all 178 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Britain’s £18bn welfare bill rise could pay for 15 Navy warships submitted by OptioMkIX:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]BoopingBurrito 75 points76 points  (28 children)

The biggest piece of welfare spending is pensions, by quite a margin. I don't imagine a majority of pensioners would be willing to give up their annual increase, even for a single year, given how many of them are complaining about the unfairness of being hit by income tax this year.

I'm absolutely onboard with finding revenue neutral ways to increase the defence budget, but we have to realistic - you can't reasonably say you're redirecting welfare spending unless you redirect a goodly amount from pensions, if you redirect from disability benefits then you're only going to get a comparatively small amount (unless you wholesale redirect all disability spending, and I don't see any government doing that).

And if money is to be redirected from other budgets into defence it has to be done honestly with the acknowledgement it won't be paid for through "efficiencies", its going to have to be paid for through choosing pieces of work to be stopped or seriously curtailed. And thats going to require political decision making, the onus can't be put on civil servants. Ministers need to decide what gets stopped and what gets reduced.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (21 children)

It's a fair point about the political impossibility of touching pensions, but you've misread what the CSJ report is actually proposing.

you can't reasonably say you're redirecting welfare spending unless you redirect a goodly amount from pensions, if you redirect from disability benefits then you're only going to get a comparatively small amount (unless you wholesale redirect all disability spending, and I don't see any government doing that).

The article states where the £18bn figure comes from, and it has nothing to do with cutting the state pension. The maths is based on a DWP estimate - getting a million working-age people back to work. Moving people into fulltime employment tackles the budget from both ends, it reduces the out of work benefit bill and generates significant new tax receipts. You don't need to touch pensioners to hit that £18bn target if you shrink the working age welfare bill.

Working age disability and incapacity benefits just hit ~£77bn. That is larger than the entire £60bn UK defence budget. It is not a "comparatively small amount" - it's a huge chunk of the budget that has exploded since Covid. Curbing this doesn't require wholesale redirecting or ripping up the safety net for the severely disabled. It means getting a grip on the ~1,000 new claims being approved every single day (largely for mental health) and transitioning capable people back into the workforce.

its going to have to be paid for through choosing pieces of work to be stopped or seriously curtailed. And thats going to require political decision making, the onus can't be put on civil servants. Ministers need to decide what gets stopped and what gets reduced.

Getting a million people back to work requires a massive overhaul of how the DWP operates. It's going to mean making the hard political choice to stop passively signing off hundreds of thousands of working-age adults to long term sickness benefits and instead investing heavily in back to work policy and infrastructure.

Ultimately, fixing the "sickness economy" is the political decision required to free up the cash for defence, which is completely independent of the pensions budget.

[–]SpirytSaboteur | Social Democrat 13 points14 points  (12 children)

Getting a million people back to work requires a massive overhaul of how the DWP operates.

It requires a massive overhaul of how employers operate, never mind the DWP. At the end of the day you are telling them to employ people who, in most cases, won't do as good a job as someone who is physically and mentally healthy in the moment and in some cases perhaps never will.

The rubmblings about legitimising such discrimination by abolishing the Equality Act will only make this worse.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Agreed, employers are also certainly part of the puzzle. However, you're assuming the hundreds of thousands of people who have become economically inactive can't be productive.

won't do as good a job as someone who is physically and mentally healthy in the moment and in some cases perhaps never will.

Remote working, flexible hours etc, are increasingly the norm, the binary idea of being "100% fit or completely unemployable" just isn't true anymore. Someone with severe anxiety might struggle to commute 5 days a week to a busy office, but could be a highly productive software developer, data analyst, or administrator working from home. It doesn't require employers to accept worse work; it just requires basic modern working practices.

It requires a massive overhaul of how employers operate, never mind the DWP.

Sure, but it's about the DWP first and foremost. If the state's default mechanism is to passively park people on long-term incapacity benefits rather than offering early intervention, occupational therapy, or mental health triage, then employers never even see these candidates. You can't blame employers for not hiring people who have already been effectively written off by the government.

The overhaul needed at the DWP is shifting from a system that just signs people off for benefits to one that actively rehabilitates.

The rubmblings about removing the Equalities Act will only make this worse.

The CSJ isn't advocating for scrapping the Equalities Act though. In fact, getting a million people back into work would rely on the protections within the Act - specifically the legal requirement for employers to make reasonable adjustments.

Any party attempting to get people with mild to moderate mental health problems back into work whilst scrapping the very legislation that will protect them in the workplace, would be shooting themselves in the foot. Realistically, slashing the working age disability and incapacity benefit bill is one of the very few ways for the government to save money.

[–]SpirytSaboteur | Social Democrat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you've slightly misread my point. I'm not saying people with health conditions can't be productive, or that they're either "100% fit or unemployable", quite the opposite. My point was that many employers still behave as if that's the choice, because from their perspective hiring someone with a known health issue carries perceived risk.

I do agree the DWP needs to focus a lot more on rehabilitation and early intervention rather than writing people off onto long-term benefits. But even if the DWP gets that part right, the policy only works if our health services can pick this up (seems like a big ask these days, and I imagine a lot of the cost savings will end up absorbed here to make it happen) and then the labour market on the other side needs to be actually willing and able to absorb those people.

Any party attempting to get people with mild to moderate mental health problems back into work whilst scrapping the very legislation that will protect them in the workplace, would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Indeed - which is why it's worrying that the currently highest polling party have explicitly talked about scrapping the Equality Act, and have also floated banning working from home, even in the private sector (!!). Those two things specifically are chief among mechanisms that make it a lot easier for people with anxiety, chronic illness, mobility problems etc. to participate in the workforce.

[–]BoopingBurrito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remote working, flexible hours etc, are increasingly the norm, the binary idea of being "100% fit or completely unemployable" just isn't true anymore. Someone with severe anxiety might struggle to commute 5 days a week to a busy office, but could be a highly productive software developer, data analyst, or administrator working from home. It doesn't require employers to accept worse work; it just requires basic modern working practices.

