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.


  • 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


  • Featured News Corbyn’s 7 questions for Cameron over Syria intervention

    Corbyn’s 7 questions for Cameron over Syria intervention

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn this morning raised seven questions that David Cameron must answer before Labour will consider support for proposals to attack ISIS in Syria. These are the points Corbyn made in the House of Commons: 1. “Does the Prime Minister believe that extending air strikes to Syria – which is already being bombed by the US, France, Russia and other powers – will make a significant military impact on a campaign which has so far seen ISIS gain, […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour leadership briefed on ISIS threat ahead of Syria plan

    Labour leadership briefed on ISIS threat ahead of Syria plan

    Jeremy Corbyn and top members of the Shadow Cabinet were last night given an intelligence briefing on the scale of threat posed by ISIS to the UK. The Labour leader was joined by Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, deputy leader Tom Watson, Shadow Defence Secretary Maria Eagle and Shadow Justice Secretary Lord Falconer. The briefing took place in Corbyn’s office ahead of David Cameron laying out his plans for a military assault on ISIS in Syria […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Osborne announces major u-turns on tax credits and police cuts

    Osborne announces major u-turns on tax credits and police cuts

    George Osborne today caved into pressure from Labour and announced u-turns on both tax credits cuts and cuts to police budgets. Both issues have been major attack lines for Labour in recent months. Labour peers voted for motion on tax credits in the House of Lords last month, defeating the Government, and forcing Osborne into a rethink. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has said on a number of occasions that if the Tories committed to a full reversal of the policy, then Labour would […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Tories accused of playing political games over Syria as Labour splits denied

    Tories accused of playing political games over Syria as Labour splits denied

    Labour insiders are fuming at the accusations that there is a split between Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn over Syria. Reports this morning suggested that the leader’s office had failed to inform Shadow Foreign Secretary Benn that he was invited to a Downing St security briefing on Syria. Both Corbyn and Benn’s team deny a breakdown in communication, and sources claim that it has come from the Tories’ playing political games with the issue. They say that the email inviting Corbyn […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs Verdict: Punchy performance from Corbyn on comfortable ground

    PMQs Verdict: Punchy performance from Corbyn on comfortable ground

    PMQs are difficult for an Opposition leader at the best of times; before an economic set-piece statement, they must be nigh on impossible. You’re going up against the Prime Minister blind, knowing the person across the despatch box knows every detail of what is about to be announced, and that anything you do will be overshadowed by what follows. Jeremy Corbyn approached today’s debate with six fairly specific questions: four on climate change and renewables, and two on domestic violence […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends