Labour must go for contributory welfare, not more means testing

4th June, 2013 5:30 pm

£100 million may not be an awful lot of money in the scheme of things – around 0.05% of the welfare budget – but Ed Balls’ announcement yesterday that Labour would means-test the winter fuel allowance was an important political moment.

First the good news. Putting pensioners’ benefits up for discussion is a positive step. David Cameron was wrong to promise to protect them all, regardless of circumstances, at the last election and Gordon Brown was wrong to back Cameron into a corner in the live debates. Pensioner benefits account for around 40% of all welfare spending, so protecting them has put huge pressure on the working age welfare budget to bear the burden of austerity.

The bad news is there are problems with means testing both in principle and in practice. In principle, we should aim for a welfare system that helps people in need, but also encourages honesty and rewards work and saving. This is what Maurice Glasman calls ‘incentives to virtue’. Means testing tends to do the opposite of these things and is unpopular as a result.

In practice means testing complicates the system and requires more bureaucracy to check exactly who is entitled to what. All for just £100 million. The real reason pensioner benefits are so expensive is that we are all living longer. So the question we should be asking is whether it is right that people can claim the winter fuel allowance as early as age 62, not whether means testing could save a small fraction of the overall spend.

More generally, Labour needs to get its story straight on welfare. What is the big idea? Focusing scarce resources on the most needy, as yesterday’s announcement suggests, or strengthening ‘the old principle of contribution’ as Liam Byrne promised not so long ago? Labour would do well to focus more the second of these two approaches, especially if it wishes to restore the public’s faith in working age welfare. The international evidence shows that the most generous welfare states are also those with stronger contributory elements.

This week Demos publishes proposals on how to do this. The government could create a two-tier system, with higher benefits for those with strong work records – around £95 per week job seekers allowance, compared to the £71.70 that everyone gets at the moment, regardless of their employment record. This would be paid for by cutting spending on Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI). SMI is a benefit specifically for homeowners: it covers the interest on up to £200,000 of loans or mortgages when people are out of work.

There is a principle behind this proposal: taking on a mortgage is a choice – and people should take responsibility for insuring themselves against the risks associated with that choice. To that end, people should be automatically enrolled into mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI), providing those customers with the chance to opt out of such insurance. This would mean that anyone not insured against their mortgage interest costs would have actively made that choice. All others would be insured at a maximum cost of around £33 per month, less than the average phone bill.

Making these changes would help Labour reclaim the mantle of personal responsibility, with homeowners insuring themselves against risks incurred by their own choices. It would encourage greater social solidarity, by reassuring people that those who have contributed to the welfare system will get the most out of it. And it would not cost a penny more than the current approach.

On Thursday Ed Miliband will make the second big Labour speech of the week, focusing on welfare. Here’s hoping the contributory principle is at the heart of it.

Duncan O’Leary is Deputy Director of Demos 

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • AlanGiles

    ” This is what Maurice Glasman calls ‘incentives to virtue’”

    Thats fine – just as long as their Lordships MacKenzie and Cunningham, and MPs become as virtuous as the people they lecture.

  • i_bid

    So home-ownership is a ‘choice’ and not a right now, and do these proposals include regulating our exploitative and unaffordable renting sector? What do these ‘strong work records’ mean? Living in an area that has been hit hard firstly by de-industrialisation, and now public sector job losses, whilst starved of investment caused by an absurdly distorted economy towards the London South East – it sounds remarkably like heartland Labour territory like this would be punished under these proposals ignoring the scarcity of jobs through no fault of our own.

  • Monkey_Bach

    Whenever anybody is needed to invent a scheme, scam, or ruse to enable Labour to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory Liam Byrne and/or DEMOS are always willing step forward and oblige.

    Eeek.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    So homeowners have to insure themselves but what about those renting?

    Your argument seems to be that people who buy have a responsibility to insure themselves against homelessness but those who rent should be insured by the state through the housing benefit. system. Why the inconsistency?

    There’s no logic or reason to it, why should the state favour tenants over owners, in effect providing a subsidy to the rental sector?

    What the state ought to do is provide the same level of support regardless of housing type, the owner can use it to pay their mortgage interest, the renter can put it to their rent. Fair and equal treatment of both.

  • Mike Homfray

    I’m not sure if it would be possible at the moment. The reason brown rejected Frank Field’s relatively modest ideas based on contribution in 97 was the sheer cost of establishing the initial level playing field which has to exist to make it at all fair.

    Means testing has many built in problems but I don’t see a very easy escape from it

Latest

  • Comment Featured Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Back in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s government came close to writing off Merseyside. There was a serious conversation about leaving our city and its neighbours to ‘managed decline’ and the tender mercies of her economic shock therapy. As her Chancellor at the time, Geoffrey Howe, patronisingly put it: ‘We must not expend all our limited resources in trying to make water flow uphill.’ We’ve come a long way since then. Since 2010, Labour has had the privilege of running Liverpool […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Andy Burnham is LabourList readers’ favourite to become the Labour candidate for Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Shadow Home Secretary announced his candidacy last week, and is up against Ivan Lewis and Tony Lloyd to go into next year’s election. Of those who voted in our survey, 45 per cent opted for Burnham, who came second in last year’s leadership election. Tony Lloyd finished some way behind with 22 per cent, while Ivan Lewis received the support of 12 per cent […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It is often described as the sharing economy. It sounds very cuddly. All of us on a patchwork sofa, sharing a nice cup of tea… Or it’s the gig economy – because Uber drivers are all creative artists enjoying their freedom to perform… I prefer to call it the new intermediaries economy. Not as cuddly or cool but more accurate. When you get into an Uber cab the driver is not sharing her car with you, she is selling you […]

    Read more →
  • Europe News Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Tony Blair has weighed in on the debate over Brexit, warning that leaving the European Union would hit living standards and hit the poorest in society most. The former Prime Minister appears to make an appeal to Labour supporters – seen as an important swing demographic in the vote – in two interventions today. While Blair is a divisive, and even simply unpopular, figure in the modern Labour Party, there are hopes that he is still seen as a political “big beast” and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Labour will need to win over the socially conservative voters of today in win in 2020 – but flag waving will not make up for a lack of credible policy on welfare and spending and a real understanding of the hardship faced by working people throughout the country. Widely reported research by Jon Cruddas this week suggested that since 2005, voters that were sympathetic to more socially conservative ideas have been increasingly more likely to select UKIP over Labour on […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit