Benefits

Universally speaking

As Paul Waugh notes, James Purnell’s article for the Times today (£) is striking for its attack on universal benefits. “I have never bought the argument,” writes the former welfare secretary, “that universal benefits bind the middle classes in. It feels too much like taxing with one hand to give back with another.” Although this is, in truth, a point that he has been making for some time. He said something similar in a speech back in April. The question, really, is how much Purnell’s viewpoint will percolate down through Labour circles. During last year’s leadership election, it seemed as though universal benefits were to become one of the defining

IDS’ great expectations

There is no rest for IDS. Yesterday he was in Madrid talking about youth unemployment and immigration and today he turns his attention to child poverty. Of all life’s accidents, the accident of birth is the most decisive. It is said that a child’s prospects are determined by the age of five, and numerous other statistics and factoids lead to a similar conclusion. IDS rehearses some in a piece in today’s Guardian. IDS and Labour MP Graham Allen have conducted a report into these matters, and have concluded that early intervention in a child from a deprived or broken family is vital if the poverty gap is to be closed,

Ed’s not dead

Crafty old Ed. After a week on death row, he was expected to arrive at PMQs and do the decent thing. Drink down a foaming cup of hemlock and depart the political stage for good. But Ed is made of sterner stuff than many of us realised. He was cunning, passionate and articulate today and his performance will have steadied the nerves of his anxious troops. It all began oddly. As soon as Miliband stood up he was greeted by a slightly over-done chorus of cheers from his backbenchers. This absurdity prompted a burst of satirical catcalling from the Tories. They knew this would be fun. Cameron would run rings

James Forsyth

Miliband relieves the pressure

After last week’s performance and this weekend’s headlines, Ed Miliband needed a win at PMQs — and he got one. Knowing that David Cameron would attack him over the fact Labour will vote against the welfare reform bill this week, Miliband had a string of questions for the Prime Minister on the detail of the bill and whether people recovering from cancer would lose the contributory element of their benefits. The issue was both wonky and emotive. The fact the questions were about cancer meant that Cameron couldn’t deliver his usual string of put downs to Miliband. Indeed, when one Tory backbencher heckled him, the Labour leader shot back that

Osborne’s valuable weapon

Paul Waugh is tweeting that Number 10 is stressing that, pace this morning’s front pages and Lord Freud’s comments yesterday, the benefit cap remains. This is not surprising: the benefit cap was always a statement of values more than anything else. As George Osborne said at Tory conference, it was designed to ensure that, “No family on out of work benefits will get more than the average family gets by going out to work.” The cap was designed to say something both about the Tories’ values and those of its opponents. If Labour opposed it, they would put themselves on the wrong side of the whole welfare/fairness debate. It is

The welfare revolution will require much time and effort

Forget Balls, today brings one of the most significant moments in the life of the coalition so far: the launch of its Work Programme. The name may be commonplace but, as Fraser suggested earlier, the policy is revolutionary. Over the next year, around one million unemployed people will be enrolled on work schemes run by private companies and charities. Those companies will then be paid between £4,000 and £13,700 for every person they return to proper, long-term work. It is, evidence suggests, an effective and cost-effective way of getting benefit claimants back into the labour market — and it reaches those claimants that the state-run JobCentres can scarcely be bothered

Fraser Nelson

How the coalition hopes to fix Britain’s economic dysfunction

The largest welfare-to-work programme on the planet is launched today by Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan Smith. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that the future of this country — and, perhaps, David Cameron – depends on its success. The lead article of this week’s Spectator looks at it, and we used various metrics — some of which puzzled David Smith of the Sunday Times. He understandably challenged our claim that 81 per cent of the new jobs created are accounted for by immigration. We had a Twitter “conversation” about it earlier this morning, but some things you can’t explain in 140 characters. So here is my argument:

The growing need for a policy response to the ‘new inflation’

There’s been much debate on these pages about the political implications of higher inflation. Ironically, this morning’s news of record food prices could relieve the pressure on the Bank of England Governor. His argument for caution when it comes to a rate rise is based on the claim that UK inflation is now being driven by events beyond the MPC’s control. Today’s figures reinforce that case, showing that global commodity prices remain a key driver of the rising cost of living in Britain’s households. The same argument doesn’t really work for the Chancellor, whose remit isn’t just to keep headline inflation down, but also to help households cope with the

No rights without responsibility

The most recent official statistics show that 5.4 million adults and 1.9 million children live in the UK’s 3.9 million workless households. Through the Universal Credit, the coalition is taking a radical approach to tackle this, but it won’t be enough. The government’s own analysis estimates that it will move 300,000 households into work. But this will leave 3.6 million households behind, dependent on benefits and likely to pass worklessness onto the next generation. There are also timing worries. Unemployment and, in particular, youth unemployment are high on the political agenda (new statistics on NEETs will come out next week), but the Universal Credit will not be fully implemented for

Purnell stakes out a new welfare battleground

I said a few days ago that the spirit of James Purnell lingers over the welfare debate in Britain. Well, you can now scratch out “spirit”. The real-life, corporeal version of Purnell is giving a speech in Australia today — and, judging by its write-up in the Guardian, it is one that should have some resonance on this side of the planet. This is not just an address by a former Labour MP on where his party should go next — although it is partially that — but also the staking out of new ground on welfare policy. Whether you agree with it or not, it deserves some attention. So

