The untold story of April’s welfare cuts: the combined impacts

440,000 families will lose £16.90 a week as they are hit by both the bedroom tax and cuts to council tax support.

A great deal of attention has been paid to the many individual changes to social security that are taking place this month. Not known are the combined impacts – when individuals and households get hit by numerous changes. It is a notable omission that no official estimates of the overlap between different reforms have been published. Our research, published today, tries to fill that gap.

We have analysed four major changes. Three of them are “absolute” cuts: the bedroom tax; the replacement of council tax benefit by council tax support; and the overall benefit cap (which is being piloted this month, with the aim of full rollout by September). All of these will result in a reduction of the amount of money these households have to spend on everything else. Additionally, the uprating of out of work benefits and some elements of tax credits by only 1 per cent, below the level of inflation (2.7 per cent), will result in a cut in real terms for those families receiving such benefits.

The headline figures show that 2.6 million families are affected by at least one of the three absolute benefit cuts, and 440,000 are affected by more than one. Almost two thirds (63 per cent) of the families affected by an absolute cut in benefit have also seen a fall in real terms to other benefits.

The biggest single group of losers from this month’s absolute cuts are those being hit by change to council tax benefit only, some 2 million families. Their average loss per week is around £2.60, but most will lose out additionally from a below-inflation increase in benefits. The smallest group to lose out are those being hit by the Household Benefit Cap: around 50,000 families. The average loss per week for these families is huge, however – some £93 per week. 

Those families hit by the bedroom tax are likely to be hit by other changes as well. More than two thirds of them will also lose out through changes in council tax benefit – around 440,000 families. The average loss in weekly income for these families is £16.90, which is 20 per cent higher than the individual bedroom tax cut. Around 320,000 of those hit by both changes, more than 7 out of 10, will also see a cut in real terms in the value of their benefits as a result of the 1 per cent uprating.

These changes inevitably hit those on lowest incomes. Sixty three per cent of those hit by any of the reforms are already in poverty, which rises to 67 per cent of those affected by both the bedroom tax and council tax benefit changes. Seventy five per cent of families hit by a single cut and 82 per cent losing out from both are workless.

Around half of the families losing out have a disabled adult, and a third of these adults receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Some of these families might be hit again by the transfer from DLA to the Personal Independence Payment, as 20 per cent are expected to lose their entitlement entirely under the changes, according to the DWP Impact Assessment.

This is, of course, only part of the picture. There have been various other reforms since 2010, such as the caps on Local Housing Allowance (Housing Benefit for the private rented sector); changes to Working Tax Credits; and the abolition of the Social Fund. These will have further overlaps with this month’s changes, particularly with council tax benefit changes.

The point here is not that any reforms are bad, even if they take money away from people in poverty. But the fact that there has been no analysis from government of the overlapping effects of these changes is indicative of a poorly thought-through process. Social housing could be better allocated, benefit uprating does need a consistent principle when wages stagnate, and council tax does need reform. But this month’s changes address symptoms, not causes, leading to misery for many for no good end. 

Adam Tinson is research analyst at the New Policy Institute

The New Policy Institute's report - How many families are affected by more than one benefit cut this April - can be read here

Washing hangs out to dry above children's bikes on the balcony of a residential development in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Photograph: Getty Images.

Adam Tinson is research analyst at the New Policy Institute

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while a free would be held, party policy would be changed to oppose military action - an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. In advance of the meeting, Labour released a poll of members (based on an "initial sample" of 1,900) showing that 75 per cent opposed intervention. 

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, those present made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn allies Diane Abbott and Jon Trickett argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet (I'm told that my account of that meeting was also raised). There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update on their phones from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.