To be amazed by the amount of people who think the state shouldnt help people?

[malificent7]

I mean with job creation, welfare, regulation of private employers etc.
I hear so many times...its not the state's job to do x, y and z.

So what is the point of gaving a state if it cannot produce conditions for people to thrive?

Of course some take the piss but the state shouldctry to peovide more jobs and less zero hour contracts, they should regulate how the private sector treats employees, they should moderate wages anf provide housing.

Of course, some take the piss but most have a genuine need and the state dosnt want to know.

The level of state involvement in peoples lives is probably one of the key differences between the left and the right in politics. I don't like the term 'nanny state' as it's always used perjoratively. I think we need the state to provide basic infrastructre and services, and it should intervene in peoples lives to ensure that the strong don't exploit the weak.
It will always be a moot point as to how much intervention, but I would prefer a northern European model of society which has a high level of state involvement, to a US model whch has a minimal level. Its one of my concens with Brexit, in that the UK will turn more towards the US and away from Europe, with the resulting social, economic, and cultural impact.

I'd much rather be on benefits than be a "breadwinner" on a zero hours contract. At least with benefits you know how poor you are going to be each month.

The only way to get people to work is to remove the option of them not having to

This. It could easily have been done with the change to UC. Time frames of claiming, full time hours expected etc could easily have been built in.

We have a disabled child which severely limits my job. I can only work school hours and feel very lucky to have this job. We struggle in the holidays as he cannot access holiday club so we have to hire a nanny to look after him. Without dla we would find this impossible so appreciate state support. Although filling out the form is like making you beg, my son has a lifelong condition that will affect him as an adult too so I hope he can access state support later on.

I'd much rather be on benefits than be a "breadwinner" on a zero hours contract. At least with benefits you know how poor you are going to be each month.

Exactly. I'm incredibly lucky to have one of the few set hour jobs in hospitality. I have it because of my experience, knowledge and work ethic (despite a pp claiming that all the benefits claimants don't have one) I am expected to pick up the slack from lack of staff (0 hours contracts given just that, or the barest minimum for the business to function) and work harder for that privilege. My wages and 'state support' are paid out in their entirety, every month to companies like British Gas, for essentials (profits of £1.39bn, an increase of 12% in 2018) to pay for the services and also towards their profit margin. Apart from the essentials, I actually am getting very little except tired and slagged off from this arrangement.

Living Wage
Is that enough to rent a house?
in the Ponzi housing market?
or would it be cheaper and simpler to sort the housing market ?

It does not surprise me. The Tories got elected in the 1980s because of small reductions in income tax rates.

A useful flow diagram

ForalltheSaints the Tories got elected in the 1980s because Labour had made a huge pigs ear of everything.

There might have been a reduction in income tax but that was an after thought.

Anything was better than the 3 day week, strikes, power cuts and bodies piling up to name a few of the delights of the 1970s under Labour

Oliversmumsarmy - remind me, why we’re people striking again ? Millions of people went without their wages for months to ensure better working conditions for their children, job security, fair pay and then a load bloody idiots went and voted for that anyway

Against that ... and we ended up with zero hours contracts, everything privitised etc etc

Anything was better than the 3 day week, strikes, power cuts and bodies piling up to name a few of the delights of the 1970s under Labour

That was under a Tory government

No under Labour, I was there, Tory's voted in government 1978/9

Dd is on zero hour contracts. She has several of them.

She loves them.

If she wanted she could work 12 hours per day 7 days per week (£15/hr minimum, £65,000 per year as a teenager)
Because she is registered as self employed any travel/uniform etc she has against tax.

It is picking the right type of zero hours contract. The one that allows you to work for other companies.

She has been offered f/t jobs in the offices with these companies but the pay isn’t great and would work out as the same as working 2 -3 days per week.

No under Labour, I was there, Tory's voted in government 1978/9

It was under Heath and he certainly wasnt Labour, google is your friend

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week

Ok I stand corrected 1973 - 3 day week. I remember the power cuts. I was a child.

Labour was in power from 74-79 and there were strikes and problems with rubbish collecting and morgues.

The other poster lumped the 3 day week with the rubbish and bodies

Zero hour contracts are fine untill you get ill

Zero hour contracts are fine untill you get ill

Same with ft jobs if you haven’t been there for a couple of years.
Dd has put a tidy sum away working zero hours contracts.

Zero hours are probably ok if you are a contractor in a high demand industry who can call the shots. For everyone else they put you in a very vulnerable position.

Zero hour contracts are fine untill you get ill

Same with ft jobs if you haven’t been there for a couple of years.

Or ft jobs with no pay and leaves you reliant on SSP, no matter how long you've been there.

Zero hours contracts work for some, they don't for those who have set outgoings and no other way to make up the loss of cash if you're dropped a shift. Place I used to work used to cancel people an hour before shift started, or send them home an hour in to the shift. That's fine if you're not reliant on the income for a roof over your head. Makes budgeting impossible as even if you get a rota with a full time week, you could only end up with half of that by the end of it.

Dd certainly doesn’t work as a contractor or any type of work that involves having a qualification

Dd has put a tidy sum away working zero hours contracts

She’s a teenager? Living at home? With no responsibilities to manage such as children?

I worked for a while in a support centre for education, dealing with courses and finance.many parents,invariably mothers, had not worked for many years and were inreceipt of benefits and were in social housing or received HB and received help with their children’s college fees and expenses. They were generally unqualified and to take a very low paid job would have left them worse off, besides involving childcare at least in the holidays and what they rightly or wrongly saw as boring hard graft .They mostly preferred the lives they had, I know the system is supposed to make work pay but sometimes people perceive the effort as not worthwhile financially or effort required.