Social security must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual. The state should offer security for service and contribution. 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.
These were the words of William Beveridge in his work on “Social Insurance and Allied Services”, more commonly known as The Beveridge Report.
Thanks to Beveridge, the UK has a healthcare system that is free at the point of use and a welfare state that cares for the sick and elderly. While Nye Bevan may have been the implementer of the NHS, Beveridge was the architect.
How ironic, then, that this week the same party which implemented Beveridge’s plans for healthcare would be the same to trample on the welfare state. The sentiment of encouraging individuals to get back on their feet was abandoned entirely by Labour this week, as their welfare reforms passed through Parliament, ensuring that future Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants would need to face a harsher means test just to receive support to afford necessities.
And to top it all, 430,000 people will be plunged into poverty with not a penny saved with these reforms.
Beveridge discussed how the government should combat the “five giants on the road to reconstruction”: want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. This government has decided that instead of putting up a fight, they shall welcome these evils with open arms and inflict their punishments upon those who need support the most.
* Jack Meredith is a Welsh Liberal Democrat member. He is the spokesperson for Centre Think Tank on Social Security.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The 'elevator pitch' for solo consultants
In bitter duel with Armenian church, PM Pashinyan offers to show he is not circumcised
West End street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Have we lost the ability to build infrastructure?
Tristan Ward
David Raw
Andy Chandler
Mick Taylor
61 Comments
Listening to some Labour MPs you’d think that benefits was free money.
They seem to be ignorant of the fact that every single penny of benefit money has to be paid for by the tax payer.
I do wonder if this is another example of the Westminster bubble being out of touch with the concerns of the rest of the country.
Might a factor in the differences of the behaviours of political parties in the 40s and 50s and recently/now be that in the 40s and 50s our country had thousands and thousands of fit, trained and experienced soldiers?
P.S. Might it be that the state creates the money and then taxes some/all of it back?
In response to @Steve Trevethan:
I’d be very interested in reading an article from you on this subject, particularly your analysis.
“Might it be that the state creates the money and then taxes some/all of it back?”
No – the state does not create wealth. Individuals and the businesses they run create wealth. The state can make it easier to create wealth (for example) providing stable conditions/predictability, enforcing the rule of law, and creating/supporting intuitions that support individuals and business prosper/live enriching lives/enjoy freedom such as the courts, schools and universities, heath provision, land registry
“ensuring that future Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants would need to face a harsher means test just to receive support to afford necessities.”
From what I’ve heard in the media I get the impression that the test for PIP entitlement is a very blunt all or nothing instrument.
Might there be some people of working age who currently are not working because they cannot get access to PIP which might enable them to cover the cost of facilities which would enable them to work, even if only part-time?
Are there employers who are reluctant to employ disabled (physically or mentally) people who could work for them but maybe only part-time? In which case perhaps some job sharing might be in order – e.g. 2 people doing part time the work of one full time employee. Or what about premises which are not conducive to use by disabled people – e.g. lack of wheelchair access?
Might wealth and money be different?
https://braveneweurope.com/richard-murphy-how-money-is-created-and-inflation-controlled
Might the purposes/duty of government include the development and maintenance of the conditions for full employment, decent living conditions for all, equitable distribution of income and efficient levels of inflation?
How well have the parties who have held and do hold power done on these criteria?
Thanks to Jack Meredith!
Your question is being pondered.
There has been a significant increase in PIP claimants of working age, especially those claiming for mental health issues. This is not sustainable. Mild depression and anxiety are being medicalized among youngsters like never before; this goes hand in hand with an explosion in SEND pupils. Teenage angst is being framed as an illness by far too many parents, backed up by an all-too-compliant school system and associated institutions. Those parents are setting their children up to fail in life.
Below is an article on election turnouts which indicates that citizens are less inclined to vote since 1950.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2024-turnout/
it is suggested that the overall decline might be a result of politician/political behaviors which seem to benefit the powerful minority, weaker citizen attitudes to social cohesion and citizen power, a limited and so limiting form of democracy less as well as an interactive mixture of the three.
Might the increasing lack of deep difference between the political parties have resulted in increasing voter indifference?
Might the citizenry feel less powerful/empowered, not least with the increasing cross-party restrictions on protesting, weaker trade unions and lack of deep, different views in the main stream media?
