brad465
Veteran Member
This bit doesn't get mentioned enough. Anyone who opposes the high levels of immigration but also sings loudly in favour of the GDP growth model is contradicting themselves.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Reform UK discussion
- Thread starter telstarbox
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GusB
Established Member
The issue that British business doesn't invest enough in training is one that seriously needs to be addressed, and that means recognising and investing in the talent that exists within an organisation before recruiting an external candidate who just happens to have a degree, regardless of whether that degree is relevant to the job. It's demoralising to start a job at the basic level, learn everything you possibly can about the industry and become proficient enough to climb the ladder, only to be knocked back for promotion because someone with a degree comes along and takes the position when you know they're only doing it until a position comes up in their relevant field.
At the very least, all on-the-job training should be tied to recognised qualifications so that those credits can: a) be transferred, and b) put towards a higher qualification. The framework for this already exists via NVQ/SVQ; we just have to make it work in practice. It should be possible for someone to gain a higher education qualification from skills already learned on the job.
You can't automate every job away. The jobs that can be automated are already subject to automation and we see this with the rise of "live chat". For basic customer enquiries I can see the point, but automation isn't really good at dealing with the complex stuff; you still need a human being to deal with exceptional cases.
As far car washes are concerned, they've existed for quite a while. My local IMO car wash first opened in town 30-odd years ago and it had a lot of custom because it was different to the usual automated car wash normally found at petrol stations. There's clearly a market for it.
When it comes to graduates, by "jobs noted above" I would not just restrict it to "jobs we can't fill ourselves" but any job useful to society. So if you do a STEM subject, for example, you should not be prevented from applying for STEM jobs when you graduate.
North Spanish? I thought the areas with a lot of Brit retirees were more Andalusia and the Alicante/Murcia region.
75 is probably a bit old, I think once you get into your 70s the risk of health problems which might prevent you working is too great.
I would (on the one hand) support making it as easy as possible to work however long you like, and legal action taken against employers who refuse to employ a person fit for the job simply because of their age - on the other hand I would not want to force people to work until they drop.
My own personal position is that I would want to work for as long as my physical health permits it (doing nothing for years with little disposable income would, I suspect, quite severely negatively impact my mental health) but I also recognise that others might have a different view and after around late-60s there is a big chance of having health problems which prevent you working.
What I call "anti-pensionerism" has become quite a fashionable political line in the 2020s, and if I'm honest I suspect it's mostly taken by people who either a) are young - early 40s at the oldest - and a long way from pensionable age and/or b) have good private and/or company pensions that will keep them going. I'd like to see a little bit more empathy with pensioners who aren't quite so well off. Later life can't be easy for many - please let's not make it even more of a struggle.
I just wonder whether the increasing tendency to attack pensioners and portray them as a drain on society (I have seen some views which I perceive as really quite militantly anti-pensioner elsewhere on this forum) is yet another example of the minority blame culture of the 2020s, which has already extended to immigrants and trans people amongst others.
Last edited:
RailWonderer
Established Member
But we must always try and improve institutions rather than allow them to continue, because that's when corruption and in baked survivalism festers that refuses any kind of change that threatenes them. If you think class division doesn't exist in thic country, it does - massively. The civil servant class have a subconcious disdain for the rest of the population and the system is built in a way they have an incentive only to keep the status quo and antangonise anybody who sees the need for change.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They are looking into means testing the state pension and cutting welfare. They need to find a way for colonies of never-employed benefits scroungers to get into some kind of work. I know for a fact through anecdotal evidence - taxi drivers, handimen and others in different areas I have spoken do - that such people exist.
Absolutely agree.
True. Those who have worked in manual labour since 16 are getting back pains, ankle and leg problems, and high fatigue into their fifties, whereas a white collar worker will be able to go on for longer. Having one flat retirement age for a wide range of different occupations doesn't work.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That's exactly how it was 50 years ago when medical science was nowhere near as advanced. Most people were expected to live between 0 and 10 years after retirement. To make it economic we probably have to go back there (or move away from the state pension entirely, making it contributory rather than fixed for most people).
Or we recognise that the Boomers have by and large (economically) had it easy and young people now have it really, really hard? There are exceptions to both rules of course but it's largely true because of house prices, primarily. That isn't blame, it's objective. And I'm middle aged "Xennial" so I fit into neither group, so I think I can see it objectively.
