National insurance and ID cards would be more effective than Brexit at tackling people’s anxieties about how the integrity of the British welfare state can best be protected.
The former Immigration Minister contends that the Government should instead require employers and universities to equip British workers.
Behind all the turbulence of changing Prime Ministers, the whole period since 2010 could have had a stable policy for indexing tax allowance and benefits with earnings.
The shirkers-versus-strivers narrative around cutting the welfare bill fails to recognise the reality that a quarter of Britons have a disability, and one third have unpaid caring responsibilities.
A remarkable amount has been achieved. Often against the odds and in the face of adversity. And certainly in circumstances far less benign than those faced by New Labour.
If we are truly entering an “age of migration” then erecting such barriers around the welfare state is one of the more plausible ways of adapting to it.
It has thrived through sector after sector demanding special treatment. Each claims a skills shortage and requires many more visas to be issued to foreign workers to come here.
The system is all but designed to subsidise low wages, disincentivise productivity, and give retirees no stake in the UK maintaining a thriving, dynamic economy.
These proposed powers will apply not only to benefit claimants, but to others who are “linked” to them: the term remains vaguely defined.
The expansion of Universal Support is hugely welcome, as is news of a Chance to Work Guarantee. The Chancellor’s decision to restrict access to higher rate disability benefits, however, is harder to defend.
The Chancellor explains the thinking behind proposed changes in Universal Credit which would restrict access to people who refuse to actively seek work.
There is also a moral point: if someone works, they should be the main beneficiary of their labour, rather than being forced to give most of their extra earnings to the Government.
The ninth part of our series on reducing demand for government, in which we set out a programme for change – focused on families, civil society and government.
The fourth part of our series on reducing demand for government, in which we set out a programme for change – focused on families, civil society and government.
This move would be perfectly targeted on the people who, by definition, need most income support, and gets to them far more cheaply than a universal tax break would.