Any other suggestions?
Two brief reflections and questions.
Is Slamdac comfortable with today’s news that the Super Rich’s super yachts are getting bigger and bigger ? …… and is Mr Trevethan aware that in WWll there were many thousands of RAF and Naval ex servicemen as well as former soldiers…. and that for the most part they voted for the Beveridge Welfare reforms in the 1945 election ? One can only speculate that Mr Trevethan wants to reintroduce conscription.
Perhaps I could add that Slamdac should note that the Liberal Party changed a bit for the better when Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman became party Leader way back in early 1899.
@Thelma Davies, we are living in a horrible chaotic world and UK society. Is it any wonder teenagers and young people are suffering mental health problems What with endless school exams , knife crime, their parents struggling to make ends meet, extortionate re nts and house prices. This list of anxieties enhancers just goes on and on, not to mention the effect of the COVID disaster.
Thelma, have you the actual evidence to support your statements. If so convince me. I tend to think, there but for the grace of God go I, and my past and present work experience supports this. Blaming parents?
Reply to @Steve Trevethan.
That’s a VERY interesting point on voter inclination. I especially appreciate your question regarding the lack of difference between the parties. It’s pretty interesting when we consider that, in terms of social cohesion, there was not much difference between Tories and Labour (by way of the post-war consensus). Yet, voters still felt there was a distinct difference, compared to now, where, while Labour and the Tories (and Reform in this regard) crossover on issues such as trans rights and immigration, there are markedly different approaches by way of nationalisation, investment, attitudes towards Europe, regulation, etc.
It’s so fascinating.
A tip of the hat to Jack Meredith!
Might at least part of the problems with S. E. N. D. Children be their being trapped in a dull, demoralising, obedience demanding mass education set up?
Might our recent and current governments have significantly contributed to the mild depression and anxiety of young people by developing a society which starves some 30% of our children, charges them interest on their tertiary education and stunts their opportunities to live well and not just exist?
Might some say young people are doing well to be only mildly depressed?
Thelma Davies clings to the old idea “Work good, unemployment bad”. For most unemployed people it’s a transition state between one job and another, for some it seems to be a near permanent state of being. Often that’s because people who can’t work for various reasons are still being counted as employable when they’re not.
Beveridge’s words still have resonance today. It really is time to remove people who can’t work from the unemployment figures, so they reflect the real state of employment in our country.
As for mental illness, what a punitive attitude Ms Davies reveals. In the past, mental illness was hidden as shameful. Today we recognise it for what it is, illness. That’s the same for teenagers as it is for the unemployed. Not something to be called out and shamed.
The total for government expenditure last year was £1,229.9 billion. If total expenditure on benefits did rise to £100 billion this is 8% of last year’s budget. Large, maybe, but by no means excessive. (and 2029’s budget will be larger, so the percentage will be smaller). To hear Tories, Reform and too many Labour MPs go on about it you’d think the sky was going to fall in.
LibDems have argued that solving the social care problem and helping disabled people go to work will and of itself cut the benefits bill, not cutting benefits to the poorest to stop tax rises for the rich
One of the considerations driving social reform in the first decade of the 20th Century was concern over the inability of the British army to find sufficient fit young men to recruit as soldiers for the Boer War Reasons why the Liberal Government passed reforms.
Beveridge developed his proposed reforms during WW2 following the UK’s experience with mass unemployment during the inter-war years. The creation of the NHS was supported by all parties in the wartime national government and 1945 election manifesto’s, only being opposed by the British Medical Association.
Paradoxically, the general health of the British population was found to improve during wartime rationing. Complulsory National Service was continued by both Labour and Conservative governments after WW2 until the early 1960’s.
Today’s pressures on working age benefits seem to be related to quite large numbers of young people experiencing physical and mental health conditions post-covid.
I think ultimately we will need to consider major reforms based around integrating the tax and benefit system and providing for job guarantees/training for those that would welcome such opportunities including logistical support within the armed services as defence spending increases in an echo of the Liberal reforms that followed the Boer War.
