Grasping the nettle of welfare reform

By Darrell Goodliffe

Labour should forever be proud of the welfare state.

Whatever its shortcomings, problems and despite the fact that some of the building blocks were laid beforehand it was a Labour government, driven by socialist values and vision, that made the welfare state a reality. It’s existence and place within our national culture is a testament to a great Labour success which can never be taken away from this party.

As has been noted by those sceptical of the coalitions ‘slash and burn’ agenda this was done in the teeth of a massive post-war deficit. This shows that with the right will and driven by the right values a governing party does not have to live in perpetual servitude to its deficit; that great achievements are still realistic and the excuse that there ‘is no money left’ simply doesn’t wash. It’s unsurprising given the true poverty that afflicts this government, that of vision and ambition, that its sights are set on cutting the welfare bill to the bare bone. Although Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals sound ‘radical’ and maybe even a little ‘progressive’ in actual fact they are nothing of the kind because they are designed with one end in mind; to reduce the welfare bill. You change the ends and the means you use to get their invariably change with them.

His ‘universal credit’ will be particularly devastating for those on incapacity benefit who cannot (and should not) by definition be treated in the same way as other claimants. Other stories about the potentially devastating impact of the cuts made to pay for this scheme are certainly enough to give pause for thought before we blindly back these proposals as The Guardian suggests we might do. The notion that life on benefits is a ‘cushy’ option is one we need to move away from and decisively repudiate; it’s a notion that really can only possibly be peddled and supported by those who have no direct experience of what they are talking about. It’s right up there in the canon of right-wing myths – like the notion that workers go on strike ‘recklessly’ – that it personally nauseates me to see Labour politicians and sometimes members repeat unthinkingly. If our policy is not determined beyond the intellectual and life-experience horizons established within the pages of the Daily Mail then we have a serious problem.

However, there is a germ of an idea in the ‘universal credit’ scheme. I support the introduction of a Citizens Income (CI) which would do something similar in so far as it would abolish most benefits and replace them with a singular universally guaranteed Citizens Income. Special provision would exist within this for special circumstances ie, provision for those on incapacity who need additional help and services. If the introduction of the CI was coupled with the introduction of a living wage there would be no need to prolong its drawing beyond when the citizen entered work and the incentive to work would still exist because the CI would obviously be set at a lower level than the income from a job remunerated by a living wage. Also, because the introduction of these two things would necessarily drive wages up the middle classes would not suffer financial loss through its introduction (as they are likely too under the proposals being introduced by IDS).

Work that at this current time is either not rewarded financially or poorly supported (like that of a single parent caring for a child or a relative caring for a sick loved one) would also be afforded some recognition and financial reward. This would be a really radical welfare reform that, coupled with other measures like the living wage, would strike real blows against inequality. It would also seize the agenda of radical welfare reform, not as a means of balancing the books but as a means of striking blows against inequality, and bring it back home where it belongs, to Labour.