On April 28, the Government will start borrowing more to borrow less

With Universal Credit, the Government is trying to invest in the future. Why can't it do that elsewhere?

You wouldn't know it from their criticism of Labour, but for the last year, the Government has been borrowing more to borrow less.

If its plans for Universal Credit come to fruition, spending on welfare will be reduced by millions, both through efficiency savings and reduced payouts. There will be a knock-on effect, too, from the changed incentives Universal Credit creates. With a smoother phase-out of benefits as claimants' income increases, the hope is that fewer people will find themselves in the situation where working more leaves them with less disposable cash. More people in employment means more tax revenues, fewer benefit payouts and faster growth.

But Universal Credit, the first "pathfinder" of which is starting in Manchester this month, has required an enormous outlay to get off the ground. Because it integrates six different benefits, the software required to calculate the correct payout is costly, and has had to be specially commissioned at great expense. It's made more complex by the fact that it is supposed to synchronise information out-of-work benefit claimants with Job Match, a job-search site. On top of that, the commissioning appears to have been done ineptly; as the Guardian's Patrick Wintour writes, "suspicion remains that the software is not ready".

But even if it's been performed ineptly – and incorporates a number of punishing reductions in transfers to poor people – the idea behind Universal Credit is sound. A massive initial outlay to modernise the infrastructure which underpins our social safety net, which will lead to reduced expenditures in the following years, ultimately contributing to the deficit reduction programme. Or, in simpler terms: Borrowing more to borrow less.

The Conservatives know that reducing the economy to glib talking points plays well in PMQs and TV interviews, and so can't quite drop that handy stick with which to beat Labour. But they also know, and demonstrate through their actions, that borrowing more to borrow less is an entirely sensible course of action for an economy like ours. Some infrastructure is falling apart; some more has glaringly obvious modernisation opportunities; and yet more won't be fit for purpose when (if?) the economy begins to return to growth.

Investment is a sound economic strategy. It's what the Government is trying to do with Universal Credit, and it's what they should be doing with a lot more projects.

IDS, Universal Credit's creator. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496