Live 12:30PM :Liz Kendall MP Benefits are being Cut 18/3/25

[arista]

Live SkyNewsHD
BBCnewsHD


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/af75/live/9a671e90-037d-11f0-bbde-f372f8924428.jpg.webp

[Beso]

Donald will be so proud

[arista]

Live all media
And LBC.


PM Starmer sitting next her

[Cherie]

It is great they have found more staff to do more checks, now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers so they can be sent back whence they came or go out to work ..

[user104658]

It is great they have found more staff to do more checks, now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers so they can be sent back whence they came or go out to work ..

Now Cherie, I assume you mean economic migrants and not actual asylum seekers when you say "sent back whence they came" ... ... right?

[Cherie]

Now Cherie, I assume you mean economic migrants and not actual asylum seekers when you say "sent back whence they came" ... ... right?

No I mean ayslum seekers as I assume not everyone claiming asylum eventually gets asylum or indeed is an actual asylum seeker, unless you know differently? you should be up in arms about this, todays policy will actively discrimate against people like your daughter, I know you live in Scotland so are probably protected ...but still ...they can find staff to check on citizens, but there are huge backlogs on asylum claims...how can that be right and who is benefitting? I have written to my MP, you should too

[arista]

Yes Cherie
Illegal Migrants

Or costing even more.

and it's Never Ending

SB
Silly post

[arista]

It's £5 Billion
of Cuts


To pay for War in Ukraine

[user104658]

No I mean ayslum seekers as I assume not everyone claiming asylum eventually gets asylum or indeed is an actual asylum seeker, unless you know differently? you should be up in arms about this, todays policy will actively discrimate against people like your daughter, I know you live in Scotland so are probably protected ...but still ...they can find staff to check on citizens, but there are huge backlogs on asylum claims...how can that be right and who is benefitting? I have written to my MP, you should too

At the point that they would be "sent back" then their asylum claim would have failed, so they would no longer be an asylum seeker. If they're sent back before that, then no one has any way of knowing whether the claim is genuine or not. I'm not saying the current system is good or sustainable but the answer is speeding up the process to sort out the genuine claims - not just saying a blanket "no to all" when some will indeed be genuine requests for asylum with lives at risk if "sent back". Honestly, looking a few years down the line, AI could massively speed up the process.

Taking any other stance might seem "more pragmatic" but I find it a short-sighted view on things... it assumes that the shoe will never be on the other foot. That we will always be the ones taking people in, rather than looking for somewhere to run.

[Liam-]

After all the scare tactics the media and activists spread for the past week or so about this I watched the announcements live and what was said and put forward wasn’t that bad, the majority of it was actually reasonable and sensible, the most in need will be looked after, the assessments will be changed to be less humiliating, no more periodical assessments for people deemed not fit to ever work and sick and disabled people who can and are wanting to try to work will be helped with doing so, it all seems quite sensible

[joeysteele]

While I'm not happy about the tightening up of points needed to claim PIP.

Overall IF this is done with some compassion in place, this wasn't as horrific as has been presented in the media over recent weeks.
Although I know, there has been intense pressure made known by Labour backbenchers on this.

It's not as severe as the absolutely hateful criteria put in place by the Coalition between 2010-2015.
Which really the Cons never relaxed at all.

There's more to learn about it and also the views of so called experts as to it's effects.
However what I've picked up so far is, it's not as bad as was predicted.

I'm still concerned at the assessment and re-assessment process/interviewing.
I've attended them in the past with claimants and they can get extremely stressful and unnecessarily intrusive as to the questioning.

[user104658]

This part - "Right to Try" Guarantee: Disabled individuals on benefits will be able to try employment without risking a reassessment or losing their benefits - is actually really vital and has been missing for the UK benefits system for a long, long time. No one is going to give something a shot if they're not sure they can do it, if trying and failing means they're going to end up homeless or unable to put food on the table. Even if they're 80% sure it'll work out.

One of the few things that Universal Credit actually got right when it "took over" from the old Tax Credits system is "full tapering" (you earn more you get less In benefits proportionately all the way down to zero) where the old system was absolutely full of arbitrary cut-offs that meant people taking a few hours of work a week, or even an extra shift if they already had a job, could mean ending up worse off (sometimes disastrously so - e.g. losing several hundred £ of support for going £5 over some cut off or other).

[Beso]

Seems totally pointless. How much is it costing to set up?

[user104658]

Seems totally pointless. How much is it costing to set up?

That's always the question - when they set these things up, it often ends up costing more to fund and staff than the eventual saving. They usually discover that there's far less "invalid claiming and fraud" going on than they expected. However,they are claiming that for people who are properly assessed as being permanently unable to work, they'll get life-long benefits issued, which would save a fair bit of wasted time and resources. They currently reassess every x-number-of-years even when it's very clear that nothing will have changed whatsoever, which is a total waste of resources. You don't need to "reassess" quadriplegic people or those with significant developmental / learning disability to see if they've magically become able to work.

[Cherie]

After all the scare tactics the media and activists spread for the past week or so about this I watched the announcements live and what was said and put forward wasn’t that bad, the majority of it was actually reasonable and sensible, the most in need will be looked after, the assessments will be changed to be less humiliating, no more periodical assessments for people deemed not fit to ever work and sick and disabled people who can and are wanting to try to work will be helped with doing so, it all seems quite sensible

You forgot to mention the 1 million people who will no longer be eligible for PIP just like pensioners.... you know damn well if it were the Tories targetting the elderly and the disabled you would be fuming, meanwhile working age able young men are put up in hotels with no sign of any urgency is getting the backlog seen to

You know you can become disabled at any time in life, lets hope it doesnt happen to you and you just come under the points criteria

[Cherie]

At the point that they would be "sent back" then their asylum claim would have failed, so they would no longer be an asylum seeker. If they're sent back before that, then no one has any way of knowing whether the claim is genuine or not. I'm not saying the current system is good or sustainable but the answer is speeding up the process to sort out the genuine claims - not just saying a blanket "no to all" when some will indeed be genuine requests for asylum with lives at risk if "sent back". Honestly, looking a few years down the line, AI could massively speed up the process.

