UK Government Thread

Talking of bad taste ads, talk sport is all betting ads all day long with an ad if you need help from the betting addiction help folk before you lose everything in your life

Pay particular attention to the adverts.

I don't think "advertisers exercise discretion" about where they place ads is the breakthrough revelation you might think TBH. 

I also think your correlation that old people listen to Classic FM, Classic FM ads are about investments = old people have all the wealth is somewhat wide of the mark. Wealthier people tend towards classic FM, hence the ads, there's plenty of older people, in fact the majority of older people who are very not wealthy. Even amongst the Boomers it's only a subset of people who have done alright out of the prevailing economic conditions, there's also loads of older people who don't own property (including their own home) and have next to bugger all private pension who are fully reliant on the state.

Anyway the projections in the increase in the cost of welfare over the next 6 years is eye watering, 65 to 101 billion. What ever the cause, misdiagnosis of mental health, Covid, 14 years of Tory rule, higher expectations of the state for support, it's not going to be sustainable. A reset of is underway and there are going to be a lot of very unhappy people. If Reform do get in at the next election i bet they will wish they hadn't, a lot of Reforms voters will certainly be impacted.

it's not going to be sustainable

That depends on if you believe the trickle down and austerity doctrines, or if you support a more distributive wealth and taxation system. IMO it is only unsustainable if we continue to make the same mistakes that have got us into this mess.

A reset of is underway and there are going to be a lot of very unhappy poor people.

FTFY, wealthy people are laughing all the way to the bank.

What ever the cause, misdiagnosis of mental health, Covid, 14 years of Tory rule, higher expectations of the state for support, it's not going to be sustainable. 

The UK welfare bill as a percentage of GDP is among the lowest in Europe, it's something like a third less than that of France, the french economy hasn't collapsed under the weight of their welfare bill.

People who claim that the welfare expenditure is unsustainable do so because it suits their political agenda. You probably won't hear them claim that defence spending is unsustainable, because it is about priorities.

The sort of priorities which claim that increasing the defence budget by £billions to pay the costs of maintaining a United States military base on the Chagos Islands is affordable but maintaining international aid budget at the existing level is not affordable.

I don't think "advertisers exercise discretion" about where they place ads is the breakthrough revelation you might think TBH. 

I was basically saying it isn't a revelation at all. Just pretty obvious(?)

I also think your correlation that old people listen to Classic FM, Classic FM ads are about investments = old people have all the wealth is somewhat wide of the mark.

You think? How many ads for Saga type stuff and Norwegian fjord cruises do you hear on Heart?

And obviously not all older folk are richer (asset richer) than their younger counterparts. But on average, they sure as hell are. Otherwise the companies wouldn't target their ads in this way. They look at these things called statistics, apparently.

The trouble with that Ernesto is that in a democracy you need to get (re) elected.

And as we unfortunately learnt in 2016, a majority of this countries electorate go misty eyed at the idea of Brittania ruling the waves and Spitfires and stuff and they also think that anyone who’s on benefits is Frank Gallagher off Shameless. 

And as we’ve already established, they prefer Donkeys to brown people. So if you’re in government, you’re always going to be up against that

The trouble with that Ernesto is that in a democracy you need to get (re) elected.

They already got elected without mentioning cutting disability benefits, although they did mention something about sorting out non Dom.  They seem to have forgotten non-dom but are now pursuing something they didn't mention.  The very thing they could continue not to mention when the time comes for them to lose the next election.

They are doing this purely because they want to and 'punish' the people who are least likely to be able to deal with it.  The sort of thing you expected from the tories, no?

We’ve not actually got the proposals yet, have we? There seems to be a lot of conclusions being drawn from something we haven’t got any of the detail about yet? 

The main problem with the present disability benefits system, as with so many things designed by the half-wits in power for the last 14 years, is that it’s catastrophically dysfunctional.

So it’s not just the fact that it’s costing an absolute fortune - which it is - but that the outcomes for the people it’s meant to help are generally terrible

They seem to have forgotten non-dom

Non-dom tax status ends when the new tax year starts in a few weeks time.

And binners hits the nail firmly on the head, even if unintentionally.