Righting the wrong of sickness benefits

He may no longer be an MP, but the spirit of James Purnell lingers on. It was, after all, the former Work and Pensions Secretary who introduced the Employment Support Allowance as a replacement for Incapacity Benefit in 2008, with the idea of encouraging people – the right people – away from sickness benefits and into the labour market. And now we have one of the strongest indications yet of just how that process is working. According to figures released by the DWP today, 887,300 of the 1,175,700 claimants who applied for ESA between October 2008 and August 2010 failed to qualify for any assistance – with 458,500 of them

The battle over universal benefits continues on the local front

Here’s a question for you: should free school meals (FSM) be given to all pupils, regardless of their parents’ income? I ask because this is precisely what the Labour-led council of Southwark is proposing for its primary schools. As the Evening Standard reports, the councilmen’s thinking is that by giving “healthy” FSMs to every pupil, every day, they might help “reduce childhood obesity.” Oh, and the measure will cost some £4 million a year. Even if we put aside the question of whether the local praetorians should — or even could — tackle obesity on behalf of middle-class parents, this is still needling stuff. Southwark council has to find savings

At last, Grayling takes on the Ancien Regime

To disguise the radical nature of reform, one need only make it boring. And here Chris Grayling has succeeded spectacularly. Today he has announced further details on the ‘Work Programme’ and the ‘Benefit Migration’, which sound like the type of well-intentioned but doomed reforms that ministers tried over the Labour years. The welfare state has incubated the very ‘giant evils’ it was designed to eradicate. There are, scandalously, 2.6 million on incapacity benefit right now – a category which ensures they don’t count in unemployment figures. Brown didn’t care much, but Grayling is taking this head-on. In tests on 1,700 IB claimants in Burnley and Aberdeen, it was found that

Sharing the burden will enable tax cuts in the future

The elderly have been sheltered from cuts, so far at least. New research from the IEA suggests that the government could save an additional £16bn a year simply by cutting the various non-means-tested benefits older people receive and by making some minor changes to the pensions system.   Such a cull would include: the abolition of free bus travel (which would save £1.3bn per year), free TV licences (£0.7bn) and the winter fuel allowance (£2.1bn). In addition to those cuts, the state pension age should be raised to 66, which would save an extra £5bn. Abandoning the “triple lock” policy for pension increases from 2011 would save another £5.6bn, and

Reforming welfare: a mixed bag

Last week, Reform published its 2011 scorecard of the coalition government’s public service reform programme. Yesterday, Thomas Cawston explained how the coalition can get NHS reforms back on track. Today, Patrick Nolan, Chief Economist at Reform, discusses why the government’s welfare reforms scraped through with a pass. The government’s welfare reforms are significant. The 2010 Emergency Budget and Spending Review announced cuts of £18 billion to benefits, so the DWP had to respond with a radical agenda. The Work Programme aims to incentivise providers to deliver better outcomes from welfare to work services and the Universal Credit promises to create a simpler system where “work always pays.” Also, the Government

How to warm your mansion with other people’s money

Let no one say this is not a redistributive government. It is taking benefits away from the poor and giving them instead to people with large houses and a bit of spare capital. How? Through a great green energy scam, originally devised by Labour, which could not be better designed to penalise the poor and reward the rich. In fact, the government might just as well have come up with Spat Credits or a Top Hat Top-Up Allowance. Here is a brief guide to benefits for the better-off. Got a roof space the size of half a football pitch? You can coin it by covering it with 4kW worth of

There is a lot more to immigration than simply totting up the net migration figures

The good news is that most people in Britain think that people in their local area mix pretty well  regardless of differences in race, religion and the rest of it. According to the latest Citizenship Survey from the Department for Communities and Local Government for April-September last year, about 85 percent of people think that their neighbourhood is cohesive, community-speak for the absence of overt ethnic and religious tension. But when it comes to attitudes to immigration a slightly different view emerges. About 78 percent of Brits would like to see immigration reduced; well over half, or 54 percent, want to see it reduced a lot. That’s roughly the same

Five more things you need to know about the IDS reforms

Last November, I put together a ten-point summary of IDS’s benefit reforms – so why add five more points now? Two reasons. First, it’s worth dwelling on what, I believe, will be one of this government’s defining achievements. Second – and far more prosaic – the Insistute for Fiscal Studies released a report on the matter yesterday. The following points have all been harvested from that document, and represent the IFS’s judgement, so to speak. Only one judgement among many, but one that warrants some attention. Here goes: 1. Who gains and who loses (in financial terms)? This question courses through most of the IFS report, and stands out in

Cameron and Clegg play the expectations game

You know the drill by know: a Cameron and Clegg joint press-conference, so plenty of easy bonhomie and political japery. And today was no different. The Lib Dem leader set the tone with his opening gag, aimed at Vince Cable: “I haven’t seen as many journalists in one room since my constituency surgery.” After that, it was pretty much a gag a minute. Underneath all that, though, was some serious business. Cable came up (“very apologetic,” apparently), along with his claims about Winter Fuel Allowance (“not true”). But, as Iain Martin has noted, the most intriguing moment was when Cameron claimed only that he “expects” the Tories and Lib Dems

Leaked Cable

Loose lips sink ships – but can they sink sages too? Probably not, but Vince Cable has certainly entered tumultuous seas with the publication of candid remarks he made to a couple of Telegraph journalists posing as Lib Dem voters. In the tapes – which you can listen to above – the Business Secretary rattles on unrestrainedly about the inner workings of the coalition. The stand-out line is his claim that “If they push me too far then I can walk out of the government and bring the government down” – but there’s more, including: 1) The arguments that are being waged, and won. “We have a big argument going