Just been down the local woods clearing Himalayan Balsam, which I’ve been doing each year for a while. At that, the difference it makes year on year is satisfyingly astounding.

Now, at the risk of being flippant, there have been and will be a lot of (young) people being “paid” to not do much (through no fault of their own). How feasible would it be for a “New Deal” to consist of paying people to do jobs like this? When I rode in Oregon, we were riding on trails created during the depression when the government paid people to do so for the benefit of the nation. Litter picking is another one. Clean the country up, sort a few environmental issues out that just need some graft and time spent. I have no rose tinted specs on for this idea, but it’s got to be better than 6 months apprenticeship making coffee, right?

Good point, well made.
Country is dirty and populated by too many litter yobs.
Barista apprentices…I’ve yet to be asked by a ‘high street barista’ what coffee I prefer – from their ‘extensive range’ – or what temperature I refer.
I would make little effort supporting coffee shops and cafes as they add little or no value.
We have too many…pubs, low end and mid range restaurants, chain retail stores; too little variety and proper choice.
Focus on manufacturing; that’s how to add real value.

if you want to put more activity into the economy and to keep that money in the UK then putting the money into benefits would be by far the most efficient way. People on benefits spend a higher proportion of their money locally and less of it goes out of the UK or into savings

The tories “support” package puts most of the money in the hands of the well off.

Dont think it does TJ

They have also put money into apprenticeship schemes.

My two most hated invasive species are Rhododendron and Hogweed, paying people to clear them would be a great idea. Its a job that keeps coming back as well. 😀

Tj is both right and wrong. I think he is correct in his statement that
“People on benefits spend a higher proportion of their money locally and less of it goes out of the UK or into savings”

But it offers little return in future that schemes like training or industrial investment or infrastructure investment does.

if you want to put more activity into the economy and to keep that money in the UK then putting the money into benefits would be by far the most efficient way. People on benefits spend a higher proportion of their money locally and less of it goes out of the UK or into savings

Got facts to back that up?

I’d train more accountants obvs…

Wasn’t this effectively tried in the 80’s, wasn’t it called Manpower?

I’m not knocking it, mind.

Money needs to go into manufacturing and kick-starting infrastructure. That will then provide a flow down of investment though layers of industry.

Paying companies to employ the unemployed is by far the best policy I have heard in a while. We’ve jumped straight on it. We looked at apprenticeships but its a lot of faff and paying middlemen for ‘accredited’ training whatever that means. This policy is easy to work with and simple to act on.

With the new kickstart I can hire someone from a sector of society that is at a high risk of becoming long term unemployed with very low risk to me. Putting money into their hands will help the overall economy as they’ll want housing, cars, furniture etc. A generation of people living at home on benefits won’t do very much for the country long term even if it was more efficient in terms of cash distribution in the immediate term. I think its a policy they should keep long term if it works.

Money does need to go into manufacturing, though it is a very capital intensive way of chewing through what we have.

I have no problem with paying people more than they’d get in benefits to clear invasive species, clear trails and footpaths now they are getting more use, pick up litter, clear all the blocked gutters and drains that have grass growing out of them. I’d be happier doing something like that in the pissing rain than sitting on my arse at home watching the rain through the window on benefits, and I suspect that a future employer would look more favourably on it as well.

Clean the country up, sort a few environmental issues out that just need some graft and time spent. I have no rose tinted specs on for this idea, but it’s got to be better than 6 months apprenticeship making coffee, right?

Its a nice notion but the ideal with these funded schemes is they lead into permanent future work.

If theres an industry focused around landscape improvement that is growing and crying out for labour then great – you’re basically talking about some sort of industry or agency that would improve and maintain a landscape for the public good instead or even in spite of the landowners. I’m up for that.

But if not you’re giving people training and experience in a role that will vanish as soon as the government stops funding it and the money you are spending to solve a problem just creates the same problem 6 months down the road.

Tj is both right and wrong. I think he is correct in his statement that
“People on benefits spend a higher proportion of their money locally and less of it goes out of the UK or into savings”

But it offers little return in future that schemes like training or industrial investment or infrastructure investment does.

Its the less well off in general that are of value to the economy  – people with not much money out of necessity spend all the money they have – give them a bit more and they’ll spend that as well. There are very, very many more poor people that wealthy ones so the cumulative effect of quite small adjustments is quite large.

Its why the Tories always talk about tax cuts but always seem to be the party that puts VAT up – its a tax on spend and the poor spend all their money and theres a lot of them. Its why Brown cut VAT during the 2008 crisis – because it put more of that low income spend back into the economy

This feels a little bit like saying oh you aint working go do something because otherwise you’re lazy. Also gets us a step closer to work camps – dont that sound fun. Its a dangerous narrative placing too much emphasis on the working and not working. To be honest its one of my least fav thing about the tories. I also don’t get why you picked on the young there will be a lot of older people out of work at this point why cant they do work too? and saying oh “better than 6 months apprenticeship making coffee” is ridiculous most the people I know that make coffee its their absolute passion who are you to belittle their trade. And before anyone tries to pull me up on the coffee thing I love my coffee so spent a lot of time talking to the people that work in my local coffee shops. I often leave feeling inspired

Nuclear power construction – fast track Sizewell C, further funding to Rolls Royce SMR, establish an SMR demo programme like Canadas. Engineering produces jobs for all sorts of different skills from practical to academic.

Accelerate HS2 – it’s going to happen, start the build of Phase 2 early.

Mass house insulation – Sheffield council was doing it by the street in the late 80s, it’s relatively manpower intensive and benefits renters. Prioritise deprived areas first.

