Hand-Up v Hand-Out
The Guardian reports that the Conservatives are pressing ahead with their audacious attempt to fight political opponents on their home turf by painting Labour as the party of the welfare state.
So far, Labour has still to come up with a convincing answer to the Tories charge that under Ed Miliband's leadership Labour opposed every welfare reform put forward by the last Coalition Government, even measures to remove reduce child benefit from families earning more that £60,000 a year.
George Osborne calls on Labour MPs to back welfare changes in Commons vote
Writing in the Guardian, the chancellor says ‘moderate’ Labour MPs should recognise that the public largely supports the plans
Labour’s lost voters may never return again, study finds
He insisted his stance represented the new centre ground of politics and called on progressive MPs to join the Conservatives in the lobby.
Osborne said: “Because we’re requiring all employers by law to pay the national living wage, we can rein in the tax credit system that has subsidised low wages for too long.”
The proposals are part of a common endeavour by Labour and the Conservatives to implement difficult welfare reforms, he says.
Osborne adds: “To their credit, New Labour work and pensions secretaries such as John Hutton, David Blunkett and James Purnell all tried to reform the welfare system. Now Alistair Darling says tax credits are ‘subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended’. And Frank Field, elected by all MPs to be the new chair of the work and pensions committee, agrees the system as it stands is simply ‘not sustainable’ and the budget represents a ‘game-changer’. That’s because, working closely with my colleague Iain Duncan Smith, those long-held aspirations for genuine welfare reform are being delivered.”
He points out that Blunkett had described the previous welfare system as “crackers”. The tax credit system had become unsustainable, Osborne said, adding: “It can’t be right that a tax credits system Gordon Brown said would cost just over £1bn in its first year ended up costing £30bn, with payments being made to nine in every 10 families with children.”
Osborne’s warning to Labour not to forget the principle of taxpayer consent came as the party’s leadership candidates continued to scrap over how to respond to the welfare changes.
The Guardian view on the budget: low tax, low welfare, high pay – but also higher poverty
Editorial: A welcome hike in the minimum wage offers the perfect cover for a war on the welfare state. But the grim realities include a new two-child policy for the poor
Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday Politics, which hosted a debate between the candidates, Burnham explained why he led the revolt over Harman’s plan not to oppose the government’s welfare bill: “I believe tax credits are one of the biggest and best things we did, because they support people in work and get people into work. The problem with George Osborne’s budget is it diminished those work incentives and it isn’t going to do what he claims he is doing.”
Liz Kendall, who has been described as the Blairite candidate, challenged Burnham and Cooper to explain how their stance on welfare differed from the one that helped Labour lose the election.
Burnham said he supported the principle of a benefits cap, and Cooper said she backed a universal childcare system. She said: “That’s what we should be doing. That would help far more people into work.”
The Labour manifesto had contained backing for a welfare cap, but plans for a universal childcare system were blocked by Ed Miliband largely on grounds of cost.
Kendall said: “I don’t want to see child tax credits cut from poor and low-paid families. But I thought that Harriet Harman was right to say to us as a party that we’ve lost the election and one of the big reasons why was people didn’t trust us on welfare. And if we keep saying and doing the things we’ve done over the past five years over the next five years, we will get the same result. So I want to support and back Harriet for raising a very difficult issue for us as a party.”
Calling all progressives: help us reform the welfare state
George Osborne calls on Labour MPs to back welfare changes in Commons vote
We will cut corporation tax again to just 18% and increase tax breaks for firms that want to invest, ensuring Britain remains the best place to do business in the world. Labour in government actually cut corporation tax; only in opposition do they want to increase it. And because we’re requiring all employers by law to pay the national living wage, we can rein in the tax credit system, which has subsidised low wages for too long.
To their credit, New Labour work and pensions secretaries such as John Hutton, David Blunkett and James Purnell all tried to reform the welfare system. Now Alistair Darling says tax credits are “subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended”. And Frank Field, elected by all MPs to be the new chair of the work and pensions committee, agrees that the system as it stands is simply “not sustainable”, and the budget represents a “game-changer”. That’s because, working closely with my colleague Iain Duncan Smith, those long-held aspirations for genuine welfare reform are being delivered.
The new universal credit, replacing six different out-of-work benefits, is bringing some sanity to a system David Blunkett described as “crackers” by ensuring that it always pays to take a job or work more hours. Already there is evidence that those on universal credit are more likely to be in work and to earn more. The benefits cap we introduced in the last parliament has not led to the “social cleansing” some predicted. Instead, of the 58,700 households capped since 2013, more than 22,000 have moved into work or reduced their housing benefit claim.
George Osborne introduces new 'living wage' but cuts working-age benefits
Overall, the welfare reforms we’ve introduced so far have delivered progressive ends: since 2010, the number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits is 1 million lower, the number of workless households has fallen, a record number of women are in work, and overall inequality is down.
Furthermore, anyone who cares about well-funded public services such as the NHS and schools knows we have to control the costs of a welfare system that has become unsustainable and risks crowding out other areas of government spending. In 1980, working-age welfare accounted for 8% of all public spending, but by 2010 it had risen to nearly 13%. While this country has just 1% of the world’s population and produces 4% of its wealth, it accounts for 7% of global welfare spending. That’s not sustainable.
Three in four people – and a majority of Labour voters – think that Britain spends too much on welfare. For our social contract to work, we need to retain the consent of the taxpayer, not just the welfare recipient. For those who can work, I believe it is better to earn a higher income from your work than to receive a higher income from welfare: better for individuals, better for families, better for taxpayers and better for our whole society.
Harman seeks to end Labour row with ‘reasoned amendment’ to welfare bill
We will protect the most vulnerable – disabled people, pensioners, who cannot change their circumstances, and those most in need. But it can’t be right that a tax credits system Gordon Brown said in its first year would cost just over £1bn a year ended up costing £30bn a year, with payments being made to nine in every 10 families with children. That’s not what our welfare state was designed for, and Britain can’t afford it. Our reforms mean tax credits will go to five out of 10 families, not more. Who can seriously argue that that’s not enough?
And surely it’s fair that families relying on welfare are confronted with the same choices as those who rely solely on their earned income, and have to think hard about whether they can afford to have more than two children. Now that we are able to support families by providing free childcare, surely we can ask lone parents to prepare for a return to work when their child reaches three – an extension of a reform first advanced by Purnell?
Oppositions advance only when they recognise some of the arguments made by political opponents should be listened to
You have to believe in an unaffordable welfare state that has departed very far from the original principles of William Beveridge, and ignores the need for taxpayer consent, to oppose these commonsense proposals. I thought British politics had taken a step forward when Labour’s acting leader, Harriet Harman, indicated that she would support at least some of our reforms. She accepted the need for a lower benefit cap and the limit on the number of children eligible for tax credits, arguing that Labour cannot continue to ignore voters’ views on welfare.
She recognised something else important in a democracy: that oppositions advance only when they stop blaming the public for their defeat and recognise that some of the arguments made by political opponents should be listened to – just as a previous Conservative opposition realised 15 years ago when it accepted the case for a minimum wage.
Depressingly, the Labour leader has been forced to retreat from her sensible position after Len McCluskey accused her of “running up the white flag” and the leadership candidates Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper joined Jeremy Corbyn in undermining her. With the vote coming on Monday night, I urge moderate Labour MPs not to make the same mistake as in the last parliament, when they refused to support each and every welfare reform we proposed. I say: vote with us.
Lower welfare in return for a national living wage is widely recognised as a fair deal. It has been proposed on the left as well as the right. Welfare reform is not just about saving money. It’s about transforming lives, and social justice. This is the new centre of our politics. All those who call themselves progressives should join us.
In an article for Labour's in-house newspaper the Chancellor, George Osborne, challenges Labour MPs to back his plans for 'weaning' the UK off a benefits system which has seen the cost of tax credits, for example, increase from £1 billion to over £30 billion every year.
So far, Labour has still to come up with a convincing answer to the Tories charge that under Ed Miliband's leadership Labour opposed every welfare reform put forward by the last Coalition Government, even measures to remove reduce child benefit from families earning more that £60,000 a year.
George Osborne calls on Labour MPs to back welfare changes in Commons vote
Writing in the Guardian, the chancellor says ‘moderate’ Labour MPs should recognise that the public largely supports the plans
George Osborne says three-quarters of British people think the UK spends too much on welfare. Photograph: Thierry Charlier/AFP/Getty Images
By Patrick Wintour - The Guardian
George Osborne has urged progressive MPs in the Labour party to back his welfare changes in a critical Commons vote on Monday night, saying they should recognise that the proposals not only chime with the public but build on mainstream Labour thinking.
Writing in the Guardian, the chancellor calls on Labour to stop blaming the public for its defeat and recognise that welfare requires public consent.
Labour has plunged into a deep, week-long split over how to respond to Osborne’s welfare plans, with at least three of the leadership candidates, including Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, rejecting the interim Labour leader Harriet Harman’s plea for the party to abstain and back a lower welfare cap. Harman also said Labour should not oppose the restriction of tax credits to a claimant’s first two children.
