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?

Work experience is supposed to teach new skills. And you still haven’t suggested where the money would come from.

The same place that Burnham is going to get the £5,000 from, to bribe all these NEETS to get into an apprenticeship.

If they are getting up and going to work they are learning a new skill instead of sitting in their festering bedrooms playing video games.

As for the source of the money see my answer at 100.00.am ^

Do you have the facts? Because the articles linked by a different poster do not confirm that £100 million was spent on a defunct scheme. If you’re going to spread it as a fact you should probably have some supporting evidence. I’m not actually super invested in the issue but it doesn’t seem like you have a strong argument about it.

So you've changed your mind about it being the fault of the 'nanny state' and an overly generous welfare system? That's good to know. Once you rid yourself of these sort of baseless assumptions, you're well on the way to applying critical thinking to address the problem.

Is that the same place Badenoch plans to get the £5000 bribe to employers to recruit them? Plus the £5000 bribe of repayment of NI contributions for young people in their first job, which will disproportionately benefit higher earning young people and not address those you think we should be targeting?

I’ve explained to you that the cost would quadruple because people on benefits can’t legally be forced to work in jobs created out of nowhere. There would also be additional costs in that people would have to be paid to set up and administer the scheme, tools and protective clothing would need to be purchased. And how many street sweepers would realistically be needed? Not a million.

Nope it would be doing jobs that we can't currently afford to have people do. There are many things that councils used to do that now they don't because it doesn't make sense to pay people minimum wage to do them.

Like what?

It wouldn't be illegal because I was PM I would change the law to allow it. I generally think it is better for people to be contributing to society than sitting on their backsides doing nothing. It would be win win. A win for making our communities better, and a win for people's mental and physical health.

So you'd be creating a whole new underclass of cheap labour? For anyone who makes their living working for an employer, this is a very bad idea as it would drive down wages all the way up the chain. There's enough people struggling to get by in the working and middle classes as it is without reducing the value of their work surely?

Our council used to run youth clubs for kids, used to have people looking after public gardens etc. There are loads of roles which are now filled by volunteers - reading with kids at school etc. Any role that doesn't generate £12 of value. The government has decided any role that doesn't generate £12 of value needs to be stopped or done by a volunteer. There must be a middle ground.

Exactly that. Isn’t that the reason people initially got pissed off about immigration? Because there were people willing to work for less?

There would also be costs attached to any involvement in schools or youth activities as those people need to be DB checked. Any variation on this mad idea simply increases costs.

I believe so.🤔

No it would create jobs for people who don't have the skills to earn minimum wage. It would mean you wouldn't be telling people that because their skills weren't worth an arbitrary minimum level that they are worthless and should stay at home instead.

You don’t need skills for most minimum wage jobs. The reason these people don’t have them is because there aren’t any.

Talk about deflection. The fact that people will come to the UK for low paid work yet people in the UK won't go other places for low paid work just shows how comfortable the welfare system is. The addiction to welfare that many people have is what we need to break.

I think that is pretty insulting to many people in minimum wage jobs to be honest.

It’s not deflection. Facts can be so inconvenient sometimes, can’t they.

There are no jobs that are worth less than the minimum wage, hence its name.
Its not just about skill, its about labour. Labour has a value in our society which means you give it in exchange for pay. For all sorts of excellent reasons, we have decided to place a minimum value on labour. If you decide the value of labour at the bottom end is equivalent to benefit rates, then you inevitably push down the value of labour for workers at higher levels.

Blair/Brown didn't do much to solve the problems either during their 13 years. These were problems long before 2010! They've been decades in the making.

I would limit immigration - that would reduce the competition for the unemployed arse sitters who could then take up the low skilled jobs created by removing the minimum wage. I'm not really sure what facts you seem to think you have gotcha me with? I guess you're happy with an underclass of people destined for a life on benefits. I suppose at least they'll Labour.

That's because you're confusing skill with labour. There are many jobs requiring the second that don't require the first. Its not insulting to acknowledge that certain roles don't require a skill set and can be done by most people. It doesn't mean the person doing the job is any less worthy or hard working.

Why would you think that Labour and its supporters want people to have a life on benefits? We all agree that it's better for people to be able to contribute to society.
Where we differ us in how to achieve this.
Luckily, the PM has some sensible plans around this.

That is a choice to say that jobs that have an economic value less than minimum wage are not worthy of being done in the UK and should be done elsewhere. These roles clearly could exist.

People make decisions on what they are prepared to pay for what all the time.

How many more people would employ a domestic cleaner if they charged £10 an hour rather than £15, if that dropped to £7 even more would. The government has set the threshold that if you are prepared to pay £12 that is ok, if you aren't you can't employ a cleaner. Is it better for the £10 cleaner through she/he now doesn't have a job and has to claim benefits.