Why don’t Labour get it?

[MincePiesAndStilton]

Discussing with DH yesterday about the general state the country is in. Am I being daft, or is it not that hard to fix?

• Cut welfare spending. The country can’t afford it and the current system doesn’t promote independent living. Financial support for those who need it, practical support to get those who can work, doing so e.g. young people
• Get building. We are desperately in need of new infrastructure in this country. Bridges, roads, prisons, schools and hospitals to name but a few. Doing this creates jobs and economic stimulation, see point 1. Get building = get the economy moving.
• Invest in public services - stop playing the “fiscal rules” card and start making sure there are plenty of good quality jobs to tax people at a reasonable level at. See point 1 again. Things like oh I don’t know, the Police, Prisons and Border Force to keep the country safe and make it less attractive to those who want to come here and do harm. And before anyone jumps on me, no - I’m not anti immigrants, anti asylum seekers or anything else. Some people need our help. Some people want to come here and sexually assault women and children. Those two sets of people need treating very differently.

Instead, what we’re going to get is more tax rises, fewer services, more welfare and no progress on immigration. That will let Reform in through the back door and then we’re in real trouble.

What am I missing?

Totally agee!

How many Ibuprofen should I take in order to go to sleep for ever?

Before I crippled this country I paid my 39 requisite years for the full basic state pension. I also lived within my means and have some savings. I also paid some free-standing AVCs and have a little private pension of £80/90 per month.

If I weren't here living off the fat of the land it would save the country money.

Because even if someone has been on the scrounge their whole life they still need to eat? We can't been the lazy feckers just starve at pension age.

Can we talk about social care crisis & NHS spending?
NHS is running badly (not helping people who could get back into work) because of lack of social care for many existing patients. Hospitals are literally blocked with high needs patients who need social not medical care. Only we don't call it "bed blocking" any more.

The best solutions I see to solve social care are plans like Theresa May made (8-9 yrs ago) or LibDems proposed a penny increase on income tax > 25 yrs ago, to better fund social care... and the public repeatedly rejected.

Whatever economic mess exists now, voters brought it on themselves.

ps: I volunteer to help pension age people so therefore know female pensioners who never paid a lot of NI, and are doing ok or better financially. They worked PT or not much at all, they supported a male partner to pay NI & that guy is now long gone. Financially strapped pensioners is not something I encounter.

But without positive affirmative action to get more tradespeople we'll always say that.
Importing labour just means we don't train our own people.

The government employs tens of thousands of civil servants - I'm sure they can do more than one thing at once. A billion here and there is what is needed to make the difference.

But there aren't enough jobs so if you wanted to reduce unemployment by 1-2% it would involve spending money, hence why I think it's an odd area to focus on.

We need more cross-party decision making instead of them sniping at each other

Absolutely, it will take years for any change.

You have a short memory then! Remember the note left by the last Labour government to the Conservatives, when Labour got voted out? I’m assuming you probably weren’t even born then, so I will enlighten you…

When the last Labour government were voted out, they left behind a note that read “sorry, there’s no money left”. I expect Starmer’s government will be leaving a similar message for the next government when they inevitably get booted out at the next election and it will be something along the lines of “sorry, there no money left, and we’ve wrecked the economy”…

Because when you started paying 39 years ago people lived on average 10 years after retirement and there were 5 working people for every pensioner. Now people are living around 22 years after retirement and there are 3 working people for every pensioner. This was made worse by the slew of early retirements in the 90s and 2000s.

we’ve wrecked the economy”…

The economy was up the shitter before labour were elected...

Not everyone earns enough to be able to save though. Duh!

Because when you started paying 39 years ago people lived on average 10 years after retirement
Ah. Got it. I've broken the social contract by not dying off.

This was made worse by the slew of early retirements in the 90s and 2000s.
As encouraged by Tony Blair. I know several teachers who were offered early retirement at 55 years old, about 20 years ago. It was made so tempting that they would have been fools to turn it down.
Blair and Brown also invented PFI i.e. infrastructure paid for on the never-never. They got the credit for building schools and hospitals but passed the cost on to future generations. Just like the post-war Labour government who introduced pensions and the NHS but didn't fund it properly.
Labour love 'buy now, somebody else pay later'.

As it always has been.
I totally agree with scrapping the triple lock. But I am constantly amazed that younger workers seem convinced that they are the only ones who have ever had to pay for the current pensioners. It has always worked like this, you are not unique

But I am constantly amazed that younger workers seem convinced that they are the only ones who have ever had to pay for the current pensioners. It has always worked like this, you are not unique

tbf they are probably unique in ratio terms & the fact their pension age has moved out despite no increase in healthy life expectancy age.

Until you are a pensioner, then the younger workers will pay for you.
Again, there is nothing unique about this

You really are being very unpleasant on this thread. There's just no need for it.

Really? I don't think so. You are being ridiculous, sorry.

Until you are a pensioner, then the younger workers will pay for you. Again, there is nothing unique about this

The demographic changes are unique though @Katypp why don't you think that will have an impact on future pensioners?

My parents retired in their late 50s - that is a pretty unique period in history. Never before or since will so many people be able to retire so early with so much capital and such big pensions. Their demographic benefited from a once in a generation set of circumstances (baby boom with longer than ever seen before life expectancy) that we are now all paying for.

Or perhaps your parents are the exception.

I'm sitting in an office where 3 out of the 12 people are over 60 and still working full time including myself.

Or maybe my parents were in their 50s when they retired but much older now. Obviously there are exceptions, but baby boomers are so called due to the post war population boom. Combined with better health and housing and medical advances this generation is far outliving previous generations but with increasingly complex health and care needs. This is placing an ever increading burden on a smaller number of taxpayers. That is a demographic fact.

It is not possible to find a solution because, as Labour discovered, they are politically untouchable due to their numbers and that they will vote for their own benefit.

@senua
As encouraged by Tony Blair. I know several teachers who were offered early retirement at 55 years old, about 20 years ago. It was made so tempting that they would have been fools to turn it down.

Absolutely. My father is a prime example. He was encouraged to take early retirement at 55 despite working in a profession which had a shortage of qualified people. He took his 2/3 final salary pension, a lump sum and then went back to work 1 week later because there was such a shortage of people in his job. And he was not alone.

Sorry my language about that the triple lock wasn’t good. The problem is that we expect a decent state pension, but people are living longer, and taxpayers don’t want to pay for it. Politicians can’t be honest about how much it costs to keep the triple lock because voters want something for nothing. Then reform come along and blatantly lie about how easy problems will be to solve and the electorate falls for it all. It’s the biggest problem facing the country, not people on boats

Then reform come along and blatantly lie about how easy problems will be to solve and the electorate falls for it all. It’s the biggest problem facing the country, not people on boats

I think a lot of the reform voters know it's bullshit. They still prefer the bullshit though, I want to believe we can have low taxes and excellent services too!

I understand that. My grandfather lived for two years after his pension age.

I keep waking up every morning and I'm grumbled about because I do.