Solution. Far fewer degrees, slim down the universities.
A couple of points from your link:-
Young people in line for good degrees from good Russell Group universities, who have for years obediently jumped through every hoop provided, are working in bars, going travelling, or despondently...
It’s the betrayal that hurts. We drilled it into them that if they worked hard at school and made it into university then the world could be their oyster...
This is essentially the point I was making the other day in relation to Americans and increasingly Britons who have, to the best of their beliefs and abilities, played by the rules in order to advance, only to find the game is rigged against them.
An important but separate point that @Leon might have made, or anyone in relation to WFH as well as AI is this:-
And all the time, AI is stealthily creeping up on the entry-level jobs they’re chasing. The tasks companies tend to give to young, green trainees – the routine grunt work they can’t easily mess up, which can be swiftly checked by someone more senior – are most vulnerable to automation precisely because they’re routine. Baby lawyers learn the ropes by drawing up endless contracts, but AI can do that in seconds. It’s probably capable of many things young journalists start out by doing too, like turning a simple press release into a story (or more depressingly, scraping clickbait content off rival websites). But if companies automate away the bottom rung of the ladder, how do you reach the next rung up? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/13/young-people-degrees-labour-market-ai
If that continues populist parties of left and right will continue to gain support, even from graduates.
A UBI funded by a robot tax also would become inevitable
One of our most pressing economic problems is productivity per worker. A robot tax would compound the problem, making automation more expensive and encouraging further over-dependency on low skilled labour.
The successful North European countries show the way. Education, education, education, and way more business investment.
Productivity per worker is irrelevant if automation means no jobs left for workers to do.
If corporations continue to automate jobs, even skilled ones, a robot tax is inevitable, not least to fund the massively expanding welfare bill.
Education also doesn't make much difference if even graduates find graduate jobs automated
That’s been the argument with every advancement in technology since the spinning jenny. And every time the long term impact is a huge advancement in global prosperity.
One thing’s for sure, if we don’t invest in education then the outcomes will be a hell of a lot worse.
Well so far the evidence from AI is certainly not a huge advancement in global prosperity, indeed ironically jobs which don't need much education like care home workers or do not need a degree like plumbers and electricians may be more immune to AI
Surely we can design a robot that turns up at your house 3 days late, in the afternoon instead of the morning, asks for some tea and biscuits, says this is going to be a bigger job than I thought, then leaves after 15 mins, sends an invoice for £100 and never comes back or answers their phone again?
If Reform has gone from penumbra to umbra, does that mean I can now officially take umbrage?
As 'penumbra to umbra' means going from being partly shadowed to completely shadowed, I think that it's the Conservative Party that has gone on that journey.
I am struggling to understand how Starmer’s tightening of immigration policy can be described as “Powellite” by anyone except professional shit-stirrers.
Agreed. We’re still looking at 240K plus a year..
Note the Powell speech was made at a time when net migration was negative - with somewhere around 200k immigrants, and 300k emigrants annually.
The Powell speech was a warning to do something before what has happened, happened. It was made in order to stop the UK becoming an ‘Island of strangers’, or ‘sleepwalking into segregation’.
Starmer's disgusting speech yesterday has one obvious result and that is to emboldened racists. "Island of strangers" and "sleepwalking into segregation". There is not a cigarette paper between this and the white supremacist sentiment demonstrated by Powell in the Birmingham Town Hall speech.
I don't believe, Iike you, that Starmer even believes this rubbiy. However he's said it now and his days should be numbered.
Okay having pondered it for some time I think this is a master stroke from SKS and Lab.
There are plenty of Reform-curious voters out there as we have recently seen. Given that they are a nota party (no one presumably voted reform on account of their policies on private-public partnerships in the NHS) one of the main bugbears was and is immigration.
There was too much of it. The numbers were bonkers. As we all know, aggregate GDP might be improved, but per capita not so much (actually marginally worse) with high immigration. There is of course the value chain argument (pushing "indigenous" people further up it) but people don't care about that. They hear about hundreds of thousands of people, millions perhaps, and worry about that poor old maid cycling to holy communion. Because they worry the church might have become a Cafe Nero, or a mosque.
The speech will have reassured plenty of Reform voters that the major parties of government are listening.
Look on it as analagous to Brexit. UKIP agitated to the point whereby their numbers made Dave offer a referendum.
A good move for Lab and SKS imo.
I doubt the speech will make even a single person change their vote from Reform to Labour.
Listening to Starmer drone on about numbers will never be even 10% as impactful as the visceral experience of watching migrants board boats at Calais & arrive at Dover.
Starmer has to stop the boats & empty the hotels. These are impacts of migration that people can see with their own eyes. No amount of quoting migration numbers will overcome voters' disquiet about the boats.
Speaking of shitstirrers, old Nige helpfully suggested in Parliament that the 600+ boat people arriving yesterday (all men apparently) may contain a 'couple of Iranian terrorists, who knows'. Light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks..
If you were a terrorist seeking to get into the country, there are much, much easier ways of doing it than coming over on a small boat (or crossing the US-Mexican border).
So from yesterday govts are accepting migration in the tens of thousands is not going to be happening.
We are still looking at around 240,000 net migration a year. Hardly insubstantial.
We are looking at the Boriswave being given ILR after five years with the net burden to the taxpayer that brings.
We are looking at controlling migration, not stopping it. Of course there is nothing wrong with that as there is nothing wrong with those who want unlimited mass inward migration like the handful on here crying about the speech yesterday.
It’s hardly an act worth of the Far right or Enoch Powell. The speech was measured and balanced. From the responses of some you’d think we were deporting people and going for net negative migration.
However what we do need to do is plan and out the jnfrastructure in place to accommodate our new citizens.
Why will the Boriswave be a net burden when given ILR? They're of working age, and the younger end of that. In 5 years time, they will generally be paying plenty of tax and be net contributors to the state.
No-one on PB yesterday called for "unlimited mass inward migration". That's a bit of straw man.
Minimum wage workers are not net tax contributors and your obsession with working age people as if they're all contributors is pure dishonesty. What accruals are you putting down for the fact that people with ILR get pensions?
To claim the taxes from work (not that there is much on minimum wage) but not the liabilities from pension accruals is totally dishonest. Accruals need to be counted any true accounting.
What proportion of the Boriswave are minimum wage workers? Very few, I would have thought.
Yes, people get pensions. That's true whether they are immigrants or born in the UK. Given, by and large, the country's finances break even, it's clearly not the case that pension accruals turn everyone into net burdens.
I'm not sure a minimum wage worker has necessarily a negative tax contribution. It's much more complicated than just looking at their personal direct taxes (IT/NICs). You've got the profit they generate for their company, their spending, their economic activity stimulating other businesses etc etc
If the UK was running a budget surplus on the backs of people working minimum wage you might have a point, though it would then be worth asking why we're in a situation like that.
Considering we have a £75 billion budget deficit, a deficit that averages over £1000 per capita, then yes it seems safe to say that minimum wage is net negative. Especially since you can't just magic wand away pension liability accruals or other costs as if they don't exist.
Sure, but that minimum wage worker is likely to have a much lower cost to the state than average, being younger, in work, healthier etc. it's a tricky question but a bit like contributions to GDP per capita, it's difficult to apportion those costs and benefits accurately.
And Boriswave migrants aren't, by and large, minimum wage workers. A high proportion came on student visas: many of those will leave, and those who don't will generally not leave because they have secured highly-skilled jobs. The largest category of work visas was Tier 2, skilled work visas. The second largest category are Tier 5 temporary workers, but they mostly leave again.
There are various reasons why one might or might not be concerned about the size of the Boriswave, but I don't understand why Bart is talking about minimum wage workers.
Because some people are skilled and some people are working for minimum wage and we should deal with everyone with respect as an individual and not discriminate based on class or race.
There is a threshold for salary for getting a visa, it should not be difficult before granting a visa renewal or ILR to check HMRC contributions to see if someone is actually meeting the threshold or not.
If they are free of criminal record, and they're meeting the threshold, then no objections whatsoever to visa renewal or ILR being granted.
