The idea behind the Universal
Credit is beguilingly simple. Beginning next year all tax credits, housing
benefits, jobseekers allowance and income support will be abolished and replaced
with a single scheme, which will act as a top up to what low income people
already earn, effectively bringing everybody up to a guaranteed minimum income.
It will also reduce the amount of benefit which people lose by taking work,
theoretically increasing the incentives to take low paid work. Sounds great,
right? It’s got ‘Whitehall debacle’ written all over it.
There are two major reasons for this. Firstly, it depends on
a very large and very complicated IT system, and the civil service record of
delivering these projects is appalling, as the failed
£12.7 billion NHS computer system attests. The IT requirements for the
Universal Credit are even more ambitious. It will require real time, monthly
data from every single one of the country’s
1.3 million employers, many of whom are not even aware of the scheme. So
far, only 1,400 employers have been signed up, and this is supposed to go live
within a year. Already the IT firms involved have indicated
that they think the timescale is unrealistic, and senior civil servants associated
with the project are being
removed.
Secondly, any changes to benefits inevitably produce winners
and losers, and a scheme of this scale will produce a great many losers. 17% of working households
are currently in receipt of tax credits of some form. That’s 3.3 million
working households, the kind of people that ministers
insist they want to help. I suspect that it won’t take a great deal of
investigative journalism to find examples of people
who do the right things having their benefit cut by bureaucratic fiat. More
to the point this will be happening to people we know, which makes it
politically toxic. It’s exactly the sort of bread and butter issue which cuts
through to the public, and could damn the government in the way that the 10p
tax fiasco damned Gordon Brown.
You could argue that so far all I’ve done is point out that
this is a very ambitious scheme being implemented by people with a poor track
record, and that with good leadership and management it could work out fine.
This scheme is being led by Iain Duncan Smith. I shall leave you with an
assessment of his leadership capabilities which was given by an anonymous former
colleague of his to Prof Tim Bale, and published in his authoritative
history of the modern Conservative Party:
“I can’t think of a good thing to say about Iain. I mean I
really can’t. He’s not a bad bloke. He’s not stupid but he couldn’t be a Cabinet
minister. He’d be a liability because he’s got these instincts which drag him
off without really thinking about things. He’s not very bright. He’s not very
loyal either”.
Feeling confident about this yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment