The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[edwin_m]

What is not workable is borrowing to pay the welfare bill, and/or not paying down debt when the economy is doing well (see Brown/Blair and the end of boom and bust).

What is even less acceptable is borrowing to pay for tax cuts for the rich. At least welfare spending goes straight out into the real economy rather than being salted away or spent overseas. Liz Truss is one of the big reasons why borrowing is expensive and so much public spending goes on interest payments. A smaller economy created by Brexit has also eroded the tax base.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A smaller economy created by Brexit has also eroded the tax base.

One of the biggest elephants in the room is that simply rejoining the Single Market (not even the EU) would likely solve a good many of our problems by promoting economic growth. Singapore-on-Thames has really been a failure (our wages are too high for it to work, and nobody wants to "resolve" that of course) and we really need to accept that and stop flogging a horse that isn't only dead but never really lived in the eyes of anyone other than Farage and co.

 

[Cloud Strife]

They do need to make cuts to spending, particularly the very large amount on benefits. Encourage more people to work and cut taxes like employers NI, corporation tax etc.

The truth is that benefits have already been cut to the bone. The only thing left is to finally address the benefits trap and accept that any benefits system needs to reward people for working, rather than creating a system where you're barely better off working 40 hours a week. There also needs to be much more flexibility in the system for people who are capable of occasional, but not permanent work.

There also needs to be a system that is much more responsive towards self-employment. I know one lad who is heavily discouraged from being self-employed, because he only has a year where universal credit is reduced according to his income. After a year, there's a minimum deduction applied regardless of what he actually earns, which is around £1600 a month. It's ridiculous, because many self employed people earn well at some times and not so well at other times, so deducting a flat £1600 a month from his universal credit is simply a non-starter.

 

[brad465]

The party doesn't have the political will to do what is necessary to grow the economy. The party is stuck in their left wing ideology of high taxes and wasteful public sector spending which is bad for growth.

They do need to make cuts to spending, particularly the very large amount on benefits. Encourage more people to work and cut taxes like employers NI, corporation tax etc.
Invest in capital projects to encourage growth in the North and Midlands etc

They tried austerity from 2010, it didn't work. We assume that if money is not spent, it is completely saved, but actually "not spending" has a cost attached to.

Also, the problem with cutting benefits is, as we've seen recently, people in favour of cutting them only like it when it doesn't affect them. The WFA debacle being the prime example: even the supposedly small state Tories were opposing the cuts.

The truth is that benefits have already been cut to the bone. The only thing left is to finally address the benefits trap and accept that any benefits system needs to reward people for working, rather than creating a system where you're barely better off working 40 hours a week. There also needs to be much more flexibility in the system for people who are capable of occasional, but not permanent work.

There also needs to be a system that is much more responsive towards self-employment. I know one lad who is heavily discouraged from being self-employed, because he only has a year where universal credit is reduced according to his income. After a year, there's a minimum deduction applied regardless of what he actually earns, which is around £1600 a month. It's ridiculous, because many self employed people earn well at some times and not so well at other times, so deducting a flat £1600 a month from his universal credit is simply a non-starter.

Benefits need to stop being used by corporations as excuses to jack up prices and/or pay workers less. WFA wouldn't be necessary if private utility firms didn't rip off customers while raking in high profits, while a number of minimum wage staff are only paid this as their employers know that the workers can top up with benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The truth is that benefits have already been cut to the bone. The only thing left is to finally address the benefits trap and accept that any benefits system needs to reward people for working, rather than creating a system where you're barely better off working 40 hours a week.

And reward people for retraining. We seem to have a mentality that if you do a physical job and develop an injury that means you can no longer do it, you should just stop working. But a builder who's been put in a wheelchair in an accident might actually turn out to make a great IT consultant - we just don't even try in most cases. That would improve self esteem of those people too.

We should also probably consider some extent of job-creation schemes. For instance, I'd rather pay someone minimum wage to be a park keeper, public lavatory attendant or to weed the streets than pay them benefits to sit at home unemployed. These sorts of jobs have near disappeared due to cuts, yet we end up paying those people anyway - again why not pay them to bring value?

Something else I'd like to see considered is compulsory social unemployment insurance replacing "the dole" to a fair extent. This would pay a fairly high amount (say 80% of salary) but for a fairly short period in which to find another job or restructure your life if a lower paid job is going to be the only way forward.

