No, welfare reforms aren’t ‘working for everyone’

'Tough love' is not the right tactic for children and disabled people who depend on benefits


In an opinion piece in the Times today, Matt Ridley has written an impassioned defence of Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms, which he says are ‘working for everyone’.

Ridley writes that the tougher welfare system designed by IDS has helped people out of welfare dependency, and that it has been a ‘crucial cause of the surprising surge in unemployment’.

As the Conservatives set out plans to make even more cuts to the welfare budget, here are just some of the things Matt Ridley is wrong about:

 – ‘The welfare reforms have proved to be among the most popular things this administration has done’.

Ridley says that Tory candidates report that welfare reform ‘is most popular in the meanest streets – where people are well aware of neighbours who play the system.’

Official figures have shown that ‘playing the system’ – benefit fraud – is not a huge problem in the UK. In 2013/14 it accounted for just 0.3 per cent of welfare spending, and a study by Ipsos Mori showed that the public think benefit fraud happens 34 times more than it actually does. So it is very possible that, even if what the Tories say about these ‘meanest streets’ is true, it doesn’t change the reality for most people claiming benefits: they need them.

Secondly, Ridley writes that four in five trade union members think the £26,000 benefits cap is a good idea. So why are the Conservatives planning to push it down to £23,000? As an experiment?

I can’t find Ridley’s figures on trade unions, but I know the IFS delivered a damning verdict on the benefits cap, saying that ‘the large majority of affected claimants responded neither by moving into work nor by moving house.’

The Supreme Court also ruled that the cap breaches children’s rights because it has a disproportionate effect on women and children; two victims of domestic violence took the matter to court after changes to the law left them in dire poverty.

So whatever Tory canvassers think, these reforms are certainly not popular among the people they affect.

– Benefits sanctions help people into work

Last month, the Work and Pensions Committee said there was NO evidence that sanctions, or the threat of them, were moving people into work. Sudden withdrawal of benefits leaves some people too destitute even to feed themselves, not a situation conducive to energetic job searches. There have been many cases where sanctioned claimants have been unable to afford to travel to an interview – this is trapping people in the welfare system, not forcing them out of it.

The Committee recommended a full review into the application of sanctions, which have been blamed for driving up food bank use and even contributing to suicides. Liberally administered, without regard to unforeseen circumstances or mental or physical health problems, benefit sanctions have been described as harsh and punitive by diverse organisations including the TUC, Crisis, a coalition of UK churches, Mind and the Trussell Trust.

Changes to the welfare system have meant that single parents whose youngest child is over five must now claim Jobseeker’s Allowance instead of income support. This means that they are expected to be actively seeking work, without coordinated support for childcare – and if they fail this sometimes impossible task, they’ll be sanctioned.

Sanctions are one of the most controversial areas of Conservative welfare policy – and it is not appropriate for Ridley to wheel them out as an example of success when investigations into sanction-related suicides are still underway.

-The Conservatives are the only party who want to get people off benefits and into work

Nobody thinks that a person living on welfare is in an ideal situation – the system is there for when things aren’t ideal, for when things go wrong. But over the last five years, it has lost its character as a safety net and started to become a punitive system which further marginalises the poorest in society.

For us to tackle welfare dependency, we need to make sure that jobs are always more worthwhile than benefits. As Ridley admits, the miraculous jobs boom he praises has created many ‘insecure, poorly paid and part time jobs’. But he is adamant that ‘shoving people into some kind of work rather than parking them on welfare has to be better for their morale and their future’.

Well no, not if you have children to feed. If you are one of the 697,000 people on zero-hours contracts, and you have been given no work for two weeks, your morale might reasonably be very low, and benefits might look like a much more attractive option.

In this way, the Tories’ failure has been twofold; they have made the welfare system much more impenetrable, but it is still preferable to some of the exploitatively low-paid jobs that they have created.

– Tough love is best

Ridley praises IDS’ ‘tough-love’ approach, but tough love cannot be applied to disabled people and children affected by cuts.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), if current government policies continue child poverty will carry on increasing, with an expected 600,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16.

Meanwhile the abolition of Disability Living Allowance and the Independent Living Fund have been disastrous for disabled people. DWP figures last year revealed that 323,000 disabled people were waiting an extra 33 days each for assessments. Changes to capability assessments mean that around 8,000 people with degenerative conditions had their benefits cut because IDS said their conditions would improve enough for them to work – that’s diseases like Parkinson’s and MS. This is tough love to the point of absurdity.

