Children's clothing is hung out to dry on a residential development in Tower Hamlets. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Osborne's welfare cap is a poverty-producing policy

The UK is far more reliant than other European countries on social security spending to reduce child poverty.

Yesterday the good news for poorer families, today the bad: what the government gives with one hand, it will now take away with the other. Although the news cycle paid them little attention in the childcare melee, low income parents did well from yesterday’s announcement. In the future, they will receive support with 85 per cent of their childcare costs, increasing their work incentives and reducing their costs. But there was a sting in the tail: as the government’s statement made clear, the funds for this change must come out of the existing DWP budget, "in line with the principles of the welfare cap".

The government likes to use high-blown language to gloss the cap, the mechanism through which the Chancellor has today placed a permanent lid on the social security spend. In the Treasury’s view, this strategy is full of virtues – it ensures fiscal probity, improves transparency, and brings us into line with international best practice. But the truth is quite different: the cap is a poverty-producing policy that could set us on course for some of the highest child poverty rates in Europe.

It’s worth looking at the poverty data to understand the full implications of the policy. This shows just what a bad place we start from in the UK with respect to child poverty, with the second highest rates in Europe before tax and transfers are taken into account. Unquestionably, social security has to do a lot more heavy lifting here than it does in other comparable countries.

But this should lead us to an obvious conclusion: that we need to do more about the underlying structural determinants of poverty such as low pay, precarious work, high housing costs and childcare support if we want to reduce the significance of social security as a poverty reduction policy. Instead, simply rationing social security as the Chancellor has done through the "welfare cap" potentially exposes millions more children to the risk of poverty in the UK. But the figures also tell us something else important: that even in those countries with the most propitious starting points, social security remains an essential part of the poverty reduction toolkit.

Yet the coalition has cut almost a fifth from the working age social security budget over the course of this parliament, and it is families with children who have borne the brunt of this retrenchment. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies "nowcasts" that an additional 300,000 children live in poverty compared to 2010, and a further 150,000 will be impoverished by the end of the parliament. And the primary reason for these increases? Cuts, cuts and yet more cuts.

The cap locks in these cuts for perpetuity and denudes future spending decisions of any ambition. Want to improve work incentives through changes to Universal redit? Sure – but you have to cut elsewhere. Want to ensure people with disabilities can participate fully in society? Yes – but another group will take a hit. Think it’s a good idea to end child poverty? Why not - but others will be impoverished in the process.

The cap closes the system, pitting the needs of the most vulnerable against each other in an endless zero-sum game. Osborne may talk about the race to the top for the country today, but for the poorest, the race to the bottom begins now.

Lindsay Judge is senior policy and research officer for the Child Poverty Action Group.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496