The House of Lords opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill is testament to the hard work of campaigners and a victory for reason over negative rhetoric
After months of debate, the controversial Welfare Reform Bill is approaching its final stages, but with some unexpected dramatic twists.
Social commentators, policy wonks, the disability lobby and some charities have been trying to turn the juggernaut of poorly designed proposals for months. They threw ample ammunition: the impact on inner-city families of Housing Benefit caps amounting to ‘social cleansing’; arguments that time limiting contributory Employment and Support Allowance meant undermining the social insurance principle; controversy over the fitness to work system. Huge amounts of analysis took apart the decision to scrap Disability Living Allowance and modelling showed how the total cap on benefits income penalised large families. All good stuff.
But it remained a conversation held in policy circles, while those writing about the impact on the most vulnerable tended to be the ‘usual suspects’ in the Left of centre press. No one could get themselves heard over the negative rhetoric presented in the tabloid press and facilitated by cynically worded Department for Work and Pensions statistical releases and ministerial soundbites – obsessing over scroungers and spongers. The government no doubt thought the Bill would be carried on a wave of moral outrage and public paranoia. And for a while, this strategy seemed to work.
But winds do have a tendency to change. And the flimsy nature of the government’s position – built on dubious facts – could not stand up to a three-pronged triumph of reason over rhetoric.
First, while Labour failed to step up to the plate, robust opposition came from within the Conservative’s own ranks. Boris Johnson surprised us all with a well researched, well considered and articulate critique of DLA reform. This seemed to open the floodgates to criticism from the ‘unusual suspects’, with the Daily Mail – leader of the ‘scrounger’ pack – turning tail and calling welfare reform Cameron’s ‘milk snatcher moment’.
Then, in what has been described as the most successful disability protest ever, the Spartacus Report, written by disabled people themselves, crashed on to the desks of the press and made waves across Twitter in January. The report highlights major flaws in the consultation process, implying that the government isn’t playing by its own rules and is tarnishing the entire Bill.
Finally, spurred on by the Spartacus Report and 12 months of analysis from campaigners, the Lords did their bit and defeated some of the most controversial elements of the Bill. Housing Benefit cuts for social housing tenants, the time limitation of the ESA and cutting eligibility of young people and cancer patients for this benefit were all thrown out. Cross-bench peers joined forces with Labour and a handful of Liberal Democrats rebels to oppose the proposals by significant margins.
At the time of writing, there may well be a prolonged fight in the House of Commons as the government attempts to reverse the Lords’ decisions. But regardless of the final outcome, the lessons from this Bill will be indelible. Successful policies have to appeal to the head and the heart. Someone will eventually read the small print. Reason will out.
