What a cunt
Disabled people already don’t make enough to live off of,and they can’t do anything about it. They already live in poverty, how much do we want to make them suffer?
Going after them and adding more stress is just terrible.
He should be ashamed of himself. He is going to kill people, blood on his hands.
Disabled and ill peons don’t hand out shares and consultancy jobs to politicians.
Disability benefit claimants can’t fight back with armies of lobbyists and lawyers, like the US based companies such as Amazon and Meta who not only avoid paying billions in tax every year, but get paid by UKgov to “invest in infrastructure” they need to profit from UK consumers.
“The Labour Party” are choosing to take from the poorest and most needy and give it to giant multinationals, as the Tories before them.
Relevant reading, published today 20/03/2025;
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmtrans/770/report.html
They know being disabled is harder, far more stressful, and more expensive, they simply don’t give a fuck.
Edit: They know way more than the horseshit they’re feeding us about it, and they refuse to publish the reports that poke holes in their excuses.
Is there any chance of a rebellion within Labour over this?
With Reform neck and neck with Labour, not a chance. The UK’s first past the post system means every lost vote for Labour is a vote for Reform. Labour voters aren’t going to risk a Reform government. Of course, the next election is many years away, and much can happen in that time.
Good point. I guess there’s no strong unified opposition within Labour on this doing anything at the moment?
They have a far left contingent but they don’t have much leverage right now. I think the reality is that the UK’s high spending, high historical debt, and already high taxes don’t leave much room for pet projects and populist spending. If they increase the deficit they risk credit downgrades and much higher cost of debt servicing, exacerbating their issues during their tenure. If they increases taxes even more, they suppress what little economic growth they’re likely to see during their tenure, and risk recessions. Their only realistic path here is very centrist: rein in spending to focus more on infrastructure and R&D. Especially the energy grid, which is fucked. If they plunge the country into recession or make things even worse, they guarantee a Reform government in 2029.
There is a ray of sunshine. I’m seeing really promising legislative changes re planning and zoning. Removing a lot of the red tape and disallowing councils from blocking new developments will allow far more housing to be built. This is arguably the single biggest quality of life issue for Brits. Bringing rent and the cost of ownership down could cement Labour as the next winners.
For anyone who is dependent on their disability benefit to not be homeless, starving, cold, or a combination of all three, they are making it a lot worse.
Let’s gloss over that though, shall we?
As I understand it, the plan is to get long term unemployed who can work back into work. I have seen no evidence that the plan would result in the permanently disabled being made homeless, but please cite what you’re referring to.
I cite my own personal experience.
If I lose my PiP, my partner and I cannot afford to keep the roof over our head, food in the freezer, and the house warm.
The heating will be the first to go. We don’t run the heating downstairs as it is usually, to keep the costs down a chunk. That’s not going to help either of us physically or mentally, and it will damage the house, which we can’t afford to repair.
In order for me to re-enter the workforce, I would need retraining, as I can no longer work in the field I used to. In order to do that, I need to find the money to pay for college, to be able to go to university. University and the loans I would need would be partially based on my disability status. Great, except if I lose my PiP, even if only temporarily, I lose my funding and get booted from Uni.
All of that assumes that someone would even employ a fresh uni graduate who would be nearly 50 by that point.
You see, unless UKgov is actually going to properly rebuild the system (it’s not), I am stuck where I am and there is pretty much fuck all I can do about it.
Taking away the money that literally makes the ends meet isn’t going to miraculously heal me, train me and make me employable, is it?
What it will do is ensure we bleed out to the point of having to sell the house, and use the proceeds to pay off the mortgage. We’d end up with more money left over than you can have and claim UC, so we’d have to burn that to pay rent till it was gone, then claim UC and this time housing benefit too.
So yeah, great job. It’s going to ensure that we end up costing the state even more in the long term. Yep, saving fucking loads with this manoeuvre.
Edit: Also of note; As things stand right now, we can’t afford to “go out”, we can’t afford to travel, we can’t afford “nice” food. We have no “life” as it stands, it’s not like we’re going to lose the Friday steak night or Saturday at the pub, those things went with my ability to work, a long time ago.
Edit 2: The only chance I have to dig myself out of this hole would be to find a way to turn a hobby into a business. The only problem with that is that hobbies cost money too.
If I lose my PiP
I asked for evidence that Starmer’s plan would result in you losing PIP. I understand you losing PIP would be bad.
