The Labour Government

[threespires]

They aren’t trying to protect you or I, they are protecting the banks from having to give you the money back.

I think looking back on my first career, lots of people were good at saying what I really want is plausible deniability without ever actually saying the words "what I really want is plausible deniability" but the ones who were best at it were probably banking officers !

 

[threespires]

---

---

---

---

I agree about the rising of state retirement age; I can certainly see the logic behind it (the difference in the ratio of those working and those they are supporting compared to what it was when retirement age was first introduced). Yet, as you say, it brings a new and different problem.

With regards to unemployment and the younger jobseekers; the number of unemployed rose by just over 190000 in the last 12 months. With the youngsters being negatively impacted in a much bigger way than most.
New steps are in place to try and address this, and not before time.
I'll try and dig out the reference to non eu migration impacting entry level jobs (I definitely read it, I didnt dream it).

Edit to add;
Recent reporting in The Telegraph highlights a stark divide in the UK youth labour market, noting that the employment of young foreign nationals has vastly outpaced the hiring of young British workers. [1]
Data and commentary in the publication reveal the following key dynamics:

• Disproportionate Job Growth: Analysis from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) indicates that for every one young British worker hired since 2020, 27 young non-EU migrants have been hired. [1]
• Payroll Statistics: Between 2020 and 2026, the number of under-25s in work rose by over 125,000. Young foreign nationals accounted for 114,400 of this increase, whereas employment for British nationals in this age group rose by just 10,800. [1]
• Employers' Preferences: Government worklessness tsar Alan Milburn and think tanks argue that many firms have developed a growing preference for hiring migrant workers over training up local, home-grown youth, particularly in entry-level and lower-skilled sectors like hospitality and retail. [1, 2, 3]
• Rising Youth Inactivity: As migrant employment has surged, nearly 1 million young Britons are classified as "Neet" (not in education, employment, or training), a crisis driven by shrinking entry-level opportunities, rocketing claims for mental ill-health, and increased employer National Insurance costs. [1, 2]

You can read more about the CSJ’s full findings in the View attachment 194241⁠Telegraph report on young migrants or explore opinion coverage on the issue via the View attachment 194242⁠Telegraph's article on mass migration. [1]

Hi Mackenzie, just to say be careful about quoting that CSJ study because I think they are going to have to row back on its headline claims. I was so shocked by the 27 to 1 stat you mentioned that I had a bit of a look at the study and it's fair to say I think that the logic/maths on how they've come up with this just doesn't make sense. If I get a chance I'll try and write up why but their maths is based on a couple of key numbers and then either ignoring or missing some basic differences between the two numbers. They basically do some subtraction and then some division on data that you can't do that with. Unless I'm missing something it's proper schoolboy error stuff (or deliberately misleading).

The number of 'think-tanks' that spew out dodgy stuff based on their political leanings is a nightmare these days because the press then just amplify it all without any due diligence :-(

Just had a look at the CSJ I would guess the people involved would consider themselves serious politicians in which case they need to sort this study out!

Certainly doesn't negate the barrage of issues that young people are facing but it would be good not to have to wade through their dodgy homework just to get to an understanding.

 

[stonerblue]

On the bolded point the other half is currently experiencing that exact problem. She's looking to get back into work for the first time in over a decade following a failed operation at Tameside hospital that permanently put her in a worse condition, then on top of that she suffered a brain haemorrhage in 2020. She's on medication for the rest of her life for both of those but the side effects of those conditions are pretty much under control, save for the very odd bad day and as such she now feels capable of returning to work. When she has worked in the past, it's mainly been in retail and she's worked for several major supermarkets down the years. Whether it's tills, stacking shelves, home shopping, etc, she can pretty much do the job with her eyes closed. However, despite dozens of applications for jobs in that field, and several interviews so far this year, along with telling prospective employers she's totally flexible with regards working hours she's been unsuccessful up to now and I've been convinced for a while that the decade-plus gap in her CV is negatively impacting her chances despite her being more than capable of doing that kind of work. Sure, I get that there will always be way more people applying for these jobs than available positions so plenty of people will always miss out but I really thought that the law of averages would've come into play and that she would've landed something by now. Her latest interview was yesterday for a well-known supermarket who are opening a new branch a few miles away. There are 25 positions available and they told her 150 people have applied so that should be a 1 in 6 chance if they're being totally impartial.

Great to hear your mrs is doing well health wise.

 

[M18CTID]

Great to hear your mrs is doing well health wise.

Cheers mate

 

[The blue phantom]

Great to hear your mrs is doing well health wise.