Mass house insulation – Sheffield council was doing it by the street in the late 80s, it’s relatively manpower intensive and benefits renters. Prioritise deprived areas first.

I like this, theres a lot of cold houses, we might not even need a sizewell C

Do you not mean ‘what jobs should we force young people to do?’. Perhaps we could get them polishing the shoes of rich people? Or cleaning the latrines? If they’re really desperate they could even be taught to suck **** for those who are into that sort of thing?

Green energy infrastructure and technology.

Plans for hydroelectric power generation in the lake district. It’s hilly, it rains a lot and one of its main incomes is from tourism. A chuffin great Hooveresq Dam would do wonders.

Fuel cell technology.

UAM and UTM.

Aircraft and Spacecraft design and manufacturing.

Robotics.

Nuclear is a short term fix with many downsides, so unless we’re considering LMFBRs, we shouldn’t be considering it at all.

Got facts to back that up?

FFS you don’t need facts, it’s obvious. Anyone on benefits who gets an increase is going to end up spending it on something. It’s not like they’re going to stash it away in their stock market ISA.

There’s a better solution to forcing people to do jobs they probably don’t want to do.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

Its the less well off in general that are of value to the economy – people with not much money out of necessity spend all the money they have – give them a bit more and they’ll spend that as well. There are very, very many more poor people that wealthy ones so the cumulative effect of quite small adjustments is quite large.

I didn’t say otherwise.

It is however not useful in all but the very short term to keep people on benefits. From mental health to employability. Yep the lower end of the income spend more proportionally than those in higher income brackets but it’s important for longevity and mental well-being that the income is earnt income. Now there will always be an effective unemployable section of society but that is a small section and the vast majority of people, lower income or not do better earning the money.

i think big infrastructure projects such as accelerating HS2 would b a good start.
weather you agree with the need for it or not (and i don’t really) it has the potential to create 1000s of new jobs.

I also think this is an opportunity to really look at green infrastructure such as proper cycle lanes (not just crap ones in cities) which link major towns – such as those in Holland.

As others have suggested – a big green initiative to insulate houses – training people to put loft insulation down or pump polystyrene beads into Cavity walls takes little time or investment.

Supporting businesses who manufacture things we can export – luxury electric cars are a good start – if JLR or RR need some investment to enable them to sell £100k+ electric cars to rich Arabs then lets help them do it.

I do not believe upping peoples benefits is a better solution to getting people into ‘proper jobs’

i’m afraid i’d be offering very little to the hospitality industry, hair and beauty, retail or anything else that doesn’t add significant value to the country.
I’d be happy to see the back of the likes of Costa, Pret, Starbucks, etc.

who are you to belittle their trade

Yeah I know it sounded like that, wasn’t my intention. There are people who are passionate about it, rightly so. Then there are people who will do it because it’s there as a job, but may have little to no interest.

And yes it sounds like work camps. But if framed as being paid (minimum wage at least – therefore more than UC), to bring about improvements to the country to instill some genuine pride-taking in the country and a sense of respect for the environment, it’s not really work camps. I mention young people simply because that’s the talk in news – of course applies to any age.

This wouldn’t supplant the bigger infrastructure projects, but those 000’s of peripheral jobs aren’t going to materialise for a while yet.

Most benefits go to working people on poverty wages and to pensioners

Which is why I said benefits not the unemployed

Infrastructure? A dam perhaps? Well maybe a Severn barrier.

I like the idea of direct funded jobs at every level, not apprenticeships. Even at the highest skilled level, and I include post PhD here, you learn on the job. A qualification is just a ticket to that training.

Most of what I know and the skills I use have been acquired during my employment.

Plus, outdoor jobs carry less risk of the Covid.

Hmmm, by chance just been sent this. Kind of recovery plan it would fit with.
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4017603/build-greener-environment-agency-debuts-plan

Accelerate HS2 – it’s going to happen, start the build of Phase 2 early.

It takes 10-15 years to go from conception to operation on a trainline, best case. The actual build itself isn’t *that* complicated, it’s all the precursors to it. Consultations, surveys, compulsory purchase, the almost inevitable legal wranglings and court processes around evictions, destruction of environment, procurement, contract, the almost inevitable legal wranglings that come from contract management (part of the reason HS2 is so massively expensive is because the Government are going with gold-plated contracts and insurances – basically asking a building company for cast-iron guarantees that the construction won’t fail within 30 years and if it does they’re liable which means massively over-engineered and therefore much more expensive and time-consuming to build and massive insurance liabilities).

If all the was needed was build the thing, it’d be relatively straightforward but obviously you still need the skilled labour, it’s not just a case of dragging a bunch of lads out of JobCentre and giving them some overalls and a shovel.

Park and ride for towns and cities, where driver and passengers use bikes/e-bikes/e-scooters for their trip into town.

Got facts to back that up?

Very uncontroversial, lots of studies agree with this….

Was a chart in the Sunday Times Economics section on the subject, showing since lockdown the well off have saved more, whereas the less well off have had to deplete savings to make ends meet…..

Was a chart in the Sunday Times Economics section on the subject, showing since lockdown the well off have saved more, whereas the less well off have had to deplete savings to make ends meet…..

during lockdown, when all you could spend was supermarket shops and your rent/mortgage and utilities?
Someone well off is going to save in that scenario, even if they are loading up on waitrose steaks and sourdough starter kits. No holidays, no pubs and restaurants, no kids “activities”.

Conversely someone who just scrapes by and spends all they earn each month is going to be hit with a 20% reduction in income (many of the low paid are going to be in the service industry or manual labour) with not really many places to make savings.

I’m probably in the well off category (by virtue of no kids rather than by high wage) and I;m ictching to be able to spend it again.