Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think we need to prioritise defence/Ukraine spending?

376 replies

Wildflowers99 · 04/03/2025 12:17

I’ll admit I had no idea how depleted our military has become until a few weeks ago. I was absolutely staggered to read we now spend more on PIP and DLA than our entire military.

I feel like slowly all of our public spending has been funnelled into health, benefits and social care, leaving everything else in a very poor state. Any time anyone has suggested spending money on anything apart from ‘freezing pensioners, the homeless or disabled’ they get shouted down (I am disabled btw, so I do understand the need).

AIBU to think we need to urgently address our spending priorities and as a nation wake up to the fact we’ve been overspending on the above for too long?

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 20:22

Slimbear · 09/03/2025 18:09

One problem was not funding the development of the regions. Where I live there are people gaming the system - but how can they be ordered back to work if there are no jobs.

Yep, if you Google job vacancies, and the amount of people on job seeking benefits, then you will see there is a big difference. There are not enough jobs to go round for the people having to find one. Those vacancies are not all full time either, or with proper contracts. And the job seeking figures are not including people currently employed but wanting to change, or people not working but not claiming benefits.
If you have been out of work for a long time, and have no skills/references, an extensive sickness record when you did work, and a disability, your CV is never going to be at the top of any employer's pile.

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 20:29

Byebyechicken · 08/03/2025 09:30

This is a very simplistic solution to what is often a complex problem.
You appear to be looking at this solely from the point of view that the person with MH disabilities is choosing the path of least resistance, ie they are choosing not to work because they somehow lack the discipline or resilience to work, hence your comment that if they refused to turn up or engage on a 3 month course, they'd be financially penalised.

Your posts strongly suggest these people are choosing not to work because they don't want to, rather than that they can't.

Whilst there may be some people who choose not to work, I think they are probably in the minority and it's foolish to lump all people with MH disabilities into the 'wont' work category, rather than the 'cant' work.

I don't have extensive knowledge on all MH disabilities, however even I can see that in order to find work for people with MH problems that render them disabled, you would need to match them with employers who would employ them. How do you propose to encourage employers to offer work to people who cannot even cope with basic functions? People who cannot keep themselves safe without supervision? People who cannot remain calm under any perceived pressure? Even the pressure of interacting with people or focusing on a set task? People who are already highly medicated in order to function at a basic level? People who react in any number of inappropriate ways when they are put under the pressure of work related performance? This is just a small example.
Many people with MH issues can lash out when they feel under pressure. Many people with MH issues will internalise their frustration and attack themselves.
It is common for these people to get enormously overwhelmed with what you would consider simple tasks, such as washing themselves, brushing their teeth, getting dressed and leaving their homes. Many of them suffer extreme levels of overwhelm speaking on the phone or writing emails, as well as speaking in person to people.
It is the age old adage of 'I can't see your disability at first glance, so I don't believe it is a disability and you are exaggerating it to avoid doing what everyone else has to do.'
Historically, this doubting attitude has always affected people with any disability that can't easily be seen by everyone they come across and it's wrong to dismiss a person's difficulties based on whether you can see them or not, unless you are qualified to make that judgement.

Would you employ people with severe MH issues?
Why aren't you questioning the qualified professionals who are supporting these people? Why only question the disabled people?

Show quote history

This x100
Suggesting that anyone with MH issues can go off on a course for 3 months and come out of it job ready, is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding about MH issues and the whole spectrum of them.
Some poor council worker teaching hospitality skills is going to have a rough time when someone kicks off and hides in the toilet self harming. Will they report to the Job Centre that the person wasn't engaging... will that mean a sanction?

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 20:42

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 20:22

Yep, if you Google job vacancies, and the amount of people on job seeking benefits, then you will see there is a big difference. There are not enough jobs to go round for the people having to find one. Those vacancies are not all full time either, or with proper contracts. And the job seeking figures are not including people currently employed but wanting to change, or people not working but not claiming benefits.
If you have been out of work for a long time, and have no skills/references, an extensive sickness record when you did work, and a disability, your CV is never going to be at the top of any employer's pile.

Show quote history

How will we pay a 100 billion pound welfare bill in 2030? What else do you think we should cut?

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 20:49

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 20:42

How will we pay a 100 billion pound welfare bill in 2030? What else do you think we should cut?

Show quote history

Well, if we had £1 for every time you blame people with MH issues for the country being broke, then I think we will raise it pretty soon.

Or address the root causes....
I don't have the answer as I am not a politician or someone who understands much about money etc.

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 21:31

So you have no idea, basically.

You can’t insist we should keep spending on benefits without identifying where that money is going to come from.

Making this an emotive issue to avoid the very obvious economic questions is wearing thin. The tide even seems to be turning on here slightly.

