In defence of James Purnell

July 31, 2011 3:00 pm

Author:

Share this Article

James PurnellBy Tom Harris MP / @TomHarrisMP

It’s a sign of a good politician that he can still provoke debate – even harsh criticism – more than a year after stepping down from the Commons.

But that’s what my friend and former colleague James Purnell has done, with his latest pronouncements on how we can encourage people to love the welfare state. Inevitably, as happens whenever someone on the Left says anything remotely sensible on the subject of welfare reform, he has ruffled a few feathers, specifically the feathers of Darrell Goodliffe.

Darrell wrote on LabourList that James’s suggestion that future reforms might include scrapping pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowances, free bus passes and TV licenses weren’t just unwise or ill-considered; no, no – they were “an abomination”.

Well, good to see we’re managing to tone down the hyperbole, eh? Darrell goes on:

“No doubt he will make noises about ‘targeting’ but we all know that means testing – which is what ‘targeting’ is another word for – hits the poorest the hardest. Elderly people, children, these are our most vulnerable groups and Purnell wants to squeeze them until the pips squeak.”

You hear that, James? You want to hit old people and children. And squeeze their pips, apparently…

Darrell is missing the point, I think. Yes, means testing has a certain stigma attached to it and therefore many of those at whom a particular benefit is aimed very often don’t apply for it. But its intention is the opposite of what Darrell seems to think it is. Means testing (or “targeting”) is about making sure that those who need a benefit most – the poorest, in other words – don’t miss out on it because it makes sure that others who don’t need it – the richest – don’t get it.

A good example of this was the Pension Credit. After years of seeing British pensioners fall further into poverty under Tory governments, Labour decided that the available funds would be better spent targeting the very poorest, particularly those whose modest savings or private pensions had hitherto prevented them from receiving state assistance.

No-one thinks means testing is ideal; we all want to avoid it where possible. But the Labour government did it and it was right to do it.

Darrell’s main objection to James and everyone else who thinks we need to reform welfare is that it’s really not necessary in the grand scale of things:

“It’s demonstrably the case that the cost of benefit fraud is nothing compared to the cost of tax avoidance and tax evasion.”

Which is probably true, but completely misses the point. Even if the cost of benefit “fraud” were zero, it would still be incumbent on any government to reduce significantly the number of individuals and families dependent on benefits.

When second or third generations of families, and even whole communities, are relying on benefits rather than employment, the immediate direct cost to the Treasury is as nothing compared with the cost to those families, those communities and to wider society. The cost is not measured in pounds and pence but in aspiration, inter-generational poverty, poor performance at school, self-esteem and social breakdown.

With more than 100,000 adults of working age “economically inactive”, my own city of Glasgow is fighting to improve its prosperity with one hand tied behind its back. That is an unacceptable situation, irrespective of the cost of the benefit cheques.

That’s what James Purnell and many others in the Labour Party understand. It’s a pity Darrell Goodliffe does not.

Latest

  • Comment 5 things that Labour can learn from feminism

    5 things that Labour can learn from feminism

    This post is written by Anya Pearson and Rosie Rogers From UK Feminista, Daughters of Eve to No More Page 3, the new wave of feminism sweeping Britain has left party politics looking beached in comparison. One in four women have answered that they don’t know which party they will vote for in 2015 or else won’t be voting at all, trust in politicians is at an all-time low and policy struggles to offer inspiring solutions to the challenges people face in their daily […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs verdict: No apology is good enough. Freud must go, and he must go today

    PMQs verdict: No apology is good enough. Freud must go, and he must go today

    PMQs returns, and the Labour Party had an ambush waiting for Cameron. A recording from Lord Freud – the despicable welfare minister – saying that disabled people don’t deserve the full minimum wage (and suggesting that they might be paid £2 an hour) dropped only moments before PMQs. Ed Miliband – throat scratching as he delivered his lines without the aid of his voice – croaked as he spoke to the Commons. Yet the strained voice, painful as it sounded, actually seemed […]

    Read more →
  • News Lord Freud’s apology “not the end of the matter”, say Labour

    Lord Freud’s apology “not the end of the matter”, say Labour

    Lord Freud has apologised for his comments suggesting that disabled people are “not worth” the minimum wage. After Miliband raised the comments at PMQs today, the minister in charge of welfare reform, which includes the introduction of the Bedroom Tax, issued a retraction: “I would like to offer a full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question. To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and […]

    Read more →
  • News Sadiq Khan to head up Labour’s anti-Green Party strategy

    Sadiq Khan to head up Labour’s anti-Green Party strategy

    Sadiq Khan has been given a new role in Labour’s election campaign, running a unit charged with dealing with the threat from the Green Party over the next seven months. The New Statesman’s George Eaton reveals that Khan has been handed the job by election co-ordinator Douglas Alexander. The Tooting MP’s previous stint as chair of Liberty, the civil liberties campaign organisation, means he is widely considered as well-placed to recapture socially liberal voters lost during the New Labour years. […]

    Read more →
  • Featured David Cameron’s government: some disabled people are “not worth the full wage” 

    David Cameron’s government: some disabled people are “not worth the full wage” 

    David Cameron’s welfare supremo has advocated treating those most in need differently by paying them below the national minimum wage. Lord David Freud, speaking at a fringe event at  Conservative Party Conference, said he thought there was “a group” of disabled people who are “not worth the full wage”. Lord Freud has exposed a face of the Conservative Party which sees the vulnerable as runners up, those in need as undeserving, and the minimum wage as applying just to a few of […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y