I think the Welfare state is too generous. I know too many people that have never worked in their lives and claim benefits, have multiple holidays a year, live in a house and seem to have a better standard of living than others who work. I think some ideas around this such as better evaluations of elegibility, work groups, community groups, and care packages are in order. So evaluation of elegibility would be something like, if you are able to walk and use a computer you can work. If you can’t this would need to be backed up by a competent health professional to sign that you cannot do these tasks. They need to be thoroughly assessed. I know people who claim these benefits but can on holiday, drive across the country and generally live but somehow have disability allowances. The work and community groups would be where you sign on to Universal credit at the job centre, and to gain your funds you must attend a number of work groups set up by the council / government, something like, “You are assigned to group A on Monday at 12pm, you will be repainting park benches” or something to that effect. Cleaning rivers, cleaning up the town or city centre. If you don’t attend, you dont get your funds. This would be the general tier of welfare. The stage below this would be the care package. You pick up your rationed food for the week and you don’t get money. Or there is a government card (As everything is going digital) that blocks unauthorised purchases such as alcohol or cigarettes or something. So it really makes being in that system unbearable. Getting a job should be the favourable option.
I agree to some extent especially where you have lots of young ppl who’ve never worked & are getting sick notes on on Universal Credit for depression & anxiety. I do believe many young ppl have fallen into this pattern of what’s easier bec of feeling so disillusioned with limited carer choices, work place pressures, social media & a government that makes them feel worthless. A positive program that gets them into community work & getting outdoors could be a really good thing for them.
However, ppl that are genuinely disabled & cannot work, should be entitled to benefits imo. Both myself & my partner are disabled, the new green paper changes proposed by Labour is cruel & unworkable (which i could go into detail about). It will result in many ppl taking their own lives. The government hasn’t however, said a word about the billions spent on migrants, hotel costs, & even legal migrants thst are exploiting the system.
Thanks for you response Kerry,
Absolutely, genuinely disabled people should be cared for and looked after. Apologies, if it seemed I meant the opposite. I merely mean that there are still opportunities for people who are disabled. For example, Hybrid working. If you can use a laptop then you can work - I’m not saying you wouldn’t get looked after properly outside work of course, but I think disabled people should be treated as equals albeit have the support they need. I’d love your thoughts on that and how you would see that working within what I have proposed. As I know, members of my family included, that people can be signed off as technically disabled and then not work but still be driving to the shops, going on holidays and living as a regular person without any of the burdens of work. I simply feel this is unfair, when there are practical ways to integrate all people in the work force. Now something like MS (Multiple sclerosis), or Cerebral Palsy, or other disabilities that limit function of course they’d be deemed as more severe. I never want anyone to be struggling so much so that they take their life. However, I do think there are ways of getting people in a more “all in this together” mindset and way of being that promotes the well being of everyone.
I completely agree with the amounts spent on migrants etc. If this money was properly used and allocated I think we could have a really prosperous and purpose driven workforce. I don’t think people who are not citizens should be entitled. It should be a “serve first” situation. I love the idea people come to this country for a better life for what we as the people have built however it should come with a “buy in” so to speak an investment to share with us not just an automatic dividend from the system.
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for explaining, much appreciated. I hope my reply below relates well & answers some of your points:
The DWP & now Labour government with the new ‘Green Paper’ plans to massively cut benefits has plunged most disabled ppl into a state of absolute fear & turmoil. The problem is, the current system is set up to punish & try to catch you out & therefore keeps ppl trapped in benefits, scared of losing it. But now what’s being proposed is the worst case scenario, potentially being forced out of sufficient funds to cover personal bills & outgoings.
I like your ideas, any real changes to enable disabled ppl to move into the workplace needs to be done in a positive way without instilling the current sense of fear & mistrust.
There used to be Remploy years ago which was axed by the Tories I think- only to put disabled ppl back onto full time benefits- so a terrible idea. It wasn’t perfect, even the name is a bit backwards, but something more contemporary which matches current employers & disabled persons needs, could definitely work.