Yep that's the main thing. Hopefully on the Job front it all works out. Seems she's willing to graft and travel too. Fingers Crossed.

 

[domalino]

---

---

---

---

Hi Mackenzie, just to say be careful about quoting that CSJ study because I think they are going to have to row back on its headline claims. I was so shocked by the 27 to 1 stat you mentioned that I had a bit of a look at the study and it's fair to say I think that the logic/maths on how they've come up with this just doesn't make sense. If I get a chance I'll try and write up why but their maths is based on a couple of key numbers and then either ignoring or missing some basic differences between the two numbers. They basically do some subtraction and then some division on data that you can't do that with. Unless I'm missing something it's proper schoolboy error stuff (or deliberately misleading).

The number of 'think-tanks' that spew out dodgy stuff based on their political leanings is a nightmare these days because the press then just amplify it all without any due diligence :-(

Just had a look at the CSJ I would guess the people involved would consider themselves serious politicians in which case they need to sort this study out!

Certainly doesn't negate the barrage of issues that young people are facing but it would be good not to have to wade through their dodgy homework just to get to an understanding.

CSJ is funded by Paul Marshall, owner of GBNews and reform’s biggest donor.

Absolutely zero doubt why they are publishing bullshit numbers around immigrants getting more jobs than young Brits.

 

[mackenzie]

On the bolded point the other half is currently experiencing that exact problem. She's looking to get back into work for the first time in over a decade following a failed operation at Tameside hospital that permanently put her in a worse condition, then on top of that she suffered a brain haemorrhage in 2020. She's on medication for the rest of her life for both of those but the side effects of those conditions are pretty much under control, save for the very odd bad day and as such she now feels capable of returning to work. When she has worked in the past, it's mainly been in retail and she's worked for several major supermarkets down the years. Whether it's tills, stacking shelves, home shopping, etc, she can pretty much do the job with her eyes closed. However, despite dozens of applications for jobs in that field, and several interviews so far this year, along with telling prospective employers she's totally flexible with regards working hours she's been unsuccessful up to now and I've been convinced for a while that the decade-plus gap in her CV is negatively impacting her chances despite her being more than capable of doing that kind of work. Sure, I get that there will always be way more people applying for these jobs than available positions so plenty of people will always miss out but I really thought that the law of averages would've come into play and that she would've landed something by now. Her latest interview was yesterday for a well-known supermarket who are opening a new branch a few miles away. There are 25 positions available and they told her 150 people have applied so that should be a 1 in 6 chance if they're being totally impartial.

Really sorry to hear about your wife's illnesses, it must have been horrific for you both.
Has she considered "plugging" the gap on her CV? Perhaps from doing some voluntary work in a charity shop? Would give her up to date references too, although if she is getting to the interview stage then her applications are at least getting noticed.
Do her health conditions ever come up at the interview stage? If so, how does she answer?
Plus, might be worth looking at what your local council offers in the way of support for helping residents into work. My local council has a team that does and a bit of support can sometimes make the difference.
Good luck x

 

[mackenzie]

---

---

---

---

Hi Mackenzie, just to say be careful about quoting that CSJ study because I think they are going to have to row back on its headline claims. I was so shocked by the 27 to 1 stat you mentioned that I had a bit of a look at the study and it's fair to say I think that the logic/maths on how they've come up with this just doesn't make sense. If I get a chance I'll try and write up why but their maths is based on a couple of key numbers and then either ignoring or missing some basic differences between the two numbers. They basically do some subtraction and then some division on data that you can't do that with. Unless I'm missing something it's proper schoolboy error stuff (or deliberately misleading).

The number of 'think-tanks' that spew out dodgy stuff based on their political leanings is a nightmare these days because the press then just amplify it all without any due diligence :-(

Just had a look at the CSJ I would guess the people involved would consider themselves serious politicians in which case they need to sort this study out!

Certainly doesn't negate the barrage of issues that young people are facing but it would be good not to have to wade through their dodgy homework just to get to an understanding.

Fair enough...they should obviously not resort to manipulating figures simply to get the answer they want. That's definitely not on. And that applies to any "think tank" of whatever political persuasion.

There are obviously many factors impacting negatively on youth employment; just in the last 12 months it has become more than apparent that there is a big problem.

 

[expatblue]

Fair enough...they should obviously not resort to manipulating figures simply to get the answer they want. That's definitely not on. And that applies to any "think tank" of whatever political persuasion.

There are obviously many factors impacting negatively on youth employment; just in the last 12 months it has become more than apparent that there is a big problem.

You have to believe something or you don't believe anything so where do you start? You can start with anecdotal evidence with things you and your family and friends see, but be very wary of people who tell you that what you read is poisoned with lies and you should read what they read instead.

