While thousands have taken to the streets in demonstration against rising tuition fees, and unions have pledged action against job losses – and, in both cases, rightly so – there appears to have been worryingly little opposition so far to the government’s proposals on welfare reform. These measures may be marketed as improving fairness, but in practice appear likely only to penalise the most vulnerable in society.
As with most of the proposals from the 2010 Budget, these measures have yet to be finalised in most cases, and many of the ideas are somewhat vague. The aim is to cut a huge £18bn from the welfare budget, to be achieved via a range of cuts and alterations to the system. Child benefit is no longer to be universal, but will be means tested. This may sound sensible, but in practice it is likely to lead to decreased uptake either by ignorance of entitlement, or fear of social stigma. Although the tabloids abound with stories of individuals taking advantage of the benefits system, in practice those employed to advise people on such matters maintain that the majority fear claiming what they are not entitled to. Other measures are also set to affect parents, such as alterations to tax credits – which, The Resolution Foundation claims, will have a disproportionate impact on low income households – the loss of the Health in Pregnancy grant, and the restriction of the Sure Start maternity grant. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the number of poor children in the UK will rise significantly in the coming years as a direct result of coalition measures.
Disability charities have raised concerns about the re-assessment of Incapacity Benefit claimants. Although Labour planned to undertake this measure with some individuals, the coalition have extended it to all claimants. Those deemed fit enough to work will be moved on to Jobseekers Allowance, with a lower rate of benefit. It is claimed that 40% of those said to be fit for employment have the decision reversed after appeal, a statistic which does not inspire faith in the workability of this idea. In addition, the new system of benefits, amalgamating all into the ‘universal credit’ scheme, will mean the end of tailored support such as Pathways; one system for all is unlikely to take into account individual needs.
Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance appear to get the worst deal from the proposals – and the number in this position is set to increase due to job losses and moves from other schemes. Those who refuse job offers on three occasions may be stripped of all benefits for three months. It is difficult to see how such a proposal is justified – surely the principle aim of the welfare state is to provide a minimum standard of living for all? Even when allowed to keep claiming benefits, those on Jobseeker’s Allowance may be forced to undertake community work in order to earn their money. There will be no rise in payments for people on these schemes – if the proposal is implemented, they would be performing full time work for £64.45 per week, or £51.85 if under twenty five years old. In practice this amounts to little more than slave labour, and it must be assumed that some existing jobs would be lost, since benefit claimants can be ‘employed’ more cheaply than, for example, gardeners or street cleaners. There is no real advantage to the unemployed from this scheme. While it may be true that some require a daily structure, for many this is a patronizing and insulting notion. The real issues involved in unemployment, such as lack of experience or references, or indeed lack of suitable jobs, appear to have been ignored in favour of penalising and alienating the vulnerable.
It is not only policies relating directly to welfare which will have a negative impact on the poor. In January, VAT is due to rise to 20%. Rather than a raise in general taxation, which would have balanced the extra cost with the earnings of those paying it, the government have chosen to hit everyone, from the poorest single parent to the wealthiest banker, with an identical rise in costs. The loss of EMA and Aimhigher, and the tripling of university tuition fees, are likely to impact upon the educational opportunities of many of the poorest children, regardless of their academic abilities. Cuts to council budgets are also set to hit the poorest areas hardest, with Liverpool, Knowsley and St Helens among those receiving the biggest losses, meaning many services which people rely on will simply be unsustainable.
The coalition government have been promoting the idea of ‘no alternative’ to the cuts since gaining power (this in spite of Clegg’s pre-election insistence that the Conservative plan of immediate cuts would hinder rather than benefit the economy). However, economists point out that Britain’s national debt has been higher for much of our modern history, therefore there is no real need for measures this extreme. There is a clear ideology behind these cuts, highlighted in particular by the reluctance to impose higher taxes other than VAT. The highly publicised UKUncut campaign has brought attention to the number of tax loopholes which exist in this country – surely closing these and forcing the wealthiest to pay their fair share is the more logical step than attacking the already struggling poor? It is difficult to deny that some degree of welfare reform is needed, and on paper the idea of universal credit – aimed at making it always pay to work and simplifying the system – is a good one. It is also true that the Labour government could and should have done more in this area during the ‘boom’ years. However, reducing the support offered to the most vulnerable at a time when unemployment is set to rise is unnecessary and unacceptable. We cannot let class divisions increase by abandoning the poorest to their fate – this issue is as potentially damaging, unfair, and mandate-free as tuition fees, and deserves as much public anger.
