Labour begins to turn against universal benefits

Welfare spokesman Liam Byrne says that benefits to the elderly will need to be "looked at".

Last week, we heard Nick Clegg question the future of universal benefits for the elderly such as the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes, and now Labour is doing the same. On the Today programme this morning, Liam Byrne suggested that a better "balance" needed to be struck between means-tested and universal benefits. The shadow work and pensions secretary said:

There has always been a balance in the welfare state between universal benefits and targeted benefits and I'm afraid as part of Ed's zero-based review that balance has got to be looked at

To date, Ed Miliband's leadership has been characterised by a strong defence of universal benefits, most obviously in the case of child benefit. He believes, as Richard Titmuss put it, that "services for the poor will always be poor services" and that "middle class benefits" are important to sustain public support for the welfare state. But such is the fiscal mess that Labour will inherit (the latest independent forecasts suggest the deficit will be £99.5bn in 2015) that this stance will become harder to defend. As Clegg quipped last week, "at a time when people’s housing benefit is being cut", Labour wants to protect "Alan Sugar’s free bus pass". While there are many on the left who will rightly argue that the cuts to working-age benefits are not a reason to reduce support for the elderly, there are others who will sympathise with Clegg's argument.

Owing to David Cameron's pre-election pledge to protect benefits for the elderly, there is no prospect of the coalition restricting eligibility before 2015. But it does now look as if all three of the main parties will go into the next election promising, to varying degrees, to limit universal payments.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne warned that Labour would need to make cuts to welfare. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496