Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The way to get people off benefits is actually pretty obvious. Its just companies and governments wont accept it! You need go just do the following:
Pay people a real living wage so that you dont need to claim in work benefits.
Improve workers rights around illness and disability. Including mandatory company sick leave like what lots of companies already provide (or change SSP to match the employees actual wage like some other countries do), and improve access to true flexible working. The goal is to allow those who have conditions that mean they arent able to work a constant 5 days a week or a set shift patten access to the workplace.
Build council houses again at a scale we've not seen since the post war period.
Improve how we handle chronic health issues so that people arent just palmed off with "take these tablets" or even worse "you are making it up". Actually engage with these people to give them a good health outcome that allows them to actually then live their life rather than being trapped by their condition.
Actually make the job centre a place that helps people find work. Because right now it just isnt. Instead they need to be places where you can improve your CV, get better at interviews and find useful training / courses etc (and get funding for them if possible). And the staff and systems need to be geared towards real people and real life, not just "computer says theres a job 15 miles away that due to poor public transport will take 2 hours to get to, but we expect you to apply for it anyway".
Of course, if all the above is feasible or not is a different question. But if your goal is to just reduce the number of people on benefits that is what you do. You make it so people dont have to claim them!
Basically, at least in my experience knowing some friends who are trapped in the benefits system, the issue is the system and employers and governments who see them as useless and so dont want to even try.
The way to get people off benefits is actually pretty obvious. Its just companies and governments wont accept it! You need go just do the following:
Pay people a real living wage so that you dont need to claim in work benefits.
Improve workers rights around illness and disability. Including mandatory company sick leave like what lots of companies already provide (or change SSP to match the employees actual wage like some other countries do), and improve access to true flexible working. The goal is to allow those who have conditions that mean they arent able to work a constant 5 days a week or a set shift patten access to the workplace.
Build council houses again at a scale we've not seen since the post war period.
Improve how we handle chronic health issues so that people arent just palmed off with "take these tablets" or even worse "you are making it up". Actually engage with these people to give them a good health outcome that allows them to actually then live their life rather than being trapped by their condition.
Actually make the job centre a place that helps people find work. Because right now it just isnt. Instead they need to be places where you can improve your CV, get better at interviews and find useful training / courses etc (and get funding for them if possible). And the staff and systems need to be geared towards real people and real life, not just "computer says theres a job 15 miles away that due to poor public transport will take 2 hours to get to, but we expect you to apply for it anyway".
Of course, if all the above is feasible or not is a different question. But if your goal is to just reduce the number of people on benefits that is what you do. You make it so people dont have to claim them!
Basically, at least in my experience knowing some friends who are trapped in the benefits system, the issue is the system and employers and governments who see them as useless and so dont want to even try.
And while we’re at it, make work affordable. Extend the existing free childcare scheme to at least 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year; not the current half-baked scheme.
Also let teenagers to easily find jobs in roles they desire, especially entry-level positions that require little to no experience. I recently attempted to secure a summer internship for just two months, and the experience was quite frustrating. The work experience and backgrounds required were often unrealistic. It's disheartening to see the low acceptance rates often less than 1% of applicants get hired. This constant stream of rejection letters, stating that someone else was deemed better suited for the job (or someone is better than you) is painful. It's no wonder so many young people are struggling to find work these days.
let teenagers to easily find jobs in roles they desire, especially entry-level positions that require little to no experience. ... It's disheartening to see the low acceptance rates often less than 1% of applicants get hired.
The problem with the former proposal (universally) is that it makes the latter worse. It isn't possible to "beat the market", forcing companies to pay more for an employee means they will seek the most experienced in order to get the most value.
I'd probably suggest establishing a living wage at a higher rate, but not making it universal like the minimum wage. Instead it could scale up based on a number of years' employment (at any company) but then taper off again after a period of unemployment.
(In an ideal world I'd want the minimum wage gone entirely as it's extremely distortionary, being able to be paid as little as as their experience is worth would maximise employment. However I recognise that this is unrealistic and would end up with a race to the bottom).
