Will Labour's welfare reform proposals cost it Glasgow East?
Fraser Nelson 7:06pm
Has Glasgow East influenced the postponed 2p increase in fuel duty, as David Cameron implied today? I doubt it, for a depressing reason. The place is so poor that most households in that constituency – 59% to be precise – simply don’t have access to a car (let alone own one). For the record, here are the car ownership figures for some of the estates in Glasgow East (from the 2001 census). In Parkhead North, 77.2% have no car. In Easterhouse it’s 71%. In Banlanark, 71%. In Bridgeton, 64%. I can understand why, in Westminster, they may have a vision of the motorists of Glasgow East punching the air in response to today’s news. But there is another area of government policy that matters more to the electors of Glasgow East.
If the government had Glasgow East in mind it wouldn’t let James Purnell announce his “tough love” welfare reform package on Monday. Forget what you hear about unemployment being just 2,270 or 6.7%. It’s a true figure, as the House of Commons monthly report shows (pdf), but, as I say in my political column tomorrow, it obscures the fact that there are staggering total of 16,800 welfare-depdendent people amongst the working age population in Glasgow East (DWP breakdown here). The last thing they want to know is that the Labour government is going to force them into a work-for-dole scheme, where they’ll be given a brush and told to get sweeping.
From the amount of broken glass I saw on the estates in Glasgow East on my visit there last week, Purnell’s plan (based, like the Tories’ plan, on the Freud Report) will be much needed. Perhaps the government hasn’t connected Purnell’s Green Paper on welfare with the by-election. Or, maybe it is being principled. Either way, it is welfare reform – not petrol costs – which make the bigger impact in the wretched communities of these estates. And welfare reform is what Glasgow East needs more than anything else.
Previous
Comments
John
July 16th, 2008 8:41pmDave. Actually, I think it is an oasis of sanity in a mad world.
kinglear
July 16th, 2008 8:45pmToo true. We used to have an office in the area and the level of deprivation was hard to take. In particular, the local authority closed a good local school forcing the children to be bussed a couple of miles - without putting on a school bus. Result? Most of the children never got there. Despicable. Oh, it's a Labour Council, just in case you wondered.
HJ
July 16th, 2008 9:34pmI doubt Labour's welfare reform proposals will cost it Glasgow East. I suspect that most of the people they might affect aren't even aware of them. The poor and badly educated don't really follow these things too closely until they affect them.
Fraser Nelson
July 16th, 2008 9:37pmHJ, you have a point. I missed out one option from the above: that Labour has calculated that the welfare-dependent don't vote, and that those who are not welfare dependent (and see the problem first hand) will welcome what Purnell says.
Tina
July 16th, 2008 10:01pmFraser how long does it take from when a green paper is introduced until the measures are actually implemented on the ground?
Captain Coma
July 17th, 2008 9:23amSo 59% don't own cars? Clearly this proves that the enlightened planet-saving green policies of our great and charismatic PM are working: a deep red labour seat is also an inspiring eco-constituency! Can the residents of Glasgow East further diminish their "carbon footprint" by making a eco-virtue of their wretched poverty and not heating their houses, perhaps? Maybe the entire country can follow the example of Glasgow East over the next few years of austerity - or rather the new Brownite "Green Economy". Surely 59% pedestrian is only a start. Onward!
Fraser Nelson
July 17th, 2008 9:28amTina, no fixed time - and Grayling will prob attack by asking why this isn't a White Paper (which is the next step). My personal instinct is that Purnell can be trusted to deliver this in the Welfare Reform Bill which will start in the next parliamentary session. It could just be a "draft" bill designed to fool us all - so I am taking a leap of faith in Purnell here. But strange as it may be to say this about a politician, I think he can be trusted.
Ian C
July 17th, 2008 12:19pmWould the majority of cars in Glasgow East be registered vehicles...? A bit tongue in cheek, but there seems to be some anomaly here. A 13,500 Lab. majority in a constituency that is full of benefit claimants, the like of which don't vote? And only 31% have cars? Some dodgy numbers somewhere...
Keith
July 17th, 2008 12:30pmThere is no doubt whatsoever that Darling/Brown (take your pick) has attempted to influence the outcome of the election. His announcement on this was scheduled to be a couple of months in the future.
JR
July 17th, 2008 2:31pmTina/Fraser - It depends what sort of changes are announced.
If they are Freud type arrangements with contractors then the key constraint is when you can contract for them. The Government has contracted with private companies and charities until the beginning of 2011 to deal with disabled benefit claimants, and is about to contract until 2012 for jobseekers. I'd note on that front the contracts already fit all of Freud's criteria (80% job outcome based etc, etc)apart from the funding mechanism (which is different to how you contract) - the timing on that just depends on whether the Treasury would agree to lifting the cap on contract values and paying any additional payments out of benefit savings.
If the changes announced involve changes to benefit rates that can be done by secondary legislation (so called regulations) in about 10 months.
The only things you'd need the Bill for are for completely new benefit arrangements and introducing significant additional requirements on any group of customers. That would take the usual legislation cycle which is around 24 months from a consultation (Green Paper). Oh and because you'd be needing your private contractors to impose the requirements you'd have to negociate them into the next round of contracts (and providers will likely want upfront and not outcome payment to deal with the hassle additional requirements on customers brings to them over and above the related increase in job outcomes they'd expect to see).
C'est la vie.
Fraser Nelson
July 17th, 2008 6:27pmJR, please come back on Monday and tell us what you think of Purnell's Green Paper. We can give you a post if you want. I understand he will need primary legislation for what he has to say on Monday. That's assuming that, whoever you are, you don't work for him in real life...