I agree this ‘all or nothing approach’ where your either struggling to work full-time with no help, or you get full rent paid with a decent amount of benefits to live on (whilst not necessarily living a productive life) - isn’t right. There are ppl who are likely to be taking the piss with the benefits system in all honesty.
What you’re saying about those on benefits going on holiday & basically living a very comfortable life, when they don’t have anything actually wrong with them, isn’t fair. It will lend to people in full time work on a low wage, saying why should I bother? I’ll just go on benefits without all this stress of paying the rent & being tired every evening. Then the game of having to stay unwell to remain in the welfare system begins. The punitive approach Labour are proposing will not work with the genuinely disabled as the experience of trust & fear are highly important (which I explain a little next).
Community work for those able but disillusioned with low level depression would need to not feel like punishment (like a non-custodial prison sentence). Doing up a community centre - painting/decorating, or gardening/planting flowers for example, could be really positive & meaningful. However, cleaning graffiti off walls & litter picking will result in resentment & low attendance (with sanctions as a result, leading to poverty). The ‘everyone in it together’ approach you mentioned could be fostered with the right coordinators, youth/support workers (but would be costly).
Disabled individuals should not feel pressured into work or not feel fear of losing all benefits for trying to move into the world of work. Working from home for slowly increasing number of hours, with willing businesses, could provide a fruitful mechanism into work & a win win for employee & employer.
Where working at a business place, there needs to be a contract of understanding & extra allowances & understanding from the employer for sick days or flexi time for example. I’m sure there are many safeguards that could be added to an agreement. The main issue is that we unfortunately don’t live in a compassionate world & many would fear contending with low level bullying or judgement of ‘being lazy’ bec of reduced work capacity, causing a breakdown (leading to deterioration in health & potentially homelessness).
One huge issue is that there’s an array of various ‘low level’ disabilities such as Chronic Fatigue syndrome, Autism/ADHD, anxiety & depression- which makes up a large portion of claims. These conditions can still be debilitating with personal, unseen, suffering which pose barriers to work (I know this personally). Labour plans to massively cut the benefits to these conditions through PIP in their green paper.
The effect will be devastating to vulnerable ppl who have become reliant on PIP. Of course it’s possible that some of these people could be working at least part- time, or they could still manage on a decreased amount. But the approach needs to be a careful & respectful one due to the vulnerabilities of claimants. Invisible illnesses are still disabilities, which do incur extra cost such as - taxi fares, cleaners, supplements, therapists, specialist foods, extra energy bills.
I’m just saying all of this because the situation is complex & highly contentious currently. I’d be interested to hear any thoughts you might have & whether you agree or not.
Kerry.
Exactly, nobody should be living in fear or terrified about how they are going to live. Vulnerable people should be supported into the workplace but there should still be this positive shift. As I mentioned earlier, Hybrid working such as just using a laptop at a desk at home, I think would be suitable for many people, even if just part time. We have apprenticeship schemes which allow business to pay less to have unskilled labour and also upskilling people at the same time a win win. I reference this as we could have scheme that works the same way, tax incentives for having vulnerable people as part of their workforce, or even a separate tax code for disabled people that allow them to keep more of their income. Just a few ideas off the top of my head.
Again, agreed. I think the point here is separating those who are genuinely disabled from those who aren’t, so defrauding the system, or whos disability aren’t as debilitating. These should be clear and fair. I do recognise that this could become contentious based on who decides what is debilitating or not. But I believe competent health care professionals could get a consensus on this. If you are able to travel, if you don’t have continous pain…etc.
See here, for me it depends. I think in some cases it should be a punishment of sorts. The aim I would think would to be to make working and being productive the favourable option rather than benefits. Now, just to be clear, I am NOT talking about vulnerable people here. I’m referring to the main point of the post which is the average person currently getting benefits. If you have been on benefits your whole life, I do feel having “fun” or “soft” work isn’t really pushing you in the right direction. Afterall, this isn’t free money from the Government, its tax payers money. We want to reduce this pot as much as possible in a reasonable way. I think there could be demographics that are put into different types of these community or work projects. If you’ve been in the system for a long time you may have the harder less inviting tasks, and if you are new or young or vulnerable to easier more inviting jobs are available based upon eligibility criteria. I agree this approach could be costly, but if we manage to deter people from being on benefits and actually getting productivity from those who stay on it, it could still be worth it.
