The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[dangie]

….I'm not sure if it was to show the JobCentre he was applying for jobs, or if he was just weirdly obsessed with us.

He didn't get any of the jobs.

Did he ever get an interview for any of the jobs or were his applications dismissed straight away?

I do hope though, even if he wasn’t suitable for any of the positions, he got a thank you letter.

My granddaughter has applied for many jobs. Unfortunately she didn’t get any of them, but even worse in my opinion she never even received any reply. That is absolutely terrible.

 

[Broucek]

Spot on. There are some people, like your friend, who are ready for the workforce and ready to work but cannot find employers willing and/or able to make adjustments to allow them work.

Part of the problem is that Angela Rayner wants to increase employment rights in early months. That's a classic bit of unintended consequences as it will increase the risk of employers not wanting to "take a risk" on a candidate who has the capability but may have underlying mental or physical health issues.

 

[styles]

Did he ever get an interview for any of the jobs or were his applications dismissed straight away?

I do hope though, even if he wasn’t suitable for any of the positions, he got a thank you letter.

My granddaughter has applied for many jobs. Unfortunately she didn’t get any of them, but even worse in my opinion she never even received any reply. That is absolutely terrible.

He may have done in the months or years before I was doing any hiring there, I'm not sure. For the roles our team was recruiting for at the time, he just wasn't qualified. I mean on one of the application forms when asked about IT skills, he wrote something like, "I'm not very good with comput..", then stopped mid-sentence, didn't answer the remaining questions, and posted the form. For other jobs he completed the form in full.

We did send responses to every applicant though, and in many cases proactively provided feedback rather than the applicant having to ask.

I think it's become sadly quite common for employers and recruiters to just ghost candidates, and more recently for some candidates to ghost employers and recruiters in return.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This will upset many people, especially on the left - many voters are happy to see disability cuts. It may be a callous view and it may be mistaken but there are plenty of people I know who think there are skivers on disability when they are working thier backsides off to make ends meet.

There are stories, no doubt apocryphal, but common about people fit for SOME work taking the Michael. Shop mobility is an obvious example. I cant afford a nice car and am working all hours but that person over there who does nowt gets given a BMW free of charge. I suspect such stories are nonsense but they stick.

The problem is that people don't understand the benefits system, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand the checks and balances in it. It is boring and it is complicated, so the soundbites stick.

You mention Motability (not Shopmobility- they hire scooters to disabled people in shopping centres), a scheme where you exchange your PIP enhanced rate mobility component payments for a leased car. You also have to pay an up-front fee, depending on which car you lease; this advance payment can be high as £7,999. People don't get given a car for free. If they have a Beemer on Motability they've paid top whack for it.

Motability is a private company, not a government body, and Motability is exceptionally profitable- in 2022 alone it made pre-tax profits of £1.1bn. It has financial reserves of over £4bn. Its senior management take home seven-figure bonuses each year.

It also often over-charges disabled people for the leases (it often significantly over-states how much the cars will depreciate by) then sells the cars on at the end for the higher price. My ex is on enhanced rate PIP and it was quite a bit cheaper for her to take a bog-standard PCP from the dealer than it was to use the Motability scheme.

The politicians are to blame for this. Starmer talking about "getting people back to work" when discussing PIP was shameful. He is an intelligent man, he knows that PIP is not a work-replacement benefit, he knows that PIP is paid based on someone's disability and not whether someone works. But he also knows that the general public don't know that, so he was quite content to lie to try and justify his decision to balance the books on the backs of disabled people.

The changes to PIP are stark. They are intending to change the rules so you must get at least 4 points in one category to be eligible for PIP, in addition to meeting the existing cumulative points thresholds. But people don't understand what that means in practice. Here are some of the things that only score two points (and so wouldn't count in the new rules):

• Needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist (2 points)
• Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body (2 points)
• Needs assistance to be able to cut up food (2 points)

So in Starmer's brave new world, someone who is incapable of washing their genitals and who is incapable putting their underpants and trousers on wouldn't qualify for PIP. Someone who can't use a knife and fork wouldn't qualify for PIP. Starmer says taking PIP away from them will help them get back into work.

I can't help wonder what would happen to someone who turned up for work with an unwashed bottom and no underpants or trousers on?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2025 ==

Part of the problem is that Angela Rayner wants to increase employment rights in early months. That's a classic bit of unintended consequences as it will increase the risk of employers not wanting to "take a risk" on a candidate who has the capability but may have underlying mental or physical health issues.

That's just an excuse from employers, as capability (i.e. whether someone is capable of turning up for work) is a valid reason for dismissal at any stage of their employment. If you sack someone for being too unwell to work then, so long as you have tried to help them, you will win at Tribunal.

The key point, of course, is that you must give disabled employees reasonable adjustments. These cost money. Even an ergonomic office chair can cost north of £1000. Employers, understandably, don't want to spend that money if there is an able-bodied candidate instead. I don't attach any blame to them for this. There used to be subsidies available to employers to assist with these costs, but the last government abolished them.

 

[styles]

That's just an excuse from employers, as capability (i.e. whether someone is capable of turning up for work) is a valid reason for dismissal at any stage of their employment. If you sack someone for being too unwell to work then, so long as you have tried to help them, you will win at Tribunal.

The key point, of course, is that you must give disabled employees reasonable adjustments. These cost money. Even an ergonomic office chair can cost north of £1000. Employers, understandably, don't want to spend that money if there is an able-bodied candidate instead. I don't attach any blame to them for this. There used to be subsidies available to employers to assist with these costs, but the last government abolished them.

Also cost aside, perhaps often subconsciously employers presented with two similar candidates, one of whom has a seemingly severe disability which may or may not require reasonable adjustments, is going to mentally rank second. An employer can't really justify hiring somebody who discloses a disability, then sacking them almost immediately because they're ultimately not capable - they need to try and make those reasonable adjustments, give them time to bed in, see if they work, possibly try some others, etc; this delays the work getting done.

This may not even be a conscious decision, but unconscious bias.

My mum has had quite severe mobility issues for about 15 years now, and is now reliant on an electric wheelchair if she goes out for more than a ~50 metre walk. She has been entitled to the enhanced mobility component for a long time, but despite this she tried quite hard to find a job still. She even went to college to get her GCSE maths because she failed her O-Level maths back in the 70s and most large employers require it for her line of work now. She still got knocked back from all sorts of jobs because of her disability. One of them was a hospital of all places, who couldn't guarantee she'd be able to get out of the building in an emergency because the one lift which was there often broke down. Another because she would need a stool to sit on to use a scanner and they reckoned the stool would present a hazard.

Unless your employer is very forward-thinking, and perhaps even recognises how an employee with certain disabilities may be able to suggest improvements which help other staff and even customers, it can be much harder getting a job even though you're very much qualified for it. Not even cost - I mean how much would it really cost to move some files higher up the shelves and occasionally ask somebody else to refill the printer paper.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It worked for me at the time and although i only had a short-term job as a result, my confidence was such that I was able to go out and get another job soon afterwards.

Absolutely.

It is something of a cliché to say that it's much easier to get a job when you're already in a job, but it is a cliché because it is true.

The longer someone is out of work the harder it is to get back into work. Employers, understandably, are very wary of gaps in employment records; it's only human nature to wonder "what happened there, what's up with them?" when you see someone was out of work for 12 months or more. New Deal was great for helping people get over that hurdle and get that first job, once they were back in employment they were back in the system and could move onwards and upwards much more easily.

For these people Universal Credit was actually a very positive development. It's one benefit whether you're in work or out of work. This means that if you get a short term job you don't need to re-apply for anything if/when that short term contract comes to an end. It used to be a huge problem, even rapid reclaim JSA (an actual thing) could take weeks to process. The problem with UC was that Osborne used the change to hide a lot of fairly nasty benefit cuts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2025 ==

Also cost aside, perhaps often subconsciously employers presented with two similar candidates, one of whom has a seemingly severe disability which may or may not require reasonable adjustments, is going to mentally rank second.

Definitely.

