You are here: Home » Comment »

Renewing the Reward for Responsibility

July 24, 2012 12:35 pm

Author:

Liam Byrne

Share this Article

As we mark the 70^th anniversary of the Beveridge Report, I want to show how the contributory principle can be not murdered; but modernised for new times.

But why is it under threat? Two years ago we were promised a revolution. Universal Credit and the Work Programme together were billed as the be all and end all to welfare reform.

In November 2010 Iain Duncan Smith said this:

“We will introduce a comprehensive work programme, which will support people going back to work in a way that has never been done before; we will build a universal credit system to ensure work pays; and we will get welfare spending under control to regain economic credibility and stability.”

That was the hype. Now, the reality.

We have long term unemployment rising as the Work Programme fails to stem the tide. Long-term youth unemployment quadrupled in the last year – quadrupled. Thanks to changes to Tax Credits we have thousands of families who are now better off on benefits than in work. We have Universal Credit disappearing over the horizon, late and over budget. And we have a bill for Job Seekers Allowance and Housing Benefit that is rocketing £9 billion higher than forecast to pay the cost of this government’s failed policies.

What happened to the revolution? It has failed.

And frankly it’s no surprise the revolution is in trouble when the revolutionaries in charge couldn’t organise the lightest of refreshments in a brewery.

In December, the DWP said a million more unemployed people would flow through the Work Programme. Last week, they said it was a million less. What on earth is going on? In the House, IDS says Universal Credit is on time and on budget. Yet his ministers say, its £100 million over budget. And his staff newsletter says its 9 months late.

The tragedy is that to pay for this crumbling revolution, the government is reducing the welfare state, leaving working people with what Brendan Barber calls ‘nothing for something’. Working people pay in. But they get nothing out.

I think we have to break out of this trap. We have to offer another way. A different approach.

Crucially we have to think how we help workers, carers and savers, deal with the eventualities that life today throws at them. The challenge of getting a job, or setting up a home, of being a working parent, or falling sick. The challenge of caring for another, or saving for the future.

The truth that explains why confidence in social security has fallen is simple: Britain’s social security system did not keep up as these challenges changed. The job for life has gone. Women go out to work. We built and sold off all the council houses and didn’t build anymore. We’re aging; this month’s census revealed there are more people over 65 than ever. What we learn at school is not enough to last a lifetime at work. On average, most people will now work 11 different jobs over the course of their lives.

That’s why working people need ideas like Labour’s Real Jobs Guarantee.

Female employment has risen by over 50% since 1971 – 4.5 million more women work than when my mum had me – and went back out to work. There’s now a chronic new need for childcare because two thirds of couples are now dual earning and second earners are crucial to raising family living standards.

That’s why working people need ideas like the Danish Day Care system, which we’re studying so hard.

We now have over a million living in the private rented sector where the cost of renting is at an all time high. That’s why we need to look at how we build more houses to bring down the housing benefit bill.

Back in 1901, there were just 60,000 people were over 85. Now over 85s number 1.5million, That’s why working people need our plans for private pension reform, so they go into retirement with as big a private pension pot as possible.

Together, this is an agenda for making sure people can get into jobs – and work the hours they want, save for a home, and save for a decent retirement. It’s an agenda that means people who go to work won’t be worse off – it’s about rewarding responsibility. This is an agenda for workers, for parents, for carers and savers.

And it has never been more important.

Because there is one challenge more. In the future, we will have fewer people in work to pay to resolve these problems. That is why we need a high growth, high employment welfare state that gets as many people into work as possible and keeps them there.

If we got 150,000 off the dole – a modest target of getting back to the levels of September 2010, we’d save the exchequer more than £1.3billion. If we had as many women in work as Denmark, we’d have a million extra workers, and £4.5 billion in extra tax receipts each year. If we help pensioners save now for the future, we save billions in the years to come in the bills of pensioner poverty.

This why policies like job guarantees, child care, social care, new homes, and a private pension system you can trust are so vital.

The case for social insurance today is as strong and clear as it was set out by the Commission on Social Justice; It protects people more cheaply, more efficiently and more fairly than anything else;It helps people redistribute income over complicated lives

And it represents an expression of social citizenship in its balance of rights and responsibilities through an ethic of mutuality— a spirit of contract. A contract we need to renew if we’re to rebuild Britain as did in the 1940s.

It’s a contract that must once again, reward responsibility.

James

Hopefully this twit will be shuffled out of the pack before the autumn.
- John Dore
  
  What and enter your world a lone voice and no influence? If The Union Bloc continue with their strategy then you may just be right.
  - treborc
    
    You really are a pratt Bore.
Amber Star

If we help pensioners save now for the future, we save billions in the years to come in the bills of pensioner poverty.
————————
No, we don’t – if there is nothing productive which generates future income in which to invest those savings all we are doing is handing more cash to ‘gamblers’ which they use to finance non productive ‘activity’ like short-selling, mergers & acquisitions etc. And for every financial gambler who wins with these tactics, somebody else loses. Governments need to get a grip on this predatory capitalism – to coin a phrase – before exhorting us to save for our old age because right now it is just a scam; just a way of turning my money into their money.
- treborc
  
  yes that’s so true.
http://twitter.com/joshfg Joshua Fenton-Glynn

It is clear that the Universal Credit is deeply flawed and Labour
councils across London are having to respond to the Housing Benefit cap in tandem
with the redefinition of affordable rents so that they are measured against
market price (not you know what people can afford) leading to councils having
to ether constantly re-home the same families, which will lead to the
educational penalties that entails for the children involved (every time a child
moves under the age of 16 loses 2% on their GCSE results).

I think childcare is a
wonderful idea that will not only create jobs (often for women) but also allow
others to work as opposed to the current system in which our economy loses the
vital talent we need to compete in a global economy.

I think Byrne could be stronger here on his position on the causes of “benefit
traps” which are more to do with low wages than they are with benefits being
too high and it is incumbent on those who see the effect of low wages to challenge
that language, also in the language around reciprocity we risk giving the
impression that we don’t, as a society, have a responsibility to help those who
have not had the chance to contribute, be they the unemployed young or those
who are unable to work.
- Apologyman
  
  How would you fund childcare?
  - http://twitter.com/joshfg Joshua Fenton-Glynn
    
    I have seen models where childcare pays for it’s self as it allows more women – often on a higher income – to find work and contribute tax, also allows women to seek education which adds massive value – if we are to look at this strictly economicaly.
    - ThePurpleBooker
      
      There is also an upfront cost to fund free universal childcare, though otherwise you will adding to the deficit. What would you cut to cover the upfront cost. Free bus passes, free TV licences, winter fuel allowances, child benefit – you’ll have to cut something.
      - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
        
        Cut Defence. Tax the banksters properly. Sort out the offshore finance holdings. Plenty of other options
      - ThePurpleBooker
        
        Come on. Let us be realistic. I mean we are going to cut defence by £5bn and introduce a bonus tax. I’d recommend we increase the bank levy to pay for investment allowances, loans and grants to manufacturing. But some cuts will have to be for the deficit. What we need to do is scrap higher-rate pension tax relief and use the money to fund Free Universal Childcare with parents being to access high-quality childcare for pre-school children 24/7 with a cap on additional costs and 15 hours of free nursery care for all 2 year olds. We need to restrict winter fuel allowances and free TV licences to those on Pension Credit and tax free bus passes at the same rate as pensions. That will free up around £2bn which can be used to reverse cuts to Foundation Years’ services and give all free healthy schools to all children in state primary schools with any underspend going towards the deficit.
        We need to reform the markets and remoralise them not whip them up like dominatrices with high amounts of tax. We need to be tough on defence spending because of the deficit but not go overboard by risking the safety of the nation because of some ideological hatred of the armed forces on the far-left. Offshore finance holdings is not enough to deal with the deficit. We have to be brave to make tough choices in tough times and get our priorities in order.
John Dore

OK sit back grab a beer and some popcorn. Tre-Bore and Partridge will explode on the scene momentarily.
- Jupiter
  
  I desire you. I hunger for you. Be my Ganymede and I shall be your Zeus.
  - John Dore
    
    Sorry, Mrs Dore is my world, but thanks for the offer you freak.
    - Jupiter
      
      I KNEW you were a homophobe!
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        He’s not a homphobe. He just knows that he’s so reprehensible to everyone that anyone, male or female, who lusts after him must be a freak. And, let’s face it, heded decline your offer politely.
      - Timberlakeland
        
        I’m surprised Dore turned down a sexual overture not involving the exchange of money.
      - treborc
        
        Or he ran out of condoms
      - John Dore
        
        Your obviously crap at humour as well as thinking.
      - treborc
        
        condoms and crap you could not make it up Bore your four workers must be killing themselves reading you on here.
        
        And stop flagging your own comments you moron
      - John Dore
        
        I think you’ll find that you’re the moron, I cant flag posts.
      - treborc
        
        You ask William….
      - John Dore
        
        Made up a new identity have we? Same dimwitted tripe.
      - Alan Giles
        
        John Dore fiddles while Liam B(y)urns!
        
        Now that Laurel and Hardy, Morecombe and Wise, Mike and Bernie Winters and Tony Hancock and Sid James have all gone to that great summer season in the sky, could Johnny and Liam be the new hope for Saturday night TV?
        
        A great double act in the making (I am sure their scriptwriters could find lots of “Partridge” jokes for Dore to corpse over), as for Liam – well you only have to look at him, still less read his dissembling tosh and there wouldn’t be a dry seat in the house.
        
        The man is so insincere it’s not even worth the dignity of a response.
      - John Dore
        
        “The man is so insincere it’s not even worth the dignity of a response.”
        
