Ready, steady, go!

My post of yesterday has proved rather prophetic. Today, the debate on welfare reform officially started. Both Labour and the Tories were prominent in their pronouncements and quite surprising they were too. Up to a point Lord Copper! Predictably, the Chancellor gave a robust defence of the new changes. He correctly concurred with my view that while those opposed to his reforms were quick to express their disapproval, they failed to offer any alternative approaches. He also made the bold claim that most of the country is behind his reforms and, more pertinently, the reasons for their imposition. His chief reservation with the old system was the amount of money being spent on welfare and, in many ways, the way in which it had been mis-spent.

Following the customary tirade of bluster from Ed Balls earlier in the week, it fell to Harriet Harman to finally offer concrete proposals from the Labour party. She accused the incumbent government of letting people off the hook through the lack of a proper work programme. It emerges that Labour propose a system where benefit payments would depend on past contributions. Unless I've missed something, this places Labour considerably to the right of the Tories. Doubtless, Mr. Blair will be grinning from ear to ear. She went on to divulge that their approach to welfare would be underpinned by three core principles: Work must pay, People should be obliged to take work if offered and the government should support people through a contribution-based system which takes account of what people put in to the system and what they take out. In fairness, she could scarcely be more clear. Well, it was her party who ushered in the minimum wage in response to claims of unfair rates of pay. As the system stands, people are already obliged to take work if it is offered. But it is the final point which will ruffle feathers in Westminster because this constitutes Labour advocating conditional welfare payments. I fancy we have yet to hear the last of this one and the Tories must think Christmas has come early this year. On this one, they unquestionably occupy the centre ground and they just need to stay put.

I listened with interest to a stimulating debate earlier today concerning the welfare state as envisaged by William Beveridge in 1942. One thing emerged beyond any reasonable doubt. Britian today is a very different place to the one he was faced with 70 years ago. Following the Second World War, Britain was all but bankrupt (although many would question what's so different today!). On the flip side, there was work for anyone who wanted it because the rebuild had to begin. Coinciding with the launch of the Welfare State was the launch of the NHS. The latter is today the second largest employer in the world and provided labour to the masses following the years of war. However, other parts of the Public Sector have not fared so well since then. Notably, the armed forces are a mere fraction of their size then. Also, people tended to stay in jobs for life in those days with aspiration existing for the few rather than the many. National industries abounded with coal, rail and steel leading the way. Truly, if Beveridge saw Britain today, he would barely recognise it. The system espoused by Beveridge was actually based on full employment with unemployment to reach no more than 3%. Oh that we had that now!Of the measures he did introduce, child benefit is notably still with us broadly in its original format.

It is though the five principles upon which his new system would be based for which he will forever remain synonymous. He aspired to eradicate the five evils of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Some of these words seem a little dated now but their meaning is clear enough. In effect, Beveridge was an altruist. His aim was that anyone out of work should receive a minimum standard of living below which nobody should be allowed to go. It is therefore easy to see why some people become a little hot under the collar when they read reports of people on welfare with large plasma screened televisions and the other trappings of today's consumer society. If I am to understand the proposals of Harriet Harman correctly, you may not even reach the minimum standard of living if you have not made sufficient contributions. If this is true, she intends to take us back to the dark days of pre-war Britain. Over the years, disease has been one of the unquestionable success stories of the welfare state with excellent national vaccination programmes underpinning an NHS which continues to prolong life expectancy. In 1942, men and women were very lucky to reach their three score years and ten. The rates of smoking continue to fall even though the young continue to be lured. Ignorance is the by-product of education and it is debatable if education is better, worse or just different. For one thing, standards of basic arithmetic and grammar have been eroded by a succession of Education ministers intent on ignoring the building blocks. As we consume more and buy more, we generate more rubbish and accumulate more possessions. Squalor? I certainly don't think our predecessors of 1942 threw away a fraction of what we do today. They made do with what they had because they had to. They did not have the choice not to. We do and therein lies the problem.

For all that, it will be the fifth and final evil which will dominate the debates over the next two years. Idleness. It is a highly judgmental word and political dynamite. Its very mention generates a sea of journalistic vitriol in the tabloids. When people like Mick Philpott dominate the headlines for all the wrong reasons, it is his perceived idleness upon which the media will seize. Had Mick Philpott been restricted by his contributions, we can safely assume that his progeny would have amounted to rather less than seventeen. The question is, where do you draw the line. It is the right of every man and woman to have children - unless they happen to be Chinese of course. What shall we say? Four children? Five? Six? Its not so easy now is it? Well, in a way it is because under the new welfare changes, those out of work will not be able to earn more than those who are working. This sounds like stating the obvious but for a long time, it has been quite possible to earn more by not working. That was never the intention of Beveridge and so perhaps George Osborne is right when he claims that most people back his changes. Time, as ever, will tell but if the early sparring today is a barometer of the prize fight, the referee will stop the contest after the first round at this rate.