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 

  • 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 The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    Our recent prime ministers were not elected to lead their parties following general election defeats, and there are many problems with electing leaders whilst on the rebound. One of the biggest is that everyone is still in General Election Mode, presenting manifestos rather than their qualities as a leader. Policies and ideas are not wedded to any one person – any candidate could institute a policy suggested by any other candidate. Having good ideas qualifies one for the top table, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment What lessons does Lynton Crosby have for Labour?

    What lessons does Lynton Crosby have for Labour?

    After May’s general election, it appeared everyone in the party who tweeted or blogged was sure they knew why Labour had lost. By some weird coincidence, these opinions always seemed to mirror the prejudices of the author. You know the type of thing – our policies were too right wing, our policies were too left wing, our policies were too centrist, etc. Not very enlightening. So, to get a more balanced view, I turned to Lynton Crosby. I appreciate that’s […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Peter Mandelson has argued that Labour is in “mortal danger” . In an article in the Financial Times (£), the former cabinet minister and Labour campaigns director has warned against a Jeremy Corbyn victory. If the Islington North MP wins the leadership election, “that would be a very bad outcome for anyone who cares about fairness in our society or Britain’s place in the world”, Mandelson writes. Mandelson has called for a tightening of the rules over the leadership election […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Attracting people who didn’t vote at the last election is key to winning in 2020, say LabourList readers

    Attracting people who didn’t vote at the last election is key to winning in 2020, say LabourList readers

    In recent weeks there has been building concern from some over who has been deemed eligible to vote in the leadership election. Under new rules, members of the public can sign up as party ‘supporters’ for £3, this buys them a vote in the leadership election. However, it’s been reported that some Conservative and other non-Labour supporters have been given a vote. Labour say they have a vigorous vetting process to weed such people out. Yet some Labour supporters and […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Jeremy Corbyn dismisses “hysteria” over his policies and says he’ll defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”

    Jeremy Corbyn dismisses “hysteria” over his policies and says he’ll defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”

    Jeremy Corbyn has dismissed the “hysteria” and “deliberate misrepresentation” of his campaign’s policies and said that he is committed to ensuring that the Labour party defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”. The leadership candidate has argued that despite attacks directed at his campaigns policies, the message his team are sending out is “resonating”. In an article in The Times (£), Corbyn has brushed off the idea that his policies are “extreme”, which has been suggested by some Labour […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit