Pyrrhic victory on UK welfare shows need for systemic reform, analysts say

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Sir Kerr Starmer may have done enough to suppress the Backbench rebellion on luxury reforms in the UK, after making concessions at eleven o’clock to alleviate its effect. But even if a vote on Tuesday on legislation was in favor of the government, it risk being at best a victory.

With the current demands now, avoid discounts on health benefits, savings in the cabinet It will be 2.5 billion pounds smaller It is intended, leaving a hole in public financial affairs that the advisor will need to fill. Charitable societies of disability still see politics mainly defective.

Think-Tanks admits the need for reform, but they say that the way the ministers, including Liz Kendall, Minister of Labor and Pensions, adopt a show that this process shows the risk of leaving a sensitive policy changed by the need to meet an arbitrary financial base.

“I don’t think you can start a process as it says the goal is to reduce x billion,” said Tom Pollard, head of social policy at the New Economics Corporation. “It is a very difficult reform and the process must accept that the savings will come down the line.”

Many analysts say that the best approach is to start defining the principles of what the social welfare system should achieve, and to build a better evidence for those who demand support and why, and thinks more about systematic change.

Louise Murphy, chief economist at the decision, said that the main procedure for providing money in the government, as he modified the points system to qualify for personal independent payments, was “a quick way to solve a few billion by the time of the spring statement.”

She said the preferred starting point is to understand the additional costs faced by people with really different conditions and how they used PIP. Murphy said that the Minister of Social Security Sir Stephen Tims will now have a review of the PIP evaluation, but this “risk is less feasible if some things are outside the table.”

“You need to look at the engines of the increasing benefits of deficit, which is partly revolving around the aging population, as well as about the need for a more easy society, such as transportation and work treatment, and the broader interest system that covers the cost of living,” said Stephen Evans, CEO of learning and work.

Evans said that to make the provision of sustainable savings in the social welfare bill, the government will need to spend up to the forefront, make emotional and housing benefits more generous and increase work support without coercion. “The reform concentration on one part of the entitlement system is similar to pressure on the balloon. The costs and hardships of people will come out somewhere unless you deal with basic issues.”

One of the fields that can have effects on social welfare. Nowadays, local authorities take PIP to receive PIP in mind when they decide how much support must be provided. This means that savings in the social welfare system can simply put more pressure on boards that suffer from financial hardship, as Pollard pointed out.

In addition to seeking to make repairs more coherent, investing in the DWP ability to manage the social welfare system can bear fruit over time.

One of the factors in the increasing social welfare bill is the inability of the DWP to reassess the current demands on the usual time scale – this means that people remain on benefits for a longer period, with no verification of whether their health has improved.

The Treasury has now announced additional funding to allow the administration to accelerate the expansion of job support to the disabled. Analysts say this is welcome, but it must be associated with broader incentives for employers to employ persons with disabilities.

They also argue that it should not be used as a justification for changes in PIP, because the benefit is not related to the employment state of people.

However, even if the ministers can weight around the clock and start from the first principles, consult the reforms on a large scale and desalination with the submitted spending, it is not clear whether they will finally be able to design the costly system that will win support from the affected people.

“There are difficult, unavoidable,,” said Tom Waters, assistant director at the Institute of Financial Studies. Despite the defects in the current approach, “there is no way to reduce these numbers much without significantly reducing income for a large number of disabled people.”