She said the party needed to recognise that the electorate had sent Labour a message on welfare and it had to show it was listening. But she has now been forced into a partial retreat, and the party has instead tabled an amendment rejecting the bill. Some Labour MPs still believe the new compromise does not go far enough and will vote against the bill on Monday, not just support a dissenting amendment.
Osborne sprung a surprise in the budget by proposing cuts to the level of tax credits, but balanced these in part by a rise in the minimum wage to more than £9 an hour by 2020 for those over 25. Osborne argues that the responsibility for ensuring decent living standards should be rebalanced from the state handing out subsidies towards employers providing decent wages.
He writes: “Three in four people – and a majority of Labour voters – think that Britain spends too much on welfare. For our social contract to work, we need to retain the consent of the taxpayer, not just the welfare recipient. For those that can work, I believe it is better to earn a higher income from your work than receive a higher income from welfare.
“I thought British politics had taken a step forward when Labour’s acting leader Harriet Harman indicated that she would support at least some of our reforms. She recognised that oppositions only advance when they stop blaming the public for their defeat and recognise that some of the arguments made by political opponents should be listened to – just as a previous Conservative opposition realised 15 years ago when it accepted the case for a minimum wage.
“Depressingly, the Labour leader has been forced to retreat from her sensible position after Len McCluskey accused her of ‘running up the white flag’ and leadership candidates Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper joined Jeremy Corbyn in undermining her. With the vote coming on Monday, I urge moderate Labour MPs not to make the same mistake as in the last parliament, when they refused to support each and every welfare reform we proposed. I say: vote with us.”
By Patrick Wintour - The Guardian
George Osborne has urged progressive MPs in the Labour party to back his welfare changes in a critical Commons vote on Monday night, saying they should recognise that the proposals not only chime with the public but build on mainstream Labour thinking.
Writing in the Guardian, the chancellor calls on Labour to stop blaming the public for its defeat and recognise that welfare requires public consent.
Labour has plunged into a deep, week-long split over how to respond to Osborne’s welfare plans, with at least three of the leadership candidates, including Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, rejecting the interim Labour leader Harriet Harman’s plea for the party to abstain and back a lower welfare cap. Harman also said Labour should not oppose the restriction of tax credits to a claimant’s first two children.
She said the party needed to recognise that the electorate had sent Labour a message on welfare and it had to show it was listening. But she has now been forced into a partial retreat, and the party has instead tabled an amendment rejecting the bill. Some Labour MPs still believe the new compromise does not go far enough and will vote against the bill on Monday, not just support a dissenting amendment.
Osborne sprung a surprise in the budget by proposing cuts to the level of tax credits, but balanced these in part by a rise in the minimum wage to more than £9 an hour by 2020 for those over 25. Osborne argues that the responsibility for ensuring decent living standards should be rebalanced from the state handing out subsidies towards employers providing decent wages.
He writes: “Three in four people – and a majority of Labour voters – think that Britain spends too much on welfare. For our social contract to work, we need to retain the consent of the taxpayer, not just the welfare recipient. For those that can work, I believe it is better to earn a higher income from your work than receive a higher income from welfare.
“I thought British politics had taken a step forward when Labour’s acting leader Harriet Harman indicated that she would support at least some of our reforms. She recognised that oppositions only advance when they stop blaming the public for their defeat and recognise that some of the arguments made by political opponents should be listened to – just as a previous Conservative opposition realised 15 years ago when it accepted the case for a minimum wage.
“Depressingly, the Labour leader has been forced to retreat from her sensible position after Len McCluskey accused her of ‘running up the white flag’ and leadership candidates Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper joined Jeremy Corbyn in undermining her. With the vote coming on Monday, I urge moderate Labour MPs not to make the same mistake as in the last parliament, when they refused to support each and every welfare reform we proposed. I say: vote with us.”
Labour’s lost voters may never return again, study finds
He insisted his stance represented the new centre ground of politics and called on progressive MPs to join the Conservatives in the lobby.
Osborne said: “Because we’re requiring all employers by law to pay the national living wage, we can rein in the tax credit system that has subsidised low wages for too long.”
The proposals are part of a common endeavour by Labour and the Conservatives to implement difficult welfare reforms, he says.
Osborne adds: “To their credit, New Labour work and pensions secretaries such as John Hutton, David Blunkett and James Purnell all tried to reform the welfare system. Now Alistair Darling says tax credits are ‘subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended’. And Frank Field, elected by all MPs to be the new chair of the work and pensions committee, agrees the system as it stands is simply ‘not sustainable’ and the budget represents a ‘game-changer’. That’s because, working closely with my colleague Iain Duncan Smith, those long-held aspirations for genuine welfare reform are being delivered.”
He points out that Blunkett had described the previous welfare system as “crackers”. The tax credit system had become unsustainable, Osborne said, adding: “It can’t be right that a tax credits system Gordon Brown said would cost just over £1bn in its first year ended up costing £30bn, with payments being made to nine in every 10 families with children.”
Osborne’s warning to Labour not to forget the principle of taxpayer consent came as the party’s leadership candidates continued to scrap over how to respond to the welfare changes.
The Guardian view on the budget: low tax, low welfare, high pay – but also higher poverty
Editorial: A welcome hike in the minimum wage offers the perfect cover for a war on the welfare state. But the grim realities include a new two-child policy for the poor
Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday Politics, which hosted a debate between the candidates, Burnham explained why he led the revolt over Harman’s plan not to oppose the government’s welfare bill: “I believe tax credits are one of the biggest and best things we did, because they support people in work and get people into work. The problem with George Osborne’s budget is it diminished those work incentives and it isn’t going to do what he claims he is doing.”
Liz Kendall, who has been described as the Blairite candidate, challenged Burnham and Cooper to explain how their stance on welfare differed from the one that helped Labour lose the election.
Burnham said he supported the principle of a benefits cap, and Cooper said she backed a universal childcare system. She said: “That’s what we should be doing. That would help far more people into work.”
The Labour manifesto had contained backing for a welfare cap, but plans for a universal childcare system were blocked by Ed Miliband largely on grounds of cost.
Kendall said: “I don’t want to see child tax credits cut from poor and low-paid families. But I thought that Harriet Harman was right to say to us as a party that we’ve lost the election and one of the big reasons why was people didn’t trust us on welfare. And if we keep saying and doing the things we’ve done over the past five years over the next five years, we will get the same result. So I want to support and back Harriet for raising a very difficult issue for us as a party.”
By George Osborne - The Guardian
Britain can’t afford its out-of-control benefits system. Moderate Labour MPs should support our proposals
Britain can’t afford its out-of-control benefits system. Moderate Labour MPs should support our proposals
‘We are saying to working people: our new national living wage will ensure you get a decent day’s pay, but there are going to be fewer taxpayer-funded benefits.’ Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
On Monday night the Commons will vote on the welfare reforms I set out at the budget. These reforms are a central part of a new contract for Britain between business, the public and the state to create the higher wage, lower welfare, lower tax economy our country needs to see.
We are saying to working people: our new national living wage will ensure you get a decent day’s pay, but there are going to be fewer taxpayer-funded benefits. We’re saying to businesses: we’ll cut your taxes, but in return you must pay higher wages and train our young people for the challenges of their generation. And to the country, we’re saying: we will spend less, but we’ll finally live within our means and deliver economic security.
I believe this settlement represents the new centre of British politics, and appeal to progressive MPs on all sides to support us. On wages, our national living wage will be worth £7.20 an hour next April and well over £9 an hour by 2020. That will mean a pay rise of over £5,000 a year in cash terms for the 2.7 million people currently on the minimum wage, and independent forecasters say 6 million in total can expect a pay rise thanks to a ripple effect higher up the income distribution. This is much bigger and bolder than the minimum wage of £8 by 2020 offered by Labour at the election, so opposing it is opposition for opposition’s sake.
On Monday night the Commons will vote on the welfare reforms I set out at the budget. These reforms are a central part of a new contract for Britain between business, the public and the state to create the higher wage, lower welfare, lower tax economy our country needs to see.
We are saying to working people: our new national living wage will ensure you get a decent day’s pay, but there are going to be fewer taxpayer-funded benefits. We’re saying to businesses: we’ll cut your taxes, but in return you must pay higher wages and train our young people for the challenges of their generation. And to the country, we’re saying: we will spend less, but we’ll finally live within our means and deliver economic security.
I believe this settlement represents the new centre of British politics, and appeal to progressive MPs on all sides to support us. On wages, our national living wage will be worth £7.20 an hour next April and well over £9 an hour by 2020. That will mean a pay rise of over £5,000 a year in cash terms for the 2.7 million people currently on the minimum wage, and independent forecasters say 6 million in total can expect a pay rise thanks to a ripple effect higher up the income distribution. This is much bigger and bolder than the minimum wage of £8 by 2020 offered by Labour at the election, so opposing it is opposition for opposition’s sake.
