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/harriet-harman-sensible-welfare-bill-labour

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Harriet Harman took the only sensible decision on the welfare bill Harriet Harman took the only sensible decision on the welfare bill
(35 minutes later)
What was Harriet Harman supposed to do? As Labour’s stand-in leader she took over a party in disarray, its senior figures at each other’s throats. She had to muster her demoralised troops for the first battle of the new parliament – over George Osborne’s budget – and not make policy on the hoof that would hamstring a successor when elected.What was Harriet Harman supposed to do? As Labour’s stand-in leader she took over a party in disarray, its senior figures at each other’s throats. She had to muster her demoralised troops for the first battle of the new parliament – over George Osborne’s budget – and not make policy on the hoof that would hamstring a successor when elected.
Osborne’s elephant trap yawned before her. Britain has one of the most generous welfare states in Europe. Thousands of people from around the world are piling up in Calais, clamouring to join it. The last Labour government’s tax credit plan was supposed to cost £1bn a year. It is costing £30bn. Nine out of 10 working families qualified for them when they were first introduced – this was reduced to six in 10 in 2010 and will now go down to five in 10. Sensible people such as Labour’s Alistair Darling and Frank Field have accepted that something must change.Osborne’s elephant trap yawned before her. Britain has one of the most generous welfare states in Europe. Thousands of people from around the world are piling up in Calais, clamouring to join it. The last Labour government’s tax credit plan was supposed to cost £1bn a year. It is costing £30bn. Nine out of 10 working families qualified for them when they were first introduced – this was reduced to six in 10 in 2010 and will now go down to five in 10. Sensible people such as Labour’s Alistair Darling and Frank Field have accepted that something must change.
Harman could have proposed other cuts, such as ending the triple lock on pensions. She could have opposed the benefits cap, the cuts to third and fourth children and tinkered with items such as housing benefit and student grants. But each was electorally popular.Harman could have proposed other cuts, such as ending the triple lock on pensions. She could have opposed the benefits cap, the cuts to third and fourth children and tinkered with items such as housing benefit and student grants. But each was electorally popular.
Since the crash, average benefits have risen by twice average earnings. It was tax credit that most needed reform. Ed Miliband had refused to confront it, and the party was massacred by the electorate for economic unreliability. She declined to offer “blanket opposition” to welfare reform. Perhaps she would have been wise to seize an initiative by demanding a bipartisan review of working-age benefits in the round. This would embrace the vexed frontier between Labour’s tax credit and the Tories’ universal benefit. But that would have required party consultation, nor would it have answered the question of how to vote last night. While supporting Osborne’s budget would have been more than Labour flesh and blood could stand, voting against the welfare package as a whole would have walked into the irresponsibility trap. Harman’s decision to abstain on the substantive motion but table amendments on details was tactically sound. But it was also strategically disastrous. While three of the leadership candidates obeyed collective orders, Jeremy Corbyn seized the opportunity offered to him and refused. He stuck to the iron law of British politics, which is to know which audience matters when. In a Labour leadership election, that audience is Labour’s core vote. Since the crash, average benefits have risen by twice average earnings. It was tax credit that most needed reform. Ed Miliband had refused to confront it, and the party was massacred by the electorate for economic unreliability. She declined to offer “blanket opposition” to welfare reform. Perhaps she would have been wise to seize an initiative by demanding a bipartisan review of working-age benefits in the round. This would embrace the vexed frontier between Labour’s tax credit and the Tories’ universal benefit. But that would have required party consultation, and would not have answered the question of how to vote last night. While supporting Osborne’s budget would have been more than Labour flesh and blood could stand, voting against the welfare package as a whole would have walked into the irresponsibility trap. Harman’s decision to abstain on the substantive motion but table amendments on details was tactically sound. But it was also strategically disastrous. While three of the leadership candidates obeyed collective orders, Jeremy Corbyn seized the opportunity offered to him and refused. He stuck to the iron law of British politics, which is to know which audience matters when. In a Labour leadership election, that audience is Labour’s core vote.
Last night’s Labour split – with 48 Labour MPs rebelling – will blow over. Harman’s successor will be able to rebut Tory charges of Greek-style madness on welfare. But the moral is not to hold a leadership election during the budget season. Miliband should have held on through the summer and made an orderly departure at his party conference.Last night’s Labour split – with 48 Labour MPs rebelling – will blow over. Harman’s successor will be able to rebut Tory charges of Greek-style madness on welfare. But the moral is not to hold a leadership election during the budget season. Miliband should have held on through the summer and made an orderly departure at his party conference.