Please or to access all these features

Politics

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

1000 replies

Schlossadler · 17/09/2026 16:00

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
bingobangs · 18/09/2026 15:46

A long term defence plan would be agreed by all parties, over a period outside of the electoral cycle so the military are never dependent on how popular a government or its leader is or isn’t. It is intended to provide predictability for the armed forces and the defense industry, ensuring procurement etc is not canceled or altered by a change in government. Military leaders have long advocated for it to happen in the UK.

Exactly

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 15:47

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 15:42

@Pineneedlesincarpetpersonally I think things like defence, the NHS needs long term strategy so it’s pointless having one party introduce something that another party then reverses if they get into power.

Bit urgent now though, defence. We probably shouldn't wait until 2029.

I thought Kemi came up with some ideas but Labour didn't like them...

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 15:49

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 15:40

Why though? Labour have a huge majority. They don't need the consent of other parties.

Its because the PLP won't agree in reality isnt it.

Yes it’s not really relevant. They can get stuff through.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 15:51

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 15:49

Yes it’s not really relevant. They can get stuff through.

Exactly. So pretending we need "consensus" now before we take any action is odd. Just in case the next government in 2029 changes its mind? Not really sure this tactic works.

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 15:52

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 15:08

Interesting.

In almost every part of the country the largest single employer is the public sector.

Housing rents and yields are propped up by housing benefit, instead of being allowed to fall. Motability props up the new car industry. UC+PIP go straight into consumption

This is the current UK economy.

OP posts:
Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 15:53

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 15:47

Bit urgent now though, defence. We probably shouldn't wait until 2029.

I thought Kemi came up with some ideas but Labour didn't like them...

Edited

You can see how this is going to play out.

One of the several bad actors will inflict some infrastructure damage on the UK - think LHR, or a major hospital - perhaps there are casualties. Then the blame game will start…

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 15:54

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 15:51

Exactly. So pretending we need "consensus" now before we take any action is odd. Just in case the next government in 2029 changes its mind? Not really sure this tactic works.

I think some issues are difficult for Labour and that tends to be where people say the cross party line, then saying it’s Kemi’s issue.

It’s not, Labour are in power, and have the numbers for what they need to do. Unless Labour are saying they can’t think of proposals which work without Kemi.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 15:58

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 15:47

Bit urgent now though, defence. We probably shouldn't wait until 2029.

I thought Kemi came up with some ideas but Labour didn't like them...

Edited

I didn’t say do nothing until consensus, I think we should scrap the triple lock & put that money into defence spending. But defence planning does need a long term strategy….

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 16:00

BendyAndTired · 18/09/2026 10:37

A charmer? Hmm. Imagine, for a second, that you are constantly told you don’t deserve a quality of life, that you should be in abject poverty, that you don’t matter. I’m so sick and tired of seeing psychotic ‘we need to stop paying welfare’ shit everywhere. No one wants to live in constant financial insecurity, all the while being told from multiple sources that you’re either making up or exaggerating your disability, and that you need to work harder/more hours, and stop sponging. Can you imagine that @NorthXNorthWest? Contrary to media hype it’s actually incredibly difficult to get welfare support (my PIP was stopped earlier this year after a review assessor decided that my two chronic degenerative debilitating conditions were not impacting my ability to live independently, despite copious medical evidence and occupational health reviews and recommendations from my job) I’m now struggling to survive whilst I wait for my tribunal hearing (but it’s ok, they’ll back date the money once the panel reinstates my PIP, so it’s ok that I’m barely managing to pay my bills now)

We, as a country, could afford to support the disabled and low waged if we taxed the right people, (not the ones earning £50k, the ones earning £500k+ or international companies that are tax dodging whilst paying below-living-wage salaries in the UK) So forgive me if I get angry and sweary when I see this kind of fuckwittery day in day out. The economic models exist, it wouldn’t bankrupt the country or turn everyone into workshy scroungers, it would genuinely benefit everyone.

But no, slash benefits and welfare. That’s the answer.

Who has said folk need to live in abject poverty? They’ve said people need to stand on their own two feet and those that can work, should work.

I’ve also said that those that need support should get better support than at present.

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 16:01

Quelle surprise.

Labour’s family farm tax raid was flawed and ruined relations with the countryside, Sir Keir Starmer’s former rural minister has said.

Daniel Zeichner, who was the minister for the environment from 2024-2025, said The Treasury forced the policy through without considering the political fallout among rural voters.

Mr Zeichner said that too many government officials with no knowledge of the countryside were responsible for scrapping the decades-long inheritance tax exemption for agricultural land in Labour’s 2024 Budget.