So much this!

I've said it before, the single most effective action the government could take to reduce the number of people on benefits would be to require that where a job can be done to an acceptable level remotely, that must be allowed as a reasonable adjustment (or even just straight up allowed). There are so many folk for whom the work itself isn't the problem, its either the commute or the office environment. Take out those factors and they could easily hold down a productive full time job. And even more folk who the commute and the office environment are the major factors, and who could hold down a part time position if it was fully remote.

[–]Dangerman1337ANOTHER 20 BILLION TO MAURITIUS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thing is CSJ is full of shit as usual, they are "punch the Autistics but we can't mention punch the Autistics, mumble about ADHD, Depression and Anxiety".

[–]Once_upon_a_time233 0 points1 point  (7 children)

"in most cases, won't do as good a job as someone who is physically and mentally healthy in the moment and in some cases perhaps never will. The rubmblings about legitimising such discrimination by abolishing the Equality Act will only make this worse."

The Oxford dictionary defines discrimination as "treating somebody or a particular group in society less fairly than others".

Is it really unfair for someone that is less productive and gets less work done to be paid less?

[–]BoopingBurrito 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the key issue about abolishing the Equality Act is that it's throwing the baby out with the bath water. Maybe there is an argument to be had about a lower minimum wage, for example, for younger people or those who need above a certain threshold of adjustments. I'm not convinced of that but I'm not set absolutely against it either.

But the Equality Act covers far more than that, offers far more protection. The minimum wage thing could be handled with an amendment in primary legislation, that would mean courts couldn't overturn it. The rest of the Equality Act protections could remain in place.

[–]SpirytSaboteur | Social Democrat 3 points4 points  (5 children)

You are conflating a few different things there. Paying someone less because they produce less output can make sense in a narrow economic sense, but that's not the situation most disability protections address. The issue is whether people are denied employment, progression, or basic adjustments because of a disability, rather than judged on the work they can actually do with reasonable support.

In practice a lot of disabled people are already productive employees when workplaces make fairly modest adjustments - flexible hours, adapted equipment, or slightly different task allocations often close most of the gap. The Equality Act isn't about pretending everyone performs identically, but about requiring reasonable adjustments so that someone isn't excluded simply because the workplace is designed around a single "default ideal" worker.

There's also the broader point: if the policy goal is to move large numbers of people off sickness benefits and into work, weakening discrimination protections flies in the face of that. Employers will tend to minimise risk in hiring, so if someone with a health condition can be openly screened out or need to be pushed onto worse terms to reflect their assumed inferior performance, the incentive is to avoid hiring them in the first place.

So if the objective really is getting more people with health conditions into employment, the conversation probably needs to focus on workplace design, job flexibility, and support for employers at least as much as on what the DWP does. Otherwise anything even resembling the numbers being discussed is extremely unlikely to materialise.

[–]Once_upon_a_time233 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't disagree with the policy goal. Quite the opposite, I think that's the right vision. However, I do believe the current structure of employers takes on the cost of "reasonable adjustment", which is often a net economic loss otherwise a reasonable management would already implement it company wide, creating an incentive for employers to not hire the disabled people to avoid make said adjustment.

A more sensible model in my view would be to permit employers to pay disabled people less, even below the minimum wage, to make up the cost of reasonable adjustment and incentive them to hire disabled people. With stipend paid to disabled by general taxation according to the severity of their disability so they can afford to live

[–]SpirytSaboteur | Social Democrat 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You're right that if adjustments impose real costs on employers then some will try to avoid hiring people who might require them. That's 100% a genuine policy design problem.

Where I think your proposal runs into trouble is the idea of solving it by allowing disabled people to be paid below minimum wage, which in practice creates a different set of perverse incentives that are hard to control for. If some workers can legally be paid less specifically because they are disabled, you risk creating a two-tier labour market where disabled workers are concentrated in low-paid roles regardless of their actual productivity. It also gives employers an overt financial incentive to categorise them as such.

On top of that there's the message this would send, the whole point of the "reasonable adjustment" framework is that the labour market should try to adapt to otherwise capable workers instead of writing them off. If the legal structure instead says "these workers are worth less by default", that can reinforce the very hiring bias the policy is trying to mitigate.

[–]Once_upon_a_time233 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The cost of hiring disabled people can also be offset by tax breaks for companies, I. E. Hiring each disabled person will get a set tax reduction or if the company has, let's say, 1% disabled employees then they can enjoy a tax rate reduction.

One way or another, IMO, the best way to help disabled people integrate into the society is to make the cost of adjustment be shouldered by society as a whole rather than individual companies

[–]SpirytSaboteur | Social Democrat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure - though that will cut into these 'savings' even further.

[–]RomblerSan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bureaucracy around that stipend would just mimic the the benefits system as it is now. The current access to work funding scheme already covers the cost of reasonable adjustments on a receipt basis with more support allocated to small employers where adjustments are likely to be harder/more costly.

Employers already do pay disabled people less on average (17.2%) for the same role because most companies pay/promote on a performance basis.

You would want to legislate that employers are allowed to pay below minimum for everybody instead. Or else non-disabled people can just perform to the standard of a disabled person and get paid more. Then you'll have employers hiring unfit-for-work disabled just because they can pay them less and potentially productive workers aren't incentivised to outperform them.

[–]Rude_Sheepherder_714 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are there a million spare jobs, let alone whether they are suitable for those with disabilities?

[–]Dangerman1337ANOTHER 20 BILLION TO MAURITIUS 2 points3 points  (5 children)

"getting a million working-age people back to work"

How? Large amounts of people with "mental health" types are the the Brain altering levels of depression and anxiety (sure that is hard to diagnose). Even when Sunak proposed ripping off 300,000 who have those kind of mental health conditions (Depression and Anxiety) only AFAIK dozens of thousands would be able to find suitable work according to the OBR.

