The UK Chancellor is preparing to implement significant cuts to welfare spending, amounting to several billion pounds, as part of an effort to balance the country's finances. These reductions, along with cuts to other government departments, are being considered ahead of the upcoming Spring Statement.  

 

The Treasury is set to present these proposed cuts to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) on Wednesday. This move comes amid growing concerns that the financial buffer established in the last budget has now disappeared. According to sources, "the world has changed" since Rachel Reeves delivered her budget last October, when the OBR estimated she had £9.9 billion available to spend under her self-imposed borrowing rules.

 

The upcoming announcement will outline major fiscal measures, including tax changes and spending cuts, aimed at ensuring compliance with these borrowing constraints.  

 

The government has reiterated its commitment to reducing debt as a proportion of the economy during this parliamentary term. It has also pledged to limit borrowing to investment purposes only, avoiding its use for day-to-day expenditures. Such fiscal rules are common among wealthy nations and are seen as a key strategy for maintaining credibility in financial markets. Reeves has firmly stated that these rules are "non-negotiable."  

 

To address the emerging budget shortfall, the Treasury is expected to introduce "politically painful" welfare reductions. These cuts are primarily aimed at curbing the significant rise in health-related benefits and are likely to be detailed further in an upcoming speech by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall.  

 

The Treasury has attributed the increased cost of government borrowing to global economic trends and geopolitical instability. When questioned about the potential impact of welfare cuts, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood told BBC Radio 4’s *Today* programme that the welfare budget had seen a "huge rise" and that there were "too many" young people not engaged in work, education, or training.  

 

"There's a moral case here for making sure that people who can work are able to work and there's a practical point here as well, because our current situation is unsustainable," Mahmood stated. However, she refrained from confirming whether the justice department would be affected by budget cuts, saying she was "not going to get ahead" of Treasury decisions.  

 

Reeves has previously promised a "fundamental" overhaul of the welfare system, citing growing concerns over rising expenditure on health-related benefits. Government figures show that last year, spending on sickness benefits reached £65 billion—a 25% increase from pre-pandemic levels. That amount is expected to rise to approximately £100 billion before the next general election.  

 

While some of this increase is linked to the long-term effects of Covid-19, ministers have raised concerns over the structure of the current benefits system. Under existing rules, individuals receiving universal credit must provide proof of job applications to continue receiving payments, or risk sanctions. However, those who qualify for sickness benefits often receive higher payments and are not necessarily required to look for work.  

 

Government officials argue that this disparity creates incentives for some individuals to "game the system," further exacerbating the financial burden on the state. As the Treasury moves forward with its plans, the debate over the future of welfare spending is set to intensify.

 

Based on a report by BBC  2025-03-06

 

 

Of course, someone has to pay for all the overseas ego/profile boosting projects/wars that Labour are throwing the British taxpayers money at.  

 

And who better than the poor, the elderly and the sick?

Somebody is trying to avoid a credit downgrade. That's a good thing.

Oh dear, that's another group of cast iron Labour supporters about to experience voter regret.  Still, should keep the Guardian columnists busy for the next month or two opining about how if only the hard working wealthy could be taxed more on their hard earned gains then people who could but don't work can continue to enjoy their benefits lifestyles without the burden or inconvenience of work interrupting their TV schedule.  

44 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Of course, someone has to pay for all the overseas ego/profile boosting projects/wars that Labour are throwing the British taxpayers money at.  

 

And who better than the poor, the elderly and the sick?

 

You  are obviously not aware of what the problem is. Large numbers of  financially stable, young and healthy people are abusing the social benefits programs. There are  young people who live at home, who refuse to work, collecting benefits. Other people exploit the sick leave system to claim for  bogus illnesses. Because of these people, the  groups you champion are most at risk of not be able to collect  benefits because some are  abusing the system.

4 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

You  are obviously not aware of what the problem is. Large numbers of  financially stable, young and healthy people are abusing the social benefits programs. There are  young people who live at home, who refuse to work, collecting benefits. Other people exploit the sick leave system to claim for  bogus illnesses. Because of these people, the  groups you champion are most at risk of not be able to collect  benefits because some are  abusing the system.

 

Careful, you're starting to sound a bit right wing there.

 

I actually agree with you in theory. People who are able to work should work. However, genuine claimants will no doubt get caught up in this just as pensioners who genuinely needed the fuel allowance had it removed. I just don't trust Labour to get it right. I believe they will target specific groups and ignore others. 

 

My main concern is that the money saved on this will not be spent on the UK, but given away to foreign countries under the pretense of "climate aid" or "saving Ukraine". They need to get their priorities right, secure our own borders before securing another countries. Look at the amount spent on housing foreign nationals in the UK before cutting off the welfare of UK citizens to pay for them. 

 

In many countries like NZ the indigenous people are given special rights. In the UK, the indiginous people are bottom of the food chain and many like me are getting sick of it. 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Careful, you're starting to sound a bit right wing there.

 

I actually agree with you in theory. People who are able to work should work. However, genuine claimants will no doubt get caught up in this just as pensioners who genuinely needed the fuel allowance had it removed. I just don't trust Labour to get it right. I believe they will target specific groups and ignore others. 

 

My main concern is that the money saved on this will not be spent on the UK, but given away to foreign countries under the pretense of "climate aid" or "saving Ukraine". They need to get their priorities right, secure our own borders before securing another countries. Look at the amount spent on housing foreign nationals in the UK before cutting off the welfare of UK citizens to pay for them. 

 

In many countries like NZ the indigenous people are given special rights. In the UK, the indiginous people are bottom of the food chain and many like me are getting sick of it. 

White guilt socialism has ruined the west.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Careful, you're starting to sound a bit right wing there.

 

I actually agree with you in theory. People who are able to work should work. However, genuine claimants will no doubt get caught up in this just as pensioners who genuinely needed the fuel allowance had it removed. I just don't trust Labour to get it right. I believe they will target specific groups and ignore others. 

 

My main concern is that the money saved on this will not be spent on the UK, but given away to foreign countries under the pretense of "climate aid" or "saving Ukraine". They need to get their priorities right, secure our own borders before securing another countries. Look at the amount spent on housing foreign nationals in the UK before cutting off the welfare of UK citizens to pay for them. 

 

In many countries like NZ the indigenous people are given special rights. In the UK, the indiginous people are bottom of the food chain and many like me are getting sick of it. 

 

Please note that PM Starmer took a bold decision. Overseas development aid will fall from 0.5% of the UK’s gross national income to 0.3% – a cut of about £6bn – in order to pay for increased defence spending. UK has no choice as its  survival is on the line now.

 

 

While Labor have only been in office a few months, they have to deal with a wrecked economy partially caused by Brexit and Tory mismanagement. Yet higher taxes for the rich are not part of the plan?

4 minutes ago, Purdey said:

While Labor have only been in office a few months, they have to deal with a wrecked economy partially caused by Brexit and Tory mismanagement. Yet higher taxes for the rich are not part of the plan?

Yeah it should be.  Along with (for example):

• Stopping all DEI spending immediately and insisting that if a public organisation wants it then they pay for it without a single penny of taxer payer funding.
• Zero aid to any country with a space programme.
• Zero aid to any overseas DEI or arts programme.
• Chop 50% of management posts in the NHS and spend a lot of that money on proper care.
• Telling every state funded aid programme to reduce their overhead costs by at least 80%.
• Collecting every penny that was corruptly spent during the pandemic from those responsible (Boris et al).
• Collecting all relevant corporation taxes from 'offshore' companies who are profiting from the operations in the UK.
• Collecting back-taxes from everyone claiming for domicile who wasn't, e.g. Sunak's wife.
• Cutting all winter fuel allowances from MPs.
• Give Diego Garcia to the Americans and pull out totally.
• No reparations to any country for an act or acts that happened before the 1980.
• An independent public procurement organisation that is funded by the suppliers (say, 1% levy on each tender response that is only paid by the winner) where the high-level tender responses are open to the public (see this for an example - https://www.gebiz.gov.sg/ptn/opportunity/BOListing.xhtml?origin=menu, look at some of the 'awarded' contracts, e.g. https://www.gebiz.gov.sg/ptn/opportunity/directlink.xhtml?docCode=SSC000ETQ25000009).
• All fines increased ten-fold, plus any profits of crime seized.
• Have a multi-tiered approach to VAT, cheap goods low or zero, luxury goods 50%.
• Scrap the BBC licence fee and make it a commercial service with zero public funding.
• Levy fines on any media outlet that publishes inaccurate news.  Includes X, Facebook and any foreign-based or owned media.

 

Oh, and of course, kick out the illegal immigrants back to France or wherever they came from, and slim the asylum process down to a maximum of 4 weeks including any appeals.

7 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Yeah it should be.  Along with (for example):