In short the benefits system seems not to be structured to help solve the reason why the person is on benefits. Obviously retirees aren't going to go off their pension, and there are people who can genuinely never work. But a lot of people are permanently on benefits unnecessarily.

 

[TravelDream]

Benefits is a tough one which the government seems incapable of overcoming.

The problem, obvious to most, is the benefits bill is currently in explosive growth mode whilst the economy and growth is stagnant, and it is funded by increasing debt.

Some say we should just tax the rich. Others Labour should break their manifesto commitments to not raise income tax/ NI. But I am not sure that either is going to work well. The real rich are highly mobile so to get real money you need to target the middle class. And increasing tax and NI is hardly going to deliver growth which the economy desperately needs.

On benefits, too much of the benefits system is about can't and far too little about can.
And the system is perverse as those earning low salaries would be better off on benefits than working. Too little is said about side benefits like free school meals, grants for students, free prescriptions/ NHS dentistry, housing benefit etc. etc. which provide significant uplift in 'real income' over the headline benefit figure.
For PIP, there is clearly far too much p-taking. Thanks to the internet, people are highly adept at filling in forms and knowing what to say to get enough points. Yet, there's idea that those who are on PIP are sacrosanct and the benefit is untouchable.

One of the biggest elephants in the room is that simply rejoining the Single Market (not even the EU) would likely solve a good many of our problems by promoting economic growth. Singapore-on-Thames has really been a failure (our wages are too high for it to work, and nobody wants to "resolve" that of course) and we really need to accept that and stop flogging a horse that isn't only dead but never really lived in the eyes of anyone other than Farage and co.

Not sure how high wages affects 'Singapore on Thames' as an idea.

Graduate salaries there are a bit lower than the UK, but not notably so. Plus there are significant differences there which mean lower salaries don't always mean lower disposable income (low taxes, extensive state involvement in the housing sector with the vast majority of Singaporeans living in state housing etc.).

Singapore flourishes on significant government support for the sector (despite the supposed free market, a lot is state-owned), an excellent aptitude-based education system (out of fashion in Britain), low taxes (very out of fashion in Britain), light-touch regulation and strong internationalization of the financial sector (they hand out employment passes like confetti to moderately well-paid bankers which is not in fashion in Britain either).

It has very little to do with wages in the financial sector.

The Singapore on Thames in the UK idea is like me saying I am going to get a six-pack because I like the idea, and then doing absolutely nothing other than eating fast food and lounging on the sofa. It's not going to happen.

 

[Topological]

Well it was indeed a massive let down.

Obviously, Kier has been too busy with the "flag in [his] hands" to actually do anything.

Britain is truly screwed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Singapore flourishes on significant government support for the sector (despite the supposed free market, a lot is state-owned), an excellent aptitude-based education system (out of fashion in Britain), low taxes (very out of fashion in Britain), light-touch regulation and strong internationalization of the financial sector (they hand out employment passes like confetti to moderately well-paid bankers which is not in fashion in Britain either).

Most of the Asian economies (plus South Africa) also flourish, if you'd use that term, on a underclass of poorly paid service employees who are very close to being on slavery wages. At least in Singapore they get to live in Council flats, but they are not exactly salubrious; in places like India, Thailand and South Africa they live in shanties barely fit for human habitation.

That approach is rightly not acceptable here (though we sort of had it for a bit when there was the big influx of Eastern Europeans a few years back), and I detect more than a hint of bias in you glossing over this important fact.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2025 ==

Not sure how high wages affects 'Singapore on Thames' as an idea.

Because low wages mean businesses can offer low prices.

 

[TravelDream]

Most of the Asian economies (plus South Africa) also flourish, if you'd use that term, on a underclass of poorly paid service employees who are very close to being on slavery wages. At least in Singapore they get to live in Council flats, but they are not exactly salubrious; in places like India, Thailand and South Africa they live in shanties barely fit for human habitation.

The models are just far too different for have a Singapore style system in the UK. Singapore might only be a flight away, but we are world's apart in how our economies and societies are structured.

Instead, I always took the idea of 'Singapore on Thames' to me focusing heavily on the finance industry whilst cutting taxes, regulation and state expenditure and putting that under a glossy name - more so than trying to become Singapore.

 

[RT4038]

Also, the problem with cutting benefits is, as we've seen recently, people in favour of cutting them only like it when it doesn't affect them. The WFA debacle being the prime example: even the supposedly small state Tories were opposing the cuts.

