To think the current Government is either stupid or delusional in its expectations re "economically inactive" people?

[Juliette20]

news.sky.com/story/priti-patel-attacked-over-clueless-claim-that-inactive-britons-will-fill-job-vacancies-11937918

Apparently "economically inactive" people are the answer to the massive hole in the labour market being created by leaving the EU and Government immigration policies.

There are 8 million people who fall into this category. Ok. But:

• 26% of this group are disabled/long term sick.

• 22% are full time students

• 13% have taken early retirement

• 11% are people who have just left a job and are awaiting the results of job applications, or don't need to work

• Not sure how many people are carers for relatives- but other data suggests about 7 million people - some of these will be working as well, of course.

It leaves very few people, and people don't necessarily want short term work like fruit picking.

The unemployment rate is current 3 - 4%

Priti Patel, get real, your figures do not stack up.

DH and I were discussing this yesterday, he started muttering about conscription. I have already decided I shall be a conscientious objector.

I wouldn't put it past this Government to start shooting them. Personally I'd consider insurrection. I'm an excellent shot and spent many happy afternoons in my mispent youth blowing things up.

Either way, I think things are going to get worse for a lot of people. I suspect I'm relatively safe for the time being, can't see them increasing income tax to punitive amounts or massively increasing inheritance tax as being their first point of call.

I think Safariboot has it nailed. First they'll go after the long term sick because "most of them are clearly faking" (I used to work for the DWP...meetings with management were always a "delight"). After all, I imagine there is a long term plan and it makes sense to go after the low lying fruit first. Their traditional voters already believe the soundbites about those on long term sick and about single mothers so it wouldn't take much to demonise them further. That's what I'd do (if I didn't have a conscience). Dh also thinks we might get a version of National Service at some point, because that's what he'd do. Plus it's an excellent way of teaching obedience to the State.

Spot on, Dino.

I think there might be a bit of mileage here to make work more accessible to people who want to do it, but are prevented from doing so by location, mobility, health or caring responsibilities

Nah, if it was going to happen - bearing in mind this is 2020 FFS, it would have happened by now.

Anyway, the general thrust seems to be to keep the less able out of sight where possible.

If you find that offensive, then just ask yourself why there is still no law requiring buses to carry wheelchair users ? Imagine being in a wheelchair, getting pissed on, and your one bus a day turns up with it's wheelchair space occupied and then drives off. Hopefully it won't be the day you were due for an ESA/PIP assessment (as that'll be a sanction), but just wanting to do some shopping. Or get to a hospital appointment.

Probably best not stoke me up over disability rights - I have hundreds of stories.

Home-based? Um, the vacancies are anything but home-based.

It is both a political and an economic problem. Those who work have to support in various ways those who don't. Simple.

Parents support children, (up to 18 here , up to 12 or 13 in some societies). The elderly and sick are supported by family or the state - different societies decide to do it in different ways.

We pay for it by taxation and investment on behalf of the state. Some countries tax at 50%, some at 20%. Some tax mainly income, some spending or property. But NO society can exist without establishing some rules.
We will all believe different rules are important as our viewpoint shifts.

Those who work have to support in various ways those who don't. Simple.

Plenty of retirees don't work and are supporting themselves on their private pensions or rental incomes from BTL properties or even savings.

Most of us have been the supporters and the supportees at various stages of our lives, or will do at some stage. If people get support when they need it, at some point they may be able to be more 'economically active' again.
As a pp said, even those not paying tax are spending money, so are still part of the economic system.

It is both a political and an economic problem.

Funny 9 posts ago it was economic, no mention of politics.

The onus should be on the employer to offer the flexibility that 'economically inactive' (What a term, everyone spends money!) might need to enable work to be possible

I agree, this could be the one silver lining of all this. If you work in a shop or library you obviously need to be there to open up and serve people. But if you work in an office and talk to clients on the phone do you really need to be in the office? Probably not. Some call centres are already "virtual". More use needs to be made of technology - not to remove peoples' jobs but to help people do them.

those not paying tax are spending money, so are still part of the economic system

That’s true if it’s a partners salary or savings previously earns but won’t be true in all cases. Those claiming benefits are using money earned by others so not paying tax just some of it goes back.

@EerieSilence my point here is that UK is getting less and less attractive for well educated and experienced people that the point system is supposed to be designed for. The jobs are coming to them instead as current instability and stupid policies are making employers relocate. The quality of life in Eastern Europe is much higher now than in 2004, so even people from rural areas are not so eager to go to UK any more. They are more likely to try their luck in some big city closer to home. The hostility of the current government is not helping any.
There is simply not enough qualified locals to do the jobs the Europeans were doing. It is true that it is possible to eventually train enough workers but by then it will be too late - relocating a business costs a lot of money, no one will want to do it twice. As for the jobs that cannot be relocated, like nurses, carers and so on - well, we already have a shortage. They cannot raise salaries by much, so they will need to lower the standards I guess.
We all should try not to get sick or old in the near future

FGS, none of these vacancies is nice office work! It's care, agricultural, hospitality/tourism, food/restaurants.