The primary driver isn't actually what is best or necessary for the country, it is the desperate need to  rake the gutters for votes.

It might be 9 months since the general election but Labour are still very much in election mode. Partly because of an obsession that elections are all that ever matters (binners favourite mantra) and partly because panic has gripped the Labour leadership.

The May local elections and the Runcorn by-election are fast approaching and with Labour on about 25%, the same as Reform, it looks very likely to be a total disaster for Labour.

Furthermore it looks increasingly likely that unless things change very dramatically Labour will lose the next general election. Which I think will probably be unprecedented - I don't think that any party with such a huge majority, as Labour currently has, has ever lost a general election.

For the man who is mostly running the show, Morgan McSweeney, the priority appears to be to convince voters that Labour is no longer a left-wing party....see cutting benefits for disabled people, slashing foreign aid by 40%, denying asylum seekers the right to citizenship, etc, in that light.

I heard yesterday someone describe Starmer as appearing to be 'a passenger in his own government', I think that probably sums it up perfectly. 

The primary driver isn't actually what is best or necessary for the country

Is it not? I don’t think anyone who has had any dealings with disability benefits system would have a good word to say about it. It’s an absolute shambles! 

The difference now is that we have a government who, having not been responsible for putting the shambles in place, can acknowledge that it’s an absolute mess and try and do something to try and sort it out 

Thats their job, isn’t it? 

By sorting it out you mean removing the benefit from many people who rely on it?  The disability benefits system is a shambles because it is actually harder to get than it should be and stressful with the continual questioning on whether you are still disabled or maybe not as disabled as you need to be anymore.

Assuming the disabled people you know are looking forward to the changes to potentially lower their assistance?

As I’ve already mentioned: we don’t know what  they’re proposing yet as we haven’t seen any details and in the absence of that there’s just speculation

I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing. What I do know for sure is that the present system is completely and utterly dysfunctional and is in desperate need of reform, as the outcomes for the people it’s supposed to help are generally dreadful.

It’s genuinely benefitting very few people yet is costing an absolute fortune. Not a great combination really that, is it? For anyone.

It’s genuinely benefitting very few people yet is costing an absolute fortune

That's real money going into the economy to be spent, what do you think happens when you remove that? Do you think it will grow or shrink?

The actual cost, by the way, is not a financial one - it's the actual cost to the people and society, who are victims of idiotic spreadsheets maths on a system that doesn't demand to be in balance. In fact it's virtually never in balance. 

Just imagine this was the Tories doing it and you would be in a frenzy.

At which point who decides what a fortune is? The cost is less than 0.4% of all government spending.

And just off-topic-ish shits and giggles here's Musk today on his DOGE mission (not dissimilar to Reeves) actually discovering the Fed creates the money it needs out of thin air.

The UK has pretty much the same Fiat system.

Not a surprise to me or anyone else who's taken time to understand government finances. Don't forget Musk is an nutty advocate of believing they use tax payers money. His whole mission is built on this.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1901646958806049204?t=irIGGU9N5fu-e_gJwjbNkQ&s=19

Posted by: binners

↑

As I’ve already mentioned: we don’t know what  they’re proposing yet as we haven’t seen any details and in the absence of that there’s just speculation

I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing. 

Never mind the details of how Starmer-Reeves intend to reduce the benefits bill you seem to have a pretty good idea of where this government is taking us. I will quote you :

The trouble with that Ernesto is that in a democracy you need to get (re) elected.

And as we unfortunately learnt in 2016, a majority of this countries electorate go misty eyed at the idea of Brittania ruling the waves and Spitfires and stuff and they also think that anyone who’s on benefits is Frank Gallagher off Shameless. 

It is quite obvious that you are tempting to justify Starmer's dramatic lurch to the right, which includes attacks on asylum seekers and people with mental health conditions. As I said the aim is clear, to convince voters that Labour is no longer a left-wing party. 

Btw if "winning" is all that matters, as you seem to believe, why not join the Tory Party? After all the Tories have won more elections in the last 200 than probably any other political party in the world.

The primary driver isn't actually what is best or necessary for the country, it is the desperate need to  rake the gutters for votes.

