A room divided over hardship and dependency left its strongest intellectual backing on the losing side: every argument that earned the floor’s top respect came from No voters. The Yes case was more emphatic than worked through, while the No case was more qualified than its defeat suggests.
Yes voters were not offering a single blueprint. Some wanted benefits reduced below the incentive to work — “no benefits for working people” — while another said, “Clearly living on benefits should never offer more than survival”; others wanted fewer claimants, challenged PIP, or argued that benefits for older people should also be cut.
No voters answered with the cost of living and the limits of the category. Their most-respected voices argued that “The disabled and those lacking the capacity for work need support” and that “people should live dignified lives, free of unnecessary hardship”; others still called for stricter scrutiny, time-limited support or community work where people were fit and able.
The debate sits inside the familiar pressure between controlling welfare spending and protecting low-income households, especially when many claimants are already in work or have disabilities. The sides often talked past each other: the Yes argument treated working age as evidence of available capacity, while a No voter replied, “Being working age doesn't mean being able to work.”
The platform has delivered permission to cut, but not a settled answer about whom the cuts should reach.
22 Opinions
Yes but why only working age? benefits for old people should be cut too
No reason for majority of working age people to be not working. Lets face it even if had no legs ,,horrible I know,,could work on computer etc. Always something you could do. Mixing with other workers, instead watching TV all day ,also better for mental wellbeing!
people should live dignified lives, free of unnecessary hardship. Impoverishing people reduces their stake in society & the future, making them resentful of 'the haves' creating more crime, less engagement with democracy, and a worse environment for us all. We are all better off when the people in our communities are relatively happy: warm, housed and well fed. pennies saved on benefits will be spent many times over on crime, poorer health, social care etc
People receiving welfare benefits should be required to attend on the job training doing community work, obv if fit and able.
Compared to other developed countries, especially in Europe, we actually have some of the lowest (if not the lowest) spending on welfare. We are terrible at looking after our population, especially the most vulnerable. We need to start having conversations about more important things rather than politics of division - where actually is the money (with the super wealthy) and how can we actually help us all? (ending the corruption)
I think the difficulty is treating it as one system there's so many confusing layers of benefits coming from all angles. A reduction in some place is needed with a harsh view of what happens if this benefit isn't given because in reality a lot have no actual purpose or focus like pip.
Yes but it's the number of claimants that should be cut. (People with mild anxiety, illegal migrants). Not necessarily the amount per claimant as we are quite low paying compared to G7.
The disabled and those lacking the capacity for work need support 40% of new PIPS claimants are in work our education system leaves the young ill prepared for work will high levels of functional illiteracy and innumetacy
Clearly living on benefits should never offer more than survival. It should not continue to be a lifestyle choice. And no foreigner should ever receive a penny.
Out of work benefits are already way below minimum wage