Iain Duncan Smith. Secretary of State for Welfare Pensions. Still. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What would real welfare reform look like?

Britain's welfare bill can be reduced without eliminating the safety net - but not with a series of crude caps or freezes, explains Spencer Thompson.

Today’s public finance statistics show progress towards reducing the deficit. Net borrowing has fallen by almost a quarter on a year ago, partly driven by better than expected income tax figures. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be able to reach his fiscal targets with a few months of above-average receipts. Indeed, outside of its claim that £5bn can be raised from tax avoidance, the government’s so-called ‘tax lock’ will largely prevent him from using tax levers to close the deficit. Instead, he is going to have to cut deep into public services and the welfare bill in order to come up with the required savings. The upcoming budget and subsequent spending review, where we will get more detail on his plans, are where the real business of deficit reduction will happen.

The centre-piece of the Chancellor’s fiscal strategy is an aim to cut a sizable chunk (£12bn) off the welfare bill by 2017/18. The options floated so far, of a freeze in the value of working-age benefits, a reduction in the benefit cap and the withdrawal of housing benefit from 18-21 year-olds, are likely to save only a little over £1bn. That leaves more than £10bn of welfare reductions unaccounted for. Even if the chancellor were able to reduce this figure by arguing that low inflation has reduced the need for cuts, this may also impact on the OBR’s receipts forecasts, meaning they are still going to need huge savings.

The UK currently spends around £220bn on welfare. Just less than half goes towards pensioners and child benefit, both declared off-limits by the government. This means that the cuts will need to make significant in-roads into the remaining £113bn, of which the largest items by far are tax credits (£30bn), housing benefit (£26bn), disability benefits (£22bn) and incapacity benefits (£15bn). Some combination of cuts to these benefits will be required if the government are to achieve their £12bn target. Focusing exclusively on out of work benefits wont cut it – we currently spend just £5bn a year on jobseeker’s allowance and income support, the two key working-age benefits for those not in a job.

The IFS have taken a look at some of the specific choices the government could make to these benefits to generate savings; the government could require housing benefit claimants to contribute 10 per cent of private sector rents (a saving of £0.9bn), or they could abolish housing benefit for all 18-25 year-olds (saving £1.5bn). If they started to tax the key disability benefit (formerly Disability Living Allowance, now the Personal Independence Payment), they could raise £0.9bn. More sweeping changes could generate larger savings; if they reduced the basic amount of child tax credit families can claim to its 2003/04 levels (in real terms), they could save £5bn.

If these options sound harsh, that’s because they are. Every pound saved will be a pound in lost income for an eligible family, with predictable consequences for living standards and child poverty. While these options may be presented as generating incentives for families to move into work, remember that around 80 per cent of benefits outside pensions go to families in work, meaning that cuts are likely to hit the working poor. But it is changes of the kind listed above that the DWP and Treasury will currently be looking at in their search to identify savings. If, as has been rumoured this week, they are exploring a further £3bn of welfare cuts on top of the £12bn already mooted, the impact will be even more severe.

IPPR has argued consistently that the working-age welfare bill can be sensibly controlled, but not by a crude process of freezing or cutting entitlements. This does nothing to combat the economic and demographic forces acting to increase demands on the welfare system; rising rents increase the need for housing benefit to paper over the cracks in our broken housing market, endemic low pay inflates the tax credit bill, and the need for both parents to work in order to reach a decent standard of living puts upward pressure on the price of childcare to meet caring needs. There are more examples, but the overall picture is of a system that does little to tackle the underlying causes of welfare receipt.

Instead what are needed are very difficult choices about where public funds are best spent. Rather than lining the pockets of landlords through housing benefit, we should be unlocking those same funds to invest in social housing. Similarly, instead of topping up the pay of working parents so they can afford extortionate childcare fees, we should recognise the need for more hours of cheap or free childcare at all ages. Across a range of policy issues, we throw good money after bad instead of investing in more sustainable solutions for the long-term.

Realising these opportunities to switch money from cash welfare into services and investment requires some long-term leadership and vision from policymakers. The upcoming spending round represents a perfect opportunity to be thinking of creative solutions to reduce the welfare bill in a way that is both fair and sustainable. But the overwhelming focus on cutting to meet a self-imposed target of a balanced budget by 2017-18 is likely to take precedence over genuine reform.

Spencer Thompson is economic analyst at IPPR

Getty
Show Hide image

Why is it called Storm Doris? The psychological impact of naming a storm

“Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person.”

“Oh, piss off Doris,” cried the nation in unison this morning. No, it wasn't that everyone's local cantankerous old lady had thwacked our ankles with her stick. This is a different, more aggressive Doris. Less Werther’s, more extreme weathers. Less bridge club, more bridge collapse.