Thank you for that information. I guess there isn’t the simple solution of “tax the rich”, because it’s more nuanced than that?
So long as that red tape being removed isn’t going to negatively affect the environment or anything like that?
This is mostly targeted at NIMBYs who are worried about high density housing hurting their property values. There could very well be environmental impact, though that’s not immediately clear. With so many people experiencing housing insecurity, I think the bigger issue right now for them is housing.
There are ways, but they’d be immensely unpopular with the corporate overlords, and thus, aren’t an option.
God forbid they close loopholes to stop the exporting of profits to overseas entities, for example. Along with all the other ridiculous tax avoidance wheezes multinationals use to obfuscate their way out of paying their fair share, we could cover the welfare budget twice over and have change left.
"The cost of 0 VAT on financial services is devastating. "
And only used by the wealthy.
Why should someone who needs an accountants time get it tax free. But needing a plumbers time dose not.
“The cost of tax exemption for assets is devastating”
The next prime minister to say this fixes the economy. Go.
Good thing we can tax the billionaires then, now can’t we?
Would you like some Tory Light with your order?
I’ll take a main of Labour, hold the Labour and also, could you leave out all left please and add some extra ring wing, thanks!
I think he’s got the wrong part of devastating.
Cutting the meagre money
hundreds of thousandsmillions rely on to survive and surely causing excess deaths in the process is devastating.Millions. But yeah agree entirly.
I’m sure there’s no other way to get more money into the government. No possible way.
A month ago he told us of his plans to “Unleash AI” To ‘increase efficiency’ - a phrase long proved synonymous with cutting jobs.
Would love to know what work he expects people to do when they’re kicked off sickness benefits.
Perhaps they will leave their wheelchairs behind and become bricklayers.
He is delivering a future inequality instead of alleviating it.
It’s all just so incoherent. I would settle for anyone who had the inclination to build functional society for the future, instead of the staid old ideas of slavish adherence to neoliberal economics. Academia is yelling out that they have seen the end of that road and it does not look good.
You know what costs more?
Plague.
Absolute fucking pig of a human.
How much does this guy get paid?
This is a terrible situation, since two unpleasant things are true at once: the benefits system is riddled with fraudulent claims and mismanagement, but there are also people with genuine disabilities who absolutely rely on these benefits.
the benefits system is riddled with fraudulent claims and mismanagement
It’s not. It’s a dog whistle by anyone opposed to social programs.
The reality is that, although there is abuse in all systems, the level of that abuse is negligible to the point of being a rounding error.
The goal is to punish everyone for the sake of that small percentage that abuses the system.
This is not unique to the UK it’s the same song and dance everywhere.
The benefits system, relying as it does on privatisation from top to bottom, haemorrhages cash, this is truth.
Go find out how much actual cash goes in.
Then find out how much of that actually ends up in claimants’ hands.
Then, finally, realise the scale of the problem.
Did you know that if you’re renting, you can get that rent paid by benefit?
That rent goes to a landlord who uses that rent to pay the mortgage on the property, maintain it (lol), and some profit.
If, however, you “own” your home and are responsible for paying the mortgage and maintenance, the best you can get is a loan to cover the interest only. You must pay this loan back with interest if/when you sell your home.
They’ll happily pay over the odds for “rent” costs to landlords, but they won’t pay less than that to you for your mortgage.
They’re happy to pay a mortgage, just not to you, the benefit claimant.
The whole system is rigged to take from the poorest and filter it all to those who have more than enough.
This has nothing to do with this topic. I don’t disagree with your points. But removing the benefits designed to allow disabled to actually function in anything close to an equal manner. It is in no way going to help your issue.
And refusing to cover rental housing costs for the poorest members of our population. Without hugely increasing homelessness and death. Will require a huge investment in social housing and time. Long before the nation is ready to stop covering that cost.
But I agree that sort of move is needed. But that would require an electorate and political party willing to support it.
the benefits system is riddled with fraudulent claims
If this was true. These actions in no way address such claims. They are purely about making it harder for genuine claims to actually pass the process, and paying less to those that remain. Absolutely nothing in this plan addresses false/fraudulent claims.
Also, while some fraudulent claims exist, riddled is totally false. The Tories have spent their whole time in office trying to prove your statement. Yet the cost of implementing their extra checks has been hugely more expensive than any claims cancelled.
You like much of the nation have fallen for the media and channel 4 propaganda.
