Of course there are serious glitches in the benefit system. It can always be improved. But I don't see any chance of drastic change for as long as you have a means tested system.
I do think the housing benefit rules are daft and they have always been the main glitch, the bit Beveridge could never make worth from Day 1. So give everyone their home.
Critiques are easy, solutions v hard - as 18 years of Tory rule showed too when the system was much the same, same glitches, only less generous to those in work who gain so much now through credits. True, the glitch has moved upwards to discouraging those in work to work longer or for more.
Citizens Income is the 'answer' and maybe the Tory party is the only one that could suggest it. From Labour there would be outcry at profligacy, at giving out money to all for nothing, and at the monumental cost in taxes. But it does solve all the glitches - except the biggest - public support.
Actually, a remarkably sensible answer even if it does avoid a good number of the questions that I asked. However, the issues that I raised in my post still apply; especially on the question of giving houses to those who can't afford them.
In what way is it fair—and isn't the object of Polly's sermons to make a fairer society?—that some people should pay for their houses and others should be given them? And at what point do you say that someone is poor enough to be given a house; where is the dividing line?