543 views
Social Justice > Published by Guest, January 23rd 2012 at 6:00 pm

Where is Labour on welfare?

Print Friendly

 

By Vincenzo Rampulla

Today Liam Byrne will deliver a speech to the LSE entitled: “How Labour’s traditions can renew Beveridge for the 21st century”. Byrne has to do more than setting an intellectual skeleton on which to hang Labour’s eventual policies on welfare.

The arguments around the welfare cap, reform of disability benefits and housing benefit expenditure are already reframing the terms of the public debate. Enormous changes are occurring, lives are being impacted and Labour has spent more time on propping up the welfare cap as a political totem pole rather than redefining Beveridge’s legacy.

There are three markers that Labour, and specifically Liam’s speech on Monday, needs to address:

1. Too many working people now need welfare support – specifically there is something fundamentally wrong with the way work is paying in the UK which means that welfare is ultimately left bridging that gap;

2. The welfare system is left trying to do too many things – a lack of effective government action in a number of areas has meant that the ‘welfare net’ is left with the responsibility of picking up the pieces; and

3. People are buying into political rhetoric and rhetoric is fuelling public policy – welfare will always be a problem until this relationship is swapped round.

William-Beveridge-Liam-Byrne
Explaining how the government manages to spend the £188 billion-odd, around 28.1 per cent of total public expenditure, on welfare is difficult. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’s survey of the UK’s benefit system provides an excellent guide for this.

Moreover, both metaphorically and statistically, this £188 billion splits the country in two. Around 30 million people in the UK receive some sort of welfare benefit. The other half doesn’t.

So as well as laying down new markers, today’s policy-focused speech needs to reconcile these two groups by showing that Beveridge’s legacy can: a) deliver value for money, e.g. that we all benefit from our generosity; b) deliver fairness, e.g. that those receiving are genuinely in need.

Grouping the different welfare benefits together leaves a stark picture of welfare in the UK:

Welfare becomes less to do with unemployment and immigration; it is immediately obvious that it is all about pensions. Almost half our welfare expenditure, all £78.4 billion of it, is spent on our ageing population. And the number of people drawing a state pension is ever-growing:

Recognising the challenge our ageing population presents should be at the heart of welfare debates. Any change in other welfare benefits dwarfs the scale of cost of state pensions.

So Labour needs a credible, sustainable and equitable solution to pensions and the needs of a growing older population. It needs politicians to make a persuasive case on social care, private (as well as public) pensions and personal savings.

Next on Liam’s list should be the 22.08 per cent of welfare expenditure that goes to people already in work, the UK’s low-income workforce.

A breakdown of that expenditure shows an enormous focus on housing, which explains the increased attention on housing benefit:

But that misses the point. Beveridge would be aghast at the idea that the state would need to spend £41.55 billion a year supporting people already in work.

Housing and wages should be the Labour’s mantra. The number of people in receipt of housing benefit since 1997 points to failure in housing policy which has resulted in pre-Labour levels of need:

Without changing the underlying reality of housing policy, welfare reform is left pushing against the tide, a mistake perpetuated by successive governments.

Whilst there are a whole series of arguments to make about housing benefit, it is crucial that politicians start realising that they cannot be removed from a proper argument about housing.

On wages too, the symptom is still being mistaken for the illness. Liam’s overall argument seems to be:

“something for something” means reward for those who are desperately trying to do the right thing, saving for the future and trying to build a stable, secure home.

But by that standard ‘doing the right thing’ doesn’t pay like it used to. Not according to the Resolution Foundation’s commission on living standards, who point to the deteriorating incomes of the UK’s 11 million low-to-middle income earners.

With the state now taking more of the strain, with more modest income families reliant on government spending to realise a decent living standard, Liam should worry more about the long-term implications of benefits like the working tax credit.

A long-term ‘pay freeze’ affecting millions will result in higher public expenditure not because of the generosity of our welfare system, but because more people are falling through the cracks.

That is why low wages matter – they are increasing public spending. It is a crucial missing step in the government’s argument about welfare and employment. If you remove state support, do jobs alone bridge the gap? And if not, why not?

So of course Labour should focus on work. But that should mean ensuring work pays.

Labour should question why Liam it is not looking more closely to Iain Duncan Smith’s universal credit proposals (well, at least the more realistic version developed by the Centre for Social Justice) which focuses on rewarding ‘those who are desperately trying to do the right thing’ and less towards the government’s welfare cap (a George Osborne creation rather than fundamental to IDS’s welfare vision).

