Miliband backs new welfare cap and brands Labour "the party of work"

In his speech on welfare, Miliband will announce that Labour would cap "structural welfare spending" and will criticise those "who could work and aren’t doing so".

Conservative strategists are fond of recalling that when focus groups were asked to choose the image they most associate with Labour at the last election they chose one of "a lazy slob" drinking a can of beer and watching daytime TV. In an attempt to reinforce the perception of Labour as the party for "the scroungers", David Cameron branded it "the welfare party" at PMQs last month. It is a label that Ed Miliband will directly reject in his speech today when he presents Labour as "the party of work" and attacks "the denial of responsibility by those who could work and aren’t doing so". He will say:

Labour - the party of work - the clue is in the name. Our party was founded on the principles of work. We have always been against the denial of opportunity through the denial of work. And against the denial of responsibility by those who could work and aren’t doing so...This country needs to be a nation where people who can work, do work. Not a country where people who can work are on benefits.

It's a message that will reassure those Labour MPs such as Frank Field and Simon Danczuk who warn that the party has positioned itself on the wrong side of the divide on welfare, but will trouble those who view such language as redolent of the Tories' "striver"/"scrounger" dichotomy.

As expected, Miliband will also announce that Labour would impose a cap on "structural welfare spending", a pre-emption of George Osborne's plan to introduce a new limit on annually managed expenditure (which includes volatile and demand-led items such as social security payments, debt interest and EU contributions) in this month's Spending Review. The cap, which would be introduced in 2015-16 and would then operate over the three years of each spending review, is aimed at separating the cyclical costs of social security, which increase at times of economic stagnation, from the long-term drivers of higher spending such as extortionate rents, inadequate wages and persistent unemployment. Rather than adopting the Tory approach of imposing populist cuts such as the "bedroom tax" and the benefit cap, which save little if any money, Miliband will pledge to control costs by "attacking long term problems like persistent unemployment, low pay and housing shortages".

On housing, he will promise to make "immediate savings" by negotiating lower rents with landlords through measures such as bulk purchasing and using some of the savings to build new homes. This should help to end the absurdity of the state devoting 95 per cent of housing spend to subsidising landlords and just 5 per cent to building houses.

Miliband will also pledge to save money by expanding use of the living wage in the public and private sectors (the IFS estimates that for every £1 spent on raising pay to living wage level, around 50p returns to the Treasury in the form of reduced welfare payments and higher tax revenues). He will say: "We can’t afford a low wage economy that just leaves the taxpayer facing greater and greater costs. It is only by changing our economy that we can both keep costs under control and make progress towards a fairer society."

Finally, in perhaps the most significant section of the speech, Miliband will flesh out Labour's long-standing promise to reassert the contributory principle, announcing that the party is considering a higher rate of Jobseeker's Allowance for those who have paid in the most. This is aimed at ending the "nothing for something" problem, which sees those who have contributed for decades offered a paltry £71 per week. Miliband will say:

Currently, after two years of work, someone is entitled to ‘Contributory Job Seekers’ Allowance. They get £71 per week, whether they’ve worked for two years or forty years. Two years of work is a short period to gain entitlement to extra help. And £71 is in no sense a proper recognition of how much somebody who has worked for many decades has paid into the system.

Significantly, after the Tories claimed that Labour's only welfare policies would increase, not reduce spending, he will promise that any change will be "cost-neutral". The proposed higher rate of JSA would be funded by increasing the qualification period for the contributory version of the benefit from its current level of two years. As Miliband will say, "A longer period of qualification would mean some new claimants would have to work longer than they expected before being entitled to extra support if they lose their job. But greater support for those who have worked for a longer time, providing real recognition of their contribution."

In response, expect the Tories to argue that Labour can't credibly pledge to reduce welfare spending when its only proposed cut - withdrawing the winter fuel allowance from the wealthiest 5 per cent of pensioners - would save just £100m and when it refuses to support the £26,000 cap on household benefits. Labour's current policy is to support a regional version of the cap which takes into account variations in housing prices. Property prices in London are 61 per cent higher than the national average and, as a result, nearly half of those households affected by the cap are in the capital. As Liam Byrne argued when the policy was first proposed last year, "While all that £500 a week might get you in central London is a one-bedroom apartment, in Rotherham, Yorkshire it would get you a six-bedroom house. How can a 'one-size-fits-all' cap be fair to working people in both London and Rotherham?

But the question the party will be pressed to answer is what level he cap would be set at in London and elsewhere. While a regional approach would mean a cap below £26,000 in some areas, it would almost certainly mean a cap above this level in the capital. The political problem for Labour is that most voters already regard the existing cap as too generous. A higher benefit cap in the capital would inevitably prompt the accusation that poorer areas are unfairly being asked to subsidise housing costs for Londoners. For now, Labour's answer is that it would ask an independent body, comparable to the Low Pay Commission, to set the level of the cap, but this will remain a headache for the party and one the Tories will take every opportunity to exploit. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.