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
selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 16:48

unlimiteddilutingjuice · 18/09/2026 06:52

Governments are constantly enacting welfare reform.

The benefits system is one of the most constantly "reformed" parts of the state.
Every government seems to feel duty bound to ficker about with it.

Thats one reason why social security legislation is so complex. And Welfare Rights Officers (such as myself) can't take a career break without coming back and finding everything changed.

Most recently we've seen cuts to the amounts paid to people who have "Limited Capability for Work Related Activity" under Universal Credit.

But honestly....there's always something.
Check out the "News" section of the RightsNet website for an idea of how quickly and constantly the benefits system changes.

Personally I wish governments would leave the benefits system alone and let everyone get used to one set of rules. It can't be efficient to keep chopping and changing.

No, it isn't in the slightest bit efficient to keep changing the rules.

The much-maligned cottage industry of claims coaches only exists because the Govt keep changing the rules. Genuine claimants live in constant terror that the next change will leave them destitute and turn to claims coaches to try to get some peace of mind.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 16:49

TemperanceWest · 18/09/2026 16:35

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

Maybe so but you wouldnt have expected this alleged turn around to actually make things significantly worse.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 16:50

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 06:41

Equally, the tax payer retains the right to ‘strike’.

By means of retirement, migration, cutting hours, mitigating liabilities (think Rayner, except the legal method) - in short, doing everything they can to reduce the government’s tax revenue.

Whether you would choose it or not, welfare reform is going to happen - but I think you already know this.

You're clearly not so sure of that, otherwise you wouldn't have posted this thread asking "What will it take for the Government to enact welfare reform?"

LoisGriffinskitchen · 18/09/2026 16:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 16:52

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 07:04

Alas, and despite the repeated Labour rhetoric - you cannot tax your way to growth.

You can't cut your way to growth either.

Boomer55 · 18/09/2026 16:53

Schlossadler · 17/09/2026 16:00

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

When they feel able to get it through a vote. Then they will.

TemperanceWest · 18/09/2026 16:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Don't let that poster get to you. It is what he wants. 💐

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 16:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I hope that Labour manage to cut welfare so that the country can both defend itself and not go bankrupt so that there is money to continue to support your son if he needs support. Because if the country does go bankrupt there won't be even vouchers. I think thats in essence what people are saying without getting personal.

Individual cases are sad but mainly relevant only to you. For example I'm keen on defence funding becuase I have two sons of fighting age and really don't want them to have to fight in a war. That's probably sad from your perspective but perhaps not hugely relevant to you as your son is unlikely to be called up presumably. We all have our own priorities and concerns.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 16:59

BendyAndTired · 18/09/2026 16:43

(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.

You’re mistaken. A mean would be skewed, a median wouldn’t be.

plus: those earning less than the median would have an even higher % uplift from being on PIP.

RedToothBrush · 18/09/2026 17:00

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 15:52

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.

"Current"

There is a problem here staring us in the face with that word which people aren't grasping fully and we all need to. Quickly.

This energy crisis has profound implications.

We might not be looking at a recession. We might well be looking at a depression from the complete collapse of our logistics networks in haulage and agriculture.

This has implications for existing government support and what CAN be done.

Vouchers instead of benefits are a realistic option no matter how much you despise the concept.

This is NOT a politically partisan situation. Macron has spelt this out by simply having his meeting and the reaction by other politicians at it.

We are potentially having the wrong conversation here - we are having yesterday's conversation, not today's. We need to be honest about this crisis and start planning for it's implications and just how deep that might go.

I don't give a shit what your political leaning is - this is the conversation we will all be forced into.

What are we going to have to protect, and how do we prioritise everything and everyone. And I do mean everything.

If this goes on into October/November or beyond we have catastrophic potential outcomes to consider due to diesel prices. Especially if the US bans diesel exports.

And I don't think anyone as a country is really ready for having this conversation because it's just so big and frightening. It's definitely not a conversation I want. There's plenty of stuff I'm not saying because frankly I don't think most people are ready to absorb the ramifications. A critical breaking point of some description will have to be reached in everything breaking before that conversation is had. It will not be a nice realisation if we get to that stage.