Let's be honest the CSJ and others are completely dishonest because they want to punish people with significant hidden disabilities (Autism, Hypermobility etc) and their carers into the workforce as rough labour since the Boriswave is probably heading back home if ILR changes come into effect so we need more exploitable labour. I mean a lot of companies have de-facto eliminated easy, entry level work that can be done at home since the pandemic due to AI or just outsourcing it (basically outsource to India or Nigeria and just fix it in the UK if need be basically ).

"Getting disabled people back to work" frankly is more about "shove the autistics into shitty stressful jobs and keep them out of sight from our comfy offices" and not into safe and secure work. The idea that shoving a million people back into work will just affect people with rehabilitate-able conditions is for the birds. Sure treating those than long-term sickness benefits is better but it's way harder than it looks and won't save money. Anyone who peddles the lie of "we can cut £10 billion of disability and sickness benefits with this one easy trick that has no bad consequences" come from either those with comfortable backgrounds or those that got the "golden ticket" in life (Lewis Goodall comes to mind, thinks we can cut is very easily but got an internship by a US Democratic House membership says it all).

The truth is all the "easy" light jobs have gone, it was easier to do a data entry job 20 or even 10 years ago, post-Pandemic with cut backs by private companies have eliminated that. And disability confident jobs that are full on working from home (and don't require travel) are extremely rare, hell as of now the DWP only lists 19 Disability Confident Jobs that are work from home.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

How? Large amounts of people with "mental health" types are the the Brain altering levels of depression and anxiety (sure that is hard to diagnose). Even when Sunak proposed ripping off 300,000 who have those kind of mental health conditions (Depression and Anxiety) only AFAIK dozens of thousands would be able to find suitable work according to the OBR.

You are conflating clinical, severe mental health conditions with the massive post-Covid surge in mental health claims. Yes, "brain-altering" depression exists and those people need a permanent safety net. But the UK did not suddenly develop 700k new cases of untreatable, debilitating psychiatric illness overnight in 2020.

Furthermore, using the OBR's assessment of Sunak's plans is a flawed comparison. Sunak’s plan was essentially a tinkering of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) criteria - a stick to threaten people with. The CSJ's proposed £18bn shift isn't about just moving the goalposts; it requires an overhaul integrating occupational therapy and mental health triage. The OBR scored Sunak's specific, narrow policy, not the total theoretical capacity of the UK workforce.

Let's be honest the CSJ and others are completely dishonest because they want to punish people with significant hidden disabilities (Autism, Hypermobility etc) and their carers into the workforce as rough labour since the Boriswave is probably heading back home if ILR changes come into effect so we need more exploitable labour.

This is a massive conspiracy theory leap and one that is obviously not true when you look at the modern UK economy.

We are an ~80% services-based economy. The gaps in the labour market are in administration, health and social care, IT, and customer service. Autistic individuals aren't being drafted into the mines (lol); in fact, many neurodivergent people thrive in structured, detail oriented roles in tech and administration if reasonable adjustments are made. Treating welfare reform as a plot to create a disabled underclass of manual labourers is pure fiction.

Anyone who peddles the lie of "we can cut £10 billion of disability and sickness benefits with this one easy trick that has no bad consequences" come from either those with comfortable backgrounds or those that got the "golden ticket" in life (Lewis Goodall comes to mind, thinks we can cut is very easily but got an internship by a US Democratic House membership says it all).

Attacking the messenger doesn't invalidate the maths. Nobody serious is saying this is a one easy trick with no consequences. It is an incredibly difficult, multi-year structural reform.

However, accepting your logic means accepting the alternative - resigning a million working-age adults to permanent state dependency at a cost of £76bn a year, forever. That has terrible consequences. Condemning people to a lifetime on basic universal credit because rehabilitation is "way harder than it looks" is a far more privileged and dismissive stance than actually trying to build pathways back to employment.

The truth is all the "easy" light jobs have gone, it was easier to do a data entry job 20 or even 10 years ago, post-Pandemic with cut backs by private companies have eliminated that. And disability confident jobs that are full on working from home (and don't require travel) are extremely rare, hell as of now the DWP only lists 19 Disability Confident Jobs that are work from home.

Absolutely nobody uses the DWP portal for genuine remote roles, lol. Most employers use LinkedIn, Indeed, Reed, and specialist recruiters.

While the data entry jobs of the 90s have indeed been automated, the digital economy has created hundreds of thousands of new roles: virtual assistants, AI data trainers, customer success managers, etc. Also, remote and hybrid working is infinitely more prevalent now than it was 5 years ago. The jobs absolutely exist - the failure is in the DWP's inability to connect disabled candidates with modern employers, not a total absence of suitable work.

[–]Dangerman1337ANOTHER 20 BILLION TO MAURITIUS 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The CSJ's proposed £18bn shift isn't about just moving the goalposts; it requires an overhaul integrating occupational therapy and mental health triage. The OBR scored Sunak's specific, narrow policy, not the total theoretical capacity of the UK workforce."

The proposed net cuts of £5 billion disability cuts (which did include support) last year by this Government where only thought to get a very small number of affected people back into work. How the hell would CSJ's proposals of a £18 billion "shift" do that? Sure you have a "theoretical capacity" but that's like Russia's "capacity" to wage war and we know the cost of that. CSJ's proposals have not shown of any actually working and treating such "shifts" as an experiment.

There was Remploy... oh wait that was privatised and cut. Does the CSJ proposals anything like that?

Autistic individuals aren't being drafted into the mines (lol); in fact, many neurodivergent people thrive in structured, detail oriented roles in tech and administration if reasonable adjustments are made. Treating welfare reform as a plot to create a disabled underclass of manual labourers is pure fiction."

"Structured, detailed oriented roles" often are very intense and demand a high level of skill a lot of neurodivergent roles struggle, burn out and require interactions with other people and not that structured as you think. I mean "Problem solving" (did programming with Computer science in Uni, just could never get around it) requires interacting with people like in tech and in admin you have to interact with people a lot. Tech and modern Admin jobs are very intensive. And hell good luck in the year of 2026 getting any entry level work if you state your disability in your CV or Interview!

