Osborne hits the unemployed and poor students

A new seven day wait before people can claim benefits and a freeze in student maintenance grants will hit the poor hardest.

George Osborne was careful in his Spending Review to avoid spelling out who would lose from the £11.5bn of cuts he announced. As Ed Balls asked in his impressively fluent response, will there be fewer police officers, fewer nurses, fewer Sure Start centres? Will free museum entry end? We weren't told today. 

But the Chancellor made no attempt to disguise two of the biggest losers: students and the unemployed. In the case of the former, Osborne announced that maintenance grants would be frozen, a real-terms cut of £60m that will fall hardest on low-income undergraduates and that entirely undermines the government's commitment to social mobility. 

In the case of the jobless, Osborne announced that he would introduce "a new seven day wait before people can claim benefits."  It will delight the tabloids, but it's hard to think of a more callous policy. As charities regularly testify, benefit delays are the biggest reason for food bank referrals. Forcing claimants to wait a minimum of seven days, with every chance of further administrative delay, will inevitably force thousands more to turn to emergency support. 

Even after handing the highest earners an average tax cut of £100,000, the Chancellor again had the chutzpah to claim that "we're all in this together". But after today's announcements, it's even more dangerous to be poor in Osborne's Britain. 

George Osborne leaves 11 Downing Street in London on June 19, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn challenged by Labour MPs to sack Ken Livingstone from defence review

Former mayor of London criticised at PLP meeting over comments on 7 July bombings. 

After Jeremy Corbyn's decision to give Labour MPs a free vote over air strikes in Syria, tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting was less fractious than it could have been. But one grandee was still moved to declare that the "ferocity" of the attacks on the leader made it the most "uplifting" he had attended.

Margaret Beckett, the former foreign secretary, told the meeting: "We cannot unite the party if the leader's office is determined to divide us." Several MPs said afterwards that many of those who shared Corbyn's opposition to air strikes believed he had mishandled the process by appealing to MPs over the heads of the shadow cabinet and then to members. David Winnick declared that those who favoured military action faced a "shakedown" and deselection by Momentum activists. "It is completely unacceptable. They are a party within a party," he said of the Corbyn-aligned group. The "huge applause" for Hilary Benn, who favours intervention, far outweighed that for the leader, I'm told. 

There was also loud agreement when Jack Dromey condemned Ken Livingstone for blaming Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq for the 7 July 2005 bombings. Along with Angela Smith MP, Dromey demanded that Livingstone be sacked as the co-chair of Labour's defence review. Significantly, Benn said aftewards that he agreed with every word Dromey had said. Corbyn's office has previously said that it is up to the NEC, not the leader, whether the former London mayor holds the position. In reference to 7 July, an aide repeated Corbyn's statement that he preferred to "remember the brilliant words Ken used after 7/7". 

As on previous occasions, MPs complained that the leader failed to answer the questions that were put to him. A shadow minister told me that he "dodged" one on whether he believed the UK should end air strikes against Isis in Iraq. In reference to Syria, a Corbyn aide said afterwards that "There was significant support for the leader. There was a wide debate, with people speaking on both sides of the arguments." After David Cameron's decision to call a vote on air strikes for Wednesday, leaving only a day for debate, the number of Labour MPs backing intervention is likely to fall. One shadow minister told me that as few as 40-50 may back the government, though most expect the total to be closer to the original figure of 99. 

At the end of another remarkable day in Labour's history, a Corbyn aide concluded: "It was always going to be a bumpy ride when you have a leader who was elected by a large number outside parliament but whose support in the PLP is quite limited. There are a small number who find it hard to come to terms with that result."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.