Whether its consciously or subconsciously, you can see why employers would put disabled people on the 'too difficult' pile. Even if the disability is purely physical (e.g. they're a wheelchair user due to lower body paralysis), you can see why employers would worry about access to the building, getting Evac-Chairs in place, getting people trained to use the Evac-Chairs, potentially having to buy a specialist desk, etc etc. Much easier to find a reason to prefer the other candidate.

 

[sor]

In regards to "going through the motions" on job ads. I wonder if that also leads to inflation of the statistics the major job websites put up, ie "500 people applied for this job", and that is then used uncritically by journalists as a sign of where the industry or the wider economy is going. It wouldn't matter to them that a huge percentage of those applicants probably don't want the job and wouldn't be qualified for it.

My granddaughter has applied for many jobs. Unfortunately she didn’t get any of them, but even worse in my opinion she never even received any reply. That is absolutely terrible.

I once got a rejection email for a paid work placement (year in industry as part of degree) months after applying and long after I had started working for a (much better) competitor - ironically just down the road too. I assume they closed the vacancy to new applications and this somehow triggered automated emails to those who were not taken forward.

A colleague recently told me the same about our employer, his son tried applying for our apprenticeship scheme and wasn't sent a rejection email. Perhaps they see it as a "CV bank" in case the initially successful applicants turn the offer down, but they could at least make that clear to all applicants

 

[D6130]

Anyone who hasn't seen the Ken Loach film "I Daniel Blake" should make the effort to do so. It's a brilliant and frightening portrayal of the benefits system and the way Jobcentres hound and bully people.

 

[simonw]

Did he ever get an interview for any of the jobs or were his applications dismissed straight away?

I do hope though, even if he wasn’t suitable for any of the positions, he got a thank you letter.

My granddaughter has applied for many jobs. Unfortunately she didn’t get any of them, but even worse in my opinion she never even received any reply. That is absolutely terrible.

A friend of mine at university applied for a job at a company that was part of a large conglomerate and ended up getting rejectionsfrom other companies in the group he hadn't even applied to.

Edit weird autocorrect

 

[jfollows]

A friend of mine at university applied for a job at a company that was part of a large conglomerate and ended up getting grandfathers from other companies in the group he hadn't even applied to.

I don’t understand “grandfathers”, can you elaborate?

 

[martin butler]

I certainly have had more than my fair share of Job centres, and When I was unemployed, I found they were of no help whatsoever,

They were more concerned about me ticking boxes, than actually heling me towards getting back into work, and the quality was not that good either, there were some, who were very good, and actually listened to what i was saying, about training courses, etc, and did what they could, but often, they would get promoted to admin roles, and I would get another adviser, who would then say no, and insist it was their way, or no way.

During this time, they insisted I Apply for a set number of jobs each day, and I had to do it, this meant applying for jobs I had no chance of getting, only when I was moved over to a program that could offer some work placements, did I actually get a job, and then, it was only because on my first day, a manager got chatting, asked me what I had done, experience wise, this lead to me getting an internal interview a week later, to offer me the job that I spent the next 5 years on until retirement .

 

[DarloRich]

You mention Motability (not Shopmobility- they hire scooters to disabled people in shopping centres),

Motability. Shopmobility is the short-term mobility aid hire service you often find in shopping centres!

I was making a poorly expressed play on the words used by other people to describe this scheme.

Zarah Sultana who had the Labour whip withdrawn a year ago is resigning from the party to join Jeremy Corbyn's Socialist Party. Somehow I think those within Labour are probably glad to see the back of her.

A Corbyn whopper - bye!

The politicians are to blame for this. Starmer talking about "getting people back to work" when discussing PIP was shameful. He is an intelligent man, he knows that PIP is not a work-replacement benefit, he knows that PIP is paid based on someone's disability and not whether someone works. But he also knows that the general public don't know that, so he was quite content to lie to try and justify his decision to balance the books on the backs of disabled people.

I KNOW my view on disability benefit is coloured by personal experiences of a few people and of one person in particular. That person should have had an Oscar is all I will say. Having seen that and seen what they got on the back of those decisions, where they lived and the kind of stuff they had I find it very difficult to engage with this subject with an open mind. Obviously I know this isn't the reality for many ( most/majority etc?) but I KNOW there are skivers and I want them screwed out of the system.