What I meant to say earlier (but got garbled so I deleted) was the following:
I think all must acknowledge that, given the growing instability in the world at large (including the unreliability of one of our main allies), we need to build up our independence in the following areas:
1) militarily
2) economically
3) technologically
This is not to say we want to use a stronger military, but to be able to have policy independent of other powers we must be able to stand on our own two feet. This should be the case regardless of political views. After all, we should have our policy decided by British voters/leaders not by a foreign countries voters/leaders. Right now, we don’t want Trump dictating our policy but equally, in the future the US leader could be a Communist or something who we equally wouldn’t want dictating our policy.
The main question is how to find the money, which *is* dependent on politics. I think further tax rises will damage the economy (the ultra rich just avoid them/take their money elsewhere, the people they hurt are those who are well off enough to get the high rates but not well off enough to hire tax lawyers etc.).
In my opinion, the thing do is get as many people off unemployment type benefits as possible and, after that, target the very expensive and often not means tested benefits for pensioners. After all, there is no reason why pensioners have any more ”right“ to government money than anyone else. These benefits should really be made means tested like most (all?) others. Why should a pensioner with plenty of money and a car get a bus pass when a 30 year old who can’t drive doesn’t? Especially when the country is short on money for essential things like defence (as above)?
In some ways the minimum wage has become for some employers the maximum wage, The idea was that though doing extra hours, minimum wage would lift you out of poverty Anyone see the problem? often employers wouldn't let you do extra hours, unless there was a business need for it, and of course, the more hours you worked so the more tax and NI would be taken, whilst at the same time, your WTC or UC would also be reduced, so the person working is only marginally better off,
If we are serious about reducing welfare It needs to be something new, not rehashed failed tory policy.
The way to get people off benefits is actually pretty obvious. Its just companies and governments wont accept it! You need go just do the following:
Pay people a real living wage so that you dont need to claim in work benefits.
Improve workers rights around illness and disability. Including mandatory company sick leave like what lots of companies already provide (or change SSP to match the employees actual wage like some other countries do), and improve access to true flexible working. The goal is to allow those who have conditions that mean they arent able to work a constant 5 days a week or a set shift patten access to the workplace.
Build council houses again at a scale we've not seen since the post war period.
Improve how we handle chronic health issues so that people arent just palmed off with "take these tablets" or even worse "you are making it up". Actually engage with these people to give them a good health outcome that allows them to actually then live their life rather than being trapped by their condition.
Actually make the job centre a place that helps people find work. Because right now it just isnt. Instead they need to be places where you can improve your CV, get better at interviews and find useful training / courses etc (and get funding for them if possible). And the staff and systems need to be geared towards real people and real life, not just "computer says theres a job 15 miles away that due to poor public transport will take 2 hours to get to, but we expect you to apply for it anyway".
Of course, if all the above is feasible or not is a different question. But if your goal is to just reduce the number of people on benefits that is what you do. You make it so people dont have to claim them!
Basically, at least in my experience knowing some friends who are trapped in the benefits system, the issue is the system and employers and governments who see them as useless and so dont want to even try.
Because a bus pass encourages older people who maybe didn't ought to be driving to leave the car at home, yet still get out and contribute to the economy (which they definitely do).
Because a bus pass encourages older people who maybe didn't ought to be driving to leave the car at home, yet still get out and contribute to the economy (which they definitely do).
Why not? - for the same reasons as they should have a bus pass.
To enable them to get out and about, whether that be for paid work, voluntary work or just leisure, when they are past the point at which they are safe to be driving.
Allowing them to travel safely often means that they are either directly contributing to society or just spending their disposable income during the week on days where working families are not able to be out and about.
Getting people out and about is demonstrably better for the aging than having them stuck at home. It also contributes to the economy and society as a whole.
In some ways the minimum wage has become for some employers the maximum wage, The idea was that though doing extra hours, minimum wage would lift you out of poverty Anyone see the problem? often employers wouldn't let you do extra hours, unless there was a business need for it, and of course, the more hours you worked so the more tax and NI would be taken, whilst at the same time, your WTC or UC would also be reduced, so the person working is only marginally better off,
If we are serious about reducing welfare It needs to be something new, not rehashed failed tory policy.
Indeed, things like the 15 hours limit means that lots will do just that (that's not a criticism of those who do, just a statement of fact).
If there was a way to soften that cliff edge that would help.
