The only viable philosophy for the Conservative party is that "it pays to work", that is you have a higher income if you work than if you don't. Red wall voters buy this, any attempt to be sympathetic merely invites an auction with Labour on who provides bigger benefits - Labour usually win.
Of course there are problems; whatever the benefit it's never clear how it's spent, that is does feeding children during school holidays have to be a state function or a parents' function. There are examples of families existing not too badly on benefits with unemployed parents, how can the horror stories of Mr Rushford take place? If the problem is child poverty are we suggesting that having children is to be encouraged by paying benefits relating to children and if you limit the number applicable for benefits do you just ignore families that have more because that affects the children?
I could go on, I've been in the business, but part of the problem is the irresponsible reporting on the subject, I've watched TV programmes where the benefit claimant is making statements that are probably untrue but not researched (I include Mr Rashford in this). People on benefits claiming destitution are box office, the temptation to not investigate is probably too much.
Starts off vaguely coherent then looses it, why bother writing stuff that makes no attempt to conform to reality?
I'm incredulous about your first sentence. I have worked in Scotland, before the SNP got going, and found many Scots, like yourself, making out they were believing the most ridiculous and childish stories based on England bashing Scotland. Indeed the whole SNP process is based on figments of imagination, based among other things that it's better to be run by Brussels than Edinburgh. (Just to point out you would lose your huge subsidy from England and pay a huge subsidy to Brussels - so much for the freebies you've awarded yourselves.)
Could not Rakhia provide another contribution to this site laying out her reasons for coming here, as apposed to, say, France or Spain, or anywhere else in Europe where we are told by our media they are better and nicer than us. Perhaps she could also tell us how she travelled; direct flight? Lorry or dingy? I am tired of all the hysteria about migrants coming here without any proper attempt to define what our attraction is that people are prepared to go to enormous trouble, pay a lot of money (refugees?!) and risk death to seemingly "escape" from France or Italy etc.
To be fair Corbyn sort of spotted this in his references to the "real economy", that is making things. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury noted that British industry, i.e., making things, was hamstrung by the value of the pound. This was due to our vast services exports, particularly financial services but neither Corbyn or the CoE would say this. That is if you want video recorders made in Britain you need to discourage financial services, I suggest jobs in the City are better paid and more productive than on a production line.
It cut expenditure (e.g. charging for health), cut taxes, made arrangements with big companies to get special reduced tax arrangements - commonly referred to as financial corruption. And it's frightened to death about Brexit because so much of its income is handled by about 6 people in Dublin ostensibly the main office when the real main office is in London but not paying British taxes.
The problem maybe his lack of reasoned PR. The proposals have been around some time, I even suspect PreCorvid re May's white working class boys education problems. The proposals were available in the summer, several ministers have referred to them in interviews and there were 14 pilot schemes mentioned last half term. The problem seems to me to be the good old Tory problem of never thinking there is a need to explain to the multitude - just do what seems a good idea and let everybody get on with it.
Well meant and rather more practical than most social posts. However, I can't be the only one becoming nervous about steady streams of good social ideas without careful consideration of practicalities, usually money. I recall William and Harry claiming we should put as many resources into mental health as we do for physical health when some think tank had calculated that only 7% of NHS effort goes into mental health. We need to look at all good social ideas with some sort of national audit office to consider if they are viable.
As I have frequently drawn attention on this site to the Labour government review of NHS spending in 1978 where the result was that if the entire GDP of the country was spent on nothing but the NHS it wouldn't be enough to even eliminate waiting lists - because it's free. I.e. if any government tried to "properly" fund the NHS the country, and hence the NHS, would be bankrupt.
And while I think about it, we are moving towards a world where only two or three workers will have to support a retiree.
Taking the middle bit;- It seems to go like this, Lefty doctors trying to look busy to get more staff/money and embarrass a Tory government certify many deaths either not or only partly due to Convirus, as due to the virus. The government is suspicious but the ONS only picks up a small proportion of doubtful certifications. Oxford, on the other hand suggests up to a third are dubious - which would make a difference to an international league table.
Medical scientists, trying to underline their importance in any medical issues, aware of the dubiousness or not, produce inflated statistical projections.
Suspicious ministers refer to civil service stataticians, naturally in favour of more public spending, are happy to confirm the statistics, even if the don't understand them.
Just to point out how lawyers, including judges, have been happy to run the country down a great public expense, might doctors be any better? After all at their last year's annual conference the voted to extend the free NHS provisions to other countries who they think have poor health services.