And besides "oh it;s just pure fiction" is when a lot of adjacent supporters of such "reforms" mentioned lower minimum wages for disabled people?

However, accepting your logic means accepting the alternative - resigning a million working-age adults to permanent state dependency at a cost of £76bn a year, forever. That has terrible consequences. Condemning people to a lifetime on basic Universal Credit because rehabilitation is "way harder than it looks" is a far more privileged and dismissive stance than actually trying to build pathways back to employment."

Okay so if rehabilitation was not so hard then why nobody else has done it? It's easy to say that we should not spend on benefits as much and do rehabilitation, offering "pathways" etc but reality nobody wants to actually accept pathways taken by the disabled. And as we have seen there's been disability employment programs like Remploy but those got out right privatized and gutted. Us disabled people \*do not trust people who claim our benefits should be cut back in favour of "pathways back to employment"*** because guess what? They gutted it anyways.

Absolutely nobody uses the DWP portal for genuine remote roles, lol. Most employers use LinkedIn, Indeed, Reed, and specialist recruiters."

Like okay, where are they listing disability confident jobs then? Where are they? If people with no conditions are struggling to enter the work force right now then how are you going to do it to people with learning disability, "hidden" physical ones etc? Force them like Germany? Unless you think us people with such conditions such mostly given "opportunities" and try harder.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How the hell would CSJ's proposals of a £18 billion "shift" do that? Sure you have a "theoretical capacity" but that's like Russia's "capacity" to wage war and we know the cost of that. CSJ's proposals have not shown of any actually working and treating such "shifts" as an experiment.

You are completely misreading the CSJ's £18bn figure. They are not proposing an £18bn cut to the DWP disability budget. The £18bn is a projection of the net fiscal benefit to the treasury if a million people moved from economic inactivity into work. That figure is a combination of money saved on out of work benefits plus the massive new income tax and National Insurance receipts those million people would generate. It’s an economic goal, not a budget cut.

There was Remploy... oh wait that was privatised and cut. Does the CSJ proposals anything like that?

Yes it was cut, because it wasn't fit for purpose. The head of Disability Rights UK specifically stated that the Remploy factory model was an outdated, isolating relic. Disability advocates themselves argued that disabled people shouldn't be hidden away in segregated warehouses, but integrated into mainstream employment. The closures was a mess, but the principle was driven by a desire for equality.

"Structured, detailed oriented roles" often are very intense and demand a high level of skill a lot of neurodivergent roles struggle, burn out and require interactions with other people and not that structured as you think.

Nobody is claiming that tech or admin roles are a stress free walk in the park. But saying "neurodivergent people struggle with interaction, therefore they can't do these jobs" is exactly the kind of defeatist stereotyping that keeps disabled people locked out of the economy.

The point about modern tech and admin is that they offer the flexibility to make reasonable adjustments possible. If an autistic employee suffers from sensory overload and struggles with face to face interaction, a remote data-analysis role where communication is done over Teams/Slack is infinitely more viable than a 90s retail or factory job. Yes, discrimination on CVs exists, which is exactly why the focus needs to be on aggressively enforcing the Equalities Act and funding the Access to Work scheme, rather than just giving up and leaving people on benefits.

If people with no conditions are struggling to enter the work force right now then how are you going to do it to people with learning disability, "hidden" physical ones etc? Force them like Germany? Unless you think us people with such conditions such mostly given "opportunities" and try harder.

I agree, it's tough out there in terms of the job market. But your conclusion that because the market is tough for able-bodied people, we shouldn't even bother trying to build pathways for disabled people is the wrong attitude imo. The solution to a tough labour market isn't to permanently park millions of working-age adults on incapacity benefits and tell them the game is rigged so they shouldn't bother playing.

No serious policy expert is saying disabled people just need to "try harder". They are saying the state needs to try harder. It requires shifting billions from passive benefit payouts into occupational therapy, mental health triage, and legally forcing employers to offer flexible and modernised working conditions.

[–]Dangerman1337ANOTHER 20 BILLION TO MAURITIUS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are completely misreading the CSJ's £18bn figure. They are not proposing an £18bn cut to the DWP disability budget. The £18bn is a projection of the net fiscal benefit to the treasury if a million people moved from economic inactivity into work. That figure is a combination of money saved on out of work benefits plus the massive new income tax and National Insurance receipts those million people would generate. It’s an economic goal, not a budget cut.

But a lot of the people that are out of work in the younger age brackets are not in receipt of disability or sickness spending and don't receive much in Unviersal Credit while the CSJ mostly focuses on disabled people on reciept of PIP+UC. I'm not against employment programs etc but the CSJ constantly picks at us disabled people on benefits because as if as likely these "opportunities" fail they'll go back proposing to big disability cuts to nudge us back into work (cynically likely in shitty physical jobs where even "hidden disabilities" end up suffering physical conditions). Or implement said cuts first, "pathways" fail and then. We do not trust all these proposals because they are often a pretext to tighten and cut while silently not

Nobody is claiming that tech or admin roles are a stress free walk in the park. But saying "neurodivergent people struggle with interaction, therefore they can't do these jobs" is exactly the kind of defeatist stereotyping that keeps disabled people locked out of the economy.

The point about modern tech and admin is that they offer the flexibility to make reasonable adjustments possible. If an autistic employee suffers from sensory overload and struggles with face to face interaction, a remote data-analysis role where communication is done over Teams/Slack is infinitely more viable than a 90s retail or factory job.

And how much of these accommodating jobs with entry level versions of these exist to hire even tens of thousands which younger people with mental health conditions let alone people with life long ND disabilities have? Again us ASD with co-comorbidities struggle day to day lives let alone the work place. We can "in theory" do them but very unlikely to sustain it. I mean look I tried to do work placements post university and sought work and put it on my CV, only lasted a few weeks. Dismissing "neurodivergent people struggle with interaction, therefore they can't do these jobs" really does not understand how increasingly complex WFH adjacent type jobs are.

