Miliband hopes to put a cap on his welfare policy problems
Peter Hoskin 1:14pm
A-ha! Labour have hit on a line on the benefits cap, and Liam Byrne is peddling it in the Daily Telegraph this morning. ‘Now, there are
some people who are against this idea altogether,’ he writes, ‘Neither I, nor Ed Miliband are among them.’ The way he sees it, he goes on to explain, is that there should be a cap
but it should be set locally, so that it could be higher than £26,000 in more expensive areas such as London, and potentially less in other areas. Bryne adds that there should be an ‘an
independent body like the Low Pay Commission to determine the level at which it is set for different area.’
The Times has a useful article (£) by Roland Watson and Michael Savage, tucked away on p.28 of today's edition, that provides some further context for Labour's position. Here are three details that stand out from it, along with my thoughts:
1) The next phase of Miliband's leadership? ‘Shadow Cabinet members have been ordered to move into “phase 2” of the party's policy review,’ reveal Watson and Savage, ‘They have been told to push ideas that better represent Mr Miliband's priorities of helping the “squeezed middle” and taking on vested interests.’ Which is kinda hilarious, if you ask me. ‘Phase 2’ implies some sort of system to Miliband's thinking — but, as we've seen this week, there's barely anything systematic about it at all. You'd have thought that, with a proper (and more timely) policy review, Labour would have had a clear position on a benefits cap from the start, but instead they've had to clarify it now, several days late. It looks more like a rush job, or a political afterthought, than anything else.
And it's not just us that have noticed Miliband's weird aversion to actual policy. The Times article quotes a shadow cabinet minister saying, ‘There's obviously a problem and there's no point
saying there isn't’. They add: ‘It comes from the leaders’ office. It has to come from the top. There's a real problem with turning ideas into solid policies — but he's got
no one there doing that. It's like he has the big narrative right, but he doesn't have the ideas to back up the rhetoric.’
2) A softer sort of Cooper. According to the Times article, Yvette Cooper is ‘uneasy at Mr Miliband's support for child benefit to be included in the cap’. That this
opposition is making it into print is intriguing, but it oughtn't be surprising in itself: Cooper, after all, spends much of her time speaking out on behalf of women. But it does contrast with what
many Labour types see as her main strength: her hard-nosed populism when it comes to issues such as crime. In wanting child benefit to be excluded from the cap, Cooper is lining up with the bishops.
3) The politics of the benefits cap. The main question now, politically, is whether Miliband's new position will regain lost ground, or whether it is too little, too late, to contain the Tories' lead on welfare. But the politics don't end there. The Times notes that, ‘Labour officials denied that the move would amount to an acceptance by the party for regional pay bargaining in the public sector, which is being pushed by George Osborne.’ It's quite a thought, in spite of the denials. There are plenty of arguments for regional variation floating around certain corners of the coalition, including for a regional minumum wage. Have Labour just unintentionally nudged that sort of thinking into the mainstream?
Previous
Heartless C.
January 28th, 2012 2:02pm Report this commentum . . . is this rather like capping a gushing (flaming) oil well?
Dangerous work!
Slim Jim
January 28th, 2012 2:03pm Report this commentCould this be Labour's 'sharing the proceeds of growth' moment? What is important is that the very idea of a benefits cap is being discussed. It would be a seismic change of direction, and it could well take some time to implement, but implement it the government must if we really want to see any light at the end of the recessionary tunnel, and make any progress on reducing the deficit.
David Ossitt
January 28th, 2012 2:19pm Report this commentThe brain dead entity; that is the shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, just doesn’t get it; his final sentence says it all.
“How can a “one-size-fits-all” cap be fair to working people in both London and Rotherham?”
Can he not get it into his head, the benefit is not paid to working people, it is paid to those who do not work and in many cases those who have no wish to work.
Arfon
January 28th, 2012 3:09pm Report this commentExcellent idea by Labour. The Regional Caps of course will be matched by a Regional rate of taxation so that e.g the higher benefit for those in London/South East can be paid for by the taxpayers of that Region etc etc
After all, if this does not happen then the taxpayer of the poorer areas still pay for those who have benefits way above their own take home pay.
Can't see it somehow.
Andy Leeds
January 28th, 2012 3:18pm Report this commentLabour really are idiots. Do they not realize what a can of worms they are opening ?
If a benefit cap ought to be variable it naturally follows - for exactly the same reasons - that benefits must also be variable. Why pay the same benefit rate in London and Liverpool ?
If you accept this argument then one must also apply it to pay across the public sector. Why pay a nurse the same rate in London and in Newcastle ?
