top of page

Summary of CPF consultation on The Future of the Welfare State

In response to the CPF consultation on The Future of the Welfare State, we received substantive submissions from 73 CPF groups, representing about 700 members from 123 constituencies. One-in-four (24.5%) of those who participated had not previously done so. Thank you to everybody who let us know their views. This was the third and most popular in our series of three consultations looking beyond the short-term political horizon to the future.

Particular congratulations to the following CPF Groups, which submitted the most noteworthy submissions:

  1. Hong Kong

  2. Hinckley & Bosworth

  3. Petersfield

  4. Thirsk and Malton

  5. Havant


  • Boston

  • Esher and Walton

  • Doncaster

  • Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport

  • Rushcliffe

  • Bridlington and the Wolds

  • Braintree

  • Grantham and Bourne

  • South West Devon

  • Stafford

  • High Peak

  • Stevenage

CPF Groups welcomed:

Some groups also called for action that the Government has since announced, e.g.:

Below is a snapshot of the top themes raised by CPF groups. A more detailed collation of responses has been sent to the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit, the Party Chairman and the CPF Chairman. As usual, we look forward to publishing a formal response to members’ ideas in due course.

Overview of Top Themes

“Our welfare system should be based on three principles: individual self-reliance first, family support second, state intervention as the last resort.”

“Encourage personal responsibility by reducing public expenditure by the State.”

“The function of the welfare state should be to provide a minimum standard above which people should be free to rise as high as their effort and talent allow them.”

“We must consider the potential unintended outcomes of policy more.”

“The Conservatives must show we are thinking about young people, not just retirees.”

CPF Groups were overwhelmingly of the opinion that “the availability of benefits to too large a portion of the population has disincentivised people” and “the perception that it is the government’s responsibility to support everyone needs to be reversed.”

About five-out-of-six CPF Groups (82%) called for a reduction in the tax burden:

  • one-in-four (25%) specified an increase in tax thresholds;

  • about one-in-four (23%) urged greater tax relief for married couples, e.g. completely transferrable tax allowances.

Over one-in-four (27%) want the triple lock on pensions amended, e.g. in favour of a double lock based on inflation (CPI) and a proportion of median earnings, as in Australia.

Around one-in-four (26%) called for a reduction in bureaucracy.

About one-in-four (23%) would require equality between public and private sector pensions.

About one-in-five (19%) proposed raising the state pension age, though others said to “maintain the retirement age of 67, even if benefits have to increase at a rate below inflation to afford it.”

One-in-eight (12%) called for action on benefit fraud.

One-in-ten (11%) said to invest more in preventive healthcare measures.

Other specific proposals included:

  • Raise the benefits limit of working 16 hours per week to 20+ hours and increase this after each twelve months to reach 30 hours in five years.

  • Offer the Help To Save scheme to any 16 to 24-year-old in full-time education or training.

  • Implement a six-year limit on reclaiming historic debts for overpaid tax credits, as applies to debts in the private sector.

  • Amalgamate further the range of benefits to simplify administration.

  • Pensions for new state employees should be on a defined contribution basis.

  • Introduce a social care GCSE or A-level and career progression in the carers’ profession.

  • Encourage young people to have children and pre-school parents to stay at home.

  • Conduct analysis to understand why the percentage of people receiving the highest level of disability benefit has increased so dramatically.

  • Reduce discrimination against older job applicants and women who have taken career breaks to have a family by requiring CVs to state only the duration of courses and jobs, not the actual dates or years.

  • Urgently introduce a pricing mechanism for highly polluting lithium and cobalt imports for the EV sector similar to the UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

  • Require energy use disclosures from AI developers.


bottom of page