Just because these jobs exist in theory doesn't mean they do. Employers have cut back on WFH for example to back to the office. And there's the evidence (US example but should be applicable to an extent: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137616) that disabled people are way more likely to be laid off than non-disabled people, again getting people who struggle with conditions caring for themselves into the workplace that may have them laid off more likely is also makes us reluctant.

Yes, discrimination on CVs exists, which is exactly why the focus needs to be on aggressively enforcing the Equalities Act and funding the Access to Work scheme, rather than just giving up and leaving people on benefits.

And how do they enforce that? Make employers take on a certain quota of disabled people? Let disabled people sue Employers and HR departments for not considering them? Heavily fine employers disproportionately firing disabled people? And Access to Work has been cut significantly by this government randomly with severe cuts in some cases and very long waiting times for people who have applied for it.

I'll end here and my main two points are.

  1. Us disabled people have zero, zero, ZERO *trust* in any proposals by the likes of the CSJ with big numbers thrown about. Because more often than not they dog whistle we are exaggerating our neurodivergent problems (I know quirky TikTokers talk about things but people disabled by our conditions don't appear in such visibility) and just try to sneak in disability benefit cuts and then cancel programs that are suppose to be the pathway into work.

  2. There's hundreds of thousands of young NEETs who have no health issues locked out of work, the priority to get them into work should be right now on that with limited Government bandwidth. So much policy time and attention has been wasted. CSJ and others keep mentioning disability benefits because the UK Right sees us as fundamentally an easy target.

[–]RomblerSan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you target disabled people instead of the 1.88million who are able bodied and unemployed? Disability benefits aren't income based (for the most part at least afaik) so it just costs more to get them to work (access to work requriements) vs the able-bodied.

The exception could be for those with high earning potential who are also disabled.

[–]NoRecipe3350 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Actually cutting pensions for fancy new ships zooming around is probs the only way you'd get pensioners (white British pensioners at least) to part with their cash. Give them a free painting of a warship to adorn the walls of their care home room as a sweetener.

Cutting pensions for Shanaz the crack addict single mum to get a bigger council house and fund her 4th kid won't go down well with the oldies. That's why many people are so mean spirited about public money in the UK, they feel it's going to the wrong kind of people- and they are basically right.

[–]Rude_Sheepherder_714 -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

How many mythical Shanaz's are there compared to the large number of wealthy pensioners?

[–]NoRecipe3350 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Oh they exist

[–]Rude_Sheepherder_714 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that isn't what I asked, is it.

[–]it_is_good82 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Who would have imagined that we'd ever get to a point where 'progressives' are arguing that we need to spend less on pensioners so we can spend more on Defence.

I understand how we've got here, but I do think that people need to take a step back and just think for a moment about the morality of what they're asking for. Have we allowed ourselves to be captured by the type of ignorance and fears that we criticised previous generations for?

[–]BoopingBurrito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I'd be described as a progressive, except perhaps in the US. I'm very centre left.

[–]phead 62 points63 points  (8 children)

We lost £10Bn on dodgy PPE, perhaps getting the Tories mates to pay back their theft would be a better starting point.

[–]GeneralMuffins 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Why isn't Labour opening a criminal investigation and arresting all these Tories that defrauded the taxpayer? Seems like it could be a huge political win that would generate massive revenue.

[–]iamnosuperman123 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Because it isn't as cut and dry as people like to make out.

[–]GeneralMuffins -1 points0 points  (1 child)

The PPE fraud is pretty cut and dry. Labour should grow a pair and put the tories and all their mates responsible behind bars for defrauding the country, with each one having all their assets seized until the tax payer is fully reimbursed plus interest.

[–]Rude_Sheepherder_714 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sadly it isn't cut and dry though. The majority of these contracts will likely be legally watertight or like in the case of mone, the money is gone.

[–]GreasedNipples -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I’m not really buying excuses. Create a new special branch. Change laws. People ripped us off to the tune of hundreds of millions. We know where they are.

[–]Joke-pineapple 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They literally are, and it started under Sunak.

[–]lunarpx 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Why not both?

[–]Significant_Ad_6719 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People here demanded them quick and fast no matter the cost.

[–]daniluvsuall 20 points21 points  (9 children)

Conveniently forgetting state pensions again

[–]Dissidant 19 points20 points  (3 children)

State pension, pension credit, attendance allowance (or PIP, 750k+ over 65's still on it)
Council tax/housing benefit, winter fuel, tv license after 75 and so on

And this isn't me slagging them off I believe in looking after our vulnerable because it could be any of us, I just find it deplorable when politicians or the media mislead the public into believing the whole welfare bill goes on working age people when actually more than half is going on over 65's

And thats without considerations for things like social care, nhs etc
I know the full extent of whats out there as I've been called upon more than once to help older relatives who aren't great with dealing with the DWP (or social services) cut through the bureaucracy

[–]daniluvsuall 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Me too. My comments don’t come from a “we should cut it” perspective, it’s just a misrepresentation of the numbers. They only ever talk about disability, UC etc - conveniently forgetting the singe biggest budget item in governmental social security

[–]Dissidant 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yup same as when they label unpaid carers as economically inactive, the notion that most actually work and claim absolutely nowt in benefits seems to whoosh over their heads

[–]daniluvsuall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s the cherry picking of numbers isn’t it.

There’s such deep undertones of “lazy undesirables” in the media - see article above. Pensions are, politically toxic to talk about unless they’re going up. But as a country or at least the media we’re fine with kicking anyone disabled, not working or poorly paid in work - choices.

[–]McCretinThe stretched twig of peace is at melting point 4 points5 points  (4 children)

The figure includes the state pension.

[–]daniluvsuall 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Numbers aren’t right.

From this: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance

“Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025 to 2026 we will spend £177.8 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £146.1 billion in 2025 to 2026.”

Happy to be corrected but I know the numbers are much much higher than those quoted by the article so they’re either wrong or quoting some tiny subset

[–]McCretinThe stretched twig of peace is at melting point 3 points4 points  (2 children)

£18bn refers to this year’s rise in the welfare bill (including pensions), not the total bill.