That's one reason Reform isn't the sort of reform we need - it's a party aimed at the Boomer generation by its policies, largely.
Mid-life Gen-Xer here, for avoidance of doubt - first election 1992. I guess we as always are overlooked in the boomer-millennial battle of the generations
Speaking from personal experience, I don't think X-ers have necessarily had it particularly easy - we were young adults in the early 90s recession, and many of us couldn't buy property until well into our 30s (late 30s in my case) due to rocketing prices so we haven't had it particularly easy - and I am relatively fortunate compared to others of my cohort. I won't pay off my mortgage until my late 60s, for example.
With X-ers entering retirement in around 15-20 years the prospect of a difficult retirement isn't a particularly appealing one.
It's also making a generalisation, you can't even say that all boomers have had a fortunate life, let alone X-ers. I really don't think pensioners should disproportionately pay the debt of society especially if wealthy people of younger generations could contribute more through taxes.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Most Gen-Zers will never own property. On average, Gen X definitely has it easier than successive generations financially (but harder than Boomers).
You can generalise. That's why means testing is probably increasingly necessary - to ensure those who aren't fortunate have access to benefits, but those who have done well don't because they don't need them.
I wouldn't say it's anti pensionerism per se, but anti-inequality.
Pensioners who bought houses on low salary multipliers and now have a triple lock on their pension leading to consistently above-inflation pension rises; while tuition fees lock students into an effective graduate tax for decades, house buying is practically dependent on inheritance/gifted deposits, and most industries seeing wages grow slower than inflation.
www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org
That's not to say all pensioners have had an easy life or anything. It's just that policies over the last decade or so do not seem to hold parity when the main affected generations are considered.
The suggestion of means testing more benefits is generally sensible (except where the administration costs outweigh the savings), but it's toxic to suggest it.
Pensioners who bought houses on low salary multipliers and now have a triple lock on their pension leading to consistently above-inflation pension rises; while tuition fees lock students into an effective graduate tax for decades, house buying is practically dependent on inheritance/gifted deposits, and most industries seeing wages grow slower than inflation.
Professional and scientific industry the only one where pay continues to match rising prices - Office for National Statistics
Article exploring how wage growth in different industries compares with rising prices
www.ons.gov.uk
Half of first-time buyers helped by Bank of Mum and Dad, says Savills - BBC News
An average of £55,572 was given in loans and gifts by members of the family, estimates show.
www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org
That's not to say all pensioners have had an easy life or anything. It's just that policies over the last decade or so do not seem to hold parity when the main affected generations are considered.
The suggestion of means testing more benefits is generally sensible (except where the administration costs outweigh the savings), but it's toxic to suggest it.
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,704
The triple lock is one of the most insane bits of government policy for decades, and no government will be brave enough to confront the sheer stupidity of it
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed, because almost nobody seems to get that you don't "pay into the system" like a contributory pension - the present workers pay for the present people on benefits, so what you paid 30 years ago is irrelevant. I don't think the way National Insurance is billed helps, to be honest - the need to have a full set of contributions to get a full pension creates that contributory illusion.
They exist, I've seen them to in a my professional life (the lone parent with children suspiciously aged 15, 10, 5 and 0 back in Income Support days when you had to transition to Jobseekers Allowance was a 'highlight'), but the numbers are nowhere near as high as you might think. There's a view fed back various right-wing media types that there's hordes of benefit claimants sat on their backside laughing with their shiny new iPhone, large screen TV and nice car. But I'm not convinced it's backed up by actual reality on the ground.
Reality is that the low hanging fruit has already been forced into work by the the past fourteen years of Tory administration (and has continued to be in the last twelve months of Labour, nothing has really changed on the ground yet) which has seen significant restrictions on benefit expenditure and a toughening of sanctions (even though there's very little evidence that they work) and work requirements being expanded to take in more people.
For instance that lone parent I mentioned before wouldn't be able to pull of that trick today. Once a child turns one you're required to take part in work-focused interviews (basically a conversation with the jobcentre about getting back to work), once they turn two you have to start taking steps to prepare for work (could be go on a training course, prepare a CV, etc) and once they're three you have to actively seek work (though it might not be full-time that you're required to seek depending on circumstances, but you will be applying for jobs). Talk to anyone who actually has experience of being on Universal Credit and dealing with the Jobcentre and it won't take long to find out how demoralising and frustrating it is. There's very few people who would claim UC by choice once they've had much experience of the system.