David L
January 28th, 2012 3:22pm Report this commentHere's how it works. Set up a needlessly complex mechanism to determine the appropriate local benefit cap. That means lots of work for civil servants to set, and endlessly review the levels. So more members for the public sector unions, and more revenue for Labour .... plus a system that no sane citizen can make head or tail of.
Job done.
teledu
January 28th, 2012 3:22pm Report this commentOnce again here is an issue (benefit caps) on which the Parliamentary Labour Party are utterly out of tune with the opinions of those they purport to represent. As a low-paid, worker who mixes with mostly labour voters, I'd say the average working person thinks that:-
1) A benefit cap is a good thing (and maybe £26K is too high).
2) Immigration - generally speaking (as allowed by the last government) is wrong
3) The EU / the Euro and the ECHR are crocks of sh1t that the UK should ditch.
4) Green taxes and subsidy of windfarms etc. is/are a big con and a complete waste of taxpayers money.
So, no matter what Red Ed (or Yvette Cooper) say, they still fail to articulate the opinions of the people they are meant to represent. neither does the pinko media. (When was the last time the Guardian or Independent (or BBC come to that) voiced opinions that gave serious vent to those concerns?)
The Labour Party hierarchy are so out of touch whith their one time root and branch supporters that the true "working" class are no longer represented by them. The fears and concerns of the working family are better represented by the Goves, Duncan Smiths and Osbornes of this world than by the Labour front bench. Trouble is, so many people will still vote Labour come what may.
Holly ......
January 28th, 2012 3:31pm Report this commentSo..These two cabbages, of chocolate orange politics, reckon people in minimum wage jobs in say, Liverpool or the North East will be jumping up for joy at having to pay for those on welfare to live in affluent areas of London?
They are off the chart with their chocolate orange thickness.FFS!!!
This phase#2 nonsense,(plan B?)is this because phase#1(plan A)failed spectacularly,
due to cabbages not being very good at politics,or running a country?
I've only just got here & already laughing.
Where Osborne used plan A, I will give these two fruitloops a bit of credit by chosing phase#1 etc, as numbers are infinite whereas there are only 26 letters in the alphabet. Maybe Osborne knew he would not need as many plans/phases as the cabbage party.
Looks like a relaunch is in order Ed.
Nickle
January 28th, 2012 4:16pm Report this commentWe're in a bidding war.
When is Ed going to name the price for Rotherham, Bradford and the Wirral?
Yes, he isn't going to. It would be political suicide because he will get the blame for the cut in benefits.
Biggestaspidistra
January 28th, 2012 4:32pm Report this commentIsn't he called Liam Byrne, or is that intentional?
David Ossitt
January 28th, 2012 4:45pm Report this commentteledu 3:22pm
Well said sir? Madam.
Nickle
January 28th, 2012 5:15pm Report this commentPoliticians won't reflect the population, because they do what the f they want to do.
That's why we need a complete change around. Politicians can do what they want, but they have to get the approval of the electorate on every bill before it becomes law, as well as borrowing.
So if they want to spend more, they need the approval.
If they want to spend more, they have to get approval as to the tax rises.
If they want to borrow more, they have to get approval too.
It's very simple to do cheaply. You nominate an MP as your proxy (not the same, necessarily as your constituency MP).
Then it is proxy votes that matter.
Expect to see people balk at the tax rises. ie. Democracy in practice. Not the current dictatorship
glenlivetguy
January 28th, 2012 5:25pm Report this commentIf you cant live on the benefits in London, nothing will be stopping you moving to an area where housing is cheaper and where one of your £26k pounds goes further.Too simple for "the money alls gone Byrne".
As so well described in the comments above, such a scheme opens flood gates re public pay and all state payments ....how do such brainless idiots get elected?
Pete Hoskin
January 28th, 2012 5:29pm Report this commentBiggestaspidistra: A slip of my typing fingers, I'm afraid. Thanks for spotting it. I've fixed it now.
Nickle
January 28th, 2012 5:35pm Report this commentThey get elected by lying.
Andrew
January 28th, 2012 6:10pm Report this commentLondon a Tax Haven? I am starting to like the look of this: with regionally variable benefit caps and variable benefits being paid, it is logical that tax rates will be lower and thresholds higher in expensive areas. QED London becomes a tax haven. Nice work 'two-eds'. Go Labour!
Vic Flynn
January 28th, 2012 7:28pm Report this comment@David Ossitt - you are wrong to think this cap will only affect people who do not work. Any workers who work too few hours to claim working tax credits, for example single parents working less than 16hrs per week and those who are part of a couple but work less than 24hrs per week between them(recently increased from 16hrs), will also be affected by the cap, as will any low paid workers receiving housing/council tax benefits.
