Labour’s welfare cap is a largely symbolic gimmick – but it works as a communication device

June 6, 2013 2:00 pm

It would be easy to be dismissive of Labour’s proposed welfare cap on policy grounds. It would be equally easy to hail it on political grounds, as a brilliant landgrab of populist territory where Labour tends to fare badly. But either of these responses would be missing the point.

Certainly, in terms of its stated objective of limiting ‘structural’ (as opposed to cyclical) increases in benefits spending, the cap is a solution looking for a problem, as there hasn’t been a ‘structural’  increase  for a very long time. The idea that welfare is on an unsustainable upward trend is at best a folk memory from the postwar decades, with zero relevance to current circumstances (see chart).

The decade prior to the last recession saw the longest period of stability in welfare expenditure since Beveridge. Given that this was achieved without the gimmick of a cap, the question naturally arises, what is the point of this policy?

correctedchart.docx 2013-06-09 22-05-50

Source: National Accounts (Blue Book) Central and local government social benefits other than transfers in kind, excluding employee benefits and student grants. [There was a calculation error in the data underlying the version of the chart originally published. Declan has now corrected this. The correction does not change the picture of overall expenditure trends]

But the cap is more about sending a signal on future spending intentions than upgrading the armoury of fiscal discipline. Policy wonks might be well advised not to probe to deeply into the detail of a policy which is essentially symbolic in intent. Whatever fiscal stance Labour adopted were it  to form the next government, the idea that it would not have to make further reductions in spending is implausible. Better to get that message across now, both to the public and the party faithful.

And as a communication device, the cap really can’t be faulted.

If Labour wins in 2015 the choices it will face will not be pretty. It will be almost inevitable that some decisions will run counter to values that are of fundamental importance to party members. But one of the clear messages from Ed Miliband’s speech today is that Labour won’t follow the coalition’s strategy of selling cuts by pretending that everyone who is losing out deserves to suffer. ‘I will tell you that there is a minority who don’t work but should. He [Cameron]  will tell you anyone looking for work is a skiver.’ This reframing of a toxic welfare debate deserves to be warmly welcomed. Less welcome is the unimaginative spinning of the speech in the very terms Miliband rejects – exemplified by today’s Mirror coverage.

Whether the sort of aspirations on housing and the Living Wage set out in the speech are likely to  cushion the impact of cuts by reducing the need for welfare spending is open to question: these are longer term aims which wouldn’t have much effect over the three year welfare cap period (even if successful). But the reasons for shifting focus to inequality before taxes and benefits, as Miliband’s speech aimed to do today, go beyond mitigating the impacts of deficit reduction.

Addressing underlying inequalities is after all a large part of what social democracy is about. It can be argued that the sort of proposals outlined in the speech are inadequate given the scale of the task. But if that’s the case, the imperative is to come up with better proposals, not to dismiss the objective.

  • Hugh

    “The decade prior to the last recession saw the longest period of stability in welfare expenditure since Beveridge.”

    Since you’re talking of welfare expenditure as a proportion of GDP should we therefore assume you reckon that growth in the long run will typically look like the decade prior to the recession?

  • PaulHalsall

    Why did we vote for Ed rather than David?

    As a person with AIDS for 31 years I can never work full time again. Ed has deserted people like me. In fact, if I cannot live, I will take my life as soon as I am done supporting my dad.

    • AlanGiles

      Paul. Please don’t think like that. I am sure your dad would want you to soldier on. I think Miliband, and indeed most politicians don’t understand what chronic illness or pain is. It is not to their credit they don’t listen to people like you, and Sue Marsh who could tell them, but choose to try to ingratiate themselves with the popular press instead to try to obtain power. The fact that he has performed a complete volte face in two years rather shows how shallow he is. I felt he would grow into the job, the last year has proved that he hasn’t and won’t

      To be honest I don’t think there was much to choose between any of the 2010 candidates – they were all out of the same mould, – for all his pleading and posturing on the NHS, Burnham still boasted on Any Questions? about his NHS Global and attempts to privatise the NHS.

      I don’t know where in the country you are, but I am sure The Terrance Higgins Trust could probably help with support, if only for moral support. I would think and hope they would have an advocacy service for people in your situation: a three year limit on claims, as Miliband appears to be suggesting really shows he has no idea.

      I just hope Mark allows my message through quickly, as I am currently in the position of the old BBC World Service being “filtered” in East Germany back in the 80s.

  • JoeDM

    “… but it works as a communication device”

    That sounds like good old Blairite spin to me.

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      Yes, the politically bankrupt have nothing to offer other than perception management.

Latest

  • Comment Labour is the real party of the family

    Labour is the real party of the family

    It has been a pleasure to guest edit LabourList today on the hugely important issue of families. We’ve had fantastic contributions from a wide range of people. All of the pieces send a clear message: Labour is the real party of the family. We understand that many families are struggling under this government. We know they want to support and care for one another, and to build a better life, but they need a government that will back their efforts […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs Verdict: Think of those who will have a distinctly un-Merry Christmas, thanks to Cameron

    PMQs Verdict: Think of those who will have a distinctly un-Merry Christmas, thanks to Cameron

    There’s a risk at Christmas time of going through the motions at work in the run up to Christmas. It’s dark and cold outside, and all you really want to be doing is sorting out the Christmas tree, finishing your shopping and eating mince pies. (Obviously that’s not the case at LabourList – and certainly not the reason why this PMQs verdict is arriving three hours after Cameron and Miliband sat down. Ahem…). There was an element of pre-Christmas about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Too many carers miss out on the support they need

    Too many carers miss out on the support they need

    One in eight adults, 6.5 million people in the UK, are already caring for a family member or close friend who is frail or facing long-term illness or disability. Every day, 6,000 people take on caring responsibilities. Research done by Carers UK suggests that the number of unpaid family carers is predicted to rise to 9 million people in the next 25 years. Surveys have shown that fewer than one in ten people can correctly state the true scale of […]

    Read more →
  • News Tories and UKIP both spent three times as much as Labour in the European elections

    Tories and UKIP both spent three times as much as Labour in the European elections

    Both UKIP and the Conservative Party outspent Labour by almost three times during this year’s European election campaign. It was UKIP’s first victory in a national election, and Labour came in second place with big spenders the Tories falling behind to third. Labour were the only major party not to increase their election spending from the previous Euros in 2009 (when we finished a miserable third) and were even outspent this time around by the Lib Dems, who only won […]

    Read more →
  • Comment When we talk about work and family – we must not forget older women

    When we talk about work and family – we must not forget older women

    Christmas is fast approaching, for most of us it is a time for families, when we come together across the generations to share and spend time together.  But what of our families in the rest of the year?  Stories of isolation of older people and a ‘couldn’t care’ attitude amongst the young make the headlines.  But in my work with Labour’s Commission on Older Women I have heard a different story: of families relying more than ever on each other, […]

    Read more →