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’s Lessons from a Sikh Wedding Season

    Labour’s Lessons from a Sikh Wedding Season

    There’s been a fair bit written about the Sikh community in the nationals in the last few days in relation to Cameron’s political appointments to the Lords and some criticism for Labour for not having any representation from the 700,000 strong Sikh community in its Westminster ranks. Personally I don’t think there’s anything to gain in attacking Cameron for making more diverse appointments, even if the guy may not be as entrenched in the Sikh community as was claimed and […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Where does Labour really stand on a “Health Tax”?

    Where does Labour really stand on a “Health Tax”?

    The front page of today’s FT suggests that the Labour leadership is considering a “Health Tax” as a means of paying for the NHS, reporting(£): “Ed Miliband is to put the NHS at the centre of Labour’s election campaign and is considering an earmarked “health tax” or exempting the health service from deficit reduction to prove that he can deliver a better service. Mr Miliband believes the NHS is rising up the list of voters’ concerns but wants to offer […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Miliband calls for “overarching inquiry into child abuse” – and repeats call for Shaun Wright to step down

    Miliband calls for “overarching inquiry into child abuse” – and repeats call for Shaun Wright to step down

    Ed Miliband has released a statement this morning on the Rotherham child abuse scandal, in which he re-iterates calls for Shaun Wright to resign as South Yorkshire PCC. However, Miliband has gone further today, calling for an “overarching inquiry into child abuse” to examine what went wrong not just in Rotherham, but “in different institutions, in different parts of the country and stretching across different decades”. Here’s the statement in full: This week’s report into the child abuse scandal in […]

    Read more →
  • Comment If a young person’s opinion falls into the political sphere, does it make a sound?

    If a young person’s opinion falls into the political sphere, does it make a sound?

    There’s a lot of talk around the Party at the moment about ‘Generation Y.’ I suppose I fit into that category, although I don’t think I’ve ever used it to describe myself. Gen Y or whatever, what’s become clear to me over the years is that I’m one of the weirder ones. I’ve worked since the age of 16, doing jobs from working behind a pharmacy counter to fundraising in a call centre to translating for a construction company. I’ve […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why rural areas need free buses

    Why rural areas need free buses

    To have a fully functioning society, bus services in rural areas should be free of charge. For young people seeking employment, education or entertainment, the unwell needing to visit and be visited in hospitals or the elderly wanting to break the loneliness of isolation, public transport is essential. If governments don’t want to spend money on services in rural areas, they should at least provide the means for people who live there to get to them in urban areas. Regular […]

    Read more →