£12 billion saving on welfare?

[user1471453601]

What do you think that actually means? Does it mean even fewer civil servants ( which translates to longer waiting to get a benefit you are entitled to?) Or a reduction of payments to those worse off who need to receive, and in some cases, are entitled to those benefits?

Sunak doesn't say. What do you say?

How can they support women when they allegedly don’t know what they are? 😂

This is so true.

There is one measure that could improve many people's mental health- a very large defeat for the Tories on July 4th. Think of all the professions they denigrate for example.

Think of all the professions they denigrate for example.

I think the government engaging positively with people in all manner of walks of life will make a huge difference over the coming months.

How insecure must one be to constantly denigrate people who are working hard to do difficult jobs?

It's completely unreasonable. You know that, right?

This is a conduit for opinion. It is not a court of law. Demanding evidence assumes an authority the poster does not have.

It is also frequently used as a ploy to blur the truth. For example, someone posted that the government was going to attack PIP recipients, a very vulnerable group. Another poster immediately demanded evidence. But Rishi Sunak announced this about two months ago and there is currently a Tory green paper on how PIP might be replaced with a voucher scheme. Furthermore, the Conservative manifesto details a tax giveaway funded by "welfare benefit savings". Not a massive leap of imagination, therefore, for a worried disabled person to conclude that our current PM does not have the best interests of the disabled at heart. The response, though, was not to argue that conclusion or to suggest an alternative plausible conclusion. No, it was to demand "evidence". So the most disgusting excesses of the most disgusting government the UK has ever had are hidden behind a supporter-generated smokescreen - unable to argue the conclusion, a demand for "evidence" casts just enough doubt on the original conclusion.

Not only is it not "fair enough", it's a reprehensible ploy to silence an unanswerable criticism. In my view, people who do this are beneath contempt, and no, I won't be providing "evidence" of that.

Mel Stride says the savings will be from getting people into work, to be moved off of disability/sickness benefits..

What proportion of people currently in receipt of benefits does he envisage need to be moved into work in order to achieve those savings, and has he said how it will be done? Because I don't trust the Tories not to be punitive rather than supportive.

Mel Stride will say anything in support of his government. He knows he won't have to enact any of this in any case. He presided over the Loan Charge which has involved at least seven suicides and has made it clear he has no interest in the effects.

That's a very grave charge. And untrue.

He is deeply affected that there aren't more. Means he hasn't tried hard enough.

That’s a joke, isn’t it? 😀

Don’t provide evidence for questionable assertions and they won’t be believed. I manage to back up my posts - I think people must be bored to death with my links. It’s hardly a contemptible ploy to ask the same of someone debating with me.

Well, guess what? PIP isn't an out of work benefit. Many recipients are already working and paying tax. So Mel Stride is lying.

I think I explained myself very clearly. I was not talking about "questionable assertions" but opinion or conclusion from known facts. Just because you do something doesn't mean others are obliged to do the same. I refer you to the final sentence of my previous post.

All those who can work should work,

Nope.
If someone can afford not to work without claiming benefits, why should they?
Carers whose caring duties prevent them from working any but the most part time of jobs save the UK a fortune, so why should they be made to work?
People in full time education - many do work, part time, but equally there are courses where part time work just isn't possible.

The data on people who are 'economically inactive' is far more complex than just 'Here is a big number of people who are not working, therefore all of them are able to work'.

From April 2022 until early May 2023, I was economically inactive. I didn't claim benefits, I lived off my savings. And anyone trying to make me work during that period would have had short shrift.

Sometime recently in the news, there was a gang who’d claimed 50 million in fraudulent benefits. Perhaps that’s what they want to target.

Maybe we could combine the national lottery with claiming benefits ? Fill in a slip every week (for a fee naturally) and see if your claim comes up.

We could televise it with slow-mo soft focus life stories of the unfortunate. Like a sort of sob story jukebox. Get the public to choose between "my husband was killed I was left paralysed by a drunk driver" (maybe sponsored by Pimms) or "I was born with no arms and legs but have a job in a circus".

They should work, and by that I mean paid work, because contributes to GDP, even if it has less value than the caring other voluntary work they do.

Surely you know that?
We are all meant to be good GDP creating machines.

Look like that re Labour back to work scheme and reducing immigration via training up more local workers

I was about to reply very crossly, but then I saw it was you!