Taking any other stance might seem "more pragmatic" but I find it a short-sighted view on things... it assumes that the shoe will never be on the other foot. That we will always be the ones taking people in, rather than looking for somewhere to run.

what are you prattling on about, of course if their asylum claim in denied they will no longer be deemed an asylum seeker but until they start processing these people we will never know ..I never once said a blanket no either you just decided I did, I said find the staff to speed up the checking process......just like they have with welfare ..as for the shoe on the other foot that can happen too, lets see how generous countries are taking the Brits in....I can tell you in advance ...no Crystal Ball required :hehe:

[arista]

Ch5HDnews
Broke it down

In 2028
if you can wash your upper body
the PIP payment will be removed

[Cherie]

For QB

now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers


No idea how you decided this was a blanket no....:shrug: You are worse than Sherriff for reading my posts and telling me what I am saying when I am not saying anything of the sort

[user104658]

what are you prattling on about, of course if their asylum claim in denied they will no longer be deemed an asylum seeker but until they start processing these people we will never know ..I never once said a blanket no either you just decided I did, I said find the staff to speed up the checking process......just like they have with welfare ..as for the shoe on the other foot that can happen too, lets see how generous countries are taking the Brits in....I can tell you in advance ...no Crystal Ball required :hehe:

So you send people who have been denied asylum back from whence they came - not asylum seekers. It may seem pedantic / purely down to wording but the distinction is important, because one is advocating for better, quicker, more efficient processes and one is advocating for a closed-door policy. One places the blame on inefficient governance and the other on the asylum seekers themselves -- be they legitimate or not.

Also (as always) worth pointing out that the VAST majority of immigration is economic migration, not asylum seekers, and using "asylum seekers" as a catch-all term for immigration is flat out incorrect.

If you want the exact figure - 89% of immigrants are not, and never have been, asylum seekers.

[user104658]

For QB

now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers


No idea how you decided this was a blanket no....:shrug: You are worse than Sherriff for reading my posts and telling me what I am saying when I am not saying anything of the sort

I read it but I think you meant immigrants, not asylum seekers, which is what I tried to clarify in my first post, but you've continued to suggest (IMO) that you don't think it's an important distinction. "Asylum seeker" is not a synonym for "immigrant".

[Cherie]

I read it but I think you meant immigrants, not asylum seekers, which is what I tried to clarify in my first post, but you've continued to suggest (IMO) that you don't think it's an important distinction. "Asylum seeker" is not a synonym for "immigrant".

Economic Migrants are claiming Asylum are they not? why else would they be put up in hotels, if they just landed and said give us a job I think that wouldn't work so well for them, I understand their are genuine Asylum seekers and I think what has been done for Ukranians has been stand out, the same should have been done for Afghans and Palestinians but it isn't instead people have no way off genuinely coming to the country and instead we have this useless system where everyone lands via boat or lorry, claims asylum, and are stuck in a hotel for ever it seems, its time the government took the system in hand, they said pre election they were no longer going to use hotels but that seems to have been pushed into the long grass, instead they are targetting the elderly and the disabled...and Labour supporters are standing around nodding and saying that is okay even though it isn't okay at all

[Cherie]

After all the scare tactics the media and activists spread for the past week or so about this I watched the announcements live and what was said and put forward wasn’t that bad, the majority of it was actually reasonable and sensible, the most in need will be looked after, the assessments will be changed to be less humiliating, no more periodical assessments for people deemed not fit to ever work and sick and disabled people who can and are wanting to try to work will be helped with doing so, it all seems quite sensible

Liz Kendall faced an immediate backlash over the plans, which were branded "cruel and devastating cuts" by disability charities. One Labour MP even warned ministers against seeking to balance the public finances on the backs of some of the poorest people in society. Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, told MPs the reforms represented the biggest cut to social security in a decade.

Many of the grim details - including the number of people impacted and the consequences on poverty levels - have been delayed. A promised impact assessment of the changes will instead be published next week alongside the Chancellor Rachel Reeves's Spring Statement.

But here The Mirror looks at some of the key changes outlined in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 84-page green paper published today.


​
PIP eligibility tightened
The most controversial change announced today is the tightening of eligibility for Personal Independence Payments - or PIP - which is paid regardless of employment status.

It is also where the government aims to make the bulk of savings (cuts) to the welfare bill.

The support works in two parts with claimants scored with points by the DWP. The first element is used to help with everyday tasks such as eating and drinking, using the toilet and bathing. A second element is used to help those with mobility problems and have issues with physically moving around and leaving their home.

Liz Kendall confronted by furious Labour MPs over DWP cuts - 'show more compassion'

Under changes unveiled today the DWP says a new requirement will be introduced to "ensure only those who score a a minimum of four points in at least one daily living activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP".

The green paper says: "This means that people who have lower needs only in the daily living activities (scoring three or less for each activity) will no longer be eligible for the daily living component of PIP." It adds: "This change means that people could lose entitlement to the daily living element of PIP and potentially other entitlements linked to this award."

The Resolution Foundation think-tank believes the tighter restrictions on PIP benefits could mean around one million people potentially at risk of losing support.



This would have essentially meant a real-terms cut to the benefit next year - with the most severly disabled people potentially impacted. But after a massive backlash from Labour MPs, the government appears to have dropped any plans to freeze the key disability benefit. Instead, it will rise with inflation next year..

Work Capability Assessments to be scrapped
The DWP Secretary announced plans to abolish the controversial Work Capability Assessment for Universal Credit by 2028-2029.

This test determines whether or not someone is deemed eligible for benefit payments for those with ilnesses or disability, who have limited ability to find a job.


Instead, the green paper says the PIP application process will become "the single assessment" to recieve both support in PIP and any extra support related to health and disability through Universal Credit. It adds: "This places additional importance on the PIP assessment and making sure it remains fit for the future."

