So what is your opinion of the reforms?
This bloke seems to have three main gripes, so not sure which you are talking about - so to address each:
1. Winter fuel payment - yup agree with the change - particularly with the current challenges to public finance it is crazy to be giving payment to all people over a particular age regardless of whether they are poor or millionaires. And there are, of course, pensioners who genuinely need these payments (as interestingly there are in all age groups), and these people should (and I gather will) retain the payment. But there are plenty over 65 who are comfortably or well off and do not need them - those that consider the payment as their 'golf-trip' money or '6-nations' fund - yup both of those real cases from my experience).
And actually pensioners are not the poorest age demographic - indeed relative poverty (being below 60% median income) once housing costs are taken into account (pensioners have by far the lowest housing costs) pensioners actually have the lowest % in relative poverty. Ah, but it is about fuel poverty - well actually same applies - the over 75s have the lowest proportion in fuel poverty followed by 65-74.
https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/IFS-Report-Housing-costs-and-income-inequality-in-the-UK-edited.pdf (p17)
https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/demographics/pensioners/2. WASPI women - don't get me started. No they shouldn't get compensation. They had decades to sort their financial position which most women in their demographic did. They were given ample notice and there was amply communication from government over many years. Take some responsibility for your lives - why should tax payers compensate them for failing to take notice and take responsibility. And of course this was about righting a gross inequality (that men got pensions at a later age). If anyone has a legitimate case that they have been disadvantaged it is the men who had to wait decades before the sex discrimination was finally abolished.
3. Benefits changes - well the devil will be in the detail, but the system absolutely has to be reformed. Not just because of the cost but because the current system is failing swathes of people, many of them young who are being disincentivised to work as they've been told they cannot work (as a binary yes/no) and if they try they lose their benefits. I am a strong believer in work, not just on financial grounds, but on respect, self-worth, ability to be aspirational etc etc and we are failing people if we simply accept that they cannot work, rather than supporting them to work.
I think there should be strong a presumption that people should work unless they cannot and those who can work should be incentivised and supported into work rather than left on the scrap-heap of benefits for life (which is a consequence of the current system). And work is completely different to how it was even a decade ago. Once if you couldn't easily travel or leave the house then work wasn't an option - now home working is the norm for many and so is part-time and flexible working practices). So the system should focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
And we also have the ridiculous situation (which I've seen many times) where the benefits system only allows someone to work a particular number of hours or they lose more in benefits than they gain in earnings. So in my business on several occasions we've had potential employees who we want to take on full time who say they can't work more than 16 hours a week and if they do they'll be worse off financially.
So yup - major reform absolutely needed and well overdue, but of course the most vulnerable (those who genuinely cannot work at all) must be protected - but not everyone on benefits (including health-related benefits) are in that most vulnerable group, by a long way.
This is pretty close to my views:
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/labour-has-grasped-the-nettle-on-benefits-but-its-only-a-start-xwv0hqndhOver to you NS - what are your views on those three issues? Or you could of course merely debase a series of very serious issues with some kind of spoof article from somewhere like The Daily Mash! Oh, you already have!
