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?

With what jobs

Maybe addiction treatments might be money well spent?

Memories of 1981 (I think?) on your bike. That's 45 years ago.

Please explain how, explain properly. Not 'remove benefits, everyone will work' - that's a child's answer.

Well for a start there are 721,000 vacancies per the latest ONS report https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/march2026

Again, you’re demonstrating a poor comprehension if you think that’s my answer. Given that, I’m not going to waste any more of my time explaining to you given i doubt you’ll get it. Have a good evening

That's the difference between us. I'm not interested in impotent slogans, nor am I particularly interested in whether we've lifted a child over some arbitrary income line. I'm interested in the child. Have we lifted them out of hunger, cold, and disadvantage? Do they have a safe, stable place to live and sleep? Are they being fed, cared for and given the support and opportunities they need to have a decent chance in life?

You seem obsessed with the poverty figure and how much more money we can hand to the household. I'm interested in whether that money actually changes the child's life. By all means provide financial support where it's needed, but don't give yourself a pat on the back for another handout and call the job done. Moving a family's income, through benefits, across an income line and giving parents free reign on how they spend it is not the same thing as changing a disadvantaged child's life.

When I fled an abuser and moved in with my mum, I didn't get to choose to live somewhere non-rural. I didn't have a licence, and struggled for years with learning to drive, I suspect because of my autism. Living rurally without a car was not my choice, and once in my mum's house, I could not leave. Landlords seldom let out housing to benefits claimants.

The one remote work vacancy I saw in 18 months wanted a dedicated room set aside to install their choice of desk, computer, and chair into. It wasn't my house to say "yes" and my mum, whose house it was, said "no".

The Job Centre will pay for a specific outfit, such as black shirt and trousers for waitstaff, if you need them to take up a job. They will also pay interview travel costs if the employer won't. They will often pay for training, if funds allow. But not driving lessons.

@Schlossadler There is plenty of research and evidence that proves that crude cuts to welfare drives up costs for the tax payer elsewhere: https://www.jrf.org.uk/social-security/how-to-reduce-pressure-on-welfare-spend-in-a-popular-and-lasting-way
This report from the Jospeh Rowntree foundation explains it well: pushing people further into poverty increases the strain on emergency council provisions, NHS care, and local authority social services etc etc. All of which pushes costs up for the tax payer.

Benefit cuts can’t incentivise people into jobs that do not exist or jobs they are physically incapable of doing.

In the long run, investing in employment support like coaching, mental health support etc is much more effective at returning the long-term unemployed to the workforce than financial penalties. And again there’s evidence to support this: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/cutting-benefits-is-not-an-incentive-to-find-work-governmentbacked-report

But it can’t happen overnight.

You seem obsessed with the poverty figure and how much more money we can hand to the household.

Everyone wants these things: Have we lifted them out of hunger, cold, and disadvantage? Do they have a safe, stable place to live and sleep? Are they being fed, cared for and given the support and opportunities they need to have a decent chance in life? Cutting benefits to families won't help any child with any of these things.

Or just give them the drugs

Absolutely, its a good example of paying to give a hand up.

Perhaps we can ring fence the money from alcohol sales and the proceeds of drug crime to fund addiction to help fund treatment for addiction. Early intervention would also help - the benefits can last decades.

More hand ups, fewer hand outs.

You haven't explained anything at all so far.

But you have a good evening too.

You're not necessarily wrong, but there'd need to be substantial regulatory change for that to happen.

Addiction itself costs the country money because of the health complications long-term. Criminalising drug possession deters people from trying it. It would need a careful analysis to determine which is cheaper: free heroin or the status quo.

I feel that a lot of generations are being controlled by the much bigger pile of pensioners and many have little sympathy.
i dont understand how they feel no guilt where they retired at 60/65 and now its 68.

Or that some generations will have their own student loans still but also expected to pay for their dc at uni.

i dont want housing being so expensive because dc cant buy/can afford to rent and we are all paying for everyone to have HB.

every time constantly money thrown at those on benefits if theres a crisis.

But if interest rates had been allowed to rise some would have received interest.