This is the problem with having the country led by so many privately educated people. They never mixed with poorer families when growing up and so never learned about the complex circumstances that drive and trap people in poverty but instead inherited the Victorian view that the poor could fix their own problems if they’d only work harder, preferably in something very menial and out of sight.

Dh also thinks we might get a version of National Service at some point, because that's what he'd do. Plus it's an excellent way of teaching obedience to the State

The Tories can bog off with that idea (if they are considering it). Why does anyone owe anything to the state? We obey the law and pay tax and we receive services in return. That is the nature of the "contract" between state and citizen. Citizens don't owe the state (in effect the power mad politicians) anything. I am against national service, conscription and compulsory jury service.

Also I don't agree with national service because I don't think it's a good idea for all and sundry to know how to handle a gun. The attacks in Hanau are a good illustration of that - "Tobias" is old enough to have done national service in Germany.

Yes I agree Dino, it will be the more vulnerable first, I think we would be too troublesome and it’s absolutely about soundbites.

DH on the same page as your DH, there is a narrative about the feckless young that prevails that sets the scene for this very nicely.

Why does anyone owe anything to the state? We obey the law and pay tax and we receive services in return. That is the nature of the "contract" between state and citizen. Citizens don't owe the state (in effect the power mad politicians) anything. I am against national service, conscription and compulsory jury service.

Even asking that question could be asking to be put on a list. Of "non-crimes" of course. But you could always have a policeman turn up at your place of work to "check your thinking" just in case.

That's not hyperbole. That's recent history by the way. Well, recent as in "before the election", in case you missed it.

FGS, none of these vacancies is nice office work! It's care, agricultural, hospitality/tourism, food/restaurants

You are right, but most employers are inflexible, whatever the sector, and there are probably are people out there who could work if there were more flexibility built into their roles or technology could help if the employer would invest. And even in retail there are probably more options for people with disabilities, Sainsburys are quite good at this, and there are cafes which employ people with learning difficulties. There's a guy who works at my local library who is deaf. With sympathetic government backing there could be more options.

If all of the immigrants are high skilled and high paid
and all of the indigenous people are forced to take low skilled low paid work ....

maybe Priti actually hates Anglo Saxons

Serendipity is right. All that fluffy warm Blitz spirit people love to yarn on about, well, it was illegal to speak openly about the war's being negative or similar.

But you could always have a policeman turn up at your place of work to "check your thinking" just in case

Oh yes I know what you're referring to. Though it doesn't seem like the other political parties would help much about that particular issue especially with the proposed law change in Scotland.

There's a percentage of long term sick/disabled who can work but nobody will employ them (particularly those with learning disabilities if the government supports them) there's others like me who are underemployed, but I won't be taking any of the low paid work going, I don't need the money. I do know work shy people but I can't see them picking veggies!!!

Economically inactive means people between the ages of 16 to 64, not in any form of paid employment. If this is by choice then no one will be forced to work.
Im guessing the choice will depend on if you have means to support yourself privately. I fear the days of people reducing hours to maximise tax credits are coming to an end.

And even in retail there are probably more options for people with disabilities, Sainsburys are quite good at this, and there are cafes which employ people with learning difficulties. There's a guy who works at my local library who is deaf. With sympathetic government backing there could be more options.

And there I was thinking it would be the BBC that would be puffing the "ain't disabled life great" line.

Take a friend of mine - has Multiple Sclerosis. Diagnosed in the late 80s in her late teens. Which is immediately a hurdle as according to multiple healthcare "professionals" that never happened. You can inly get MS in your 30s.

Anyway, moving forwards, they are registered blind, thanks to the MS, and have been wheelchair bound since 1996. With the MS deteriorating (despite the upbeat stories you hear) she was luckily to respond to a treatment where a pump is fitted into the abdominal wall and feeds an anti-spasmodic drug into her spine. So at least her legs don't lock in agony too much now.

MS shreds the central nervous system, so her mental faculties are (as she says) "fuzzy". It also triggers episodes of fatigue where it's impossible to sit up, let alone propel the wheelchair.

I need to be somewhere tomorrow lunchtime, so I wont' bore you with "adventures in accessibility" right now. Suffice is to say in the past 30 years the high water mark was probably 2007, 2008. It's worse now than it was in 2000 and getting worse.

Still, Eurovision, eh ?

What about Students?
Will their loans become contingent?

What about the disabled ?
Will their PIP become contingent?

What about housewives?
Will their child benefit become contingent?

What about carers?
Will their support become contingent?

As it will end up costing the country a darned sight more if carers stop doing it for free ....

I fear the days of people reducing hours to maximise tax credits are coming to an end.

Um, they came to an end a while back. Every council became full service Universal Credit back in December, 2018.