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
NorthXNorthWest · 17/09/2026 23:00

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 22:36

The short version of your plan is:
Push up crime through destitution, make more kids live in poverty, further reduce the national birth rate, increase government borrowing for tax cuts, plus loads of additional spending from who knows where.

You can't lift children out of poverty just by giving more and more handouts to parents who are unable or unwilling to parent well. The government loves to talk about “lifting children out of poverty”. You can give parents enough money to reach a certain level, but you can't guarantee that the child will see much benefit. And tackling income poverty won't necessarily address disadvantage, which is a whole other issue.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 17/09/2026 23:01

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 22:54

There’s choices:

  1. steal to get what you need
  2. work to get what you need

We need to ensure people do the later through ensuring decent moral standards and necessary crime prevention and punishment measures.

I grew up in poverty and didn’t, nor did my parents, shop lift. We either went without or they found a way through overtime, doing without, and / or mending a making do.

And yet, back when stealing bread got you hanged or transported to the colonies, people still stole bread.

Someone whose children are hungry won't let them go without.

backformoreofthesame · 17/09/2026 23:02

Just handing out cash won’t help, true

But the things that do help all cost.

and if someone is an utter poverty nothing can help

punnedout · 17/09/2026 23:02

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 17/09/2026 22:58

We all sit on the spectrum somewhere

No, we don't. You are autistic, or you aren't.

Autistic people are disabled by their condition. Nine-tenths of autistic women are sexual violence victims compared to one-third of our neurotypical counterparts. This is in large part because we are disabled. We lack the social skills to detect and skilfully evade sexual predators. This lack of social skills is a disability that results doing really badly at interviews, struggling to even write the application letters, being unable to cope with working in retail and hospitality, making enemies on the factory floor without understanding why, and being bullied in the office.

And then on top of that nine-tenths of autistic women live with the trauma of sexual assault. And yes, #metoo.

No wonder so many autistic people can't get or keep jobs.

Not to mention damaging children by giving them a label

It's far far more likely that an autism diagnosis will be missed than one be incorrectly given. The assessment protocol is multi-stage and involves multiple professionals. Source: recent personal experience.

I'm not damaged by my diagnostic label. I am damaged from spending over forty years unsupported, thinking that all the times I said the wrong thing without even realising it were some kind of moral failing on my part.

I understand where you're coming from. However, it is undoubtedly true that there are diagnoses being sought privately by people across the country for their children who are not in your position and who are working the system. You clearly aren't doing that and actually one of my main frustrations is that people with genuine needs such as yours should be getting full(er) support but the funds are being diverted via bad actors across the board.

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:02

punnedout · 17/09/2026 22:58

I agree that it's talked about but we skirt around it. We're not having honest conversations about what the NHS is for and what we should be funding. These are difficult topics that need to be debated, rather than the rhetoric that I hear which is 'the NHS is failing but the people who work within it are wonderful (true in some cases but absolutely not true across the board) and we should add x, y and z to the care that we should all be entitled to. It's not free. It's not great. It's being taken advantage of by citizens and non-citizens. Not all NHS workers are heroes, a lot of them are shit.

No thinks it is free. It is free at the point of access, and the electorate understands that.

Every country talks in glowing terms about health workers, it is part of how a state persuades people to go into stressful jobs.

That doesn't mean people don't notice poor care happens from some staff.

StarDolphins · 17/09/2026 23:02

theyneverchangedothey · 17/09/2026 21:40

I would remove the triple lock and means test state pensions. Means test PIP and make it only for those with the most severe disabilities.
Invest in significant benefit fraud investigations, actually look at who is getting what.
Scrap the not fit for purpose NHS and create a partly paid for system with a safety net for those who absolutely can’t pay.
And yes, reintroduce the two child benefit cap.
Clearly, I’d never be voted in!!!

Means text state pensions as in if you have savings, you get less or none? Absolutely no thank you! I was told if I worked all my life and got my full NI record, I would receive SP. I’ve saved (instead of latest iPhone, big house etc) all my life and I want what I was told I would get if I met the criteria. I will spend all my savings then!

