The cross-party consensus on welfare reform echoes the Gingrich–Clinton revolution

Wednesday, 16th July 2008

Fraser Nelson on the coming political week

Mr Grayling has his rebuttal ready. Mr Purnell will not deliver what he dangles, he will say. His ‘work for dole’ scheme will last just four weeks, not the 12 months the Tories believe is needed. The government’s ambition of taking a million off welfare in ten years is too small, Grayling will say. Purnell and Grayling present each other as a charlatan whose sole skill is to fool the media. Essentially, they agree on the substance of the policy blueprint. The contest is over who is telling the truth and who would implement Freud most authentically.

This bipartisan consensus is extremely significant: it echoes the extraordinarily successful Gingrich–Clinton reforms in the United States (and, for that matter, the pioneering welfare revolution in 1980s Wisconsin). Welfare reform is the toughest task in modern politics, made all the harder when you face accusations from political opponents (or your own party) that you are being cruel to the weakest section of society. But when the public accepts the system is failing (as the polls now suggest), and the parties argue only about the speed of reform, the conditions in which radical reform is at least possible have been met.

Mr Grayling suspects Mr Purnell will not dare suggest anything on Monday that could upset 16,840 welfare-dependent voters who go to the polls in Glasgow East three days later. Nor, he suspects, will the Labour party stomach anything genuinely radical. Mr Purnell retorts that the Tories have ‘nothing more than a press release’ to offer, and that Labour believes ‘there is nothing left-wing about being trapped at home’. He will have a Welfare Reform Bill in the next parliamentary session to test this theory.

All this will be deeply annoying for Messrs Grayling, Cameron and Osborne. It is already almost impossible to persuade the average MP, let alone voter, of the difference between the two welfare reform plans. Mr Purnell has denied his opposite number any tactical advantage, in stark contrast to Ed Balls, who has left nautical miles of clear red water between himself and Michael Gove. Yet, after cursing him, the Tories should also wish the Work and Pensions Secretary luck. The ‘giant evil’ of idleness in places like Glasgow East will take years to tackle. If this is to be the flagship mission of a Cameron government, there is not a moment to waste.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Mike. Brighton

July 18th, 2008 1:06pm Report this comment

Cameron is best to embrace Purnells' plans with sadness that it has taken 11 years to get them, 11 years of people living in welfare finance idleness and poverty. Cameron should welcome the plan but point to its shortcomings contrasted with Graylings version - and say you need a Tory government for meaningful welfare reform

Kiffa

July 18th, 2008 9:18pm Report this comment

Charles Murray has the perfect solution.

Nick S

August 16th, 2008 2:01pm Report this comment

Labour said they would do more to reduce welfare dependence right from when they got elected in 1997. They have failed miserably. Why should anyone believe they can achieve anything now?

val cardwell

December 4th, 2008 12:08am Report this comment

There is nothing even human, let alone Left-Wing,about dragging the ill and disabled out to do slave-labour for private "gaffers". Or dragging mothers away from their children before they're even out of nappies! As in Yankee-Land, it is visiting "cruel and unusual" punishment on the sick and vulnerable, just for being the weakest section of society. Oh! I forgot, the Thatcher, and now "New Labour" Mantra-"there is no such thing as society". Blair and Co. must be a delight to the old Harridan. They've gone further than even SHE dared. What fools the Brit public are, to stand for such criminal, greedy liars, and their "make the rich richer" credo.

Post comment