GB News debate splits over benefits bill and Labour welfare reforms

A televised panel debate on welfare became a heated row over whether the benefits bill is rising faster than wages and whether Labour's reforms are tough enough. The discussion covered benefit rises, work incentives, and the politics of cutting welfare.

One side argued the government was rewarding shirkers over workers. The participant said benefits were rising much faster than workers' pay and pointed to Birmingham Yardley, Jess Phillips's constituency, where they said the benefit bill had increased 37% while median pay had gone up 2.5%. They said Labour were incentivising benefit claims and that the party had rebels against welfare cuts. They also claimed many young people leave school straight onto benefits, and raised concerns about people entering the country illegally and claiming benefits immediately, and about parents of children who are not neurodivergent claiming extra benefits.

The opposing guest challenged the comparison. They said the overall benefits bill had gone up, not the amount received by each individual claimant. They blamed Covid for the huge rise in the benefits bill and said the pandemic had created an expectation that government funds everything. They also said Universal Credit mostly supports people in work, that PIP is designed to help people go to work, and that a lack of jobs and a halving of graduate jobs were driving benefit claims among under-25s.

The debate then widened to employment costs and low pay. One participant said Labour had made the employment environment unemployer friendly and too expensive for young workers to hire. Another argued that young people should still work but should not be paid poverty wages, and that a 20 or 21-year-old should not be paid less than 12 pounds an hour. The exchange included personal remarks about a guest's earring and age, with the host calling the earring unacceptable and a guest describing it as a midlife crisis.

On welfare policy, a participant said neither the Conservatives nor Reform would attack genuinely disabled people or children needing extra help. They said the real plan was to cut support for people who should and could work, and that this would be better for them. The programme ended with a yes or no quiz.

• Both guests said there would not be a general election next year.
• Both said British-born people should be prioritised over foreign nationals for social housing.
• They split on scrapping the triple lock, with one saying yes and the other no.
• Both said MPs should not receive 24-hour close protection.