Published: July 19th 2010 - at 9:25 am

Will Iain Duncan Smith lose his fight with Osborne?


by Guest    

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?


---------------------------
    Share on Tumblr  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Economy ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


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
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Will Iain Duncan Smith lose his fight with Osborne? http://bit.ly/dbVS7S

  2. Dirk vom Lehn

    RT @libcon: Will Iain Duncan Smith lose his fight with Osborne? http://bit.ly/dbVS7S





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
Liberal Conspiracy is the UK's most popular left-of-centre politics blog. Our aim is to re-vitalise the liberal-left through discussion and action. More about us here.

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.
LATEST COMMENT PIECES
» Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS






28 Comments



72 Comments



21 Comments



49 Comments



10 Comments



24 Comments



22 Comments



69 Comments



44 Comments



25 Comments



LATEST COMMENTS
» john b posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic"

» john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?

» john b posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people

» john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?

» So Much For Subtlety posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan

» Jack C posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic"

» bluepillnation posted on The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think

» P Ve M posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic"

» Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed'

» So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed'

» So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed'

» BenSix posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed'

» So Much For Subtlety posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother

» Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed'

» So Much For Subtlety posted on The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an "isolated" problem