A heated debate erupted on GB News over Labour's welfare reforms, with political commentator Reem Ibrahim and Chris Daly from Turn Left Media clashing over disability benefits.
The fiery exchange centred on the government's recently announced £5bn cuts to the welfare system, which will tighten eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Ibrahim argued millions are being "consigned to a life of worklessness" by the current system.
Daly defended benefits for disabled people, claiming PIP has a "zero per cent fraud rate" and suggesting wealth taxes as an alternative to benefit cuts.
The debate quickly became personal as both commentators accused each other of avoiding questions.
Ibrahim passionately argued that the welfare system was failing both recipients and taxpayers.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
"I think it's absolutely tragic that millions are being consigned to a life of worklessness," she said during the GB News debate.
She emphasised that Britons are "paying the highest amount of tax since the Second World War" while the system wastes human potential.
"I don't think these people are lazy, I think it's basic incentive. It makes their mental illnesses so much worse," Ibrahim continued.
She described the situation as a "real tragedy" where "millions who could be contributing" are trapped by a system that incentivises them not to work.
Daly strongly contested Ibrahim's characterisation, focusing on specific impacts of the reforms.
"PIP has a zero per cent fraud rate," he claimed, though presenter Emily Carver challenged this as "a bold claim".
He highlighted specific examples of people who would lose support under the new four-point threshold requirement.
"People who need aid, appliance, supervision, physical assistance with hair or body below the waist and assistance to be able to get in or out of the bath or shower wouldn't score four," Daly explained.
He questioned why the debate focused on benefit cuts rather than alternatives like Norway's wealth tax model.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced the welfare reforms in Parliament earlier this week, aiming to save £5bn by 2029/30.
The changes include tightening eligibility for PIP, with claimants needing to score at least four points in one daily living activity to qualify.
The Work Capability Assessment will be scrapped by 2028, with a single assessment determining both PIP and Universal Credit health-related support.
Other measures include raising the Universal Credit standard allowance by £775 by 2029/30 and introducing a "Right to Try" initiative allowing benefit recipients to attempt work without risking their payments.
The reforms have been criticised by charities as "immoral and devastating" for disabled people.
The debate intensified when Daly suggested alternative approaches to welfare reform.
"We could be doing what Norway did. Introduce a 1.1 per cent wealth tax," he proposed.
Ibrahim quickly countered that the wealthy in Britain already pay a "huge amount" in tax.Daly shifted focus to pandemic inequalities, stating: "The very richest doubled their wealth while we made sacrifices. It's their turn to pay back."This prompted Ibrahim to challenge the fundamental premise of the current system."Forget about the money, do you think any system which classifies a quarter of the population as disabled is working?" she asked.
The exchange grew increasingly tense as Daly questioned Ibrahim's perspective based on her affiliations.
"I'm not surprised you have this view because you work for the IEA [Institute of Economic Affairs]. We don't know who funds them. I assume it's the oil industry and private insurance companies," Daly said.
Ibrahim appeared frustrated by this personal attack, responding: "Do you want to respond to my questions rather than accuse me of something?"
Daly continued his criticism, describing the situation as "absolutely disgusting" for 2.8 million people.
The debate moderator struggled to maintain order as both participants repeatedly interrupted each other.
The debate concluded with both commentators making impassioned final arguments about the welfare system's purpose.
Daly claimed disabled people were being "attacked" because of a small minority "sponging off" the welfare state.
Ibrahim challenged this framing, asking: "Where is the evidence that people with mental health problems should be consigned to a life of idleness?"
The exchange highlighted the fundamental ideological divide in Britain's welfare debate.
While Daly focused on protecting vulnerable individuals from cuts, Ibrahim questioned whether the current system truly serves those with conditions like depression or anxiety by encouraging worklessness.
Neither side appeared convinced by the other's arguments as the heated discussion ended.
Find Out More...
The fiery exchange centred on the government's recently announced £5bn cuts to the welfare system, which will tighten eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Ibrahim argued millions are being "consigned to a life of worklessness" by the current system.
Daly defended benefits for disabled people, claiming PIP has a "zero per cent fraud rate" and suggesting wealth taxes as an alternative to benefit cuts.
The debate quickly became personal as both commentators accused each other of avoiding questions.
Ibrahim passionately argued that the welfare system was failing both recipients and taxpayers.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
- 'There's no clear strategy!' Keir Starmer's plan to end asylum hotels ripped apart by border tsar
- Badenoch raises alarm bell over ‘emergency Budget’ after Starmer defends Labour’s tax raid
- Keir Starmer REFUSES to rule out scrapping 'stealth tax' on millions of Britons
"I think it's absolutely tragic that millions are being consigned to a life of worklessness," she said during the GB News debate.
She emphasised that Britons are "paying the highest amount of tax since the Second World War" while the system wastes human potential.
"I don't think these people are lazy, I think it's basic incentive. It makes their mental illnesses so much worse," Ibrahim continued.
She described the situation as a "real tragedy" where "millions who could be contributing" are trapped by a system that incentivises them not to work.
Daly strongly contested Ibrahim's characterisation, focusing on specific impacts of the reforms.
"PIP has a zero per cent fraud rate," he claimed, though presenter Emily Carver challenged this as "a bold claim".
He highlighted specific examples of people who would lose support under the new four-point threshold requirement.
"People who need aid, appliance, supervision, physical assistance with hair or body below the waist and assistance to be able to get in or out of the bath or shower wouldn't score four," Daly explained.
He questioned why the debate focused on benefit cuts rather than alternatives like Norway's wealth tax model.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced the welfare reforms in Parliament earlier this week, aiming to save £5bn by 2029/30.
The changes include tightening eligibility for PIP, with claimants needing to score at least four points in one daily living activity to qualify.
The Work Capability Assessment will be scrapped by 2028, with a single assessment determining both PIP and Universal Credit health-related support.
Other measures include raising the Universal Credit standard allowance by £775 by 2029/30 and introducing a "Right to Try" initiative allowing benefit recipients to attempt work without risking their payments.
The reforms have been criticised by charities as "immoral and devastating" for disabled people.
The debate intensified when Daly suggested alternative approaches to welfare reform.
"We could be doing what Norway did. Introduce a 1.1 per cent wealth tax," he proposed.
Ibrahim quickly countered that the wealthy in Britain already pay a "huge amount" in tax.Daly shifted focus to pandemic inequalities, stating: "The very richest doubled their wealth while we made sacrifices. It's their turn to pay back."This prompted Ibrahim to challenge the fundamental premise of the current system."Forget about the money, do you think any system which classifies a quarter of the population as disabled is working?" she asked.
The exchange grew increasingly tense as Daly questioned Ibrahim's perspective based on her affiliations.
"I'm not surprised you have this view because you work for the IEA [Institute of Economic Affairs]. We don't know who funds them. I assume it's the oil industry and private insurance companies," Daly said.
Ibrahim appeared frustrated by this personal attack, responding: "Do you want to respond to my questions rather than accuse me of something?"
Daly continued his criticism, describing the situation as "absolutely disgusting" for 2.8 million people.
The debate moderator struggled to maintain order as both participants repeatedly interrupted each other.
The debate concluded with both commentators making impassioned final arguments about the welfare system's purpose.
Daly claimed disabled people were being "attacked" because of a small minority "sponging off" the welfare state.
Ibrahim challenged this framing, asking: "Where is the evidence that people with mental health problems should be consigned to a life of idleness?"
The exchange highlighted the fundamental ideological divide in Britain's welfare debate.
While Daly focused on protecting vulnerable individuals from cuts, Ibrahim questioned whether the current system truly serves those with conditions like depression or anxiety by encouraging worklessness.
Neither side appeared convinced by the other's arguments as the heated discussion ended.
Find Out More...