Why Labour needs an adult conversation on welfare reform

By Josh Eades / @joshuwahwah

Earlier this week on Newsnight, James Purnell, ex cabinet Minister and ex Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde made an appearance to discuss the reforming of the welfare system. Soon after his appearance I tweeted my support for his reforms package, soon after that I lost nearly 30 followers.

The welfare system has been a source of contention since its inception, and the mere flirtation with the words welfare and reform are enough for some to dust off the old communist manifesto and start beating those who realise the need for reform about the head and neck.

The welfare system exists to protect the most vulnerable in society, to catch them when they fall through the safety net. It was not intended as an alternative to work, and whether we like it or not, there are people out there that believe it is.

James echoes something that I have believed for a long time, which is the welfare system fails those who need it the most. His idea that people have a right to work, but also have an obligation to work is one which I support. Now before the abuse comes, let me explain that I am not talking about those who cannot work through illness, indeed they are the people we should protect the most.

There has to be a carrot and stick approach with welfare, and the idea that people can only claim job seekers benefit for one year, at which point the government is compelled to find the job seeker work can only be a good thing. This will not only help people get back into work, but will weed out those who do not want to work. If after a year you do not accept the job(s) you are offered you lose your benefit. This can only be an incentive for people to find work and in reality 85% of jobseekers do so within the first year anyway. Now I am not saying we should be punishing the unemployed, and that’s what I will be accused of. What I am saying is that we incentivise people who have fallen through the net, and we actively encourage those who don’t wish to go back through that net with tough but fair sanctions.

Incentives like free childcare for all, flexible working hours, the right to do work from home and the right to job share, should be actively encouraged. Now some will ask how this is to be paid for, and this is where it becomes even more radical.

For the ideas to work, there will have to be cuts. But these can be done, and the initiatives I have set out can be paid for not by making ideological cuts, but by making redistribution cuts. Where the elderly don’t need winter fuel allowance, we cut, we save and we invest, where the well-off don’t need child benefit, we cut, we save and we invest. There are numerous examples out there….does Lord Sugar need winter fuel allowance? Do Victoria and David Beckham need child benefits? The answer is simply no, and by implementing a system of means testing, we save billions to invest in back to work schemes. These are not ideological cuts driven by dogma, they are essential cuts driven by desire to help those who need our support.

Many focus groups and pollsters have found that Labour’s core vote switched off, abandoned the party and decided to try something a bit more extreme. A lot experimented with the likes of the BNP because of the way we ran the welfare system, amongst other things. The party was seen, rightly or wrongly, to pander to certain sections of society, whist leaving behind those who aspired to get on. This is one of the reasons we lost in 2010, and it will be one reason we lose again in 2015, if we do not address big issues like welfare.

The party has to stop bickering amongst itself and start having these difficult adult conversations. Throwing hissy fits on social networking sites just shows those out to attack us that we are not ready or fit to govern. It is time to take another look at the welfare system, and with the intellectual force of people like James Purnell we might just succeed in having that adult conversation, and making our welfare system something to be proud of again.