What does Miliband mean by the "structural" welfare bill?

It doesn't even need capping.

Ed Miliband will cap "structural welfare spending" if he is elected in 2015, he announced today, saying that "such a cap will alert the next Labour government to problems coming down the track and ensure that we make policy to keep the social security budget in limits."

It's not entirely clear what Miliband means by "structural" welfare spending at this point. It could just be a political fudge, designed to mimic the Conservatives' similarly fudgy focus on the "structural" deficit. The structural deficit is a particularly difficult thing to actually measure, because it relies on three pieces of information all of which are themselves uncertain: the output gap, the relation of public spending to economic growth, and the response of tax revenues to both.

Get any of them wrong, and your estimate of the structural deficit is off; get all three wrong, and you can be billions of pounds off the mark. And look at just the variation in the estimates of the output gap, via Touchstone:

But whereas the structural deficit is at least a conventional economic concept, albeit one hugely prone to measurement error, it's not entirely clear what "structural" welfare spending is, and even less clear how to cap it.

The best guess is that the structural welfare bill is the bill which we would expect to see in normal times; in other words, Labour won't view a rise in housing benefit due to the recession as a problem, but would be more concerned if, during the recovery, it fails to drop down to lower levels.

If that is the definition, then it has an interesting outcome once Labour start to cap it, because, as Declan Gaffney showed last month, "there has been no structural increase in the level of aggregate working age welfare spending for a very long time". That's because welfare spending, properly construed, must take into account foregone revenue as well as public expenditure: the most prominent example of which is tax credits. Around £3bn of the cost of tax credits in 2012/13 came from an offset to income tax. Money wasn't being "spent", but it was certainly a cost of welfare.

And when you take into account other taxation expenditures – like the mortgage interest tax relief, which was abolished in 2000 – you find that structural welfare costs have stayed remarkably stable. This chart again from Declan Gaffney's piece:

 

The real question is what "structural" welfare means for people not of working age. Because, thanks to our ageing nation, the state pension liability is growing year-on-year, and even pushing back the pension age by a year from 2026 won't help too much. Of course, it would be possible for Labour to define that increase as something other than structural – "demographic", perhaps – and thereby dodge the question. But if they don't, the key effect of this promise could be that Labour has pledged to cut pensions, two years before a general election against a party which has pledged to keep them above inflation and wage rises indefinitely.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.