A decisive refusal concealed a more complicated argument: the floor’s most-respected No case was about intergenerational debt, warning that welfare was “punishing our children and grandchildren”. The force of the result lay less in agreement over every cut than in agreement that the trajectory could not simply continue.
The strongest No voices demanded a smaller, stricter system. One disabled voter conceded that “the system can't carry on as it is”, while another framed the principle plainly: “Welfare should be a safety net”. Around that core came calls to reform the triple lock, tighten disability assessments, reduce housing support and tackle waste.
Yes voters did not mainly defend an untouched status quo; they challenged the premise that spending is the problem rather than the consequence of political choices. Their best line was blunt — “the boomers can't unborn themselves” — while others argued that a low state pension and inadequate wages leave welfare carrying costs that employers and governments have avoided.
That was where the two sides talked past each other. No voices treated ageing and rising health-related claims as a fiscal emergency; Yes voices treated them as obligations created by demographics and a labour market that does not pay enough. The result also exposed a split within No: some wanted cuts to benefits, others means-tested pensions, and several redirected their anger towards employers, ministers or welfare administration.
The chamber rejected the trajectory, but left no single replacement for it: only a broad appetite for reform, and a sharper anxiety about who should bear its cost.
65 Opinions
There will come a time, it it isn't already here, where people who have no right even applying for Welfare are being given it. If illegal economic migrants were to see we are not a soft touch who hands benefits to anyone they'd not come here.
Fraud within the system is very low, 3.3% in total in 2025. It's a mix of real fraud, overpayments and underpayments. Very low in the scheme of things. The welfare system is needed, each generation has to contribute towards it. We cannot cut it back, we're still catching up with Europe, we have the lowest state pensions.
Go after the MPs and there expenses, royal family are given far too much of the tax payers money. Billions wasted on covid contracts. Far too many people claiming welfare and working. Time for CEOs and companies pay a living wage. Corporations not paying tax Amazon among many others. Why do governments go after the easy targets.
No. However, I believe the waste is in the administration of welfare. I have talked to people on welfare - they work 40hr weeks or are long past retirement. Some people don't want to apply or ask for help because they are embarassed. Systems should function effectively & if they did - the people who are not in the system wouldn't be bothered/upset. It's sad that welfare is a huge cost anyway! I hope you never need welfare & you live well, prosperous & happy lives. 😊
Benefit payments are outstripping income. Country already borrowed trillions. Need massive cuts to what government pays out. Next for Britain? Bankruptcy.
My yes is heavily stipulated on the current reform's and the public attitudes around disability coming back down to reality. We're currently experiencing an expanse of what counts as disability because of the social model. At some point welfare will realise the difference between accommodating different abilities and a disability. (Limited ability to perform normal daily activities)
The triple lock is literally the worst possible way to calculate the pension rate, and it happens to coincide with a huge window of boomers who will never vote it away. Making the hard choice to reform it is obviously necessary even if it is unpopular, but the state needs to get the courage to do it before the UK is bankrupt.
No! We spend ridiculous amounts on welfare, it should be a safety net not a lifetime guarantee for loafers
Governments need to plan ahead, using community wealth during periods of economic growth. It's unacceptable for politicians to keep lashing out at the weakest everything the economy hits a downwave
I voted no because it won't remain on that alleged trajectory. The current narrative is designed to instil anger fear and resentment to manufacture consent to remove ALL benefits for EVERYONE. And I'm not buying into it.