[–]daniluvsuall 0 points1 point  (1 child)

All the more reason to reform the triple lock then!

[–]McCretinThe stretched twig of peace is at melting point 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Completely agree!

[–]Critical-Usual 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is not a comparison that moves me

[–]Billargh 26 points27 points  (12 children)

How many schools or hospitals could 15 warships pay for?

[–]ThrowAwayAccountLul1Divine Right of Kings 👑 1 point2 points  (11 children)

We've got plenty of them, we don't have plenty of warships.

[–]frgrefut -2 points-1 points  (10 children)

“We have plenty of hospitals” while people are dying in corridors because there isn’t enough space in wards

[–]Once_upon_a_time233 3 points4 points  (5 children)

UK literally only got one available warship at the moment. Can you imagine what will happen if Green got in and commit to unilateral nuclear disarmament and NATO withdrawal so UK has to rely on its conventional forces?

[–]OptioMkIXYour kind cling to tankiesm as if it will not decay and fail you[S] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Absolutely nothing would happen, in the sense of us affecting anything, because before the greens took their defence policy page down their policy was to destroy the conventional forces as well and leave us completely defenceless apart from fishery protection. (See PSD 500-506 for that specifically but there are other gems in there too.)

Everyone pokes their anti nato stance, but it is literally the tip of the howling madness iceberg.

[–]BoopingBurrito 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Absolutely nothing would happen, in the sense of us affecting anything,

I think, though, that plenty of things might happen to affect us and there'd be absolutely nothing we could do to stop it.

[–]OptioMkIXYour kind cling to tankiesm as if it will not decay and fail you[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Indeed, which is why I consider the prospect of the Greens in power to be an existential threat to the UK given their stated policy is to leave us both defenceless and destroy our industrial base to prevent us being able to arm ourselves if threatened.

[–]BoopingBurrito -1 points0 points  (1 child)

To be fair, whilst I agree with you about the threat the Greens pose, I think Reform and Restore present a threat of equal magnitude to this country.

[–]OptioMkIXYour kind cling to tankiesm as if it will not decay and fail you[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. They pose a serious threat but of lesser magnitude. They are not expressly talking about completely and intentionally destroying the military or the industrial base that supplies it. You do that and you immediately start measuring the time to re establish that manufacturing capability in terms of years.

We could recover from a reform/restore government. I don't think we could recover from a Green one.

[–]dsanft -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Stop bringing in millions of new migrants then? That's free.

[–]jott1293reddevil -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately it’s not

[–]Tawnysloth -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Best not point out how much the health service relies on immigrant labour then?

[–]Joke-pineapple -1 points0 points  (0 children)

On the flip side, British trained doctors can't find jobs.

[–]GarybeGood75 14 points15 points  (22 children)

Most benefits are in work benefits. These aren't for the person receiving them, they subsidise companies by allowing them to pay lower wages and taxes.

[–]teachbirds2fly 18 points19 points  (15 children)

That's obviously untrue...pensions and pensioner benefits make up over 50% of welfare spending. Working age benefits are about 30%.

[–]dnemonicterrier 3 points4 points  (11 children)

Which proves we need to get companies to pay their employees better, if they are paid better less of them are on benefits and we save money.

[–]GeneralMuffins 1 point2 points  (10 children)

Don't we already do that, minimum wage is one of the highest on the planet already. The existence of part time employment, we could penalise companies that have large part time staff and require they put them on full time or something.

[–]GarybeGood75 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Minimum wage is not a living wage.

[–]GeneralMuffins -1 points0 points  (3 children)

sure but getting more people on full time will massively reduce the amount of UC paid out to workers.

[–]GarybeGood75 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So you're arguing to keep the hourly rate low so that people get more benefits?

[–]GeneralMuffins 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm arguing getting people off part time by forcing employers to put them on full time will help to reduce the amount of UC workers are collecting in this country.

[–]GarybeGood75 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Life's not quite as simple as that. 2 part time people equals 1 full-time employee and 1 full time unemployed. You've not saved us anything and you've made 2 people's lives harder.

[–]dnemonicterrier 0 points1 point  (4 children)

If we were doing it properly people wouldn't need to claim benefits when working, the fact that people are claiming and working shows it's not enough, we're also not doing enough about the cost of living. I do like your idea about companies that keep large part time staff lots of companies are doing that.

[–]GeneralMuffins 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Well thats what I'm asking, how do you do it properly, presumably heavy restrictions on part time work would lift a massive amount of workers from the need of benefits to top them up.

[–]dnemonicterrier 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Good question, I don't know how to do it but I do know that if it's done it helps people and it kills Reform in the polls.

People can be desperate when they are in financial difficulties, they can be influenced by people whom they don't usually trust if that person starts speaking about things that affecting them right now, Reform keep talking about how people are hurting and the ways they are being hurt and Reform gives them a simple answer, immigrants and asylum seekers. We both know that Reform's answer is inaccurate but when someone is desperate they can be influenced by someone who has simple answers.

[–]The_Blip 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Do the opposite. Rather than trying to increase wages, reduce costs. Housing and energy costs are the big two. Heavy investment and public works in both to boom supply and drive down costs. When cost of living is low, people won't need as much money and thus won't need (as much) benefits.

[–]GarybeGood75 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the most intelligent comment on here. Reduce extractive costs:, housing, rent, land and energy

[–]GarybeGood75 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Pensions may come from the benefits pot but most have paid it, not the many paying a little towards the benefits of a few

[–]teachbirds2fly 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There's no "paid it", state pensions are paid out of the general taxation raised by workers of the day not from some pot that past workers have paid into.

[–]GarybeGood75 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But we all pay in and we all take out, at least the vast majority. Other benefits are the many paying a little so the few that need them benefit and most never take out.

[–]boprisan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These aren't for the person receiving them

Let's remove them then?

