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.
71 Opinions
The state spends more on welfare than it collects in tax. And embarrassing fact and also a completely unsustainable one. We are literally just punishing our children and grandchildren and kicking pain down the road.
I'm unfortunately on benefits because of Disability, even i understand that the system can't carry on as it is. People in the most need shouldn't be affected, however tighter rules as to receives pip, dla etc should only be given to people with real disabilities and in need of genuine help. It seems like anyone with a walking stick can get it nowadays. I don't believe benefit amounts received should be affected as long as the right people received them.
I'm sick of being a PAYE pig to pay for people who don't contribute or have gold plated pensions. I have nothing left to cut back on.
Break the addiction to money for nothing.
Welfare should be a safety net. In work benefits are a disgrace. Why are we encouraging employers to pay low wages by topping them up?
Out of work benefits must be made less generous, housing benefit must be pulled back, PIP must be removed for non severe mental health cases, the pensions triple lock must be replaced with a single lock. Foreign nationals should get no welfare. We need substantial reduction in state spending to fix the economy and become a prosperous and free nation again.
Successive Govts had 70 years to plan for the baby boomers to retire, and now they're acting shocked. Well, the boomers can't unborn themselves. This is happening now. Deal with it.
We are borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt we already have. Welfare should be there to protect the vulnerable. Not to feed and home all comers to our country and not to enable those who are work shy.
Paying people to pretend to be ill. Paying people to be lazy. Paying useless foreigners to come and clog up our social housing. Paying people to breed beyond their ability to care. These are crazy ways to waste money.
NO ..... However... Why is the 1st target the old age pension In my opinion something you've worked & paid into for all your life isn't a benefit it's a given right! And as for cutting it, why would we do that when it's already one of the worse & smallest pensions in Europe? As to other benefits, yes they do seem to be to freely available, but any money saved in payouts should be reinvested in the NHS, education, welfare etc aming to lower the future number of claimants