X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

Lib Dems play whac-a-mole on welfare cuts

18 September 2012

9:27 AM

18 September 2012

9:27 AM

The Liberal Democrats are playing a game of whac-a-mole on welfare at the moment: each time they think they’ve blocked one cut they don’t like, another one pops up. Last night a mole they’d already whacked a year ago appeared again: decoupling benefits from inflation.

The Newsnight scoop is that Whitehall is considering ending inflation-linked rises for many benefit payments – although the word is that this would not include payments to those with disabilities. This would be part of efforts to cut a further £10 billion from the welfare bill, which the Lib Dems oppose overall.

[Alt-Text]


Last winter the Lib Dems blocked a similar move from the Treasury, which had proposed uncoupling benefits from the inflation rate, which was 5.2 per cent for that September. Today party sources tell me that the autumn statement is ‘a long way off’, adding ‘we’ve made our position clear in the past’.

Either way, this is a key issue of differentiation for the parties as they approach their respective conferences. Next week in Brighton, Lib Dems can talk tough about the cuts they are blocking the nasty Tories from enacting. And a fortnight later, David Cameron and colleagues can point out to their party in Birmingham that they are trying to bring benefits into line with the conditions of ‘ordinary working people’.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close