Opinion by Mathew Carr

Fake Reform UK attacked Britain‘s most vulnerable people after deceiving them in shameful by-election.

The move on Monday is cowardly because leader cowardly Nigel Mirage Farage didn’t show up (again) at today’s press conference after deceiving voters in Clacton for more than a month leading up to Thursday’s vote.

Why not announce the policy before the election if it’s so great? Cowardice. That is why.

Secondly, today’s press conference was headed by Uniparty/Tory politician (Jenrick) who has been attacking the vulnerable for years and protecting the huge profits of big business.

More sheer cowardice. Fake Reform is clearly a third arm of the anti-people Uniparty. Alongside Tories and Labour.

Thirdly, fake Reform UK was so cowardly and lacking in self confidence it failed to publish policy detail before the press conference. It’s not fit to govern. Divisive. Cowardly. That’s fake Reform UK.

BBC:

Reform proposes ban on most benefits for foreign nationals in UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly555430nno

Reform UK is weak on regulating big companies properly.

Gemini summaries:

Reform UK unveiled a proposal to slash £50 billion from the UK welfare bill, which includes mandating 20 hours per week of unpaid “workfare” for long-term unemployed claimants as a condition for receiving benefits.

This concept is neither brand-new (“trailblazing”) nor uniquely Dutch, but rather a version of workfare policies that have existed in various forms across several countries for decades.

Workfare Models Compared Model / PolicyCore MechanismHistorical / Global Context Reform UK ProposalMandatory 20 hours/week unpaid community work for long-term unemployed.Combines US-style workfare with strict benefit restrictions. Dutch Model (Tegenprestatie)Municipalities can require welfare recipients to perform unpaid community tasks in return for benefits.Statutory “quid pro quo” principle in Dutch welfare (Participatiewet). US & UK PrecedentsMandatory work or activity in exchange for social safety net payments.Established in 1990s US welfare reforms and previous UK schemes (e.g., Mandatory Work Activity).

Key Pillars of the Policy Unveiled Today

• Compulsory Workfare: Long-term unemployed individuals must complete 20 hours of unpaid work per week to continue receiving payments.
• Disability Support Cuts: Replaces much of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) cash benefit with in-kind equipment and introduces significantly tougher eligibility assessments.
• Exclusion of Non-UK Citizens: Banning non-UK citizens from claiming social security benefits.
• Employer Sick Pay Overhaul: Requires employers to fund benefit payments for an employee’s first two years of illness.
• Two-Child Limit: Reinstates the two-child cap on benefit entitlements.

While the proposal shares similarities with the Dutch Tegenprestatie (social contribution requirement), compulsory workfare originated largely in Anglo-American welfare policies—most notably the “Wisconsin Works” model in the US during the 1990s. Independent analyses, including from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), emphasize that Reform’s package focuses heavily on direct fiscal reductions and strict conditionality rather than the broader active employment support typical of Nordic or Dutch systems.

——

Savings?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) evaluated Reform UK’s welfare document and expressed strong skepticism that the package will achieve its full £50 billion per year savings target.

While the IFS notes that the proposal represents a “substantially different vision” for the UK safety net, it warns that several core assumptions rely on mechanisms that have historically failed to deliver expected cuts.

Key Findings from the IFS Analysis

• Unrealistic Disability Assessment Assumptions: Most of the proposed savings depend on replacing current disability benefits with a “substantially tougher” needs assessment. The IFS highlights that there is little detail on what this new test entails and notes that previous government attempts to tighten disability assessments consistently fell far short of expected savings.
• Uncertain Savings from Non-UK Citizen Exclusions: Banning non-UK citizens from claiming working-age benefits (currently affecting ~1.3 million claimants, 650,000 of whom are unemployed) could yield savings, but the actual total depends heavily on how many people claim UK citizenship in response. The IFS also warned this would cause “large overnight cuts to claimants’ incomes and imply significant increases in hardship”.
• Extreme Scale of the Cut: A £50 billion reduction represents cutting roughly 25% from a working-age benefits budget forecast to be just over £200 billion by 2030–31.
• Concrete Savings Mechanism (Inflation Uprating): One measure the IFS identified as genuinely predictable is switching benefit uprating to a lower measure of inflation. This is expected to save £4.8 billion by 2033–34 and permanently shrink benefit values relative to living costs over time.

Bottom Line

The IFS concludes that while the proposals would dramatically shrink and reshape the UK state, the £50 billion target is unlikely to be delivered in full due to missing details, implementation hurdles, and overoptimistic projections on disability spending cuts.

——

Crime up?

Extensive empirical research in economics and criminology demonstrates a strong historical link between the sudden removal of welfare safety nets and increases in crime—specifically acquisitive or income-generating offenses. However, policy advocates argue that strict benefit exclusions for non-citizens produce different behavioral adaptations, such as seeking formal work or leaving the country.

Evidence from Safety Net Rollbacks

• Spikes in Acquisitive Offenses: Studies examining past safety net reductions—including the UK’s 2012 Welfare Reform Act and historical welfare reforms—show that deep cuts disproportionately increase non-violent property crimes, theft, burglary, and fraud as vulnerable individuals seek alternative income.
• Informal & Illegal Trade: A study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics analyzing the removal of cash safety nets found that affected individuals were significantly more likely to turn to illicit income-generating activities (a 60% increase in charges) than to maintain steady formal employment.
• Offsetting Public Costs: UK researchers from the University of Southampton noted that localized spikes in crime resulting from benefit reductions created downstream policing, court, and societal costs that reduced or eliminated the intended public savings.

Arguments & Counter-Perspectives

• Incentive to Depart or Work: Proponents of restricting benefits to UK citizens argue that eliminating the safety net removes a key pull factor, encouraging long-term unemployed non-citizens to either secure employment or return to their origin countries.
• Alternative Safety Nets: Supporters suggest individuals would adapt by relying on private savings, family networks, religious institutions, or charitable organizations rather than government funds or crime.
• Deportation Risk as Deterrent: Policy defenders maintain that for non-UK nationals, criminal involvement carries severe legal risks—including visa cancellation and deportation—which acts as a strong disincentive against turning to illegal trade.

….

Note: I was defeated by Nigel Farage in Clacton last week and hold no grudge.