Another thing which could also help is to offer tax insensitives/disincentives.
For example, if more than a given percentage of your staff are on minimum or near minimum wage then you get applied with a tax equivalent to (say) 10% of the pay of those staff (i.e. it will encourage companies to look at where they could increase pay rates so they don't fall foul of the need to pay this extra tax - in that if you're gong to need to pay £2 million to the government you might as well pay £1.5 million to your staff), as long as this steps up/down in a linear manner then the staff should be those who benefit.
Likewise, it could be worth looking at offering a £3,500 tax rebate to business for each person who either:
- you take on and now no longer receives any Universal Credit payments (encourages companies to have development programs)
- you take on before they are 24 and haven't claimed Universal Credit or have done so for less than 18 months (encourages youth employment)
- you take on when they were receiving Universal Credit and they now work more than 24 hours a week (averaged over the tax year or their period of employment within any tax year) even if that's from day 1 (encourages companies to increase working hours, and may even to have enhanced rates of pay for those increasing their hours) with a further £800 for those who work more 30 hours a week (further encouraging to increase hours)
The main benefit is that these payments never stop (with the exception of the hours based ones if the staff member reduces their hours) and so it's worth companies trying to retain these staff
Whilst this would be a cost, mostly it's money which is (doing all of):
- reducing the amount of benefits paid out
- is mostly money which is within the value of the taxes paid by the individual (especially during the 55% tax recovery stage)
Where it really wins is where:
- there was someone claiming housing support (can easily be £500 a month, so that alone is often over £6,000 a year in reduced costs) and they get a job where they no longer need to
- the individual is no longer receiving any Universal Credit payments and they move to a new job as their new company no longer gets those tax benefits
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Because a bus pass encourages older people who maybe didn't ought to be driving to leave the car at home, yet still get out and contribute to the economy (which they definitely do).
Imagine I told you there was a single intervention that could reduce annual sick days by 4.4 million, free up 1.
www.linkedin.com
The Most Powerful Health, Cost-of-Living and Growth Policy You've Never Heard Of
Chris Boardman CBE
Chris Boardman CBE
Published Jun 12, 2026
Imagine I told you there was a single intervention that could reduce annual sick days by 4.4 million, free up 1.7 million GP appointments, help millions of households save around £1,700 yearly, prevent 2,500 premature deaths and boost the economy by £115 billion.
In today's political climate, you'd be forgiven for assuming it would require a vast new programme, years of legislation and eye-watering levels of spending. But it requires something much simpler. It requires 5.3 million more people to be physically active.
Follow that thread a little further. What would those people need in order to become more active? Not gym memberships. Not fitness programmes. Not more willpower. They would need physical activity to become the easy option, built naturally into everyday life.
And what might that activity look like? It looks like children walking, scooting or cycling to school, perhaps independently. It looks like older people, or those less steady on their feet, being able to reach the local shop, bus stop or pharmacy safely. It looks like someone cycling a couple of miles to work or to a railway station instead of sitting in traffic.
These aren't niche activities. They are the journeys we make every day. One in four of them is less than a mile, seven in ten are under five miles. So the question isn't whether people would choose these options. The question is whether we provide them with a safe and practical way to do so. Excitingly, we already know what works because we can see it happening.
It goes onto say something familiar to those who recognise my posts with regards to traffic and the impact of a 10% reduction on car milage:
An even less obvious benefit that often goes unnoticed feels downright counterintuitive. More people walking, wheeling and cycling makes life easier for drivers.
We've all experienced the difference when school holidays arrive. Traffic eases. Journeys become quicker and less stressful. The school run accounts for around 10% of peak-time traffic (even higher in some of our large towns and cities). Many of these trips are very short, but parents often feel they have no realistic alternative. Imagine if they did.
Imagine if millions of short car journeys simply didn't need to happen. Families could consider giving up a second car that is becoming increasingly expensive to own and run. Roads would be less congested at the busiest times of day. Buses would move more reliably. The active travel plan is, in a very real way, the real plan for drivers.