@Thelma Davies
“…backed up by an all-too-compliant school system…”
Sorry, but the rise in the number of pupils being assessed as having special educational or additional support needs is not being driven by schools. They are not ‘too compliant’: they are obliged to provide evidence when it is requested. It is worth remembering that parents may be able to claim extra benefits if they can get their children diagnosed with ADHD/autism, so – not surprisingly – some parents push to have their children assessed, and challenge the results if they do not come to the conclusion they seek.
@Steve: 30% of children in the UK are NOT starving. I suspect you’re misusing the statistic that 30% of children are living in relative poverty (https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/2024/43million-children-in-poverty-are-being-failed—uk-gov-needs-to-wake-up) . But relative poverty is not ‘starving’ – it simply means that you (or your family’s) income is some way lower than the median. It’s been pointed out before that your claim is not true, but you still keep repeating it. I know you’re (rightly) concerned about poverty but it really doesn’t help the debate when you keep repeating what amounts to an outright lie. Out of interest, are you able to explain why do you keep doing that?
@Joseph Bourke
“Paradoxically, the general health of the British population was found to improve during wartime rationing. ”
Perhaps because wartime food was mainly confined to basic necessities?
I was born after the war but I had a brother who was born before it. His teeth as a child were in better condition than mine were – no or fewer sweeties available during the war?
And I’ve seen discussions in the media about supermarket pricing and leaning on them to make basic healthy foods available at prices affordable by the less well off.
@Simon. I believe the statistic that Steve is misinterpreting is from Unicef. One in three children under five is malnourished. That is malnourished not undernourished. Most of those are overweight or obese. The incidence of malnourishment is much higher in low income families. Causality is not obvious. A junk food diet can be more expensive than a healthier one.
“Starving: very hungry” [Cambridge Dictionary]
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/starving
The phrase referring to proportion used was deliberately approximate.
The article below puts it a some 27%
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q997.full
That, irrespective of precise data about changing circumstances, so many children have the cumulative disadvantage resulting from insufficient food, unhealthy food and the ever present problem of fear of lack of food is unacceptable in what is the 6th richest country in the World.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Cumulative+disadvantage+definition&sca_esv=3729d49e3e8b455d&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1132GB1139
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_private_wealth
Where has the money needed to feed all our children decently and reliably gone?
Chris/Theakes A mother of 4, a grandmother of 7 and a great-grandmother of 3 with 23 years in children’s services. My parents and their parents grew up in poverty we never see today. Nobody at their school My school, my children’s school and my grandchildren’s school needed sensory rooms, extra time for exams, multiple single rooms for exams, etc. It was unheard of. In all my years in the service, I cannot recall a South Asian pupil needing extra curriculum care within the authority despite a large local Asian population. Anyone who thinks parenting is not an issue is being incredibly naive. Far too many teens are being medicalised for natural emotions and anxieties on a scale that cannot be justified.
It is so disappointing to see so many Lib Dems applauding Beveridge but then attacking the one person posting here (Thelma Davies) who actually understands the problem we face and doesn’t sugar coat it in well meaning excuses. If they actually thought for a minute about Beveridge’s Five Evils he included idleness, which acknowledged that in those days idleness was one of the five biggest problems we faced at that time. It is still true today and providing the correct answers to get PIP and a free car is as easy as searching google.
In the same way Berveridge mentions responsibility. Another word that rarely passes Lib Dem lips. I am sure that is Beveridge’s thoughts were posted here unattributed they would meet serious resistance from Lib Dems throwing out long lists of anxiety enhancers like exams, pointing out his old ideas and punitive attitude, asking for his evidence and so on.
Lib Dems need to get real or those who are prepared to work will be overwhelmed having to pay for those who don’t.
“Where has the money needed to feed all our children decently and reliably gone?” – Rent!
I think this would be a good time to decide from first principles what the structure of a sensible support system for the disabled should be. It’s neither the current or proposed versions of PIP. When we ask why we have PIP we are generally told that it is to compensate for the increased cost of living with a disability. This does not fit the current structure. The cost of living element of PIP is fixed and there is a binary test of whether you are disabled or not. That is clearly not how disability works. Depression is a terrible thing but it’s not expensive. Some other conditions cost far more than the current PIP. PIP should graded according to the condition and severity.