This initially left family farms facing a 20pc levy on assets worth more than £1m. Rachel Reeves, then chancellor, later increased the threshold to £2.5m after a fierce backlash saw farmers drive their tractors through Westminster in protest.

Mr Zeichner said: “I think the problem is that there probably weren’t people close enough to the discussion who knew enough about rural areas and farming to know what the response would be.

“They looked at it from a tax point of view, rather than understanding the politics.”

OP posts:
Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 16:03

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 15:58

I didn’t say do nothing until consensus, I think we should scrap the triple lock & put that money into defence spending. But defence planning does need a long term strategy….

Bear in mind about 9% of the defence budget is to cover pension liabilities….

OP posts:
ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 16:03

BendyAndTired · 18/09/2026 10:41

Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting how big a percentage of ‘welfare’ is Universal Credit top-ups paid to the working poor. Not just part-time workers, people who work full-time and still need UC to survive. A very quick simple fix for this is to set a true living wage as minimum wage, so that anyone working full-time doesn’t need UC, and they can earn extra and save etc by working overtime, instead of working overtime and gaining nothing because it just gets knocked off their UC.

Welfare isn’t all disability payments or to the completely non-working, but that’s an inconvenient truth that no one seems to acknowledge.

But why? Not all jobs should fund a lifestyle in their own merit. Some are truly menial and only really suited for students / those needing top-ups.

by forcing them to be paid at higher rates, you remove them from the table as employers just won’t create the openings (as their cost outweighs their value).

Re. People working FT needing UC top-ups, I’ve always wondered why people accept jobs + salaries that are insufficient for them to live on. It’s as if it’s like “oh, it’s ok, I’ll just accept this job rather than a harder better paid job as I’ll just get a top up anyway”.

Why don’t people better negotiate for the salaries they need rather than accepting salaries that don’t work for them and constantly moaning about how they need more top ups. Makes 0 sense

Theseagullwhisperer · 18/09/2026 16:04

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 15:54

I think some issues are difficult for Labour and that tends to be where people say the cross party line, then saying it’s Kemi’s issue.

It’s not, Labour are in power, and have the numbers for what they need to do. Unless Labour are saying they can’t think of proposals which work without Kemi.

But this is not really relevant to what I - or the military leaders who advocate for a long term strategic defence plans - are saying.

Norway, Finland etc don’t work consensually on defence because their governing parties don’t have ideas of their own, they do it to provide the military with stability over a long period, outside of electoral cycles.

It should have happened a long time ago, but better now than never - especially given the dangers of the world we’re living in.

Separately, I do think some of Kemi Badenboch’s rhetoric and her framing of the country as weak and divided is spectacularly unhelpful, and a gift to Russia.

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 16:07

Theseagullwhisperer · 18/09/2026 16:04

But this is not really relevant to what I - or the military leaders who advocate for a long term strategic defence plans - are saying.

Norway, Finland etc don’t work consensually on defence because their governing parties don’t have ideas of their own, they do it to provide the military with stability over a long period, outside of electoral cycles.

It should have happened a long time ago, but better now than never - especially given the dangers of the world we’re living in.

Separately, I do think some of Kemi Badenboch’s rhetoric and her framing of the country as weak and divided is spectacularly unhelpful, and a gift to Russia.

The DIP is ten years. I think this constant blame from Labour on anyone else is doing them no favours and in fact saw Starmer ousted.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 16:07

A big issue with the cost of living is wage stagnation, it’s not that easy to just demand higher pay & the cost of housing.

Remember at its peak council housing was more than 30% of all homes, I think it’s more like 6% today. This has a massive impact on the welfare budget.

Badbadbunny · 18/09/2026 16:10

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 15:43

Why doesn’t she go private? Could it maybe be done more quickly that way? I’ve given up on the NHS and normally go straight to private. Even for GPs. It’s embarrassing how quick you can get an appointment mainly because they bother to organise themselves properly vs the NHS.

Sadly I don’t however get a discount on my NI contributions…. Now there’s an idea?

Unfortunately, things that the NHS generally do quickly aren't readily available privately. Such as cancer treatment. My DH needed a femoral nail/pin to repair a fracture in his femur - NHS would literally admit him immediately and he'd just have to wait on a ward/admission lounge until there was a slot in the orthopaedic surgeon's operating theatre list which they said could be same day or could be next week - he opted to wait at home until they confirmed they had a bed on a ward and a slot on the operation list rather than risk languishing on a chair in an admissions lounge and being moved to A&E overnights (as the admission lounges closed overnight). We contacted several private orthopaedic surgeons/local private hospitals and none would do it on the grounds that the NHS do it virtually immediately anyway (by which they mean within a week or two).