(To be clear, I'm not the author of the above article - even though I enjoy cycling, talk up active travel and often talk about the benefits to Manchester from HS2)
Improve workers rights around illness and disability. Including mandatory company sick leave like what lots of companies already provide (or change SSP to match the employees actual wage like some other countries do), and improve access to true flexible working. The goal is to allow those who have conditions that mean they arent able to work a constant 5 days a week or a set shift patten access to the workplace.
Fortunately, the rules on sick pay have changed for the better. Not being able to claim sick pay for the first few days of illness only forces people to get back to work when they're really not fit to be there and they end up passing on whatever bug they have to everyone else.
Wheesht! That'll cause house prices to plummet and we can't possibly allow poorer people to have a place to live if it's going to reduce the value of *my* home.
Improve how we handle chronic health issues so that people arent just palmed off with "take these tablets" or even worse "you are making it up". Actually engage with these people to give them a good health outcome that allows them to actually then live their life rather than being trapped by their condition.
Actually make the job centre a place that helps people find work. Because right now it just isnt. Instead they need to be places where you can improve your CV, get better at interviews and find useful training / courses etc (and get funding for them if possible). And the staff and systems need to be geared towards real people and real life, not just "computer says theres a job 15 miles away that due to poor public transport will take 2 hours to get to, but we expect you to apply for it anyway".
This is my biggest gripe. It used to be that you could visit a Job Centre and there'd be printed cards on boards with all the local vacancies. Technology eventually prevailed and the boards were replaced by touch-screen terminals. Nowadays it's all online and there's absolutely no consideration for those who a) aren't familiar or comfortable with using the internet or b) those who are familiar, but simply cannot afford it.
What makes me sad is that Job Centres actually used to provide that sort of help. If you spotted a college course that would help your prospects, they'd fund it. As it is now, they don't even cover bus fares if they call you in for an appointment other than your usual fortnightly visit.
Of course, if all the above is feasible or not is a different question. But if your goal is to just reduce the number of people on benefits that is what you do. You make it so people dont have to claim them!
Basically, at least in my experience knowing some friends who are trapped in the benefits system, the issue is the system and employers and governments who see them as useless and so dont want to even try.
The goal is to reduce the number of people on benefits but this is done through sanctions rather than any desire to actually help people. I'm sure that there are people who would suggest that the threat of losing one's income focusses the mind but I'd argue that it actually a distraction; how can you concentrate on finding a job when the roof over your head is at stake?
What doesn't work, and has never worked, is more of the same, I spent a short time unemployed, and found it very frustrating, I knew what i needed, but the system insisted i wasted my, and my advisers time in a tick box system, eventually i got placed on a course, that was not entirely suitable, but that opened a door for me to find the job i eventually got, it was luck, nothing else, the system is broken,
Had my Adviser actually listened to me, and been able to point me in the right direction, i might have found a job earlier, my beef is that it's too set, here's the rules, obey them, or get sanctioned, being made to apply for jobs you know you are not going to get, when being actively prevented from getting the help that might actually help you, is mentally destructive,
Actually make the job centre a place that helps people find work. Because right now it just isnt. Instead they need to be places where you can improve your CV, get better at interviews and find useful training / courses etc (and get funding for them if possible). And the staff and systems need to be geared towards real people and real life, not just "computer says theres a job 15 miles away that due to poor public transport will take 2 hours to get to, but we expect you to apply for it anyway".
I think this is something significant, a lot of the focus of the job centre is just that, getting a job as quick as possible - any job. In other countries the focus is more on finding a career for people that will work for them long term, giving access to training courses and the like.
Equally, that involves taking a long-term view, not something that we seem to know how to do in this country.
What doesn't work, and has never worked, is more of the same, I spent a short time unemployed, and found it very frustrating, I knew what i needed, but the system insisted i wasted my, and my advisers time in a tick box system, eventually i got placed on a course, that was not entirely suitable, but that opened a door for me to find the job i eventually got, it was luck, nothing else, the system is broken,
Had my Adviser actually listened to me, and been able to point me in the right direction, i might have found a job earlier, my beef is that it's too set, here's the rules, obey them, or get sanctioned, being made to apply for jobs you know you are not going to get, when being actively prevented from getting the help that might actually help you, is mentally destructive,
Martin Lewis talks about the 4 things which lead to success, in such be says the 4th is the most important factor:
the 4 things are talent, hard work, focus and Luck.
