Best Of

Hardman weighs into the social care debate. Fantastic that the Speccie is talking about this but is this really true in 2026??


"The Prime Minister knows full well that many voters assume that social care is in fact already part of the NHS and is free at the point of access, and that as soon as politicians start talking about the sums of money involved in any reform, those voters tend to react very badly."

https://spectator.com/article/dont-bet-on-the-next-labour-leader-solving-the-social-care-crisis/

Really?

Where is this stat?

May have been true a decade or two ago but just about everyone now knows social care is a nightmare and could cost you your family home all your life savings and it is fucking hard to get decent people/quality care and it is bankrupting the local council.

Do they?
Cos I reckon if they haven't been in that situation, most people don't.
Just like those who haven't moved house out of their area don't know how rare a dentist taking on NHS patients is.

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2060475458169246124

@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."

The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.

Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.

They all can only be rich thanks to conditions created by larger powers. That option doesn’t exist for big players like the US.

That's an assertion without evidence.

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2060475458169246124

@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."

The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.

Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.

They all can only be rich thanks to conditions created by larger powers. That option doesn’t exist for big players like the US.

That's an assertion without evidence.

It's a logical inference from your point about autarky. They are small and rely heavily on trade, which relies heavily on a benign environment. If ships didn't have free passage through the straits of Malacca, Singapore's business model wouldn't work.

You know which other country is ideally placed to prosper from a strait that is a major shipping lane? It will be ironic if the American war has demonstrated to Iran it can have a prosperous future through peaceful trading and not depend on oil.

The Swiss got started out on their path to wealth by robbing people, and later charging people for, travelling across the Alps, after all; it’s a proven model….

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2060475458169246124

@SecScottBessent: "A nation that cannot manufacture, mine, ship, or refine its needs gradually cedes its strength and sovereignty to others. That is a dangerous dependency for any country; it is an unacceptable one for the United States of America."

The richest countries in the world, though, are the ones who are least balanced. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland: none of them are rich in natural resources. All recognised that if someone else can mine cheaper than you, then you're best of leaving the mining to them.

Auturky is a rapid way to the poorhouse.

You can't really look at it from either side in absolute terms.
As with most of these arguments neither side is absolutely right or wrong.

Note what's happened with rare earths, and other strategic materials like titanium. Everyone followed your advice, only to find that they're in a serious strategic bind when China restricts supplies.
(And even in purely price terms it can be a costly decision, with raw materials prices rising hundreds of percent.)

I'd make a similar observation about strategic industries like chip manufacturing.
Europe has taken your Ricardian approach, leaving it at a serious disadvantage, and hollowing out its ability to compete in the future. (Also true of the west v China for manufacturing in general.)

And again, ceding pricing power to a handful of manufacturers has seen huge price escalation in high end chips this year.

Pragmatism can include spending resources on insurance against such events. It's not a straightforward calculation.

Evening all

For those suddenly interested in the NEET issue because of the Alan Milburn report, this is some work from late last year which is of interest:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2025/12/10/three-myths-about-neets-in-the-uk/

Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?

It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).

Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace

Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.

It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;


https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/neet-statistics-annual-brief/2025#section-trends-in-neet-rates-by-age

Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.