Hike in Universal Credit - but cut to health top-up for new claimants
In a move that was welcomed by Labour MPs, Ms Kendall announced the Universal Credit standard allowance will increase. From April 2026 it will mean a single person over the age of 26 will see their benefit increase by around £7-per-week, the DWP said. Ms Kendal said this would equate to a £775 annual increase in cash terms by 2029.

But in a move that is causing deep concern, new claims for the health element of UC will be almost halved. They will receive £50-per-week from 2026/27 compared with the current rate of £97-per-week - a cut of £47-per-week.

For those already in receipt of the benefit, it will be frozen at £97-per-week. An "additional premium" will, however, protect the incomes of those who have no prospect of returning to work, the government insisted.

Under 22s could be stopped from claiming UC health top-up
A surprise detail in the DWP's green paper is a proposal to stop young people under 22 from claiming the health element of Universal Credit. The DWP said it will consult on the change, with resources instead diverted to improve work and training opportunities for 18-21 year-olds.

The government's green paper states: "Whilst for a small minority of young people work may never be a realistic goal, for most disabled young people and young people with a health condition, working at some point in the near future must be a credible ambition."

More support to help people into work
One change that will be welcomed by Labour MPs is the government's commitment to plough £1billion of savings back into the system. Ms Kendall said this will be used to help sick and disabled people back into the workforce.

The DWP said it is "one of the biggest packages of employment for support for sick and disabled people ever" and will include tailored support for claimants.


And there will also be a new "Unemployment Insurance" scheme for those who have made NI contributions, the DWP said. The green paper states: "This would mean people receive the income they need alongside the right employment support to get back into work. The welfare system was founded upon the contributory principle – the idea of ‘something-for-something."

... including 'Right to Try' work scheme
Work and Pensions Secretary announced a new scheme that will enable people on health and disability benefits the "right to try" work.

This will essentially mean those on health and disability benefits will not face a reassessment or losing their payments if they take a chance on work.

The DWP said the change will require new legislation and "will ensure someone trying work or on a pathway towards employment will never lead to an immediate reassessment or award review". This reform - unlike the major cuts to PIP - is likely to be welcomed by Labour MPs and disability charities.

READ MORE: Join our Mirror politics WhatsApp group to get the latest updates from Westminster

[Cherie]

The aim is to get some of the 642,000 people aged 16 to 24 who are currently unemployed into the armed forces, following concern that youth unemployment is soaring. The number is up by 136,000 in just one year. Ms Kendall made the statement as she responded to a question from Conservative MP Mark Pritchard. He said: "One way of perhaps attracting some people back into work is for her to have discussions with the Defence Secretary. Would she agree with me that getting more young people into his majesty's armed forces, air force, navy, army would be a starting place?"

The Work and Pensions Secretary said: "I absolutely agree. Indeed before I was appointed to this position in opposition, as a constituency MP, I have discussed with my local job centre and the armed forces recruitment precisely these issues because of the really exciting careers and opportunities that are available, I think are really important for young people


join the Army or lose your bennies?

[Livia]

So... Illegals are safe. Pensioners and the disabled... at risk. Labour, what a shower of sh1t they are.

[Beso]

That's always the question - when they set these things up, it often ends up costing more to fund and staff than the eventual saving. They usually discover that there's far less "invalid claiming and fraud" going on than they expected. However,they are claiming that for people who are properly assessed as being permanently unable to work, they'll get life-long benefits issued, which would save a fair bit of wasted time and resources. They currently reassess every x-number-of-years even when it's very clear that nothing will have changed whatsoever, which is a total waste of resources. You don't need to "reassess" quadriplegic people or those with significant developmental / learning disability to see if they've magically become able to work.



Sounds crass but why pay these people for not working. Isnt that what disability allowance is for.

Seems pointless mentioning them alongside the work shy youth. Who I believe have suffered so much during covid as they would have been going through puberty at that time and assessments on their mental wellbeing should be being made as I believe covid and especially the lockdown whilst going through puberty will have caused all sorts of damage. Lack of mental strength being one.

This to me is just a way of saying your mental illness doesnt count anymore.

[Beso]

Asylum seekers have seeked asylum, and been given it in many countries on the way to the UK. They risked that asylum with their lives to jump on a wee boat to cross the channel. Therefore, in my eyes. They have lost that moniker and are now illegal immigrants, risking it all for the easy life

[Cherie]

Gone a little quiet in here?

[Cherie]

Call it a process of radicalisation. It’s a fair bet that when Liz Kendall was elected to parliament in 2010, she never imagined that one day she would be giving a statement to the Commons as work and pensions secretary that included a £5bn cut
We were at the tail end of the five stages of grief. The denial. This wasn’t really happening to her. The anger when she realised it was really happening to her. There was no way of avoiding her destiny. The bargaining. Perhaps she could spin this as a good thing. Yes, that was it. Cuts were a moral force for good. She would be helping people in ways they didn’t know they needed helping. Depression. Who wouldn’t stare into the abyss given her choices? Finally, acceptance. It was what it was. A shitty job but someone had to do it. So she might as well try to enjoy herself.

Kendall wasn’t short of outriders. Though you couldn’t be sure how many of her cabinet colleagues were there just to offer moral support. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves may also have been there to make sure Liz had no last-minute wobbles and missed out the bits about the cuts. Wes Streeting was revelling in his newfound role as enforcer. Wes has never yet met a scrounger with anxiety and depression whom he couldn’t shout at and bully back into work.

The others, not so much. Angela Rayner was fairly inscrutable. Not all the changes were entirely to her taste. Ed Miliband and Bridget Phillipson also looked as if they would rather be elsewhere. They consoled themselves with the knowledge that at least they didn’t have to be Liz and go through a two-hour ordeal at the dispatch box. Though their turn may one day come.

Meanwhile, the Labour backbenches were packed. Full of MPs hoping for the best, but fearing the worst. Only 30 Tories were in situ on the opposite side of the house. This wasn’t their fight. They have no real interest in people who are out of work or disabled. Other than to make life worse for them.

