Benefits

Infamously, George Canning and Viscount Castlereagh fought a duel over a policy disagreement; Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne will follow suit at this rate. I had thought they’d resolved their differences over the upfront costs of IDS’ welfare reform; but the Mail on Sunday reports otherwise, glorying in the glares, savage bon mots and expletives. This is the conundrum: if IDS doesn’t find £10bn in savings, he will not get the £3bn needed to enact his reforms to make work pay. There is something quite heart-warming about IDS’ fight against the institutionally overbearing Treasury, but George Osborne is right: it is unacceptable to give one department, however well intentioned,

The Winter Fuel Allowance was an emotive part of the election campaign, with Labour accusing the Tories of planning to scrap it and David Cameron promising not to. At no point during that debate was it asked whether the WFA was a good way to spend money. Our report earlier this year, Cold Comfort, examined in some detail the demographics of fuel poverty, as well as questioning the logic behind the government’s target. If you take the fuel poverty measure (those spending more than 10% of income on energy) as read, the last government failed utterly to achieve anything on it – as the graph below shows. They introduced the

The Winter Fuel Allowance has tapdanced back onto the political landscape today, and it’s all thanks to some insightful work by the FT’s Alex Barker. He had an article in this morning’s pink ‘un which suggested that IDS is lobbying to have it, and and some other “middle-class benefits”, trimmed to help pay for his benefit reforms. And he’s followed that up with a blog-post explaining how even an apparent “cut” in the allowance may not result in savings for the Treasury or the DWP. Strange but true, as they say. This could be a delicate situation for the coalition. In the background to it all is David Cameron’s pre-election

Sometimes hope lies in the details. Take this morning’s press release from the DWP, for instance. On the surface, it is a response to today’s encouraging employment figures. But what it really is is a new way of approaching the problem of worklessness in this country. And all because of its headline: “Figures reveal five million on out of work benefits as Grayling pledges to make work pay.” This is, as far as I can remember, the first time that the total out-of-work claimant count has reached the summit of an official release. The last government always knew what the figure was, of course, but never drew much attention to

Here’s me about to go on holiday, and the welfare wars seem to be opening up. Neil O’Brien has a piece on it over at the Telegraph website. And Hopi Sen, one of the better leftie bloggers, has written a response to my post yesterday. Partly, he wants to stir: it’s not so much that the Treasury want to block IDS’s reforms, he says, but rather that they are following Osborne’s orders to reduce the deficit. And so it’s one part of the government at war with another. By contrast, the Whitehall wars I outlined are hangovers from the Brown days, where the Treasury set policy for all other departments

There’s been plenty political drama in these past few weeks, but the most crucial agenda – and by some margin – is Iain Duncan Smith’s proposed overhaul of welfare. It doesn’t deserve to be categorised as just another political tussle. As I say in the News of the World today, it is easily the most important issue in Britain, and it is overlooked because of an affliction which most of our political class suffers: that of moral long-sightedness. No one wears wristbands for the British poor, Prime Ministers pledge to “eradicate illiteracy” in Africa yet are strangely indifferent to the illiteracy on our own doorstep. The plight and lives of

So, Iain Duncan Smith has set out proposals to comprehensively reform of the welfare system. The goal is to replace 51 benefits with a single and flexible allowance. It has been claimed that this reform would allow people with jobs to retain more of their benefits and ensure that people who work will always be better off than people on benefits.   There are problems with Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals. Fiscal cost is one, and the Work and Pensions Secretary has already clashed with George Osborne over the price of these proposals. Lowering taper rates to make work more rewarding could mean that more people receive more generous assistance –

How many incapacity benefit claimants could actually work? Well, we get a sense of the answer with some figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions today. They show that, of the people who have gone through the new Work Capability Assessments so far, some three-quarters are able to look for a job. Scale that up for everyone on incapacity benefits, and it suggests that around 1.8 million claimants could return to the labour market. Although the numbers are eye-catching, they’re not entirely surprising: similar figures were published when the WCA was introduced under Labour.  And it could be worth holding fire until the necessary review of those assessment

Iain Duncan Smith is on a roll, and the roll continues with his interview on Straight Talk with Andrew Neil this weekend. Supporters of welfare reform will hear plenty to encourage them, even if only on a rhetorical level. Duncan Smith discuses how the fiscal climate makes this a “once in a generation opportunity and chance to change [welfare] now,” and how Beveridge’s original intentions have been subverted by a system which traps people out of work. But the most reassuring segment, by far, is this: “I, well, certainly, you know, I’ll be honest with you, there was certainly a discussion about that, everything was in the discussion, but my

Might the coalition’s emphasis on fairness be making it harder to get people off welfare and into work? Not a question that I can answer with confidence, but certainly one which has been thrown up by the IFS’s Budget briefing. Take the government’s action on child tax credits, for instance. By increasing it at the lower end of the income distribution, and restricting it at the upper, some claimants now stand to lose more, more quickly, by moving up the income ladder. Or, as the IFS put it, their marginal effective rate of taxation has increased. Of course, this will have been offset by other measures such as the rise

The new and independent Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that interest payments on public debt are set to rise to £67 billion a year by 2014-15. The hole in the public finances is so deep that every cut in spending that can be made should be made. Few commentators have grasped that tinkering around the edges, such as with “efficiency gains,” will not be enough. The only way to eliminate the deficit and to begin the task of repaying public debt is through making deep cuts in spending and for people to take more responsibility for themselves.   Cuts must start with welfare. The UK government spends more on welfare