100% agree, nothing to add here.
I agree with the risks here, however, don’t feel this should deter us from the plan. I think this is a workplace culture sort of thing. Workplace bullying of any sort should be nipped in the bud and taken care of. This should be no different. I personally think this is such a positive thing, I get some people would disagree as its “work” and who wants to do that! But again, having everyone in it together and pulling regardless of differences I think is what makes a better place to be.
Again, this is one of those “needs to be effectively reviewed”. I know people who receive PIP and they are performing better than those without, with very little obstacles in their way. The problem I personally have with this, is that its tax payers money. Its not just a hand out from the Government pot, it comes from the people. Now, does that mean we leave these people high and dry, no. But I do think its something to keep in mind. Again, could this be done as scrapping the PIP (in some form), and then offering tax incentives instead? They get a tax code that entitles them to a little less tax deductions from pay. Again, its a difficult one, as I also know people who play on it. I know people who don’t. I don’t think it would be as significant an issue if it wasn’t for the tax payers who are working that are paying for it. If people were able to opt in or out of supporting this scheme with there own money then I think that too would deflate some of the heat on this issue. Interested to know your thoughts on this one as I understand it can be contentious and would like to iron out how this could be navigated. My base point being I don’t think its fair to have a system people can exploit simply by saying they have an affliction they don’t have and it can’t really be proven. Does this mean we remove it from everyone and therefore no one gets it? I’m not sure, support should be there for those who need it, but is this done by charity? Is it done by the Government but only taken from those who opt in? I really don’t know, but I personally don’t feel like people should have their taxes go towards the scheme in the way it currently is. As not only are they working and being taxed, but their taxes are going to pay for people exploiting the system. (I just want to point out that I am well aware genuinely afflicted people are benefiting, I’m trying to work out a way of navigating the issue so the fraud is mitigated whilst also supporting those genuine people.)
I agree with almost everything you have said. There’s only some minor points I would like to flesh out that I’ve previously mentioned. I think the only other way again previously mentioned is the care package approach. But for vulnerable people is that a demoralising way to live? I think it may be. Physical afflictions I think are easier to determine, the mental ones, I think thats where the biggest issue arises.
This part of the post has become about protecting vulnerable people by what I originally suggested, and thank you very much for discussing it with me, I look forward to hearing your response on what we’ve discussed so far. However, the main part of the original post would be affecting non-vulnerable people, I’m curious as to hear your thoughts on that too and what you think about this scheme for the average person. The aim being to make working more favourable and benefits less favourable, but also increasing productivity and really giving back to the community, as I don’t think many tax payers would be as disgruntled with benefits if they knew its going towards better looking parks, outdoors spaces, maybe additional help in the businesses themselves that the companies don’t have to pay for. I think it could be really rewarding. Again, thank you very much Kerry for your part in this discussion I’ve found it very rewarding.
Your proposal to reform welfare, tackling its unfair generosity, aligns strikingly well with William Beveridge’s 1942 welfare plan. His Liberal blueprint aimed to banish poverty with a contributory safety net, not a lifestyle subsidy, tying benefits to National Insurance or verified need, expecting work from the able, and fighting idleness while preserving dignity. Left-wing policies have corrupted this, ballooning benefits into a no-strings entitlement, enabling abuses you’ve seen, such as holiday-goers and drivers claiming disability.
Centre-right values like personal responsibility, fairness, and community demand system reform. Your rigorous eligibility checks, certified by professionals, restore Beveridge’s evidence-based need, ensuring only the truly incapacitated get support. Workgroups, like painting benches or cleaning rivers, are brilliant. They motivate claimants to contribute and echo Beveridge’s anti-idleness ethos. They foster community pride, a conservative cornerstone, uniting locals in shared purpose. Adding job-training credits or bonuses for participation could further motivate, making work the path to prosperity.
Your suggestions of tiered benefits (higher for job-seekers, lower for work-dodgers) reward effort, curbing abuse. This shrinks the left’s bloated system, aligning with our fight against Labour’s bureaucratic overreach, freeing resources for tax cuts or community hubs.
Motivation drives centre-right reform. Work, not handouts, builds nations. Your ideas, rooted in Beveridge’s intent, counter the left’s distortion of welfare.
How about we make them tackle the countless failings of local councils? Get them clearing Birmingham’s rubbish piles (rather than disrespecting our armed forces with the task), filling potholes nationwide, or scrubbing graffiti. These tasks fix our streets, boost pride, and show claimants giving back. Perhaps the radical activist groups that vandalise our country’s landscape and create hostility wouldn’t be so quick to do so if they were the ones kept busy cleaning it up.
Thank you for your detailed reply. I enjoyed reading it. We definitely are in agreement
that-
1, Vulnerable people should be protected
2, People should not be able to exploit a system.
Here are some thoughts around exploitation of the system-
You can have a recognised diagnosis such as ADHD- then you self report on how severely this impacts your life. This is open to over exaggeration ie you can claim you’re more impacted by your condition than you are & use this as a reason not to work. Ive actually recently realised that I likely have ADHD- but I doubt I’ll mention it in my assessment as I don’t believe it prevents me from getting a job. It makes things more difficult & might change your career choices- but shouldn’t be an excuse. There are too many people getting away with an easy lifestyle based on a low level condition like this, that should be working. I’ve even heard of a case of an alcoholic on full PIP with a mobility car. Crazy, especially when you realise how that encourages destructive lifestyles & addiction.
People that have nothing wrong with them can claim to have conditions that can’t easily be evidenced such as depression or anxiety (as we’ve already discussed). This definitely needs to stop.
My worry is that certain genuine invisable illnesses will be considered as ‘not a problem’ anymore & the dwp will decide you can just toughen up & go out to work. I have Chronic Fatigue syndrome for example, I’m exhausted all the time, & suffer other symptoms with it incl joint pain & brain fog, even after sleep. I have a diagnosis, but I’m worried that in the future I’ll basically not be believed (I also have other health issues on top of CFS). There are many in my position without an 'obvious ’ disability & not in a wheelchair- but feel they cannot work due how their condition impacts daily life. At the moment for example im sleeping 14 hours a day & have really bad brain fog when awake (cannot think straight).
The assessment process is not fair & the professionals marking your interview can mark you down even when you fully meet the criteria. This happened to my boyfriend, it’s shocking to see 0, 1, 2 points in the letter when he specifically met the criteria for 4 points. He’s now waiting for tribunal but he’s been waiting for a year & half, when we chase it up the say he just has to wait indefinitely. Can you imagine the number of people in the future going through appeals & tribunal after the Green Paper has been approved? Many are now living in fear of their next assessment & the new cuts Labour wants to make.
I wouldn’t be against a small cut to PIP, it is generous- maybe to much. A reduction of 5-10% I wouldn’t argue with.
So the real question is, how to you create a fair assessment process that sifts out the fakers & fraudsters, while ensuring the most vulnerable are protected?
Second to that I’d add, how do you support those with disabilities into work without adversely impacting health (through fear of the process) or risk poverty & homelessness from removal of a safety net?
I don’t know the answers entirely, but I know that it needs to be done responsibly & intelligently.
Hi Kerry.
The process of getting PIP can be brutal. An issue for me, which perpetuates a lot of the victim mindset we see nowadays, is the requirement to be sufficiently insufficient.
We should stop focusing on why people can not contribute, but instead ask them how they could contribute and what support they need to achieve that.
Especially for working-age adults, we should expect somewhat of a return on investment.
We need to reaffirm the belief that people can add value to our society and that if they do, they will be rewarded for it, both financially (thanks to their earnings) and socially by being part of their community.
I have ADHD too. One of the things I believe which would be a solution for many with ADHD is a revival of British manufacturing and stimulation of entrepreneurship. What are your thoughts?
Hi both,
Apologies for the delayed response.
I think Thomas’s approach makes a lot of sense—perhaps best applied in conjunction with my own.
When it comes to those severely affected by disabilities, surely the assumption is that they already have carers in place. If someone can’t perform basic tasks, their needs should be covered through care services. But if they can manage basic tasks, then I’d need a clear rationale as to why those tasks couldn’t be channelled into some form of work or contribution.
