Rishi Sunak no more bailouts

[Elpresidente29]

He said government cannot go on like this...

The level of support give by the government has been unprecedented

So is a global pandemic (in our lifetime)

UBI is more of a socialist idea, wanting or expecting this current government to even entertain such an idea is fanciful. Rich people arent going to get richer with everyone sitting at home, so global pandemic or not the 'help' we be reduced and you will be expected back in work as soon as they can get away with it without being hammered in the press

UBI is more of a socialist idea, wanting or expecting this current government to even entertain such an idea is fanciful

Well, if anyone had told you even 4 months ago that this government would have under taken to pay 80% of people’s salaries in the private sector and tided over the self employed, you wouldn’t have believed them.

It’s interesting to speculate if there was a better way.

The very frustrating thing about this crisis is that it actually wasn’t financial in nature. What they had to do was 1) create a financial crisis to deal with the health crisis and then 2) treat the financial crisis with the tools they normally treat financial crises with.

There wasn’t the time/headspace to debate if there was a way of avoiding creating the financial bit the first place.

A fanciful idea or not. There is nothing wrong with discussing how to have avoided a financial crisis. I am going to be spending years dealing with the impact of this financial crisis in my work. If I wasn’t thinking about it I’d be fanciful.

I would have preferred to not have to worry about food banks, families on my caseload being unable to buy nappies, kids being stuck with limited opportunities for another X amount of years and be able to focus on solely safeguarding but that’s not going to be or hasn’t been my reality. It hasn’t been a great experience since 2009 so I am not surprised I’m wondering if it could have been avoided, when I’m staring down the barrel of a bigger gun now for an unknown amount of time.

Dont get me wrong I agree wholeheartedly in UBI and think its what should replace benefits but the current shower of shit government arent concerned about individual people their response has all been media focused, every time public opinion has shifted/been shifted they have responded and getting out of this lockdown is going to be hard but thats what you get when you govern through propaganda

Sadly it is what it is - furlough is unsustainable and some people just want to take government money to sit at home where actually their job is very low risk. We have gone from a situation in which people are not concerned enough about social distancing to one where they are too concerned. I think that the government should have encouraged office workers to work from home 4 weeks earlier and then had looser restrictions on other things - more like Sweden - and focused attention on measures in care homes and for the vulnerable etc (where Sweden's excess deaths are - the young population that are moving relatively normally are unscathed and their excess deaths are really concentrated in the care sector - not great, but a reason for specific measures not general ones).

Case in point - nannies. If parents are wfh, social distancing from others (ie only one supermarket shop per week and daily exercise), washing hands regularly and giving nanny space (from them, not kids) in common spaces, then risk is extremely extremely low. But on mumsnet people are campaigning for people to let their nannies sit at home on furlough money, which actually means middle class people claiming state support for costs that they should be paying. It is immoral to be honest - either you reduce your nanny's risk so far as possible and she comes in or you (not the state) pays her. Anything else is unethical profiteering that the country cannot afford.

Equally I saw on here that one woman would not get her toilet fixed because she had another one in her house. Totally ridiculous. In lots of cases it is entirely possible to have a workman in the house 2m from others, leave the toilet a couple of days and then give everything a good scrub before using. People have gone mad and expect the government to pay them to sit at home to manage even minuscule levels of risk.

furlough is unsustainable and some people just want to take government money to sit at home where actually their job is very low risk

Nothing like a post from a representative of the Nudge unit, is it easy work to get into? How closely do you have to follow the script? Does it help if you believe/dont believe in what youre asked to 'nudge'?

Honestly, I don't work for the government. I am just a normal professional person who employs a nanny and has had a lot of stick on here for continuing to have her come to work, but whatever you want to believe!! If I could get the same money for writing perfectly cogent opinions on social media I would though - far easier than my current role

Can you explain why you think people should be furloughed even in jobs that are very low risk?

Can you also explain how it is possible for the country to pay the income of 50% of people long term. How is this sustainable?

some people just want to take government money to sit at home where actually their job is very low risk

FFS why blame the employee? My DH didn't ask to be furloughed - he was told he was going to be! His employer has furloughed about 75 people - some genuinely don't have work but not all. If the employer has decided to take advantage of the furlough scheme and manage with less staff while getting part of his payroll bill picked up, how is that the employees fault? DH would go back to work tomorrow if he could but it's pretty clear his boss will keep him furloughed as long as he can.