This government has stigmatised welfare users, promoted the idea of the scrounger, and punished people for needing benefits. I would love to hear from a welfare user who believes the reforms are ‘working for everyone’.

 Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

13 Responses to “No, welfare reforms aren’t ‘working for everyone’”

  1. GTE

    . In 2013/14 it accounted for just 0.3 per cent of welfare spending,


    That’s just one form of fraud. Where the claimant commits the fraud. The DWP aren’t going to admit to widespread fraud, because it would mean their are crap at their jobs.

    However, there’s plenty of evidence for widespread fraud by the state. Namely moving people from unemployment to disability to hide embarassing numbers. Labour did it. Thatcher did it. The number of disabled then rocketed from 1 million to just under 3 million.

    That’s a fraud. Why have you excluded it?

    Meanwhile how are you going to pay the 5,010 bn debt that the welfare state had run up? 2010 numbers.

    That’s the cause of the mess

  2. Leon Wolfeson

    That’s *not* something to blame the claimants for. And Thatcher’s a fraud to you now, eh? Right wingers who actually *care* about benefit traps are ones like Worstal – who supports a Basic Income to eliminate them.

    And you’re obsessed with cutting, Lord Blagger, when we’re deflating.

  3. Leon Wolfeson

    Thing is, Labour are competing with them to see if they can be nastier.

    They’ve still not even committed to ditching Universal Credit.

    Sure, the Tories *also* plan to i.e. abolish benefit entitlements and means-test from day 1, making a mockery of i,e. saving up (since you need to dip into them the second you lose your job), etc, but the core cuts are in Labour’s plans.

  4. Politics & Society

    The only thing I’d say in Labours favour is that they want to tackle the causes of higher welfare spending, such as through a living wage and higher minimum wage which will lower working tax bill without impacting on the individuals receiving it. Same with housing with private rent changes/caps to lower housing bill without affecting those claiming it. But I do agree about Labour playing to the tune of Tories and their media, instead of sticking up for those of us on welfare they are, I suppose, ‘having’ to act the way they are to appease a ‘something for nothing, scrounger’ brainwashed society. I wish they wouldn’t but I understand why they in a sense ‘have’ too. I do believe that Labour, once actually in power, will do more for the most vulnerable than what they are claiming to do, at least I hope anyway! That’s why we have to kick Cameron out, get Labour in and then push for better rights and treatment of welfare recipients.

  5. Politics & Society

    The number of disabled has risen due to advances in health care, people living longer and more people surviving accidents and so on. That’s part of why the number rose, another reason has been a change in attitudes, more now willing to accept help and more conditions being discovered and accepted as a disability, such as what I have – a chronic pain condition. I’m not saying DWP don’t work to targets and swap & change & park people, but there are valid reasons why number of disabled has risen, might not account for all but a large amount.

  6. Politics & Society

    Big thing that frustrates me about Tory mentality is this idea of always having just one way of dealing with something. This idea of ‘Tough love’ might work for some, but not everyone. We’re all different and we need different kinds of support and different solutions to different problems. When you’re already down on your luck then tough love for most is the last thing you need!

  7. Leon Wolfeson

    Not really true. Those issues while they do improve pay in-work also mean that employment is a bit lower. And out-of-work people are the demon, per Reeves et al.

    And none of their changes will lower rents, quite the opposite if anything.

    I can’t vote for a party with her speaking for them on any issue, tbh.

  8. Politics & Society

    Ah… So We’re foooooked whoever gets in, just less so by Labour.

  9. Leon Wolfeson

    I think that’s very, very arguable.

  10. treborc1

    So labour backing the cap to £26,000 means what?

  11. treborc1

    Although after labour’s welfare reforms I’d have to look again at the Tories. Just to make sure which one was not watching the price of gas supplies.

  12. Leon Wolfeson

    The family breakup cap is not even the major issue, it’s the fact that Labour have signed onto the overall welfare cap, so their cuts are looking like 33% to disabled benefits, JSA and housing benefit rather than the Tories 40%.

    Yea, not much better.

  13. Keith M

    When are people going to stop attacking people on benefits?

Leave a Reply