Balls confirms that Labour will vote against Osborne's welfare bill

Shadow chancellor says his party will oppose any bill that unfairly hits working families.

Appearing at Treasury questions in the Commons, Ed Balls has just confirmed that Labour will vote against the government's Welfare Uprating Bill, which would cap benefit increases at 1 per cent for the next three years. "If he [George Osborne] intends to go ahead with such an unfair hit on mid-and lower-income working families, while he’s giving a £3bn top rate tax cut, we will oppose it, Mr Speaker," Balls said. In response, Osborne declared that Labour would have to explain "to the hard-working people of this country" why it planned to oppose "yet another measure to deal with the deficit".

It is Osborne who starts with the advantage. A YouGov poll at the weekend found that 33 per cent of voters think it was right to limit increases in benefits to 1 per cent, 19 per cent think the government should have gone further and frozen them completely, and 35 per cent think they should have been increased in line with inflation or more.

But Labour believes the Chancellor has miscalculated by announcing a measure that will largely fall on working households. Sixty per cent of those families affected are in work and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the average one earner couple will be £534 a year worse off by 2015. Expect Labour to also constantly remind the public that Osborne is simultaneously reducing the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p, a measure that will benefit the average income-millionaire by £107,000. One challenge for the party, however, will be explaining why it opposes a 1 per cent cap on benefit increases but supports a 1 per cent cap on public sector pay.

In an eventful session, Osborne also announced that the 2013 Budget will be held on 20 March.

Labour leader Ed Miliband and shadow chancellor Ed Balls. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political 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.