        So why did you Partridge? The fact is that you have no argument.
  - Alexwilliamz
    
    Is there anyway this set of comments can be removed. It is not related to the article and is simply a set of mudslinging we can all do with out. I would not consider it censorship just tidying up.
- treborc
  
  Your old enough to drink , surprises everyday
Amber Star

That’s why working people need ideas like the Danish Day Care system, which we’re studying so hard.
——————————-
I read your article on this, Liam. Lots of praise for the wonderful building you visited.

It’s time for the UK to have a constitution: One which prevents assets which the public have paid for becoming private property! Otherwise the schools, hospitals & nurseries which we pay for don’t stay ours for long. It’ll start with the nurseries being built using PFI, the public will still be paying for it long after the childcare itself has been ‘contracted out’ to the private sector, who’ll make a profit from providing a fee-taking service.

Or has what’s happened in the English NHS escaped your notice? Has the plan to turn schools into ‘for profit’ ventures escaped your notice? Why should the public pay for nurseries which will simply be added to the list of public assets used by the private sector to make profits whilst those who can’t afford to pay twice (through their taxes & their fees) get shut out?

So, if the private sector need more women in the employment pool, they can pay for it directly with workplace nurseries. They’re sure as heck not going to pay for it through corporation tax because they can simply ‘domicile’ themselves in Ireland – or wherever they pay least tax - & nobody lifts a finger to stop them.

Until Labour find a way to keep public property from being made available for private gain by the next Tory government, nobody wants to pay for these schemes; not even solid, tax-paying social democrats like myself.
- ThePurpleBooker
  
  Next Tory government? Are you mad!
  - Amber Star
    
    I wish I was but they keep turning up like a bad penny. Even when they lose, the Libdems provide them with a majority.
    - ThePurpleBooker
      
      Look at the polls, do your electoral maths and come back to me. You are completely insane.
  - treborc
    
    Are you mad, yes I can see you as the next Liberal leader.
000a000

Last week LabourList was claiming long term youth unemployment was up 309% – these turned out to be some deeply dodgy numbers indeed:

http://labourlist.org/2012/07/the-number-of-young-people-on-the-dole-for-12-months-or-more-is-up-306/

Please can you define “ Long-term youth unemployment quadrupled in the last year – quadrupled” – what measure of unemployment is being used here?

I suspect it’s up, but like to look at the data myself first…
- http://twitter.com/joshfg Joshua Fenton-Glynn
  
  Out of work or looking for work for 12 months or more, thie increase may have included a bump for those who left school, collage or University last June and have been unable to find work since.
  - 000a000
    
    If JSA numbers are used for this they mean little as I posted in the other article.
    - http://twitter.com/joshfg Joshua Fenton-Glynn
      
      I didn’t see that post, why did you say that.
ThePurpleBooker

Liam Byrne is doing good work but I want to see this driven into policy. Ed needs to do a speech setting out our proposals on the welfare state in retaliation to Cameron’s. I’ve got some. Many of which I am sure he will agree with:

1)
Free
Universal Childcare – Child benefit is a good thing
which many families are happy that they have but it does not go far enough to address
many of the challenges for families and society at large. This proposal, will guarantee all families
universal childcare given at a high-quality free at the point of use at anytime
that they need with a cap linked to inflation on any remaining childcare costs
that parents might have to pay. This will also mean 15 hours of free nursery
care for all 2 years every week. This
will increase employment and social mobility as well as attacking child poverty
which will be a key task for the welfare state.

2)
A
Jobs Guarantee – Unemployment is a national
problem that is getting worse under this current government and needs to be
confronted. Under this idea, anyone who has been out of work for at least a
year will be offered a job paid at the living wage for at least six months. However, if that person refuses the job
offered to them then they will lose their benefits. It will be funded by a
mansion tax levied at one percent on homes worth over £2m. This will be
fiscally neutral and will end long-term unemployment but drive up
responsibility, making the welfare state tougher but also a lot fairer.

3)
National
Salary Insurance – The current system means that
someone who have worked hard and lose their job will get the same amount of
help as someone who has never worked in their life. This proposal will mean
that instead of Jobseeker’s Allowance, workers will have to put in
contributions into the system with higher salaries requiring higher
contributions and lower salaries requiring lower contributions. If they have made
a sufficient amount of contributions but they lose their job, then they will be
entitled to seventy percent of their former salary with weekly payments capped
at £200 a week while they find work, but it will be repaid via an
income-contingent loan with a zero-real rate of interest.

4)
Regional
benefit caps – The current benefit cap will not work as it
will penalise families who have been recently where the person in work has been
recently employed and in some parts of the country it will be catastrophic
however it cannot be right that people can earn more in benefits than they can
in work. However, this proposal will mean that there will be instead regional
benefit caps which will be set by an independent commission and will take in
account employment history of claimants as well as house prices and wages in different
regions. It will also exempt Disability Living Allowance and child benefit in
order to protect families as well as the disabled.