• Stopping all DEI spending immediately and insisting that if a public organisation wants it then they pay for it without a single penny of taxer payer funding.
• Zero aid to any country with a space programme.
• Zero aid to any overseas DEI or arts programme.
• Chop 50% of management posts in the NHS and spend a lot of that money on proper care.
• Telling every state funded aid programme to reduce their overhead costs by at least 80%.
• Collecting every penny that was corruptly spent during the pandemic from those responsible (Boris et al).
• Collecting all relevant corporation taxes from 'offshore' companies who are profiting from the operations in the UK.
• Collecting back-taxes from everyone claiming for domicile who wasn't, e.g. Sunak's wife.
• Cutting all winter fuel allowances from MPs.
• Give Diego Garcia to the Americans and pull out totally.
• No reparations to any country for an act or acts that happened before the 1980.
• An independent public procurement organisation that is funded by the suppliers (say, 1% levy on each tender response that is only paid by the winner) where the high-level tender responses are open to the public (see this for an example - https://www.gebiz.gov.sg/ptn/opportunity/BOListing.xhtml?origin=menu, look at some of the 'awarded' contracts, e.g. https://www.gebiz.gov.sg/ptn/opportunity/directlink.xhtml?docCode=SSC000ETQ25000009).
• All fines increased ten-fold, plus any profits of crime seized.
• Have a multi-tiered approach to VAT, cheap goods low or zero, luxury goods 50%.
• Scrap the BBC licence fee and make it a commercial service with zero public funding.
• Levy fines on any media outlet that publishes inaccurate news.  Includes X, Facebook and any foreign-based or owned media.

 

Oh, and of course, kick out the illegal immigrants back to France or wherever they came from, and slim the asylum process down to a maximum of 4 weeks including any appeals.

Well said that man!!👏👏

I wonder if the cuts will include all funding for illegal boat arrivals. Charity begins at home. 

2 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Yeah it should be.  Along with (for example):

• Stopping all DEI spending immediately and insisting that if a public organisation wants it then they pay for it without a single penny of taxer payer funding.
• Zero aid to any country with a space programme.
• Zero aid to any overseas DEI or arts programme.
• Chop 50% of management posts in the NHS and spend a lot of that money on proper care.
• Telling every state funded aid programme to reduce their overhead costs by at least 80%.
• Collecting every penny that was corruptly spent during the pandemic from those responsible (Boris et al).
• Collecting all relevant corporation taxes from 'offshore' companies who are profiting from the operations in the UK.
• Collecting back-taxes from everyone claiming for domicile who wasn't, e.g. Sunak's wife.
• Cutting all winter fuel allowances from MPs.
• Give Diego Garcia to the Americans and pull out totally.
• No reparations to any country for an act or acts that happened before the 1980.
• An independent public procurement organisation that is funded by the suppliers (say, 1% levy on each tender response that is only paid by the winner) where the high-level tender responses are open to the public (see this for an example - https://www.gebiz.gov.sg/ptn/opportunity/BOListing.xhtml?origin=menu, look at some of the 'awarded' contracts, e.g. https://www.gebiz.gov.sg/ptn/opportunity/directlink.xhtml?docCode=SSC000ETQ25000009).
• All fines increased ten-fold, plus any profits of crime seized.
• Have a multi-tiered approach to VAT, cheap goods low or zero, luxury goods 50%.
• Scrap the BBC licence fee and make it a commercial service with zero public funding.
• Levy fines on any media outlet that publishes inaccurate news.  Includes X, Facebook and any foreign-based or owned media.

 

Oh, and of course, kick out the illegal immigrants back to France or wherever they came from, and slim the asylum process down to a maximum of 4 weeks including any appeals.

Don't give Diego Garcia to the Americans, sell it to them. For a high price.

Levying fines looks good, but some would call it lawfare.

Cutting the 8 MILLION A DAY they waste on illegal immigrants would be a popular start

2 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Levy fines on any media outlet that publishes inaccurate news.  Includes X, Facebook and any foreign-based or owned media.

 

Nope don't agree with that  it would totally stifle debate and any semblance of free speech that already teeters on the precipice .

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

There are  young people who live at home,

 

They live at home  due to the ludicrous price of housing,  they simply can't  afford to move out.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Of course, someone has to pay for all the overseas ego/profile boosting projects/wars that Labour are throwing the British taxpayers money at.  

 

And who better than the poor, the elderly and the sick?

£100 billion could be saved immediately...but they won't, they'd rather save £150 million and make pensioners freeze

Cut out payments to the King, confiscate his property, and make him do real work for his health benefits.

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Cut out payments to the King, confiscate his property, and make him do real work for his health benefits.

The payments for the King come from his own money. The Sovereign Grant is paid from the income of the Crown Estate. Each year there is at least £200m surplus. That goes straight into the treasury coffers 

7 hours ago, Purdey said:

While Labor have only been in office a few months, they have to deal with a wrecked economy partially caused by Brexit and Tory mismanagement. Yet higher taxes for the rich are not part of the plan?

"The rich" already pay more than 50% of total taxes in the UK. Squeeze them any more and they'll just get up and leave. 

Didn't you socialists learn anything from the 1970s?

18 hours ago, johng said:

 

They live at home  due to the ludicrous price of housing,  they simply can't  afford to move out.

Yes, some do.  Mind you, not everyone needs to live in central London.

Others live on the dole as their parents did and their parents did. As usual, a small number of abusers bleed the system and  hurt those it was intended for.