There are no options left for Burnham, never mind good ones in my brutally honest opinion.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 17:02

@ExpectMorebut should they have dc in the future?

What level should be one at to determine they can afford dc? Why wasn’t this a requirement of previous generations? Look at birth rates, people have decided they can’t afford dc.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 17:04

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 07:06

But not every unemployed person will need benefits?

Some may choose not to work. Some (hopefully most?) will be in families and supported by their families not benefits (= other tax payers). Some might even put away savings whilst employed to cover periods of unemployment or take out insurances.

Christmas temp jobs are a blessing for students btw

An unemployed person's family are also taxpayers. The Adult Children board is full of posters being told not to support their NEET adult offspring but make them claim benefits until they find a job and pay towards their keep. Wheh someone is paying to support a relative, they are still paying taxes whilst paying the full cost for that relative. Why should the full cost of a person's unemployment (which, under capitalism, is a feature not a bug) fall to their immediate family alone?

The people lowest down the heap, the precariat, they never earn enough to save a safety fund. Benefits cuts hurt those people the most. Even most salaried working people are one missed paycheque away from disaster.

Lots of people having savings is bad news for an economy. Prosperity is a consequence of money changing hands all the time, not sitting in someone's bank account doing nothing. In a fiat currency economy predicated on continuous growth (which is an impossible outcome, hence periodic recessions), savings are a terrible thing for the economy at large. Part of the purpose of inflation is punish savers and encourage them to spend their money, get it moving through the economy again.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 17:04

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 17:02

@ExpectMorebut should they have dc in the future?

What level should be one at to determine they can afford dc? Why wasn’t this a requirement of previous generations? Look at birth rates, people have decided they can’t afford dc.

Well it’s for them to decide not me.

my proposition is that:

  1. if they can afford them then crack on and have them (if they want)
  2. if they can’t afford them then of course they shouldn’t have them. Why bring kids into the world that you knowingly can’t afford expecting everyone else to
Kirbert2 · 18/09/2026 17:09

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I doubt that would actually happen because it would cost more money in the long term.

My son is younger so it's DLA but it honestly doesn't even touch the sides when it comes to his disability costs.

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 17:09

Pineneedlesincarpet · 18/09/2026 16:49

Maybe so but you wouldnt have expected this alleged turn around to actually make things significantly worse.

True. Starting with ramping up youth unemployment caused by the first budget. That is going to make welfare a bigger issue.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 17:11

@ExpectMorebut I am asking you what this looks like? I am not entitled to any benefits so presumably I can afford my dc. If I had a disabled child or one who became disabled I don’t think I could afford them.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 17:11

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 07:14

Why is it the state (= other peoples) responsibility to put in place better preventative health care? The fundamental of how to avoid most lifestyle caused health issues are basic: eat healthily, move more. Everyone should understand and have a responsibility to their own body to do that. If they choose not to, then others shouldn’t be forced to pickup the bill.

Similarly for mental health. What happened to parents teaching their kids good mental health and helping them become resilient individuals (the stiff upper lip some might say). Why is it not that a change in weather and half the population are wobbling? Noting: my previous solution goes 80% to addressing this issue also

We shouldn’t need the state to provide basic functions for society. That where the cost comes from.

It doesn't matter whose fault an outcome is when it costs the State money. It's in the State's interest to mitigate it, regardless of fault.

The stiff upper lip is the opposite of resilience. Bottling stuff up until you explode isn't resilience. Feeling the uncomfortable feelings, processing them, and moving on is what resilience actually looks like.

One could argue that teaching kids to read and add up is a basic function of society. Yet hardly anyone thinks we should abolish State-funded schooling. There's a consensus that the benefits of mass literacy far exceed the costs.

The only two criteria for a State intervention should be "is it lawful?" and "will it save more than it costs?" Not "whose fault is it?". The Govt is here to run a country, not police playground spats.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 17:13

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 17:09

True. Starting with ramping up youth unemployment caused by the first budget. That is going to make welfare a bigger issue.

