Will Purnell's reforms see the light of day?
Peter Hoskin 4:55pm
The response to James Purnell's welfare proposals has been near-unanimously positive. Here at Coffee House Towers, the feeling - outlined by Fraser here - is that they’re a positive step towards getting some of the UK’s 5.1 million benefit-claimants back into work. And even Purnell's opposite number, Chris Grayling, has been gracious enough to call the proposals "the right package" (whilst also claiming that they’ve been nabbed from the Tories).
There's one major dissenter though - Frank Field. He went on the attack on Today this morning, arguing that the proposals still place too much stress on claimants getting a higher rate of benefit. But it's his later suggestion that the Purnell reforms will not "see the light of day" that really grabs attention.
What does Field have in mind? Could he be referring to Brown's roadblock-to-reform-ery? Perhaps. Or could it be that he believes the public won't swallow the reforms during a time of economic hardship? Again, maybe. But I suspect he's making a far less spiky point. After all - and as David Hughes points out over at Three Line Whip - Purnell's suggestions are only at the Green Paper stage. With Labour in the doldrums, that means there'll most likely be no time for Purnell to actually enact his reforms before the next general election. In turn, that indicates that they'll either never appear, or they'll be left for a Tory government. As it stands, the latter is looking most likely.
So, why is Purnell bothering? Partly a commitment to solving Britain's welfare crisis, I'm sure. But I think Hughes identifies the main reason - despite the inherent quality of Purnell's work, the timing of it smacks of leadership manoeuvring. With Brown entering the summer recess under seige from all sides, Purnell is ensuring that he gets favourable coverage as a Great Reformer. And he's doing so whilst missing out on the tricky bit - actually applying the reforms in the real world.
Previous
Tel
July 21st, 2008 5:18pm Report this comment'So, why is Purnell bothering?'
Is that a serious question? It's obvious why he is bothering, he is positioning himself for the leadership, pure and simple. He has been all over the right wing media and been lauded by them.
fulcanelli
July 21st, 2008 5:32pm Report this commentDoes he really think he's going to garner any support in a leadership contest from the grass roots of the Labour Party?
The Labour party, as a whole, is returning to its old entrenched mindset, and with further future Union support that will only continue a pace.
I just don't see him being a serious contender for the party leadership. Then again, who else have they really got? They're all as bad as each other.
Andrew Zalotocky
July 21st, 2008 5:42pm Report this commentField might also be suggesting that the reforms won't see the light of day because left-wing backbenchers will oppose any change and Brown won't have the strength to overrule them.
TrevorH
July 21st, 2008 6:06pm Report this commentI do not see how angling to force people off benefits into work and making people work for benefits will endear him to the labour party.
if he is angling to say to labour that its all smoke and mirrors and he is the best man to con Tories out of their votes thats another thing. But I suspect even the labour party will have had its fill of smoke and mirrors by now
Liz Brown
July 21st, 2008 6:35pm Report this commentNope
KB
July 21st, 2008 8:37pm Report this commentPurnell must have excellent political antennae: the timing of the Green Paper against the unfolding disaster of the SATs couldn't have been better. Ed is looking very weak now.
One mystery remains. All the above would have been clear to Brown, so how did Purnell get parliamentary time for this. Could it have anything to do with Glasgow East and embryology?
George Steiner
July 21st, 2008 9:42pm Report this commentWhat are all these people leaving welfare and unemployment are going to do? Who are they going to work for? What new enterprises are bubling to the surface that are screaming for workers? And lastly what do they know how to do?
Fraser Nelson
July 21st, 2008 11:22pm Report this commentGeorge, one aspect is what extent of Britain's booming black economy - about 10% of GDP by some estimates - could be leagalised. So the jobs would simply become visible, rather than created. But for this to happen we'd need to vastly reduce/abolish tax on low pay. And a de Soto-style appreciation of the task in hand, which is utterly absent from all parties.
Andrew, if Tories support Purnell he can't be defeated in the Commons. So he has no excuse to water down legislation, like Hutton had to. The question, which I suspect Field was alluding to, is whether GB gives him a take-off slot in the next Queen's Speech. We'll find out in the autumn.
Ian C
July 22nd, 2008 5:58pm Report this commentFraser, now that F Field's views on this are in today's Times perhaps you should do another piece in answer to your own question. It is my view that only a (non-egocentric)socialist (rare beast) can analyse and implement the reforsm necessary and Cameron would do well to recruit him to No 2 at DWP to do just that. His analysis is simple - if there's incentive to go on the sick you will always get sick claimants. Who can argue with that? I recommend the article.
Jennie
July 22nd, 2008 7:00pm Report this commentMaybe Field knows that the government will not fund adequate support to get those with medical conditions/disabilities into work, especially as many of the jobs might not last. Welfare-to-work schemes are pathetically underfunded.
As well as vocational skills, these jobseekers will need to acquire jobsearch, CV, application and interview skills. And they'll need money to get to interviews plus interview clothes.
The private-sector providers of welfare-to-work schemes would be given a meagre budget - which would run out well before year-end.
The government doesn't want to roll out a scheme which will succeed in getting few sick and disabled into jobs. So, the scheme won't see the light of day.
Back to top