Osborne: welfare cheats are "mugging" taxpayers

Measures to tackle benefit fraud are outlined ahead of spending review

David Cameron, his deputy Nick Clegg and Chancellor George Osborne are (according to Andrew Marr) holed up at the Prime Minister's residence Chequers "putting the final touches" to the spending review this weekend. The full review will be announced on Wednesday this week. Details are inevitably emerging into the press in advance, and today measures for tackling benefit fraud have been revealed.

In an interview with the News of the World (paywall) today, Chancellor George Osborne described benefit cheats as being like "muggers" who robbed taxpayers of billions pounds a year. He said:

"This is a fight. We are really going to go after the welfare cheats. Frankly, a welfare cheat is no different from someone who comes up and robs you in the street. It's your money. You're leaving the house at seven in the morning or whatever to go to work and paying your taxes - and then the person down the street is defrauding the welfare system. This money is paid through our taxes which is meant to be going to the most vulnerable in our society, not into the pockets of criminals."

Alongside his pugnacious accusations, the Department of Work and Pensions has said that hi-tech detection techniques and mobile "hit squads" will be introduced in order to seek out and punish offenders. Osborne's aggressive rhetoric (and his decision to place an interview with the NOTW) clearly indicates an appeal to certain constituencies (the Daily Mail and Daily Express have rewarded him with headlines such as: "Three strikes and you are off benefits"). The Chancellor will be keen to get people onside before the cuts are announced on Wednesday - cuts that will deeply affect many natural Tory voters' lives.

Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show this morning, Osborne talked about his "very tough" welfare proposals - including fines for one-off benefit errors, and the threat of losing benefits for three years for repeatedly false claims. He also defended the government's "sensible" economic plans, saying it was the only way to restore "economic credibility". But Osborne struggled to defend the fundamental inconsistency in his child benefit policy which would see double-income families still receiving the benefit, while single-income families (earning less) would not.

Osborne said: "What I've sought to do is provide a simple system that doesn't abolish child benefit... but does remove it from high-rate taxpayers." When challenged on the inherent unfairness, Osborne repeated the fact that he wanted the system to be simple, but offered no alternative to his proposals that will see single earners losing out. For the voters who support him on tackling benefit fraud, this major flaw in his policy will not be so easily dismissed. Osborne will be fighting to defend his child benefit plan for some time to come.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.