So the low hanging fruit is gone as the overwhelming majority of people who can get into work have been gotten into work. The vast majority of the remainder are people who could be caring for a relative (far cheaper for the state to pay someone UC and Carers Allowance than put a proper care package in place!), they are just too ill to work either temporarily or permanently, or are dealing with a child under 1 (which I reckon it's reasonable to suggest they don't need to actively seek work!).
In that second group, illness, there probably are people who could be gotten to work in at lest some shape or form but the issue is less the individuals in question and more that the system is not geared up to help them. The Jobcentre is really misnamed at this point. It's not a centre for jobs but really a benefits processing office. It's there to ensure that the right boxes have been ticked to authorise your next payment (if you're actively seeking work that is). It has a side gig in actually getting people jobs but it's very much ancillary and if it does get you a job usually accidental.
So the first thing to do would be to actually try and set up a service to help get these people into work without just relying on more and more sticks as again, people who can be gotten to work by sticks are already there, those that haven't it's because of some more complex underlying issue. So far the attempts made have been the usual outsourced rubbish (think the much vaunted "Work Programme" from the early-2010s which was arguably worse than doing nothing) that do an excellent job of wasting tax payer money and enriching private companies but precious little in getting positive outcomes.
The next thing would be to fix the NHS ironically. There's a reason the number of people claiming on the basis of ill-health has exploded and it isn't just that we've all suddenly become much more workshy but that it takes much longer to get is better once we're unwell. If you're say in your mid-50s with a dodgy knee, have worked in manual jobs all your life, and it takes the NHS 9 months to get you a new knee that's likely to see you out of the workforce as with the best will in the world most employers are not likely to hold a job open for 9 months and however long it takes to rehab after the operation. But you've worked manual jobs all your life and so your office skills aren't great so even though you're probably fit to work in an office getting that job is likely to be hard even though you'd be keen to get back to work.
These are the sorts of people that we should be working at getting into work. But the system is geared up to deliver beatings not actually try and help people into work.
There are certainly people out there taking the micky absolutely without a shadow of a doubt (though actually it tends to be outright fraud, claiming they're unemployed when they're actually working cash in hand). But it isn't as many as people might like to believe. The truth is we've got a large(ish) cohort of people who would like to work but, for various legitimate reasons, are struggling to get back into the workforce. We need a systemic change to how we support those people rather than just continuing to beat them with sticks.
It should also be noted that a significant chunk of UC recipients (on the order of 35-40%) are already in work...
Yes I've had that conversation several times. "But I've paid into my pension!" "No, you've paid other peoples pensions, and when you retire other people will pay yours. There's no pot of money with your name on it."
Very painful! The lack of education around things like this is somewhat shocking as these are quite fundamental ways that our system is set up...
Last edited:
I don't think you really understand what class divisions are, there is no "civil servant class".
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
One problem here is that there seems to be little support in career changing where life has got in the way of one's former career. For instance, if a builder suffers a permanent back injury that prevents them being a builder, it seems like they are just treated as never being able to work again, whereas they could in most cases retrain to e.g. an office job. With more support, more people could be retrained and re-enter the workforce in a different role than they had previously.
Notably the railway and other similar traditional large employers are often good at this, but it is probably needed on a wider basis including in contexts where the employer themselves wouldn't be able to do it due to not having suitable roles. For example I know of someone who got a job as a guard at what is now WMT but then only a year or two later was diagnosed as Type 1 diabetic, which (because of the risk of loss of consciousness) is a bar to a safety critical role - so he was transitioned into being station staff instead and so far as I know is still there.
There will always be those who are so ill or disabled they cannot meaningfully work, of course. But I'd rather pay them a very high rate of benefits indeed to give them as good a life as possible and not pay the wider number of people who could do a different job to the one they got signed off anything than just pay a large number of people a level of benefits that give a poor quality of life.
Indeed, I do find it notable that our Job Center system seems to fixate on getting people into any job as soon as possible, even if it means they'll be back at some point, as opposed to focusing on the big picture, and trying to get people careers that will last the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, this short-termism is more expensive in the long-run compared to (within reason) trying to help someone find a career.