If someone gets convicted of a crime, or they fail to hit threshold, then it should be possible to say we are opting against renewing the visa/granting ILR.
If people are "by and large" hitting the threshold then they get the renewal/ILR, no issues.
For those who are not, for those who are working for minimum wage/Deliveroo/whatever then the visa expires.
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
The people on the boats don't want to stay in France or they already would. Us paying France, which we already do, wouldn't change that. If we offer to pay France more they will probably take the cash and pretend to do a bit more but it won't make any difference apart from us having a bit less cash.
If you really want to stop it we need to leave the relevant international treaties and implement laws to make that happen.
Alternatively we can mitigate the costs we incur by processing the claims far more quickly and going after employers who employ people illegally.
Those are the two paths that have a practical impact rather than mere soundbites.
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
Do they not have cars, fridges and accoutrements of modern life in mainland Europe?
On topic, yes, insurgent parties *can* surge and fade. 1981-2 was an excellent example of that. So was 2019.
(Sidenote: the SDP was led by Roy Jenkins at that point; Owen didn't take over until after the 1983 election)
But while that can (and more often than not does), happen, it's not inevitable. The decline of both the Brexit Party, Change UK and the Lib Dems in the second half of 2019 was down to strategic errors they all made, combined with decisions made within Labour and, especially, the Tories; also, of key individuals and events.
Had Benn defeated Healey in Labour's Deputy Leadership contest, there's good evidence that that would have prompted a further and larger wave of defections - both strengthening the SDP and radicalising what was left of Labour towards the Hard Left.
Likewise, in 2019, Tom Watson was widely speculated to be considering defecting to Change UK but opted not to. Had he done so - in particular, had he done so early enough to knock some sense into their plans - that could have changed the whole future of the centre-left. But he didn't; he just faded away offstage. Meanwhile, Johnson replaced May, and Farage chose to neuter the BxP. None of which was inevitable.
And now? Labour is weak and directionless. It has lost all sense of mission and core values, which is confusing and demoralising members, activists and voters alike, while implementing policies that are by turn ineffective and unpopular. The Tories haven't come to terms with their loss and are caught between taking Reform on (which they won't) or trying to do Reform better (which they can't). Unless one or both of these change, the drift of voters away from what was once the Big Two will continue.
Obviously, Reform is not a passive player in this and while it clearly has campaigning and membership strengths, it has multiple weaknesses too, from its candidates and lack of leading players beyond Farage to its lack of experience. But the post-2008 era suggests that a lack of experience isn't the barrier it once was. The rise of populist parties around the world, including into government, is a common trend and Britain is no different. In a FPTP five-party system, where you can get a majority on 30%, Farage as PM is not at all an absurd prospect, particularly when tactical voting may be limited by the unpopularity of the two historic big parties and a lack of clear direction on where the tactical votes need to go.
Will Labour find some backbone? Who knows but I'm sceptical. Will the Tories find their mojo and some contrition? Doubtful. Will they find a new leader? Probably. Will he (probably he) be more effective? Unlikely when the same basic problem persists. Will the Tories look for a deal with Reform? Maybe but I don't see why Farage would agree to it right now under anything other than very favourable terms; terms that would probably be unacceptable to too many of the remaining Tory MPs.
Below inflation then, more so in respect of non-minimum wage roles I imagine.
No, pay growth was 5.6% vs inflation of 2.6% in March. Real terms growth if 1.8% (not 3%, because inflation was higher in previous months and the calculations are a bit different).
Pay has been running ahead of inflation for a while now. Good news. Hopefully the lower oil prices and a bit of Chinese dumping will mean that trend continues.
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
Do they not have cars, fridges and accoutrements of modern life in mainland Europe?
Well, according to various respected international refugee organisations, conditions in France are intolerable for the refugees.
Mind you, it is France.
I have a small proposal
- it restores historic cultural associations with the continent - It enacts the provisions of a treaty that the French are currently in breach of. - It accidentally involves rejoining the EU. In a rather advantageous position as well. In terms that Reform would only applaud.
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
Do they not have cars, fridges and accoutrements of modern life in mainland Europe?
So why so Albanians want to come to the UK? Its not the weather...
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
Do they not have cars, fridges and accoutrements of modern life in mainland Europe?
Well, according to various respected international refugee organisations, conditions in France are intolerable for the refugees.
Mind you, it is France.
I have a small proposal
- it restores historic cultural associations with the continent - It enacts the provisions of a treaty that the French are currently in breach of. - It accidentally involves rejoining the EU. In a rather advantageous position as well. In terms that Reform would only applaud.
Last time we invaded France was 1944. Are you looking for that style of invasion or do you want to go Henry Vth, with essentially a huge stag weekend through northern France?
I am struggling to understand how Starmer’s tightening of immigration policy can be described as “Powellite” by anyone except professional shit-stirrers.
Agreed. We’re still looking at 240K plus a year..
Note the Powell speech was made at a time when net migration was negative - with somewhere around 200k immigrants, and 300k emigrants annually.
Only 79,000 Brits chose to leave the country last year. That is pretty remarkable and should make people rethink the Britain is a shithole meme many are comfortable with. For all our many faults we get more right than we get wrong.
"Brain drain" was not wholly inaccurate in the sixties/seventies.
There’s a once in a generation opportunity to do some brain draining of the USA if Trump’s team keep up their fight against the Ivy League. Not sure this squares up that well with Starmer’s rhetoric yesterday though. I suspect Canada will be the biggest beneficiary.
American academics are extremely expensive. Not sure any university in the UK has that kind of money at the moment.
Oxford takes Ivy League academics quite frequently. The pay differential is a problem but the fact some still come shows there’s potential there.
But the opportunity is not necessarily to pluck Americans directly from Stanford or Harvard. It’s to take European, Chinese, Indian, Canadian academics and scientists who might otherwise have headed to the US but are either put off or find their route blocked.
Except presumably our own knee jerk immigration policies are about to put the kibosh on this. I already read stories about emininent academics getting threatened with deportation over things like being out of the UK for too long (to conduct their fieldwork).
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
Do they not have cars, fridges and accoutrements of modern life in mainland Europe?
Well, according to various respected international refugee organisations, conditions in France are intolerable for the refugees.
Mind you, it is France.
I have a small proposal
- it restores historic cultural associations with the continent - It enacts the provisions of a treaty that the French are currently in breach of. - It accidentally involves rejoining the EU. In a rather advantageous position as well. In terms that Reform would only applaud.
Last time we invaded France was 1944. Are you looking for that style of invasion or do you want to go Henry Vth, with essentially a huge stag weekend through northern France?
Simpler option: France gives us back the Pas de Calais. Processing done inland at the Camp du Drap D’Or. No boats. France gets South Ken (a zone of around 1km2 around the Lycee).
Starmers speech was misguided and he could have looked tough on immigration without looking like a Powell wannabbee .
As Starmer shreds his principles one still hasn’t met a grisly end in his chase for Reform voters.
So far staying in the ECHR has survived ! And not that I want to tempt fate but leaving that might be a bridge too far for his party and would result in cabinet resignations and a collapse of what’s left of his coalition of voters .
Starmers 'Island of Strangers' was unbelievably stupid, especially coming from a Labour PM
His attempts to outdo Farage will never succeed and he needs to understand his comment is more likely to send his voters to the Lib Dems, Green, Plaid and SNP while not winning one Reform voter to his policies
So he should simply leave migration to Reform? That seems…sub-optimal.
He’s probably best off getting things done with a minimum of fuss then announcing the results when it works, rather than pretending to be something he isn’t by saying things he doesn’t mean to satisfy people who will never like him anyway.
As noted on here, numbers are due to fall, so results are already baked in.
Also, nobody actually likes Starmer.
I think Isam's wider point is correct. Starmer is pissing off Labour core voters to curry favour with voters who will always hate him and the Labour Party.
Something in Labour's favour is the general ire is focused on Starmer personally, which is why disagreeable opponents are setting fire to HIS property. When he goes, which might be sooner than we all thought, maybe his replacement can work a Johnsonesque revival, post Theresa May.
Name the replacement that is going to work that particular miracle.
Because the Messiah is going to be too busy doing press conferences to want to run Labour.
I don't like any of them. Burnham (whom I despise) might make the cut, and save for the odd gaff I quite like Darren Jones. And you can keep your Wes Streetings. He is almost Badenoch level annoying. And of course Starmer has sidelined any women of substance.
Now your Conservative glass is always half full and you have promoted a few narratives which gives us a decent majority Conservative.Government in 2029. Now part of your prospectus is Reform implode, which I believe to be a fair one. It is the Tory recovery I fail to see, and who takes them out of the Wilderness? Would you be content with the Jenrick- Braverman dream ticket?
There is a woman of some substance who is already Labour's Deputy Leader.
The increasing impression is that Starmer doesn't believe in anything - or doesn't believe in anything strongly enough that it can't be easily overridden at someone else's advice. He's a voice for rent, or for persuasion. And if he doesn't believe in what he's saying, why should anyone else? If he doesn't have a plan, why wouldn't Labour drift on the tides and winds of events? But Labour rarely replaces leaders. Maybe Starmer sees the writing on the wall and quits of his own accord in 2027/28 - though again, that's not something PMs tend to do willingly and it might be too late anyway.
I am struggling to understand how Starmer’s tightening of immigration policy can be described as “Powellite” by anyone except professional shit-stirrers.
Agreed. We’re still looking at 240K plus a year..
Note the Powell speech was made at a time when net migration was negative - with somewhere around 200k immigrants, and 300k emigrants annually.
Only 79,000 Brits chose to leave the country last year. That is pretty remarkable and should make people rethink the Britain is a shithole meme many are comfortable with. For all our many faults we get more right than we get wrong.
"Brain drain" was not wholly inaccurate in the sixties/seventies.
There’s a once in a generation opportunity to do some brain draining of the USA if Trump’s team keep up their fight against the Ivy League. Not sure this squares up that well with Starmer’s rhetoric yesterday though. I suspect Canada will be the biggest beneficiary.
American academics are extremely expensive. Not sure any university in the UK has that kind of money at the moment.
Oxford takes Ivy League academics quite frequently. The pay differential is a problem but the fact some still come shows there’s potential there.
But the opportunity is not necessarily to pluck Americans directly from Stanford or Harvard. It’s to take European, Chinese, Indian, Canadian academics and scientists who might otherwise have headed to the US but are either put off or find their route blocked.
Except presumably our own knee jerk immigration policies are about to put the kibosh on this. I already read stories about emininent academics getting threatened with deportation over things like being out of the UK for too long (to conduct their fieldwork).
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
Do they not have cars, fridges and accoutrements of modern life in mainland Europe?
So why so Albanians want to come to the UK? Its not the weather...
We’re already generating 9gw of solar power at 10.45am. This May will surely see the monthly solar power record obliterated unless the forecast is massively out.
This is a good point - Patel shouldn't really be prominent in the Shadow Cabinet, especially when she seems in no mood to show any regret for the Boriswave.
It is a wider issue that because the party has not yet had its policy 'renewal' you get Shadow Ministers just taking completely their own lines on the past. Patel defending immigration policy is the most prominent example but not the only one. Stride is flat out continuity Sunak, defending that era. Jenrick is probably the opposite. Philp was strongly attacking and apolohising for the Boriswave the other day (and also attacking Truss), in complete contrast to Patel defending it.
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
A grim picture for you
“Hitler’s Army” by Bartov explores the increasing technological and moral regression of the German *military* as the war progressed.
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
Yes but without PR that is irrelevant, with FPTP today's Yougov would mean Reform would win 310 MPs, Labour 169, the LDs 72 and Tories 33. So Farage could become PM with Tory confidence and supply
Labour should just pay France to take the boats back. In response we take legitimate asylum seekers.
As determined buy whom? Is it still the case that those crossing the channel in small boats tend to 'lose' any ID and documents in the process? So how then do we know who they are and if their case is legitimate?
I've been reading KL, about the Nazi concentration camps, recently. Its not a new story to me, but the level of horrifying detail in it is astonishing. You can see why the asylum laws we have now arose after the second world war, with the horror of what the Nazis had done (and to be fair, the communists too). The idea that your life might be under threat from your own government is a slam dunk asylum claim. But has mission creep set in in the 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen? What should be the limits of asylum?
We are also confused now because we live in a global world were travel to any part of the world is possible in under a day. People everywhere can see the riches of Western lifestyle and desire that for themselves. Why wouldn't they? So economic migration and asylum are now very entangled.
When the Red Army reached Germany they couldn't believe what the found/ Why would the Germans, who had fridges, cars, and all the other accoutrements of modern (well 1940's) life want to invade the primitive lands of the the USSR? Why indeed. But you can see why a poor Albanian might fancy working in Sunderland, by whatever means it takes.
Do they not have cars, fridges and accoutrements of modern life in mainland Europe?
Well, according to various respected international refugee organisations, conditions in France are intolerable for the refugees.
Mind you, it is France.
I have a small proposal
- it restores historic cultural associations with the continent - It enacts the provisions of a treaty that the French are currently in breach of. - It accidentally involves rejoining the EU. In a rather advantageous position as well. In terms that Reform would only applaud.
Last time we invaded France was 1944. Are you looking for that style of invasion or do you want to go Henry Vth, with essentially a huge stag weekend through northern France?
Not so much stag weekend as organising a holiday home.
So from yesterday govts are accepting migration in the tens of thousands is not going to be happening.
We are still looking at around 240,000 net migration a year. Hardly insubstantial.
We are looking at the Boriswave being given ILR after five years with the net burden to the taxpayer that brings.
We are looking at controlling migration, not stopping it. Of course there is nothing wrong with that as there is nothing wrong with those who want unlimited mass inward migration like the handful on here crying about the speech yesterday.
It’s hardly an act worth of the Far right or Enoch Powell. The speech was measured and balanced. From the responses of some you’d think we were deporting people and going for net negative migration.
However what we do need to do is plan and out the jnfrastructure in place to accommodate our new citizens.
Why will the Boriswave be a net burden when given ILR? They're of working age, and the younger end of that. In 5 years time, they will generally be paying plenty of tax and be net contributors to the state.
No-one on PB yesterday called for "unlimited mass inward migration". That's a bit of straw man.
Minimum wage workers are not net tax contributors and your obsession with working age people as if they're all contributors is pure dishonesty. What accruals are you putting down for the fact that people with ILR get pensions?
To claim the taxes from work (not that there is much on minimum wage) but not the liabilities from pension accruals is totally dishonest. Accruals need to be counted any true accounting.
I posted a few links about this yesterday.
The figures were from the OBR.
They will simply contribute far less than they take out. That’s untenable but Labour had trailed they were going to increase ILR to ten years but Cooper backtracked on this in the HOC and it is now understood to,remain at 5 years.
Could you link to the OBR paper where they state that? I've read their piece from March 2024 and it certainly does not make that claim. The focus is on GDP and GDP per capita.
It’s referenced in the Adam Smith Institute article.
Solution. Far fewer degrees, slim down the universities.
A couple of points from your link:-
Young people in line for good degrees from good Russell Group universities, who have for years obediently jumped through every hoop provided, are working in bars, going travelling, or despondently...
It’s the betrayal that hurts. We drilled it into them that if they worked hard at school and made it into university then the world could be their oyster...
This is essentially the point I was making the other day in relation to Americans and increasingly Britons who have, to the best of their beliefs and abilities, played by the rules in order to advance, only to find the game is rigged against them.
An important but separate point that @Leon might have made, or anyone in relation to WFH as well as AI is this:-
And all the time, AI is stealthily creeping up on the entry-level jobs they’re chasing. The tasks companies tend to give to young, green trainees – the routine grunt work they can’t easily mess up, which can be swiftly checked by someone more senior – are most vulnerable to automation precisely because they’re routine. Baby lawyers learn the ropes by drawing up endless contracts, but AI can do that in seconds. It’s probably capable of many things young journalists start out by doing too, like turning a simple press release into a story (or more depressingly, scraping clickbait content off rival websites). But if companies automate away the bottom rung of the ladder, how do you reach the next rung up? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/13/young-people-degrees-labour-market-ai
If that continues populist parties of left and right will continue to gain support, even from graduates.
