Thanks for your reply. I agree with much of it, especially backing community work that already delivers on a shoestring. My concern is less about intent than delivery. Good intentions aren't enough, so I'd like to test a few points.
Andy Burnham doesn't need all the answers. He just needs the will for change and to listen to those who are experts in the field.
I agree he doesn't need every answer himself. But he does need a capable team and a credible plan for delivery, funding and results.
There are cost effective ways of delivering support and early intervention through third sector partners, where government input can be matched with input from trusts and grant making bodies, and I'd like to see this explored.
It could work, but many third-sector organisations already struggle with funding, staffing, quality, governance and skills. Where does the extra capacity come from? Unless charitable funding is genuinely additional, there is an opportunity cost to other causes. Asking others to help pay doesn't tackle government inefficiency. It spreads the cost without addressing the waste.
Whether delivery is public, private or charitable, I want value for money in the short, medium and long term, especially with taxpayers' money. Changing the provider or funding source doesn't automatically improve execution (HS2 being one example). What would these proposals achieve? How would they support growth and productivity? What are the possible unintended consequences, and how do we mitigate them? No administration has a great track record on this.
There is much excellent work being done in communities, addressing financial and digital exclusion, financial literacy, job skills training. Usually done on a shoe string. A little investment there goes a long way.
I would welcome more of that. But how do we fund in and expand what works through a structure that minimises waste?
I'd like to see consultation with professional experts and people themselves so measures are taken with people not done to them.
And how do we reach people who won't engage? Engagement is an issue too.
We are aging and sick.
An ageing population brings costs, but it also includes many people with time, experience and skills to contribute. Many retirees could volunteer in the community initiatives you describe. My concern is with the wider rhetoric, not anything you've said personally. Portraying pensioners as wealth hoarders for staying in their homes or having private pensions risks discouraging their involvement and creating resentment. If we want stronger communities, we should encourage cooperation. Not pit different group against each other. Such a waste.
The healthier people are at every stage of their lives cost less it cost the economy free up resources for other areas. What we doing about sickness related productivity issue outside of the elderly.
And no, we don't have limited funds as a country. But there's a great deal of wealth here nonetheless and some of those who hold it are increasing it at alarming rates. I think we do need wealth and asset taxes rather than squeezing the middle and dragging the poor into deeper poverty.
Who counts as wealthy? Which assets would be taxed? Private wealth isn’t the same as unlimited public funds, and I don’t think poverty increasing can all be attributed to the wealth held by others. What are we trying to achieve, and what is the best way to do it? We need to be clearer than “tax the wealthy”.
Don’t get me wrong: wealth disparity absolutely needs addressing. But I am cynical about Labour’s approach. We still lack clarity about what may be proposed. We appear to have gone from “fully costed” to fully in the dark!
What is the economic cost when businesses delay investment, hiring and expansion until after the Budget? Prolonging that uncertainty is economic self-harm, IMO.
So realistically we are inevitably going to carry a high welfare burden and do need to have conversations that go beyond stereotypes of the workshy, 'cut benefits' as the cure all, and understand where the welfare budget actually goes.
It's two-way street. It isn’t just those on benefits who are judged. Workers and people without disabilities also have their struggles dismissed as greedy, selfish or privileged. For every post calling them spongers there is an equal an opposite telling a struggling working hanging on by their their fingertips "privileged". “At least you’re well enough to work” and “You can have my disability”... Nice. So I don't think it helps to portray those on benefits as the victims and everyone else as the villains. I agree we need to understand genuine health needs, welfare spending and what intervention can achieve. We also need realistic expectations of support and an honest discussion about personal responsibility, which costs are shared and how much others should contribute. Supporting people and scrutining costs isn't mutually exclusive.
Nothing above tackles the thorny issue of growth and productivity. IMV, that is one of the biggest flaws in socialism. You need people who aspire to more than the minimum to drive productivity, build businesses and generate the tax revenue that keeps the welfare state functioning. "For the greater good" or is not a good enough reason to go the extra mile for many people.