In addition to the cost of living element, which should be unrelated to income, there is an increased cost of working. Some of that falls on the individual and should be paid to them and some on the employer. Employers are currently required to make suitable adaptations at their own expense “where reasonably possible”. I would expect them to find far more were reasonably possible if subsidised.
Discussions in this area frequently confuse the original idea of PIP with an idea that unemployed disabled people should receive more money than able-bodied people because they are unlucky and not scroungers. This attitude turns the disability test into one of moral virtue and makes it almost impossible to conduct impartially.
Ability is an infinitely variable thing and we all have jobs we can’t do because of a lack of physical or mental ability. There are many jobs I couldn’t do because of a lack of vision in one eye. Luckily, they are mostly ones I don’t want but for many, an inability to take driving jobs would rule out a high proportion of opportunities. It’s impossible to put a figure on how much a disability will cost in the job market. We shouldn’t try.
@Steve: More correctly the Cambridge dictionary you linked to defines starving as ‘dying because of not having enough food’ and that is clearly the sense that is implied by your repeated posts. That’s not a detail of ‘precise data about changing circumstances’ – it’s an outright lie about the state of the UK today – in which many people live in awful poverty but practically no-one is actually starving.
More generally, I agree with Thelma and PJS. Liberals are rightly very concerned with poverty, but too often we’ve allowed that concern to turn into demands that the Government solve every problem for everyone, forgetting that people also have agency and can and should take responsibility for sorting out their own lives (with Government help where appropriate). Ironically the quote from Beverage in this article seems to indicate that he also believed in that personal responsibility.
Back to the article, I think we can agree Labour’s now-abandoned reforms were rushed and badly thought through: The last thing we want to do is make it harder for disabled people to work and earn a living, and it seems the reforms would have had that impact. But the aim behind their proposals – to get welfare spending under control – was sound, and it’s important we recognise that, and look for a way to reform welfare that doesn’t amount to demanding the Government keep spending more and more money.
The Cambridge Dictionary gives two definitions of starving and so neither is a lie.
The phrase about “precise data” refers to numbers.
That anyone in our over all wealthy society is chronically without sufficient, food, housing etc. is avoidable and wrong. Therefore, I shall continue with my duty to try to do something about it by drawing attention to it.
@David Raw, 3/7 12.56 pm.
Just a point of information. There is rather childish competition between the mega rich to see who can have the biggest yacht. The vast majority of these vessels are not owned by British citizens, but they are often designed or managed by British companies (invariably built in Croatia, Turkey, Poland). British expertise is valued by the American, Middle eastern, sometimes European billionaires who spend huge amounts of money on their “hobby”. Often the boats are designed but never actually built, it’s just a bit of amusement for them. This is a niche, but highly successful British industry. The moral paradox is that the tax on the fees paid by these obscenely rich foreigners will help fund the British welfare state.
@Simon R
“but too often we’ve allowed that concern to turn into demands that the Government solve every problem for everyone, forgetting that people also have agency and can and should take responsibility for sorting out their own lives (with Government help where appropriate).”
Are you implying that all people ‘have agency’ and can and should take responsibility?
If so doesn’t that imply that all of us have the same level of intelligence, mental and physical ability?
Comments here show how a huge number of factors affect individuals who need help and government decisions, often made in silos, are interconnected. One factor not so far mentioned is supportive communication with friends and family and ‘advice’ which is of course more than just telling someone what to do. This involves local government agencies, local charities, local employers and parents/carers. Some disabled people, especially when that involves mental capacities, remain unemployed because they either enrol on the wrong sort of courses or apply for the wrong sort of jobs.
@Nonconformistradical: No, I’m not saying, same level of ability. The point is more that almost all of us can, if we choose, adopt an attitude that we will endeavour to work, contribute to society, live responsibly, etc. to the best of our own individual ability (whatever that ability is). And any sustainable welfare system does need to be designed with the expectation that people receiving benefits are also trying to help themselves to do that.
Peter Davies: Very sensible and thoughtful points about how PIPs ought to work.
@Steve: This tragic report – https://www.lemonde.fr/en/le-monde-africa/article/2024/04/07/forty-years-ago-the-west-discovered-the-images-of-the-great-ethiopian-famine_6667654_124.html – includes a couple of images of people who likely were actually starving (Ethiopia in the 1980s). Please ask yourself – do you ever, EVER see people in that state when you’re out and about in the UK? No? So please stop with this utterly ludicrous and obviously untrue claim that a third of our children are somehow living in that state.