A UBI funded by a robot tax also would become inevitable
One of our most pressing economic problems is productivity per worker. A robot tax would compound the problem, making automation more expensive and encouraging further over-dependency on low skilled labour.
The successful North European countries show the way. Education, education, education, and way more business investment.
Productivity per worker is irrelevant if automation means no jobs left for workers to do.
If corporations continue to automate jobs, even skilled ones, a robot tax is inevitable, not least to fund the massively expanding welfare bill.
Education also doesn't make much difference if even graduates find graduate jobs automated
That’s been the argument with every advancement in technology since the spinning jenny. And every time the long term impact is a huge advancement in global prosperity.
One thing’s for sure, if we don’t invest in education then the outcomes will be a hell of a lot worse.
Well so far the evidence from AI is certainly not a huge advancement in global prosperity, indeed ironically jobs which don't need much education like care home workers or do not need a degree like plumbers and electricians may be more immune to AI
Surely we can design a robot that turns up at your house 3 days late, in the afternoon instead of the morning, asks for some tea and biscuits, says this is going to be a bigger job than I thought, then leaves after 15 mins, sends an invoice for £100 and never comes back or answers their phone again?
Will I find myself speaking in a weird chatty mockney accent and trying to act a bit manly when interacting with this robot?
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Solution. Far fewer degrees, slim down the universities.
A couple of points from your link:-
Young people in line for good degrees from good Russell Group universities, who have for years obediently jumped through every hoop provided, are working in bars, going travelling, or despondently...
It’s the betrayal that hurts. We drilled it into them that if they worked hard at school and made it into university then the world could be their oyster...
This is essentially the point I was making the other day in relation to Americans and increasingly Britons who have, to the best of their beliefs and abilities, played by the rules in order to advance, only to find the game is rigged against them.
An important but separate point that @Leon might have made, or anyone in relation to WFH as well as AI is this:-
And all the time, AI is stealthily creeping up on the entry-level jobs they’re chasing. The tasks companies tend to give to young, green trainees – the routine grunt work they can’t easily mess up, which can be swiftly checked by someone more senior – are most vulnerable to automation precisely because they’re routine. Baby lawyers learn the ropes by drawing up endless contracts, but AI can do that in seconds. It’s probably capable of many things young journalists start out by doing too, like turning a simple press release into a story (or more depressingly, scraping clickbait content off rival websites). But if companies automate away the bottom rung of the ladder, how do you reach the next rung up? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/13/young-people-degrees-labour-market-ai
If that continues populist parties of left and right will continue to gain support, even from graduates.
A UBI funded by a robot tax also would become inevitable
One of our most pressing economic problems is productivity per worker. A robot tax would compound the problem, making automation more expensive and encouraging further over-dependency on low skilled labour.
The successful North European countries show the way. Education, education, education, and way more business investment.
Productivity per worker is irrelevant if automation means no jobs left for workers to do.
If corporations continue to automate jobs, even skilled ones, a robot tax is inevitable, not least to fund the massively expanding welfare bill.
Education also doesn't make much difference if even graduates find graduate jobs automated
That’s been the argument with every advancement in technology since the spinning jenny. And every time the long term impact is a huge advancement in global prosperity.
One thing’s for sure, if we don’t invest in education then the outcomes will be a hell of a lot worse.
Education is not a single good though. It needs to be good quality and value added education.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
Is TSE saying that Reform are casting a darker shadow over UK politics, or that they might eclipse the Tories ?
Or is it an obscure reference to US constitutional law ?
The first two interpretations.
Total solar eclipses last for a maximum of just over four minutes at any fixed location and return to normal after terrifying the uninformed and uneducated. That may be a better metaphor than you intended.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
I am struggling to understand how Starmer’s tightening of immigration policy can be described as “Powellite” by anyone except professional shit-stirrers.
Agreed. We’re still looking at 240K plus a year..
Note the Powell speech was made at a time when net migration was negative - with somewhere around 200k immigrants, and 300k emigrants annually.
Only 79,000 Brits chose to leave the country last year. That is pretty remarkable and should make people rethink the Britain is a shithole meme many are comfortable with. For all our many faults we get more right than we get wrong.
"Brain drain" was not wholly inaccurate in the sixties/seventies.
There’s a once in a generation opportunity to do some brain draining of the USA if Trump’s team keep up their fight against the Ivy League. Not sure this squares up that well with Starmer’s rhetoric yesterday though. I suspect Canada will be the biggest beneficiary.
American academics are extremely expensive. Not sure any university in the UK has that kind of money at the moment.
Oxford takes Ivy League academics quite frequently. The pay differential is a problem but the fact some still come shows there’s potential there.
But the opportunity is not necessarily to pluck Americans directly from Stanford or Harvard. It’s to take European, Chinese, Indian, Canadian academics and scientists who might otherwise have headed to the US but are either put off or find their route blocked.
American celebrity scientist Michio Kaku (1m20s-video) gives some statistics on foreign postgrad and postdocs driving American science and prosperity:-
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
"foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise".
We have, in the care industry
- 88% are locals already - Care home companies were given cart blanche to recruit abroad. - The result was lots of visas issued - The result was very few people actually recruited into the care industry.
The problem with your statement is the assumption that Johnny Foreigner is built different and will happily live 4 to a bedroom for the privilege of wiping arses.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
People saying immigration can be cut to zero without incurring significant economic costs that somebody will have to shoulder are the irresponsible ones. We are in our current state because politicians are unwilling to spell out these tradeoffs to people. Personally I am not attached to any particular level of immigration. I'd just like a grown up debate instead of the current ill unformed scapegoating.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
So from yesterday govts are accepting migration in the tens of thousands is not going to be happening.
We are still looking at around 240,000 net migration a year. Hardly insubstantial.
We are looking at the Boriswave being given ILR after five years with the net burden to the taxpayer that brings.
We are looking at controlling migration, not stopping it. Of course there is nothing wrong with that as there is nothing wrong with those who want unlimited mass inward migration like the handful on here crying about the speech yesterday.
It’s hardly an act worth of the Far right or Enoch Powell. The speech was measured and balanced. From the responses of some you’d think we were deporting people and going for net negative migration.
However what we do need to do is plan and out the jnfrastructure in place to accommodate our new citizens.
Why will the Boriswave be a net burden when given ILR? They're of working age, and the younger end of that. In 5 years time, they will generally be paying plenty of tax and be net contributors to the state.
No-one on PB yesterday called for "unlimited mass inward migration". That's a bit of straw man.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
NHS nursing assistants -
"Entry-level positions often start at £22,383 per year, with those more experienced potentially earning up to £32,950."
So starts at minimum wage. So perhaps an answer is to make care home carers "NHS nursing assistants", to give them the social prestige and career opportunities - a number go on to become nurses.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
People saying immigration can be cut to zero without incurring significant economic costs that somebody will have to shoulder are the irresponsible ones. We are in our current state because politicians are unwilling to spell out these tradeoffs to people. Personally I am not attached to any particular level of immigration. I'd just like a grown up debate instead of the current ill unformed scapegoating.
Having immigration in the hundreds of thousands imposes significant economic costs on other people too.
If you wanted a grown up debate, you wouldn't make emotive comments about people lying in their own shit all day because there aren't enough immigrants.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
You're getting there ...
We are billions short to fund the current pay rates adequately. Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
You're getting there ...
We are billions short to fund the current pay rates adequately. Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
We are not billions short on that sector and we pay far more on triple-locked welfare then we do to that sector.
I couldn't care less if the Government wins the next election or not. If its not doing the right thing it doesn't deserve to do so.
There is no problem in labour shortages that fixing pay and conditions can't fix.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
Many are, multiple new ones have opened up near where I live. Some close, some open, such is the nature of business.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
Next question?
Why can't you come up with a solution that's politically viable?
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
On topic, yes, insurgent parties *can* surge and fade. 1981-2 was an excellent example of that. So was 2019.