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:03

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 22:56

I comprehended what you wrote just fine. It wasn't complicated.

It's a fantasy list. Where are you getting all your money from?

The savings made through not funding those that can work to not work.

savings made through better management of the NHS. Eg a very simple example, ever tried to organise an appointment when you’ve an upcoming constraint?….:
” I can’t do week X so please don’t book an appointment then”
”you’ll have to see what what the magic appointment fairy decides for you and informs you by way of archaic letter. If it doesn’t work, you’ll have to tell us and we’ll issue another which might work”… I mean: the rest of normal operating organisations just let you book an appointment at a time that suits, not a novel nor complex concept and saves lots of to’ing and fro’ it.

saving’s on administering the tax system (reminder: was in my PP)

additional income (not savings) through enhanced GDP (again, in my PP).

None of this is radical or novel btw. Many other successful countries have similar approaches. We’ve just run ourselves into the ground by giving more and more handouts. It’s not longer a fair days pay for a fair days work. entltlement now is such that’s it’s a fair days pay for little to no work. System is broken

TemperanceWest · 17/09/2026 23:04

Sunshineandrainbow · 17/09/2026 22:54

What's the 400 a month?

I was chatting to someone who was just awarded higher rate pip and no review for 10 years. He was quite chuffed he would get approx £96,000 over the next 10 years. I actually didn't believe it and ended up googling and it seems correct. And he said this doesn't affect his housing benefit and other benefits he gets!

He must be quite seriously disabled to get the higher rates of both components and be subject to a ten year review. The latter is only applied to people who are never going to improve. Poor chap.

EasternStandard · 17/09/2026 23:04

KidsAndDogsGalore · 17/09/2026 22:06

Where are all the jobs for 16-24 year olds?

I don't blame them for claiming. It's the best time of their lives. Finished school, having a go at being independent and ready for the next stage in life.

Exept, they are stuck living at home, have no way of earning more than a few quid pocket money and slowly loosing hope of a better, independent future.

Labour’s policies have made it harder too. There needs to be more focus on this and jobs in general.

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:05

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 22:57

Add 'spend more on police, courts, prisons and probation' to your fantasy spending list too?

Not needed. After a while, with the right system, people will soon get the message.

see Singapore. Low levels of theft and I don’t see them having an overly costly policing and justice system. Or Japan?

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:07

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 17/09/2026 23:01

And yet, back when stealing bread got you hanged or transported to the colonies, people still stole bread.

Someone whose children are hungry won't let them go without.

So your solution is to give handouts to would be thieves? Come on, you can’t be real.

people shouldn’t steal and we shouldn’t have to give them handouts so they don’t.

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:08

NorthXNorthWest · 17/09/2026 23:00

You can't lift children out of poverty just by giving more and more handouts to parents who are unable or unwilling to parent well. The government loves to talk about “lifting children out of poverty”. You can give parents enough money to reach a certain level, but you can't guarantee that the child will see much benefit. And tackling income poverty won't necessarily address disadvantage, which is a whole other issue.

Logically speaking, you can lift anyone out of poverty by giving them money. Having enough money and wasting it is not poverty.

And tackling income poverty won't necessarily address disadvantage, which is a whole other issue. It is another issue. But tackling income poverty would address income poverty.

punnedout · 17/09/2026 23:09

CherryKerry · 17/09/2026 22:57

It needs cross party agreement. Until our politicians put the country before party politics it won't happen.

I was talking about this today. I agree and think that it should be taken outside party politics in a cross-party initiative and I think the public would support this. Only problem I came up with is so should defence! Doesn't feel like it'll ever happen sadly.

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:09

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:08

Logically speaking, you can lift anyone out of poverty by giving them money. Having enough money and wasting it is not poverty.

And tackling income poverty won't necessarily address disadvantage, which is a whole other issue. It is another issue. But tackling income poverty would address income poverty.

You do realise the poverty line is relative and ever shifting? By definition.

