The poorest deserve a change from our broken benefits system

Iain Duncan Smith says the coalition’s plans for reforming welfare are based on a sound new social c

Everything this government does sits in the shadow of our need to cut the deficit we inherited from Labour. The simple reality is that we are spending £120m a day servicing the interest on a deficit of the same size as the one run up by Greece.

Yet even if this deficit hadn't existed, we would have had to do something about our high level of social breakdown. About 1.4 million people spent almost ten years on out-of-work benefits under the last government, while, for an abandoned group of 16-to-17-year-olds no longer in school or college, employment rates declined significantly even before the recession started. Progress on child poverty has been pursued through huge increases in child-related welfare payments, yet improvements in the past decade have been minimal and Labour left office with income inequality at a record high.

At the heart of this is an entrenched work­lessness, produced by a welfare system that penalises positive behaviours while rewarding destructive ones. At the Centre for Social Justice, we worked hard to highlight these damaging structures, from the punitive withdrawal rates to the complexity that left people struggling to understand whether they would be better off in employment. Alongside this were myriad complicated work schemes, which too often measured success in terms of processes carried out, rather than numbers helped back
to work.

Universal picture

Our response to this broken system is based around two pillars - the universal credit and the Work Programme. The universal credit will simplify the welfare system and make work pay, replacing an array of benefits and tax credits with one payment set at a single taper of around 65 per cent. This will make work worthwhile at any number of hours, rather than clumping support around the 16- and 30-hour points.

Almost 85 per cent of the gains from these reforms will go to those in the bottom 40 per cent of the income distribution, and we expect to pull almost a million adults and children out of poverty.

Linked to the universal credit, and fundamental to its success, is the Work Programme, which will pay the best of the private, public and voluntary sectors for getting people into work and keeping them there. It is worth bearing in mind that, with jobcentre support, 75 per cent of claimants are back in work six months after becoming unemployed and 90 per cent are back after a year. That's when the Work Programme kicks in to provide specialist support.

The key to the Work Programme is that we will pay for what works, and in so many cases this will be the local expertise brought to bear by voluntary and community groups - almost 300 of which will be involved in delivery of the Work Programme, amounting to a sub­stantial investment in the sector. This is what the "big society" is all about: investing in voluntary organisations when they are the best at what they do.

Alongside these changes, we are also making disability benefits work better by reforming incapacity benefits and the disability living allowance. On the former, we are building on an approach started under the previous government, reassessing all claimants to build a better understanding of who needs support and who may be able to take steps towards work. We are constantly reviewing the assessment criteria with Professor Malcolm Harrington to ensure that they are fair; but the principle remains that disability support should be based on clear, objective and regular assessments of need.

This is a principle we are also applying to disability living allowance, where we are introducing an objective assessment to ensure financial support is getting to those who face the greatest challenges to taking part in daily life. I am pleased that, in many of these areas, there is some all-party support for the changes.

Not fair

At the same time we are getting to grips with housing benefit, bringing fairness to a system that has run out of control. Under the previous system it was possible for someone to be claiming around £100,000 in housing benefit a year, but to pay such a rent when not on benefits you would have to earn nearly £500,000 a year. This is unfair and unaffordable, and it's why we are re-forming the system by clarifying limits to the amount of housing benefit a claimant can receive. It isn't kind to a benefit claimant to put them in a house they couldn't afford to pay for if not on benefits, only adding to the disincentive for them to take a job. It is also unfair to hard-working families that commute to work and pay for those on housing benefit to have to pick up the spiralling bill, one that has nearly doubled from £11bn to £21.5bn in ten years.

There are two people in this new welfare contract, the taxpayer and the claimant. Taxpayers seek only fairness, accepting their obligation to help when someone falls on hard times, but expecting those on benefits to do their best to move off them and contribute where they can. While they know there are some who are severely sick or disabled, they have become angry at the level of abuse in the system, where some find ways to stay on benefits rather than work.

Claimants must be helped and we will do this through the reforms I have outlined, but on behalf of the taxpayer we have a right to expect full co-operation in return. They must try to break the dependency culture by working with us to prepare for work and take work when it is offered. Failure to co-operate will result in a series of penalties, surely reasonable after so much effort has been made on their behalf? In short, we seek life change for a group in society that has been left behind for too long.

Iain Duncan Smith is Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He founded the prominent think tank the Centre for Social Justice in 2004

This article first appeared in the 13 June 2011 issue of the New Statesman, Rowan Williams guest edit

Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell don’t need to stand again as MPs – they’ve already won

I just loathe these people. I want to see them humiliated. 

