Analysis: Welfare reform
Analysis: Welfare reform
Friday, 21, Nov 2008 09:31
Today's comments by Sir Richard Tilt concerning welfare reform serve to indicate the ways in which the banking crisis is affecting day-to-day British politics.
For a long time, it was hard to find dissenting voices on welfare reform. The two main parties were in alignment. Even the unions failed to kick up much of a fight. Labour swallowed Conservative ideas on reform fairly early on in the Blairite revolution, and the famed Middle Way was paved with tough love on benefit seekers.
Suddenly it's controversial, giving us a decent indication of how the banking crisis has shifted British politics to the left.
On the face of it, Sir Richard's criticisms are unrelated to the crisis. He cites a lack of childcare availability and other reasons people might elect to stay at home, beyond laziness.
"It may be to do with disability or chronic illness, or in some cases it may be to do with behavioural problems," he said.
"So pushing the lone [parent] in those circumstances into work may actually not be in everybody's interest."
What's interesting is that these views struggled to get an airing not so long ago. Now, the economic climate has opened up a space for opposition to incentivising employment, not least because many doubt the employment is there to be found.
When America implemented its own welfare reforms in the late 90s, similar problems reared their head. Single mothers would be forced into jobs two hours away, leaving them facing either a four hour daily commute or losing their benefits. Most went for the former option, but many analysts say the effect of their daily separation from their children will later be felt in terms of psychological underdevelopment and failed parental relationships.
Most advocates of reform get over these instances by insisting the claimant must only accept 'reasonable' offers of employment. But once that offer is rejected the penalties become increasingly severe. A Tory policy unveiled at this year's party conference involved a 'three strikes and you're out' approach to people who consistently failed to take up jobs on offer.
These harsh penalties will become increasingly alien as the recession bites and public opinion comes more into line with the state of those struggling hardest. As politics shifts slowly leftwards, new arguments will come to the fore, and previously uncontroversial proposals will appear increasingly contentious.
None of that is likely to scupper the current bout of reform, although the staggered implementation of the policy - parents of 14- to 15-year-olds from March 2009 and parents of 12- to 13-year-olds from July 2009 - gives further opportunities to water it down.
It's criticism of this type of reform - previously something close to sacrosanct - that gives us a useful indicator of the economic crisis' effect on the shape of our politics.
Ian Dunt