 

[threespires]

You have to believe something or you don't believe anything so where do you start? You can start with anecdotal evidence with things you and your family and friends see, but be very wary of people who tell you that what you read is poisoned with lies and you should read what they read instead.

I wasn't saying it was poisoned with lies, I was saying it looks like the maths is basically wrong in quite a big way and therefore it's misleading. In answer to your question where do you start I think a decent enough answer to that is:

• does this content have some data behind it and is that data robust
• who funds the creation of this content, how much of a vested interest do they have in it saying one thing rather than another?

Finally for any subject I would say always try and read at least two opposing views of equal rigour in order to help you make your mind up where the truth might lie. If you struggle to find anything with rigour for one of the opposing views that might well tell you a lot.

 

[expatblue]

I wasn't saying it was poisoned with lies, I was saying it looks like the maths is basically wrong in quite a big way and therefore it's misleading. In answer to your question where do you start I think a decent enough answer to that is:

• does this content have some data behind it and is that data robust
• who funds the creation of this content, how much of a vested interest do they have in it saying one thing rather than another?

Finally for any subject I would say always try and read at least two opposing views of equal rigour in order to help you make your mind up where the truth might lie. If you struggle to find anything with rigour for one of the opposing views that might well tell you a lot.

I seriously wouldn't know where to look to get an unbiased view on anything right now, my reticence to take someone's word for a good unbiased view is a good stance on the state of journalism today.

Just today I have been reminded government data is wrong, what do you believe other than your own eyes and intuition?

 

[threespires]

I seriously wouldn't know where to look to get an unbiased view on anything right now, my reticence to take someone's word for a good unbiased view is a good stance on the state of journalism today.

Just today I have been reminded government data is wrong, what do you believe other than your own eyes and intuition?

I have some sympathy with that view as we are completely overloaded with information and journalism has been in many cases debased.

The problem is that erosion of public trust in institutions is a huge threat to democracy and at the point when we give up trusting anything we are in a very dark place (which tbh I think is where some people want to take us). To me the problem with following your intuition is that sometimes it's legit and other times its cognitive bias of which our brains are subjected to many. The best we can do is acknowledge our own biases, and follow the money to see who profits most.

I sometimes wish we could put the genie back in the bottle and go back to the old business model for journalism but people don't want to pay for that so... The likes of Reuters and AP are still legit I think and the FT is a great resource but it's behind a paywall.

We're at the point were we should probably be teaching kids stuff like this...

Evaluating the Credibility of Media Information: A Critical Skill • Journalism University

Learn to evaluate media credibility: spot misinformation, understand bias, and become a savvy consumer of news and social content.

journalism.university

(tbf I think a fair few younger people are better at navigating the bullshit than older people, probably because they've had to grow up with it)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

---

---

---

---

Hi Mackenzie, just to say be careful about quoting that CSJ study because I think they are going to have to row back on its headline claims. I was so shocked by the 27 to 1 stat you mentioned that I had a bit of a look at the study and it's fair to say I think that the logic/maths on how they've come up with this just doesn't make sense. If I get a chance I'll try and write up why but their maths is based on a couple of key numbers and then either ignoring or missing some basic differences between the two numbers. They basically do some subtraction and then some division on data that you can't do that with. Unless I'm missing something it's proper schoolboy error stuff (or deliberately misleading).

The number of 'think-tanks' that spew out dodgy stuff based on their political leanings is a nightmare these days because the press then just amplify it all without any due diligence :-(

Just had a look at the CSJ I would guess the people involved would consider themselves serious politicians in which case they need to sort this study out!

Certainly doesn't negate the barrage of issues that young people are facing but it would be good not to have to wade through their dodgy homework just to get to an understanding.

A reddit analysis of that CSJ piece suggests:

"CSJ analysis of new HMRC payroll data shows that the number of non-EU migrants on payrolls aged under 25 rose from 82,000 in January 2020 to 370,000 in December 2025 – an increase of 290,000.

Over the same period, the number of UK-national under-25s on payrolls increased by just 11,000."

What the 27:1 ignores is that the UK nationals figure would have been much much higher, and has only increased slightly. 'Increase' is masking a lot of things - if a very high percentage of UK-nationals were employed, it can't increase by a lot, and 'increase' is a more dramatic way to promote the political aims of the publisher.

The locations that the built-in AI sources suggest are CSJ, Telegraph, GBNews. That implies that no-one else has promoted the figures in this way.

The effect of who has remained in work and aged out of the U25 bracket is potentially relevant.