What will it take for the Government to enact welfare reform?

[Schlossadler]

What has to break, before the Government is finally willing to enact welfare reform?

I can’t think of many cuts that wouldn’t get similar responses. Pensions - people who rely just on that are on low amounts. UC - 8m need it. Carers allowance - the pp mentioned the amount per hour.

Every suggestion will be countered. But we can’t pile ever more debt onto dc.

It may not have affected the number of children people had. It did affect the number of children the tax payer had to pay for.

"Events, dear boy, events"

"Crisis? What crisis?"

The news cycle is getting interesting.

Hold onto your hats.

Yes - but the tax payer DID have to pay for those children in other - more expensive - ways, through increased health, education and social services costs. We’re also going to have to keep paying for those kids, if they end end up trapped in long term unemployment because poverty leads to poor educational attainment.

I don’t quite understand what you’re struggling to grasp about the fundamental economic principle of cost-shifting.

I dont quite understand what youre struggling to grasp about the fundamental concept of people taking responsibility for themselves and their family and not expecting other people to fund their decisions. Most people understand this.

Of course money is needed to provide those things but that doesn’t mean hand outs to parents is the most efficient or effective way of making sure children get them. The above (not an exhaustive list) are the objectives. Investment in housing, education, childcare, skills and employment and retraining etc would actually help make permanent, targeted improvements in many cases rather that just handing out increasing amount of money and calling it job done.

You are rather prickly this morning.

Do you work @Schlossadler ? What are your circumstances?

Excellent post 👏 👏 👏

Unfortunately the government's changes in the employers national insurance and the employees day one rights have meant that employers are less likely to take a punt on a disabled person (or young person) that they may have before. There's too much risk if it doesn't work out.

But that’s an ideological point - not a pragmatic one. If you take all morality out of it the two child benefit cap did not work on its own terms: it did not disincentivise people from having larger families, and it didn’t save the tax payer money: in fact it cost the tax payer money, by increasing financial pressures on the state elsewhere.

We have to be much more realistic and evidence based about what will actually get the welfare bill down. You can’t run a country if all you’re interested in is trying to win an ideological debate. Most people understand this - and I think it’s a big part of why Andy Burnham is the most popular party leader right now: people agree with him that as a country we need less party political point scoring and more problem solving.

You don't speak for all tax-payers. Many of us are bright enough to see what the likes of Farage and Badenoch and Lowe are trying to do iro of welfare and we are not buying it.

Aye, it was quite short sighted of them to do that. They did not take time to make sure it was robust or consider the further consequences.

Yes such a basic error.

Its not ideological. Its the setting principled limits and parameters of state assistance. Its a deterrent...telling people to think twice about having more than two kids if you can't support them. The taxpayer cannot continue to fund the lifestyle of people who chose to bring children into the world that they know they cannot pay for. State assistance should not be used for this.

Andy Burnham hasn't done anything yet. That's why hes currently slightly popular. Your point scoring point is hilarious given that's all he seems to do in PMQs (just after claiming he hates point scoring).

Interesting - how does it work then? Surely makes it even easier to abuse the system?

Many of these "bright" folk obviously havent been looking at what the UK economy has been up to in the last few years. Current welfare is unaffordable.

Obviously people aren’t going to say cut my payments, so it’s a voting issue too. We have enough people dependent on the state to always move towards higher spending and debt. Hence the problem now and for next generation.

It's based on needs, not diagnosis. Some diagnosis can take years.

Medical evidence is required as well as the parent/carer filling out forms and typically, if school/nursery age, any evidence supplied by them too.

But it simply did not work as a deterrent. https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/research/two-child-limit-and-benefit-cap-fail-to-meet-aims/

“The taxpayer cannot continue to fund the lifestyle of people who chose to bring children into the world that they know they cannot pay for” is the definition of an ideological point, because you’re saying it on principle, even though sticking to that principle is actually more expensive for the tax payer, because you’re cost-shifting to education, health, social care etc.

PMQs is not where point scoring or not actually matters - although the Prime Minister’s rhetoric is noticeably less aggressive than some other politician’s there too - where it actually matters is in seeking genuine cross party support and consensus for pragmatic, evidence based policies. My instinct is Andy Burnham is a genuine pragmatist in that regard, but you’re right - it’s early days.

My point though, is less about Andy Burnham
himself, and more that the public is largely sick of ineffective, ideological point scoring on welfare and want to see realistic, pragmatic, long term reforms.

You are talking ultimately about the inflationary outlook - premised on the ME, I assume.

Now, that is something I can discuss with you.

Small study and obvious bias in population studied but ok. What’s the answer then? People need to understand that there are consequences to their decisions and it shouldn’t matter whether there are cultural issues - we as a state cannot afford to provide unlimited support to people who choose to have more than two children. We can’t afford to support people who want a pet but can’t afford a pet. At some point people have to take responsibility for their own lives.

You get that first (and only) shot for free.

It would be interesting to learn the position from which you are coming in on this @Schlossadler ?

work? Children? In receipt of any benefits?

we won’t get a straight answer. Guaranteed