5)
Reforming
housing allocation rules – It is good that we have social
housing for all in this country and that should remain but reform needs to take
place in order for social housing to have a real stake in society. Under this proposal, tenants who are in work
(especially work locally), volunteer in the local community, a strong track
record as a good tenant, hold a strong ‘community connection’ but also have
British citizenship will also be prioritised on housing waiting lists as well
as those who are in need.

6)
Reform
of housing benefit – Housing benefit has been
spiralling out of control for years but the worst thing about it is that
housing benefit is being used to sponsor irresponsible capitalism in our
communities through slum landlords in high property prices. This proposal will
mean that housing benefit and house-building budgets will be merged into one
budget and will be devolved to local government to create a new Affordable
Housing Grant. It will also mean that the new element of housing benefit will
no longer be paid to tenants but to landlords. Landlords will have to be
licensed through a National Landlords Register which will require them to abide
by rent controls but also meet the Decent Homes Standard otherwise they will
lose their licence and not receive any money through the Affordable Housing
Grant.

7)
Locally-run
work schemes for the unemployed – One of the
evils of long-term unemployment is that it results in many people who cease in
becoming employable. This proposal will instead take £602 million from the £5bn
budget from the unsuccessful Work Programme. The £602 million fund will be
directly given to councils, with £233
for each unemployed person in their borough, which will fund 30 hours a week of
compulsory skills development, training or volunteering of their choice
accompanied with personal coaching with specialist support for parents and
young people. Parents will be required to go on the scheme in order to access
their child tax credits and others will have to join the scheme in order to
receive their benefits. Any underspend will go back to the Treasury and the
scheme will be temporary rather than long-term because of the anticipated fall
in long-term unemployment due to these proposals.

8)
Reform
of the Universal Credit – It is right that people receive
welfare payments in one form as a universal credit however under this
Government it is done by an expense and bureaucratic system which is also not
on time and not on budget. Our proposal will mean that the delivery of the
Universal Credit will be provided by local services delivered by face-to-face
encounters with claimants rather than a system which is provided by a
supercomputer in a Whitehall department.

9)
Regulating
pay day loan companies, betting shops and pawnbrokers – Betting
shops, pay day loan companies and pawnbrokers have targeted many of our poorest
communities, where many people are on benefits.
This is not only a burden on the taxpayer but also is bad for the
welfare state. This proposal will mean that pay day loan companies, betting
shops and pawnbrokers will be banned from providing services to benefit
recipients.

10)
Child
Endowment scheme – The Government was wrong to scrap
Child Trust Funds, as part of their failed austerity, something which did help
families and children prepare for the future however we do need an insurance-based
support for families. This proposal will
mean that families will have to invest extra contributions and when their child
turns eighteen, the money will be used to pay for an endowment which will be restricted
to pay for things such as a car, a mortgage, a new start-up or even to pay for
their higher education.

11)
Reform
of pension tax relief – Pension tax relief is a good
thing that supports many workers in retirement offsetting their tax burden but
for too many people they feel that it is not progressive or contributory. This
reform will mean that these tax reliefs will be linked on income as well as
contributions, so that poorer people will get more support in the retirement
but also people who have contributed will get more. It will also mean that
higher-rate pension tax relief will be abolished to fund free universal
childcare instead.

12)
Reform
of Pension Credit – The last Labour government was
right to create Pension Credit, however like other means-tested benefits it
lost sight of the contributory principle behind the welfare state. This
proposal will scrap ‘Savings Credit’ and instead replace it with ‘Contributions
Credit’ which will be measured on how much National Insurance contributions a
pensioner so that those who have contributed to the system will get a bigger
pension.

13)
Pension
Reform – Many people who join certain pension schemes
find that they are worse off than they are planned due to some companies
ripping them off. This proposal will mean that there will be a fixed cap on the
level of pension fees that a company can charge but also that the
auto-enrolment will be protected but we will still continue with implementing
the recommendations of Lord Hutton of Furness’ report on public sector
pensions.

14)
Reform
of universal pensioner benefits – Universality
is very important in the welfare state but also the realities of fiscal
constraint as well as the need for enhanced fairness will mean that tough
decisions about spending will need to take place in order to finance other
priorities. This proposal will mean that
free TV licences and Winter Fuel Allowance will be temporarily restricted to
those in receipt of Pension Credit and that accessibility to pensioner benefits
will have to rise with the pension age. Free bus passes will be devolved to
local government but those pensioners who are on high incomes who still have
accessibility to free bus passes will temporarily have to pay tax on the value
of the free bus passes.

15)
Inflationary
rises in the state pension and benefits – Due to
deficit reduction, more tough choices will have to be made on spending on
benefits and how much they can rise.
This proposal will mean that benefits and the state pension will not get
real-term increases but instead they will receive inflationary increases which
will be based on a year-long average in inflation rather than a monthly
average. The money saved will be used to reverse cuts to SureStart and early
years’ services and any underspend will go to deficit reduction.