Liz started off at a canter, as if sounding like she believed this stuff would make it true. It was a successful strategy. Because, by the end, she spoke with the conviction of the newly converted, pleased also to have got out alive. This was her big day out as one of the grownups and she had passed the test. Her reward was a pat on the shoulder from Starmer.to the welfare budget. It’s not generally the type of thing that Labour members get into politics for. But time, ambition and pragmatism all play their part. And, on Tuesday, that moment arrived for Liz.

We began with the positives. The good news story. She was ambitious for the country. She wanted everyone to feel as good about their work as she did. Though she understood that not everyone could have her job of wanting people to feel good about themselves. This was beginning to get almost meta. People were being denied the dignity of work by a system that everyone knew was being scammed by many. There were some, she graciously accepted, who could not work. They would still be taken care of. Cue muted cheers from her own backbenchers.

Related: Deep cuts, Pip and ‘right to try’ work: the key changes in UK benefits overhaul

Then to the tricky bits. Anyone under the age of 22 would be prevented from claiming health top-ups for universal credit. Yes. Liz had been informed that a young person could never be properly described as disabled until they were at least 22. There would also be cuts to personal independent payments combined with a new assessment regime. Anyone with mental health problems or a disability would be placed on a stool and immersed underwater. Those who drowned were genuine claimants. Those who survived were trying to cheat the system and would be denied payments. Simple. The old ones are still the best.

After that, we were all in need of a good laugh. Fortunately Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, was on hand to oblige. Her response to Kendall will give her nightmares for years to come. Not just the outright derision from Labour MPs but her own MPs holding their heads in their hands in disbelief. It’s just as well Helen had never been asked to do a work capacity assessment as she would have failed miserably. She has missed out on a lifetime on benefits.

Whately had just one job. To try to drive a wedge between Kendall and her largely sceptical backbenchers. Instead, she – temporarily at least – bound them tightly together. To call her hapless is to be too generous. That adjective is reserved for Kemi Badenoch, who was off giving yet another pointless speech that no one was listening to because it coincided with a major announcement in the Commons.

“Everything is a mess,” said Whately. But also, somehow, OK. The welfare bill was too high and yet she had forgotten who had been in power for much of the past 15 years. “Governing is hard,” she sobbed, as she listed all the things she would have liked to have done but somehow never did. Everything was too little, too late. She wanted the cuts to go deeper, but she didn’t know where. This was either a very public suicide note. Or a sophisticated resignation speech. Maybe she’s already had enough of opposition.

The Labour responses to the statement could be filed more under sorrow than in anger. Though no less dangerous for Kendall for that. Some did accept the need for an overhaul of a system so open to abuse, but none could bring themselves to welcome the cuts. The list of dissenters was as long as your arm. Debbie Abrahams, Clive Lewis, Clive Efford, Florence Eshalomi and Rachael Maskell among them. Starmer may find he has a substantial rebellion on his hands when the bill eventually gets a second reading.

As for the handful of Tories in the chamber, their contributions varied from the curious to the insane. Esther McVey wondered what jobs disabled people and young people would be doing given that the labour market was contracting. She had a point. One million low-paid jobs aren’t going to appear out of nowhere. Harriett Baldwin wanted reassurance that terminally ill people wouldn’t be made to work, while Mark Pritchard thought she would pack the armed forces with disabled people. It’s a thought.

All the while, Kendall only grew in confidence. Frequently mistaking criticism for support. Maybe she was expecting worse. Still, it worked for her. If she wasn’t fully on board with her changes at the beginning of her statement, she clearly was by the end.

The Guardian....oh dear

[user104658]

There is an uncomfortable reality to the whole thing. A nation can't realistically support ballooning welfare forever, it can proportionately support the physically and developmentally disabled of course, but not an increasing proportion of the workforce who can't work. And yet... They can't work. It's not that they're faking anything. It's that the long term knock on effects of end-stage capitalism are so genuinely debilitating that there are an increasing number of people who simply are not fit for work... and an increasing number of more straightforward roles that they perhaps could have worked in that are either redundant or outsourced. What do you do when both things are true?

I think they'll start playing with the idea of UBI within the decade tbh.

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/2c28/live/f3e51b40-0448-11f0-88b7-5556e7b55c5e.jpg.webp

[bots]

i have no idea what the figures are for young people registered as disabled and unable to work. Is there a published figure? Without that, i don't know how we can be expected to comment

[MTVN]

i have no idea what the figures are for young people registered as disabled and unable to work. Is there a published figure? Without that, i don't know how we can be expected to comment

I saw this yesterday showing the big rise in young people out of work on sickness benefits

1900846687997800520

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/e65e/live/8b0102d0-0441-11f0-97d3-37df2b293ed1.jpg.webp

[bots]

40% increase does seem a bit mad

[Beso]

Related: Deep cuts, Pip and ‘right to try’ work: the key changes in UK benefits overhaul


This right to work thing, now correct me if I'm wrong, but wont that require some extraordinary assistance from uk employers? And well, after the last budget, will that backing be there! I think NOT!

[Cherie]

Related: Deep cuts, Pip and ‘right to try’ work: the key changes in UK benefits overhaul


This right to work thing, now correct me if I'm wrong, but wont that require some extraordinary assistance from uk employers? And well, after the last budget, will that backing be there! I think NOT!

They are all going to go into the Army apparently :shrug:

[arista]

New Claimants

April 2026 getting £97 Universal Credit
will get £50, instead. per week.

[bots]

They are all going to go into the Army apparently :shrug:

seems like just what we need. Pissed off people that are trained to kill :laugh:

[arista]

A Disabled Lady
just spoke on LBC Live.

She wants to work
but can not if she wants benefits.

Her illness goes up and down.

She also said she has been Suicidal.



Terrible caller
in the sense,
she is not getting proper fair help.