@Peter
“. Depression is a terrible thing but it’s not expensive”
Consider someone with depression/ Anxiety not able to leave the home on most occasions.
There are added costs of Heating, electricity and water usage for someone who is stuck at home for the ajority of the time, compared to someone who is completely able bodied and able to leave the house to be able to be in employment or search for employment.
Have you seen the cost of toilet roll these days, compared to pre-covid?
On top of that, they might have to rely on food to be delivered by supermarkets, due to anxiety levels being so high they can not bare to go to a supermarket, thats all added costs with delivery.
On top of that, they might only be able to cook with a microwave as cooking a meal from scratch using an oven is too exhausting or mentally fatigue….again, costing more in ingrediants and cooking costs.
These are just a few examples of increased costs someone living with depression and / or anxiety might face…..
So please dont say depression is not expensive
In response to Peter Davies:
I had a mental breakdown in 2020, which saw me not wanting to exist anymore and battling quite bad depression. In that time, my nerves were shot, and I couldn’t work, which meant I struggled with my finances. Please don’t say such a flippant thing like “Depression is a terrible thing, but it’s not expensive.” Not only does it incur financial costs, but it also has emotional and social costs.
In over a half-century of striving to achieve justice (in terms of income) for disabled people of all kinds (ironically in the early 1980s against now Minister Steve Timms who won his council seat from me in my ward) I’ve argued against DHSS/DWP officialdom for thousands of individual claimants. Basically most such officials don’t understand the consequences of disability, but simply follow Treasury-derived standard guidelines. Every disabled person is a separate situation, but many who would love to be able to work are prevented by a system which doesn’t understand the limitations resulting from various disabilities. Most often ignored by assessors are the many people who are desparately keen to work and try to do so (often against medical advice) for a couple of hours, but at the end of that time are so debilitated by the draining of energy that they physically lack the ability to stay on their feet and have to spend the next few days unable to rise from their bed. It’s not unwillingness to work, it’s sheer loss of energy, both physical and mental. The obvious people are those affected by fibromyalgia and similar conditions (now including “long Covid”), but most medical conditions result in debilitation as the patient deteriorates.
Sadly, Jack and others, in this decade we need to explain – especially to those who are subverted by Labour propaganda – that William Beveridge, the architect of our welfare system, was the LIBERAL MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed 1944-45.
Jack. I am not denying the emotional or social costs. That is why I said it is a terrible thing but as you said your financial problems were down to your being unable to work not down to ready meals (sadly these days cheaper than fresh ingredients) or not going out (which saves money). People with depression clearly have less money coming in but they don’t have much more money going out which is what PIP is meant to cover. Some other disabilities clearly require extra outgoings much greater than the current value of PIP and it makes no sense for them to receive exactly the same amount.
William Beveridge, as a quick trip to Wikipedia will show, was a lifelong Liberal. He was, rather too briefly, Liberal MP for Berwick but then became the first Baron Beveridge and leader of the Liberal Peers. His report was commissioned by the wartime coalition government and implemented, in part but not in whole by the Labour Government of 1945-51.
I am not sure what part of support from the cradle to the grave this Labour government fails to understand and parroting the Tory press’s shrill cries about the cost of welfare is not where a Labour party committed to helping ordinary people should be. As I pointed out earlier on this thread the cost of welfare is projected to be £8billion by 2029, around 8% or less of total government spend. This could be covered by a 1p rise in income tax. (and yes, I do know LDs have proposed this before)
The LibDems have proposed other measures to tackle the problems of sickness and disability including tackling social care. We must shout louder about this.
@Peter
Then you did not read the few examples that I have provided explaining the extra costs that someone with depression faces. I could have given a few more, but I thought my point was made well enough, clearly you chose to ignore
@ Jack Meredith,
“This isn’t the future Beveridge fought for”
You might not actually want it anyway.
His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. That’s what he fought for. Beveridge was opposed to “means-tested” benefits. He considered that they created high marginal tax rates for the poor – a.k.a. the “poverty trap”.
