Ed Miliband’s vision for future Labour welfare policies fell apart in the detail
7 June 2013 2:24am
IN HIS speech in east London yesterday, Ed Miliband hoped to reframe the debate by outlining a distinctively Labour approach to welfare policy. Distinctive perhaps but, from a policy perspective it can only really be described as a mixed bag.
On the positive side, Miliband rightly pointed out that “the welfare state, through housing benefit, bears the cost for our failure to build enough homes”. His suggestion that “any attempt to control housing benefit costs, which fails to build more homes, is destined to fail” is also correct, because this is precisely what is happening in Britain today.
The coalition has been tinkering with the formula for setting housing benefit rates since it took office, and yet the bill is still soaring – to the £23bn annual figure reported in the 2013 Budget. And how could it be otherwise? The skyrocketing cost of housing benefit is purely a consequence of rapidly rising housing costs. As long as the latter is not addressed, no amount of coalition formula-shuffling will bring housing benefit spending down to reasonable levels.
But the obvious question is why so few new homes have been built in Britain for so long, when the demand is clearly there. Miliband’s answer was underwhelming. He jumped directly to “tackling private landlords” and building more public housing. The Labour leader seems to assume that only governments can provide homes for their citizens. But why have countries like Switzerland and Germany, where public housing is not nearly as extensive as in the UK, had much higher rates of housing completions for decades? Why are house prices in those countries now lower, in real terms, than they were 20 years ago, while British house prices are more than twice as high?
Crucially, those countries have allowed the private sector to respond to consumer demand. There is no need for the government to be involved in building houses – no more than it needs to be involved in baking bread or brewing beer. All it needs to do is allow developers to do their job, rather than restrain them through draconian planning regulations. That, however, would require taking on the Nimbys, which Miliband does not seem to have the courage to do.
Miliband’s plea for a strengthening of the contributory principle within the welfare system was also welcome. But his claim that “without spending extra money, we can change the system” is strange. In principle, there are two ways in which contributory aspects can be strengthened. The system can be made more generous for those with a strong contributory record, or less generous for those without a strong contributory record (or both). If the former is chosen – and that is the only one that Miliband considered – of course, these changes will require additional spending.
A contributory system may well be more cost-effective in the long run, because it would provide better work incentives. Under the current system, national insurance contributions are simply a second income tax; under a contributory system, they could become more like a quasi-investment. But until these effects unfold, such changes would require an upfront investment. Miliband’s claim to the contrary is implausible.
Most interestingly, Miliband offered support for a compulsory work programme, where long-term unemployed would be given a subsidised job or work placement that they would have to accept. If he is serious about this, it would be an almost revolutionary change. It would represent a workfare programme of sorts – and one that went much further than the coalition’s feeble steps. But would the Labour Party really be prepared to apply sanctions to those who refuse to work? Or would Miliband include so many ifs and buts that the programme became a toothless tiger? The compulsory job guarantee is a proposal worth watching, but it was also the part of Miliband’s speech where he was most stingy on the details.
Finally, Miliband’s proposed overall cap on social expenditure – which has won most of the headlines – can only really be seen as a symbolic commitment. What does it mean in practice? What would happen if social spending was on the way to exceed this upper limit? Unless there are mechanisms to decrease welfare spending automatically in such a situation, and Miliband did not mention any, this supposed cap would be as ineffective as the Eurozone’s attempts to limit European government deficits through its Maastricht criteria. Presumably, embracing the cap is a more roundabout way of saying “we recognise the importance of fiscal prudence”.
The most generous interpretation of Miliband’s foray into welfare policy is that it was meant to signal a U-turn away from Labour’s previous record of unrestrained spending. Hopefully, it was not meant to be taken at face value, and we can expect more detail to come.
Kristian Niemietz is poverty research fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
In other news
Sepp Blatter will be Fifa president for a further four years after comfortably beating Prince Ali Bin Al-Hussein [Read more]
Ukip's Lord Pearson of Rannoch has asked the government to back a draw Mohammed competition. [Read more]
Network Rail and RMT bosses are once again entering talks to see if the latest set of strikes, announced yesterday, [Read more]
IMF chief Christine Lagarde said this morning that a comprehensive deal with Greece is "very unlikely... in the next few days". [Read more]
Good news multiple-gun salute fans. Next week there will be not one but two such events, marking the 62nd year [Read more]
An EasyJet flight from Luton to Tel Aviv has been forced to turn back after multiple cabin crew members reported [Read more]
A vehicle has struck a bridge it was passing under in Tulse Hill, south London, causing train cancellations and [Read more]
Shares in troubled insurance claims outsourcer Quindell fell in late morning trading after the company announced [Read more]
After a number of top Fifa officials were arrested on accusations of bribery and racketeering this week, the already [Read more]
The mother of the children who died at a Thomas Cook-approved hotel in Corfu has slammed Harriet Green's decision [Read more]
The meteoric rise in London office rents is unlikely to slow down for at least another year, the chief executive [Read more]
Andy Burnham will today admit that Labour got it wrong on business and the economy, and that the party cannot [Read more]
The German Chambers of Commerce and Industry has said it is “astonished” that the UK is considering leaving [Read more]
When it comes to creating new technologies, London is a long way behind other cities in the UK, new research has [Read more]
Four FinTech startups have won $100,000 (£65,400) backing from Citi after a search for new technology and innovation [Read more]
Property types may have been worried about the looming spectre of a mansion tax during the run-up to the General [Read more]
Corruption allegations, arrests of top officials, global outrage - in most organisations such calamities would [Read more]
Are the UK's new crop of MPs actually any good at social media? [Read more]
Donmar Warehouse | ★★★★★ [Read more]
Olivier Theatre | ★★★☆☆
Kingfisher, Europe’s biggest home improvement retailer, said it has found buyers for a quarter of its stores [Read more]
Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch said yesterday that its business is recovering, buoyed by the strong [Read more]
Just a handful of football clubs offer fans fast smartphone connections despite growing pressure to install the [Read more]
Business services firms are seeing a boom on a scale not experienced for almost a decade, with sales volumes rocketing [Read more]