[user104658]

I saw this yesterday showing the big rise in young people out of work on sickness benefits

1900846687997800520

Weird I wonder if anything happened in 2020 that would explain a sudden statistical shift like this, nothing is springing to mind :think:

[Liam-]

A Disabled Lady
just spoke on LBC Live.

She wants to work
but can not if she wants benefits.

Her illness goes up and down.

She also said she has been Suicidal.



Terrible caller
in the sense,
she is not getting proper fair help.

Which is why the government bringing a right to try scheme is a very much needed upgrade

[Beso]

Which is why the government bringing a right to try scheme is a very much needed upgrade

The right to try scheme will require backing from employers, this is where it starts to unravel and fail cause I doubt many employers will back anything labour does after the last budgets raid on employers.


Unless of course they can offer them a monetary incentive from all the savings they will be making...


Drip
Drip
Drip...like a wet sponge

[Cherie]

Which is why the government bringing a right to try scheme is a very much needed upgrade

who is going to give her a job? its hard enough for healthy people to find work, and with the employer NI increasing next month, employers are shedding staff 10,000 alone from NHS England, and you think they are going to take someone on, train them up with a view that in 6 months they might decide they are unfit for the role....please open your eyes ...anyone who tries a job will then be required to look for work .if they leave the job they 'tried' ...that is what is going to happen

[Livia]

This Labour government, and every government that's come before despise the working class, they despise the sick and infirm, they despise the homeless and downtrodden and they have utter contempt for poor pensioners. They are happy to continue the great replacement, bringing in other cultures and planting them in communities where those who can afford to leave, will leave. I hope they don't last the full term for the sake of the country.

[user104658]

This Labour government, and every government that's come before despise the working class, they despise the sick and infirm, they despise the homeless and downtrodden and they have utter contempt for poor pensioners. They are happy to continue the great replacement, bringing in other cultures and planting them in communities where those who can afford to leave, will leave. I hope they don't last the full term for the sake of the country.

To be replaced by who? Reform? Even if you believe in their "policies", it's a gaggle of beer sozzled old pub rats posing as career politicians; they have absolutely no idea what they're doing, and that would be evident for YEARS if they got in. The alternative would be them being stacked with defecting MP's from Tories and Labour in which case, same-old-same-old, what's the actual difference?

[Livia]

To be replaced by who? Reform? Even if you believe in their "policies", it's a gaggle of beer sozzled old pub rats posing as career politicians; they have absolutely no idea what they're doing, and that would be evident for YEARS if they got in. The alternative would be them being stacked with defecting MP's from Tories and Labour in which case, same-old-same-old, what's the actual difference?

Blah blah...

[Beso]

it's a gaggle of beer sozzled old pub rats


Proper working class...


But yeah, reform.. waste of time and resources, and not for me.

[Vanessa]

Im all for getting people into work.
As long as the genuine people who need help don't lose it.
Remember life can change in in instant, anyone could find themselves needed help.

[Vanessa]

To be replaced by who? Reform? Even if you believe in their "policies", it's a gaggle of beer sozzled old pub rats posing as career politicians; they have absolutely no idea what they're doing, and that would be evident for YEARS if they got in. The alternative would be them being stacked with defecting MP's from Tories and Labour in which case, same-old-same-old, what's the actual difference?
I say let them have a go. I can't remember the last time Reform was in charge. Has that ever happened?

[Vanessa]

I have kidney disease and one day will need dialysis.
But I have no intention of stopping work. I can change to part time if I can't cope with full time or change my hours/shift to suit.

[arista]

Yes Vanessa
you are our great tibb
hard worker.

[user104658]

I say let them have a go. I can't remember the last time Reform was in charge. Has that ever happened?

They didn't exist before 2021, so no. It isn't a real party. But with the way things are going, they probably will get to "have a go". Spoiler: it will be a complete disaster.

[user104658]

Blah blah...

I suppose this is an expected response if you have no actual thoughts beyond reactionary whinging.

[joeysteele]

To be replaced by who? Reform? Even if you believe in their "policies", it's a gaggle of beer sozzled old pub rats posing as career politicians; they have absolutely no idea what they're doing, and that would be evident for YEARS if they got in. The alternative would be them being stacked with defecting MP's from Tories and Labour in which case, same-old-same-old, what's the actual difference?

Oh how I hope not.
I'd rather have pre Theresa May Cons back than narcissistic Farage and his more like from the 1930s divisively destructive gang.
So despite my now ever growing dismay at what the current Labour government is doing at this present time anyhow.
I'll wait to see what is the situation in 3 to 4 years time.
Little of the shambolic mess left by the last government could ever have been turned around in only months

I hope Reform NEVER EVER get into power and particularly never get their hands on the NHS either.
With their ideas on that.
The only mantra constantly spouted out from Farage's Reform is that those of other Countries and cultures are the biggest reason for the UK's woes

Not the fact that capitalist governance was in place right up to WW2
Then in place for nearly 50 of the 80 years almost since the end of the war.
With a 13 year unbroken run in the 50s/60s.
Then an 18 year run from 1979 to 1997.

Then again from 2010 to 2024.
Yet look at the chaos that's been left.

The very last solution to that should be to turn to an even harder line of capitalism from Farage and his now possibly even more PREJUDICIAL (UKIP MK3) Reform lot.
Who only seem to want to create and build up suspicion, distrust and even hate against people of other Countries and cultures.

[bots]

politics is evolving. People will look back at the labour government and will say, this isn't for me. They will likely look at every political party and think the same. Musk is going to influence the next election by throwing cash at his preferred candidate. It wouldn't surprise me if Farage is thrown to the wolves and a new face/party pops up

[Vanessa]

politics is evolving. People will look back at the labour government and will say, this isn't for me. They will likely look at every political party and think the same. Musk is going to influence the next election by throwing cash at his preferred candidate. It wouldn't surprise me if Farage is thrown to the wolves and a new face/party pops up

It's the targeting pensioners and disabled that gets my back up. While they spend so much money on wars and illegal immigrants.
The legal immigrants in this country all work hard. I've seen it in my workplace. They're all very hard working and I always admire someone who makes their own money.

