Will Iain Duncan Smith lose his fight with Osborne?
contribution by Richard Exell
Yesterday’s Observer reports that the Treasury has told the Department for Work and Pensions to “do its sums” because Iain Duncan Smith’s plans for welfare reform would either cost too much or disadvantage too many people.
Last month, I pointed out that the DWP’s options for major reform necessarily involve a choice between cutting the benefits of current claimants (including many who will suffer real hardship as a result) and spending more money – £3.6 billion to implement the ‘Dynamic Benefits’ proposals the Secretary of State developed when he was in Opposition.
The outlines of the Welfare Reform Bill suggests that the Department is steaming ahead with reforms based on ‘Dynamic Benefits’ – there’s plenty of talk about simplifying benefits to increase work incentives, which certainly mirrors the IDS proposals.
If there are no resources to pay for simplification – and the Chancellor’s Budget Speech suggested that he sees DWP as a source of savings, not a candidate for investment – then cuts will be unavoidable.
But then we come up against the Coalition Agreement’s promise to “protect those on low incomes.”
Just about the only way I can see of squaring this circle is for the government to means-test universal benefits – and, sure enough, the story in The Observer reports that Mr Duncan-Smith has gone to the Prime Minister with plans to means-test Child Benefit.
Conservative and Liberal Democrat circles have discussed such an approach for some time, but before the election both Parties always concluded by dismissing the idea and it did not appear in either’s manifesto.
Taking money away from the social group that includes most of their supporters is risky in electoral terms and may well attract criticism from usually pro-Conservative quarters.
After last month’s Budget froze Child Benefit and cut tax credits the Daily Mail headlined the move as a ‘Brutal shock’ – means-testing these payments away may well provoke a more serious assault.
There are plenty of arguments against means-testing Child Benefit (see, for instance, these excellent articles by Kate Green and the Child Poverty Action Group) but the one that has always appealed most to me is essentially political: universalism encourages voters to support a generous benefit for children.
We should have more detail about the Welfare Reform Bill soon when a White Paper is published, and we should have learned by then how the tensions between DWP and the Treasury have been resolved. But that will only be the start of the debate – will the coalition be true to its own promises? And will it be fair to middle-income families?
---------------------------
| Tweet |
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by Guest
Filed under
Blog ,Conservative Party ,Economy ,Westminster
4 Comments || Add yours below
Reader comments
“universalism encourages voters to support a generous benefit”
is this based on evidence or is it just your gut feeling?
and what if universalism costs more than people are willing to fund through taxes?
This is required reading http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/features/2010/07/back-to-work/ Looks like its back to the 80s but with truly incredible amounts of money thrown at companies that are even worse then A4E
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
Will Iain Duncan Smith lose his fight with Osborne? http://bit.ly/dbVS7S
- Dirk vom Lehn
RT @libcon: Will Iain Duncan Smith lose his fight with Osborne? http://bit.ly/dbVS7S
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Workfare – what does the evidence show?
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
|
62 Comments 15 Comments 23 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 19 Comments 17 Comments 83 Comments 204 Comments 85 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » cjcjc posted on Ten weeks to London's election: where Ken needs to improve » TimJ posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Paul posted on Ten weeks to London's election: where Ken needs to improve » Watchman posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Cylux posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Watchman posted on Ten weeks to London's election: where Ken needs to improve » Bob B posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » supermarketsweep posted on Job snob? No, I've got the T-shirt » TimJ posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » cjcjc posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation |









