Kemi B - the best form of welfare is a well paying job...

[Oofftheflooff]

She is absolutely right isn't she? Discussing the triple lock pension challenge and instead focusing on getting people into work. Do you agree with her ? Working 3 or 6 or 9 hours to then top up with benefits isn't the way forward (not including disabilities in here )

Yeah an extra £83 per annum per employee is crippling those businesss with fewer than 25 employees. An extra £2k per annum must be so hard to find.

Oh wait a second, the NI offset Employer Allowance was doubled from £5k to £10k which means small businesses aren’t actually paying any extra NI taxes at all due to the NI increase. It’s all covered by the higher Employer Allowance.

Which is why, op, Labour governments legislated against zero hours contracts and established a minimum wage. Both things that Tory governments (including the last one that KB was a part of) have failed to do.

How exactly is she proposing to do this. It's all well and good saying this should happen but it's basically meaningless hot air without any substance.

Did she give any details? Is she going after the employers who only offer low hour contracts?

Its a messed up system for sure. I work 4 out of 5 days, I don't get paid for day 5 by the taxpayers I just suck it up and im always a bit skint! I have the option to go down to 2 days if I want to claim UC.

I am job hunting at the moment. I am senior professional. There are few jobs in my field at the moment. There are many roles which require experience, skills and knowledge yet do not pay enough for me to support me and my son (lone parent).

As a basic statement of fact it is true, I agree with it and I think most people would.

However, like a lot of mumsnetters I am in a full time salaried post. I get paid the same whether my work takes me ten more hours or ten fewer hours than I am contracted for. I live in an economically successful part of the country, and there are other jobs like this available should my current one disappear. My employer happily makes (sometimes quite expensive) reasonable adjustments for employees.

If people are just lazy, again everyone can agree they should work full time. The problem comes for two groups. Firstly, people who have health conditions that would require reasonable adjustments but find that the employers they can apply to won't make them, leaving them working fewer hours than they could.

Secondly, those on short hour contracts, who find that they can't take additional work as their employer requires them to be available to work extra hours at very short notice maybe a few times a year. Again, they are working fewer hours than they would like.

I'll find any politician credible who can come up with sufficient carrot and stick for both employers and workers to solve these situations. Just saying things we can all agree with doesn't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

I think Kemi needs to realise that as a country we’re sick of self serving governments that put their popularity with backbenchers first. Governments that trot out meaningless sound bites, that continuously shaft Joe Bloggs whilst helping the rich and ignoring deep seated problems affecting everybody but the rich. Thank god we’ve finally got a prime minister that puts the country first, popularity second and who has the balls to actually start sorting deep seated issues.

Andy Burnham said something similar on the Today programme the other morning. Nobody wants people stuck relying on benefits if they can work.

Also, we all know the triple lock isn't sustainable, so I think he's done well to actually do the right thing and say we should move away from it rather that just trying to protect his party's position because it will be unpopular with older voters.

No-one would reasonably disagree with your headline.

Plenty of people with Badenoch's remedy for getting us there.

That's not what our welfare system was designed for, it was driven by the desire to make our country something worth fighting for.

www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/history-science-technology-and-medicine/history-medicine/birth-the-welfare-state

The welfare state was not set up to support those returning from war. It was set up as a 'cradle to grave' social security system. It was done after the war because that was when the Labour government took power.

As to the original question, we have to face the fact that there will always be people who cannot work for whatever reason, or who cannot find someone to employ them for whatever reason, or who cannot hold down a job for long for whatever reason.

There has always been a need for social support. We are in the 21st century and it should be organised in a fair and humane way that allows people to maintain a sufficient standard of living to take a full part in society. People who cannot work are already disadvantaged in the grand scheme of things.

All of which said, a focus on providing quality jobs is certainly important because work is something everyone who can work should have access to.

I don’t really know what you’re asking, because as far as I’m aware, absolutely no one from any political party disagrees with that central premise. Everyone would like to see more people in meaningful, properly paid employment.

The debate is about how to achieve that. And that’s not a debate that can, or should be reduced to simplistic sound bites.

She is planning to pay for this increase in the welfare bill by cutting jobs

Absent young children or health issues/disabilities it's impossible to work a few hours and get a UC top up. It's expected that people will earn 30 hours a week at minimum wage equivalent even if self employed.

This isn't rocket science obviously.

But what about those who work full time but the jobs aren't well paid?

The minimum wage and credits forever changed the relationship employees had with employers. In the past sometimes employers had to put their hand in their pockets if they wanted to retain or obtain staff. Sometimes it was the other way around.
Now, employers know they just pay the minimum and the taxpayer will pay any shortfall. They do not have to bother about it.
That and in the past the recruitment was local, then area wide, then national. Now people are competing internationally.
Employers sponsor people from abroad to work here. Boris removed the need for employers to prove nobody already here could do the job first. I do not know if that has been changed. But it does not help if not.

Employers are seriously the group of people the Government needs to talk to. To champion those who do recruit here first, who support their staff, who offer apprenticeships and training. And at least some full time jobs. Not mostly part time.
It starts with employers.

Quite. The Tories don’t seem to agree with “jobs for life” culture either. But jobs need to be fairly secure - or have good redundancy protection - to keep people off benefits.

Its not a new thing that there are lower paid jobs. We can't all earn the same, regardless of skills/talent/experience etc

Of course, but don't you think the lower paid jobs should enable people to support themselves w/o needing UC top ups? If they are working full time that is.

Yeah....cutting loads of Civil Service jobs to pay for childcare for higher earners.
That has to be a better solution than this.

Any job is better than being on benefits. Benefits are basically a trap, a living death that we all have to pay for. They do no good for anyone.

Zero hours contracts are an abomination.

The minimum wage along with ‘credits’ were introduced by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They changed the relationship with employers and employees forever. For a modest job. Employers were quick to realise they did not need to offer any higher than the minimum and the taxpayer can pick up any shortfall.
Great. Not. The days of employers having to cough up more to workers at various times was lost forever.

It was a stupid idea. And remains one. It drains the revenue the Chancellor has to use elsewhere. And means people often don’t work full time. Great.

Very, very many people have a job and rely on benefits as well.

We don't have a single economic engine left that would support giving everyone a well paid job, and, even if there was such a magic tree, the product prices and consumer demand would send inflation through the roof and make exports completely overpriced overseas. No conservative would ever support that. Lip service to voters base, if there ever was one.

It isn't because the reality is that there aren't all that many well paying jobs. More and more companies are wanting to pay minimum wage.