Chris lancashire
January 28th, 2012 7:55pm Report this commentSeems fair enough. Are you going to do the same with the minimum wage Mr Miliband?
Dimoto
January 28th, 2012 9:45pm Report this commentSo, a much higher cap in London and "expensive" areas, i.e. nothing at all changes.
But a new bureaucracy shot-through with Labour sympathising bureaucrats.
Yes, they would love that.
Andrew Taylor
January 28th, 2012 10:13pm Report this commentSplendid stuff. So they will also see the point of localising pay awards for civil servants?
Frank P
January 29th, 2012 3:04am Report this commentThat picture!
Cruel, Pete. Are you trying to garner sympathy for Mrs Miliband? This is what she sees of a morning when she wakes him up with a cup of tea (with the duvet over the rest of the ugly bastard)? Scary.
"WTF is that in my bed!" she must have thought when it first happened. But then, if you're a committed commie you have a duty to the cause.
That nose job turned into a GBH case, didn't it? Did they remove the scaffolding before it set properly? He should sue.
John Goode
January 29th, 2012 3:50am Report this commentHaHaHaHa (or LOL if you prefer)
Why stop at Local benefit Caps? Why not go down to INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT CAPS using time-honoured NuLab criteria such as age, race, sexual orientation, or any other "disadvantaged" or "vulnerable" group criteria they can think off.
This will of course entail the creation of a vast bureacracy hiring an army of middle managers. But don't worry about the cost after all we can just carry on borrowing and let our grandchildren worry about paying it back.
Fergus Pickering
January 29th, 2012 7:56am Report this commentOr, of course, a much lower cap in Wigan and all points fairly adjacent.
Simon Stephenson.
January 29th, 2012 11:27am Report this commentWake up, everyone.
What Labour's doing is routine triangulation. They're taking policies which their focus-groups are telling them are popular, putting their own spin on them, and then presenting themselves as the main supporters of these policies.
Remember:-
1. This is what Blair and Brown did - despite what they said, they never had any intention of implementing those popular policies which were in conflict with their party's ideology. Nor do Miliband, Balls and Co.
2. To modern politicians, the danger of being exposed as a liar or a hypocrite is no longer something that they worry about. Politics is all about saying the "right" thing in the present, and what has been said in the past, or may have to be said in the future, is of very little relevance.
David Ossitt
January 29th, 2012 12:53pm Report this commentVic Flynn
“@David Ossitt - you are wrong to think this cap will only affect people who do not work. Any workers who work too few hours to claim working tax credits, for example single parents working less than 16hrs per week and those who are part of a couple but work less than 24hrs per week between them(recently increased from 16hrs), will also be affected by the cap, as will any low paid workers receiving housing/council tax benefits.”
Thank you for clarifying that point Vic but in a sense you make a good argument for a cap.
If someone who does not work or one who only works part time can have their earnings or in the case of the non worker nil earnings made up to £26,000 net then this is equivalent to a gross taxable income of £35,000.
This figure is far higher than most low paid workers who have to get by on a gross salaries of £15,000, £17,500 etc.
It is my opinion that Ian Duncan Smith should have brought in a cap of £18,000.
britishworkers defenceunion
January 29th, 2012 3:23pm Report this commentplease check our ideas how to sort out all this benefits problems in the uk on our website: www.bwdu.blogspot.com
Cynic
January 29th, 2012 3:44pm Report this comment!The way [Liam Byrne] sees it, he goes on to explain, is that there should be a cap but it should be set locally, so that it could be higher than £26,000 in more expensive areas such as London, and potentially less in other areas." This would be the same Liam Byrne who left the note at the Treasury on leaving office saying there was no money left, was it? Need anyone say more?
David Lindsay
January 29th, 2012 4:31pm Report this commentThe inhabitants of the region with the lowest benefits cap would be twelfth class citizens. Likewise, those of the region with the lowest minimum wage.
And likewise, those of the region with the lowest public sector pay. Not only public employees. Everyone, since the recruitment of the right calibre of such staff would be absolutely impossible, with all the effects of that on the delivery of public services.
The Labour Party simply has to go. Doesn't it? If not, why not? And if so, then what are you doing about it, considering who I know that some of you are?
AliC
January 29th, 2012 10:42pm Report this comment'benefits'. £26k 'cap'....
Sheesh. I don't earn 35k gross (which I'd need to have this net), and I slog my guts out.
Why should people who don't work be given more money than I work for? who's the mug? You should only get the dole if you have worked and paid in for it, and only for two years. Then, subsistence and food stamps. Let's go Canadian.
Back to top