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 21:51

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 21:31

So you have no idea, basically.

You can’t insist we should keep spending on benefits without identifying where that money is going to come from.

Making this an emotive issue to avoid the very obvious economic questions is wearing thin. The tide even seems to be turning on here slightly.

And your suggestion is what? Cut benefits, force people into jobs that don't exist... create more MH and poverty, so more benefit claims etc.

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 21:57

People will have to go to work. The effect of necessity can be amazing.

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 21:59

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 21:57

People will have to go to work. The effect of necessity can be amazing.

In what jobs?
And what employer is going to take on someone who has not worked for decades, has a criminal record, and is on such heavy duty meds they can only function for 2 waking hours a day?

Slimbear · 09/03/2025 22:00

They could cut benefits so that not working is less attractive.

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:02

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 21:59

In what jobs?
And what employer is going to take on someone who has not worked for decades, has a criminal record, and is on such heavy duty meds they can only function for 2 waking hours a day?

Show quote history

No idea. I think almost everyone is capable of surprising themselves in times of urgent need. It’s been the case throughout history.

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:02

Slimbear · 09/03/2025 22:00

They could cut benefits so that not working is less attractive.

You get more benefits if you do work... especially if you have kids.

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:03

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:02

You get more benefits if you do work... especially if you have kids.

Show quote history

Not if you claim 3 lots of DLA and are your child’s carer - an OP was in this situation and gave a breakdown of her entitlement, and it was gobsmacking. Twice my salary.

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:04

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:02

No idea. I think almost everyone is capable of surprising themselves in times of urgent need. It’s been the case throughout history.

Show quote history

Not me. I got into ridiculous debt because I was brought up too proud to claim benefits. I had to be dragged to the job centre by my CPN because I was not eating. It took me about 2 years to get out my overdraft.

Julen7 · 09/03/2025 22:04

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 21:59

In what jobs?
And what employer is going to take on someone who has not worked for decades, has a criminal record, and is on such heavy duty meds they can only function for 2 waking hours a day?

Show quote history

If they haven’t worked in decades it’s time to start

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:05

Julen7 · 09/03/2025 22:04

If they haven’t worked in decades it’s time to start

Show quote history

Did you even read my post?

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:07

Julen7 · 09/03/2025 22:04

If they haven’t worked in decades it’s time to start

Show quote history

I think some of the savings cuts should be used to pay large businesses - supermarkets, Home Bargains, hotels - to provide placements for a few months so the ex claimants can get something on their CV and acclimatise to the world of work again. Or provide them with a tax break to do so.

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:08

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:07

I think some of the savings cuts should be used to pay large businesses - supermarkets, Home Bargains, hotels - to provide placements for a few months so the ex claimants can get something on their CV and acclimatise to the world of work again. Or provide them with a tax break to do so.

Show quote history

Will they get paid a proper wage though? Or is this just in exchange for their benefits?

Julen7 · 09/03/2025 22:08

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:05

Did you even read my post?

Show quote history

Yes I’ve read a lot of your posts. You just seem to be of the mindset that working is not for you and never will be. I find it so self defeatist.

Julen7 · 09/03/2025 22:09

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:07

I think some of the savings cuts should be used to pay large businesses - supermarkets, Home Bargains, hotels - to provide placements for a few months so the ex claimants can get something on their CV and acclimatise to the world of work again. Or provide them with a tax break to do so.

Show quote history

Yes excellent idea.

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:09

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:08

Will they get paid a proper wage though? Or is this just in exchange for their benefits?

Show quote history

In exchange for their benefits. You never know, quite a few people may be kept on.

OP posts:
Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:10

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:04

Not me. I got into ridiculous debt because I was brought up too proud to claim benefits. I had to be dragged to the job centre by my CPN because I was not eating. It took me about 2 years to get out my overdraft.

Show quote history

What year was this if you don’t mind me asking?

OP posts:
XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:10

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:09

In exchange for their benefits. You never know, quite a few people may be kept on.

Show quote history

That would be slave labour then.
It was tried before... workfare. Employers took advantage.
If someone is going to be working for you, then pay them the proper wage with sick pay, holiday, pension etc.

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:11

Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:10

What year was this if you don’t mind me asking?

Show quote history

So you can judge me more? No thanks.

Original poster
Wildflowers99 · 09/03/2025 22:12

XenoBitch · 09/03/2025 22:10

That would be slave labour then.
It was tried before... workfare. Employers took advantage.
If someone is going to be working for you, then pay them the proper wage with sick pay, holiday, pension etc.

Show quote history

It’s not slave labour because they can decline (but lose benefits).

OP posts:
Lambington · 09/03/2025 22:14

People don't want to pay tax though. They'd rather the country fall apart around them than chip in what's needed unfortunately.