Labour is not being radical enough on welfare

The British government needs to provide more generous welfare payments to the poor, unemployed and disabled. Tory cuts to benefits have driven millions into poverty and brought back conditions that were thought extinct, such as scurvy. A narrative of scroungers, pushed by right wing politics and newspapers, has led to the demonisation of the poor and the needy. This must be stopped and the way to do it is for benefits to be more generous.

What the Tories have done is incredibly cruel. People who are in work are unable to feed themselves. Food bank usage has exploded and even nurses are using their services. Homelessness has gone up. In every city and town across the country it can be clearly seen how many people are sleeping rough. Universal Credit is a disaster. Not even the Tories think it's a good idea any more, but they stick with it because they don't know what else to do.

A new UN report has damned the government and its welfare policy. The left has been using this as a stick to beat the Tories with, and it's heartening to see so many people standing up for the poor and needy against a government that is actively impoverishing them. It must be made clear to the Tories how sickening their treatment of the vulnerable has been.

At the same time, those of us on the left need to acknowledge that Labour and Corbyn have been too timid on this issue. So far they have confirmed that they will review Universal Credit and have not committed to increasing the amount that goes to needy people. There has been some talk of exploring Universal Basic Income (UBI) but this is a long term plan. Those suffering from homelessness and hunger need help faster than the timeframe that UBI can be brought in. They need more money through existing benefits.

Labour need to be bolder on this issue. They need to make a public statement that a vote for Corbyn is a vote for more benefits for the poor and disabled. Simple as. Labour also need to commit to doing what it takes to fix Universal Credit or to scrap it. A Labour government should mean that people won't have to sleep in shop doorways or rely on foodbanks. Currently, I can’t see the policy proposal from Labour that will achieve this.

I know that this will not be popular with middle England Daily Mail readers. I know that Labour doesn't want to be labelled as on the side of people who don't want to work. Labour can’t allow this to prevent them from helping the people who desperately need help and it need it quickly. The majority of people receiving benefits are in work, but still can't afford to pay rent and provide food for their family. This isn't giving a free handout to the workshy, this is making sure that if you work you can afford home and food.

If the Tories and the right wing press want to spin a narrative that helping the starving or the homeless is wrong then we need to tell them that in twenty century Britain we don't want to see people sleeping under bridges, or suffering from Victorian conditions, or children living in poverty. We need to tell the Tories and the right wing press that the people of Britain want the poor and the disabled to be helped. This message needs to be loud and clear.

Corbyn has been a radical leader of the Labour Party in many ways, but he has not been radical enough on welfare. Corbyn has also been a break from the centrist orthodoxy of the past and we need him to be a break from centrist orthodoxy on this crucial issue. This UN report is the perfect opportunity for Labour to get behind people's anger with the Tory government's cruelty, cease the narrative and take it in the direction of a radical program of help for those who need it the most.

The Labour Party needs to be pledge that when it power it will raise benefits so that people can afford a home and to eat. Once the suffering caused by the Tories has ended, then we can look at long term radical change such as UBI. I support UBI and think it would be a good policy, but it’s a long term solution and people need short term help. When you're homeless or starving you’re focused on the short term and long term solutions won't make a difference.

I want the next Labour government to be radical in all ways, not just those that test well with focus groups or swing voters. I want socialism to be more than more money for public sector workers and nationalising the railways (although those are good things). I want it to be a helping hand to those who need it to the most. We need a radical Labour government to make everyone's lives better. Especially the poorest.

Labour Party image created by David Holt and used under creative commons.

The devil takes the hindmost

It was 2am, I was drunk and in the back of a taxi heading home after a punk gig. None of these things are particularly remarkable. While I ranted, probably incoherently, to the driver I remember saying:

"What is important is that we look after the people who need help, the least fortunate in society."

"Yeah, you're right." The taxi driver agreed. "But what's also important is that we stop helping those who don’t need it."