His original ideas have been pushed aside over the years and I don’t sense any LibDem urge to pull them back again.
It’s always a good idea to read up on someone you are quoting with approval.
Matt. I did not choose to ignore your examples. I dismissed two out of three as nonsense. The third (more supermarket deliveries than the average) if true does not equal the standard rate of PIP (£73.90 a week) Some disabilities clearly have additional costs above the current maximum of £110.40.
“His original ideas have been pushed aside over the years and I don’t sense any LibDem urge to pull them back again.” Only a few years back we voted for exactly that. Our Federal Policy committee was asked to flesh the policy out so they came back with a completely different policy that maximised means testing and conference passed that too.
Sometimes, two conflicting statements can both be true. The benefits bill has soared appallingly after Covid. The cuts Labour proposed originally would have hurt many people badly.
So why has the benefits bill soared – and why is nobody much seeking to find out? Is it that people have become hugely less healthy, which would imply that no cuts are justified? Or is it that people have learned helplessness, which would suggest a need to push through cuts? Or is it an awkward combination of both, such that people furloughed through Covid became too demoralised to try to get back into work?
Until polticians can – just for once – see both sides of an argument, they won’t get the right answers.
The Labour rebels have not won. They have merely handed Reform a winning platform. Reform will say that Labour are a disaster, and that the way to revive Britain is to punish foreigners and “scroungers”.
The utility bills of a person off work with depression will be within pence of those of an unemployed person. The latter would be required to go out on a regular basis and that would cost them more in terms of bus fares and lunch.
Why David Allen has the rise in the benefits bill been “appalling”? Yes, it has risen, but so has illness, especially long covid. As I keep pointing out, even if it continues to rise as
predicted, it will still only be 8% of total government expenditure by 2029. Given that welfare spending is supposed to help those in need or who are unable to work or the elderly or children and parents, why is there such a disproportionate amount of political ire about it.
Sure, we do need to sort it out, not because it costs what it does, but because it isn’t doing what it’s supposed to. In my opinion having so many benefits means tested shoots the cost up straight away. The Liberal Party used to support negative income tax, a system of annual assessment which either led to one paying tax (as at present) or receiving payments. One annual means test not constant badgering of already stressed individuals struggling to make ends meet.
Allow asylum seekers to work thus ending their dependence on the state.
Take those unable to work out of the system altogether and provide a living income for them.
Offer serious support to those who don’t work but could, like the scheme in Halifax a few years ago that took long term unemployed people to work and back thus helping to get them used to the world of work.
Those commenting above, should read this superb piece. Just about sums it up as a whole.
https://unherd.com/2025/07/when-therapy-culture-meets-benefits-street/
I find myself sympathising with the views of Thelma Davies but not just as it relates to younger claimants. For several years I was a voluntee at my local Citizen’s Advice Bureau dealing with applications and appeals for sickness and disability benefits. A primary motive behind many such claims was the end of their entitlement to unemployment benefit and their need to obtain an alternative source of income. At the risk of being accused of being ignorant and uncaring, I was often left with the view that a significant number had very little wrong with them but that the only advice available to them was to emphasise to the point of exaggeration any physical or mental health symptoms they might have; often, it must be said, resulting in a successful claim or appeal
Mick Taylor, you said “having so many benefits means tested shoots the cost up straight away”. Oh, really? So, child benefit would somehow cost less if it was paid in respect of every child, would it?
You advocate negative income tax – which. like UBI or Universal Credit, can be touted as a brilliantly simplifying panacea which will save huge costs because it is so administratively simple. In the real world, nothing is simple. When more people qualify for a payment, there is pressure to keep that payment low, as has happened with Universal Credit.
Most of your suggestions would raise the cost of benefits even higher. Any Chancellor would then need to raise taxes. And action for net zero, action to raise defence spending, and any attempt to restore a decent foreign aid policy would all have to be forgotten.
To be clear, I think Labour’s proposed cuts were crude and harmful. But something needs to be done to counteract the rise in costs, and to make sure that claiming benefits isn’t unduly easy. Otherwise Reform will win, and will slash and burn.