RailWonderer
Established Member
I call them a class figuratively because the senior ones all think the same way and have either been to the same schools or been indoctrinated to believe and think the same way afterwards and come up with the same solutions. They 'fail up', and failure is rewarded. They almost become a class at the most senior levels.
Of course the same is true of Reform's leadership as well. Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Zia Yusuf all privately educated. Not Eton or Harrow to be fair (that's the preserve of Tory MPs generally
) but still. Same background as many senior political and civil service figures.Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Does Reform even have a policy on rail? One could imagine either way - Serpell because they'd be pro-car (as any populist party would be) or funding it well because it's something that largely benefits the middle and upper classes (as Tories traditionally did).
RailWonderer
Established Member
Companies need incentives to take on these unemployables and train them, for lack of a better word. They need to be encouraged rather than, as you say, beaten and treated as a problem. This applies even to young people and apprentices who are not kept on and trained further and are instead replaced by graduates who do a lot more work for the same money or slightly higher than min wage then are replaced in 6-12 months themselves. There is a lot of white collar cannon fodder as well and the system is designed that way. These people also go on and back off UC which makes them feel trapped in a pinball machine.
The UC system is demoralising and all the case officers want to do is tick boxes and get rid of the people sitting opposite them, I know of people on it that describe it similarly to you. If you do want to ask your case officer a question, they almost certainly won't know the answer because they couldn't tell you the colour of their own pants.
On all of that we completely agree!
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The social contract is that I pay my NICs to fund today's pensioners and then, when I retire, someone else will pay their NICs to fund my pension.
The problem is that this social contract is being torn up. I won't be allowed to retire until I am 67; in reality I suspect the retirement age will be 70 or even higher when it is my turn. However we have the current boomers- who in many cases got to retire at 60- lecturing us about how terrible they have it and how they should get yet more freebies. Look at social care; there's an expectation from that generation that their social care should be free of charge and that the taxpayer should fund their
The "women against state pension inequality" howling that it's unfair they had to retire at 65 instead of 60, even though those of us paying the bill will be looking at a retirement age of anywhere between 67 and 70. Even though life expectancy is going down.
The Winter Fuel Allowance is a case in point, it was the equivalent of six quid a week yet was costing us billions. It was rightly abolished but the boomers have whined so much that the government have done a screeching U-turn.
Free bus passes cost us a billion quid a year- and that's despite the scheme not ever being fully funded and operators having to take a significant haircut on top of that billion quid- but you can imagine the outcry if anyone ever tried to abolish ENCTS.
Reform's support is predominantly old and white. I can't wait to see how they square the circle between 'lower tax' and 'more freebies for pensioners'. Not to mention the awkward truth that we need immigrant labour, and more of it, to pay the tax to fund our pensions because the people already living here are simply not having enough children.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think some people have misinterpreted the contract in that sense.
The contract could instead be written based on the number of years of retirement rather than the absolute age. When the state pension was introduced, typically you would get between zero and ten years (maybe 15 at most) of pension before you passed away. Now it's not at all unusual for it to be more than twice that. That simply doesn't work without increasing GDP hugely to pay for it, which means the sort of unfettered immigration and population increase people don't like.
Thus, I think it IS fair for retirement age to increase with life expectancy. An added mitigation could be provided which would be that if you're diagnosed with a life limiting condition you could retire younger to allow for that average ten years or thereabouts.
I do agree here. Particularly as that longer life tends to mean that the inheritance happens at a time when you don't really need it anyway in most cases. Hopefully I won't get it until I'm at least 55-60, by which time I'll own my house outright and it'll just be a holiday and car fund (just as my parents' inheritance off my grandparents has been). That being the case it's totally fair that it should fund their care before I get any of it.
Yes, I really, really dislike the WASPI campaign. They campaigned for equality. They got equality in the only economically feasible way. End of; stop moaning and enjoy your increased life expectancy compared to your parents.
In reality they had gone too far with it, but a means test based on household income of one minimum wage might have been a fairer place to put the means test.
