Is Reform done for?

[anotherside]

The last several recent national polls indicate that the election of Burnham as leader has seen Labour retake the lead and would probably form a minority government (or better) if an election was held tomorrow. Reform meanwhile is in the low 20s, while they’re were averaging low 30s just six months ago. Do you think it’s game over for Reform in terms of the next election? Is Burnham enough to secure the next election for Labour? Or could Reform claw it back still?

The only source claiming he said that is the Mail so I’m cynical about he ever said it.

It offends the common sense of those motivated by pragmatism rather than emotion.
There is no evidence that cutting benefits makes people more emoyable. In fact it all points the other way, because poverty is a barrier to securing work.
Obviously the aim should be to get people off benefits, but the ability to earn a living needs to be there first.
Like a lot of people, you have this backwards. You think creating poverty by removing benefits will drive people into employment, when it's creating employment and equipping people for it that drives people off benefits.
Burnham gets this. Hence all his plans to create apprenticeships and change how schools equip young people for work.

@5128gap "Yet you think they should stretch further because you want a problem fixed without it costing you anything?"

Why should it cost me anything when I didn't create the problem.?
All my family have always worked and paid taxes, and been responsible - why should we pay for those who choose to be bone idle and "work the system"?

A friend of mine has a sort of p/t delivery/collection business (no more details as could be outing) and wanted to expand. It's a task-and-finish job 3 days a week 5 hours a day max that would suit a mum as it could be fitted around school hours. Van is provided and that can even be used privately.
She advertised and got 2 applicants. ( ! )
She took them out with her to show them what was required.
One decided she didn't like it before she even started. The other started and after a couple of weeks decided it wasn't for her.

What incentive is there for people who want to get on when they get crippled by Tax, NI and other penalities?

Iain Duncan Smith invented and introduced the current UC system, at a cost of £12bn, (£10bn over budget). He said it would simplify the welfare system, make work always pay more than being on benefits, and reduce long-term poverty and dependency.

He wasn't demonised for saying those things, he was fairly blamed for introducing the current mess that is the benefits system.

@5128gap Burnham gets this. Hence all his plans to create apprenticeships and change how schools equip young people for work.

If it is such an obvious solution that some people 'don't get' how was it that Starmer's government didn't do it?
Instead Ms Reeves raised NI on small businesses making it punitative to employ people.

Completely agree - it's almost funny how many posters spent time telling us that the NI increases would how no impact on employment of the young and now seems to be keen to post the solutions to the problems it has exacerbated,

@TemperanceWest "He wasn't demonised for saying those things, he was fairly blamed for introducing the current mess that is the benefits system."

OK, OK, when in doubt blame the Tories, yawn....

I didn't say there was an obvious solution. I said Burnham understands the problem and has come up with a plan.
I said that you are making an error of thinking and are putting the cart before the horse. Your emotional response of anger that some people don't work while you have to, is preventing you from objectivity.
You want a draconian and authoritarian approach of removing people's income and pushing them off on the third sector (I've explained why that's flawed already) or expecting some business to employ them (would you want the sort of person you describe working for you, or serving you as a customer?) and it isn't the way to fix the problem.

A friend with a business has seen her NI bill rise by 15%, so now she can only take on one trainee instead of 2. The local pub has only one barmaid now because of NI increases.
Meanwhile train divers on 65k+ a year got a humongous pay rise and don't want to work w/e now, so all the train services are rubbish at w/e's. Now they are striking again https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/train-drivers-begin-strike-ballot-long-running-lner-pay-dispute
Pensioners got their fuel payments cut because, according to the Socialists they are all loaded and don't need it.
All totally bonkers decisions that were mainly revoked.(except for the train drivers because Labour have to keep their Union bosses sweet.)
It seems no-one in the Cabinet could run a sweet shop never mind a government !

Well they were in power for the 14 years during which these problems began. A million young people with no work, education or training didn’t suddenly spring up like mushrooms in 2024. Nor did the shortage of prison places.

Copy of my question to Gemini, and its response including source - THE GUARDIAN

Did Andy Burnham say that 98% of migrants have now left Ceuta?

Yes, during a visit to Dover, he stated that he had been assured by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez that approximately 98% of the estimated 50,000 migrants who entered the Spanish North African territory of Ceuta had been returned to Morocco.
The Guardian

…but ofcourse, because it’s also in The Mail, that surely must mean it didn’t happen according to your logic 🙄

I find it hard to believe that these people are so stupid that they couldn't be tasked to sweep the streets or something similar.

If they can't do that maybe we should ask ourselves why we have bred a generation of morons?

Where’s the money going to come from to pay them to sweep the streets?

Well we haven't arrived at our current state of affairs in the last 2 years, have we? Are you suggesting that in the 14 years they governed the country, the Tories had no hand in where we are today?
Burnham refuses to point the finger of blame and wants to focus positively on the future. I admire him greatly for that. But he's a better person than me, because I can't sweep their mismanagement and neglect of the country, the way they failed us all under the rug.
For one thing, we can't fix problems without identifying what led to them. So the policies of previous administrations obviously need scrutiny to avoid the same catastrophic errors being repeated.

They can get paid instead of being given benefits.

So Burnham said he had been assured of that by the Spanish prime minister. It’s not quite the same as you portrayed, is it?

Minimum wage is £482.98 a week. A single person gets less than £100 a week in benefits. Where’s the money going to come from?

Well, indeed, we should. But as the people you're talking about grew up under the Conservative administration and you've already made clear that any consideration of their part in that will be closed down by you as "blaming the Tories" how can we have that conversation?

They can get minimum wage when they get a real job. Anyone on benefits should be pleased to get some work experience in return for their payouts. It will help them develop the right ethos to get a a real job. I bet a good proportion would suddenly find that getting a real job wasn't so hard after all.

We need to get some usefulness out of the population we pay to sit on their arse at the moment.

I'd also get rid of the minimum wage - it prices some people out of the labour market completely. A minimum wage only makes sense in a world where people have to stay in education until they have minimum skills.

If it was scrapped, then the state would be subsidising low paying employers even more than they are now. People wouldn't be able to keep a roof over their heads.

Right. So now the hard working ordinary people who currently do entry level and manual jobs are going to have to compete for them with an army of people working for below NMW? And when they're replaced or overlooked for the cheap labour, you want to pay their benefits instead? Because a lot of these people will have homes and families to pay for so their benefits will cost you more that the young NEET.

Sweeping the streets isn’t work experience and certainly wouldn’t enhance anyone’s employment prospects. Having said that, one of my friends did it during a university summer vacation and says it’s one of the best jobs she’s ever had.

I fail to see how any government can be blamed for breeding a generation of idle beggars?
In 2002 the birthrate in UK fell to an all-time low, so thank goodness for that, otherwise we'd have even more of these work-shy layabouts.

Why isn't it work experience?
You have to get up on time, turn up for work, do the job without making a pig's ear of it, work mainly unsupervised, put your hours in, fill in a time sheet and go home.
I would imagine there's a certain amount of job satisfaction in it as well.
I doubt that there is any uniform needed to launder and they would give you high-vis tabards, to put over the old clothes you wore.
To me it's win/win.