To think that there is no hope here?

I don’t disagree with you about reducing the numbers but l think that’s only part of the problem. And the main problem is the majority of the real wealth being in the hands of the elite few, who are in control.

No, the point of the post was that once you are comfortably off and can afford the things you want and need, why should you object to paying more taxes to support the rest of society. Where those taxes actually go is obviously relevant, but not approving of how government spends money is not an excuse for not paying your share.

Low wages are hardly surprising if more and more low skilled people come here to work. It's bound to affect the amount everyone is paid. Businesses will just react to what is in front of them.

Obviously, as someone has already posted, more people means more housing demand and higher rents. Solve the numbers issue and things might improve.

I think that’s absolutely the point - many of us are being clobbered in the face of deteriorating public services.

Let her/him answer rather than you make assumptions.

The figure of 1000 a day is distorted because it doesn’t take into account the numbers coming off PIP at review or change of circumstance which go some way towards balancing things out.

The cost also pales into comparison to that of the independent appeals tribunals needed because the quality of the decision making is so bad that this is the only way many genuinely disabled people can get a fair decision. Given that the provision of disability benefits is enshrined in law, it makes sense to have a robust and fair system so rather than concentrating on damaging cuts, the focus should be on reducing the need for appeals by ensuring better quality decisions. That alone would save a fortune for the tax payer.

As previously mentioned, the way figures are presented by government is intended to maximise support for cuts. There are not masses of people abusing the system. The DWP’s own figures bear that out - fraud and error is low in the disability benefit system. And your argument that cuts are needed to avoid hurting and penalising genuinely disabled people doesn’t stand up in the face of the cuts that are being proposed, which will inevitably impact genuine claimants the most - in fact they will impact the more severely disabled people because they cost the most to support.

There you go, more word salad you won’t bother reading.

Not sure I agree with the term ‘dependent’. It depends very much on why they’re paying such low wages. To my mind, this is where the shake up of the benefits system needs to be concentrated.

Large scale employers can seemingly pay themselves big bonuses, and generous dividends to their shareholders, and still get away with paying wages their employees can’t live on - thereby passing off large chunks of their wage bills to the tax payer via UC top ups.

Similarly wealthy landlords have bought up previously affordable properties for buy to let and hiked the rents - also supported through the housing element of UC as they would otherwise be unaffordable. Better regulation of both would go a long way to reducing the benefit bill.

They’re proposing to bring in the same changes to disability benefits for new claimants only from the end of next year - effectively creating a two tier system. So the disability premiums on UC will be less for new claimants and the four point rule for PIP will apply.

I think they’ve watered down some of the other proposals, and they’ve been asked by several disability organisations for clarification as to what they mean by ‘new claimants’. Unless the claimant is severely disabled and their condition is deemed unlikely to improve, PIP awards have a built in review date and any reported changes to circumstances can also trigger a review. It’s not been made clear as yet whether these claims would be subject to the changes on renewal.

Don’t forget to include businesses who pay their employees such low wages that they are entitled to benefits. Those businesses are dependent on state aid., too.

Do you read the telegraph by any chance? I was gifted a subscription and every other article is moaning that the country has gone to the dogs or sad face middle class people who can’t go on holidays as often any more.

edited for grammar (still bad grammar)

The oligarchs should pay proper wages. It’s extraction of shareholder value and an infeasible expectation of growth which results in wages being too low to live on and a need to supplement wages with benefits. Effectively, taxpayer funds are subsidising company profits.

I don’t think there are any proposed cuts to disability benefits now are there? The left of the party were having none of it and Starmer (predictably) capitulated.

It’s really not my problem if your comprehension isn’t up to scratch and you prefer slinging random insults to proper debate. Have a good evening.

Plenty of facts there to be fair, in @Rosscameasdoody’s post. Which ones do you dispute?

Still looking for where the fact was. It was just a loaf of words, not saying very much.

1000 people a day going in PIP says it is a gravy train. The masses of people abusing the system are making it worse for genuinely disabled people. But that is the problem with free money. The needy will get penalized when you start dishing it out like it’s going out of fashion.

The government doesn’t have a choice. They have to and absolutely should cut this down to size. Real deep cuts. Because there ain’t no money left. £20b paid in debt interest every month tells us that.

I’m not the slightest bit embarrassed thanks. You posted your opinion. I posted fact.

I don’t think that’s really the point.

Disability benefits are not a gravy train. They are there to support disabled people and if you knew what you were talking about you would know that fraud and error in these benefits is very low. That you’ve fallen for government rhetoric designed to get the public onside for reducing the support available for disabled people is made clearer each time you post. Just because you stop supporting a need through one means doesn’t mean that need disappears. It just gets shifted to another part of the budget. The proposed cuts to disability benefits won’t save a penny. The responsibility for the support disabled people could previously buy in cheaply with PIP and carers allowance will pass to social care. Much more expensive and will probably push costs up, not down.

And I think you know the meaning of my comment about the motability scheme.

But not evenly spread through constituencies, surely? I understood there are some constituencies with significantly more than others so there could be bloc voting. Labour are obviously immensely unpopular so will need every vote.

They are 6% of the population….

Idk what his motivation is tbf. It’s a bizarre condition that no one else is suggesting.

Think it will depend on demographics in each constituency and what is important to a particular demographic. Eg farming issues are not going to be of interest in Islington. Are there constituencies where there are a large proportion of Muslims? If so, Gaza may well be a voting issue as it seems to be of great importance to many Muslims, perhaps more important than many UK national issues. Hence independent pro Gaza MPs and councillors. I don't think they would be very pleased if you called them a "myth" and that talking about them was "bigoted"?

I took it to mean many hard workers are also very low paid.

It may have resonance but it’s not about pandering to a minuscule portion of the population.

If he wanted to pander he could have just moved immediately for full recognition like so many countries have.

They are 6% of the vote and zero evidence of “pandering”.

Just seems like a weird bigoted myth.