[Cherie]

It's the targeting pensioners and disabled that gets my back up. While they spend so much money on wars and illegal immigrants.
The legal immigrants in this country all work hard. I've seen it in my workplace. They're all very hard working and I always admire someone who makes their own money.

Unfortunately until an Asylum Seeker is given settled status they can't work and the government seem very happy not to get on with assessments and keep them holed up in hotels year in year out, massive backhanders from hotel chains are the issue I think, its not in their interest to lose the golden calf

[Vanessa]

Unfortunately until an Asylum Seeker is given settled status they can't work and the government seem very happy not to get on with assessments and keep them holed up in hotels year in year out, massive backhanders from hotel chains are the issue I think, its not in their interest to lose the golden calf

But that's where a lot of money is going. Why do they have to stay in the best hotels and get everything for free? While we struggle :fist:

[bots]

there would be uproar if asylum seekers/illegals were taking jobs from uk people. There would be uproar if they were taking our housing. If they arrive without documentation, which is very common because they dump it before they arrive, then we have to investigate and prove the country they came from in order to send them back and that can be a very long process. Those are the facts

[thesheriff443]

Why do you think those jail sentences were so long?
It’s to keep people off the streets demanding change

People should be out on the streets because the money is going to everyone except the people it should go too

[Cherie]

there would be uproar if asylum seekers/illegals were taking jobs from uk people. There would be uproar if they were taking our housing. If they arrive without documentation, which is very common because they dump it before they arrive, then we have to investigate and prove the country they came from in order to send them back and that can be a very long process. Those are the facts

I dont think there would be uproar? Nobody complains about been treated by a doctor from India or Pakistan, or if your deliveroo driver is from Nigeria, or your food is cooked by an Irish person, if they can afford to rent or buy a property again where is the issue, the uproar only happens if they jump the social housing wait list... Labour said they were going to stop using hotels, they have been in government long enough now to have come up with an alternative plan for accommodation, during covid field hospitals were built over night literally.... get them out of hotels and stop lining the pockets of hoteliers

[user104658]

On the one hand, it would be sensible for there to be purpose-built temporary accommodation and it would ultimately be cheaper. In practice it's difficult to create something like that and not inadvertently create a concentration camp.

[Cherie]

On the one hand, it would be sensible for there to be purpose-built temporary accommodation and it would ultimately be cheaper. In practice it's difficult to create something like that and not inadvertently create a concentration camp.

In my home town in Ireland they built units for Ukranians, student accommodation is not referred to as concentration camps, Army barracks, there are plenty examples of accommodation that could be used as a template, if they did that of course they wouldn't be helping out their mates and who is going to use their hotels once the asylum seekers leave...

[user104658]

In my home town in Ireland they built units for Ukranians, student accommodation is not referred to as concentration camps, Army barracks, there are plenty examples of accommodation that could be used as a template, if they did that of course they wouldn't be helping out their mates and who is going to use their hotels once the asylum seekers leave...

I mean the first bit on bold says it all really - custom-built units for Ukrainian asylum seekers, but it isn't even being looked at for "other" asylum seekers. The difference in attitude towards refugees from war-torn Eastern Europe vs war-torn Middle East or Africa is certainly stark, but another discussion entirely, I suppose.

2nd B.I.B - you have a point there - the economy is trash, costs are rising and in most areas demand is decreasing. There are a fair number that probably need the govt. cash to stay viable at all... they won't become active hotels, they'll be sold and converted to apartments with ridiculous rent rates or torn down :shrug:. Which has nothing to do with immigration, no matter how hard Reform-types would like to blame absolutely everything on that.

[Livia]

There are plenty of disused army camps but they're not good enough for the illegals. They're good enough for our troops, but not illegal migrants. We're like second class citizens in our own country. Everyone who stands on the side of the road with "migrants welcome here" placards should be forced to house at least two.

[Vanessa]

There are plenty of disused army camps but they're not good enough for the illegals. They're good enough for our troops, but not illegal migrants. We're like second class citizens in our own country. Everyone who stands on the side of the road with "migrants welcome here" placards should be forced to house at least two.

Yes. Why do they have to stay at the best hotels and have everything handed to them? No wonder they don't want to work even if their application is accepted.

[Livia]

Yes. Why do they have to stay at the best hotels and have everything handed to them? No wonder they don't want to work even if their application is accepted.

And all the time our homeless are ignored by politicians and the woke left. It encourages these people to come here, luxury accommodation, free phone, clothes, medical and dental, trips out to the places like Old Trafford, music events and the cricket. Meanwhile a homeless man I spoke to in Peterborough was denied help by Peterborough Council, who've housed thousands of immigrants in social housing in front of locals, because they said he had no ties to the area. He was born in Peterborough, but apparently that wasn't enough of a tie, so he sleeps in shop doorways.

[Vanessa]

And all the time our homeless are ignored by politicians and the woke left. It encourages these people to come here, luxury accommodation, free phone, clothes, medical and dental, trips out to the places like Old Trafford, music events and the cricket. Meanwhile a homeless man I spoke to in Peterborough was denied help by Peterborough Council, who've housed thousands of immigrants in social housing in front of locals, because they said he had no ties to the area. He was born in Peterborough, but apparently that wasn't enough of a tie, so he sleeps in shop doorways.
There's always social housing for illegal immigrants, but none for the British.
It's outrageous!

[user104658]

The misinformation in this thread is honestly staggering. I'm not even going to bother.

[joeysteele]

I mean the first bit on bold says it all really - custom-built units for Ukrainian asylum seekers, but it isn't even being looked at for "other" asylum seekers. The difference in attitude towards refugees from war-torn Eastern Europe vs war-torn Middle East or Africa is certainly stark, but another discussion entirely, I suppose.

