To think benefits need to be cut to fund increased spending on defence

[Viviennemary]

This is absolutely necessary. Keir Starmer shouldnt have backed down the last time. But now with the current situation with Russia drastic steps need to be taken. We simply can't afford to sustain the current benefits bill with the armed forces so depleted. The money is needed to increase defence.

What situation with Russia? Do you mean the war with Ukraine? Or do you mean the recent Tommy Robinson visit to Russia with Elon’s dad after helping to stir up unrest in the U.K. and Reform having taken Russian money in the not so distant past (Nathan Gill in prison)? Not sure why Russia would bother to invade us they’re doing a pretty good job infiltrating us with British racists and facists on their payroll .

A question about your different types of school scenario. Would it actually be up to the young person? Or would a child be forced to trade school even if they weren't interested in plumbing or hairdressing based on their academic ability at just 11 years old?

I didn't, I wrote that you had skills to argue with me online therefore you could get a job wfh as an example. "You could" ie you have skills that you could use to work, you are employable, there are roles that you could fill. Some people don't and can't work at all due to disability- these people need to be fully supported.

But i have a job

You think pp is employable with all of the time off she needs when plenty of others who won't need time off will also apply? They will go with them instead.

If pp has a flexible workplace in which she can work part time around her many appointments, pp should absolutely hold on to it.

They won’t - it’s a Labour government - they’ll probably cut defence funding more to pay for more benefits 🥴

Benefits for working age population need to be cut regardless of defense budget.

Only true severe cases should get PIP, otherwise UC and related benefits should be time limited, no more than 9-12 months. Any top ups, is still needed, for full time employed only. Savings to be invested in building cheap housing, flats mostly, so NMW can allow to pay for housing without needing top ups.

Not really insane as your parents would have already paid tax on the money they made and then left to you as an inheritance.

Unlikely. The major component of most estates large enough to be liable for inheritance tax is a property which may have increased in value by many multiples since it was purchased. None of that money has ever been taxed.

What about carers of disabled children? I'm assuming time limited benefits wouldn't apply to them?

Don't be so ridiculous

Well you'll be pleased to know the amount paid to taxi drivers for SEN school runs has dropped dramatically!

many of this taxi drivers are now having to chain UC etc & there is a real shortage of drivers, funnily enough they can't afford to do school runs that cust them money. Surprisingly it's not free to have a taxi in the road. 🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️

so that's an ill thought out change, an own goal,

In ernest, I believe we need many different types of schools that children can attend as maintained schools, to cut down on inde schools making huge profits and to give families more options so that their childs needs can be better supported. Hopefully reducing some of the education bill and giving children and yp a better chance of education. It looks like the Gov are trying to get more kids with ehcp's in mainstream with set provision rather than provision to meet need and only those with the highest level of need would get specialist placement. I don't believe this will go aswell as it's being sold (for both the kids with sen and those without). Much of the increase in ehcps is from kids/yp with semh and autism/adhd, if these kids had maintained schools run differently to current mainstream as part of the mainstream offer many would benefit and may not require defined support as it would be part of the offering. Some would benefit from more relaxed forrest school type settings, others may learn best in conventional classrooms, some learn better hands on subjects and others text book.

I don't think forcing all kids to study gcse type subjects is healthy and I don't think there is anything wrong with vocational courses.

That's great. My point was that you have other transferable skills too. Some people don't.

Same principle - true severe cases of disabilities should get all support. Mild ASD - sorry.

Of course there should be a review of all benefits. Childcare should be subsidised so that parents can go back to work full time without all their salary going on nursery fees. So many parents having their part time salaries topped up with benefits. Subsidising child care will cost significantly less money than giving parents UC. Child benefit removed completely. Have children only if you can afford to financially support them yourselves without relying on state support. Disability claimants to be examined by state approved regional medical professionals, rather than GPs being relied upon. I know of at least one GP at our surgery where patients clamber to be seen by them because he gives fit notes out with minimal effort to diagnose, just accepting patients requests on the back of their own summaries. So much exploitation of the system goes on. Defence spending needs to increase because we’re living in an increasingly unstable world. Not only Russia, but the whole of the Middle East is a tinder box.

I haven't wrote that pp should leave their job. I've wrote that they have skills that some don't that could be uses for work. Some people cannot work at all and these people should be supported.

I agree that it isn't going to go well at all. Many children will end up in mainstream who don't belong there as it happens a lot now anyway and parents will also have less power to fight for their child.

I don't think there's anything wrong with vocational courses either but I wouldn't want children automatically to be written off either just because they have an EHCP and that would be my concern.

Anyone under 40 who isn't disabled and not working could be conscripted into the army. Surely that would help increase defence?

Look at this thread:
I’m being made a complete fool out off! | Mumsnet

The topic is completely different, but OP's 19yo DD leaves at home, does nothing at all and claims UC. DD's 18yo boyfriend seems to be the same. So two NEETs there.

How is this even allowed?? After 1-2 years like this they will become permanently unemployable. Government shouldn't pay a penny in these cases, it's not even about savings, it's about enabling screwing young lives. People like OP's DD should be made to work and build skills.

Not for modern warfare.

and some people can only work with very understanding workplaces, plenty of flexibility and extra financial support that PIP gives. Skills are largely irrelevant if you can't actually access work due to lack of flexibility, workplaces hiring people who don't need flexibility instead etc.

Please share all these 100% wfh jobs that are OK with their employee being of sick for half the year id love to know for if I ever lose my job

Joke alert: Russia seems to be (or used to be) relatively successful with using cannon fodder like this.
I'm not serious obv

ETA: this wouldn't help to increase defense, but would "support" some of this cohort to get jobs to fund themselves

You can't just sit on benefits she will have to show proof she is looking for work or she will be sanctioned

I agree. I think pp misread/ didn't read my post properly and took offence when I pointed out that some people will be more disabled than they are, which is factual.

I do think that there has to be cuts to welfare across the board, including disability. I (personally) would remove lower rates, that is my view which I'm aware those claiming wouldn't like. I would see this as preferable to removing any provision from those with higher rates as they are likely to be more disabled and more requiring of the money either for the points you've raised or because they cannot work at all. I do think there will be welfare cuts, I'm not sure how there can't be given the levels. Those who are most severly disabled should always be supported in my opinion as some of the most vulnerable. I wouldn't want to see the reverse especially if the right to die bill gets brought in without sufficient safeguards for such people.