Iain Duncan Smith asks wealthier pensioners to hand their benefits back

The Work and Pensions Secretary says he “would encourage” those who don't need the money to return it to the state.

Iain Duncan Smith has said that he "would encourage" wealthier pensioners to hand back benefits like the Winter Fuel Allowance, free TV licences and free bus passes voluntarily.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Duncan Smith said: "I would encourage everybody who reads the Telegraph and doesn’t need it, to hand it back." He did stress, however, that beyond his plea for the voluntary return of "unneeded" benefits, there are no plans to make changes to the welfare system to enforce that idea.

Whether or not the principle of univeralism should remain in the welfare system is a significant point of difference between the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Prime Minister. David Cameron pledged to defend universal benefits for a whole parliament in his party's 2010 manifesto, and is understood to have ruled out removing them in 2015. Iain Duncan Smith has previously called the pensioner benefits scheme an "anomaly", while Nick Clegg has termed them "difficult to defend" in a time of spending cuts.

It's highly doubtful whether any Telegraph readers will accede to Duncan Smith's request and hand back their benefits, but the minister has raised what is going to be a key political argument going into the next election - whether any political parties will take the plunge and abandon universalism in our welfare state. My colleague George Eaton has made a powerful and persuasive case here for defending it - not only does it help ensure that benefits are received by those who truly need them, the projected cost of means-testing has been shown to outweigh the savings recovered from the fraction of pensioners who are wealthy enough not to need the benefits. For now, the political consensus around universalism is such that it would seem that asking wealthy pensioners not to claim is the furthest Duncan Smith is able to go. If we don't see substantial economic recovery before the next election, though, it might be that he is given the political latitude to be able to go a lot further.

Iain Duncan Smith. Photograph: Getty Images

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

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