£500 per week, no matter the family’s needs or their situation. It is hard to see how this is a paragon of fairness. No wonder people are willing to believe anything when it comes to welfare debates.

And that is the challenge facing Liam Byrne’s speech. Does he dare challenge the status quo? The headaches in welfare expenditure point to policy failures elsewhere. If Labour are simply looking to out-do the government on welfare conservatism, a quintessential approach of some in Labour, then the answer is no. Why not go straight to the government?

Instead Labour should re-trace Beveridge’s intellectual steps. Labour should reimagine what that productive life in the 21st century looks like. It should argue that the role of government is to secure that opportunity for people, through tax, through housing policy, through wage policy, etc.

Finally, it needs to re-imagine the role of the social security next for generation with more fluid needs and faster lives.

See also:

• Why child benefit must be removed from the benefit cap - Dr Sam Royston, January 23rd 2012

• Exposed: The six myths of IDS’s benefits cap - Shamik Das, January 23rd 2012

• Children’s commissioner slams welfare bill - Alex Hern, January 11th 2012

• Five reasons to oppose the welfare bill - Daniel Elton, December 12th 2011

• Cameron’s benefit cap rewards family break-up - Sam Royston, September 5th 2011

  • Mike56

    Liam Byrne (the fool who gave the Tories years of ammunition with this ‘no money left’ note) is a New Labour right winger who would not be out of place on the Tory benches, like most of his colleagues on the front bench.

  • http://twitter.com/alexsobel/status/161519415115001856 alexsobel

    Great piece by @vmrampulla showing how the state is subsidising poor pay by employers and high rents (including us) http://t.co/0ZYOinre

  • http://twitter.com/sannielijah/status/161520521664659456 Sanni

    “@leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? @vmrampulla asks what the real Beveridge heritage is: http://t.co/TcCUlVmH”

  • http://twitter.com/roslinda98/status/161520735372840960 roslinda

    RT“@PatronPress: #UK : Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/5aO8YAXl”

  • http://twitter.com/postpolionews/status/161524258550448128 Chris Salter

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/mzEdH4qR #ppnews #wrb #spartacusreport

  • Nick Leaton

    Too many working people now need welfare support – specifically there is something fundamentally wrong with the way work is paying in the UK which means that welfare is ultimately left bridging that gap;

    ===================

    No, the fundamental problem is that you are taxing them too much. If you tax people at 50%, when you include all the other stealth taxes on top of VAT, income tax, national insurance both employee’s contributions and employer’s contributions to the employee’s benefits.

    Next problem was that you paid people 172K in benefits to do no work.

    Now there is a 7 trillion debt problem.

    On your housing benefit, why have you left off the likes of Lee Jasper, on a good wack, but who was still in subsidised social housing, just like super wealthy Bob Crow.

    So of course Labour should focus on work. But that should mean ensuring work pays.

    But you can’t. You need the cash to pay the debts. Doh!

    £500 per week, no matter the family’s needs or their situation

    Too generous. How about 60% of median wage, before tax as the limit? Gets them out of poverty, but no more.

  • Nick Leaton

    Instead Labour should re-trace Beveridge’s intellectual steps

    =============

    Correct. No more Ponzi schemes. People’s NI goes into a fund in their name. Not down the toilet on other government spending.

    Just as you won’t admit that you’ve run up 7 trillion of debt, because you won’t admit that you have spent everyone’s pensions contributions.

    Now, if the median work, 26K a year, had put their NI into the FTSE, they would have had a joint life RPI linked annuity of 19K a year.

    Instead because you wasted the money, you have just 5K to give them, and you’re cutting that.

    That’s why people are poor.

    You didn’t do what Beveridge planned. People putting money into a fund in their name. You couldn’t resist stealing people’s retirement.

  • Blarg1987

    Taxes were the same if not higher through the 40′s to early 70′s and that was one of Britain’s golden ages where both left and right tweaked around but the core principle of fair days work for a fair days pay.

    National insurence covers not only benefits but also the NHS, dental care and glasses, I think as a society we have to move back to the core principles that were established after world war 2. Granted New Labour didn’t help as they wanted to give something for nothing as we as a nation are very good at being bribed with our own money in the form of tax cuts that cost us long term as the sell off of the nations assets and the idea of PFI whish WAS a conservative policy that New Labour adopted.

    Any future credible party and voters must accept things are going to be hard but at the same time long term will be rewarding if we go back to the core routes of the late 40′s that made us good in the world. This is a generation problem as we have had 2generations bought up with the belief that self interest is paramount and then when someone elses self interest takes over complain.

  • http://twitter.com/woodymacc/status/161554910146609152 David Wood

    A very timely set of figures & arguments about the WHOLE benefit's picture RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/AbALK6ZJ

  • http://twitter.com/louibec/status/161568180404359170 Louis Beck

    Where is Labour on welfare? | Left Foot Forward http://t.co/rCNRlI0r

  • http://twitter.com/vmrampulla/status/161569739297136642 Vincenzo Rampulla

    Is it a good or bad thing when you get comments like this? @leftfootfwd http://t.co/0Lwjqh1b

  • Mr. Sensible

    The problem is that, on welfare and other issues, we have a media which gets away with deliberately distorting how these things actually work for their own interests.

  • http://twitter.com/susan_nash/status/161577821544792064 Susan Nash

    @vmrampulla article on making work pay focusing on how benefits now used to top up low wages & high rents is good read: http://t.co/VdYtGWvm

  • Nick Leaton

    National insurence covers not only benefits but also the NHS, dental care and glasses

    ============

    No it doesn’t.

    NI entitles you to a state pension, JSA. These are the large items. The others are small cost items like bereavement benefit etc.

    However, there is one other big item. Contribution based disability payments. However, that’s been completely abused for political reasons.

    Also, go out and ask the average man or woman in the street, if they want to get 19K a year, or 5K a year, for their pension.

  • Nick Leaton

    Any future credible party and voters must accept things are going to be hard but at the same time long term will be rewarding if we go back to the core routes of the late 40′s that made us good in the world. This is a generation problem as we have had 2generations bought up with the belief that self interest is paramount and then when someone elses self interest takes over complain.

    ==============

    So to be credible, you have to start and admit to the size of the government debt.

    Pensions included.

    Here’s your chance. How much is owed?

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    That’s right. Your bankers Ponzi scams need ending.

    You’re proposing abolishing NI, something entirely different. A kitty for the government to raid at will, that’s what you’re talking about. And no, a annuity of 2.1k. Maximum. You’re utterly ignorant of current rates.

    YOU and your kind have stolen the pensions. Thatcher let companies stop paying into well-funded schemes.

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    The UK does NOT have a 50% overall tax rate of course. Moreover, people are not being paid 172k. Landlord are being subsided. You’re lying as usua

    And of course. How many million do you want to murder? 2? 3? Think the blood will wash off? Death, kill, slaughter – the mantra of the right.

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    Well, given you want them to get 2.1k…

  • http://twitter.com/drkmj/status/161689371735629824 KMJ

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? @vmrampulla asks what the real Beveridge heritage is: http://t.co/lBMwk1cv #NewsClub

  • http://twitter.com/trakgalvis/status/161690879105568768 Trakgalvis

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? @vmrampulla asks what the real Beveridge heritage is: http://t.co/xo3MnMUp #NewsClub

  • jaynelinney

    A last a common sense piece of writing, I can’t understand how we as a world have forgotten that not everything is rocket science.

    When did the word common leave our conscience, common justice, common decency and common sense et al, is the basis of humanity.

    Thank you to guest contributor for a powerful contribution that demonstrates this and still offers logical and ‘right’ responses to the current situation and, more importantly to the opposition

  • http://twitter.com/jaynelinney/status/161727772639756288 Jayne L

    Where is Labour on welfare?: http://t.co/ubDqQWfq A common sense approach to today's real problems. Please RT

  • Blarg1987

    You sure the NHS is not covered by National Insurence? If so do you have documents or evidence to proev this?

    When you ask for goverment debt includeing pensions what pensions are you including, that include tax relief, goverment guarenteed pensions, state pensions of the future etc?

  • http://twitter.com/britishroses1/status/161739608198103040 BevR

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/VXdj7FMn #spartacusreport

  • http://twitter.com/britishroses1/status/161742659466166272 BevR

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/VXdj7FMn

  • http://twitter.com/vmrampulla/status/161755160174018560 Vincenzo Rampulla

    Left starting to dig into w/welfare debate, abt more than cutting budgets: http://t.co/SF0ZMZwq http://t.co/0Lwjqh1b http://t.co/B6qvtfLL

  • Selohesra

    Keep taking the tablets Leon

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    I see, using statistics is “keeping tablets”.