Edited

when it was at record levels in the past did it make welfare a bigger issue? The ageing population is a huge part of why welfare is a big issue now.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 17:17

@ExpectMorehealth is complex

“Researchers found people in their 50s, 60s and 70s were more likely to have serious health problems than people who were born before or during the second world war when they reached that age”

Theseagullwhisperer · 18/09/2026 17:21

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 17:04

Well it’s for them to decide not me.

my proposition is that:

  1. if they can afford them then crack on and have them (if they want)
  2. if they can’t afford them then of course they shouldn’t have them. Why bring kids into the world that you knowingly can’t afford expecting everyone else to

But this is an ideological, hypothetical stand point. The fact is the two child benefit cap did not work - it didn’t disincentivise people on low incomes from having more children, it pushed more children into poverty and as a consequence shifted costs onto the tax payer through health and social care, and according to school leaders it widened the attendance and attainment gaps for children from low income families - in the long run, that will further add to the benefits bill, by exacerbating the NEET crisis.

Reinstating it would be an act of ideological, performative spite - it would cost the tax payer money to prove a point. I personally don’t think that’s a good way to govern.

Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 17:24

BendyAndTired · 18/09/2026 16:43

(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.

Genuinely, thanks for your comprehensive reply - I shall reread it.

OP posts:
Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 17:29

RedToothBrush · 18/09/2026 17:00

"Current"

There is a problem here staring us in the face with that word which people aren't grasping fully and we all need to. Quickly.

This energy crisis has profound implications.

We might not be looking at a recession. We might well be looking at a depression from the complete collapse of our logistics networks in haulage and agriculture.

This has implications for existing government support and what CAN be done.

Vouchers instead of benefits are a realistic option no matter how much you despise the concept.

This is NOT a politically partisan situation. Macron has spelt this out by simply having his meeting and the reaction by other politicians at it.

We are potentially having the wrong conversation here - we are having yesterday's conversation, not today's. We need to be honest about this crisis and start planning for it's implications and just how deep that might go.

I don't give a shit what your political leaning is - this is the conversation we will all be forced into.

What are we going to have to protect, and how do we prioritise everything and everyone. And I do mean everything.

If this goes on into October/November or beyond we have catastrophic potential outcomes to consider due to diesel prices. Especially if the US bans diesel exports.

And I don't think anyone as a country is really ready for having this conversation because it's just so big and frightening. It's definitely not a conversation I want. There's plenty of stuff I'm not saying because frankly I don't think most people are ready to absorb the ramifications. A critical breaking point of some description will have to be reached in everything breaking before that conversation is had. It will not be a nice realisation if we get to that stage.

There are no options left for Burnham, never mind good ones in my brutally honest opinion.

An excellent post.

OP posts:
Schlossadler · 18/09/2026 17:32

Vladimir Putin is preparing to escalate his war against Ukraine and intensify hybrid attacks on Kyiv’s allies in Europe.
Western intelligence officials believe the Russian leader is laying the ground for a “stealth mobilisation” after elections this weekend, in which thousands of Russians could be drafted.
“What we are seeing is administrative preparations to make it possible to do it, if that was the decision,” one intelligence source told The Telegraph.
European leaders, meanwhile, have warned that the Kremlin’s hybrid war against the West is likely to intensify.
Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, responded on Thursday by ordering a plan to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure and defence industries from potential sabotage.

Poland’s Donald Tusk has warned Russia is planning missile strikeson countries supporting Ukraine, adding that Moscow plans to describe the incidents as “accidental” to test the Nato alliance.

OP posts:
bingobangs · 18/09/2026 17:32

@RedToothBrushI completely agree it’s not a politically partisan situation & that we aren’t ready to have the conversations.

Kirbert2 · 18/09/2026 17:41

BendyAndTired · 18/09/2026 16:43

(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.

I dread to think how any potential vouchers would work. It would be an utter nightmare.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread