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 )

You know full well that pp was not referring to those earning just above NMW. Don't be disingenuous.

It's so typical that you and yours are coming up with solutions like 'just move out of social housing then' for a seasonal and temporary job - you have no real solutions for the complexities of the current labour market and how it is entwined with the cost of living. All you've got is 'on yer bike'. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

Until business deals with its addiction to zero hours working and starts providing work that people can actually live on, nothing will change. And in that situation cutting benefits will only turf people out onto the street, increase crime and increase the financial burden on the taxpayer that way.

I don't have any answers either - but at least I'm honest about that. None of this is going to be easy.

If someone doesn't have dependents, the benefits regime isn't very generous to single people. I don't know any single person who has deliberately chosen to work so little part hours just to get a very meagre top UC up.

I do know a couple with children where one works almost full time and one part time to help juggle child care at an affordable price, and they get a little bit of help ( £300 towards £1100 month rent) which is payable to a private landlord. They are not living the dream. The extra child care and transport costs if they both worked full time , after tax, would mean they would be worse off.

What is wrong is housing costs are too high for people on average incomes, the annual tax allowance too low, and many employers aren't paying sufficient wages to live a decent life, and indirectly, UC is used to prop up profits by enabling jobs to be created that don't pay enough to live on. A well paid job is relative, but it's certainly not open to all those on benefits.

It's people who think it's ok to exploit people that think the extra support for low income families should be taken away.

You and yours

I’m an individual with individual opinions, because I may not be non white it doesn’t mean I share the same opinions as every other non white person. My opinion is by the way, that lazy entitlement had brought the country to its knees and whether you think it’s the solution or not …. a huge reset is coming. Its just whether the IMF bailout or demise of Labour comes first.

Its just whether the IMF bailout or demise of Labour comes first.

Change the record, it's not working any more.

So there will be no IMF bailout conditions and Labour will be never be voted out? Ok then. But I’d advise you to get your cv ready and come to terms with paying your own way just in case.

No its because those relatives are out at work As i suspected you want it both ways but you cant You cant erode workers rights with things like zero hours and then expect them to be available for elderly care while they are basically on call to their employer and without being paid to be on call like some middle class professions are

@nearlylovemyusername this you hun

This isn't about skin colour - it's about the relentless hardcore faith in trickle down economics and the mindless worship of all things market. All you are proposing is more of the same thing that hasn't worked for 14 years of Tory rule, didn't work in the 1980s and in fact also didn't work in Victorian times. Market worshippers think it is acceptable for one of the richest countries in the world to have people who work hard and be unable to afford the basics of housing and food. That is an opinion you are entitled to have, but it says a lot about those who hold it.

I agree that a reset is coming - the demographics of Western Europe combined with climate change and the advent of AI make that inevitable. Where we differ is how we tackle that. The old quote about the definition of insanity did not in fact come from Einstein, but from Narcotics Anonymous, which is very apt indeed given how both politics and business seem addicted to hacking at the poor any time a problem presents itself.

How the fuck is someone going to be able to afford to travel back and forth and forth and back to see to an elderly parent if they have been forced to move away out of their community for a minimum wage job

Well, exactly. Joined up thinking is not the forte of some people.

It did work in the 1980s, it didn’t work in the 70s, it didn’t work in the USSR, it didn’t work in Cuba and it’s not working now. Or are you claiming it did work in the 70s and it is working now?
I have absolutely no doubt that this upcoming budget will be more anti growth and anti aspiration nonsense under the pretext of tough decisions and I have no doubt we’ll all be poorer and I have no doubt unemployment will increase as a result . I also have no doubt Labour will then use the fact that we’re getting poorer to push for even more anti growth and anti aspiration policies in the subsequent budgets. And on and on it goes until they’re stopped

It didn’t work in the 1980s. It’s the reason we’re in the mess we are now.

Ok, I want born so can’t bothered to argue but look at the unemployment rate after every budget from this government and seriously tell me we’re going to be ok after 3 more years of them,

Labour takes office
July 2024
4.1%
Autumn Budget 2024
30 Oct 2024
4.4%
Spring Statement 2025
26 Mar 2025
4.6%
Budget 2025
26 Nov 2025
5.2%

As you say, you weren’t born. I was an adult. The unemployment rate never went below 7% in the 1980s and was 11% in 1992. The figures you quote are positively utopian by comparison.

So the increase in unemployment after every Labour budget doesn’t worry you? If they continue with the taxes to fund welfare (which they will) on this pattern it will be just under 8% by their last budget. 1.5 million extra people out of work for ideological reasons. Do you know what Labour supporters will then say the answer is at that point? Yep you guessed it, more benefit spending and more taxes.

What’s the ideology?

Anti business, anti wealth, anti individual choice, anti equality of opportunity, envious, impractical and virtue signalling, anti growth and obsessed with 1870s class politics.

😂

The list of unemployment rates since Labour took over and after each budget was your opportunity to explain why the next budget will be different and unemployment won’t continue to accelerate upwards after it.

The description of Labours ideologies was your opportunity to maybe list some pro growth, pro wealth or pro individual choice policies they’ve implemented.

I know why you didn’t take either of these opportunities.

Where are all these 'well paying jobs' that Kemi is referring to? Has she said what she considers well paid?

I watched the interview with her saying this and one thing she said (sorry to go off topic) I thought was a bit silly.

She have an example of a deputy head earning I think it was something like £95k and being offered a headteacher job for £101k and not being able to take it because childcare would make it not worth it.

Surely no one is doing something like that? not taking a promotion because it would mean they have to start paying childcare for a bit? It seems like a long time when we're in it, but how long do you really pay nursery fees out of your working life? maybe 5 years tops? who is turning down a promotion like that because of that? Surely you'd just pay those childcare fees until your kids are in school instead of waiting until they are to take a promotion that might noit come back around?

Crazy.

Of course they do. That’s a £290 a month pay increase after tax and could cost you £1200 a month in childcare. £900 a month worse off for a more stressful job, probably working more hours you’d rather spend with your young children? Who’d do that?

It's crazy that people are forced to do it.

Childcare fees impact is absolutely huge. Moving from 95k to 101k would only give you £3280 pa extra, but childcare impact would be over 30k out of take home pay, at least in London. So people would be crazy to accept promotion in these circumstances

Let's pay attention that unemployment numbers only include those who are looking for some sort of job. It does not include a quarter of economically inactive population, so e.g. NEETs aren't included in 5.2%

Of course people are doing this, lots and lots of people. £6k a year pay rise and suddenly you have to pay the full £30k a year childcare bill. People can’t afford to take the promotion. £6k in, £30k out. Nobody is going to sign up for that.