Rise of "the right"

[oowee]

18 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

True, but the point remains the Cons were useless to. Tough talk and no action. 

Interesting to see if Starmer can hold it together long enough to make a difference. 

[old man]

50 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Yes, stealing from pensioners seems a higher priority than tackling fraud.  Still, that always was Labour's way.

Well it's certainly much easier to achieve.

[Yellow Bear]

26 minutes ago, old man said:

Yes, stealing from pensioners seems a higher priority than tackling fraud.

I said something similar to a telephone canvasser for labour just before the last election and the response was a quiet " well someone has to pay for the benefits"------I just hung up 

[12gauge82]

34 minutes ago, oowee said:

Interesting to see if Starmer can hold it together long enough to make a difference. 

I hope so, although I'm not at all impressed with the start he's made, most of all his removing of the winter fuel payment, which is likely to result in the death of some of our most vulnerable citizens. 

[Mungler]

13 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I previously looked at the figures for each of the Reform seats and compared those to the national average as well as local Labour and Conservative constituencies in my home county of Essex.

What you can see is that, with the exception of Basildon S & Ockenden E, the Reform constituencies have higher than average percentages for economically inactive but, with the exception of Ashfield, several points lower percentages than the national average of those not wanting to work.

	Economically Inactive %	Don't want to work %
National Average	21.2	82.4
Ashfield	33.5	82.2
Basildon S & Ockendon E	14.5	76.2
Clacton	41.5	74.7
Great Yarmouth	29.3	76.7
Boston & Skegness	27.4	68.3
Labour (Harlow)	25.6	81.4
Conservative (B&B)	23.9	74.9

What the numbers suggest to me is if >20% of working age people are economically inactive combined with an aging population, then the system is broken and the burden on the rest of us is huge and growing unsustainably.

The answer is we need more people who are net contributors, the answer is not more people who are low skilled and a net drain.

One of the significant issues is we do not attract enough of those in the net contributor group beyond our borders, for various reasons.

Another issue, and pending risk, is what happens when a significant portion of the workforce who are skilled and at or near net contributors today are replaced by AI agents. Perhaps we'll see a positive shift in salaries of people who undertake labour intensive work but then the AI enabled robots will be along shortly afterwards to replace them too...

Nailed it.

 

13 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't know your area at all, so can't really comment other than my own 'suspicion' which is that where there is a high proportion of those 'economically inactive' being of working age and eligible/suitable to work that;

• the 'economically inactive' would tend to mostly vote for that party which is seen to be generous with benefits and benefit packages - and that is Labour.
• the working and active would tend to vote more towards 'Reform' as the party (as yet untested) who would be most inclined to be 'tough' on benefit 'fraud' (on the basis that successive past Tory Gov'ts may have 'talked the talk', but never delivered on the rhetoric.

In addition,

• I think that pretty much everyone would want to support (and support properly) the genuinely needy - such as the long term ill, disabled, elderly, injured, widowed, carers of others etc.).
• Also pretty much everyone wants to see 'fraud' stamped out.  If people are too 'bone idle' to work, benefits should be only at a bare minimum subsistence level - and possibly 80% paid by a (voucher type?) system that allows purchase of essentials and excludes alcohol, tobacco/vape products, gambling etc.
• In particular, benefits should be there to support people when they fall on hard times and should never be a voluntary 'lifestyle choice'.

All a bit hard to do, but it won't be done if never tried.

 

Agreed.

Turkeys don’t for Xmas but really lazy turkeys (or politically destitute) don’t bother voting at all.

12 hours ago, oowee said:

Why do you think its so high after the Tories? 

They weren’t Tories on any measure.

12 hours ago, oowee said:

By which logic Labour will do a better job. 

You are either trolling or delusional or perhaps both. 

[Mungler]

12 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Never mind, Starmer will sort it. How many years will pass before he / Rayner et al stops blaming someone else?

They will still be blaming the Tories in 5 years time.

Don’t get me wrong I would put the whole of the last Tory administration in chains for utter incompetence and masquerading as conservatives. Still now the Conservative Party just don’t get it. 

[old man]

10 hours ago, Yellow Bear said:

I said something similar to a telephone canvasser for labour just before the last election and the response was a quiet " well someone has to pay for the benefits"------I just hung up 

That's interesting, thank you. YB

Already planned then?

Edited October 5 by old man

[Newbie to this]

As has been said, the problems lie with the civil service, of which a huge chunk are no better than those committing benefits fraud.

How many are on long term sick, come back to work just before their pay drops, for just long enough to go back sick with full pay.

Where there is tax payer money the fraud and scams are rife, and unfortunately those tasked with fixing the problems are either too lazy or are at it themselves...

Edited October 5 by Newbie to this

[Vince Green]

Let's just stop calling people 'economically inactive' it's impossible to be 'economically inactive'.

Even if you are living off the bank of Mum and Dad that income would probably be taxable. You can't even give money away without it being taxable.

It's just down to shoddy data gathering and lazy investigation of dubious stories IMHO.

 

[Vince Green]

3 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

As has been said, the problems lie with the civil service, of which a huge chunk are no better than those committing benefits fraud.

How many are on long term sick, come back to work just before their pay drops, for just long enough to go back sick with full pay.

Where there is tax payer money the fraud and scams are rife, and unfortunately those tasked with fixing the problems are either too lazy or are at it themselves...

This ^^^^^

[amateur]

6 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

......... How many are on long term sick, come back to work just before their pay drops, for just long enough to go back sick with full pay.

Where there is tax payer money the fraud and scams are rife, and unfortunately those tasked with fixing the problems are either too lazy or are at it themselves...

I found that scam in a company, 30 years ago, whereby 3 employees were doing exactly that, but my predecessor couldn’t be bothered to sort it.

Application of the "fitness to work" rules soon had two leaving and one made a miraculous recovery