The restrictions are pretty reasonable.
The obvious “risk” of abuse is that this is a slippery slope and both the rules get relaxed and the safeguards lose their funding and attention over time, but the chance of that happening increases over time, there’s no way in hell they’ll be making a dent in the benefits bill for the next few years.
So I don’t think your suggested link between this and the current governments goal of reducing benefits is the truth, or even particularly credible.
Maybe there will be problems in 20 years, it’s certainly a reasonable fear and I don’t blame anyone who argued against it to avoid that risk, but I can’t seriously believe that anyone thinks the government is going to use this to start killing off benefit claimants in job lots.
Well, that’s one way to reduce, to quote Sir Starmer, “the benefits bill blighting our society”.
Thats incredibly crass and you should be ashamed of yourself
The truth is often crass.
The restrictions are pretty reasonable. The obvious “risk” of abuse is that this is a slippery slope and both the rules get relaxed and the safeguards lose their funding and attention over time, but the chance of that happening increases over time, there’s no way in hell they’ll be making a dent in the benefits bill for the next few years.
So I don’t think your suggested link between this and the current governments goal of reducing benefits is the truth, or even particularly credible.
Maybe there will be problems in 20 years, it’s certainly a reasonable fear and I don’t blame anyone who argued against it to avoid that risk, but I can’t seriously believe that anyone thinks the government is going to use this to start killing off benefit claimants in job lots.
Tldr: your ”truth” is a pretty dumb take