(Sidenote: the SDP was led by Roy Jenkins at that point; Owen didn't take over until after the 1983 election)
But while that can (and more often than not does), happen, it's not inevitable. The decline of both the Brexit Party, Change UK and the Lib Dems in the second half of 2019 was down to strategic errors they all made, combined with decisions made within Labour and, especially, the Tories; also, of key individuals and events.
Had Benn defeated Healey in Labour's Deputy Leadership contest, there's good evidence that that would have prompted a further and larger wave of defections - both strengthening the SDP and radicalising what was left of Labour towards the Hard Left.
Likewise, in 2019, Tom Watson was widely speculated to be considering defecting to Change UK but opted not to. Had he done so - in particular, had he done so early enough to knock some sense into their plans - that could have changed the whole future of the centre-left. But he didn't; he just faded away offstage. Meanwhile, Johnson replaced May, and Farage chose to neuter the BxP. None of which was inevitable.
And now? Labour is weak and directionless. It has lost all sense of mission and core values, which is confusing and demoralising members, activists and voters alike, while implementing policies that are by turn ineffective and unpopular. The Tories haven't come to terms with their loss and are caught between taking Reform on (which they won't) or trying to do Reform better (which they can't). Unless one or both of these change, the drift of voters away from what was once the Big Two will continue.
Obviously, Reform is not a passive player in this and while it clearly has campaigning and membership strengths, it has multiple weaknesses too, from its candidates and lack of leading players beyond Farage to its lack of experience. But the post-2008 era suggests that a lack of experience isn't the barrier it once was. The rise of populist parties around the world, including into government, is a common trend and Britain is no different. In a FPTP five-party system, where you can get a majority on 30%, Farage as PM is not at all an absurd prospect, particularly when tactical voting may be limited by the unpopularity of the two historic big parties and a lack of clear direction on where the tactical votes need to go.
Will Labour find some backbone? Who knows but I'm sceptical. Will the Tories find their mojo and some contrition? Doubtful. Will they find a new leader? Probably. Will he (probably he) be more effective? Unlikely when the same basic problem persists. Will the Tories look for a deal with Reform? Maybe but I don't see why Farage would agree to it right now under anything other than very favourable terms; terms that would probably be unacceptable to too many of the remaining Tory MPs.
Put simply, this time does feel different.
Perhaps the single largest way in which is feels different this time from the SDP period is the absolute lack of both talent and conviction among both the establishment and the insurgents.
In the 1983 election the leaders were Thatcher, Foot, Steel and Jenkins. Also on the big time scene were Whitelaw, Healey and Williams. As to conviction and talent we are in a different universe. And it means that, however talentless, the insurgent is opposing much weaker forces.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
You're getting there ...
We are billions short to fund the current pay rates adequately. Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
We are not billions short on that sector and we pay far more on triple-locked welfare then we do to that sector.
I couldn't care less if the Government wins the next election or not. If its not doing the right thing it doesn't deserve to do so.
There is no problem in labour shortages that fixing pay and conditions can't fix.
But governments do care about it......so the solution of increasing pay by 30-40% isn't going to happen. What is the next best solution?
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
And what is going up to pay for the low cost workers we hoover into the country to do this work for min wage, with their economically inactive dependents ?
The cost of ILR for the Boriswave is put at £234 billion, a decent part of that being low wage care workers. What taxes are rising to fund that ?
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
People saying immigration can be cut to zero without incurring significant economic costs that somebody will have to shoulder are the irresponsible ones. We are in our current state because politicians are unwilling to spell out these tradeoffs to people. Personally I am not attached to any particular level of immigration. I'd just like a grown up debate instead of the current ill unformed scapegoating.
Having immigration in the hundreds of thousands imposes significant economic costs on other people too.
If you wanted a grown up debate, you wouldn't make emotive comments about people lying in their own shit all day because there aren't enough immigrants.
It's not emotive, I was simply pointing out the problem with saying that there are unproductive jobs that aren't worth doing. There are plenty of jobs that are hard to make more productive but are still essential. Of course there are costs involved with current levels of immigration. There are also benefits. The whole question is intimately tied up with population ageing and we need to have a proper national debate about how we deal with this, rather than simply blaming people whose only crime is to be willing to fill gaps in our labour force.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
You're getting there ...
We are billions short to fund the current pay rates adequately. Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
We are not billions short on that sector and we pay far more on triple-locked welfare then we do to that sector.
I couldn't care less if the Government wins the next election or not. If its not doing the right thing it doesn't deserve to do so.
There is no problem in labour shortages that fixing pay and conditions can't fix.
"Recent findings highlight a growing shortfall, with a £2.24bn gap between the average MSIF rates for 2024/25 and the forecasted Fair Cost of Care (FCoC) and increase in the last 12 months of circa £400m, indicating an alarming trend where care providers are increasingly unable to cover the actual costs of delivering essential care services."
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
Next question?
Why can't you come up with a solution that's politically viable?
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
The Government has already been elected and it was elected by working age people, not pensioners, who were the only class of people who lost the election by voting for the Conservatives. More pensioners will be voting Tory/Reform than Labour at the next election regardless of what the Government does.
If they can't do the right thing, having won a landslide election victory without pensioner votes, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
You're getting there ...
We are billions short to fund the current pay rates adequately. Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
We are not billions short on that sector and we pay far more on triple-locked welfare then we do to that sector.
I couldn't care less if the Government wins the next election or not. If its not doing the right thing it doesn't deserve to do so.
There is no problem in labour shortages that fixing pay and conditions can't fix.
But governments do care about it......so the solution of increasing pay by 30-40% isn't going to happen. What is the next best solution?
That is the solution.
How the Government balances the books is its responsibility. And cynically this is a Government that was elected without the grey vote, so if they can't back their voters, people of working age, over the Opposition's voters, then what are they seeking re-election for.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
Care work involves far more than “cleaning the shit off your elderly relative”, although that is part of it. Your focus on demeans and dehumanises the residents.
(In the case of supermarkets in particular, it’s not so much the wages as the consistent hours and better shifts with less physical work).
Solution. Far fewer degrees, slim down the universities.
The reason degrees aren't as useful/marketable as they used to be is because so many more people have them today compared to 40 or 50 years ago. That isn't unfair, it's what happens with anything that becomes more common and therefore less valuable. Seems a bit silly to complain about a fact of life in this way.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
People saying immigration can be cut to zero without incurring significant economic costs that somebody will have to shoulder are the irresponsible ones. We are in our current state because politicians are unwilling to spell out these tradeoffs to people. Personally I am not attached to any particular level of immigration. I'd just like a grown up debate instead of the current ill unformed scapegoating.
Having immigration in the hundreds of thousands imposes significant economic costs on other people too.
If you wanted a grown up debate, you wouldn't make emotive comments about people lying in their own shit all day because there aren't enough immigrants.
It's not emotive, I was simply pointing out the problem with saying that there are unproductive jobs that aren't worth doing. There are plenty of jobs that are hard to make more productive but are still essential. Of course there are costs involved with current levels of immigration. There are also benefits. The whole question is intimately tied up with population ageing and we need to have a proper national debate about how we deal with this, rather than simply blaming people whose only crime is to be willing to fill gaps in our labour force.
The most dishonest form of argument in this whole debate is to conflate criticism of the level of immigration with blaming immigrants. The level of immigration is a political choice and you shouldn't use immigrants as human shields to defend your politics.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
My current pay rate for doing care work is zero, as is Mrs Flatlander's.
She even gets to wipe arses instead of charging her clients (although as pointed out, this is about 1% of the job).
The reality is that a vast amount of care is done within families mostly unrewarded and unnoticed by the authorities.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
You're getting there ...
We are billions short to fund the current pay rates adequately. Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
We are not billions short on that sector and we pay far more on triple-locked welfare then we do to that sector.
I couldn't care less if the Government wins the next election or not. If its not doing the right thing it doesn't deserve to do so.
There is no problem in labour shortages that fixing pay and conditions can't fix.
But governments do care about it......so the solution of increasing pay by 30-40% isn't going to happen. What is the next best solution?
That is the solution.
How the Government balances the books is its responsibility. And cynically this is a Government that was elected without the grey vote, so if they can't back their voters, people of working age, over the Opposition's voters, then what are they seeking re-election for.