16)
Child
Benefit reform – Child benefit is an important
benefit which represents the state’s commitment to the family and to
universalism but that has got to be met with fiscally neutral policies. This
proposal will reverse the child benefit changes through extra crackdowns on tax
avoidance as well as a limit on the amount of child tax credits and child
benefit that wealthier families can claim. It will also mean that for sixteen
and seventeen year-olds, child benefit will be at the same level of the rate of
Jobseeker’s Allowance for 16 and 17 year olds in work, which will be paid
directly to the child rather than to the parent.
- treborc
  
  You copied all this mate. bloody hell
  - Simca
    
    He copied it from Blue Labour and Byrne who copied it from Freud, Grayling and IDS.
    - treborc
      
      I know I was waiting for him to say no he did not.
    - ThePurpleBooker
      
      Hang on, Grayling and IDS are not introducing a Jobs Gurantee or giving families free childcare or regulating landlords or regulating betting shops and loan sharks! Do your research.
  - ThePurpleBooker
    
    Yes, I did. From my own document.
    - treborc
      
      ha ha ha ha working now for labour
- http://twitter.com/joshfg Joshua Fenton-Glynn
  
  Quite a wide ranging
  response. I’d suggest that practically a lot of these may be difficult.
  
  4) Regional benefit caps would be very difficult to administer and could lead
  to resentment of London and the South East were it would likely be higher,
  indeed proposals to regional pay don’t currently seem to involve an increase
  for some areas but simply some having their level of pay frozen for a longer
  period. If it were administered by local authorities it could well lead to
  right wing local authorities using it to push low income families out. I suggest
  as one of the largest regional variants is the level of rent then looking at
  capping rent and certainly committing to the current social rent would be a
  simpler and more popular policy.
  
  5) I don’t think using the prospect of a home to encourage social solidarity is
  a good idea, for single parents who have little time the idea that they must
  prove they are worthy of homes may prove particularly galling. I think both
  this and your next point (6) can be solved by building more housing, given the
  massive amount the government spend on housing a year £21bn then borrowing
  against future rental income and money saved at a time like this (when UK
  borrowing is historically low) is a more permanent solution as oppose to a sticking
  plaster.
  
  7) Locally run sounds like but would likely lead to national companies setting
  up shell’s given JCP has a network of local offices and pre-existing links with
  employers and relationships with claimants it would be cheaper and easier to
  provide it through this – indeed it was for these reasons that the evaluation
  of the 2009 pathways to work pilot found JCP given more freedom to act less prescriptively
  is the most effective back to work provider at all stages.
  
  8) UC needs to be revaluated entirely in ways that can’t be described here.
  
  9) I’m not sure how this would be enforceable without serious stigmatisation of
  the unemployed and as I’m sure you know stigmatisation and othering of
  unemployed pushes people further from the job market – worrying unintended consequences
  and pretty illiberal.
  
  14) Universal benefits are the most effective anti poverty benefits according
  to the IFS (particularly for pensioners who often find application process more
  difficult and humiliating, it is also cheaper to administer)
  
  15) Should be indexed to wages to lessen drop off for people losing jobs,
  otherwise people risk losing houses as well which is more costly to the economy
  as a whole
  
  I think welfare is one of those issues it is important to get right and I’m really glad ther are ideas from all areas of the Labour party on it, I hope we can have an effective system that supports people into work rather than punnishing them for being out of work and I think we’re moving in the right direction.
  - ThePurpleBooker
    
    Thanks Josh for your constructive criticism however you are in danger of greatly misunderstanding and misinterpreting what has been proposed. Enjoyed reading it. I’ll go through my ideas with you.
    4) Regional benefit caps will be adminstered by an independent commission. It will not be adminstered by councils but by people who are experts who know the system. It is only fair that people get more in work than they get in benefits but it has got to be related to housing prices, wages, take in account employment history but also exclude child benefit and DLA.
    5) On housing allocations, I think you are wrong. In Newham they have done it and it has worked successfully. This will also encourage single parents to work, which the vast majority of them want to do, but also volunteer with working times and give into their community. We need to get back to the core values of social housing and that must involve a social contract. Remember, this priorities community connection as well as need.
    7) When I say ’locally run’ I am referring to local government and communities not the private sector. We should trust communities to understand the problems with unemployment in their own patch. Whitehall does not have all the answers. This is an expansion of what Southwark Council is doing with their Fund for the young unemployed as well as taking examples from Australia as well where these types of proposals have been extremely effective.
    8) I sort of agree with you on Universal Credit which is why it needs to be reviewed so local services can provide it and it is done face-to-face with claimants. The principle of a Universal Credit is a good one and must be achieved.
    9) Pretty illiberal? I am sorry but I hope you have been aware of many of the campaigns going on in the party
    14) Universal benefits are very effective anti-poverty measures that is true, but universalism in services is necessary. There are better ways of demonstrating universalism which can crackdown on poverty such as through a living wage (which will reduce the tax credit bill as well), univeral free healthy school meals for primary schoolchildren and Free Childcare but spending money on elderly people who do not need it is not an effective or good way of demonstrating universalism. Also, we have commitments on childcare and on a National Care Service, both of which can only be achieved if there is switch spending which does mean tough decisions on spending. Some of these benefits are not a priority.
    15) We have to be careful when we index them to wages. We must be very careful it does not mean higher spending. Fiscal responsibility is key, remember.
  - ThePurpleBooker
    