@John Boss
“At the risk of being accused of being ignorant and uncaring, I was often left with the view that a significant number had very little wrong with them but that the only advice available to them was to emphasise to the point of exaggeration any physical or mental health symptoms they might have; often, it must be said, resulting in a successful claim or appeal”
When you say ‘significant number’ can you give some actual numbers please even if approximate.
What was the age split of these people? And in relation to age how many had never worked at all?
What sort of physical or mental symptoms were they claiming to have?
@Mick: John’s comments give an example of why there is ‘political ire’ about the rising benefits bill: There seems to be ample anecdotal evidence, that a growing proportion of the benefits bill is paying not for people who can’t work, but for people who are choosing not to work. Most taxpayers are likely to think that’s unfair.
You say, only 8%, but remember for each person who claims benefits instead of working, there’s also a loss of tax, plus a loss of GDP. If you crudely guess that the tax lost is similar to the benefits paid, that would be a 16% loss of revenue: Imagine what even half that money could achieve, if distributed proportionately between every other Government department!
Allowing asylum seekers to work is a non-starter because it would make it so lucrative for people from poorer countries who have no grounds for asylum to come to the UK and apply for asylum anyway, just so they can work here until their claim is rejected. The resultant increase in asylum claims would also add to the delays in making decisions.
I agree with you that we need to offer support for people to be able to work. That clearly requires – amongst other things – a careful and well thought out reform of PIP (Rather than the crude cuts the Government tried to push through).
@David Allen “So, child benefit would somehow cost less if it was paid in respect of every child, would it?” It would lower the administrative costs. Raising the remainder of the cost by increasing the higher rate would not add any of the administrative cost back. The net effect would be transfers from well off childless families to well off families with children. Overall, well off people would be slightly better off and fewer would have an effective marginal rate of tax which deterred them from working.
“There seems to be ample anecdotal evidence, that a growing proportion of the benefits bill is paying not for people who can’t work, but for people who are choosing not to work”
‘Seems to be..’ – can you please point to actual good evidence please?
“I agree with you that we need to offer support for people to be able to work. That clearly requires – amongst other things – a careful and well thought out reform of PIP”
What ‘other things’ are you thinking about? I’m asking because it seems to me that there is too much glossing over this.
If a person of working age is mentally OK but physically disabled, there may or may not be work in their local area which needs doing and which they could do with some support – such as transport to/from the place of work, mobility aids – which might be anything from walking frame to wheelchair (from what I’ve seen in the media wheechairs can cost many £1000s and have to be maintained).
How much do you expect them to disrupt their lives if there is no suitable work which they can access? Do you expect them to up sticks and move to another part of the country – which might involve expensive mods to wherever they find to live – if anything?
If the person has genuine mental problems which limits what work they are capable of what do you propose to do for them?
The only reason there is ire about the cost of benefits is because politicians make it so. And because no current politicians are willing to tell people the truth that if you want better services (or more defence, foreign aid, net zero etc) then you have to pay for it by higher taxes and not by making cuts to the income of already poor people.
We already have 3 parties that say you can have everything for nothing, so what purpose is served by the LibDems being the 4th? No-one really believes it anyway.
Please can someone tell me why other European countries can pay better benefits and pensions than the UK and yet their politicians don’t go on and on about scroungers and layabouts?
Simon R. Allowing asylum seekers to work is already party policy and we moved a resolution in the HoC to allow it. Personally, I think that if people are prepared to come here to work, pay taxes and contribute to society, then I have no problem with that.
Good to hear some authentic liberalism from Mick Taylor.
PIP is not an out-of-work benefit—it’s a disability benefit designed to help with the extra costs of living with a long-term health condition or disability, regardless of employment status. Many people use it to enable them to work.
The UK’s current unemployment rate of 4.6% falls within the range economists generally regard as full employment. This figure represents what most economic theorists consider a healthy labor market, where job availability broadly matches the number of job seekers.
The majority of unemployment in this context is frictional—temporary periods when people are between jobs, transitioning careers, or entering the workforce. This type of unemployment is both normal and necessary for a dynamic economy, allowing workers to find positions that better match their skills and preferences.
There is also a degree of structural unemployment: workers whose skills no longer align with available opportunities. A classic example would be a 60-year-old steelworker who loses their job when a plant closes and struggles to find comparable employment in their local area.