The key quote being "you can do every thing right and it not work for you" with the link made later to if you are super successful as it's luck that it was you over others who worked just as hard, we're just as talented and just as focused or means you have a moral duty to give back
Because a bus pass encourages older people who maybe didn't ought to be driving to leave the car at home, yet still get out and contribute to the economy (which they definitely do).
The problem with this logic is that all benefits are a transfer of money from the taxpayer to the recipient (and the bus pass is just one of many-others include the triple lock, etc.). One could argue that if taxes were lower, working people would contribute more to the economy as well. Looking at the bus pass specifically, if there are people who shouldn’t be driving, the licensing rules should be reviewed.
If someone can’t drive safely they should pay for other transport the same way someone younger who can’t pass the driving test does. In the case of the bus pass, if we have them at all, they should be limited to those (of all ages) who can’t 1) drive safely, 2) walk to employment/shops and 3) afford to pay for bus travel. Having them (as above, along with various other benefits) as a taxpayer funded “freebie” is simply not sustainable.
Basically, benefits should be limited to those who actually need them (again, especially when the country is sorely in need of money for things like defence and taxes have already been hiked repeatedly).
Because a bus pass encourages older people who maybe didn't ought to be driving to leave the car at home, yet still get out and contribute to the economy (which they definitely do).
Accidents involving older drivers have risen since the free bus pass was introduced in 2008 and are now at an all time high, so it's doubtful this is a good reason.
The correct way to prevent older drivers from causing harm is by enforcing compliance with the law around reporting medical incapacity, or setting restrictions on them.
That was always going to be the case that some bad employers see it as a target not to be exceeded. The problem is there is a underclass that takes those jobs because not skilled to do anything better, or set up their own business. No one would get away with paying minimum wage if people did better elsewhere
The idea was that though doing extra hours, minimum wage would lift you out of poverty Anyone see the problem? often employers wouldn't let you do extra hours, unless there was a business need for it, and of course, the more hours you worked so the more tax and NI would be taken, whilst at the same time, your WTC or UC would also be reduced, so the person working is only marginally better off,
Governments have got greedy with ways to tax people, but if they stopped being so generous with benefits, wouldn't need to tax others as much. Really needs to be a cap on benefits that can't get more than say 90% of working on minimum wage, so benefits are poorer option than working, basically make work pay.
To be fair, Labour's tax rates have been lot worse for those on middle and upper middle incomes, or those doing overtime, it's a negative to improving yourself and working harder. If anything Labour have encouraged benefits culture rather than working harder. Tory policy was other way around.
It's not a 'bargain price', it's a third off and we have to pay for the card in the first place - I don't know how you get a free railcard. We went to Liverpool on Friday using our railcards and spent over well £100 on food and attractions when we got there. Without the railcards we wouldn't have bothered.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Accidents involving older drivers have risen since the free bus pass was introduced in 2008 and are now at an all time high, so it's doubtful this is a good reason.
The correct way to prevent older drivers from causing harm is by enforcing compliance with the law around reporting medical incapacity, or setting restrictions on them.
And how much higher would it be without the bus pass?
In my experience the biggest problem with older drivers is the insistence with too many on having an SUV size car (they will say they have them because the height makes access easier, but there are small SUV style cars available now, such as the Citroen C3) and then taking ages to park it, and driving way below the speed limit, causing congestion. A medical test wouldn't pick up on that problem.
While an contradicting correlation doesn't disprove that a bus pass has some positive effect, it does indicate that its effect is outweighed by other factors.
"It will stop old people killing themselves or others on the roads" wasn't the intention behind the concession. Older people who can afford to drive continue to do so, and there are a record number of older drivers now. Bus passes help those who are on lower incomes stay active and engaged, that is why they exist.
It's not a 'bargain price', it's a third off and we have to pay for the card in the first place - I don't know how you get a free railcard. We went to Liverpool on Friday using our railcards and spent over well £100 on food and attractions when we got there.
Rail tickets are now so expensive relative to railcards that you don't have to make many trips at all for a railcard to be worth it.
If the railcard was £500 it would be a different matter, but there are lots of reasonable trips where a railcard will pay off in a single return journey!