    On housing, building more homes is not enough and will solve some problems but not all. In times of fiscal hardship you cannot over-promise. Regulating landlords and ensuring they have high standards.
    - treborc
      
      Of course and while your demanding better conditions do up the homes, and the cap on rents, your not building for the thousand whop end up on the streets.
      
      At the moment my local salvation army are out with hot soup and blankets again, they are requesting the council allow them an old factory which is empty but in good condition to bed down people at night. shocking.
      - ThePurpleBooker
        
        Rubbish. I want more homes to be built, I think it is a shame that 5 million people are waiting on waiting lists and I want to the bonus tax invested into creating 100,000 new homes as well as requirement for private developers to create new homes, any money from the Right to Buy to build more homes and a tax on undervalued land to build more homes. But you cannot over promise. Reforming housing allocations policy is a priority and cracking down on slum landlords and high rent is key. I thought that you would support that rather than carp from the sidelines.
  - Brendan Howell
    
    You criticise him for not including rent caps but he suggested that in 6 when you criticise him for that. House building is important and we need to do it but we also need to enshrine social solidarity as well as need and we need to ensure landlords are properly regulated, meet high standards and do not charge high rents. I thought you would support that.
    - http://twitter.com/joshfg Joshua Fenton-Glynn
      
      I didn’t say I didn’t support greater regulation of landlords, I said I supported other things as well, I hadn’t realised the policy amouted to rent caps as it’s somewhat conveluted but there is no need to try to find discord where there is non Brendan, welfare is too important to be left to left right sloganeering.
- James
  
  I thought this was an extract from the next Tory manifesto until I saw regional benefits mention, which the Tories have rejected as being too complicated and unfair to enforce, and no mention of stripping the under 25s of their right to Housing Benefit. If you get rid of the former and include the latter you’ve got the Conservative Party Manifesto circa 2015.
  - ThePurpleBooker
    
    Right so you are saying the next Conservative Party will give families Free Universal Childcare, give a Jobs Gurantee, regulate landlords, give a Child Endowment scheme, change housing allocation rules so they favour responsibility, cap the fees that pension companies can charge, scrap tax relief for rich pensioners and create a Salary Insurance scheme. Have you got a screw loose?
    By the way, I did not propose regional benefits at all.
- Quiet_Sceptic
  
  Your National Salary Insurance scheme sounds an appalling idea, something that would give Payment Protection or home appliance insurance a run for their money in the rip-off stakes.
  
  You expect people to pay a tax for a service which doesn’t give them any real insurance, no actual payout from their premiums, just access to a low-interest loan scheme.
  
  With it structured as you describe, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect such a scheme to be funded from existing NICs contributions. Certainly wouldn’t justify raising taxes further.
  - ThePurpleBooker
    
    It is not an appalling idea. It is a safety net and promotes contribution. It does give them insurance and they do get a pay out. It is 70% of their former salary. This will mean they will have a stable income and greater spending power because they are not experiencing a massive drop in spending power, which normally occurs in unemployment. It is also based on personal choice. If you put in your contributions towards the scheme, you get more. Also, it will result in a drop in spending as well as growth and stronger responsibility.
    - Quiet_Sceptic
      
      It is not insurance. It is a loan scheme.
      
      It does not have many of the key features of insurance:
      
      Insurance takes premiums to cover a pay-out if the insured event occurs; there is no pay-out only a loan.
      
      Insurance spreads the risk and cost of an ‘event’ across a large group of premium payers. This does not – the cost/impact of the event sits solely with the person affected because the balance of their loan is tied to them alone.
      
