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?

I see Farage and Tice are now suing the NCA. Nice diversionary tactic to attempt to discredit the agency.

They are, unless you want to write them off before they have even been given a chance. You do know there is a jobs crisis for young people, including graduates? There are plenty of threads on MN about DC finding it very hard to get jobs.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy026x9jpd0o

To be fair if it turns out the NCA are leaking personal banking information to the press they ought to be discredited. If true that is shocking behaviour from law enforcement. We will see when it comes to court. and a judge can make a decision.

Well if they are Graduates with these "Mickey Mouse Degrees" or won't help themselves it's no wonder they can't get a job.
A divorced friend of mine's daughter has a Music Degree and wants to write jingles for adverts. She won't help herself by giving Music Lessons in the meantime, or go to a pub "Jam Night" to show what she can do. I don't know what she does all day and neither does her dad.

Well, they're not going to be shipped off and replaced with a new lot, are they? And we will be dependent on them in one way or another when we are old, so yes, obviously they are.
Which is why it we've any sense at all we'd take a long look at why they are not progressing their lives, and invest in fixing it.

Yes, absolutely, but I strongly suspect that is not the case. We will see! Maybe they hope to flush out a leaker from inside Reform?

@5128gap "Which is why it we've any sense at all we'd take a long look at why they are not progressing their lives, and invest in fixing it."

Why is it our job to fix their lives? It's a parents' job to get kids ready to "launch". Why should the rest of us taxpayers pay to fix poor parenting?

It's the ruddy "nanny state" that's ruining this country, some people have no initiative and want to be "spoon fed".

A friend I know takes hairdressing apprentices from the local college, one girl couldn't be bothered to turn up, so she had to finish her and report it to the college.

No wonder some of these kids don't get anywhere.

You can't rely the parents to fix it because of generational unemployment Many of today's NEETS have parents who are long term claimants and are training their kids the family "trade". If you see your parents living comfortably doing nothing you are not going overly incentivised to do anything else. It's why the core part of the policy seems to be to bribe parents with £5k to get them to get their kids to do an apprenticeship

Labour, who else would it be! And I do know the proverb. But thank you font of all knowledge.

Could have been anyone, you didn’t specify. Are you so rude to everyone or am I special?

Why is it our job to fix their lives? It's a parents' job to get kids ready to "launch". Why should the rest of us taxpayers pay to fix poor parenting?

I would have thought the answer to that is fairly obvious.

Sorry if you think I am rude, just answering the question you asked me. No I don’t think you are special😀😀😀

Why is it our job to fix their lives? It's a parents' job to get kids ready to "launch". Why should the rest of us taxpayers pay to fix poor parenting?

But what happens with parents who can't/won't do proper parenting? It's beneficial to society at large for their offspring to be "fixed" by society in general to make them worthy contributors to society! We can't "force" crap parents to be better parents, so society has to step in.

Manchester doenst have a ULEZ, what do you mean?

Yes, because it was cancelled, hence the wasted money: www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/manchester-ulez/

@NoWordForFluffy did it cost 100s of millions before it was scrapped? Would it be better if it now had a ULEZ?

Dunno. What do you think?

£104m potentially, depending who's believed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrl2m16v13o

No It got pulled after public back lash but not before 104 million pounds of tax payers money spent on infrastructure, disgraceful waste of money.

All spent before Burnham was elected as mayor under a Tory government.

You are totally incorrect there. Maybe check your facts. Burnham spent 104 million pounds of taxpayers money on the scheme after back lash from many local business and people the scheme was cancelled in 2022. Burnham was elected in 2017. So not really sure what you are saying?

Well it isn't.

Some of us are taxed up to the eyeballs and don't have the resources to support people's poor parenting choices and their deadbeat kids who won't get off their backsides and get a job.

Oh "No jobs !" they whinge. So do some voluntary work, get experience, get something to put on your CV. Loads of Charities are looking for volunteers, use your initiative, help charities tidy old folks gardens, join in with local initiatives in the community, help at a soup kitchen lots of practical experience to be had.

Burnham claims that 98% of migrants who invaded Ceuta have left. Do you believe that as well? 🙄

Charities do NOT want "deadbeat kids who can't get off their backsides".
Charities want committed competent people who will help deliver the services their beneficiaries need.
Its often the case that charities can and will offer training and experience that increases employability. In fact they play a vital role in this. But this doesn't come free. It requires training, mentoring and supervision and this costs money.
Because the first duty is to beneficiaries and you can't unleash anybody and everybody on vulnerable people, just because you think they should be working.
Charities are already stretched financially due to cuts in welfare and public services (when you cut benefits, who do you think feeds the children of the erstwhile recipient?) plus a huge upsurge in demand due to the economic climate.
Yet you think they should stretch further because you want a problem fixed without it costing you anything?

We need to cut benefits to encourage these scroungers to get off their scrawny ar$es, but of course that offends the ethics of bleeding heart Labour Luvvies on the back benches.
Ian Duncan-Smith had the right idea under the Tories but was demonized for trying to 'make work pay'.