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 16:11

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 16:07

The DIP is ten years. I think this constant blame from Labour on anyone else is doing them no favours and in fact saw Starmer ousted.

Why is everything framed around labour?

We have had 7 PMs in the last decade because no one can seemingly deliver what the electorate wants. I think too many want the impossible and that is the issue. Andy Burnham won’t deliver, nor who comes after him.

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 16:13

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 16:11

Why is everything framed around labour?

We have had 7 PMs in the last decade because no one can seemingly deliver what the electorate wants. I think too many want the impossible and that is the issue. Andy Burnham won’t deliver, nor who comes after him.

They are in power. If you follow the conversation you’ll see it’s about who can enact proposals. That’s Labour. They have the numbers to get what they want through.

On your wider point re Burnham, maybe he won’t idk.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 16:17

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 15:34

I don’t think that’s fair, I have had friends get ill very young which can make insurance prohibitive.

I guess it’s a moot point as they’d have known their circumstances from “very young” and thus their decision making basis didn’t change (re. The PP point: circumstances change).

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 16:17

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 16:11

Why is everything framed around labour?

We have had 7 PMs in the last decade because no one can seemingly deliver what the electorate wants. I think too many want the impossible and that is the issue. Andy Burnham won’t deliver, nor who comes after him.

Labour wanted power, and they won it - they have had more than two years, but I suppose we should write off the Starmer and Reeves tenure.

It’s squarely on Labour atm, I’m afraid, irrespective of how much they want to continue to pin their failings on the previous government.

OP posts:
bingobangs · 18/09/2026 16:19

@ExpectMorewell not really, 20 yr olds don’t necessarily think they will get cancer or a 17 yr old a heart condition. Of course that has an impact on your life.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 16:34

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 16:19

@ExpectMorewell not really, 20 yr olds don’t necessarily think they will get cancer or a 17 yr old a heart condition. Of course that has an impact on your life.

Apologies I’m not saying it doesn’t, and am sorry to hear of those specific cases.

the point was that they’re irrelevant in the context of the discussion.

my original proposition was that individuals should live within their means re. deciding to have kids they can’t afford.

poster said “but circumstances change”.

my point was that yes they do but many are foreseeable and insurable.

your point is irrelevant as unless those individuals had kids before 17/20 then their circumstances didn’t change in unforseeable nor uninsurable ways.

TemperanceWest · 18/09/2026 16:35

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 16:17

Labour wanted power, and they won it - they have had more than two years, but I suppose we should write off the Starmer and Reeves tenure.

It’s squarely on Labour atm, I’m afraid, irrespective of how much they want to continue to pin their failings on the previous government.

Anyone who expects 14 years of the Tories' mess to be turned around in two years is probably not a serious thinker.

BendyAndTired · 18/09/2026 16:43

Schlossadler · 17/09/2026 20:43

Your argument is that if welfare is cut, it will still cost the taxpayer.

Please explain why that would be the case - be clear.

The incentive for benefits fraud is clear. You get a tax free cash payment of up to £10k per year which is not means or employment dependent. Applications do not require a physical assessment and there are plenty of “PIP coaches” on social media to “help you understand the system”. (Search YouTube)

The median salary is £33k. After tax this is £27k. If you get PIP you get an 37% net pay rise. No wonder people are clamouring to sign up. PIP should be restricted to severe physically disabilities and mental disabilities that make it near impossible to work. It should be means tested and not available to those who are employed (as employed already legally have to provide reasonable adjustment for those with disabilities). It should be assessed in person and where possible provided not in cash but therapy or vouchers.

Edited

(I am not familiar with benefits tbh)

This is abundantly clear, and yet you seem to think you know enough to say we need to get rid of as much welfare as possible.

The incentive for benefits fraud is clear. You get a tax free cash payment of up to £10k per year which is not means or employment dependent. Applications do not require a physical assessment and there are plenty of “PIP coaches” on social media to “help you understand the system”. (Search YouTube)

Again, this demonstrates just how little you know about disability support, PIP is incredibly difficult to qualify for, the application system is confusing, convoluted and ignores so many aspects of disability and focuses on a few small things. The assessors are all healthcare professionals, but rarely have any knowledge of the individual conditions the people they are assessing struggle with. The questions are ambiguous and contradictory, one assessor asked me repeatedly if I could peel and chop carrots, despite me telling them that I can’t eat carrots as they trigger gastric issues connected to my long term incurable condition.