And if voters wish to punish the desperate, the old, the sick or the disabled, they can drink full fat rather than diet coke and vote Reform. Labour's grubby tribute act is an electoral dead end.

I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing. 

Only a few hours left before you can pass your "judgement" binners. I look forward to it.

Is it likely to include pictures of donkeys? I expect it will as you attempt to turn the issue into some sort of joke.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/17/keir-starmer-to-unveil-drastic-disability-benefit-cuts-despite-opposition

It's so emotionaly exhausting to read the relentless speculative drivel on here from the usual suspects...

So yes, let's wait to see what is acutually announced? FWIW I don't personally think further benefits cuts are the right thing to do, and I'll be equally as sceptical.

Maybe we are so used to accidental 'leaks' being policy opinion tests under the last Tory government that we are too quick to jump to conclusions.

Posted by: binners

↑

It’s genuinely benefitting very few people

It literally benefits everyone who gets anything from it. The clue is in the word.

It's so emotionaly exhausting to read the relentless speculative drivel on here from the usual suspects...

It's very brave of you to put yourself through it.

The credence being given to what is, after all, just speculation, is particularly odd given last week’s discussion of the ‘well nobody saw that one coming’ nature of abolishing NHS England.

I keep hearing all about what the government ‘might’ do, but as Wayne famously noted ‘yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt’ 

Eight months in and "at least they're not the Tories" is losing its shine for me. Sure this government still look better than the end of days Tories with their blatant individual power/money grabs. But imposing Tory policies with an apology is not much better than imposing Tory policies with a gloat. The end result is quite similar.

When Labour either scrape Runcorn or lose it to Reform, I find it highly unlikely McSweeney will change tack. He'll double-down on trying to out-nasty Reform. I really hope we don't end up with four and a half more years of Tory policies with the rougher edges sanded off followed by defeat to a Tory-Reform merger, but I think that's where we are headed.

Whether this supposed realpolitik of pandering to post-Brexit jingoism and intolerance is the fault of politicians for not grasping the nettle sooner or society for holding those views is sort of missing the point. Someone needs to have the balls to challenge this crap. Not preface every comment about the NHS or armed forces with "our amazing" but actually make the case for societal fairness and get on and do something about it.

Posted by: mattyfez

↑

It's so emotionaly exhausting to read the relentless speculative drivel on here from the usual suspects...

The Guardian? I expected you to be a fan!

'Speculative drivel' sounds a bit harsh, what didn't you like about the article?

It's not really speculation is it. They were pre-briefing to expect cuts of £6billion last week and had significant backlash from MPs because of this. Go back and listen to R4 "world at one" from Friday. That's a massive number to be recovered only by improving a system; there's got to be cuts in there too and it seems highly unlikely to avoid cutting from people with genuine need.

Eight months in and "at least they're not the Tories" is losing its shine for me. Sure this government still look better than the end of days Tories with their blatant individual power/money grabs. But imposing Tory policies with an apology is not much better than imposing Tory policies with a gloat. The end result is quite similar.

According to the Guardian [boo-hiss] in some cases worse than the Tories. :

Ministers, who are facing the wrath of Labour MPs and peers over the plans, are understood to have taken fright after being accused in meetings with MPs of planning measures rejected as unfair even by former Tory chancellor George Osborne during the Conservative years of austerity.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/15/downing-street-considers-u-turn-on-cuts-to-benefits-for-disabled-people

You realise just how much Starmer has swung Labour to the right when even Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper join the foray!

Pretty desperate to dismiss govt briefing of massive cuts as "speculative drivel". I suppose if you assume the govt doesn't know its arse from its elbow, there could be some truth in that.

If Labour want to get people back to work (as they should be) there are any number of ways to do that rather than reaching for the big tory stick to beat up benefits claimants. In 97 I was on the dole after failing to find a job after graduation. Gordon Brown created a scheme to get graduates like me back to work, which involved funding employers to take on graduates for 3 month placements paying them double what the dole paid. Both sides were incentivised and it worked, I've had a job ever since. It cost money though, which this labour govt has ruled out due to their blinkered fixation with fiscal rules and tory austerity policies. 

