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
EasternStandard · 19/09/2026 11:37

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:35

It is absolutely wild that - within the same thread - people are simultaneously arguing that the choices the Conservatives made over their 14yrs in government were all the fault of the previous Labour government, but at the same time that after only 2yrs in government, Labour shouldn’t be saying they are dealing with the fallout of the last Conservative government.

Austerity was a disaster. The cuts of that era were short-termist and badly thought through and have had unforeseen consequences that we are feeling the effects of both socially and economically now. Even Michael Gove has said cutting sure start was wrong - and contributed to some of the crisis for young people today.

It is really, really important that in getting the welfare bill down the same kind of mistakes aren’t made again.

Although even having said all that, I still don’t think Britain is broken. That isn’t my experience of my country or my community at all.

We need to get the debt down. It’s costing billions each year and gets passed onto the next generation.

AutumnColoursAreBeautiful · 19/09/2026 11:39

EasternStandard · 19/09/2026 11:37

We need to get the debt down. It’s costing billions each year and gets passed onto the next generation.

I agree. Until we stop adding to the debt plus start repaying the debt we are never getting out of this hole.

ExpectMore · 19/09/2026 11:39

Satmod · 19/09/2026 11:06

Speak for yourself! I have just come back from brunch with old friends…. Cafes were packed and thriving! Sun is shining, off to watch my daughter’s hockey match (at her school that she loves!) and I got my scan results on the superb NHS app yesterday - confirming I have nothing to worry about (they’d identified a thickening in the lung from a previous scan)

Well great to hear that you’re alright Jack!

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:41

EasternStandard · 19/09/2026 11:37

We need to get the debt down. It’s costing billions each year and gets passed onto the next generation.

Sure, but as has been pointed out numerous times throughout this thread, ill-thought through, performative cuts will not get the debt down - because they cost shift elsewhere.

Austerity showed that - and cutting Sure Start is probably the clearest example of it. People argued it was a necessary cut - but actually it has cost the tax payer more in the long run.

jobnotsure · 19/09/2026 11:41

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 10:57

I feel like he has better knowledge of both than most people on this thread. He wouldn't have done so well otherwise without understanding the country and the world.

Ah yes he’s an expert in making sure he doesn’t pay any personal tax in the UK that’s for sure!

ExpectMore · 19/09/2026 11:42

TemperanceWest · 19/09/2026 11:31

If austerity was such a great success why are we in such dire straits? Why, for example, do we have a COL crisis that began under the Tories?

Even Hammond more or less admitted that with hindsight austerity was a mistake.

It must be dark down there under the sand.

What the rest of us can see that you can’t is: a war in Europe, a war in the Middle East, Brexit (voted for by tribalistic idiots). Need I go on?

dwordle · 19/09/2026 11:44

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 11:05

"Austerity" had to happen due to Labour's mad spending. We had a record breaking deficit, the Conservatives didnt want to pile on more borrowing costs to future generations to pay for jam today and there was a threat of fiscal crisis. Presumably (unless a fiscal crisis happens this time) we will have to have the same austerity down the line again. Because Labour can't live within the means of the UK.

There was no mads spending, another lie. It was a crash caused by the rich gambling

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 11:45

jobnotsure · 19/09/2026 11:41

Ah yes he’s an expert in making sure he doesn’t pay any personal tax in the UK that’s for sure!

The guy is the owner of INEOS!!? Hes a massive plus for this country and the fact hes thinking about leaving is a disaster.

People love the thought of cutting off their noses to spite their face in this country. Its not good for the UK at all.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 11:46

dwordle · 19/09/2026 11:44

There was no mads spending, another lie. It was a crash caused by the rich gambling

There was mad spending. Remember Liam Byrne....

NorthXNorthWest · 19/09/2026 11:46

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 10:57

I feel like he has better knowledge of both than most people on this thread. He wouldn't have done so well otherwise without understanding the country and the world.

It's a very specific type of knowledge, driven by a very specific set of interests.

At best, he has half the skills required to get the country growing. He clearly understands how to invest and grow a business. But sustainable growth for a government also requires a productive workforce with decent living standards, job security and enough disposable income to spend. It requires a tax system that raises enough revenue to fund the infrastructure and public services that businesses and workers rely on, without disincentivising investment or productivity.

His handling of Grangemouth hardly makes him the go to authority on the workers' and their needs side of that equation. And his company's history with HMRC, well the less said about that the better..

EasternStandard · 19/09/2026 11:48

dwordle · 19/09/2026 11:44

There was no mads spending, another lie. It was a crash caused by the rich gambling

Which Labour benefitted from, hence the risk exposure.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 11:49

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:41

Sure, but as has been pointed out numerous times throughout this thread, ill-thought through, performative cuts will not get the debt down - because they cost shift elsewhere.