Removed by mod
Man, there is a lot that you can correlate with economic stagflation. High residual nitrogen in soil. Gay marriage. Sales of left-handed ukeleles.
Why specifically choose welfare?
More to the point; do you know what happens to sick people who become poorer? They get sicker and become more expensive to look after. Check out the public cost of helping a disabled person keep some independence versus the cost of looking after them in hospital or a care home.
These people won’t magically disappear if you pull the rug on them.
The issue is health, not welfare.
They shouldn’t get sick in the first place. The focus should be on prevention, that’s what is cheaper and more helpful.
So what do you do with all the people who didn’t have your blazingly brilliant insight and instead already got sick?
Many forms of illness are not preventable, and of those, many don’t benefit from early treatment. Even among the more or less treatable chronic illnesses, many (such as type 1 diabetes) are not preventable.
Pretending a problem doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.
Fuck me, you’re a moron.
‘Hey, you with the chronic illness! Why didn’t you try not to get sick?’
I don’t like hoping that someone suffers a spinal injury in a car accident only to be told it’s their fault, and if they’d chosen not to become disabled they’d be able to walk and live free from constant unbearable pain, yet here I am.
I think you may be getting unfairly downvoted for this particular comment. Because yes, the focus should be on prevention - lack of exercise and poor diet on the physical side and the breakdown of in-person community and brainrot screen time on the mental side.
Too many people are losing control of their lives for avoidable reasons and that is what should be addressed.
The point obviously remains that removing people’s support after they have become ill is a bad idea and there are also people who are sick/disabled for unavoidable reasons e.g accidents, violence, genetic disorders etc.
I hope this conversation has helped change your mind about sick people a bit. We’re all guilty of not thinking things through sometimes and there are a lot of malevolent voices shouting for our attention.
Because yes, the focus should be on prevention
Great idea. But it’s far from the case that all forms of illness are preventable. And prevention strategies don’t always work perfectly: sometimes they improve people’s odds of avoiding a disease, but don’t work in every case.
Great idea. But it’s far from the case that all forms of illness are preventable.
Of course; if you read the third paragraph of my you’ll see that we agree.
It’s broadly accepted that austerity is the primary cause of stagnation.
Krugman, Stiglitz, Chang, Piketty etc etc have all explained how cutting welfare weakens demand, which in turn prolongs a period of stagnation.
The time to cut welfare, if you have a hard on for hurting the poor, is when the economy is booming.
Cutting benefits is not austerity.
You have the whole internet, like, right here. It’s really easy to actually look up the definition.
Yes, there’s a whole internet. You can start by reading a Wikipedia article to learn the meaning of the word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity
through spending cuts
Thanks, seems like you skimmed over the very first sentence.
So you’re okay with abandoning millions of disabled people to starve?
Removed by mod
You’re an evil bastard then.
@[email protected] is this instance ban worthy? (The comment by Aux)
The Mods have gone with a 14 day ban and I’ll support that but will keep an eye on the situation.
Ban worthy for what? For supporting the current democratically elected left wing government of the UK? You just be a delusional authoritarian Reform supporter.
You just said you’re okay taking away life saving support for a whole minority group of people and letting them starve to death. Your comment was massively ableist and is almost certainly promoting violence against a group of people. (Starving a group of people is violence)
Wow, a real eugenicist in the wild!
The welfare spending provides an oversized return in productivity. What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
The welfare spending provides an oversized return in productivity. What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
I don’t think this is correct. Prevention provides outsized benefits, but unless benefits lead to a return to work, they do not result in increased productivity. I’m happy to be proven wrong if you have a source. I think this is a moral discussion rather than an economic one.
I understand your point. It’s just easy to make it economic as an example, productivity can go to hell. Life satisfaction and life expectancy by themselves should be a big enough motivation to support public welfare. It’s just that the arguments against are usually rooted in economic motivations, e.g. inefficiency of the tax money management.
What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
Low spender here. In my case, I don’t need much that I don’t already have and have opted out of consumerism to a large extent. So no, it’s not common to all low spenders, unless your definition of “low” is something extreme like under £1 a day.
There could be a misunderstanding here, I meant public welfare spending, not personal spending.
Countries who spend more on public welfare would get more people being productive rather than staying home sick. Higher life expectancy and higher life satisfaction is also expected.
Increased life expectancy should come with proportionally increased retirement age. Which is also a very unpopular policy. Otherwise you end with an aging population and the whole mess we’re in today.
Citation needed