George Osborne calls on Labour MPs to back welfare changes in Commons vote
We will cut corporation tax again to just 18% and increase tax breaks for firms that want to invest, ensuring Britain remains the best place to do business in the world. Labour in government actually cut corporation tax; only in opposition do they want to increase it. And because we’re requiring all employers by law to pay the national living wage, we can rein in the tax credit system, which has subsidised low wages for too long.
To their credit, New Labour work and pensions secretaries such as John Hutton, David Blunkett and James Purnell all tried to reform the welfare system. Now Alistair Darling says tax credits are “subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended”. And Frank Field, elected by all MPs to be the new chair of the work and pensions committee, agrees that the system as it stands is simply “not sustainable”, and the budget represents a “game-changer”. That’s because, working closely with my colleague Iain Duncan Smith, those long-held aspirations for genuine welfare reform are being delivered.
The new universal credit, replacing six different out-of-work benefits, is bringing some sanity to a system David Blunkett described as “crackers” by ensuring that it always pays to take a job or work more hours. Already there is evidence that those on universal credit are more likely to be in work and to earn more. The benefits cap we introduced in the last parliament has not led to the “social cleansing” some predicted. Instead, of the 58,700 households capped since 2013, more than 22,000 have moved into work or reduced their housing benefit claim.
George Osborne introduces new 'living wage' but cuts working-age benefits
Overall, the welfare reforms we’ve introduced so far have delivered progressive ends: since 2010, the number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits is 1 million lower, the number of workless households has fallen, a record number of women are in work, and overall inequality is down.
Furthermore, anyone who cares about well-funded public services such as the NHS and schools knows we have to control the costs of a welfare system that has become unsustainable and risks crowding out other areas of government spending. In 1980, working-age welfare accounted for 8% of all public spending, but by 2010 it had risen to nearly 13%. While this country has just 1% of the world’s population and produces 4% of its wealth, it accounts for 7% of global welfare spending. That’s not sustainable.
Three in four people – and a majority of Labour voters – think that Britain spends too much on welfare. For our social contract to work, we need to retain the consent of the taxpayer, not just the welfare recipient. For those who can work, I believe it is better to earn a higher income from your work than to receive a higher income from welfare: better for individuals, better for families, better for taxpayers and better for our whole society.
Harman seeks to end Labour row with ‘reasoned amendment’ to welfare bill
We will protect the most vulnerable – disabled people, pensioners, who cannot change their circumstances, and those most in need. But it can’t be right that a tax credits system Gordon Brown said in its first year would cost just over £1bn a year ended up costing £30bn a year, with payments being made to nine in every 10 families with children. That’s not what our welfare state was designed for, and Britain can’t afford it. Our reforms mean tax credits will go to five out of 10 families, not more. Who can seriously argue that that’s not enough?
And surely it’s fair that families relying on welfare are confronted with the same choices as those who rely solely on their earned income, and have to think hard about whether they can afford to have more than two children. Now that we are able to support families by providing free childcare, surely we can ask lone parents to prepare for a return to work when their child reaches three – an extension of a reform first advanced by Purnell?
Oppositions advance only when they recognise some of the arguments made by political opponents should be listened to
You have to believe in an unaffordable welfare state that has departed very far from the original principles of William Beveridge, and ignores the need for taxpayer consent, to oppose these commonsense proposals. I thought British politics had taken a step forward when Labour’s acting leader, Harriet Harman, indicated that she would support at least some of our reforms. She accepted the need for a lower benefit cap and the limit on the number of children eligible for tax credits, arguing that Labour cannot continue to ignore voters’ views on welfare.
She recognised something else important in a democracy: that oppositions advance only when they stop blaming the public for their defeat and recognise that some of the arguments made by political opponents should be listened to – just as a previous Conservative opposition realised 15 years ago when it accepted the case for a minimum wage.
Depressingly, the Labour leader has been forced to retreat from her sensible position after Len McCluskey accused her of “running up the white flag” and the leadership candidates Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper joined Jeremy Corbyn in undermining her. With the vote coming on Monday night, I urge moderate Labour MPs not to make the same mistake as in the last parliament, when they refused to support each and every welfare reform we proposed. I say: vote with us.
Lower welfare in return for a national living wage is widely recognised as a fair deal. It has been proposed on the left as well as the right. Welfare reform is not just about saving money. It’s about transforming lives, and social justice. This is the new centre of our politics. All those who call themselves progressives should join us.