The median salary is £33k. After tax this is £27k. If you get PIP you get an 37% net pay rise. No wonder people are clamouring to sign up. PIP should be restricted to severe physically disabilities and mental disabilities that make it near impossible to work. It should be means tested and not available to those who are employed (as employed already legally have to provide reasonable adjustment for those with disabilities).

I have worked full time for most of my adult life, but now only work part-time due to my disability. I have never earned £33k, no matter how many hours I’ve worked. This ‘median’ figure is misleading as it’s skewed by the super high salaries of the 1%, and many people with disabilities will have their earning potential impacted so be on lower paid, minimum wage type jobs. You don’t have to be so disabled that it’s ’near impossible to work’ to need support. And whilst there may be a few PIP recipients that are high earners and don’t need the financial support, they do need the other support that qualifying for PIP gives you, like a blue badge for example. However, being disabled has been shown to make daily life more expensive, around £1k a month more expensive on average, and these costs can be varied, along with obvious things like physio (not always available on the NHS) there are expenses that wouldn’t occur to able bodied people, like increased heating costs, higher grocery bills due to needing to buy pre-prepared food, increased fuel due to having to drive more, or take taxis, because of mobility problems, help with basic domestic tasks like shopping (budget supermarkets like Aldi and Lidl done do online shopping with delivery, so online grocery shopping is more expensive) house cleaning and laundry (although housework and laundry are not covered in the PIP assessment, only preparing food, eating, walking and washing and bathing, as well as communicating, planning journeys, budgeting and managing therapy/medication. So, as long as I can drive my car, and put food in my mouth unaided it doesn’t matter if I can’t vacuum my floors, clean my toilet or do my laundry….) I know, crazy.

It should be assessed in person and where possible provided not in cash but therapy or vouchers.

Again, the assessors are rarely knowledgable of the various conditions the claimants need support with. In person assessments would be more expensive and still no more effective. What would help is if medical evidence was actually taken into account, but even though the DWP asks for evidence, it’s regularly ignored. A Doctor who’s diagnosed and treated a claimant would be able to tell the DWP if the claimant is impaired by their symptoms, but instead a general nurse who’s never met them will ask the PIP questions without any understanding of the individual or their condition.

Therapy or vouchers. What therapy? Most disabilities are not short term illnesses that can be cured, and whilst therapies can help manage symptoms, it won’t make the disabled person able to work full-time or gain professional qualifications so they can advance in their career and earn more.

Vouchers for what? Supermarkets so we can buy food? Petrol stations or taxi companies so we can get to work etc? (We already have ‘vouchers’ for this, it’s called ‘money’) Ok, who is going to issue and process these vouchers? Are they valid for only certain things?

So, @Schlossadler, when you’ve finished fixing our PIP support, then we can move on to the next ‘benefit/welfare’ bogeyman, Universal Credit. One solution is to legislate a proper living wage as the minimum wage. Make it so that anyone who works full time is able to live on what they earn. No UC top-up required. That would slash our welfare spending significantly.

I’m not sure what you propose to do about our pensions spending, after all, we’ve all been paying our NI and therefore that money is actually ours, so the govt can’t stop paying pensions, not really. So that chunk of ‘welfare’ spending is pretty stuck, sorry.

The other way to resolve or welfare spending is a Universal Basic Income. It’s been proven to work and be cost effective everywhere it’s been implemented. Everyone gets enough money to cover their basic living needs, if you want more, you can work to earn more. No means testing so that you get stuck in a benefits trap, just everything you earn, you can keep. This way you can choose to not work and be poor, or work as much as you need to to earn the extras you want.

Have I covered everything? I’ve not sworn in this so hopefully it won’t get deleted.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 16:44

HalzTangz · 18/09/2026 06:29

So you want UC claimant's to get £500 a week (£2k a month) is that including their housing benefit and council tax benefit? Taking them to be a higher earner than someone on National minimum wage.
I personally feel no monies should be given on benefits. It should be a voucher system, one for gas and electric, one for water, and one for food, a small clothing voucher and monthly bus pass should also be included to allow for claimant's travel to interviews etc. I firmly believe many people can't budget properly, put 'luxery items' before essentials and that's why there is a reliance on food banks. Take away cash so non essesiantials can't be purchased and provided vouchers for essentials only. If they want smart phones, nail dones, branded clothing then they go out and get a job

Good luck getting a job without a smartphone these days. Care workers are being expected to install workplace tracking apps on their personal phones.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.