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?

If you have an issue with this thread then maybe you should take it up here?

This. Very well said.

This is slightly odd behaviour. If you have issue with what I've posted elsewhere report to mnhq. Now please leave me alone and stop derailing the thread.

Not very convincing if you don’t know which cap has been lifted.

Beveridge was quite clear about that:

“The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.”

Employment, training, healthcare and support (benefits etc) were all essential parts of a system where people were encouraged to work and provide more than the minimum for themselves and their families.

Benefit traps and other cliff edge that leave people little better or worse off for earning more contradict first part of that principle. Describing people who have worked and saved to provide themselves with more than the minimum as asset hoarders or selfish, or dismissing the work they did be able to afford more than the minimum as simply luck, doesn't reconcile with the second part.

That post war government had lots of challenges but was also pretty big on growing the economy, and getting people back into work not just taxing the hell out of it.

I'm not sure Beveridge or Attlee would recognise either extreme as the welfare state they were trying to create..

Bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Clearly not, because they had my post deleted.

Would the council also be responsible for safeguarding if something went wrong with having so many strangers around small children?

What about those where communal living would be inappropriate such as disabilities?

What happens if someone refuses to do their share?

Yes there are so many issues.

Labour spent too much. That was Labour's fault. That had to be sorted out by the Conservatives through austerity. They were right to blame Labour for the need for that austerity.

This time, Labour are spending too much again. They have also enacted policies that have made the economy worse. That is Labour's fault. They can't blame the Conservatives as the policies were enacted by Rachel Reeves. The economy has got worse under Labour.

Labour always ends a government with higher unemployment than when they go into government. For this government its only taken two years.

There's a theme here which I just can't put my finger on....

I think as a country we look down on illness and disability, but also don’t have the structures to reduce them. Presenteeism costs us billions, but we don’t adopt the social etiquette to help reduce the impacts of that. Long covid has put many out of work and this wave will do the same, despite economists putting the cost in double figure billions. Difficulty seeking healthcare means people leave things longer, there’s a wait and see approach from many GPs, a reluctance to refer or accept referrals, meaning people often have to have numerous appointments whilst health deteriorates and long waiting lists obviously don’t help. Airborne infection control is dire in healthcare, so staff become more ill as do patients. For some viruses this leads to worse long term outcomes and a new range of health problems - some directly linked and acknowledged, whilst others such as higher risk of heart attacks or cancers returning will show up time and again in research but won’t be acknowledged on a daily basis. Women’s issues are often overlooked or poorly dealt with, not just limited to periods, endo, menopause, but things like vitamin deficiencies tied to the symptoms the patient is seeking help for, whilst being told bloods well below acceptable thresholds are normal. All this comes at a cost.

1. surely the individual responsible for committing the crime will be held account? Why would the council need to be?
2. I guess there’s a few options: a) they’re exempt b) they get used to it, recognising most households are “communal living” and people tend to do just fibe
3. well if they don’t want to contribute then they don’t get to benefit. They’re welcome to find themselves somewhere also to live

Excellent point by PP re child benefit.
De-politicise it by removing it entirely and replacing with investment in child services, and/or milk and fruit vouchers.
Removes all the admon overhead cost which can also be diverted to provide those things.

Don’t worry - we all know who they are….

A lot of people saved the child benefit to give to their children. Don't think fruit or milk vouchers are accepted for uni fees or helping with a house deposit. I could be wrong.

People in work is the most important metric. It’s better for taxes raised, prospects for our dc and MH quality overall.

Too many people in the UK combined with a tax base insufficiently large to pay for those that can't pay for themselves. There's a reason, as well as oil revenue, that Norway is such a nice and well run place with only 5 million people compared to 70 million.

Because they would be forcing children into these homes with strangers? The crime wouldn't have happened otherwise. The council would have to make sure that these shared homes were safe, especially for the most vulnerable.

I imagine some would have to be exempt. My son is a wheelchair user and I can't imagine he'd be able to squeeze into a place full of people sharing. I assume they wouldn't be very big/wide either.

They already have healthy start vouchers for low income families which include milk, fruit, vegetables and baby formula.

Expect the Labour Fifth Columnists to roll over on this…that will be another hole for the UK tax payer to fill.

Caribbean states are preparing to sue Britain under international “racial discrimination” laws to secure slavery reparations, The Telegraph understands.
Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, is hosting a conference this week to discuss strategies for obtaining compensation, and has suggested legal action through the international courts as one option.
She told supporters that it was time to “stop being advocates in a movement, and start being advocates in a case”, adding that campaigners could have an “in” with the courts.

The Telegraph has learnt that legal experts in the Caribbean are looking into a potential reparations lawsuit against Britain on the basis of UN treaties covering racism.

Agree. Given some of the atrocious things that have happened to children in care and adults in care homes etc. I very much doubt local councils could collectively keep millions of people safe.

It is a bonkers idea.

Good - will happily support then in this - good work. Better than the nail bars benefiting.

They've been available for many years. Since 2006.

I imagine it more like university halls, every family has their own connected bedroom(s) with a bathroom, kitchens and living areas are shared with X number of families. The building itself could house lets say 100 family units, it would have a nursery free for all to use and meals would be communal, so all children would be guaranteed food, regardless of the choices of their parents. Clothing would be provided by a Clothing bank or similar. There are predatory strangers we encounter everywhere in life, we can't be fully protected from that. I view it more as a commune than a "workhouse", although everyone would be expected to contribute according to their abilities. People with serious physical disabilities likely would not be placed in such a home unless it was deemed suitable. It's not meant to be a punishment, it is practical solution for an overcrowded country with limited housing and a large welfare burden. You can leave at any time, it is not a prison.

Well there’s a saving right from the off. As a country we shouldn’t be giving people money that they can afford to put aside for a house deposit or uni fees.