Austerity showed that - and cutting Sure Start is probably the clearest example of it. People argued it was a necessary cut - but actually it has cost the tax payer more in the long run.

Why? (Genuine question for once...!)

Yould have to quantify the benefit gained by the children who had Sure Start and then compare to those who didn't.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 11:50

NorthXNorthWest · 19/09/2026 11:46

It's a very specific type of knowledge, driven by a very specific set of interests.

At best, he has half the skills required to get the country growing. He clearly understands how to invest and grow a business. But sustainable growth for a government also requires a productive workforce with decent living standards, job security and enough disposable income to spend. It requires a tax system that raises enough revenue to fund the infrastructure and public services that businesses and workers rely on, without disincentivising investment or productivity.

His handling of Grangemouth hardly makes him the go to authority on the workers' and their needs side of that equation. And his company's history with HMRC, well the less said about that the better..

I think id prefer him in the country than most of Labour politicians who are clearly not experts in making anything better at all.

ExpectMore · 19/09/2026 11:51

jobnotsure · 19/09/2026 11:41

Ah yes he’s an expert in making sure he doesn’t pay any personal tax in the UK that’s for sure!

He’ll have paid more tax in the uk, in a single year, than the masses clambering for his money have combined in a life-time.

The sense of hatred for a man who has contributed financially and through the creation of jobs is unreal.

what would people prefer? He didn’t create jobs, he didn’t pay his tax, he just sat on his arse and shouted “tax the rich” like most of the masses?

yes he might have different political views to many but he’s objectively contributed more to the country than the vast majority of his criticisers.

ExpectMore · 19/09/2026 11:51

dwordle · 19/09/2026 11:44

There was no mads spending, another lie. It was a crash caused by the rich gambling

Well I mean they were paying doctors so much their salaries still haven’t caught up, by example

NorthXNorthWest · 19/09/2026 11:55

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:41

Sure, but as has been pointed out numerous times throughout this thread, ill-thought through, performative cuts will not get the debt down - because they cost shift elsewhere.

Austerity showed that - and cutting Sure Start is probably the clearest example of it. People argued it was a necessary cut - but actually it has cost the tax payer more in the long run.

Sure Start had promise but was a mixed bag. More consistent execution, compulsory attendance and financial consequence for non compliance against a range of measures, that parents would need to meet, would help.

theyneverchangedothey · 19/09/2026 11:57

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:41

Sure, but as has been pointed out numerous times throughout this thread, ill-thought through, performative cuts will not get the debt down - because they cost shift elsewhere.

Austerity showed that - and cutting Sure Start is probably the clearest example of it. People argued it was a necessary cut - but actually it has cost the tax payer more in the long run.

I agree. But ill thought out performative tax rises don’t work either. VAT on school fees? Additional taxes which have made being a private landlord financially unattractive, so now there is a shortage of supply and rocketing rents? Who would have thought it 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:57

ExpectMore · 19/09/2026 11:51

He’ll have paid more tax in the uk, in a single year, than the masses clambering for his money have combined in a life-time.

The sense of hatred for a man who has contributed financially and through the creation of jobs is unreal.

what would people prefer? He didn’t create jobs, he didn’t pay his tax, he just sat on his arse and shouted “tax the rich” like most of the masses?

yes he might have different political views to many but he’s objectively contributed more to the country than the vast majority of his criticisers.

Since 2021, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been near the top of the Times Rich List, but nowhere to be seen on the Times Tax List.

As people on this thread keep pointing out, we need to get the debt down somehow, so that future generations are not burdened with it. Tax is one way to do that.

NorthXNorthWest · 19/09/2026 11:58

jobnotsure · 19/09/2026 11:41

Ah yes he’s an expert in making sure he doesn’t pay any personal tax in the UK that’s for sure!

Probably because the UK has "The UK has been colonised by immigrants."

Differentforgirls · 19/09/2026 11:58

AutumnColoursAreBeautiful · 19/09/2026 11:34

I think the scariest part is the cuts we have to make are huge.

We have to cut enough so we aren't spending more than income each month and thus adding to the debt.

On top of that we have to cut further to start repaying the debt.

On top of that we have to factor in the fact that as our bonds fall due for repayment or refinancing the interest rate has gone up alot. So even with no extra borrowing our interest cost will be higher.

I honestly don't think people realise the scale of it.

The only other way out of course would be to dramatically increase income via growth and taxes. Some growth should be achievable but I don't think we are going to be able to purely grow our economy out of this mess.