A bit like the problem with increasing taxes - people are only in favour if it doesn't affect them! The WFA debacle was just a bungle ..... withdrawing it across the board was for administrative convenience, when a more tapered scheme should have been introduced. The problem is that any benefit/tax system is going to be unfair to someone or reward someone unnecessarily - the more fair it becomes the more intrusive and social engineering the State has to be with everyone's affairs.

Benefits need to stop being used by corporations as excuses to jack up prices and/or pay workers less. WFA wouldn't be necessary if private utility firms didn't rip off customers while raking in high profits, while a number of minimum wage staff are only paid this as their employers know that the workers can top up with benefits.

The only way to do that is to change the benefit system to stop this from happening, whilst not putting the Benefit bill up. Good luck with that. Good luck with state owned utility companies having cheaper prices than privately owned ones. Nice in theory, but not so simple in practice. Set the minimum wage much higher than now - see what happens when you do that. What is a reasonable minimum wage depends on an employees circumstances - adjusting for that requires more intrusive intervention by the State in an individuals' affairs .

We should also probably consider some extent of job-creation schemes. For instance, I'd rather pay someone minimum wage to be a park keeper, public lavatory attendant or to weed the streets than pay them benefits to sit at home unemployed. These sorts of jobs have near disappeared due to cuts, yet we end up paying those people anyway - again why not pay them to bring value?

Unless you are going to have direction of labour (in some manifestation) we will probably end up with immigrants doing these jobs and just as many unemployeds.

The truth is that benefits have already been cut to the bone. The only thing left is to finally address the benefits trap and accept that any benefits system needs to reward people for working, rather than creating a system where you're barely better off working 40 hours a week. There also needs to be much more flexibility in the system for people who are capable of occasional, but not permanent work.

Benefits (in their widest) are cut far from the bone! Unless benefits are set at a maximum of 67% (or so) of minimum wage will it not be difficult to avoid a benefit trap (or be regularising benefit subsidy to employers)? The problem with more flexibility in this scenario is that this would be wide open to abuse.

 

[Yew]

Good luck with state owned utility companies having cheaper prices than privately owned ones. Nice in theory, but not so simple in practice.

Lots of countries make state owned utilities work, as did we for many years.

 

[RT4038]

Lots of countries make state owned utilities work, as did we for many years.

We did, but it wasn't known for its cheapness and therefore alleviating any winter fuel payment crisis for a proportion of pensioners.

 

[DarloRich]

Seems the Faragists are getting uppity about hurty words. Excellent. Amazing how a boring speech by a quite boring man has caused so much upset!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seems the Faragists are getting uppity about hurty words. Excellent. Amazing how a boring speech by a quite boring man has caused so much upset!

It is quite entertaining how Messrs Trump, Farage etc are all for free speech until such time as it's against them.

 

[Topological]

Meanwhile, amongst the pantomime of who is "emotional" about who said what.

Some sense in Kiers speech:

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said he wants to see two-thirds of young people in the UK go to university or study a technical qualification after leaving school.
Speaking at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, he said the party's old ambition to "get 50% of kids to uni" - a target set by Tony Blair in 1999 - was no longer "right for our times".
Instead, he said the government would pursue a new target for young people going on to university, further education, or a "gold standard apprenticeship" by the age of 25.
It is a significant shift in political tone which gives more prominence to skills training linked to jobs. But the decision on what and how to study will remain with individual students in England.
The prime minister's speech has shifted the emphasis to higher-level education or training, which is far wider than a traditional three-year academic university degree.
The government said the target would also include seeing at least 10% of young people pursuing higher technical courses or apprenticeships by 2040 - nearly double the current level.

Link: BBC Article

Whilst the reduction of the 50% target will hurt universities, there is a clear need to value other qualifications higher. Many of the institutions that serve the lower part of the 50% were previously offering technical skills anyway. (There is a lot of generalisation there, but then this is not a platform for essays)

It will be interesting to see the fall out when the first universities genuinely go under.

 

[Yew]

But the decision on what and how to study will remain with individual students in England.

That line strikes as very odd, as if somehow the BBC thinks that students should have their vocations forcibly allocated by the state?

 

[Topological]

That line strikes as very odd, as if somehow the BBC thinks that students should have their vocations forcibly allocated by the state?

Also worth noting that it says "England", presumably meaning Welsh students will not have the choice.

To be fair, the Blair Broadcasting Corporation will not be happy seeing critique of their leaders pronouncement on 50% to university.

 

[ainsworth74]

To be fair, the Blair Broadcasting Corporation will not be happy seeing critique of their leaders pronouncement on 50% to university.

This is the same BBC that Blair's director of comms famously lost his rag at during the build up to the Iraq War? Come on, the BBC is many things but the mouthpiece of Tony Blair it is not

 

[Topological]

This is the same BBC that Blair's director of comms famously lost his rag at during the build up to the Iraq War? Come on, the BBC is many things but the mouthpiece of Tony Blair it is not

I am not 100% convinced that Iraq was Blair's idea.

That said (from my bacofoil hat), if I was keen to prove that there was not a connection between me and an organisation, I would arrange for the organisation to critique me for something that I did not believe in anyway

Certainly the BBC has the same agenda as New Labour and continues to denounce anyone who dare critique as being "ists".

The comment was slightly lighthearted anyway

 

[brad465]

Meanwhile, amongst the pantomime of who is "emotional" about who said what.

Some sense in Kiers speech:



Link: BBC Article

Whilst the reduction of the 50% target will hurt universities, there is a clear need to value other qualifications higher. Many of the institutions that serve the lower part of the 50% were previously offering technical skills anyway. (There is a lot of generalisation there, but then this is not a platform for essays)

It will be interesting to see the fall out when the first universities genuinely go under.

To me the whole university setup has hallmarks of a ponzi scheme: they rely on an increasing number of students going to uni paying extortionate fees in order to stay afloat, particularly international students to whom they can charge considerably more than domestic ones. Then there's a massive accommodation business model built on students: if a number of unis went bust, there's a good chance some halls of residence companies will struggle, while a sudden glut of rental properties arises in affected areas, and/or a glut in property for sale if landlords sell more as a result. In the long term I think there are many positives of increased property availability and more vocational qualifications, however it will be painful short-term if it all collapses suddenly.

 

[Harpo]

To me the whole university setup has hallmarks of a ponzi scheme:

‘Geography degree syndrome’. Degree level geography courses to create the next generation of geography teachers, to teach tomorrow’s geography graduates.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

‘Geography degree syndrome’. Degree level geography courses to create the next generation of geography teachers, to teach tomorrow’s geography graduates.

And degrees which shouldn't be degrees at all as they are about a practical subject which would be far better as on-the-job training or an apprenticeship.

 

[Topological]

‘Geography degree syndrome’. Degree level geography courses to create the next generation of geography teachers, to teach tomorrow’s geography graduates.

Essentially, yes

From: Impact of University of Manchester Geography Department

Further restoration accelerates the return to more natual conditions by planting sphagnum moss; a keystone species essential for healthy bog function and growth. The team found this "super moss" further slows the flow of water, providing more NFM benefits from restored upland bogs.

The project is led by researchers from Manchester's Department of Geography, alongside colleagues at the University of Leeds, Newcastle University, project partners Moors for the Future Partnership, and the Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire Environment Agency.

Protect-NFM is one of three projects funded through the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Understanding the Effectiveness of Natural Flood Management programme, and will be presenting findings at the programme wrap-up event in summer 2022. The team will also visit local flood groups in communities at risk of flooding around Manchester, informing them of the findings and how this could help reduce their flood risk.

Link has a set of impact projects, the quoted text is from the project on Protecting UK Rural Communities at Risk of Flooding.

 

[m0ffy]

And degrees which shouldn't be degrees at all as they are about a practical subject which would be far better as on-the-job training or an apprenticeship.

Hard disagree for me. Qualifications are part of every reputable apprenticeship, including those at degree level. “Practical” subjects still require a high level of academic rigour to enable students to successfully practice in their chosen careers and to advance beyond the entry level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hard disagree for me. Qualifications are part of every reputable apprenticeship, including those at degree level. “Practical” subjects still require a high level of academic rigour to enable students to successfully practice in their chosen careers and to advance beyond the entry level.

Perhaps it's better to say that in more practical contexts it's better to gain qualifications by way of an apprenticeship than a three or four year university course. I certainly do think that and that we underdo apprenticeships badly in the UK. They exist and people succeed from them but they are always seen as a second choice, and they shouldn't be.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Singapore flourishes on significant government support for the sector (despite the supposed free market, a lot is state-owned), an excellent aptitude-based education system (out of fashion in Britain), low taxes (very out of fashion in Britain), light-touch regulation and strong internationalization of the financial sector (they hand out employment passes like confetti to moderately well-paid bankers which is not in fashion in Britain either).