I don't really see care as a grey vote vs workers issue. I'm not even really sure why it is not just another division of the NHS. Happy to go after the grey vote for asset taxes and to get rid of the triple lock, but absolutely think a reasonable level of care provision from the state is essential.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
Next question?
Why can't you come up with a solution that's politically viable?
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
The Government has already been elected and it was elected by working age people, not pensioners, who were the only class of people who lost the election by voting for the Conservatives. More pensioners will be voting Tory/Reform than Labour at the next election regardless of what the Government does.
If they can't do the right thing, having won a landslide election victory without pensioner votes, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
We saw the typhoon of piss over means testing the WFA. Removing the triple lock without a manifesto commitment would that to the power of 9-11. So you can go on about doing what's right, in your chiaroscuro view, but the government can only do what's politically feasible without leading to a backbench rebellion, polling catastrophe or both.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
People saying immigration can be cut to zero without incurring significant economic costs that somebody will have to shoulder are the irresponsible ones. We are in our current state because politicians are unwilling to spell out these tradeoffs to people. Personally I am not attached to any particular level of immigration. I'd just like a grown up debate instead of the current ill unformed scapegoating.
Having immigration in the hundreds of thousands imposes significant economic costs on other people too.
If you wanted a grown up debate, you wouldn't make emotive comments about people lying in their own shit all day because there aren't enough immigrants.
It's not emotive, I was simply pointing out the problem with saying that there are unproductive jobs that aren't worth doing. There are plenty of jobs that are hard to make more productive but are still essential. Of course there are costs involved with current levels of immigration. There are also benefits. The whole question is intimately tied up with population ageing and we need to have a proper national debate about how we deal with this, rather than simply blaming people whose only crime is to be willing to fill gaps in our labour force.
The most dishonest form of argument in this whole debate is to conflate criticism of the level of immigration with blaming immigrants. The level of immigration is a political choice and you shouldn't use immigrants as human shields to defend your politics.
Yeah definitely no blaming of immigrants going on in this debate.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
Not having done either but I'd suspect of the two, the care work is harder, more challenging, more depressing, with fewer career development prospects. Fair pay feels like a fair bit higher than nursing assistants, at least for care workers with a bit of experience.
And if it was, rather than minimum wage, they'd fill the vacancies.
You're getting there ...
We are billions short to fund the current pay rates adequately. Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
We are not billions short on that sector and we pay far more on triple-locked welfare then we do to that sector.
I couldn't care less if the Government wins the next election or not. If its not doing the right thing it doesn't deserve to do so.
There is no problem in labour shortages that fixing pay and conditions can't fix.
'Fixing' pay and conditions is easy to say; rather harder to do.
A sizeable increase in pay and conditions will inevitably hit costs and, therefore, fees. That of itself is both a political and a practical issue.
Consider also local government, which is already at or over the limit of sustainability and for which social care is a major cost. Rachet that up and you intensify the budgetary crisis across the sector, which affects all other discretionary spend councils do (or won't do). But even making further cuts would be unlikely to stave off bankruptcies because there really isn't much else you can cut and tax rises are limited. Cue further discontent with the established parties running things. Unless central govt jacks up grants, which would be counter to all recent trends and policy.
You'll also have an impact on the NHS. If we cut immigrant carers before a domestic workforce is in place to replace them, you cut capacity which in turn hits NHS discharges - and so impacts both costs and waiting times.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
Care work involves far more than “cleaning the shit off your elderly relative”, although that is part of it. Your focus on demeans and dehumanises the residents.
(In the case of supermarkets in particular, it’s not so much the wages as the consistent hours and better shifts with less physical work).
No shit Sherlock, it was not my focus, it was @OnlyLivingBoy who coined that disgusting turn of phrase which I turned back on him.
He wanted to use "lying in shit" as a demeaning and cheap point scoring point. If he actually believed that, he'd be prepared to pay those "cleaning that shit" a reasonable wage.
You don't get to play the emotional card about shit if you're not prepared to treat with respect those who are doing the job and pay them the appropriate salary with the appropriate dignity and terms and conditions.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
Many the gen 1 converted residential properties that aren’t compliant with new regulations - when mom & pop retire it’s better to sell the property for residential than invest (the chains prefer purpose built facilities).
There was also a wave of retirement post Covid because that was an incredibly unpleasant period for owner-managers.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
People saying immigration can be cut to zero without incurring significant economic costs that somebody will have to shoulder are the irresponsible ones. We are in our current state because politicians are unwilling to spell out these tradeoffs to people. Personally I am not attached to any particular level of immigration. I'd just like a grown up debate instead of the current ill unformed scapegoating.
Having immigration in the hundreds of thousands imposes significant economic costs on other people too.
If you wanted a grown up debate, you wouldn't make emotive comments about people lying in their own shit all day because there aren't enough immigrants.
It's not emotive, I was simply pointing out the problem with saying that there are unproductive jobs that aren't worth doing. There are plenty of jobs that are hard to make more productive but are still essential. Of course there are costs involved with current levels of immigration. There are also benefits. The whole question is intimately tied up with population ageing and we need to have a proper national debate about how we deal with this, rather than simply blaming people whose only crime is to be willing to fill gaps in our labour force.
The most dishonest form of argument in this whole debate is to conflate criticism of the level of immigration with blaming immigrants. The level of immigration is a political choice and you shouldn't use immigrants as human shields to defend your politics.
Your man Boris went for the spectacular combo of mass immigration turbo boosted whilst simultaneously blaming the migrants......
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
Next question?
Why can't you come up with a solution that's politically viable?
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
The Government has already been elected and it was elected by working age people, not pensioners, who were the only class of people who lost the election by voting for the Conservatives. More pensioners will be voting Tory/Reform than Labour at the next election regardless of what the Government does.
If they can't do the right thing, having won a landslide election victory without pensioner votes, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
We saw the typhoon of piss over means testing the WFA. Removing the triple lock without a manifesto commitment would that to the power of 9-11. So you can go on about doing what's right, in your chiaroscuro view, but the government can only do what's politically feasible without leading to a backbench rebellion, polling catastrophe or both.
Then the Government will fail, and it will deserve to fail.
Re care costs, I will mention my hobbyhorse of planning here though.
Like so many other costs in the UK, the cost of land and many other services are inflated by hugely restrictive planning, which feeds into everything else. Free up land to build on, make the planning process quicker and less costly, and a lot else will then get better.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
Care work involves far more than “cleaning the shit off your elderly relative”, although that is part of it. Your focus on demeans and dehumanises the residents.
(In the case of supermarkets in particular, it’s not so much the wages as the consistent hours and better shifts with less physical work).
It's of interest that, in Japan, there is very considerable investment in attempting to automate parts of care.
My sister-in-law worked in a care/medical facility for a while. Among other things, they were trialling a Japanese robot which lifted patients (elderly, mostly). So instead of 2 carers, plus one supervising, a single care person could monitor the robot doing the lift. It was also, so she said, more comfortable for the patients.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Questions which are fundamentally about competing economic interests cannot be resolved by having "grown up conversations". Maxxing out immigration in an attempt to avoid trade offs is irresponsible and unsustainable.
People saying immigration can be cut to zero without incurring significant economic costs that somebody will have to shoulder are the irresponsible ones. We are in our current state because politicians are unwilling to spell out these tradeoffs to people. Personally I am not attached to any particular level of immigration. I'd just like a grown up debate instead of the current ill unformed scapegoating.
Having immigration in the hundreds of thousands imposes significant economic costs on other people too.
If you wanted a grown up debate, you wouldn't make emotive comments about people lying in their own shit all day because there aren't enough immigrants.
It's not emotive, I was simply pointing out the problem with saying that there are unproductive jobs that aren't worth doing. There are plenty of jobs that are hard to make more productive but are still essential. Of course there are costs involved with current levels of immigration. There are also benefits. The whole question is intimately tied up with population ageing and we need to have a proper national debate about how we deal with this, rather than simply blaming people whose only crime is to be willing to fill gaps in our labour force.
The most dishonest form of argument in this whole debate is to conflate criticism of the level of immigration with blaming immigrants. The level of immigration is a political choice and you shouldn't use immigrants as human shields to defend your politics.
