Labour promises higher benefits for older people, but who will pay?

Having pledged to stick to Osborne's spending limits, more generous benefits for some will need to be paid for by cuts or tax rises elsewhere.

In a speech later today, Liam Byrne will rightly highlight what he calls "the scandal of the silver scrapheap". Nearly half of all unemployed people in their 50s have been out of work for longer than a year and the over 50s now spend longer on Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) than any other age group, an average of 32 weeks. 

As Byrne will argue, the social security system currently fails such people. Having paid an average of £100,000 in National Insurance, they find they are entitled to just £71.70 a week in contributory JSA and will lose all support after six months if they have savings of £16,000 or a partner who works more than 24 hours a week. While the welfare system is often accused of offering "something for nothing", for these people it's more like nothing for something. "It makes you wonder why we bothered paying in all those years" Byrne quotes one man as saying, "they don’t bother to look at our skills. They tell us to apply for anything. It’s just banging square pegs into round holes". With this in mind, the shadow work and pensions secretary will reaffirm Labour's commitment to examine a higher rate of JSA for those who have contributed more. He writes: 

I think social security should offer more for those that chipped in most either caring or paying in National Insurance. Our most experienced workers and carers have earned an extra hand. We should make sure there something better for when they need it. That’s why we’re looking at just how we put the something for something bargain at the heart of social security reform, starting with a new deal for the over 50s.

In addition, he suggests that the UK could follow countries like Japan, Canada and the US in developing specialised support services for older workers, such as training grants. In the long-run, he argues, such measures would pay in part or in full for themselves, nothing that "if we raised the employment rate amongst our over 50s to the level enjoyed by Japan, they’d be 438,000 more people in work, and £3 billion in extra tax flowing into the Treasury". 

But what Byrne doesn't say is how more generous benefits for older people will be paid for in the short-term. Having pledged to stick to George Osborne's 2015-16 current spending limits, any new spending promises will have to be funded by cuts or higher taxes elsewhere. In his recent speech on welfare, Ed Miliband suggested that the qualifying period for contributory JSA could be extended from two years to five years. In other words, the young will pay for the old. But not only is it questionable whether it's right to reduce support for the young at a time when so many suffer spells of unemployment (or to create a benefits system that favours the fortunate), it's also unclear how much money this reform would save. Young people are far less likely to have savings of £16,000 or more and/or a partner in work, meaning many will continue to qualify for means-tested JSA. If Labour wants to build a social security system that genuinely offers what Byrne calls "a new deal" for the over-50s, it will need to spend a significant amount. Until it makes it clear who will pick up the bill, the Tories will be able to charge Labour with promising more of the unfunded spending that "got us into this mess". 

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne argues that "social security should offer more for those that chipped in most". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.