      From your first post it appeared to be a compulsory scheme, if it was optional I can’t imagine it would be effective as those on higher incomes would quickly see through it and not take part. For someone on a higher income they’d probably be better to self-insure by building up some savings.
      - ThePurpleBooker
        
        It is insurance and it would be compulsory. Your failure to actually understand the scheme is shocking. I think you do not understand it. People put in contributions through their National Insurance, the higher salaries requiring higher contributions. In return, if you lose your job, you get paid up to 70% of your former salary. So you pay in contributions in return for your former salary. That is insurance. When you get back to work, you can pay an income-contingent loan with zero-real rate of interest. What that means is if you earn very little you won’t pay and you will not pay immediately. You pay the Government back the money when you are on a high stable income or if you have the means to do so. Also, it is not a proper loan seen as their no interest on it. That would make the welfare state fairer but also it is good for the economy. It means that welfare spending will fall dramatically but also it will allow for growth seen as people who are at risk of losing their job have decent security which will allow them to retain their spending power. It is not an appalling idea, it is a brilliant idea which returns welfare back to the social insurance principles. Barack Obama is doing a very similar thing with his health reforms in the United States and it is very good to replicate that in the United Kingdom regarding welfare.
      - Quiet_Sceptic
        
        I don’t think I misunderstand what you have written.
        
        You fail to recognise or refuse to acknowledge that the system you describe is fundamentally different from what is typically considered to be insurance.
        
        If you take out an insurance policy and you pay your premiums, when you need to claim against that policy your claim is paid from the pool of premiums collected from policy holders. Your claim does not become a future liability, a debt, against the claimant.
        
        The value of the system you describe is very limited because it is not really an insurance scheme, it is an option to take out a low cost loan in event of unemployment.
        
        That is not to say that it is completely worthless but it is not pure insurance. It is a loan scheme.
      - ThePurpleBooker
        
        It is an insurance scheme, I am afraid your comment is completely flawed. It is exactly the type of social insurance that we are seeing the United States. People are paying towards their unemployment but if you are wealthy enough, you pay back with no interest. You are completely wrong. You stubbornly refuse to accept this is an insurance scheme because you thought it was a wicked appalling idea and actually you know it has brilliant merits.
      - Topper
        
        Jesus Christ! Using America as an example of a welfare model that we should adopt in the UK! The richest economy in the world where people die because they can’t afford medical treatment and even starve to death or freeze to death on its streets.
        
        Unbelievable.
      - treborc
        
        Blue labour, New labour everything we had , Welfare reforms like the new Deal, pathways to work, workfare all of these were taken from America, nothing made here, New labour was a carbon copy of America
      - ThePurpleBooker
        
        If you read I was saying that a National Salary Insurance instead of means-tested unemployment benefit is following in the same direction of Obamacare in the United States and his reforms. So I am using that as an example, where you are utterly wrong. Actually read before spouting utter rubbish.
Homfray

The difficulty is that the British system was never truly contributory. It worked on the principle of full employment for heads of households so that any time on benefits would be brief. There was never a pot which people could later draw from – we didn’t adopt the Bismarkuan model. As unemployment rise the system became more and more slanted towards means-tested benefits andlong term unemployment led to long term claiming. It’s concerning to think that Byrne diesn’t appear to realise this and seems to believe that the 1948 system was ‘social insurance’
Timberlakeland

Off to DEMOS with you, my little man, you’ve done enough harm and it’s time for you to go.
Hugh

“Policies” isn’t quite the right word to describe studying the Danish Day Care system (“so hard”) or efforts to “look at how we build more houses” (with bricks?). The private pension reform - a cap on fees and central clearing for annuities, really - probably qualifies. It’s just not very good.
Quiet_Sceptic

The issue is wider than the range of services and benefits offered by the welfare state, it’s about the adequacy of the existing benefits and access to them.

Take unemployment benefit, a founding pillar of the welfare state – it is now so grossly inadequate a sum to support an individual or small family that as insurance it is near worth-less. The Beveridge report talks of benefits set at ‘subsistence’ level but it has fallen below that. If Job Seekers allowance were being sold by as an insurance product by a bank or insurance company they would be up before the FSA so useless is it as a product, compared to the premiums paid for it.

Yet over the last 50 years there have been a vast range of other benefits added to the system, many of them reasonably generous compared to core benefits like unemployment benefit, but yet all means tested. One of the key principles of the Beveridge report, that benefits should be universal and that people should not be discouraged from saving for themselves or improving their state completely forgotten, dead and buried.
hp

Was this chap contributing to the policies that got us to the state we’re in now?
And now he thinks he knows how to put it all right.
It begs an obvious question, doesn’t it?
- treborc
  
  That’s because he is one of the many within all political parties to day, he can lean which ever way the leader leans, to the right to the left or stay in the center, they are called career politicians
Todger

Would YOU trust this man?