Giving poor people more money does lift people out of poverty. Statistics show that cash injections work most of the time. Especially when backed by other initiatives.

The majority of people in poverty, when given cash, use it wisely.

https://www.concern.net/news/solutions-to-poverty

There is no simple linear relationship between increasing benefits and closing the attainment gap for disadvantaged children. The figure are out there if you care to look. Surely that alone should tell you that household income is only one part of a much bigger picture.

If success is measured by how much money(benefits) going into the household rather than what actually changes for the child, sure we are moving the needle on a poverty statistic, but we are not necessarily addressing the disadvantages that child is facing.

What is the point of hitting an arbitrary number and claiming we've lifted a child out of poverty if we aren't actually improving that child's life?

So I agree "Everyone wants these things". It's just some of us have a higher bar for what progress looks like.

Portugal is not looking so rosy these days. It has traditionally been held up as a good example in the push for decriminalisng drugs.

Oh goody, more clichés! Couldn't you find a picture of poor white people in this country?

“Especially when backed by other initiatives.”

Do you mean initiatives that..... actually help lift children out of hunger, cold, fear and disadvantage? That give them a safe, stable place to live and sleep? That ensure they're fed, cared for and given the support and opportunities they need to have a decent chance in life?

You mean the stuff that I have been arguing is important?

The picture is the linked article's preview image, not that poster's choice.

I've no idea. I imagine the type of reform many are after would end on many of us relying on each other in ways that culture has moved far, far away from, sometimes at the encouragement of governments who have been actively setting themselves up as the answer.

I mean, this whole thing is framed as what the Government can do, not what businesses or individuals can do that could maybe result in a reduced welfare bill.

“Last year 8.2 per cent of all 16-64 year-olds in England and Wales claimed the benefit, up from 5.5 per cent in 2019”.

How does it compare to the percent of that population who is, say, between 60-64?

The only thing between you and a disability that impacts your ability to work is luck and time. Eventually one of them runs out.

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

There is a lot out there on the rise of crime in Japan, a significant portion fueled by older people shoplifting just enough to get sent to prison so they're not a burden to their families - like they'll go take just enough, walk outside, and sit around for the police. It's a troubling issue.

Also Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and similar are countries where they tend to only prosecute if they are very confident of conviction - this impacts the reporting of crimes, which impacts crime statistics. They are doing better in many ways, but it isn't as clear cut rosy as this sounds.

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

True, but the issue in lifting children out of poverty is that parents having money does not mean the child has any access to the money or the benefits of it. We see this with parents who have plenty of money, but still choose to neglect their kids.

That's why a lot of discussion around dealing with that issue is around funding schools and community spaces outside of the home that children can access - the cuts around these have had a rough impact on many vulnerable people.

Which of the other black and brown faces on that link would be more appropriate? What about the countries discussed Rwanda, Syria, Chad, Kenya, etc...

I'll wait.

Ok. Not sure what your problem is with the picture that accompanied the article, but whatever.😬

I posted in response to your comment here:
You can give parents enough money to reach a certain level, but you can't guarantee that the child will see much benefit.

While I agree there are no guarantees in life, statistics show that giving poor people money makes life better for them and their children. This is not obscure research. I'm sure you could find it, accompanied by pictures of white people if that's what you find more palatable.

The principle, that people (especially women) tend to spend any money they are given on their families, is true globally.

Welfare spending is lower than it was 15 years ago and back to what we were spending under Thatcher in the 1980s according to Jonathan Portes (currently Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King's College London and a former senior civil servant. He was, at one point, chief economist and director of welfare to work at the Department for Work and Pensions).

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1379683867354904

At the end of the day we all need to remember that capitalism is not a system that provides full time employment for the entire population - it never has done and likely never will do. Even if we abolished welfare completely we would never have anywhere near full employment because we do not have a system that provides that.

Do you mean initiatives that..... actually help lift children out of hunger, cold, fear and disadvantage? That give them a safe, stable place to live and sleep? That ensure they're fed, cared for and given the support and opportunities they need to have a decent chance in life?

Food, shelter, heat, clothing, educational opportunities? Money is needed to pay for all those things.