2nd B.I.B - you have a point there - the economy is trash, costs are rising and in most areas demand is decreasing. There are a fair number that probably need the govt. cash to stay viable at all... they won't become active hotels, they'll be sold and converted to apartments with ridiculous rent rates or torn down :shrug:. Which has nothing to do with immigration, no matter how hard Reform-types would like to blame absolutely everything on that.

Your second paragraph is extremely strong
It's really worrying however that immigration is lumped into one big bag of the thing to blame for the UKs problems.

Immaterial of the make up of immigration.

Blame all others from other Countries and cultures for the problems we have.
Stop them coming say Reform.
Honestly more and more, the more like MANTRA now spouted from the heavily divisive Reform is like something of the rhetoric from the depressing 1930s.

A lot needs to be done as to, even if it's possible, to get the UK really moving again.
Admittedly many issues needs to be addressed.

Frankly ( just my opinion), the heartless more cold and prejudicial firing out at all as to immigration that THEY should be seen as the biggest issue and therefore seen as suspect, distrusted and acted against.
I find both sad and depressing.
I've no time at all for the divisive Reform lot at all with their endless blaming of immigration at every opportunity on near every negative issues in the UK topic.

In the end any problem is turned into by Reform, to only lump all together and blame immigration.
It's like a kind of programming.
In my view.
Controversial my view may very well be but there it is anyhow.

[Vanessa]

Your second paragraph is extremely strong
It's really worrying however that immigration is lumped into one big bag of the thing to blame for the UKs problems.

Immaterial of the make up of immigration.

Blame all others from other Countries and cultures for the problems we have.
Stop them coming say Reform.
Honestly more and more, the more like MANTRA now spouted from the heavily divisive Reform is like something of the rhetoric from the depressing 1930s.

A lot needs to be done as to, even if it's possible, to get the UK really moving again.
Admittedly many issues needs to be addressed.

Frankly ( just my opinion), the heartless more cold and prejudicial firing out at all as to immigration that THEY should be seen as the biggest issue and therefore seen as suspect, distrusted and acted against.
I find both sad and depressing.
I've no time at all for the divisive Reform lot at all with their endless blaming of immigration at every opportunity on near every negative issues in the UK topic.

In the end any problem is turned into by Reform, to only lump all together and blame immigration.
It's like a kind of programming.
In my view.
Controversial my view may very well be but there it is anyhow.
I think if you're here seeking asylum and you don't have a valid reason you should be sent back.
Too many come here only for the benefits.

[arista]

In my home town in Ireland they built units for Ukranians, student accommodation is not referred to as concentration camps, Army barracks, there are plenty examples of accommodation that could be used as a template, if they did that of course they wouldn't be helping out their mates and who is going to use their hotels once the asylum seekers leave...


Yes, good move
that's the way to go.

[Cherie]

Your second paragraph is extremely strong
It's really worrying however that immigration is lumped into one big bag of the thing to blame for the UKs problems.

Immaterial of the make up of immigration.

Blame all others from other Countries and cultures for the problems we have.
Stop them coming say Reform.
Honestly more and more, the more like MANTRA now spouted from the heavily divisive Reform is like something of the rhetoric from the depressing 1930s.

A lot needs to be done as to, even if it's possible, to get the UK really moving again.
Admittedly many issues needs to be addressed.


Frankly ( just my opinion), the heartless more cold and prejudicial firing out at all as to immigration that THEY should be seen as the biggest issue and therefore seen as suspect, distrusted and acted against.
I find both sad and depressing.
I've no time at all for the divisive Reform lot at all with their endless blaming of immigration at every opportunity on near every negative issues in the UK topic.

In the end any problem is turned into by Reform, to only lump all together and blame immigration.
It's like a kind of programming.
In my view.
Controversial my view may very well be but there it is anyhow.

Sorry Joey, but if the black hole can be fixed off the backs of pensioners and the disabled I think maybe the Asylum seekers should shoulder some of the burden too? No point shouldering the rich or the non doms with such trivialites ....the country is actually ****ed when we are asking the vulnerable to shoulder the debt crisis and not address the elephant in the room, putting Asylum Seekers up in hotels costs 5.6 million per day, 2 billion a year...not chump change by any stretch, they need to house them elsewhere.....Labour did come into power on a ticket of no longer using hotels? am I wrong , I dont think its right to immediately head to Reform either, I dont vote Reform and dont intend to, infact I spoiled my last vote because I am sick and tired of being called this and that for wanting a quality of life for me and my kids, apparently that is not allowed

[arista]

I think if you're here seeking asylum and you don't have a valid reason you should be sent back.
Too many come here only for the benefits.


Valid Points,
Labour is not changing that.

[bots]

the rules for accepting asylum seekers are defined in stone by international law. The UK doesn't make the rules

[Cherie]

the rules for accepting asylum seekers are defined in stone by international law. The UK doesn't make the rules

No but there is no law that says they have to be put up in hotels?

Home Office estimates in February found there were “more than 45,500 asylum seekers in hotels costing the UK taxpayer £5.6 million a day”, approximately £2 billion a year.

Build some accommodation, Labour want to build build build they can start with this

I don't think its a stretch to say young people are seeing how their grandparents are being treated after years of work, no wonder they dont want to start doing a 9 to 5, not sure I would either if I were in their shoes

[bots]

i think they could probably home the lot of them in Gary Lineker's house

[joeysteele]

I think if you're here seeking asylum and you don't have a valid reason you should be sent back.
Too many come here only for the benefits.

... and will be if they haven't a valid reason to be here.
HOW do you KNOW that until they're processed however and you have ALL the information.

How though is that the asylum seekers fault that the processing has been left over endless years, to take so long now to do so.

Reform blame that mainly on those from other Countries and cultures coming here.
Your last line I can't answer, I haven't got the private or personal information of all those in the immigration process that says they only come here for the benefits.
Maybe you have more information that conclusively shows that to be the case
I haven't so it's not a statement I'd make or without concrete evidence accept especially from the likes of Farage and his Reform divisive lot.