There is only one solution and that is to make things 'acceptable' that we, society currently think is unacceptable. I mean sure we should grow our economy as well and pay our debt down as well. In the meantime the first job has to be to make spending less than income. No more borrowing except for investment for capital expenditure only that will back itself back.

So what do I mean by unacceptable cuts. We accept parents pay for their own kids and if they can't, they can go to the workhouse. Failing that we have to get used to kids on the streets hungry and homeless like days of old.
Same benefit claimants - pay for yourself, go to the workhouse or be on the streets.
Obviously not an ideal situation but years ago it was quite normal for children to be barefoot and ragged and starving living on bits of charity here and there.
Now apply this to every area.
If you need a doctor you pay for one. If you can't you don't get one.
If you need a house you buy or rent one and if you can't then you go to the workhouse.
You save for a pension and if you can't you go to the workhouse where you will likely die quickly.
Okay you get the drift.

We repay our debt, rebuild our country.
The price of this is some people will die. It's the way it was before the welfare state which was not that long ago.

We need to accept that no money means no service. Full stop.

As a byproduct immigration will drop like a stone after all there is no freebies to come for.

Law and order will probably suffer in the short term so we will likely need tougher laws and sentences. Execution for murderers. Severe sentences for minor crimes so they stop happening.

So for anyone that is about to protest in 'horror' give me a practical alternative.

None of the 'it's inhumane' or 'it's our job as society to care for the young and old'

That may well be your viewpoint but it does not balance our books.

Practical solutions to balance our books, reduce our debt, regain financial viability and rebuild the country.
So for anyone that is about to cry 'we can't do that because........' I want you to give me a real, practical solution to fix our spending/debt problem.

I think there will have to be a phasing situation though.
So state pension for example. Frozen in value.
People in sixties get 80%, people in fifties get 60%, people in their forties get 40%, people in their thirties get 20% and people in their twenties get nout cos they have time to save still. Then as people die off the state pension no longer exists.

Remember when / if we manage to return the country to profitablity we can start paying things again if we choose to (once we can afford them).

I suppose I am saying we need to return to a pre welfare, pre NHS type of country until we 'fix' the issue.

Is this meant to be sarcasm?

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 11:59

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:57

Since 2021, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been near the top of the Times Rich List, but nowhere to be seen on the Times Tax List.

As people on this thread keep pointing out, we need to get the debt down somehow, so that future generations are not burdened with it. Tax is one way to do that.

Perhaps he also pays tax in other jurisdictions

Anyway that golden goose is heading off so he wont be there to tap for cash to pay for everyone else.

NorthXNorthWest · 19/09/2026 12:01

dwordle · 19/09/2026 11:44

There was no mads spending, another lie. It was a crash caused by the rich gambling

The truth is somewhere in the middle of what you are both saying.

ExpectMore · 19/09/2026 12:10

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 11:57

Since 2021, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been near the top of the Times Rich List, but nowhere to be seen on the Times Tax List.

As people on this thread keep pointing out, we need to get the debt down somehow, so that future generations are not burdened with it. Tax is one way to do that.

He paid £110m in 2018. That’s the equivalent of 22,000 median income earners.

That’s more than his fair share. In my books: he shouldn’t have to pay any more for the balance of his lifetime. He’s done his bit. Let others do theirs

Theseagullwhisperer · 19/09/2026 12:13

Pineneedlesincarpet · 19/09/2026 11:49

Why? (Genuine question for once...!)

Yould have to quantify the benefit gained by the children who had Sure Start and then compare to those who didn't.

There has been plenty of detailed, long-term research into just that, and the research shows that access to a Sure Start improved educational outcomes, reduced the number of 16-year-olds who received a criminal conviction, reduced hospital admissions and I’m sure much more. I think I read that for every £1 spent on Sure Start, the government saved £2 in reduced crisis intervention and healthcare costs. Cutting it is a perfect example of cost shifting. I’ll link to some of the studies below:

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/sure-start-achieved-its-aims-then-we-threw-it-away

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/effect-sure-start-youth-misbehaviour-crime-and-contacts-childrens-social-care

https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2023/02/replacing-lost-sure-start-centres-is-a-tacit-admission-of-austeritys-failure

This is what I mean when I say we need to be pragmatic - the government should think long term and make decisions on research and evidence.

Replacing lost Sure Start centres is a tacit admission of austerity’s failure

The Tories are trying to repair another chunk of the state they wished they hadn’t lopped off.

https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2023/02/replacing-lost-sure-start-centres-is-a-tacit-admission-of-austeritys-failure

dreamiesformolly · 19/09/2026 12:15

Differentforgirls · 19/09/2026 11:58

Is this meant to be sarcasm?

God, I’m really hoping so.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.