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

Why are the left so angry about today’s welfare reform? Because it’s popular – and right.

1 April 2013

9:25 AM

1 April 2013

9:25 AM

It’s tough being a supporter of this coalition government. Mishap and omnishambles have come to characterise its first three years in office – but you can almost forgive all of this given the progress being made on education and welfare. Reforming the latter is the toughest mission in politics, and another phase of that reform comes into effect today.

But here’s the thing: the welfare reform is not causing mass outrage. Of course, Polly Toynbee is furious – but to the bafflement of the chattering class, the masses seem to think the reform is long overdue. Study after study confirms this. There was that  YouGov/Prospect study suggesting that three in four people (and a majority of Labour voters) think that Britain spends too much on welfare. In fact, popular opinion seems even more hawkish that the average Tory MP. You’ll struggle to hear any self-respecting MP using the word “scroungers,” for example, but two in five think that applies to a significant minority of welfare claimants. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that attitudes to those on welfare are even more negative than attitudes towards the rich.

Given that the average worker is having to make do with 1pc increase in salary, is it really cruel to impose a 1pc rise to welfare payments? Especially after benefits rose three times faster that salaries last year? It’s no surprise that more a YouGov/Sunday Times poll found the 1pc rise to welfare enjoys a 10-point lead in support. Ironically, welfare reform is one of the most popular things this government is doing. And it’s never more popular than amongst those on low wages, who share housing estates with the welfare-dependent and can see the injustice. You need to look at Britain through the columns of a spreadsheet not to see the wider point of what’s going on.

[Alt-Text]


If the state paves the road to welfare dependency, we ought not to be surprised that so many millions walk down it. Iain Duncan Smith is trying to pave a new road, one that leads to prosperity via work. This reform does mean restricting certain welfare payments, to make sure work is – by comparison – the more attractive option. Much more can be done (I’d advocate an emergency tax cut for the low-paid). If the welfare cuts increase the incentive to work (remember, employment in Britain is at a record high right now – there are jobs to take) then it may be sustainable. Writing larger welfare cheques, or saying “let them eat tax credits” is not sustainable. Nor is it compassionate, as Labour proved during the boom years.

I suspect this is why so many on the left are so angry. IDS is carrying out his reforms not in the name of economic efficiency but in the name of social justice. He does so plausibly and, by and large, with public support. As Christian Guy observed  on Coffee House yesterday, this is not about saving money. It’s about saving lives – and in a way that Labour failed to do when it has the time and money. A million working-age people were on benefits during every one of Labour’s 13 years and that’s far worse than a waste of money. It’s a scandalous waste of human potential.

So yes, today’s welfare cuts are tough. But public opinion regards them as fair. For 13 years, Labour fought poverty. Poverty won. David Cameron can say that the task of ending poverty now falls to the modern Conservatives.

But the more reform-minded Labour supporters will know that this is not, really, party political. IDS stands in a tradition of Labour reformers – John Hutton and James Purnell to name just two. I suspect Labour target voters will agree with IDS. This is an area where the unions, and the Labour leadership, have found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion.

UPDATE: Here’s IDS being interviewed on BBC Radio Four

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