    Typical social darwnistic nonsense, accusing people who disagree with your party line of mental illness.

  • http://twitter.com/oilywaters/status/161881005320437760 H. O.

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/o5fOetMd

  • http://twitter.com/theday2day/status/161903202340577282 Adam White

    "Low wages are increasing public spending" http://t.co/AqveV3Jh brilliant piece on real welfare reform by @vmrampulla

  • http://twitter.com/labourtim/status/161908741573320705 Tim

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/z9QXEtqC

  • http://twitter.com/gusbbaker/status/161915678893420544 Gus Baker

    "Low wages are increasing public spending" http://t.co/AqveV3Jh brilliant piece on real welfare reform by @vmrampulla

  • http://twitter.com/pippinworks/status/161926696835096577 Pippin Sadler

    "Low wages are increasing public spending" http://t.co/AqveV3Jh brilliant piece on real welfare reform by @vmrampulla

  • http://twitter.com/john_boettcher/status/162042204758614016 John Böttcher

    RT @leftfootfwd: Where is Labour on welfare? http://t.co/nbsha6nT – most benefits are for pensioners, those in work. Increase minimum wage!

  • http://twitter.com/stevehilditch/status/162107862884159488 Steve Hilditch

    Where is Labour on welfare? @vmrampulla asks what the real Beveridge heritage is: http://t.co/Uo0gYiG0

  • http://twitter.com/jules_birch/status/162108735949512705 Jules Birch

    Great blog by @vmrampulla on Labour and Beveridge: 'Housing and wages should be Labour's mantra' http://t.co/eZJpHVgN

  • http://twitter.com/vmrampulla/status/162115262135545856 Vincenzo Rampulla

    @jules_birch: Great blog by @vmrampulla on Labour and Beveridge: 'Housing and wages should be Labour's mantra' http://t.co/0Lwjqh1b >thks

  • http://twitter.com/graemeah/status/162582803278610433 Graeme Henderson

    @vmrampulla Good graphage in your @leftfootfwd post. Been a busy week so only catching-up on the blogosphere now http://t.co/DRkpEBkH

  • Ed’s Talking Balls

    Wasn’t it Beveridge who identified idleness as one the ‘Great Evils’? Smart man. Labour ought to have a think about what he had to say.

  • http://twitter.com/fibromyman/status/163744190549852160 fibromyalgiaman

    This is interesting @leftfootfwd
    http://t.co/75QCYfHL It seems that more families & ppl
    on low incomes claim benefits than do disabled.

  • http://twitter.com/2hay/status/163745749002223616 hay

    This is interesting @leftfootfwd
    http://t.co/75QCYfHL It seems that more families & ppl
    on low incomes claim benefits than do disabled.

  • http://twitter.com/frdragonspouse/status/163749018508341248 Jill Hayward

    This is interesting from @leftfootfwd http://t.co/CFTg5xUW It seems that more families & ppl on low incomes claim benefits than do disabled.

  • http://twitter.com/queerpup/status/163750172428472320 Robin

    Fantastically clear piece that breaks down the UK's welfare bill – you may be surprised by this one! http://t.co/evJCS4Lk

  • http://twitter.com/rob9441/status/163750527337893888 Robert Clayton

    Fantastically clear piece that breaks down the UK's welfare bill – you may be surprised by this one! http://t.co/evJCS4Lk

  • http://twitter.com/shabaazmohammed/status/163750749245943810 Shabaaz Mohammed
  • http://twitter.com/catherinbrunton/status/163753540198744064 Catherine Brunton

    This is interesting from @leftfootfwd http://t.co/CFTg5xUW It seems that more families & ppl on low incomes claim benefits than do disabled.

  • http://twitter.com/catherinbrunton/status/163753617063555072 Catherine Brunton

    Beveridge would be aghast that the state would need to spend £41.55 billion a year supporting people already in work. http://t.co/CFTg5xUW

  • http://twitter.com/auntysnake/status/163764270100783104 τί θέλεις;

    Fantastically clear piece that breaks down the UK's welfare bill – you may be surprised by this one! http://t.co/evJCS4Lk

  • http://twitter.com/mrmoz/status/163778741812736000 Mr Moz

    Fantastically clear piece that breaks down the UK's welfare bill – you may be surprised by this one! http://t.co/evJCS4Lk