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

Wriggle room welfare – 6 AME ‘cap’ observations

27 June 2013

3:53 PM

27 June 2013

3:53 PM

The savings-hungry government has set its sights on welfare-related Annually Managed Expenditure (AME). At £183bn a year – it’s over half of all government AME spending. The state pension is the largest piece of the pie, accounting for around £80bn. Tax credits cost £25bn and housing benefit £22bn. A radical AME cap has the potential to reduce welfare spending – a point Labour accepts and supports. Following yesterday’s announcement, several observations can be made.

1). It’s a target, not a cap.  The language is tough but a firm ceiling on this type of demand-led spending is probably unworkable. A target approach would see a spending limit set at the Budget. The OBR would monitor spending and issue a warning before any projected breach of the limit. But, in the event of a breach, there’s wriggle room for the government. It could find savings from elsewhere or justify overspend to parliament. That’s not the firm credit card limit suggested by the word ‘cap’.

2). Because of this flexibility, a breach could become routine economic business.  Missed targets, revised figures and moving goalposts are the norm these days. The stigma is gone.

[Alt-Text]


3). Its feasibility will rely on precise financial forecasts to establish the level of the ‘cap’. Yet ministers will need no reminding that projections are unreliable and problems like low pay and rental inflation, which drive AME, are hard to tackle.

4). Pensioners are out but the disabled are in: a potential dividing line between the Coalition and Labour. Labour originally suggested it would include the state pension in its cap.  But yesterday Ed Balls pledged to retain the (unaffordable) triple lock guarantee to increase the state pension by at least 2.5 per cent every year. Including disability benefits is bold; campaigners oppose it.

5). It is highly political. We can assume the first of the AME caps will be announced in 2014, probably set quite low, forcing Labour to endorse it or call for higher welfare spending. It will then come into force in April 2015, just in time for polling day.

6). It could weaken Universal Credit (UC), the government’s flagship welfare policy. Benefits wrapped into UC, such as housing benefit and tax credits, will be subject to the limit. The key principle of UC is to ‘make work pay’ by allowing people to keep more of what they earn, but this becomes harder if rates of support are reduced because the working age welfare pot shrinks. And it could isolate the DWP. The failure of other departments who have a stake in welfare-related AME spend would hit the DWP very hard. This already happens to some extent, such as the failure to deal with soaring rents that increases housing benefit or a lack of skills trapping people in low income and tax credits. But with political pressure and a public ‘cap’ set, ministers at the DWP may find themselves nestled even further into the lap of the Gods.

It’s bold, political and pleasing on the tabloid eye. But, with much detail about the ‘cap’ still unclear, the welfare debate is about to enter yet another phase.

Christian Guy is Director of the Centre for Social Justice

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