I don't want to hurt the truly disabled, in fact I think they should get more money, but I don't want those who can work ( and that figure is bigger than it should be) hiding on benefits at our expense when they should be out earning and contributing.

Man, I am going a bit Farage here!

Also cost aside, perhaps often subconsciously employers presented with two similar candidates, one of whom has a seemingly severe disability which may or may not require reasonable adjustments, is going to mentally rank second. An employer can't really justify hiring somebody who discloses a disability, then sacking them almost immediately because they're ultimately not capable - they need to try and make those reasonable adjustments, give them time to bed in, see if they work, possibly try some others, etc; this delays the work getting done.

Whether its consciously or subconsciously, you can see why employers would put disabled people on the 'too difficult' pile. Even if the disability is purely physical (e.g. they're a wheelchair user due to lower body paralysis), you can see why employers would worry about access to the building, getting Evac-Chairs in place, getting people trained to use the Evac-Chairs, potentially having to buy a specialist desk, etc etc. Much easier to find a reason to prefer the other candidate.

I agree with all this - we need to be helping people get back into the work place and we need to be helping employers to welcome people back into the work place. My employer is pretty good at this but someone with a small company is simply not going to take on a disabled person. It costs too much and it just isn't worth the hassle.

We have to make it hassle free as far as possible for all parties. Most jobs in the future are going to be sedentary data control/input/manipulation jobs. You don't need to be physically fit to do that. I am not asking people to join a deep sea trawler - I am asking them to do an office job. I think there is a lot of peopel who could do that and earn money rather than be given money and chucked on the scrap heap.

Dignity in work and all that used to be part of what Labour stood for!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I KNOW my view on disability benefit is coloured by personal experiences of a few people and of one person in particular. That person should have had an Oscar is all I will say. Having seen that and seen what they got on the back of those decisions, where they lived and the kind of stuff they had I find it very difficult to engage with this subject with an open mind.

There are some who lie and cheat the system. It's the same with any system.

Of course these clampdowns don't affect those people. Those people are clever and devious enough to know the magic words to keep the benefits flowing. There has been increased scrutiny of back-related claims so they moved to mental health; increased scrutiny of those will just see them move to a different condition. I shan't go into details but if someone is prepared to properly lean into the prejudices held by many of the medical assessors then they will get the points they require.

What these clampdowns and changes do is penalise the vast majority of people who are genuine and legitimate in their claims. Many of these people "mustn't grumble" and try and put a brave face on what they're experiencing. They get family to spend hours getting them dressed specially for the assessment and it backfires; the medical assessor decides they're capable of getting dressed. Nul points, benefits stopped.

The fundamental issue is that the DWP, at a policy level, are simply not interested in clamping down on fraud. Catching those making fraudulent claims takes time and costs money, neither of which the DWP are interested in investing in.

The policy objective they have is simply cutting the number of people receiving the benefit, so they go after the lowest hanging fruit. So the fraudsters still get their money, they're good at lying, it's just everyone else who gets shafted.

Catching benefit cheats need specialist investigators. They're not easily outsourced to Crapita and Atos. What would the shareholders say?

ETA: As for wider benefit fraud, the biggest issue now is not that people are on benefits and not working. The issue is that people are working and not declaring their income to the taxman and the benefits agency. Something to consider when one is paying cash in hand to a builder or the chap who washes the windows.

 

[DarloRich]

@Tetchytyke ok - apart from slagging of the DWP and ATOS ( which is always fun) what are we going to do about it?

 

[Tetchytyke]

ok - apart from slagging of the DWP and ATOS ( which is always fun) what are we going to do about it?

If we want to clamp down on those fraudulently claiming disability benefits then proper funding for the DWP's specialist investigation teams would be a good start. Those are the people who catch the people with a "bad back" moonlighting on building sites or as personal trainers or as golf coaches or whatever.

But those teams costs money. I don't think any government is truly interested in spending the money. Same reason why HMRC's investigative and compliance teams have been hollowed out.

But don't forget the DWP have a snitch line if you really believe your neighbour has gone full Mickey Bliss.

 

[simonw]

I don’t understand “grandfathers”, can you elaborate?

Yeah weird autocorrect strikes again

 

[Falcon1200]

I was on the hiring side for a few roles at a previous employer. We had one guy who applied for every job I advertised, with the exact same untailored CV, even though the roles were wildly different.

I used to do interviews for the railway, and we had applicants 'off the street' who clearly had done no research into what the job entailed, or how the railway worked. One openly said they had only applied to 'keep the Job Centre happy'. Whether they wanted to work at all is one thing but they clearly had no intention whatsoever of working for us!

 

[telstarbox]

Zarah Sultana who had the Labour whip withdrawn a year ago is resigning from the party to join Jeremy Corbyn's Socialist Party. Somehow I think those within Labour are probably glad to see the back of her.

Today, after 14 years, I’m resigning from the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party, with other Independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country. Join us. The time is now.

I get the frustration as someone to the left of Starmer, but a 'party' of 2 MPs doesn't sound like a strong start to a movement, especially if they didn't agree on when to go public. Even the short-lived Independent Group/Change UK had 10 in their first couple of days

Should ZS face a by-election? She was elected on a Labour manifesto this time last year....

 

[Gloster]

I get the frustration as someone to the left of Starmer, but a 'party' of 2 MPs doesn't sound like a strong start to a movement, especially if they didn't agree on when to go public. Even the short-lived Independent Group/Change UK had 10 in their first couple of days

Should ZS face a by-election? She was elected on a Labour manifesto this time last year....

Ah, but she has not left the party, the party has left her. I am generally not in favour of MPs being forced to stand for re-election if they leave a party - think of the power that would give whips - , but if they join another party they should stand for re-election. If you were elected on party X’s manifesto but are now an independent you can continue to follow X’s manifesto except on the matter(s) that caused your resignation. If you are now an MP of party Y you are now bound by its manifesto, which you were not voted in on. Joining a newly formed Monster Raving True Socialist Ego Party is very much on the edge. (Even though it is not yet clear what it stands for, other than Jeremy. And if you can stand for Jeremy, you can stand for…)

The risk is simply that True Corbyn will slice off a small but significant portion of the vote in seats that will, by the election, be marginal. Some of those votes will come from Reform, but probably more will come from Labour.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The issue is that people are working and not declaring their income to the taxman and the benefits agency. Something to consider when one is paying cash in hand to a builder or the chap who washes the windows.

It's also very hard to catch people if they're good at keeping their mouth shut. A bloke that lives near my cousin just got rumbled, but he was known to be bragging about how he was claiming for mental illness ('can't get out of bed mate') when in fact, he was working nights as a truck driver and getting paid cash in hand. If he'd kept his mouth shut, it's unlikely that he would ever have been caught.

@Tetchytyke ok - apart from slagging of the DWP and ATOS ( which is always fun) what are we going to do about it?

I think the biggest problem is that the benefits system doesn't actually encourage people to do something. For instance, if someone is unemployed and comes to say that they'd fancy a crack at a new career, perhaps accounting, then it should be perfectly possible for employers to take that person on for free. They'd retain their benefits for a year as long as they're actually working, and that year would give them time to get a qualification that the employers need.

It shouldn't be that we force people into crap jobs just to get them off benefits, it would be far more useful if the system was flexible enough to allow people to retain their safety net. Likewise with self employment: if someone comes and fancies a career as a YouTube content creator, then it should be perfectly possible for them to retain their benefits and to receive some financial assistance to buy what they need. They could have specialist advisors who could assess whether they're actually on the right track or not, and I don't think it's unreasonable to finance them for a year to see if they can make it work.

 

[Tetchytyke]

For instance, if someone is unemployed and comes to say that they'd fancy a crack at a new career, perhaps accounting, then it should be perfectly possible for employers to take that person on for free. They'd retain their benefits for a year as long as they're actually working, and that year would give them time to get a qualification that the employers need.

It would require very careful planning otherwise you’re effectively using taxpayer money to give employers free staff. I’m not sure that would achieve much in the long term; employers would take the free employee then move on to the next free employee when the money ran out. That’s what Poundland did when they were in a very similar DWP scheme; the free staff they took on were never converted to paid staff. Weird.

Switching between benefits and work is actually the one area where Universal Credit is a genuine force for good. It’s the same benefit whether you’re in work or not, so if you do take a job it continues and if the job finishes after a fixed term then it also continues.

The problems come where a claimant tries their hand at something and decides it isn’t for them; if you quit a job without a very good reason then you get sanctioned. You can see why this is in place but it does have the effect of people not wanting to chance things.

 

[telstarbox]

Ah, but she has not left the party, the party has left her. I am generally not in favour of MPs being forced to stand for re-election if they leave a party - think of the power that would give whips - , but if they join another party they should stand for re-election. If you were elected on party X’s manifesto but are now an independent you can continue to follow X’s manifesto except on the matter(s) that caused your resignation. If you are now an MP of party Y you are now bound by its manifesto, which you were not voted in on. Joining a newly formed Monster Raving True Socialist Ego Party is very much on the edge. (Even though it is not yet clear what it stands for, other than Jeremy. And if you can stand for Jeremy, you can stand for…)

The risk is simply that True Corbyn will slice off a small but significant portion of the vote in seats that will, by the election, be marginal. Some of those votes will come from Reform, but probably more will come from Labour.

If Zack Polanski wins the Green leadership then there could be a pact between them and the new party - although they might both be strong in the same seats rather than 'exceeding the sum of their parts'.

 

[The Ham]

I've had numerous experiences with the Job Centre over the years. Before I say anything else, I think it's fair to say that there are some really good people who work there and they do genuinely care about people. I've had some really fantastic advisers who actually listen and do their best to help.

There are also some nasty people who shouldn't ever be in a public-facing role. I had one adviser offer to call me if she though a suitable position appeared on the job boards. She did indeed call one day, but it was for a job that specified a certain qualification and I was well under-qualified. I asked her to post the details out and I'd consider it, but she then assumed that I was actually going to apply and I ended up with a sanction because I didn't. It would have been a total waste of my time and the employer's time if I had been invited to interview. That episode ended up with me being unable to afford my rent and I had to move back into my mum's place, in an area where there were far fewer jobs around!

Regarding third-party contractors which are brought in to help, they're simply not flexible enough to be able to deal with people who are reasonably qualified. I once had to attend some course where we were treated like idiots. The people behind these companies don't care about anything other than the "outcome fee".

I've mentioned this previously, but I think that Blair's Labour government had it just about right with its "New Deal". It wasn't a perfect scheme by any means, but it treated people like human beings and addressed basic issues such as ensuring that people had something smart to wear for an interview. It also took into account that any work or voluntary training placements weren't necessarily forever and put you back on the same level of support once they came to an end. With New Deal, participants received a bit extra over and above the standard JobSeekers' Allowance. It worked for me at the time and although i only had a short-term job as a result, my confidence was such that I was able to go out and get another job soon afterwards.

This current shower seems to want to carry on with the Tory stick approach, rather than offering carrots. Some people just need a bit of a confidence boost to help find work; you don't boost anyone's confidence by threatening to put them in a worse situation than the one they're already in.

I know someone who (just out of Russel Group uni with a reasonable scientific degree) who was told, when they said that they wanted to do a job which was more than just minimum wage, "oh I don't think you'll be able to do that", only to then need help to do something on the computer from the same person a few moments later.

Unsurprisingly, the individual wasn't impressed.

It shouldn't be that we force people into crap jobs just to get them off benefits, it would be far more useful if the system was flexible enough to allow people to retain their safety net. Likewise with self employment: if someone comes and fancies a career as a YouTube content creator, then it should be perfectly possible for them to retain their benefits and to receive some financial assistance to buy what they need. They could have specialist advisors who could assess whether they're actually on the right track or not, and I don't think it's unreasonable to finance them for a year to see if they can make it work.

That's a reasonable suggestion.