Given pensioners are largely on fixed incomes, pensioners spending will probably be fixed (to a first approximation) whatever you do.
If you didn't go to this event and spend money there, you'd probably spend that money on something else.
EDIT:
You only have to use £240 of rail tickets over three years for the senior railcard to save you money. This is not a very large amount given current rail fares.
The problem with this logic is that all benefits are a transfer of money from the taxpayer to the recipient (and the bus pass is just one of many-others include the triple lock, etc.). One could argue that if taxes were lower, working people would contribute more to the economy as well. Looking at the bus pass specifically, if there are people who shouldn’t be driving, the licensing rules should be reviewed.
If someone can’t drive safely they should pay for other transport the same way someone younger who can’t pass the driving test does. In the case of the bus pass, if we have them at all, they should be limited to those (of all ages) who can’t 1) drive safely, 2) walk to employment/shops and 3) afford to pay for bus travel. Having them (as above, along with various other benefits) as a taxpayer funded “freebie” is simply not sustainable.
Basically, benefits should be limited to those who actually need them (again, especially when the country is sorely in need of money for things like defence and taxes have already been hiked repeatedly).
Accidents involving older drivers have risen since the free bus pass was introduced in 2008 and are now at an all time high, so it's doubtful this is a good reason.
The correct way to prevent older drivers from causing harm is by enforcing compliance with the law around reporting medical incapacity, or setting restrictions on them.
You are right about the increase in accidents involving those over 70.
As between 2008 and 2023 the number of accidents grew by 23.16% from 2,802 to 3,451.
Although, as I'm sure many are aware, we have an aging population, so the population over 70 has increased by 27.63% from 7.6 million to 9.4 million.
As such per million people the accident rate has stayed fairly stable with a small reduction from 368.7 to 367.1.
Even that may not be the true picture, to see that we'd ideally be comparing KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) per billion miles (or km), but that doesn't appear to be data which is held in the public domain.
There is data on where the driver who is over 70 ends up KSI which does show an increase in the KSI rate per billion miles (56.7 in 2008 vs 59.0 in 2024).
As this only reports where there's an older driver who is KSI, and not all accidents where there's a older driver (i.e. it only shows where June, 83, is involved in a crash and dies but doesn't include when Burt's driving resulted in a pedestrian death).
This means that it's an incomplete picture and therefore we have to be careful about drawing conclusions about wider trends.
Roy Hattersley has died at the age of 93, and this line of his, originally said about New Labour, seems remarkably apt now, as quoted from his BBC obituary:
But when Brown finally entered No 10, Hattersley continued the offensive claiming that Labour had managed to alienate all sections of society.
"By attempting to be all things to all voters," he wrote, "it seems to have lost both its moral compass and its nerve."
If Barnham does win, and returns to parliament Will Starmer resign, as leader, leaving the way open or will he fight in a leadership contest?
My own person view is he will resign, stay on as PM, in an stop gap until the new leader, and hence PM is elected, then resign as PM
If Barnham does win, and returns to parliament Will Starmer resign, as leader, leaving the way open or will he fight in a leadership contest?
My own person view is he will resign, stay on as PM, in an stop gap until the new leader, and hence PM is elected, then resign as PM
Starmer's comments on the lunchtime news were very much that he has no intention of resigning, if someone chooses to challenge him then he will fight it.
Starmer's comments on the lunchtime news were very much that he has no intention of resigning, if someone chooses to challenge him then he will fight it.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's just saying this now because to say otherwise is to essentially admit a capitulation, which throws the whole party into haywire, and should Burnham be elected, then Starmer is going to go more gracefully. However, we won't know for sure of course until Friday at the earliest.
My feeling that it will depend on the Cabinet. If he asks them and more than a handful are reluctant to back him or if there is a Cabinet revolt, which might be kept internal to the party (*), he will probably have to go. They may allow him a dignified departure, possibly after one last piece of worthwhile legislation goes through.
* - No, of course it won’t be kept quiet. This is the Labour Party.
If Barnham does win, and returns to parliament Will Starmer resign, as leader, leaving the way open or will he fight in a leadership contest?
My own person view is he will resign, stay on as PM, in an stop gap until the new leader, and hence PM is elected, then resign as PM
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