Personally, I don't think its inappropriate for any govt of any colour to examine what it spends its money on, and that includes welfare. While it's not (in the grand scheme of things) now the single biggest thing we spend money on, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the costs is only going one way, and it's probably appropriate to do something about it sooner rather than later. We have to face the fact that we are as a nation become older (generally) and fatter and hypertensive/pre-diabetic, or T2, and the mental health of young people is getting worse (councils are spending more on SEN transport for kids than they do on repair roads and libraries), and we can see the effects in NHS spending and welfare spending and those things combined with a pension triple lock and a lack of functioning ways to get back into employment are costing us more and more. Is it more appropriate to do more to resolve the cause of these things than to spend money on the result of them? That's what I'll be looking for today. 

I think its easy to criticise, and shout about cruelty and no one wants anyone to suffer, but if we make it hard to get employment support, then its shouldn't come as a massive surprise that folks will claim disability or health benefits in their place. and those criticising Labour for forcing folks into work seem to forget that Labour have always regarded work as the way out from poverty and want, and have always regarded putting money into 'front pockets' than 'back pockets' as more virtuous and sustainable. 

and those criticising Labour for forcing folks into work seem to forget that Labourhave alwaysregarded work as the way out from poverty and want, and have always regarded putting money into 'front pockets' than 'back pockets' as more virtuous and sustainable. 

See above. I've got no problem with Labour getting people back to work, I'm a direct beneficiary of that, but they need to do it with support and incentives, not a massive stick in the form of benefits cuts. If Gordon Brown had taken the same approach in 97 and cut my benefits I'd probably have ended up homeless. Cutting benefits will cost more in the long run.

Posted by: kerley

↑

  The disability benefits system is a shambles because it is actually harder to get than it should be and stressful with the continual questioning on whether you are still disabled or maybe not as disabled as you need to be anymore.

 

According to what was said this morning one of the proposals will be to permanently sign off those who can clearly never work again meaning they don't have to reapply over and over.

I've been wincing at what been all over social media so fear the worst but the snippet on BBC this morning made me hope they have an actual plan that 'may' improve the system. We'll see.

Posted by: nickc

↑

and the mental health of young people is getting worse (councils are spending more on SEN transport for kids than they do on repair roads and libraries)

Whilst there is an increase in mental health issues the link you provide doesnt demonstrate that but instead shows far more interesting questions/issue. The percentage increase in SEN transport has happened for a variety of reasons. Partly due to it being legally required so cant be chopped unlike other services, partly due to more claims (which doesnt necessarily mean an increase in actual ill health), partly due to lack of local schooling and then about a third down to general increased costs.

Its interesting you also talk about getting people back to work. Which misses that a lot of working people have to claim benefits since their wages arent sufficient and rents are extremely high. Now who is actually really benefiting there?

Its interesting you also talk about getting people back to work. Which misses that a lot of working people have to claim benefits since their wages arent sufficient and rents are extremely high. Now who is actually really benefiting there?

So pay better wages and put in controls around rent prices.  I know some people who are not going to like that and they are the people running the country...

It looks like we’re finally getting more details 

So pay better wages

Some beefing up of equal pay regs, so that disabled people can’t be paid less… while also doing more to prevent discrimination in recruitment. That’s what I’d like to see. 

but they need to do it with support and incentives

Agree 100%, Just cutting peoples benefits and sitting back thinking "job's done" is a waste of time for everyone. TBH though, given this govt's track record, I'm not optimistic

Which misses that a lot of working people have to claim benefits since their wages arent sufficient and rents are extremely high

Again don't disagree, but the rise in wages cost for our GP practice has meant that we can't realistically pay our Salaried GP for any more sessions, or employ another (badly needed) admin staff. We pay over min wages but we've had to make pretty hard decisions to make sure we can, and again its worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of businesses in the UK employ less than 5 people, the Amazons of the world are the exception, not the rule. 

Fantasy economics aside, if we want to have more money for these things, we tax ourselves more (and this govt particularly hasn't stored enough political capital to do that)

Meanwhile, HM opposition are using the opportunity of everyone talking about the benefits bill to make some major policy announcements… 

So they’ve just let voters know, ahead of the local elections,  that the Tory’s will no longer be having anything to do with any of that woke, climate-change nonsense and the world can just burn for all they care. Not that anyone will notice, of course, as Kemi carries on trying to out-Reform Reform  

The real discussions is what are the underlying problems that is causing a much of this. Especially with mental illness - me thinks post-pandemic and a whole shed load of neoliberalism pushed people into hell in some cases.