Yeah definitely no blaming of immigrants going on in this debate.
I don't know why it couldn't have been framed quite simply as getting a grip (on net migration) after the Cons lost it. Play into an overall theme of fixing the mess they left. It has the great benefit of being true and for me that should have been the tone. There was imo no need for the Farage adjacent rhetoric and I'm disappointed by it.
Re care costs, I will mention my hobbyhorse of planning here though.
Like so many other costs in the UK, the cost of land and many other services are inflated by hugely restrictive planning, which feeds into everything else. Free up land to build on, make the planning process quicker and less costly, and a lot else will then get better.
Reduce the cost of housing and the wage pressure in low end jobs will reduce.
Re care costs, I will mention my hobbyhorse of planning here though.
Like so many other costs in the UK, the cost of land and many other services are inflated by hugely restrictive planning, which feeds into everything else. Free up land to build on, make the planning process quicker and less costly, and a lot else will then get better.
It's a great hobbyhorse. And unlike many other reforms, ought not to be massively costly.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
So that means higher unemployment and indeed it is often the higher paid jobs corporations want to automate the most as they provide the biggest savings once cut
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
Enough as in what? If we insisted on national service in care homes we would clearly have enough. If we insist on paying NMW or a tiny fraction above, then no, we don't have enough because there are better NMW jobs out there.
So we can pay more, which requires tax raises, or import labour. We can't magic the problem away.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
Next question?
Why can't you come up with a solution that's politically viable?
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
The Government has already been elected and it was elected by working age people, not pensioners, who were the only class of people who lost the election by voting for the Conservatives. More pensioners will be voting Tory/Reform than Labour at the next election regardless of what the Government does.
If they can't do the right thing, having won a landslide election victory without pensioner votes, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
Except it's not the right thing. And it's not just pensioners who think they should be given a decent standard of living.
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
In times past the LibDems, Alliance or even the SDP or Liberals on their own have had 'breaking the mould' type of numbers in the polls. Is Reform any different?
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
Next question?
Why can't you come up with a solution that's politically viable?
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
The Government has already been elected and it was elected by working age people, not pensioners, who were the only class of people who lost the election by voting for the Conservatives. More pensioners will be voting Tory/Reform than Labour at the next election regardless of what the Government does.
If they can't do the right thing, having won a landslide election victory without pensioner votes, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
Except it's not the right thing. And it's not just pensioners who think they should be given a decent standard of living.
Exactly, a pensioner on just state pension has a below minimum wage annual income and may well live in social housing
My question: what percentage of the UK population in 2025 comprises the same people as in the year 2000?
Answer: "Given the continuous growth of the population, it's likely that a relatively small percentage of the 2000 population is still alive and residing in the UK in 2025."
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
Of course the closer the Tory vote gets to the LD vote the more likely Farage becomes PM with a Reform overall majority under FPTP, as it would signal ever more direct Tory switching to Reform.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Mandatory care insurance for people aged 50 and over and NI on all income including pensions and rental income (or just merge NI and Income tax). I think that would raise enough money. Oh also get the con artists and shysters out of the care industry by properly regulating margins and wages. If the current care industry operators can't handle the cut in the exorbitant profit margin then they can leave and others will enter.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Take a look at what we pay* nursing assistants, perhaps.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
With wage compression, and higher minimum wages, societal prestige is becoming more relevant. Research assistants and conservation workers, for example, are often on or close to the minimum wage these days. Marx would be proud....
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
Care work involves far more than “cleaning the shit off your elderly relative”, although that is part of it. Your focus on demeans and dehumanises the residents.
(In the case of supermarkets in particular, it’s not so much the wages as the consistent hours and better shifts with less physical work).
It's of interest that, in Japan, there is very considerable investment in attempting to automate parts of care.
My sister-in-law worked in a care/medical facility for a while. Among other things, they were trialling a Japanese robot which lifted patients (elderly, mostly). So instead of 2 carers, plus one supervising, a single care person could monitor the robot doing the lift. It was also, so she said, more comfortable for the patients.
Mrs Flatlander did a course this week on lifting (using a hoist) as we've had to resort to using one now.
[She was the only family carer there. 7/12 of the trainees were "sponsored" by the home office.]
It can technically be done solo although normally you would get two people if it was a scheduled visit.
The equipment is definitely better than it used to be although it isn't cheap.
Incidentally, the tutor said they had to deal with a 66 stone patient that took 8 people to lift if manual handling was required. Fortunately it wasn't that often as they do now have suitable equipment. This was an extreme case but they do have a lot of overweight patients.
Perhaps the new drugs will help with these problems.
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
The next GE is four years away, and no-one as a clue of course what it will be like. But at the moment all the parties and targets are moving. There are two 'finishing points' which would bring some clarity to the issues in the next election. One would be the decline and collapse of Reform and a return to an election in which the principle contests were Lab v Con and LD v Con with little overlap. Unlikely but not impossible.
The other neat contest with clarity would be LD v Reform. I don't think this is impossible either. Momentum is clearly building behind Reform being a main challenger. Lab and Con are truly tarnished. LDs, Lab and One Nationers getting behind the LDs would make sense.
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
In times past the LibDems, Alliance or even the SDP or Liberals on their own have had 'breaking the mould' type of numbers in the polls. Is Reform any different?
Yes, because of Sod’s Law. I am a Lib Dem, therefore we’ll never actually break through. Whereas that inviolate law determines that Reform will, of course, do so.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
There is a threshold for salary for getting a visa, it should not be difficult before granting a visa renewal or ILR to check HMRC contributions to see if someone is actually meeting the threshold or not.
If they are free of criminal record, and they're meeting the threshold, then no objections whatsoever to visa renewal or ILR being granted.
If someone gets convicted of a crime, or they fail to hit threshold, then it should be possible to say we are opting against renewing the visa/granting ILR.
If people are "by and large" hitting the threshold then they get the renewal/ILR, no issues.
For those who are not, for those who are working for minimum wage/Deliveroo/whatever then the visa expires.
Treat everyone fairly as an individual.
If you really want to stop it we need to leave the relevant international treaties and implement laws to make that happen.
Alternatively we can mitigate the costs we incur by processing the claims far more quickly and going after employers who employ people illegally.
Those are the two paths that have a practical impact rather than mere soundbites.
(Sidenote: the SDP was led by Roy Jenkins at that point; Owen didn't take over until after the 1983 election)
But while that can (and more often than not does), happen, it's not inevitable. The decline of both the Brexit Party, Change UK and the Lib Dems in the second half of 2019 was down to strategic errors they all made, combined with decisions made within Labour and, especially, the Tories; also, of key individuals and events.
Had Benn defeated Healey in Labour's Deputy Leadership contest, there's good evidence that that would have prompted a further and larger wave of defections - both strengthening the SDP and radicalising what was left of Labour towards the Hard Left.
Likewise, in 2019, Tom Watson was widely speculated to be considering defecting to Change UK but opted not to. Had he done so - in particular, had he done so early enough to knock some sense into their plans - that could have changed the whole future of the centre-left. But he didn't; he just faded away offstage. Meanwhile, Johnson replaced May, and Farage chose to neuter the BxP. None of which was inevitable.
And now? Labour is weak and directionless. It has lost all sense of mission and core values, which is confusing and demoralising members, activists and voters alike, while implementing policies that are by turn ineffective and unpopular. The Tories haven't come to terms with their loss and are caught between taking Reform on (which they won't) or trying to do Reform better (which they can't). Unless one or both of these change, the drift of voters away from what was once the Big Two will continue.
Obviously, Reform is not a passive player in this and while it clearly has campaigning and membership strengths, it has multiple weaknesses too, from its candidates and lack of leading players beyond Farage to its lack of experience. But the post-2008 era suggests that a lack of experience isn't the barrier it once was. The rise of populist parties around the world, including into government, is a common trend and Britain is no different. In a FPTP five-party system, where you can get a majority on 30%, Farage as PM is not at all an absurd prospect, particularly when tactical voting may be limited by the unpopularity of the two historic big parties and a lack of clear direction on where the tactical votes need to go.