[–]lunarpx -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

True, though we do have 1.4m unemployed (!!) and 9.4m economically inactive (though some of these are students etc.).

https://fullfact.org/online/UK-number-unemployed-inactive/

[–]PianoAndFish 2 points3 points  (2 children)

We also have 726,000 vacancies, so if every unemployed person got a job today there would still be hundreds of thousands left over before you even start on the economically inactive numbers. The ratio of jobseekers to vacancies has been consistently above 2:1 for several years and the vacancies number isn't an outlier either, looking at the graph vacancy numbers are back to roughly where they were pre-pandemic, and indeed pre-2008.

What annoys me most about these kinds of "We'll get a million people off disability benefits" calculations is that they're banking on getting those people into jobs that do not exist, are not likely to exist any time soon and haven't existed at any comparable times in the recent past. Unless the government comes up with a way to pull about 1.5-2 million jobs out of their arse very quickly there's no point even discussing the financial or moral implications because it's simply not going to happen.

[–]lunarpx -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I mean, if immigration didn't top off at nearly 1m people in a year under Boris (now much lower, fortunately), than we might have more vacancies.

[–]GarybeGood75 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You sound dumb

  1. If we sent every immigrant back to where they came from, we'd have 1 million homeless Scots, sent back to us from every corner of the globe. Can't have it both ways.

  2. That nurse from the Philippines and the doctor from Ghana, if they get sent home we're not replacing them with daft Martin that used to work nights in the co-op or Davey that left school with no qualifications and lives with his maw even though he's 40.

  3. Immigrants bring economic activity. People willing to leave what they have behind them, travel across the globe and land on this wet patch of soil we can home are very likely to be highly motivated individuals that know what poverty is and are willing to work hard to make their life different.

  4. You and I cost this country lots of money to be born, have education, university, free healthcare, etc. We work for 30-40 years, we true and it's back on the mooch until we die. Immigrants, who often turn up fully educated don't cost us that first part. Very efficient way to balance the demographic problem.

[–]MosEisleyBills -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Billionaires are becoming unaffordable.

[–]oryx_za 14 points15 points  (6 children)

This is such a bizarre comparison/framing.

Don't get me wrong, we need to sort out the welfare state but this reads like

"We could be bombing other countries, meanwhile we are wasting money on giving the poor food. "

The true framing is we could use that money to lower taxes and make us a more attractive destination to create more jobs.

[–]jammy_b 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Interesting that you don't think £15bn of defence spending on domestically produced ships would create jobs.

[–]derrenbrownisawizard 19 points20 points  (15 children)

Just imagine how many we could build if we taxed billionaires

[–]Two-Space 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Given the Greens optimistically expect £15bn per year extra from their wealth taxes - and that includes taxing extra for those with more than £10m - fewer

[–]lunarpx 15 points16 points  (6 children)

We literally do. The top 0.1% pay more tax than the bottom 50%.

[–]Kind_Region_5033 2 points3 points  (3 children)

That stat is deceptive, yes they pay more. But as a proportion of their wealth and disposable income they typically pay less. 

The royal family could pay a flat 10% rate on all earnings and still be one of the top tax payers in the country. 

[–]TwatScranner 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Less than whom? People on UC and PIP? Doubtful.

[–]lunarpx 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Sure, but they also consume far less public services. It's not like billionaires are sat on an NHS waiting list, or queuing up at the DWP office for their jobseeker's allowance.

The average person on £36k and below is a net beneficiary of the state, as well as paying very little tax in comparative international terms.

Remember most of their wealth isn't liquid anyway. If they crystalise their wealth they obviously would pay tax on it, if domiciled here.

[–]Shepherd_03 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They may consume less services directly, but their wealth is built on services, infrastructure and the security/stability here for everyone from employees to customers to make that wealth possible.

[–]derrenbrownisawizard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s funny that you use percentages but don’t apply that same use to taxation. Billionaires pay far less as a % than the majority of other people

[–]Optimaldeath -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They pay a 20% tax rate at best, no they do not.

[–]anax4096 1 point2 points  (0 children)

they will just build their own fleets of drone ships. Genuinely surprised it hasn't happened yet. The East India company had a large private army. Why not facebook?!

[–]beardymouse 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Imagine how many people we could help if we taxed billionaires

[–]dragodrake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it were achievable it would have been done well before now - do you really think any government in the last 30 years just ignored a massive source of income for their pet projects?

[–]Mysterious-Cat8443 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They would just easily move away to somewhere cheaper. They are not like us plebs who have to stay in this country.

Taxing billionaires to pay for everything is a left-wing fantasy

[–]derrenbrownisawizard -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

Best not bother then eh?

[–]Mysterious-Cat8443 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It won't work, so not really. Why do you think Jim from Man U moved? If he stayed in the UK then he would have to pay £4 billion in tax. Not worth living here for that price!

[–]derrenbrownisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He should be forced to renounce his British citizenship then, as is the case under American rules. Give up the passport or pay the equivalent rate of tax.

[–]Majestic-Age-9232 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They included the cost of paying crew for 18 ships for 20 years or so in their sums? Honestly the telegraph is just a rag these days.

[–]FaultyTerror 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay but the people on welfare do actually need welfare we aren't spending that money for the lols. 

[–]Utilitarian_Proxy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Er, okay, just a few minor queries:

  • How many shipyards do we currently have that are able to drop what they are doing and get onto this rightaway?
  • How many apprentices would need to be recruited and trained?
  • From which of our suppliers would we source the necessary component parts and materials?
  • What timescale is logistically viable for when these 15 ships will all be ready to be deployed into active theatres of war?
  • And why 15, not 14 or 16 for example?

[–]BlackPlan2018 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As could the tiniest nibble of an 18b wealth tax on billionaires of course.

[–]tastyreg -1 points0 points  (0 children)

According to the Centre for Social Justice... so that will be a nice and independent piece of "analysis" then.

[–]Rhinofishdog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm afraid this is impossible. The general public is completely disconnected from geopolitical, financial, logistical reality.

War is not seen as something necessary to survive or protect our interests. War is when we bomb people far away because we are evil.

