Bicycles and other items sit on the balconies of council run housing in Lambeth on November 5, 2012 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour targets the Tories' weak spot on housing benefit

New figures show that there has been a 59 per cent increase in working people claiming housing benefit since 2010.

There are few stances that the Conservatives emphasise more than their commitment to reducing welfare spending. The policy imperative is to cut the deficit; the political imperative is to cast Labour as the party of the feckless.

But the rhetoric belies the reality. As Labour is highlighting today, new research by the House of Commons library shows that there has been a 59 per cent increase in working people claiming housing benefit (386,265) since 2010, increasing the already swollen budget (£24.3bn) by £4.8bn. Spending has increased in every local authority, proving that this is not merely a London problem. Rachel Reeves and shadow housing minister Emma Reynolds will visit Croydon today, where the housing benefit bill has risen by 1,100 per cent since 2010, the largest increase in the country. 

The Tories will respond by pointing out that Labour has opposed measures intended to reduce spending, such as the removal of the "spare room subsidy" and the £26,000 benefit cap (Labour would introduce a regionally-weighted version). But the opposition will present the figures as evidence that the government is engaged in crude salami slicing when more profound reform is needed. As one source told me: "Whenever the coalition talks about this issue, it’s almost entirely focused on restricting housing benefit for the under-25s, or taking it away from EU migrants. But one of the biggest drivers is people who’ve got jobs but who don’t earn enough to stay above the poverty line." 

The task for Labour is to demonstrate how it would tackle the long-term, structural causes of welfare spending. As Jon Cruddas has long argued, it is madness that for every £100 spent on housing, just £5 is invested in building, while £95 goes on housing benefit. The party's pledges to build at least 200,000 homes a year by 2020, to cap rent increases and to restore the lost value of the minimum wage are all aimed at turning the tide. I'm told that Reeves will be making further announcements to this end later in the year. 

If Labour can persuade the public that stagnant wages and extortionate rents, not work-shy claimants, are the biggest drivers of welfare spending, it may finally be able to turn the welfare debate in its favour. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.