You mentioned Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which admittedly sounds awful. However, it’s one of those more elusive conditions—difficult to verify, and open to misuse. If remuneration came not in cash, but instead in basic needs—food, shelter, water—I don’t see why that would be an issue. The current system expects everyone to pay taxes into structures that often operate inefficiently.
For example, my parents’ neighbour has multiple sclerosis. She’s unable to move, has carers, and her essential needs are met. In that case, excessive funds don’t add much value. Luxuries are nice—but I’m not sure it’s the government’s job to provide them.
Now, back to Thomas’s point about shifting the question from “Are you insufficient?” to “How can you contribute?”—that feels like a far healthier, more empowering approach. People could be assigned to specific work groups: painting benches, river clean-up, wildlife conservation, charity support—anything that contributes to the community. In return, they’d earn above their basic care package.
This would reduce the burden on taxpayers, and where it remains, there’s visible value produced. It also offers a fairer narrative for legal immigrants and asylum seekers—everyone contributing side by side, treated as human beings first.
No system will be perfect—someone will always feel it’s too soft or too harsh. But if the default is a care package covering basic needs, with no access to luxuries unless contribution is made, it discourages gaming the system. You can’t go on holiday with a loaf of bread, after all.
Those wanting more than the basics can contribute through work groups. Lowering the taxpayer burden also opens the door to lower taxes, allowing individuals to retain more income. And if people have more, they’re more likely to give—charitable donations rise, and private initiatives step in where government schemes fall short.
It creates a cycle of dignity, contribution, and choice—while protecting the vulnerable, empowering the capable, and respecting the taxpayer.
All,
One item that we have not addressed is the immediacy of the benefits system.
Taking in to account you comments on disability physical and mental and excluding these individuals deemed unable to work from this policy – Should benefits be available immediately you leave school/arrive in the UK? So:
‘An individual is required to pay National Insurance contributions for a minimum period of five years after they leave school and or arrive in the UK before they can claim state benefits’
(I appreciate that there would be some who would/could fall in to the unable to work category during this period) . This would result in:
- a collapse in the teenage pregnancy rates.
- an incentive for all to get in to work and maintain themselves in work – with all the mental and physical health benefits that this would bring.
- people would feel incentivised to stay in work as they will have already been working for five years.
- a huge reduction in the UK governments benefits bill. The reduction could be used to fund an increase in child nursery places/hours to encourage people back to work after childbirth.
- a huge increase in the National Insurance tax take.
- a reduction in the perception of the ‘scrounger economy’ by the wider public etc.
One thought – the period 5 years should this be sorter / longer – not that unless you have 10 years NI contributions you are not entitled to a State Pension.
Would welcome thoughts on this.
G
Hey Guy,
Absolutely—I agree it’s an important consideration, though I suspect I might lean a touch more generous on this front.
My view is that if you’re a British citizen, born here, then entitlement to support should begin once you leave school or formal education. That said, the care package and work group structure I’ve proposed would still apply. It ensures people are either contributing in some way or, if they opt out, aren’t incentivised to coast along indefinitely.
Let’s be honest—young people are already feeling disillusioned with the job market and economy. Removing support entirely could push them into chaos and undermine the system altogether. I agree it should be restricted—but I’d argue the tweaks I’ve laid out already address this. The combination of basic needs being met and the opportunity to earn more through contribution gives both structure and purpose.
As for non-natives—those who move here—I completely agree with your stance. You should have to contribute to the system for five years before qualifying, even at the basic care package level. That ties into the broader immigration conversation (which I’ll sidestep here), but knowing there’s a clear structure should reassure those concerned about the so-called “scrounger economy,” as you put it.
If someone is receiving support, it’s either because they’ve earned access or they’re getting the bare minimum—nothing glamorous. Five years seems fair to me; ten risks breeding resentment. We want integration, not division.
All in all, I think what we’ve outlined offers a solid balance—supportive where needed, firm where necessary, and built to avoid the usual pitfalls.
What does everyone think?
- Ryan