Will Labour find some backbone? Who knows but I'm sceptical. Will the Tories find their mojo and some contrition? Doubtful. Will they find a new leader? Probably. Will he (probably he) be more effective? Unlikely when the same basic problem persists. Will the Tories look for a deal with Reform? Maybe but I don't see why Farage would agree to it right now under anything other than very favourable terms; terms that would probably be unacceptable to too many of the remaining Tory MPs.
Put simply, this time does feel different.
Pay has been running ahead of inflation for a while now. Good news. Hopefully the lower oil prices and a bit of Chinese dumping will mean that trend continues.
Mind you, it is France.
I have a small proposal
- it restores historic cultural associations with the continent
- It enacts the provisions of a treaty that the French are currently in breach of.
- It accidentally involves rejoining the EU. In a rather advantageous position as well. In terms that Reform would only applaud.
Baxtered, that gives 313, 169, 33, 72, 4.
Lab back ahead in the polls by July based on this trend.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The increasing impression is that Starmer doesn't believe in anything - or doesn't believe in anything strongly enough that it can't be easily overridden at someone else's advice. He's a voice for rent, or for persuasion. And if he doesn't believe in what he's saying, why should anyone else? If he doesn't have a plan, why wouldn't Labour drift on the tides and winds of events? But Labour rarely replaces leaders. Maybe Starmer sees the writing on the wall and quits of his own accord in 2027/28 - though again, that's not something PMs tend to do willingly and it might be too late anyway.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx0dl7ljeno
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce3vypz0nd6t
It is a wider issue that because the party has not yet had its policy 'renewal' you get Shadow Ministers just taking completely their own lines on the past. Patel defending immigration policy is the most prominent example but not the only one. Stride is flat out continuity Sunak, defending that era. Jenrick is probably the opposite. Philp was strongly attacking and apolohising for the Boriswave the other day (and also attacking Truss), in complete contrast to Patel defending it.
It makes no sense.
“Hitler’s Army” by Bartov explores the increasing technological and moral regression of the German *military* as the war progressed.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=23&LIB=16&Reform=28&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
Treaty of Troyes, old bean…
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
Not all degrees are equal
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
If you're not prepared to do that, then an alternative solution will be needed.
America became great by embracing foreign-born geniuses from around the world.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m2r8CyeBL3k
We have, in the care industry
- 88% are locals already
- Care home companies were given cart blanche to recruit abroad.
- The result was lots of visas issued
- The result was very few people actually recruited into the care industry.
If you've just spent £15,000 buying a visa to the UK (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-68337205), getting out of a minimum wage job is pretty enticing.
The problem with your statement is the assumption that Johnny Foreigner is built different and will happily live 4 to a bedroom for the privilege of wiping arses.
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
*Also consider conditions, societal prestige in the job.
You're getting there ...
Peter Sullivan was convicted of murdering Diane Sindall in Birkenhead in August 1986. The 21-year-old florist had been beaten and raped and left in an alleyway.
https://news.sky.com/story/man-jailed-for-diane-sindall-murder-in-1986-could-have-conviction-quashed-13364302
Wrong DNA.
Next question?
"Entry-level positions often start at £22,383 per year, with those more experienced potentially earning up to £32,950."
So starts at minimum wage. So perhaps an answer is to make care home carers "NHS nursing assistants", to give them the social prestige and career opportunities - a number go on to become nurses.
If you wanted a grown up debate, you wouldn't make emotive comments about people lying in their own shit all day because there aren't enough immigrants.
Demographics mean that gap will increase over time as the proportion needing care vs working age shifts further.
Adding 30-40% to salary levels, which I think is probably needed and appropriate, alongside professionalisation and training, would be a huge change to national finances and taxation. I am in favour but I don't think any government doing that would win the following election.
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
I couldn't care less if the Government wins the next election or not. If its not doing the right thing it doesn't deserve to do so.
There is no problem in labour shortages that fixing pay and conditions can't fix.
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
In the 1983 election the leaders were Thatcher, Foot, Steel and Jenkins. Also on the big time scene were Whitelaw, Healey and Williams. As to conviction and talent we are in a different universe. And it means that, however talentless, the insurgent is opposing much weaker forces.
The cost of ILR for the Boriswave is put at £234 billion, a decent part of that being low wage care workers. What taxes are rising to fund that ?
Of course there are costs involved with current levels of immigration. There are also benefits. The whole question is intimately tied up with population ageing and we need to have a proper national debate about how we deal with this, rather than simply blaming people whose only crime is to be willing to fill gaps in our labour force.
"Recent findings highlight a growing shortfall, with a £2.24bn gap between the average MSIF rates
for 2024/25 and the forecasted Fair Cost of Care (FCoC) and increase in the last 12 months of
circa £400m, indicating an alarming trend where care providers are increasingly unable to cover
the actual costs of delivering essential care services."
If they can't do the right thing, having won a landslide election victory without pensioner votes, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62v34zv828o
How the Government balances the books is its responsibility. And cynically this is a Government that was elected without the grey vote, so if they can't back their voters, people of working age, over the Opposition's voters, then what are they seeking re-election for.
(In the case of supermarkets in particular, it’s not so much the wages as the consistent hours and better shifts with less physical work).
She even gets to wipe arses instead of charging her clients (although as pointed out, this is about 1% of the job).
The reality is that a vast amount of care is done within families mostly unrewarded and unnoticed by the authorities.
A sizeable increase in pay and conditions will inevitably hit costs and, therefore, fees. That of itself is both a political and a practical issue.
Consider also local government, which is already at or over the limit of sustainability and for which social care is a major cost. Rachet that up and you intensify the budgetary crisis across the sector, which affects all other discretionary spend councils do (or won't do). But even making further cuts would be unlikely to stave off bankruptcies because there really isn't much else you can cut and tax rises are limited. Cue further discontent with the established parties running things. Unless central govt jacks up grants, which would be counter to all recent trends and policy.
You'll also have an impact on the NHS. If we cut immigrant carers before a domestic workforce is in place to replace them, you cut capacity which in turn hits NHS discharges - and so impacts both costs and waiting times.
Ultimately, someone has to pay. Who?
He wanted to use "lying in shit" as a demeaning and cheap point scoring point. If he actually believed that, he'd be prepared to pay those "cleaning that shit" a reasonable wage.
You don't get to play the emotional card about shit if you're not prepared to treat with respect those who are doing the job and pay them the appropriate salary with the appropriate dignity and terms and conditions.
There was also a wave of retirement post Covid because that was an incredibly unpleasant period for owner-managers.
Like so many other costs in the UK, the cost of land and many other services are inflated by hugely restrictive planning, which feeds into everything else. Free up land to build on, make the planning process quicker and less costly, and a lot else will then get better.
My sister-in-law worked in a care/medical facility for a while. Among other things, they were trialling a Japanese robot which lifted patients (elderly, mostly). So instead of 2 carers, plus one supervising, a single care person could monitor the robot doing the lift. It was also, so she said, more comfortable for the patients.
And unlike many other reforms, ought not to be massively costly.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
So we can pay more, which requires tax raises, or import labour. We can't magic the problem away.
My question: what percentage of the UK population in 2025 comprises the same people as in the year 2000?
Answer: "Given the continuous growth of the population, it's likely that a relatively small percentage of the 2000 population is still alive and residing in the UK in 2025."
So be careful what you wish for!
[She was the only family carer there. 7/12 of the trainees were "sponsored" by the home office.]
It can technically be done solo although normally you would get two people if it was a scheduled visit.
The equipment is definitely better than it used to be although it isn't cheap.
Incidentally, the tutor said they had to deal with a 66 stone patient that took 8 people to lift if manual handling was required. Fortunately it wasn't that often as they do now have suitable equipment. This was an extreme case but they do have a lot of overweight patients.
Perhaps the new drugs will help with these problems.
The other neat contest with clarity would be LD v Reform. I don't think this is impossible either. Momentum is clearly building behind Reform being a main challenger. Lab and Con are truly tarnished. LDs, Lab and One Nationers getting behind the LDs would make sense.
https://bsky.app/profile/morrisf1.bsky.social/post/3lp2cmz4wjs2l