[joeysteele]

Sorry Joey, but if the black hole can be fixed off the backs of pensioners and the disabled I think maybe the Asylum seekers should shoulder some of the burden too? No point shouldering the rich or the non doms with such trivialites ....the country is actually ****ed when we are asking the vulnerable to shoulder the debt crisis and not address the elephant in the room, putting Asylum Seekers up in hotels costs 5.6 million per day, 2 billion a year...not chump change by any stretch, they need to house them elsewhere.....Labour did come into power on a ticket of no longer using hotels? am I wrong , I dont think its right to immediately head to Reform either, I dont vote Reform and dont intend to, infact I spoiled my last vote because I am sick and tired of being called this and that for wanting a quality of life for me and my kids, apparently that is not allowed

Now thankfully at least you come up with reasoned and strong points which is not surprising as you generally do make very valid points.

I am totally dismayed with the Labour government at present and frankly I wish as to all Parties, that they'd just put income tax up.
I think the Country would more, although begrudgingly, accept that, than the winter fuel allowance wrong action.
Plus on the welfare issue, the making of qualifying for PIP much harder.

Members of Labour and Labour MPs are not happy at all with the changes to PIP eligibility.
So who knows if that may yet get changed.

Indeed, you are right, Labour did intend to end the Hotels being used, which may or may not come about but it was never going to happen in only months.
However I think Labour is in as much difficulty on that one as the Cons found themselves too.
I personally have never believed there was a quick fix.

I'm not going to do what Reform does, and virtually only scapegoat those Human beings coming from other countries and of other cultures too.
They're not just numbers but are human beings too.

Also, to end, I'm not married or have children but I know what I'd like to see hopefully and eventually for members of my much younger family and for their futures.
You have children and you have every right to be angry at the failing across the board of the last decades as to the Country and as to your hopes for your family too.
That's is understandable and wholly commendable.

I just don't blame the human beings from other Countries and of other cultures.
I blame the system and I too would hold Labour responsible for not acting more quickly.

I was pleased to read your segment on Reform.
Speaking for myself, I have no time for Farage and Reform.
I don't and never have believed in my life thus far, that blaming others coming here for the failings of this Country and creating division against them is fair at all.

I'll certainly however take on board other things you've said there in your response to me as well.
I am far from happy with the Labour government so far.
In fact I don't think I've ever been so disillusioned with politics as I am now.
However there's no answer in the Reform Party in my own view, other than becoming prejudiced and being more divisive and intolerant towards other human beings who are seen by the Reform lot as not being desirables for the UK.
I think that's a horrible rhetoric to support, just speaking for myself obviously.

Thank you for your response Cherie.

[Cherie]

Now thankfully at least you come up with reasoned and strong points which is not surprising as you generally do make very valid points.

I am totally dismayed with the Labour government at present and frankly I wish as to all Parties, that they'd just put income tax up.
I think the Country would more, although begrudgingly, accept that, than the winter fuel allowance wrong action.
Plus on the welfare issue, the making of qualifying for PIP much harder.

Members of Labour and Labour MPs are not happy at all with the changes to PIP eligibility.
So who knows if that may yet get changed.

Indeed, you are right, Labour did intend to end the Hotels being used, which may or may not come about but it was never going to happen in only months.
However I think Labour is in as much difficulty on that one as the Cons found themselves too.
I personally have never believed there was a quick fix.

I'm not going to do what Reform does, and virtually only scapegoat those Human beings coming from other countries and of other cultures too.
They're not just numbers but are human beings too.

Also, to end, I'm not married or have children but I know what I'd like to see hopefully and eventually for members of my much younger family and for their futures.
You have children and you have every right to be angry at the failing across the board of the last decades as to the Country and as to your hopes for your family too.
That's is understandable and wholly commendable.

I just don't blame the human beings from other Countries and of other cultures.
I blame the system and I too would hold Labour responsible for not acting more quickly.

I was pleased to read your segment on Reform.
Speaking for myself, I have no time for Farage and Reform.
I don't and never have believed in my life thus far, that blaming others coming here for the failings of this Country and creating division against them is fair at all.

I'll certainly however take on board other things you've said there in your response to me as well.
I am far from happy with the Labour government so far.
In fact I don't think I've ever been so disillusioned with politics as I am now.
However there's no answer in the Reform Party in my own view, other than becoming prejudiced and being more divisive and intolerant towards other human beings who are seen by the Reform lot as not being desirables for the UK.
I think that's a horrible rhetoric to support, just speaking for myself obviously.

Thank you for your response Cherie.

It is sad to see someone as invested as yourself become disillusioned Joey, I really dont understand why the UK has no safe and legal ways for asylum seekers to come here, smashing the gangs is all very well, but if there are no legal routes then what is the point....my only conclusion is that there is too much money to be made in the current system and that is the only reason it continues

[Cherie]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/stephen-fry-stanley-tucci-arlene-34902119

oh dear when the lefty luvvies cant support you any more things are looking bad

[joeysteele]

It is sad to see someone as invested as yourself become disillusioned Joey, I really dont understand why the UK has no safe and legal ways for asylum seekers to come here, smashing the gangs is all very well, but if there are no legal routes then what is the point....my only conclusion is that there is too much money to be made in the current system and that is the only reason it continues

Thank you Cherie.
I think, sadly smashing the gangs sounds strong to most politicians.
It fits too unfortunately with the only divisive rhetoric of Farage and Reform against asylum seekers too.

Creating legal routes and setting them up in other Countries.
I have no idea what the cost of that may be but I do agree it would be the better way.

Legal routes in place would surely be the better way to take away any need, desperate or otherwise, to risk lives in those awful dinghy crossings.
So I'm in agreement fully with you there.

However too, Labour has to get the full processing of assessing them all done more quickly too.
They need to make that a more major priority as well.

[bots]

they need to move the handling of illegal immigrants to a non political space. Every party knows the rules, every party knows how complex an issue it is. Take the politics out of it and just enforce the law. Then the likes of reform have nothing to argue about