That is why I said some people not all people!!

I'm furloughed and tbh I really want to go back to work but I can't until nurseries or childminders re open. What am I supposed to do?

Some people (not your DH) who are very vocal on Mumsnet honestly think nothing should reopen unless there is absolutely no risk to anyone and the government can continue to pay indefinitely, which is clearly unsustainable. Of course it isn't an employee's fault if they would be very happy to work but are furloughed.

I think nurseries and childminders should go back for all working parents.

That is why I said some people not all people!!

It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100% though. No furloughed employee is in a position to change that. So it's completely irrelevant if 100% of them are saying they would rather stay home - it has as much impact as if 100% of people said 'I want the sun to shine tomorrow'. The situation is absolutely under the control of the government and of the employers. Whether it's aimed at all or some employees, I'm sick of the anger and bitterness being thrown at people on here who are in a situation that is not of their making and that they cannot change.

Many nurseries can go back as the list of those they can serve is massive including bankers and justice system workers and lawyers (not just nurses) so if I ran a nursery I would be looking at every single job of the parents and seeing if I could find a category they fall into to allow me to open up. Nannies of course can and continue to operate and people can hire someone to come to their home to look after the children as we did for years. Expensive but better than not having a job for many on reasonable salaries.

@BamboozledandBefuddled

Ok, I am sorry. I am coming at it from an employer's perspective. My nanny agency put me under a lot of pressure to furlough my nanny because "most nannies don't want to work, it isn't safe" etc etc, which is untrue. There was a huge nanny campaign to get furlough pay rather than work in what is a very low risk situation for most people. That obviously doesn't apply to your DH. But a lot of employers are wary about opening because they are worried about facing claims that they haven't eliminated risks for their staff - even if they have taken steps to mitigate it so far as possible. Employee's unions are another pressure group who frankly have some unrealistic expectations at the moment. These are the groups I meant.

@xenia it's not good if you're not a key workers though is it. My nursery is open but I'm not allowed to use it. I am not paid nearly enough to hire a nanny. I would be paying her my entire wage so there would be no point.

There is zero childcare available to me. None.

JustAnotherPoster00 all benefits???? including the state pension - which a lot of people on here and on other boards insists is a state benefit because if you do that it would have to be decided if the UBI will be taxable like the state pension when added to any other income, or tax free like UC/tax credits which are not added to other income for tax purposes because if its only 1 benefit called UBI for everyone then the rules should be the same for everyone. so taxed or tax free?

My nanny agency put me under a lot of pressure to furlough my nanny because "most nannies don't want to work, it isn't safe"

Viewing current crisis through the prism of a biased privilege

Well it’s been nearly 6 weeks out of work for some people. Some people are saying they won’t go back to work because they’re ‘scared’, some people have lost jobs. I think all those hand wringers saying money is not important as people’s health and who cares about money when ‘people are dying’ are going to have to have a bit of a reality check soon.

I agree Just there is a lot of that. If your highest context is maintaining your own current privilege/circumstances, I suspect it is really hard to think about a scheme that would support a wider/different/longer term context.

UBI should be available to all, it should replace state pension and if you have a private or occupational pension then that adds to your income, it should be available to all, regardless of wealth or privilege untaxed, some will chose to live entirely off that without fear of sanction for spurious reason, disability would obviously have some sort of addition to their UBI, people who work can then choose to be a bit picky about the field they work in because employers will have to attract employees rather than the fear of being homeless and starving. UBI should be set at a decent level and not the punishing UC/legacy benefit rate.

The people who spout on about 'oh well then no one will work' seem to miss the point and are probably lazy themselves or fallen for the benefit claimants are scroungers narrative and are therefor gullible as fuck and can be discounted from the UBI discussion that most people enjoy work albeit not the place/field they work in, those that spout that bollocks mean they wouldnt work and that would be up to them

I think the gov was right to do what they did, it's not perfect but to get the admin to sort the funds alone so quickly was good & of course some will take advantage/slip through the net.

This will be unpopular but when it comes to paying for this it's not fair to heap the burden on the younger, income paying population alone. The burden needs to be spread.