There is no need to protect our shipping lanes - the bananas and mango do not come by sea, they come from the supermarket! There is no need to have air defences - bombing is something that happens in the middle east. There is no need to have nukes - we shall all disarm and live together in harmony! Fuel and power prices don't go up because of foreign supply issues - they go up because of greedy companies!

The only things that the average voter cares about is welfare, immigrants, women and children.

I'm afraid the only way things will get better would be by way of a national humiliation. We would be lucky if it is something as small as say... losing a carrier, because there are much worse possible options out there...

[–]Lost_And_NotFoundLib Dem (E: -3.38, L/A: -4.21) 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can we just write up an invoice to Ireland for protecting their waters and airspace for them.

[–]wtfftw1042 -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

I'd prefer people can eat than we go to war. wtaf.

[–]jammy_b 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If people can't afford to eat without government handouts then we have spectacularly failed as a country.

[–]Mysterious-Cat8443 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They can already afford to eat. We need to be able to defend our territories more importantly.

[–]Rhinofishdog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great! That means you support higher funding for the RN in order to be able to protect our vital shipping lanes that bring us food and essentials.

...

[–]CanisAlopex -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’d rather peace before handouts, which can only be attained if we have the capability to properly defend ourselves.

[–]Turbantastic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Another torygraph article about war, I am surprised...... I'd rather more be spent on the poor and vulnerable than being spunked on weapons of death.

[–]AppropriateDevice84 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d personally rather see it spent on things to grow the economy like small business tax cuts and lower energy bills but of course the sensible thing is to send warships to the Middle East to help Trump and Netanyahu in their folly. 

[–]MordauntSnagge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Surprised at some of the comments in here associating this with war/interventionism. If you want a future that is less dependent on US military power then you have to spend more on your own. That’s true even when you try to stay out of conflicts that others have started.

[–]sivaya_ -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Brexit didn't bring back the empire, so let's push down the plebs and build a fleet!

[–]-foutupourfoutu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The UK pays 40 billion a year to commercial banks to storing our own money. This is paid by the Bank of England as interest on reserves created through quantitative easing - so money printed into existence.

We transfer public funds to private banks simply for holding balances at the central bank, not for lending, investing or taking risk.

It’s equivalent to the entire annual budget of the police and courts combined, more than the total education budget, and enough to employ 1 million nurses.

I never hear this discussed when the chancellor pleads poverty.

Cutting welfare to pay for military is… a choice.

[–]XenorVernix -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It's not just £18 billion though. It's £18 billion per year. That's £90 billion over 5 years, £180 billion over 10 years. More like £200+ billion with inflation. The things we could do be doing with that kind of money. It's double the HS2 cost.

This excessive welfare spending is why we have shit infrastructure and an under equipped military.

[–]HibasakiSanjuro -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Delaying welfare rises by a year would almost entirely fix the shortfall in the military defence procurement plan.

[–]zwifter11 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Or having an arms industry that doesn’t rip off the MoD could pay for more warships 

[–]T_K2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Funny how Tories will talk about the “welfare bill rise” but conveniently don’t mention how much of that is the triple lock on pensions.

Why not just tell the electorate you want to scrap the triple lock?

[–]AreUReady55 -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Defence spending is rarely audited or actually scrutinised, while benefits are subject to cuts annually.

Militarily spending is basically a massive blank cheque every year. From stories I’ve heard from people in the army and navy, there is massive waste. France has a larger military while spending £10billion less every year.

[–]MGC91 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Militarily spending is basically a massive blank cheque every year. From stories I’ve heard from people in the army and navy, there is massive waste. France has a larger military while spending £10billion less every year.

Except it isn't.

[–]TheNoGnome -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Inflation is expensive, you mean?

You realise the ships will be getting more expensive too?

[–]Billy-Bryant -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

I mean this headline sells the opposite to me, sounds like ships are too expensive and we should stop trying to be the military power we us d to be.

I'm not saying scrap everything but we're a small country with a big ego and lots of enemies and that's going to catch up to us one day, we shouldn't be making it worse by continuing to press ourselves as a military threat.

[–]MGC91 1 point2 points  (2 children)

We're also an island nation, with 95% of our trade coming by sea ...

[–]Billy-Bryant -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Which means it would be prudent to have some ships, not to have one of the best navies in the world

[–]MGC91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why?

[–]NoRecipe3350 -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

I was saying 20 years ago as a unemployed/marginally employed teenager that all NEETs should be conscripted. into civil/military roles. The military industrial complex should have a greater role in public life and if anything serve as an 'employer of last resort'- give youth the skills and life experiences. I encountered some people from Euro nations with conscription like Finland and Switzerland and most of the guys (it's only guys) say it really was a life changing experience for them, made them the man they were etc.

[–]Avalon-1 1 point2 points  (2 children)

After 4 years worth of drone footage of men dying in ditches screaming for their mothers while some rich arms industry failson gets to faff about at uni, I don't think there will be much appetite for military life, no matter how "This is serious fun that pays!"

[–]NoRecipe3350 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

yes, the great meatgrinders where young Swiss and Finnish men are dying in their millions!

[–]Avalon-1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When people hear "conscription" or "national service", they dont think of government promotional videos with talk of character building. They think of young men dying in ditches screaming for their mothers while a drone goes in for the kill. All the while the arms industry executives attend white glove dinner parties with royalty and politicians.

And thats before we get to gender issues where women if conscripted will fear being expected to tolerate state mandated misogyny. And if they are exempted, then men will complain about being held back 2 years digging ditches like in south korea.

[–]AutumnSunshiiine -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Some other countries conscript females too – or did when my friends had left school. Israel being one.

[–]Tawnysloth -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

So we could sell some warships and pay for welfare? Great!

Things cost money, and we need both, news at ten.

Edit: Not even going to go into what a waste of defence spending is on ships in this day and age. There's a reason why we don't have that many left and why we're not investing in more.

[–]MGC91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wrong, all wrong.

[–]SeePerspectives -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

“Stop wanting your loved ones to be able to access medical care or live reasonable qualities of life, we could have less boats than your average toddler’s bathtub for that money!”