It is one of those topics that makes anyone who is on the left look uncomfortable. I think we need to reform welfare, but how can we do it in a progressive way, that maintains the welfare state?

Currently, Wisconsin welfare reforms are being proposed by the Tories. But while it seems attractive, it seems to be only the Heritage foundation that maintains that poverty hasn't increased as a result of it.

Similarly, almost all welfare proposals seem to emphasise one word, and one word only: cuts.

We also have an increasingly ageing population. We have a pension system that could be bankrupted.

There are pragmatic decisions that have to be made, like increasing immigration, especially amongst skilled workers, and raising the retirement age, but we have to consider many proposals.

Look at flexicurity in Denmark. It has created the most lassez-faire labour market rules in Europe, but backed up by a strong AMLP, unemployment stands at just 1.8%. We should consider this proposal.

The problem is, that when parties offer draconian welfare proposals, it focuses on punishing those too lazy to find work. But over two-thirds of those on incapacity benefits want to work. So lets enact Carol Black's proposals for incapacity benefits.

We need an even stronger New Deal.  We need to specifically focus on how we regenerate the areas effected by Thatcher's onslaught on industry. Those pit villages can no longer be ghost towns. True, most are improving, but they still have higher than average unemployment. We also need to regenerate the inner cities, that like former industrial towns are rife with drugs and poverty. We need to help all long term workers who are made, or have been made redundant, in to new jobs as they do strongly in Sweden and Denmark, with skills training, and re-education of redundant blue-collar workers.

We should look at how we stop the shocking amount of state subsidies in pensions to the rich. The top 10% run off with around 55% of tax subsidies. We have managed to get 2 million pensioners out of poverty in a decade, and if we are going to sort out pensions, we can't put the rich ahead of the poor.

Probably the best proposal in the Turner report was the "Britsaver" scheme. And as for regenerating the New Deal, we also need to pour money into Pathways, and schemes such as Tomorrow's People. One way of countering the workfare model would be to ensure that those who are unemployed do community work such as visting the elderly.

We need to reform the National Insurance system in one, which does a European style redistribution of wealth, without the cuts. The Beverdige model is outdated. Many of the beneficaries of this model are now richer, and do not need welfare as much as others.

The IPPR made interesting proposals in 2005: rolling NI into the tax system, and abolishing second state pensions to increase basic pensions.

But we must also realise that one of the ultimate, if not the ultimate, goal of the left: full employment, is inextricably linked with the future of our pensions system.

We must therefore offer incentives to work. We should increase the minimum wage to £7.80 over 2 years. In the long term, when there are enough people in work, we should try and introduce co-determination. I know some will say that the market can't affor to up wages right now, but it is because of worries about wages, that we should increase the minimum wage. If you redistribute wealth to the poor, or increase their pay, then they will spend the money in the local economy, and the money gets recycled. If you give tax cuts to the rich, they spend money on specific markets. Intersetingly, comapny directors never seem to mention their inflation-busting wages having an effect upon the RPI.

The best way, to help both however, would be spme feminism in our policies. The best way to help save up our pensions system, by boosting our economy, and to get people off welfare, is to get women into work:

1) Up maternity leave to 480 days, perhaps equalising responsibility between the parents.

2) Introduce universal childcare.

3) Increase rights for flexible working hours, maybe even allowing mothers to stay home when children are sick.

4) Crack down on un-equal pay, by making sure that all companies have pay audits.

Ultimately though, I think we should increase public spending as a percentage of GDP. As shown in Scandanavia, we can maintain a health economy, insuring aspiration, but having a strong welfare state. If we want a strong pensions system, we need to reform the outdated parts, and we should especially help the poor as we have done. But Scandanavia seem to have less worries about the long term health of their welfare states, because they have incredible stong AMLP's, and incredibly stong funding of their pensions systems.

Ultimately, the case for a transition to a Scandanavian Social model seems to be stronger every day.

According to page 9 of the summary, the UK has "virtually eliminated the unemployment trap"

... for more than half their income. Where did Civitas get this figure from?

The fairest "green tax" would be to significantly increase taxes on all fuel (including red diessel and aircraft fuel) and increase VAT on domestic power to 17.5% to whatever figure is needed to reflect the CO2 that they produce and damage to the environment etc (assuming that anybody knows what the true cost of this is - I certainly don't).

The government should then distribute the total receipts per capita to everybody in the UK as a Universal Benefit.

A new report has really opened my eyes to some of the problems in the welfare system.

Was Clinton right when he argues that the best form of welfare is work and that benefits should be made available for a set period of time only?

The Welfare Reform Bill will be published later this week and is likely to to recommend that we replace present benefits with an employment support allowance