This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/the-guardian-view-on-labour-and-welfare-a-damaging-divide
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Labour and welfare: a damaging divide | The Guardian view on Labour and welfare: a damaging divide |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| As MPs left Westminster for the summer, Labour tried to play down the backbench revolt on welfare cuts this week. True, the revolt will not necessarily set Labour’s reputation in stone for the next five years, however much George Osborne may hope it does. But there is no glossing over Labour’s embarrassment. When 48 backbench MPs, including a substantial number of new ones, defy an order to abstain on a key vote, that’s a party split, no two ways about it. | |
| Membership Event: Guardian Live | The future of Labour: meet the next leader | |
| David Blunkett says Labour is still in trauma after the 7 May defeat. Andy Burnham says it is all a bit of a mess because the party is choosing a new leader. Frank Field, echoing Aneurin Bevan, calls the revolt an emotional spasm not a focused approach to welfare. Whichever is the right explanation, this week was nevertheless another display, following Harriet Harman’s earlier twists and turns on the subject, of a seriously underperforming opposition. In that sense, the business end of the Labour leadership election cannot come too soon for the party’s long-term needs. | David Blunkett says Labour is still in trauma after the 7 May defeat. Andy Burnham says it is all a bit of a mess because the party is choosing a new leader. Frank Field, echoing Aneurin Bevan, calls the revolt an emotional spasm not a focused approach to welfare. Whichever is the right explanation, this week was nevertheless another display, following Harriet Harman’s earlier twists and turns on the subject, of a seriously underperforming opposition. In that sense, the business end of the Labour leadership election cannot come too soon for the party’s long-term needs. |
| It is clear in retrospect that Ms Harman underestimated the scale of internal opposition to her initial decision not to oppose the government’s bill. It is also clear that, as acting leader, she lacked the necessary degree of authority to ensure a united Labour response. But Ms Harman was right to insist that Labour MPs needed to think before they obligingly did just what Mr Osborne wanted them to do. | |
| Opinion polls show that Labour voters are not mindlessly pro- or anti-welfare. They want reform, but they seek a fair and affordable approach to both welfare and low pay. A majority like some cuts, such as limiting child benefit to the first two children, for instance, and lowering the welfare cap. But they dislike others, like stopping under-21s from receiving housing benefit, or freezing public sector pay to 1% increases for the next four years. That doesn’t mean Labour should meekly echo its voters. But it does mean it should pay serious and consistent attention to a more nuanced approach. Labour has to offer more on welfare than moral indignation. | |
| In fact, Monday’s debate had plenty of balanced and textured Labour contributions. Mr Field, a strong reformer, charged that the swingeing cuts to tax credits will not create the welfare-to-work incentives that Labour has long supported. Huw Irranca-Davies, another reformer, said too many financially exposed people were being put at risk and that the party must protect existing claimants and the working poor. The shadow employment minister, Stephen Timms, also supported some changes but opposed many others. These all showed that it is possible to protect the needy while pursuing reform. These were not the voices of a party that is selling the pass. | In fact, Monday’s debate had plenty of balanced and textured Labour contributions. Mr Field, a strong reformer, charged that the swingeing cuts to tax credits will not create the welfare-to-work incentives that Labour has long supported. Huw Irranca-Davies, another reformer, said too many financially exposed people were being put at risk and that the party must protect existing claimants and the working poor. The shadow employment minister, Stephen Timms, also supported some changes but opposed many others. These all showed that it is possible to protect the needy while pursuing reform. These were not the voices of a party that is selling the pass. |
| To call Monday’s revolt a Labour meltdown is an exaggeration. All the same it carries a cost. In Labour’s febrile state, many MPs feel tempted to abandon the tradition of reformist thoughtfulness on welfare. Part of that is because the SNP and now the Lib Dems, by opposing the bill root and branch, exert pressure from the left. Another part is that the leadership candidates – and the London mayoral candidates – are all fishing for votes in what they believe is now a more leftwing Labour electorate. Some of this may abate when these contests are over. A new leader may then set a firmer course that is better connected to the wider electorate. But there was not much sign of it this week. | To call Monday’s revolt a Labour meltdown is an exaggeration. All the same it carries a cost. In Labour’s febrile state, many MPs feel tempted to abandon the tradition of reformist thoughtfulness on welfare. Part of that is because the SNP and now the Lib Dems, by opposing the bill root and branch, exert pressure from the left. Another part is that the leadership candidates – and the London mayoral candidates – are all fishing for votes in what they believe is now a more leftwing Labour electorate. Some of this may abate when these contests are over. A new leader may then set a firmer course that is better connected to the wider electorate. But there was not much sign of it this week. |