor Statistics for Older Adults

• High Prior Activity: Data consistently show that historical employment rates for past generations prior to state pension age involved decades of work or raising families, with lifelong non-workers making up a tiny fraction.
• Main Reasons for Inactivity: The primary reasons older individuals transition out of the workforce before or during retirement age are standard retirement, early retirement, or health-related sickness, rather than a total absence of a work history.

Yes, but it really took off with the WFA cut. Poor old OAPs, they were all painted as geriatric Gordon Geckos by the MN left.

Maybe they ought to be.

It will cut down fraud quite considerably.

I didn't watch Burnham's speech, but Sky's headline is that Burnham wants to fix social care before assisted dying is debated.

I know its early, but I'm off out for a cream tea this afternoon. 😋

New thread ✨️ ✨️🧵🧵🧵✨️✨️😎

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5560242-labour-isnt-working-thread-38?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

It's one of the options they're drafting... and kite-flying to see how much opposition there is. They've learned nothing from Reeves' disastrous pre-budget destruction (twice).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/3df3deee4a09724c

Oh dear
Paywall but I was able to read the first paragraph

So more potential taxes on income
I think that will be less popular and certainly I’d rather my estate foots the bill when I’m dead
People need the money when they are alive after all

thanks for the update

Is Healy going to resign again?

Apparently Andy won’t commit to the 3pc increase in defence spending.

I suppose 10% doesn't sound too bad but history tells us that this will creep up and up over time. God forbid people that have done the right thing keep what they have earned.

Or is it Streeting’s turn now?

Streeting has already put himself on resignation watch 😂

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wes-streeting-defence-spending-andy-burnham-b3022081.html

Archive link to the above article.

http://archive.today/oHeuU

I saw an LBC video yesterday where the caller took his 19 year old son to the job centre for advice about apprenticeships. They asked him if he was on benefits, which he wasn't as living at home and trying to find work. They said they couldn't help him as he wasn'ton benefits. You couldn't make it up!

Really? That’s bonkers.

Burnham originally declared the current system was incredibly unfair with funders subsidising those not paying

This does Nothing to address that and ignores all those who may need care in the near future and are currently pensioners

but then Labour aren’t interested in the elderly so I’m not surprised at this.

The job sounds like a bit of a poisoned chalice!

That 30-year lead in is pretty tricky, given that the payments are intended to be put in a fund rather than the usual ponzi scheme of each generation funding the next.

I guess they could have a lead-time where if you paid in for say 15 years, you got half the support that people will eventually get?

But then why should I get less support if I've contributed more in 15 years (due to higher salary) than someone else will in 30?

I suspect the only thing Burnham thinks is unfair is that some of Labour's favourite people have to contribute a bit to their care, rather than the 'broad-shouldered' paying everything for everyone

Last para
exactly

nonsense scheme
who will be backing it up if there’s a crash aswell. I can’t see Hmrc doing that

Also of note it says working age people. So pensioners still with an income are barred from it …..

Just as I thought someone, even Labour🤣🤣, might give a shit about the unfairness of the current scheme !!

Really, the only fair solution is a genuine fixed-rate, government-backed insurance scheme - as they have in many other countries.

Insurance would be mandatory by law - the same price for everyone, not underwritten based on conditions - and everyone should have to pay it. At the same rate. Given that we are all human beings who potentially need the same care.

Yes, even those on benefits.

If benefit payments aren't enough for a basic standard of living including health insurance (and tax at the same rate as working people, and council tax at the same rate, and electricity at the same rate, and fucking attraction entrance at the same price), then benefit payments can be increased. To cover the essentials - as working people do out of their salary.

Then at least everyone can see what welfare is actually costing, rather than so much of it being hidden away in slices everywhere you turn.