To be fair I support ENCTS not because of what it provides to pensioners but rather because it lightly nudges people off the road who would otherwise keep driving (or drive more often) when their reactions and skills are failing. It has worked on my parents - they now only run one car rather than two and use the bus whenever possible, which I don't think would have happened otherwise. Free is powerful (see also how a 5p carrier bag charge near enough stopped people buying them each time). The tax system can be adjusted so those who can afford to will pay back the cost.
It is to everyone's benefit if people stop driving as soon as is feasible (or reduce it significantly). It reduces congestion and it improves road safety.
Or we decide to accept a declining population but alongside the realistic effect that will have, namely a need to reduce what the NHS does and probably abolish the State pension or at least heavily means test it. As well as significantly upped taxation.
But yes, Reform will never disadvantage rich white Boomers because that's their core voter base. Hence why I'd say we need reform but not Reform.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Life expectancy is now actually decreasing. This may be a Covid-related blip but, even before Covid, life expectancy had plateaued.
The ONS do it as a three-year average: in 2017-19 it was (at birth) 79.59 for men and 83.28 for women, but in 2021-23 it was 79.07 for men and 83.04 for women. The 2020-22 data was lower again: 78.83 for men and 82.83 for women.
It's highly likely that I will only have around 10 years of retirement, assuming I reach an average age. This is less than a lot of people in the cohorts before me.
I think tying it to Pension Credit was the correct decision. It's still a higher threshold than anyone of working age would get (even those with disabilities who probably needed the payment more) and, on a practical level, bringing in a bespoke means test for the payment would cost more than it would save.
Let's start by abolishing the state pension for anyone who currently receives it.
Weirdly I can't see that one flying.
As for the NHS, we know that Reform want to change it to an insurance model.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's still much better than when this should have been looked at properly i.e. about 40-50 years ago.
Most people live longer than the simple mean because (sadly) child mortality drags it down a lot. The median or even mode are probably better averages to use for this and would be higher. It is thus very likely that you will live beyond 80.
Changing peoples' financial circumstances once they've stopped earning is problematic.
I would support changing it to a European style social insurance model, almost all the European systems work far better than ours, largely based on "divide and conquer" (i.e. the NHS is too big and unwieldy to manage effectively). I would probably abolish National Insurance (which as it is is just a second income tax) and replace it with a mandatory health insurance premium based not on risk but ability to pay, paid to the state insurer or a set of state insurers as per Germany, to which commercial topups can be provided for profit e.g. single rooms in hospital, upgraded food and the likes. However I strongly suspect Reform seek a US style commercial model so Farage's US mates can profit from it.
I’d go one step back, and fix the reasons why the number of people are becoming ill is increasing, and why it can often take longer to get fixed. Basically, on average the population needs to eat less and exercise more!
Which is one of those tightropes they somehow have to navigate. Reform the party leadership I agree want a US style system. Reform voters (at least most of them, and certainly those in their new found heartlands) want nothing of the sort and would probably be highly sceptical of a European style social insurance system.
How you square that circle I don't know...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That's easier said than done. But it IS looking likely that basically throwing semaglutide/liraglutide around basically like sweets (!) could actually save the NHS a massive chunk of money on dealing with expensive obesity related health issues despite being fairly expensive as a drug. Of course when it goes out of patent it will be REALLY cheap but that's a way off.
Agreed! I've done my part in recent years to slim down and certainly feel better for it (though I'm starting to backslide recently, need to get back to it
)! But we are in desperate need of doing so on a society wide basis. Though, part of that is due to the poverty we have to deal with as well which has driven some people towards cheap and cheerful highly processed food with all the consequences that brings with it. As well as years of austerity closing down various easily accessible leisure facilities also making it that bit harder to be healthy and active if you are poor.Perhaps we do need a bit more nanny state after all...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Agreed! I've done my part in recent years to slim down and certainly feel better for it (though I'm starting to backslide recently, need to get back to it
Perhaps we do need a bit more nanny state after all...
And increased anti-car policies, such as a policy of strongly prioritising cycling as the Dutch do even where it means banning cars from roads. Cycling is great exercise, and the best exercise is that that you do naturally as part of your daily routine because you'll always do it.
However that is the total opposite of populist - populist is pro-car - so no chance of Reform going that way. Reform are likely to be anti-cyclist as the "gammon" voter typically also is.
As one example a 20mph default urban speed limit as per Wales is a strongly pro-cycling policy - but there is no way Reform would advocate that.