Labour won't go there will they - because that would require half a brain; some support and investment - and Wes Streeting not being an utter prick.

What we have is the current Labour party trashing the Labour brand in the hope that some numbers magically appear out of this right-wing mess.

Either way yet more evidence of Labour borrowing the Tories' way of dealing with benefits. Didn't work. Won't work.

On top of this Reeves is about to unleash a whole load economic mis-handling on the economy. What with money being taken out of the economy - less consumption - nothing but a massive economic disaster heading our way this year.

Hold on to your bullshit Centrist seat belt - 'cos it's not holding you in any longer. 

I swear Labour are trying as hard as they can to run a red carpet for Reform.

I can't help but currently think that once again, government policy (this time on welfare) is being driven by keeping the pension age, often voting population, happy.

The state pension, included in the welfare budget, has increased from ~£175 in April '20 to ~£230 in April '25.

Besides the blip for covid before vaccination kicked in, the UK pension age population is rising.

~55% of the welfare budget goes on the state pension. It was under 50% just a few years ago.

Over the last 70 years, on average, the age at death has increased from ~70 to ~81.

Living longer means typically, more use of the NHS.

Why isn't the state pension means tested, so those with amazing private pensions and/or other income, have their state pension capped to something like ~25%?

Use the saved welfare budget money to help those younger, who really need their benefits to barely get by (so many affected long term by long covid in recent years), plus improve the NHS in ways such as a massive drive to train more UK citizens to enter the care service.

The state pension isn't means-tested because people of my age paid NI contributions for over 50 years, that's why.  Far from means testing the state pension, I think that the personal tax allowance should be increased for pensioners to, say,  £15,000 so that those of us who rely on the state pension don't have to give some of it back in tax.

Posted by: failedengineer

↑

people of my age paid NI contributions for over 50 years,

Which doesn't come close to paying for the average pension received, of course. But you knew that, and don't care.

The NI payments I make today in theory go toward paying pensioners their benefits today.  It is not being save up for when I retire, when I get the state pension it will be paid for by those working and paying their NI.

Best thing to do would just get rid of NI all together and increase tax by the respective amount to remove any doubt of how it really works.  It is pretty simple to see why the costs have gone up, people living on average 13 years past retirement rather than 5 and in this 13 years becoming a lot more dependent on the NHS.  Just need to accept that and pay for it as we will be in same position in future (assuming we live to see it)

The non-means tested state pension combined with the "triple lock" policy since 2010(?), besides one year during ther covid pandemic ('22?), has a lot to answer for.

Come April, the state pension will have increased ~31% over the last five years from ~£175 to ~£230 (unless I'ver had a maths fail, which is entirely possible).

Now show me a long list of other benefits, that also come from the welfare budget, that have had anything like that % increase since April 2020.

I can't help but feel - in this age of a Labour government whipping away walking sticks to see if people fall over and telling potentially suicidal people to "pull themselves together and get to work" to save £5bn in 3 years time...

That extra £100bn of GDP we could be getting per annum by being in the SM & CU might come in handy.

But then, I'm not a politician and I'm sure there are much more qualified people in government who know why this is impossible.

🤔

So, you state pension haters, what do you propose?  Reduce it?  Tax it more?

I can't help but currently think that once again, government policy (this time on welfare) is being driven by keeping the pension age, often voting population, happy.

And 

Why isn't the state pension means tested

I think you've answered your own question. 

Changes aimed to save 5Bn by 2030...

Isn't that less than the typical increase in state pension for one tax year under the triple lock, in the last five years?

Well I for one am rubbing my hands at the thoughts of receiving my supremely generous state pension riches in 10 years time.

Round the world cruises here I come!!

So, you state pension haters, what do you propose?  Reduce it?  Tax it more?

At the % increase rate over the last five years, by ten years time the state pension under triple lock could be ~£395 per week per individual.

Why stop at world cruises? Why not space tours? 😉