You created them. Every single one of those NEETs is a product of your former party's choices. The ones you made while you were in Cabinet.
Adult education and apprenticeship spending: 25% lower in 2024-25 than when your former party took office (IFS, Nuffield Foundation).
Publicly funded adult further education courses: fell from 5.4 million in 2004 to 1.7 million by the time you left office. A 70% reduction, the majority of it on your watch (IFS, January 2026).
College funding per student: 11% lower in real terms than 2010. Sixth-form funding per student: 23% lower (IFS, January 2025).
Adults taking qualifications at GCSE level and below: down 50%. At A-level equivalent: down 33% (IFS, Nuffield Foundation).
Intermediate apprenticeship starts, the entry-level route for young people without degrees: collapsed from 200,000 in 2010 to fewer than 50,000 by 2020. Your government did that (IFS).
Youth services: cut by 70% since 2010 (Mind, Big Mental Health Report 2025) .
You had 14 years to invest in British young people. You cut adult education by 25%. You cut FE courses by 70%. You cut college funding. You cut sixth-form funding. You cut apprenticeships for the people who needed them most. You cut youth services. Then you left office and started tweeting bollocks about NEETs as though they materialised from thin air.
The £5,000 Reeves is offering is a reimbursement of the Immigration Skills Charge, a levy your own government introduced in 2017 to fund domestic skills training. You created the charge. You collected the money. And you still cut the training budget by 25%.
And these visas are for high-skilled workers: doctors, engineers, specialists in fields where your 14 years of cuts left a workforce gap so deep that British employers cannot fill it domestically. They are not competing with NEETs. They are filling holes your government drilled.
You were Home Secretary. You were Attorney General. You sat in Cabinet while all of this happened. You do not get to set the house on fire and then complain about the smoke.
Sources:
Adult education and apprenticeship spending 25% below 2010 levels: Institute for Fiscal Studies / Nuffield Foundation, October 2022 (https://t.co/ptZIX5c4b8)
Adult FE courses fell from 5.4 million to 1.7 million (70% reduction): Institute for Fiscal Studies, January 2026 (https://t.co/ViEuIX7qIj)
College funding per student 11% lower, sixth-form funding 23% lower: Institute for Fiscal Studies, Annual Report on Education Spending in England, January 2025, cited in House of Commons Library (https://t.co/c6qLKyCyjA)
Adults taking Level 2 qualifications down 50%, Level 3 down 33%: Institute for Fiscal Studies / Nuffield Foundation (https://t.co/1veNy8CJcY)
Intermediate apprenticeship starts collapsed from 200,000 to fewer than 50,000: Institute for Fiscal Studies / Nuffield Foundation, same source as above
Youth services cut by 70% since 2010: Mind, Big Mental Health Report 2025 (https://t.co/zTQbfpIdQq)
Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017: (https://t.co/IcciQZPTer)
Skills policy and apprenticeship data: House of Commons Library (https://t.co/trQjEw6FEZ)
Immigration Skills Charge parliamentary debate: Hansard, 21 March 2017 (https://t.co/yD8OvAthBl)
Look at how the BBC frames it. "If the people want me to have a third term, I will accept." Like it's a humble offer. Like the people are begging him.
But here is what the headline leaves out.
Tshisekedi is already serving his second term. The DRC constitution limits the president to two terms. What he is suggesting is an illegal power grab dressed up as democracy.
And why does the BBC soften this? Because Tshisekedi is their man. He plays nice with Western mining companies. He keeps cobalt flowing to your electric cars. He does not expel your diplomats.
When a leader in Mali or Burkina Faso talks about extending terms, the BBC calls it a coup or a regression. When a Western-backed leader does it, the headline is gentle. "He may consider."
Same continent. Same violation of term limits. Different framing.
That is not journalism. That is propaganda with a British accent.
@TheEleventhChav@whiteyyyyyyyy97 So when the team wins, it's "Southgate dragged us out the pits," but when they lose its because the players are shit right? Very interesting analysis there.
White people support disabilities that make you say racist slurs but if the mental disability makes them uncomfortable on a subway, they support you being choked to death
Trigger Warning: This post references a 400 year racial slur that has been used to dehumanize Black people. It also discusses Tourette syndrome and Coprolalia. If a social media post can provide this clarity, a global broadcaster on a 2 hour programming delay certainly could have. CC:BAFTA and BBC.
To be Black is to know that Grace will be demanded of you before accountability ever is.
And that’s exactly what played out on the BAFTA stage.
Exposure to racism is harmful, but you think Black people should just endure it. Whether a person is doing this intentionally or not, it has a harmful effect. This is what research shows. But you guys are so hateful, you don't care when Black people get hurt.
The first time I heard the N-word was when a fully grown adult yelled it at me and my siblings when we were trick-or-treating and slammed the door in our face back in 2000. I was 6. "Racial harmony prior to Obama" is a white people myth.
Delroy Lindo wishes "someone from BAFTA spoke to us" after the N-word was shouted as he and Michael B. Jordan were presenting.
Lindo told Vanity Fair that we "did what we had to do" in that moment when the racial slur was said by John Davidson, who is diagnosed with Tourette syndrome and attended the BAFTA Film Awards as the subject of the nominated biopic “I Swear.”
Sources told Variety after the ceremony that floor managers informed guests and attendees sitting around Davidson of his condition. According to multiple sources, none of the nominees or attendees were contacted by BAFTA or BBC ahead of the show to notify them.
https://t.co/tjFCDC9Rwz
So my takeaways are,
1. If we have a disability we don’t have to apologize when we harm people.
2. You can’t be racist if you have a disability.
3. As a Black person I should have an unlimited capacity of empathy, grace and understanding while receiving none.
4. Impact of our actions don’t matter as long as that wasn’t our intention.
Did I miss anything?
What kind of “specific type” of individual is that? Isn’t it strange to say that a person should be ok with being called a slur and receive no apology for it, even if they understand the context? Makes no sense to ask for grace while dismissing the people hurt and embarrassed?
Do you reckon Amorim is ever going to say thanks to the fans? Finished 15th, lost a cup final to Spurs, won consecutive games on one occasion the entire time he was here, and Old Trafford still sang his name every week. What a truly unlikeable fella.