Miliband has given Labour a welfare message it can sell

The speech successfully addressed two of the biggest grievances with the system: "the something for nothing" problem and "the nothing for something" problem.

Ed Miliband's speech on welfare was an astute political rescue operation. After David Cameron labelled Labour "the welfare party" and George Osborne laid a trap in the form of a new limit on "annually managed expenditure" (which consists of demand-led items such as social security), Miliband branded Labour "the party of work" and announced his own cap on "structural spending". Rather than attempting to reduce the benefits bill through punitive and ineffective measures such as the "bedroom tax", Labour will seek to address the long-term drivers of higher spending, such as persistent unemployment, substandard wages and housing shortages. Although pension spending won't be included in the cap, Miliband also promised to show "a willingness to adjust the retirement age". 

The speech was squarely aimed at addressing two of the public's biggest grievances with the welfare system: the "something for nothing" problem - that too many who get out don't put in - and the "nothing for something" problem - that too many who put in don't get out. In the toughest rhetoric we've heard from him on the subject, Miliband declared that he would never be indifferent to those who choose not to work. Labour, he said, had always been "against the denial of responsibility by those who could work and don’t do so." While the number who choose welfare as a way of life is far smaller than commonly thought, this was an important signal that Miliband shares the public's conception of fairness. The policy of a compulsory jobs guarantee for all adults unemployed for more than two years and all young people unemployed for more than a year (with the potential for the thresholds to be reduced) means Labour can no longer be accused of allowing millions to languish on benefits. 

While the Tories have focused on tackling those perceived to abuse the system, Miliband turned his attention to those the system has failed. After much talk of reaffirming the contributory principle, he finally offered some detail, proposing a higher rate of JobSeeker's Allowance for those who have paid in for decades and suddenly find themselves out of work As Miliband said, "£72 is in no sense a proper recognition of how much somebody who has worked for many decades has paid into the system. As so many people have told me: 'I have worked all my life, I have never had a day on benefits, and no real help is there when I needed it.'” In order to avoid creating new costs, the change would be paid for by increasing the length of work required to qualify for contributory JSA from two years to five. Miliband also promised to offer extra help to return to employment for older workers who lose their jobs and to look at rewarding other forms of contribution such as parents looking after young children and children looking after their elderly parents.

Some Tories have attempted to portray Labour as divided on welfare but any speech that unites Tom Harris and Len McCluskey in praise must qualify as a success. Challenging questions for Labour remain: what happens if the new cap is breached? How much money will the measures proposed by Miliband really save? What level would a regional benefit cap be set at? How many, if any, of the coalition's cuts would Labour reverse? But today, the party is in a far stronger position on welfare than before. 

Ed Miliband walks through Hyde Park after addressing TUC members at the end of a march in protest against the government's austerity measures on October 20, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.