Many of the new jobs created under the coalition have been low-skilled, low-paid, and insecure. (Photo:Getty)
Show Hide image

Low wages and high prices, not laziness, are driving up the social security bill

Low wages and rising prices are pushing up the cost of in-work benefits. Labour will raise wages and keep the cost of social security down.

Britain needs a responsible and fair social security system that works for working people. One that rewards contribution, and protects those who cannot work or cannot earn enough to support themselves and their families. To deliver those aims, our system needs to be affordable.

But under David Cameron, low pay and high housing costs are pushing up the welfare bill, meaning that despite changes such as the cruel and unfair Bedroom Tax, the Tories have spent £25 billion more than planned over this parliament.

Housing Benefit makes up the second largest area of social security spending after pensions. Under the Tories, spending has risen over the parliament to reach £24 billion this year, a rise of £1.5 billion on 2010.

A toxic combination of low pay, a crisis in housebuilding, and rising rents plays a key part in explaining this rise, with the number of people forced to rely on housing benefit to pay the rent rising by over 440,000 since 2010 – clear evidence of the Tories’ failing plan.

And because of the mismanagement of the benefits system under Iain Duncan Smith, there’s also been a surge in housing benefit overpayments due to fraud and error, adding an extra £470 million to welfare spending. Overpayments now represent six per cent of total spending on housing benefit, the highest level since records began.

This can’t go on. As Ed Balls has said, will need to make tough choices to get the deficit down. Today, in our interim Zero-Based Review of the Department for Work and Pensions spending, Labour is setting out a plan to control the housing benefit bill and ensure that we can deliver a sustainable social security system.

We have listened to the independent Work and Pensions select committee and will consult on how to use data from credit reference agencies and the payments industry to make sure the information provided by people claiming housing benefit is correct.

And we will give councils back the fraud investigation powers that this government wants to take away. Just bringing error and fraud levels down to the levels seen under the last Labour Government would save the taxpayer £1 billion over the next five years, and we will set a target to save at least that amount

Labour will also take action to bring down the high cost of rents – which is pushing up the housing benefit bill – by building at least 200,000 more homes a year by 2020, and introducing stable tenancies with predictable rent rises.

At the same time we will tackle low pay which is forcing more and more working people to rely on housing benefit because they can’t afford to pay the rent. A Labour government will raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour by 2020 and giving tax rebates to firms who pay their staff a Living Wage so they can pay the rent.

We will deal with the rising costs of temporary accommodation and turn around a system that is trapping thousands of families in, poor quality hostels and B&Bs, while costs continue to rise. And we will reward councils that negotiate lower rents with landlords, by letting them keep these savings so that they can build more affordable homes.

Labour has a better plan to ensure we have a social security system that is fair and affordable, and that works for working people. 

Rachel Reeves is shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Chris Leslie is shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What is the New Hampshire primary, and why does it matter?

Although the contest has proved less influential in recent years, the New Hampshire primary is still a crucial event.

While the Iowa caucuses are the first electoral event in the US’s presidential process, the New Hampshire primary is the candidates' most important early test before the action explodes across the rest of the country.

The stakes are high. If the nominations aren’t decided soon, the campaigns will be damned to a marathon of costly state primaries and caucuses; New Hampshire is their first best chance to avoid that fate. But it didn’t always work this way.

Primaries only became the key element of the nomination process relatively recently. Until the postwar era, presidential candidates were chosen at the national conventions in the summer: in the run-up to the 1960 election, future president John F Kennedy famously entered only one primary (West Virginia’s) to prove that a Roman Catholic could win a Protestant state.

It was only after the turmoil of the 1968 nomination, widely perceived as an establishment fix, that the McGovern-Fraser Commission changed the Democratic party’s rules to end the power of the “smoke-filled room” over the nominating process, prompting many states to adopt meaningful primaries for both parties' nominations.

First in the nation

Unlike caucuses, which generally are used in smaller states that would rather not pay for full-scale ballots, primaries are secret-ballot elections that allow voters to choose who will be their preferred nominee. But not all primaries are the same.

The parties sometimes hold their votes on the same day, as they do in New Hampshire, or on different ones. A primary may be open (allowing any voter to register a preference) or closed (allowing only pre-registered party supporters to vote). New Hampshire has a mixed system which allows voters to register in a primary on the day before voting without declaring a party affiliation.

That means that while all voters registered with a party must vote in that party’s ballot, the New Hampshire result often hinges on these unaffiliated voters. Because they can vote in whichever ballot they like and can register so close to primary day, the state is notoriously difficult to poll.

New Hampshire has cemented its first-in-the-nation status by passing a law that requires its lawmakers to move the state’s primary to pre-empt any other state’s, no matter how early. That means it’s traditionally been not just an important indicator of how candidates are faring, but a way of winnowing the field and generating or killing funding. Candidates who perform poorly generally find their access to money suddenly dries up.

The arguments against New Hampshire’s outsize role are many. Like Iowa, it’s hardly representative of the US as a whole, being a small state with an overwhelmingly white population. And while (unlike Iowa) it has no powerful evangelical Christian element, it retains a very distinctive tradition of small-town New England politics that demand a particular kind of face-to-face, low-to-the-ground campaigning.

But this time around, other factors have cut into New Hampshire’s significance.

On the Republican side, the primary’s winnowing role was in large part pre-empted when the TV networks holding debates allowed only the higher-polling candidates on stage, effectively creating a two-tier system that tarred lower-polling candidates as also-rans long before voting began. Meanwhile, the financial calculations have been transformed by campaign finance reforms that allow for almost unlimited outside fundraising – allowing candidates to build up the reserves they need to withstand a humiliating defeat.

Nonetheless, a truly surprising New Hampshire result could still change everything.

Shuffling the deck

New Hampshire hasn’t always chosen the winner in either the nomination contests or the general election. But it has provided more than its share of political upsets and key turning points, from persuading Lyndon Johnson not to stand again in 1968 to resurrecting the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008.

The incremental campaigns for the nominations are all about the perception of momentum, and a notional front-runner can be dislodged or destabilised by a poor performance early on. That’s especially true in this year’s cycle, in which both major parties are grappling with huge surges of support for outsider, anti-establishment candidates.

Mainstream Republicans have spent months trying to end Donald Trump’s noisy domination of their crowded field. Trump was indeed defeated in Iowa, but not by a moderating force: instead, it was radical conservative Ted Cruz who overturned him.

Cruz is loathed by the party establishment, and he stands little chance of appealing to mainstream voters. Marco Rubio’s strong showing in Iowa briefly made him something of a standard-bearer for the party’s moderates, but a disastrous turn at the last debate before New Hampshire has thrown the future of his candidacy into doubt.

The primary will also reveal who, if any, of the more moderate Republican candidates – among them Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie – will survive. While Bush has a massive funding advantage (albeit with precious little to show for it), Kasich and Christie both need a strong showing in New Hampshire to reinvigorate their financial reserves.

On the Democratic side, the key question is whether Bernie Sanders can make good on the surprising energy of his populist, grassroots challenge to Hillary Clinton. He is currently the heavy favourite in New Hampshire: even if Clinton somehow pulls off a miracle win there as she did in 2008, the closeness of the race is already stimulating both campaigns' national organisation and spending. And with what could be a long race between them heating up, the two’s growing mutual acrimony may yet start to undermine the Democrats' national appeal.

Gillian Peele Associate Professor in Politics and Tutorial Fellow at the University of Oxford.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.