We’re a week in to the campaign, and it’s clear that the 2017 election is going to be hell on toast. The polls show the Tories beating Labour in Scotland (for the first time in a generation) and Wales (for the first time in a century). The bookies put the chances of a Labour majority at around 20/1, odds that are striking mainly because they contain just one zero.

The only element of suspense in this election is whether Theresa May will win a big enough majority to keep Labour out of power for a decade, or one big enough to keep it out for an entire generation. In sum: if you’re on the left, this election will be awful.

But there was one bright spot, a deep well of Schadenfreude that I thought might get us through: the campaign would provide plentiful opportunities to watch the people who got us into this mess be humiliatingly rejected by the electorate yet again.

After all, Ukip’s polling numbers have halved since last summer and the party has fallen back into fourth place, behind the pro-European Lib Dems. Nigel Farage has failed to become an MP seven times. It thus seemed inevitable both that Farage would stand, and that he would lose. Again.

If the vexingly popular Farage has never made it to parliament, the odds that his replacement as Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall (the Walter Mitty of Bootle), would manage it seemed minimal. Ukip may have won last year’s referendum; that did not mean its leaders wouldn’t still lose elections, preferably in the most embarrassing way possible.

The true highlight of the election, though, promised to be Clacton. The Essex seaside town is the only constituency ever to have returned a Ukip candidate at a general election, opting to let the Tory defector Douglas Carswell stay on in 2015. But Carswell’s libertarian belief that Brexit was definitely not about immigration always seemed an odd fit with Ukip, and he left the party in March. In the upcoming election, he seemed certain to face a challenge from the party’s immigration-obsessed donor Arron Banks.

The Clacton election, in other words, was expected to serve as a pleasing metaphor for Ukip’s descent back into irrelevance. The libertarians and nativists would rip chunks out of each other for a few weeks while the rest of us sniggered, before both inevitably lost the seat to a safe pair of Tory hands. This election will be awful, but Clacton was going to be brilliant.

But no: 2017 deprives us of even that pleasure. Carswell has neatly sidestepped the possibility of highlighting his complete lack of personal support by standing down, with the result that he can tell himself he is quitting undefeated.

Carswell has always stood apart from Ukip but on this matter, at least, the party has rushed to follow his lead. Arron Banks spent a few days claiming that he would be running in Clacton. Then he visited the town and promptly changed his mind. At a press conference on 24 April, Paul Nuttall was asked whether he planned to stand for a seat in Westminster. Rather than answering, he locked himself in a room, presumably in the hope that the journalists outside would go away. Really.

As for Farage, he seems finally to have shaken his addiction to losing elections and decided not to stand at all. “It would be a very easy win,” he wrote in the Daily Tele­graph, “and for me a personal vindication to get into the House of Commons after all these years of standing in elections.” He was like an American teenager assuring his mates that his definitely real Canadian girlfriend goes to another school.

Why does all of this bother me? I don’t want these people anywhere near Westminster, and if they insisted on standing for a seat there would be at least the chance that, in these febrile times, one of them might actually win. So why am I annoyed that they aren’t even bothering?

Partly I’m infuriated by the cowardice on show. They have wrecked my country, completely and irrevocably, and then they’ve just legged it. It’s like a version of Knock Down Ginger, except instead of ringing the doorbell they’ve set fire to the house.

Partly, too, my frustration comes from my suspicion that it doesn’t matter whether Ukip fields a single candidate in this election. Theresa May’s Tories have already assimilated the key tenets of Farageism. That Nigel Farage no longer feels the need to claw his way into parliament merely highlights that he no longer needs to.

Then there’s the fury generated by my lingering sense that these men have managed to accrue a great deal of power without the slightest hint of accountability. In the south London seat of Vauxhall, one of the most pro-Remain constituencies in one of the most pro-Remain cities in the UK, the Labour Leave campaigner Kate Hoey is expected to face a strong challenge from the Liberal Democrats. Even Labour members are talking about voting tactically to get their hated MP out.

It remains to be seen whether that campaign succeeds but there is at least an opportunity for angry, pro-European lefties to register their discontent with Hoey. By contrast, Farage and his henchmen have managed to rewrite British politics to a degree that no one has achieved in decades, yet there is no way for those who don’t approve to make clear that they don’t like it.

Mostly, though, my frustration is simpler than that. I just loathe these people. I want to see them humiliated. I want to see them stumble from gaffe to gaffe for six weeks before coming fourth – but now we will be deprived of that. Faced with losing, the biggest names in Ukip have decided that they no longer want to play. And so they get to win again. They always bloody win. 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

This article first appeared in the 27 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Cool Britannia 20 Years On

0800 7318496