Yvette cooper

Far more heat than light generated by this afternoon’s urgent question on welfare spending – but a telling spectacle nonetheless. The question had been put forward by a dissenting Lib Dem voice, Bob Russell, and it was up to George Osborne to answer it. He did so with sweeping observations, and attacks on Labour, rather than specifics. And so we never really got into the small print of those £4 billion extra benefit cuts, but Osborne did wonder why Labour have never apologised for “leaving the country with the worst public finances in its history.” It was knockabout stuff.   This is not to say that Osborne was ineffective. In

One of the challenges facing the next Labour leader will be what to do with Ed Balls. Balls, as he demonstrated in the last few months, has the right mentality for opposition. Labour will need his appetite for the fight in the coming year. But if a new leader makes Balls’ shadow Chancellor, he’ll have a shadow Chancellor whose position on the deficit is simply not going to seem credible to the public; Balls has already said that he thinks the plan Labour went into the election with for the deficit was too ambitious. The Tories are convinced that if Balls is shadow Chancellor, they’ll have the dividing lines they

Yvette Cooper has condemned IDS’ ‘nasty’ rhetoric this morning and claimed that the government’s proposals are about ideological cuts, not welfare reform. It’s simple, but effective. IDS’ reforms are both radical and necessary. The plan is to incentivise movement out of areas of welfare dependency with regional tax breaks and housing guarantees. There is a clear link between this policy and the non-EU migrant cap, which will protect at least some low skilled or unskilled jobs. A policy that encourages fairness, aspiration and a first chance in life for those condemned to worklessness by accident of birth. But the coalition is losing the rhetorical argument. When used in conjunction with

The retirement age must rise, timing is the sole contention. Yvette Cooper asserts that the coalition’s acceleration of the planned rise in the state pension age will force those currently in their late fifties to re-plan their retirement. Certainly, but a rise in the state pension age from 65 to 66 is unlikely to be life-changing. So why not bring it forward? Of more interest, I think, are the government’s other pension proposals. ‘Re-invigorating retirement‘ sounds rather jaunty, being forced to pay into less than lucrative company pension schemes does not – especially as those schemes are far from secure. Also, the abolition of the Default Retirement Age limits the

Considering the fiscal crisis we face, this revelation in Andrew Rawnsley’s column is particularly dispiriting: “[Gordon Brown] has been egged on by Ed Balls [to make more spending promises], partly because the schools secretary is also obsessed with that old dividing line, partly because he wanted to be able to boast that he had won more money for his department. I am reliably told that the wrangling between the schools secretary and the chancellor went on into the early hours of the morning on the day of the PBR itself. The result was that some of the extra spending beaten out of Mr Darling by Mr Balls did not get