Another possible option (which socialist parties like Labour, at least historical Labour, could suggest) is a universal basic income (UBI). That way everyone gets it, it doesn't matter if you're working or not, and so you cut all the costs associated with applications, all the complications of seeking out fraud, etc.

Whilst you may want to increase the value for those of over retirement age, for other things you could save a load of red tape. For example, other than employers offering more for maternity/paternity pay to retain staff there wouldn't be a need for the government to ensure that people were paid from a given date to a given date.

Yes you'd have to raise taxes, however if the extra taxes ment that someone on (say) £35,000 to £50,000 was where there was no additional benefit from the receiving the UBI and then it started to increase the amount of tax paid again after that point, then the cost of the scheme would be fairly limited.

It would mean that any work anyone did would lose them more in benefits than they earned, likewise it would be unlikely that there would be much if any tax free allowance and so even someone did a tiny account of work they would be paying taxes.

You could have 2 tax rates, based on a UBI of £10,000 a year these could be (income above UBI):

50% on earnings from £0 to £35,000
20% in earnings from £35,000 to £55,000 and then
55% for everything earned above £55,000

The reason for picking £10,000, is that this is effectively the rate of maternity pay if it was paid for a year (which is not), but other amounts could be used which would alter 50% rates of tax.

This would have the added bonus that people may strive to earn over £35,000 as they'd see their take home pay increase significantly compared to extra earning up to that point (even though they would actually be paying more taxes from earning more, although not more taxes than someone earning that amount currently), however there also wouldn't be the fear of being taxed more for those earning over £55, 000 as it would be the same rate of tax as at the lower earning band.

Those earning over £50,000 to £55,000 would be a little better off (up to £1,000) before taxes started to erode this back down again until after £65,000 when people would start being taxed a bit more.

People who needed to retire early could do so if they could live on that much money or at least it could be more affordable to reduce the amount of work which they did due to having poor health. Especially if they were needing to do so only (say) 18 months before state retirement age.

Yes you'd still have the issue of cash in hand work, however that's always going to be an issue. Having said that, with the savings from admin from the benefits system some of that money could be set to work investigating to find people doing so.

 

[SteveP29]

I know someone who (just out of Russel Group uni with a reasonable scientific degree) who was told, when they said that they wanted to do a job which was more than just minimum wage, "oh I don't think you'll be able to do that", only to then need help to do something on the computer from the same person a few moments later.

Unsurprisingly, the individual wasn't impressed.



That's a reasonable suggestion.

Another possible option (which socialist parties like Labour, at least historical Labour, could suggest) is a universal basic income (UBI). That way everyone gets it, it doesn't matter if you're working or not, and so you cut all the costs associated with applications, all the complications of seeking out fraud, etc.

Whilst you may want to increase the value for those of over retirement age, for other things you could save a load of red tape. For example, other than employers offering more for maternity/paternity pay to retain staff there wouldn't be a need for the government to ensure that people were paid from a given date to a given date.

Yes you'd have to raise taxes, however if the extra taxes ment that someone on (say) £35,000 to £50,000 was where there was no additional benefit from the receiving the UBI and then it started to increase the amount of tax paid again after that point, then the cost of the scheme would be fairly limited.

It would mean that any work anyone did would lose them more in benefits than they earned, likewise it would be unlikely that there would be much if any tax free allowance and so even someone did a tiny account of work they would be paying taxes.

You could have 2 tax rates, based on a UBI of £10,000 a year these could be (income above UBI):

50% on earnings from £0 to £35,000
20% in earnings from £35,000 to £55,000 and then
55% for everything earned above £55,000

The reason for picking £10,000, is that this is effectively the rate of maternity pay if it was paid for a year (which is not), but other amounts could be used which would alter 50% rates of tax.

This would have the added bonus that people may strive to earn over £35,000 as they'd see their take home pay increase significantly compared to extra earning up to that point (even though they would actually be paying more taxes from earning more, although not more taxes than someone earning that amount currently), however there also wouldn't be the fear of being taxed more for those earning over £55, 000 as it would be the same rate of tax as at the lower earning band.

Those earning over £50,000 to £55,000 would be a little better off (up to £1,000) before taxes started to erode this back down again until after £65,000 when people would start being taxed a bit more.

