Labour benefit reforms announced - discuss

[david_carnell]

Thought I'd try this in the Lounge rather than the Drawing Room in the hope of getting a wider viewpoint. I live in hope.

Background

Yesterday/today, Miliband announced that should Labour win the next election he will be looking at reforming unemployment benefit for under-21s.

A new "youth allowance" will replace JSA [jobseeker's allowance] and will be paid at ?57 a week, which is the same as young person's JSA, but it will be means tested on parental income. It is tapered off between ?20,000 and ?42,000. So if you earn ?42k and your kid(s) are out of work, you've got to support them.

If people don't have level 3 qualifications ? the equivalent of an A-level - they will need to return to training to be eligible for support.

The removal of JSA for those with skills below level 3 would affect seven out of 10 of the 18-to-21-year-olds currently claiming JSA, and initially save ?65m.

Further reforms will mean people would only be able to claim the higher rate JSA of ?71 a week after they have paid National Insurance for five years, instead of the current two.

Thoughts

I'm uncertain tbh. My initial and natural reaction was not to be in favour as it simply seems to be penalising those most in need. However, I can certainly understand the argument that those with no qualifications beyond GCSEs face pretty bleak job prospects and further training would certainly help. What form this would take remains unanswered? Apprenticeships ? in what? We don?t have the industries of old where apprentices are needed on such a large scale. More and more of our economy is built on service industries ? if that isn?t addressed then I fail to see what further training will achieve.

But are there the jobs for them? Is unemployment structural or cyclical?

On the contributory element I?m more in favour but I would like to see a closer link between JSA and previous earnings. If I?ve been in a well paid job (say ?30-40k) for five years and paid my NI then being given ?75 a week isn?t going to help ? your lifestyle and outgoings won?t be met. Many other countries pay a percentage of former earnings for a set period of time before gradually reducing that amount. If we are going to re-link benefits to contributions that seems like a fairer way of doing so.

[Otta]

Pretty bold move, and like you my initial reaction is not sure.

Would definitely like to hear more about the further training options.

[Otta]

It COULD be great if done right, and I applaud him/them for trying to address this demographic.

[StraferJack]

Initial question is - what's the motivation?

is it genuine, or is it a sop to close gap with opposition?

things like "and initially save ?65m. " - don't sound much to me even if achieved. But my feeling is that saving will be largely void when offset against other costs resulting from the changes (crime? health? Overheads of administering the changes?)

I'm more inclined to think it's moot anyway - supporters like me might not agree with the changes but I suspect the mood of the country is to elect Cameron next year. Moves like this will be unlikely to win over those voters but will repel some Labour voters.

Labour with remove Ed and we will see in 5 years time

I'm not sure that's even a totally bad thing - the next term will be brutal whoever is in power and will most likely find the country in a different mood at the end of it

[david_carnell]

Yes, I'm beginning to think you're right SJ. My initial optimism for EdM has wained. While all opposition leaders want to play cards close to their chest in the run up to an election he has not been effective enough often enough for my liking. And I voted for him in the leadership race.

While on occassions there have been both conviction (taking on media/phone hacking) and populist (energy prices) moves that have impressed he has failed to capitalise on these and be radical enough. Those two things were radical and were btoh popular with the electorate and set him apart from Cameron. This move smacks of tired desperation. If it was part of a wider package of moves (see my idea of linking benefit levels to wages) to completely reform the benefits system then I'd give it more credit.

The IPPR (which used to be Blair's favourite think tank) gave a list of radical policy measures, agreed by Labour policy guru Jon Cruddas, that would propel Labour back into the reckoning for the 2015 election. Sadly they seem to have sunk without trace. The other measures are here: http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/publications/pdf/CoB-recommendations_June2014.pdf

[StraferJack]

Yup - that slight surge of popularity he had appears to have been his cue to retreat. Weird

If even I am thinking Labour aren't up for this election why would undecided voters?

[DaveR]

Lots of interesting stuff in the IPPR doc, and when you add in what Frank Field and IDS have been saying there's no shortage of serious thinking about the future of the welfare state and the wider approach to related public services. Unfortunately the context is that public spending has to fall, and most of the bold policy steps of the type anticipated by IPPR, for example, cost a lot of money, at least in the short term.

I think the Ed Milliband announcement is opportunism/desperation - he had to find something serious to say publicly to take people's minds of bacon sandwich and the Sun stories (in the tabloids) and the "Milliband disaster as leader" stories in the serious press. It's not a new idea and I don't think Ed or Labour consider it important other than in immediate PR terms. Even if you take it on the merits, macro economically its an immaterial tweak.

[JohnL]

Voters prefer David I think

But he's running International Rescue.

http://www.rescue.org/david-miliband

[Loz]

OK, guys... now imagine that the Tories had released this policy. What would be your reaction?

[steveo]

I always thought Thunderbird 4 was the best. And of course there was Aqua Marina

[david_carnell]

Well quite Loz. Hence my initial, natural reaction.

I can see some merit in it but as others have pointed out not only is it financially inconsequential it just seems to smack of desperation.

Floated as a sole idea instead of part of a wider, wholesale reform of welfare I fear it will just be derided, or worse, ignored

[????]

Ed has made the political calculation that the left hates the tories enough that they will ignore this - it's an attempt to make it sound that Labour are serious about welfare reform (see also Immigration/Defeceit reduction). If you believe the polls, the Conservatives are seen as more competent on this and Defecit reduction, so he has to make some noises to attract those that are worried about Labour on these areas (many)

Dave, meanwhile used to be ok being a hug a hoody as he could more or less rely obn the vote of the right wing tories, UKIP has changed that ...but I really think the Tories will be pushing "Vote Farage get Ed".

I think David Cameron will be PM in a year's time one way or the other.

I bet on this 2 years ago.

[StraferJack]

is this a rare case where we are all broadly in agreement then? Lumme

[titch juicy]

I disagree wholeheartedly!

There, that's better.

[LadyDeliah]

Great idea ... not.

So, no money for young adults with no qualifications. Hmmmm, what do you think they might do to stop themselves from starving?

Some might force themselves to go to college to study something they have no interest in, but I bet the majority will slip into the black economy where qualifications aren't needed.

But that's ok, they can fill the private prisons and allow UK industry to use their labour to compete with overseas, non-unionised, unprotected labour markets.

Win, win really, unless you're one of the victims of the ensuing crime wave.

[PokerTime]

I agree LD. Can't see any good from this move and am baffled as to why Miliband would dream up such a policy. There are many 18-21 years olds whose parents can not afford to keep them. There are young adults coming out of care too.

Would prefer to hear what any party plans to do to get investment and job creation going, what they plan to do to rebalance the economy across the country, what they plan to do to tackle high unemployment amongst the young and over 45s and what they plan to do about the billions spent subsidising employers that pay too little.