To think few lives have improved due to Labour’s policies

[Sandysandytoes]

I knew they wouldn’t benefit me - but I thought they might help some people.

Train drivers have more money but other than that I’m struggling. I’ve lost my job as a direct result of their policies, it would be nice to find some positives.

YABU = my life had improved as a result of Labour’s policies.

YANBU = it hasn’t improved or has got worse

Why? Depends on the business and the type/number of employees. Some small street shops/cates etc will have seen almost a 100% increase in their employee NI cost with the rate increase and threshold lowered, even after the employment allowance increase. And they are exactly the kind of business that probably can’t absorb the increase with their profit, because they simply don’t run at that much of a profit in the first place.

In addition, in other industries, with regard to AI - if the UK appears to be losing more jobs to AI than other similar economies, then we have to ask why and look at the issue holistically. It’s entirely possible that AI use is increasing in UK job markets precisely because of the higher associated costs of having actual, living breathing, employees.

The long and the short of it is that we have too many economically inactive people (including pensioners) being supported by too few workers. There has been severe underinvestment in public services for decades, from many successive govts.

It's not an issue one single party can solve. Regardless of who's in power, we're always going to have a top-heavy aged population. It will take decades to bring our hospitals, roads, schools, public transport etc up to where it needs to be, assuming we had the money for it.

This isn't a Labour or a Tory issue. There is no palatable fix. We could import more immigrants to boost the younger working population, but that's unpopular. We could remove the triple lock, but see above.

We're - by which I mean all people all over the world - in a period of contraction and adjustment after the excesses of the boom years. It's not going to be pleasant.

This is so sad. My husband has a small business and let his lower paid, younger go. It made more sense to hire someone with more skills as the wage difference between them and the kid whose wage had to rise under Labour was so little. He also won’t hire unskilled now to train them up, no point.

@HoskinsChoice would you accept a pension age of say 74/75 if they kept the triple lock?

@Bagsintheboot finally a rational post!

@HoskinsChoice

We have hopefully learned from the Waspi women debacle that any future change needs very careful planning. For that reason, there will be no imminent significant changes.

That's not how it works in government. In a decades' time, they'll be virtually no staff in government who were around when the womens' pension rules were changed and most will have little knowledge of WASPI's. The "new guard" will be younger civil servants/politicians who don't know much about the changes and probably can't be bothered to research properly and will just do what they want without proper experience/knowledge as to what's happened in the past. So, the same mistakes WILL be made. Political history proves it time and time again.

I did say in my op that I’ve lost my job as a direct result of their policies. Is that not enough of a reason?

we are in deep trouble - Labour has done absolutely nothing except impose additional costs on the private sector. Across all of the political establishment we are heading for a French style political crash and either a populist right or a populist left coalition.

it remains to be seen whether Labour will eat its own tail first and attempt that populist left lurch.

I agree that there are many factors in this debacle, difficulties etc but Labour ignored expert policy advice time and again. Few policy economists thought the NI rise was a good idea.

How do you create more jobs in that landscape?

AI can absolutely be utilised to increase productivity of companies - which in turn creates more jobs (other economies are doing it!) but if your government’s polices mean that actually employing more people has become economically unviable, that’s not going to happen 🤷‍♀️

Policies still exacerbate issues though, as we’re seeing rn.

Well idk the gov could’ve incentivised hiring under 25s rather than making it more expensive across the board if they’d foreseen the AI related job losses people have been talking about increasingly urgently for 3 or more years now.

Exactly, it’s hardly unknown, no need to make it much worse.

What would incentivising companies to hire under 25s look like?

Most policies any government could enact would make things worse before they got better. It doesn't matter which colour of govt it is.

There are no "good" options is what I'm trying to say.

I don't mean that to be doom and gloom, but this has been on the cards for a while. Many govts all over the world have failed to address it because no-one likes being told that the good times are coming to an end. Our global markets rely on constant growth. Any logic will tell you that sooner or later that's going to fall over. Unfortunately for us, we're living in the times when we're starting to see that bubble contracting.

Well, what it definitely doesn’t look like increasing employer NI on them…I’d suggest that Labour start listening to policy economists and business people in this area. No sign of that so far.

I agree we’re living through what looks like a period of low to no growth in a lot of countries - it needs an exceptional political response and instead why we’re getting is the splintering of the democratic consensus in the middle ground.

There are no "good" options is what I'm trying to say.

Exactly, the state we are in every single policy will have an effect on something else.

Many govts all over the world have failed to address it because no-one likes being told that the good times are coming to an end

I genuinely think this is why Reform is popular, they are saying the good times can come back.

We need cross party consensus & long term thinking but too many of the electorate won’t accept that.

Well I feel it needs to be expert led - I’m starting to wonder why politicians have any control over economic policy given the dismal outcomes 😂

Dh hired someone at the beginning of the year. After two weeks they said they had anxiety and were stressed and couldn’t come in. So employee departed. Imagine if they had had day 1 rights! No one would dare employ anyone again; I suppose there would only be fixed-term contracts to avoid being saddled with cf employees.

No wonder it was watered down to six months. Labour seem utterly blind to the law of unintended consequences, in this and much else as well.

There are still policies which make things worse than they need to be, that hasn’t gone away. And these ones are.

NI coming in at 25 for example.

What I think is really sad is that too many university graduates still think a degree should be enough to guarantee employment. It’s not. They need a job strategy from y12. People sleepwalk into these problems by being under skilled.

Make it less expensive rather than more. The deal with young, inexperienced people used to be "ok, you don't know anything, it's going to take time to train you, and you will make mistakes ....... but you are cheap, so its worth it". That isn't the case anymore. My company no longer hires school leaver types.

WRONG.

My life has improved a lot.

(I did emigrate from the UK in 2024 though.)

The Pimlico Plumbers bloke has said this. It’s surely obvious that if you are a day 1 trainee you cannot command a full wage. In the past an apprentice had to pay the employer! Imagine day 1 rights for a clueless teen joining your 2-man band painting and decorating business…