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:10

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:05

Not needed. After a while, with the right system, people will soon get the message.

see Singapore. Low levels of theft and I don’t see them having an overly costly policing and justice system. Or Japan?

Hmm

Pure fantasy. How do you propose to change one society into another without an expensive policy programme plus infrastructure? Will you send a memo to all households?

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:14

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:10

Hmm

Pure fantasy. How do you propose to change one society into another without an expensive policy programme plus infrastructure? Will you send a memo to all households?

Edited

You’re entirely missing the point.

I guess you’re in the “change is always too difficult box”.

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:15

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:09

You do realise the poverty line is relative and ever shifting? By definition.

IMO most adults understand both relative and absolute poverty, even if they don't know the £ figures involved in the UK currently. There is some denial and obfuscation about it amongst some, but the understanding is there.

TallSturdyGirls · 17/09/2026 23:15

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 22:24

We need to cut the “welfare bill” by getting the lazy and feckless into work and not making others bear the costs of their poor (/lack of) life planning and decision making:

  1. limit how long someone gets job seekers or equivalent for. Anyone looking for more than 6 months either isn’t properly looking or is expecting jobs / salaries they’re not qualified for. No-one should take more than 6 months to find a new job
  2. stop paying child benefit to more than 2 children. No-one needs more than 2 children. Most who would love more than 2 (me included) know we can afford them so choose not to have them. Yet our govt hands out more and more money to those that keep popping them out despite not being able to afford them. Why?
  3. stop paying PIP + other disability related payments to those that aren’t helping themselves ie many mental health illnesses. Yes they’re real illnesses. Yes they can often be prevented or treated by getting some structure and discipline in your life ie doing a job
  4. make those on unemployment related handouts do community work (simple unskilled manual jobs like street cleaning, park maintenance, etc etc) for a portion of their time off. I don’t get the argument of “but looking for a job is a full time job”. What a load of rubbish. Work expands to fill the time available. Most people find a new job whilst already in a job. It’s not a full time job in its own right

we should also make work pay and more attractive for all:

  1. cut ludicrous cliff edge cut offs like £100k childcare limits. Why should earning £1 extra cost you £ks. Makes no sense
  2. make childcare (inc nurseries) free to all that work. All year round not just term time. And truly free
  3. remove the 60% marginal rate at £100k+.
  4. stop making those that already contribute the most contribute even more. Simplify the tax system (= save money administering it) by giving everyone a flat rate tax of say 25%

Provide better support to those in society that need it:

  1. better disability support for those that truly need it. The current allowances are a pittance for those that actually need it.
  2. Better (managed and funded) healthcare system
  3. better support for those in care (young and elderly)

Improve GDP by

  1. better schools and universities including stopping teachers having a day off at cost to the economy every time there’s a faint gust of wind or flutter of snow: make them provide childcare even if they can’t teach to keep the economy going for a day
  2. upskilling the workforce: better schools and universities
  3. investing in national infrastructure (inc streamlining the planning processes) that enables a thriving economy

Your first point unfortunately shows a deep lack of understanding of the job market at the moment. 2 of my DC who are young adukts spent over 6 months looking daily for jobs. Dh, I and the job centre helped them with applications and CVs. Bith have a couple of years of experience and good references. Theh got 3 interviews between them. They went for every job going. Targetting the jobs with covering letters and changinf their cvs. From factory work, delivery jobs, night ahift work, "caring work, sales, call centes, everything they couks think of. They are bright, capable and able but nothing for 7 and 9 months. It was soul destroying. And they are bright, experienced lads with supportive parents.

NorthXNorthWest · 17/09/2026 23:16

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 17/09/2026 23:01

And yet, back when stealing bread got you hanged or transported to the colonies, people still stole bread.

Someone whose children are hungry won't let them go without.

Depending on the source, 70 - 75% of shoplifting is by frequent users of Class A drugs/ people with drug or alcohol addiction.

Some people might be stealing bread to feed their children but that does not seem to be the primary reason.

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:17

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:14

You’re entirely missing the point.

I guess you’re in the “change is always too difficult box”.