Singapore also flourishes on a large body of badly-paid people with no rights who are imported across the border every morning from Johor Bahru and sent back again every evening.

Good luck with state owned utility companies having cheaper prices than privately owned ones. Nice in theory, but not so simple in practice.

No reason at all why a state-owned utility company couldn't be cheaper, or at least as cheap, as a privately-owned utility company.

The cost of the electricity or gas is (raw cost of fuel)+(cost of distribution)+(cost of billing and customer service). For private sector companies you then also add the profit margin on to the above.

Even if one believes in the theory that "private sector = efficient", there are limits to how low a provider can go because the two largest costs are not within the control of that provider.

The carnage of the utility market in the last few years in the UK rather demonstrates that. Some companies were cheaper but, it turns out, they were too cheap and so they went bust. The cost of fixing that mess was then burdened on to everyone else. That's a big part of the reason why standing charges are so high.

Where I live we have a direct comparison: electricity supply is run by the government, gas supply is run by a monopoly private company which is owned by a hedge fund. Whilst the electricity company are by no means perfect, it should come as absolutely no shock to anyone that the equivalent cost of electricity here is less than the equivalent cost of gas.

As a side note, our gas supplier is the same one whose incompetence is alleged to have killed ten people in Jersey in 2022. Of course the CEO responsible isn't one of the people being individually prosecuted because hey, since when have CEOs ever been held accountable for anything?

 

[edwin_m]

That line strikes as very odd, as if somehow the BBC thinks that students should have their vocations forcibly allocated by the state?

There was some speculation a week or so back that support for students might be dependent on what degree they were studying. I think this is just saying nothing like that has been announced.

Also worth noting that it says "England", presumably meaning Welsh students will not have the choice.

This just means this policy area is devolved, so Wales can make its own decisions.

Essentially, yes

From: Impact of University of Manchester Geography Department


Link has a set of impact projects, the quoted text is from the project on Protecting UK Rural Communities at Risk of Flooding.

Which could equally be portrayed as a worthwhile project to improve the environment and reduce flood risks.

 

[Topological]

There was some speculation a week or so back that support for students might be dependent on what degree they were studying. I think this is just saying nothing like that has been announced.

This just means this policy area is devolved, so Wales can make its own decisions.

Which could equally be portrayed as a worthwhile project to improve the environment and reduce flood risks.

It will be interesting to see how Welsh Labour react to the news that they are responsible for the target in Wales. Very strange thing to devolve though given that Welsh students study widely in England (and vice versa).

Hopefully these Geography-led projects remind that the purpose of Geography degrees is not just creating teachers of Geography

(I am not in the Geography department, I just do not like the sterotyping of degrees in colouring in)

 

[Razorblades]

‘Geography degree syndrome’. Degree level geography courses to create the next generation of geography teachers, to teach tomorrow’s geography graduates.

Or to create the next generation of career railway-people. It equipped me well for a working life in the industry, so perhaps less of the punching-down generalisation.

 

[johntea]

Meanwhile, amongst the pantomime of who is "emotional" about who said what.

Some sense in Kiers speech:



Link: BBC Article

Whilst the reduction of the 50% target will hurt universities, there is a clear need to value other qualifications higher. Many of the institutions that serve the lower part of the 50% were previously offering technical skills anyway. (There is a lot of generalisation there, but then this is not a platform for essays)

It will be interesting to see the fall out when the first universities genuinely go under.

When I was younger I knew even before leaving high school I wasn't interested in University but college didn't really seem that interested or prepared in dealing with people wanting to go into a career rather than University

Thankfully apprenticeships are much more readily available these days than back in my day which gives you the best of both worlds in that you're building up experience of doing the actual job you intend to end up in whilst also they usually also break it up a bit so some days you're back in the classroom building up qualifications at the same time, all whilst you're earning money (albeit not a fortune!) rather than building up a rather large student debt in the hope you'll gain a degree and go straight into a £100,000 salary job...of course the reality for most is not quite that simple!

I even had a job interview at my old school whilst I was still in college for an open position in the department where I had done work experience and the team were really keen to hire me but overruled by the headteacher in the end who didn't like me

In my old job we used to take an apprentice on every year and many of them ended uo becoming permanent members of the team at the end because they were brilliant