The answer illustrates a major problem Labour will have winning back support from the public.
Daniel Speight

The problem for Liam is getting people to take him seriously outside the Westminster bubble. Truth is, it’s a lost cause.
Billsilver

Among the unemployed people who would like to have paid work Britain’s social security system also guarantees that many capable yet unwilling workers are supported by the state so they don’t fell the need to work.
- Topper
  
  Funnily enough there’s a lot of rich people who feel they don’t need to work either.
  - Billsilver
    
    If they’re rich does it matter – to you? To me? Not really.
    - Topper
      
      Where do you think they get their money from? From the sweat and labour of other less fortunate mortals that’s where in a far more exploitative and parasitic manner than a few thousand dole bludgers.
ThePurpleBooker

I agree with Liam. We need to have a review of a welfare state by restoring the old contributory principles and ensuring that we have universal benefits that matter rather than universal benefits which people will not need only use. Due to deficit reduction, we will have the tough task of switch spending. We need to prioritise free childcare, a National Salary Insurance scheme, regional benefit caps, rent controls and landlord licensing, a National Care Service, a Jobs Guarantee and that must be prioritised over some of the benefits that some people really do not need.
- treborc
  
  I think concentration camps work well
  - ThePurpleBooker
    
    You are sick.
    - Sickboy
      
      I’m sick of you.
    - treborc
      
      Your the pratt that makes up large idea copied from Blue labour and your right I am sick, and truly sick of a few on here especially ex bloody liberal who come here and cannot stand up for what they are. Liberals in the Labour party
  - Isaac Bernstein
    
    As a Jewish member of the party, I have been disgusted my the anti-Semitism that some on the hard-left have shown. Ken Livingstone’s comments towards Jews and his campaigning for Lutfur Raham was very regrettable. Now we have trolls saying that ‘concentration camps’ work well as we have a strong debate on the future of welfare. I am appalled. My uncle died in the Holocaust under Hitler. He was only 20. His little sister was lucky and came to this country when she was six. She never saw her big brother ever again. She named him after me. She was inspired to vote Labour during the Atlee Government and 40 years later after she came to this country, she gave birth to me in an NHS hospital and was able to recieve child benefit because of the welfare state which was introduced. She was a Jew and Britain saved her from concentration camps and persecution. You, treborc, are an example of the sick and evil anti-Semitism that exists. I would rather you went to join the BNP where your fellow fascists and Nazis belong.
    - Moshe Goldblatt
      
      A one post faker. There are too many frauds on this site.
    - treborc
      
      Go away .
- Liam Byrne
  
  Thank you, whoever you are. Although I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I – love – you.
  
  Liam
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
  
  There are no ‘old contributory principles’ You need to do some research.
  - ThePurpleBooker
    
    You need to do your research, Mike. Welfare is not about means-testing and action groups it was ‘social insurance’ and contributory principles. Why do we have National Insurance? I am afraid as ever you are wrong.
Topper

This nonsense about rewarding responsibility is meaningless unless EVERYONE has the chance to have a job with a living wage and the opportunity to contribute to society in a responsible way. All Byrne is talking about is tipping the scales and favouring people who are privileged to have enjoyed long-standing gainful employment and not needed to claim welfare benefits and so on and so forth. It is absolute bullshit; more Tory than anything else. Hopefully Byrne will be shuffling off the British political scene soon when Miliband reshuffles his cabinet in a couple of months time.
- treborc
  
  Labour has stopped talking about the poor, you only had to look before they stopped but it will start before the next election, labour is the party of the squeezed middle, well the poor are without doubt not in the middle they are the bottom, but labour is more blue these days, blue being conservative with a not so small C.
  - Topper
    
    So all of the unemployed and many other benefit claimants are irresponsible then? Because they’re not paying tax like other “hard-working families” in the “squeezed middle”, eh? What complete and utter boll*cks this Byrne’s meaningless “responsibility agenda” is, where the “haves” get preferentially rewarded at the expense of the “have nots”. Surely this is simply Toryism pure and simple?
    - ThePurpleBooker
      
      So by standing up for the values that created the Labour Party – the ethical socialism, the co-operative values, the social solidarity and responsibility, the values of self-help – that makes you a Tory. Shut up, please.
      - Topper
        
        No, what makes YOU a Tory is seeking to blame the unfortunate for the misfortune they suffer while standing by and doing nothing to ameliorate their pains and miseries. It’s like denying people water and then calling them dirty and irresponsible when they don’t bath or wash themselves enough even though such hygiene is impossible for them because of their circumstances while supplying even more water, free, gratis, to people who were already clean and because of that, by your lights, were “responsible” enough to have deserved it. Please visit a taxidermist as soon as possible and submit YOURSELF to his (or her) labours. Thank you and good night.
- ThePurpleBooker
  
  LOL. Just LOL.
  - Topper
    
    The “Responsibility Agenda” is nothing more than an attempt to court the “squeezed middle” by offering its members perks denied to less fortunate groups deemed to be less “responsible” than other – like throwing scraps to your favourite dogs. Labour should be about the betterment of all lives not about selectively favouring some over others. Paid work and improvements in the lives of all should be what Labour stands for not favours for the lucky majority in work and exclusion for the ones denied such good fortune.

Latest

News Seats and Selections
Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]
Read more →
Comment
Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

By Mike Ion

Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]
Read more →
News Seats and Selections
Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]
Read more →
Comment Seats and Selections Unions
Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

By Paul Wheeler

It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good. But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]
Read more →
Local Government News
An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker: Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts maths too (via [...]
Read more →