What we don’t have is some large pool of people deciding they prefer a life on benefits to working.
To deal with our problems we need to see the world as it is, not regurgitate prejudice satisfying tabloid myths.
@Mick: So why did you ask why there is “such a disproportionate amount of political ire about it” if you already had a ready made soundbite dismissing people’s concerns as being something manufactured by politicians with which to answer your own question? And don’t you think it’s a bit disrespectful to people to dismiss genuine concerns about the ballooning cost of welfare in this way? After all several people on this thread (including myself) have expressed unhappiness about the way the benefits bill keeps growing, and I for one do not appreciate my own views being dismissed as ‘only because politicians make it so’. It might surprise you to learn that I have given serious thought to these issues, and the views I’m expressing are actually my own views, not something parroted from some politician.
Noncomformistradical. I have, I’m afraid, no exact numbers that you request but your query rather misses the point that I was trying to put across namely that unemployment benefit being time limited, applications for other benefits become the only alternative for the unemployed. Better I suggest to improve their performance by changing the objectives of Job Centres. In which regard, I recommend a Joseph Rowntree Trust pamphlet” Work First, Can Work Better “, as a positive way forward
@SimonR. When the whole of the right wing media, including social media are screaming about welfare costs and Conservative, Labour and Reform politicians are doing likewise, it seems quite reasonable to say that the angst amongst the electorate is largely caused by politicians.
You may share those views and in a democracy, that’s your right, but I consider that you and others who think the cost of welfare means cutting the benefits of the already poor, then I , with respect, think you’re wrong.
The reason Labour are trying to pay for services on the back of the poor is so that they don’t have to face the backlash that taxing the wealthy, the banks, the tech companies and gamblers would bring from the right wing media.
In a Liberal society we support the low paid, the sick, the disabled and the elderly with decent benefits or pensions. In Tory/Labour Britain we pay the worst benefits and pensions in Europe and we should be ashamed of it.
I once followed up a claim of benefit claimants having luxurious lifestyles and every person I spoke to said they’d heard it from someone else. I never got to the colour TV! Most people on benefits that I know just about get by and the vast majority would prefer to be at work if they only could. That’s what benefit reform should focus on, not scapegoating.
@John Boss
I did not miss your main point i.e. “that unemployment benefit being time limited, applications for other benefits become the only alternative for the unemployed.”.
I accept that is the situation.
But the quote from your post:-
“There seems to be ample anecdotal evidence, that a growing proportion of the benefits bill is paying not for people who can’t work, but for people who are choosing not to work”
came across to me as making an assertion – potentially one damaging to some people who might not be trying to manipulate the system – that there are people so doing.
I do not feel you should make such assertions unless you back them up with some evidence – which would not be exact numbers since we’re dealing with statistics.
@Mick: How would you feel if someone on the right said that the only reason voters supported welfare is because politicians and the media had influenced them? Not very convincing as an argument, is it!
Just blaming ‘the media’ when voters or other people have different opinions to yourself is a cop out: It means you avoid engaging with whatever arguments or life experiences caused their different opinions. It prevents you having constructive debate in which both sides learn from each other’s points, and means you lose any chance of persuading them. Example: By blaming ‘the media’ instead of actually responding to the points I made about the cost of benefits, you’ve already given me the impression that you have no good responses.
It’s not true that the UK has the worst pensions/benefits in Europe. That’s a myth often peddled by the left. Comparisons are difficult because every country has a different system, but this House of Commons report (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf) shows the UK is fairly typical of industrialised countries for pensioner income.
No-one here has said benefits claimants have luxurious lifestyles (Other than in rare cases of fraud, they don’t) – and that’s missing the point. The point is the suspicion that the current system is allowing too many people who could actually work to claim benefits/disability benefits instead. Anecdotally, I myself have a couple of acquaintances who live on benefits where that appears to be largely their lifestyle choice.
Noncomformist radical. The reference to anecdotal evidence etc was made bySimon R, not be. However I support your emphasis in getting hard facts to the problem.However some times, anecdotal evidence can be useful. For example, many older claimants who become unemployed feel that they are entitled to longer term support given their N.I.contributions over many years and are tempted to go down the sickness route.
I repeat my earlier point that we should review how Job centres go about their business