This is Storm Doris.

A storm that has brought snow, rain, and furious winds up to 94mph to parts of the UK. There are severe weather warnings of wind, snow and ice across the entire country.

But the real question here is: why is it called that? And what impact does the new Met Office policy of naming storms have on us?

Why do we name storms?

Storm Doris is the latest protagonist in the Met Office’s decision to name storms, a pilot scheme introduced in winter 2015/16 now in its second year.

The scheme was introduced to draw attention to severe weather conditions in Britain, and raise awareness of how to prepare for them.

How do we name storms?

The Name our Storms initiative invites the public to suggest names for storms. You can do this by tweeting the @metoffice using the #nameourstorms hashtag and your suggestion, through its Facebook page, or by emailing them.

These names are collated along with suggestions from Met Éireann and compiled into a list. These are whittled down into 21 names, according to which were most suggested – in alphabetical order and alternating between male and female names. This is done according to the US National Hurricane Naming convention, which excludes the letters Q, U, X, Y and Z because there are thought to be too few common names beginning with these letters.

They have to be human names, which is why suggestions in this list revealed by Wired – including Apocalypse, Gnasher, Megatron, In A Teacup (or Ena Tee Cup) – were rejected. The Met Office received 10,000 submissions for the 2016/17 season. According to a spokesperson, a lot of people submit their own names.

Only storms that could have a “medium” or “high” wind impact in the UK and Ireland are named. If there are more than 21 storms in a year, then the naming system starts from Alpha and goes through the Greek alphabet.

The names for this year are: Angus (19-20 Nov ’16), Barbara (23-24 Dec 2016), Conor (25-26 Dec 2016), Doris (now), Ewan, Fleur, Gabriel, Holly, Ivor, Jacqui, Kamil, Louise, Malcolm, Natalie, Oisín, Penelope, Robert, Susan, Thomas, Valerie and Wilbert.

Why does this violent storm have the name of an elderly lady?

Doris is an incongruous name for this storm, so why was it chosen? A Met Office spokesperson says they were just at that stage in their list of names, and there’s no link between the nature of the storm and its name.

But do people send cosy names for violent weather conditions on purpose? “There’s all sorts in there,” a spokesperson tells me. “People don’t try and use cosy names as such.”

What psychological impact does naming storms have on us?

We know that giving names to objects and animals immediately gives us a human connection with them. That’s why we name things we feel close to: a pet owner names their cat, a sailor names their boat, a bore names their car. We even name our virtual assistants –from Microsoft’s Clippy to Amazon’s Alexa.

This gives us a connection beyond practicality with the thing we’ve named.

Remember the response of Walter Palmer, the guy who killed Cecil the Lion? “If I had known this lion had a name and was important to the country or a study, obviously I wouldn’t have taken it,” he said. “Nobody in our hunting party knew before or after the name of this lion.”

So how does giving a storm a name change our attitude towards it?

Evidence suggests that we take it more seriously – or at least pay closer attention. A YouGov survey following the first seven named storms in the Met Office’s scheme shows that 55 per cent of the people polled took measures to prepare for wild weather after hearing that the oncoming storm had been named.

“There was an immediate acceptance of the storm names through all media,” said Gerald Fleming, Head of Forecasting at Met Éireann, the Irish metereological service. “The severe weather messages were more clearly communicated.”

But personalising a storm can backfire. A controversial US study in 2014 by PNAC (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) claimed that hurricanes with female names lead to higher death tolls – the more “feminine” the name, like Belle or Cindy, the higher the death toll. This is not because female names are attached to more severe storms; it is reportedly because people take fewer steps to prepare for storms with names they perceive to be unintimidating or weak.

“In judging the intensity of a storm, people appear to be applying their beliefs about how men and women behave,” Sharon Shavitt, a co-author of the study, told the FT at the time. “This makes a female-named hurricane . . . seem gentler and less violent.”

Names have social connotations, and affect our subconscious. Naming a storm can raise awareness of it, but it can also affect our behaviour towards it.

What’s it like sharing a name with a deadly storm?

We should also spare a thought for the impact sharing a name with a notorious weather event can have on a person. Katrina Nicholson, a nurse who lives in Glasgow, says it was “horrible” when the 2005 hurricane – one of the fifth deadliest ever in the US – was given her name.

“It was horrible having something so destructive associated with my name. Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person,” she tells me over email. “I actually remember at the time meeting an American tourist on a boat trip in Skye and when he heard my name he immediately linked it to the storm – although he quickly felt guilty and then said it was a lovely name! I think to this day there will be many Americans who hate my name because of it.”

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.