A dead heat, and the argument behind it was less a clash of values than a quarrel over what long-term unemployment actually is. Both camps agreed on more than the result suggests: neither wanted to abandon people who genuinely cannot work.
The Yes case, carried by three joint most-respected arguments, was about incentive and reciprocity. One argued that after six months benefits should fall for those who refuse reasonable opportunities, because welfare “should be a safety net, not a permanent alternative to employment”. Another went further, tying payment to tax paid, while a third wanted “compulsory work activities within the local community”. Even the hardest Yes lines carved out illness, disability and caring.
The most-respected No case, the best-rated argument on either side, turned the question around: “How will it help them if they get their benefits cut?” Others pressed the logic directly: “Why would the benefit shrink if the recipient's needs do not?” A weary voice said simply, “You try living on £400 a month.” Yes voters offered little reply to the claim that jobs are scarce.
Yet the No side was not unanimous in defending the status quo. One well-respected No voter would back support “as long as the search for work is genuine and consistent”, and others accepted sanctions or community work. The real gap was whether a blanket taper or a case-by-case judgment should apply.
On the Yes side, a taper was a nudge. On the No side, it was a ticking clock.
88 Opinions
No because there could be many debilitating issue why they may be out of work. How will it help them if they get their benefits cut? Just putting poorer people further into poverty... Most people are only maybe 2 paydays if we are lucky away from being homeless... Bet peoples attitude would change if it then became relevant to them....
Not as long as the search for work is genuine and consistent.
Yes. After six months, benefits should reduce for those capable of working who refuse reasonable opportunities. Welfare should be a safety net, not a permanent alternative to employment. Provide job-search support and retraining, but expect personal responsibility in return. Protect those genuinely unable to work through illness, disability or caring responsibilities. The aim must be independence and employment, not lifelong reliance on the state.
This should only be the case if getting a job is literally just as easy as applying for a job, but the harsh reality is that that's just not the world we live in. There are endless factors outside of a person's control that can prevent them from getting a job no matter how many roles they apply to. If the job centre can literally hand out a job that will cover a person's expenses and won't cause them health problems, sure... but they can't, so no.
a reduction in benefits and compulsory work activities within the local community should be used to incentivise claimants getting back to work.
Unemployment benefits should start at 90% of previous income but after 9 months reduce. It is hard to suddenly lose income & hard on families but the onus must always be on adapting and finding new work
You try living on £400 a month. We need UBI for everyone, not punishing people for being at the wrong end of capitalism. Edited
Not only should they shrink, but they should be paid out proportionately to tax paid and time paying tax from employment. Anyone that hasn't paid tax , should not be entitled to any benefits at all.
Worklessness should be disincentivised. Anyone out of work for 6 months attends community litter picks for example 1 day a week, progressing to 2 days a week at 9 months and so on. Failure to do so sees a days ‘benefit’ docked. Edited
No but add on benefits should start to be cut . Foreign claimants should get 3 month help then stopped ,come here to work then you should work.