People who needed to retire early could do so if they could live on that much money or at least it could be more affordable to reduce the amount of work which they did due to having poor health. Especially if they were needing to do so only (say) 18 months before state retirement age.

Yes you'd still have the issue of cash in hand work, however that's always going to be an issue. Having said that, with the savings from admin from the benefits system some of that money could be set to work investigating to find people doing so.

Is that £35,000 on top of the UBI, or £35,000 total income?

 

[JonathanH]

The one that really annoys me is the “Cash ISA” thing. Let’s get people to invest more in the stock market by taking away their Cash ISA options. No, they won’t, it won’t work. Different types of investor totally. I don’t touch Cash ISAs myself, but I know people who keep their spare money in their bank savings account and might stretch to a Cash ISA, but are horrified by the potential for losing money on the stock market. Each to their own.

It will be seen as a tax / subsidy point as well though. The treasury will be thinking why it subsidises higher rate taxpayers to get interest without taxing it on cash investments.

A fairly strong argument could be made to set the ISA limit at £0 for higher rate taxpayers, for cash, and recover tax on their interest in any cash accounts, in the same way it applies to any other income. Keeping a reasonable ISA allowance for the lower paid would be a better way of targetting money that the ISA provisions are 'costing', because for the lower paid, having some form of 'secure' savings is more important.

If headline tax rates aren't going to be increased, then chipping away at 'subsidies' to the higher paid and targeting spending on people who need it more, is going to need to continue.

 

[martin butler]

Labour, I think is going to be dammed no matter what it does, the right-wing media, want to undermine them to force Starmer out, then pressure his successor to call an election, one they hope will see their chosen ones hold power as the largest party, even if they can't win an overall majority.

Yes, Labour have made some awful mistakes, PIP, Winter fuel payment, not being very good at the dark arts of media manipulation, in the face of unrelenting attacks from the right-wing media,

The future is very uncertain, the reemergence of the Corbynite faction will play into the opposition's hands, Vote Starmer, get Rainier, for one another leftish party will dilute support at a time when there will be more, not less pressure on Labour, majorities are going to be slim, a few votes here and there will be the difference between winning or losing seats, the tory vote, has all but collapsed, much of it will have gone to Reform, or Lib dems, or even , stayed at home,

What Labour does not need is for its own supporters to stay at home, some, will be swayed by reforms promise's or the Corbyn party, with calls of socialist purity, which could even put Labour second in a lot of seats, they might otherwise win.

 

[The Ham]

Is that £35,000 on top of the UBI, or £35,000 total income?

When giving the tax rates I said above UBI, the assumption being that the UBI would be the tax free amount and then any earnings were taxed.

 

[dangie]

Labour, I think is going to be dammed no matter what it does, the right-wing media, want to undermine them….

[Whichever party is in power] I think is going to be damned no matter what it does, the [media], want to undermine them….

Unfortunately this is what the media does. No media wants to give the government any praise or positives. Good news is no news. Anything positive, the media will follow with a negative. The media would have us all think everything is doom & gloom.

 

[Falcon1200]

Should the media only report positive news about the Government, or hold it to account for its failures, perceived or real? After all, this Government has given the media plenty of ammunition, from the absurd and costly Chagos deal to the absolute failure to stop the small boat crossings. And that is before we mention multiple U-turns and Starmer having lost control of his party.

But I confess, I am part of the problem, having voted Labour last July, and yes, I do now have buyers regret. But short of not voting at all there was nothing else I could do!

 

[jfollows]

[Whichever party is in power] I think is going to be damned no matter what it does, the [media], want to undermine them….

Unfortunately this is what the media does. No media wants to give the government any praise or positives. Good news is no news. Anything positive, the media will follow with a negative. The media would have us all think everything is doom & gloom.

I don’t think it’s unfortunate, it’s what they should do.
The problem is when politicians get ground down by it. I remember, and I suspect you might also, Edward Heath used to be brilliant with the media, but after a while as PM he switched to taking it personally and became totally defensive. Subsequently, of course, he just sulked.