My memory of this exchange is hazy but I got the sense that the driver agreed with me in the need for there to be a safety net but that she was concerned that is was currently being taken advantage of. Benefit fraud is not something that especially concerns me. The tiny amount claimed fraudulently is nothing compared to the amount of tax that is avoided and it seems ridiculous that we are so concerned about one and not about the other. Social obligations seem to only apply to the poor.

Benefit reforms will end the “something-for-nothing culture,” Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has claimed in the past. Variations on this statement are constantly being uttered by top Tory politicians. It is a popular line, no one believes that the government you should give you something for nothing, especially in the age of austerity. The Tories claim they are ending the “something-for-nothing culture”, then they cut benefits. Then later they are claim the same again and cut further. It is as if the “something-for-nothing culture” cannot be ended while we still have a welfare state.

July's emergency budget is likely to contain £12bn in further cuts to the Duncan Smith’s DWP budget which means further cuts to welfare. As always the justification for this is that it will encourage the workshy to finally turn off daytime TV, get off their sofa and find a job. Apparently, the billion in welfare cuts so far have not achieved this but this time it will be different.

There is only one slight flaw in this argument, most people claiming benefits are in work. This will not encourage the lazy to be productive, but will instead punish millions of cleaners, check out staff, call centre workers and other low earners. Some of the country’s hardest grafters are about to be punished for having a low paid job.

The reason why most people claiming benefits are in work is that wages are low and the cost of living is high. This is mainly due to our lack of regulation of the energy, housing and labour market. State subsidies are needed to top up millions of low paid workers' basic income. How will cutting benefits encourages these people to reduce their energy bills, be paid more or have cheaper housing remains to be explained.

David Cameron publicly admitted that low wages and high cost of living are the main cause for the large benefits bill. Cameron identified the problem but his motivation in solving it is to reduce the national debt and not to raise living standards for low earners. He said we need to move from a "low wage, high tax, high welfare society to a higher wage, low tax, low welfare society".

Cameron's proposed solution will not improve the situations for those with low wages. His plan is to remove the tax subsidies which top up low earners income but not put any pressure on employers to pay more. There is no plan to raise wages, for example by raising the minimum wage to be the living wage. In fact is removal of the tax subsides means that the target living wage will increase, as wages will have to rise to cover the income lost from benefit cuts. No one expects a Tory government to put pressure on big business to pay their staff more.

I want to know the logic behind how this will make people better off? How will cutting tax subsidies to low earners when wages are stagnant and the cost of living is high help anyone? This cut will hurt Cameron's precious “hard working families” the most. The people in work, on low wages, who work hard but still do not earn a living wage. These people will be made worse off.

Many of these people want to earn more but cannot because wage growth is low and because underemployment is a major economic barrier. Many of these people want to work more hours to raise their income but the jobs are not available for them to go it. They are trapped in low paying jobs and now their living standards will fall. The only effect this will have is to drive some people to work harder and be exploited more by their employers who are still not paying them a living wage.

This is the devil takes the hindmost approach to capitalism, taking away the safety net from those who fall behind. These reforms serve only to punish people in low paid work for being in low paid work. It is a policy conceived by the wealthy and it says: “I am okay. What is the problem? Surely anyone can earn more money if they want to”. The simple truth is that many people cannot earn more and now will be worse off.

The sad thing is that these reforms will be greeted with cheers in the press and in the streets. Many of those who support the cuts will be on low wages because the Tories are once again bringing an end to the “something-for-nothing culture” of benefits and encouraging people to work harder.

If we are worried about the benefits bill then we need higher wages and lower cost of living. We needs laws to ensure employees pay their staff a living wage. We need better regulation of the energy and private property market to reduce costs of living for those on low wages. We also need to understand that people claiming benefits are not getting “something-for-nothing” they are exercising a human right. They need compassion, not jibes.

Many people still believe that welfare is paid to the people who can work but simply choose not to and that the only solution is to cut benefits so that these people will finally get off the sofa and get a job. It will be a difficult journey to change this attitude but we can start by focusing on one basic fact: most people claiming benefits are already in work. If we approach the benefits bill from this angle then then government's policy makes no sense and will clearly hurt the working poor.