Sensible change is worthwhile but the things you're writing are just simplistic.

Theseagullwhisperer · 17/09/2026 23:17

punnedout · 17/09/2026 23:09

I was talking about this today. I agree and think that it should be taken outside party politics in a cross-party initiative and I think the public would support this. Only problem I came up with is so should defence! Doesn't feel like it'll ever happen sadly.

I agree - and I know on defence specifically, there are definitely other countries who make decisions in much more long term cross party way. I think in Norway, they plan defence spending across a 12-year period.

I think we’re too short termist, and way too ideological in our politics - it should be about finding solutions that actually work, not about winning party political arguments over a principle.

ExpectMore · 17/09/2026 23:20

concertinacornflake · 17/09/2026 23:17

Sensible change is worthwhile but the things you're writing are just simplistic.

Simple solutions are the best solutions. They always will be.

With the simplest solution being: get those that can work working

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 17/09/2026 23:21

punnedout · 17/09/2026 23:02

I understand where you're coming from. However, it is undoubtedly true that there are diagnoses being sought privately by people across the country for their children who are not in your position and who are working the system. You clearly aren't doing that and actually one of my main frustrations is that people with genuine needs such as yours should be getting full(er) support but the funds are being diverted via bad actors across the board.

I think that part of what drives the uptick in seeking SEND diagnoses in young children is that we have a compulsory school starting age of the term after your child's fifth birthday, yet it's become routine to start sending children to "reception" from four. That's 20% less life length, 20% less development, and these kids are being expected to learn like five year olds, sitting at desks and doing worksheets. Naturally, some of them struggle. I recall once failing to recognise that my bladder was full in reception and wetting myself in class. This would be regarded as an example of a child not being "school-ready". I was four, and whilst there'd have been something amiss if I hadn't been generally toilet-trained, a one-off mishap isn't actually unremarkable at that age.

We are applying the behavioural standards appropriate to five-year-olds to four-year-olds and, instead of saying "some kids aren't suited to full school days at four, and that's OK, perhaps Johnny should stay in half-day nursery for another year and join school in year one", we are treating Johnny like he's a problem, which means that either Johnny's parents are crap at parenting or Johnny is disabled. Guess which of those is more palatable to Johnny's parents? In fact, neither is true and Johnny is within the expected range of behaviours for a four-year-old.

The problem with Johnny staying in half-day nursery for another year has been hinted at by the poster who bemoaned the damage that school snow days cause to the economy: mum needs Johnny in full-day school in order to go back to work. We've collectively started treating schools as daycare instead of the means of educating children.

As long as we keep sending kids to school too young, we will keep seeing parents seeking diagnoses for young children.

Kirbert2 · 17/09/2026 23:21

punnedout · 17/09/2026 22:39

Your friend clearly needs this financial support and is absolutely deserving of it. No question that people in her situation should receive state support.

HOWEVER, I also know of people who aggressively seek out private diagnoses for their children so that they can claim maximum financial support just because they think they should be able to work the system. This is wrong and it is happening EVERYWHERE. It is morally wrong, we can't afford it and it needs to be stamped out. We all sit on the spectrum somewhere and it is indefensible for huge numbers of the public to be working the system to claim support for things they should not be entitled to. Not to mention damaging children by giving them a label when (in the case of the children I know, where the parents have sought multiple opinions before getting 'the right answer') it is unfounded and unnecessary.

You don't need a diagnosis for your child for them to be eligible for DLA.

fumingrightnow1 · 17/09/2026 23:21

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

Il explain why for my situation I am under 9 consultants across 4 trusts i have to travel all around the country for regular appointments. I can't drive prior to pip i use to be entitled to hospital transport now i get the mobility part of pip i am no longer entitled to hospital transport it is paid out of my pip. It costs significantly more then I get in pip also hospital transport is incredibly unreliable all them missed appointments cost money. Thats what personal independence payment is you're paying for what you need instead of the costs coming from other services. People won't suddenly be cured if you take pip away they will still need these services which will cost significantly more then pip does

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.