Benefits

Here's a question for you: should free school meals (FSM) be given to all pupils, regardless of their parents' income? I ask because this is precisely what the Labour-led council of Southwark is proposing for its primary schools. As the Evening Standard reports, the councilmen’s thinking is that by giving "healthy" FSMs to every pupil, every day, they might help "reduce childhood obesity." Oh, and the measure will cost some £4 million a year. Even if we put aside the question of whether the local praetorians should — or even could — tackle obesity on behalf of middle-class parents, this is still needling stuff.

To disguise the radical nature of reform, one need only make it boring. And here Chris Grayling has succeeded spectacularly. Today he has announced further details on the ‘Work Programme’ and the ‘Benefit Migration’, which sound like the type of well-intentioned but doomed reforms that ministers tried over the Labour years. The welfare state has incubated the very ‘giant evils’ it was designed to eradicate. There are, scandalously, 2.6 million on incapacity benefit right now – a category which ensures they don’t count in unemployment figures. Brown didn’t care much, but Grayling is taking this head-on.

The elderly have been sheltered from cuts, so far at least. New research from the IEA suggests that the government could save an additional £16bn a year simply by cutting the various non-means-tested benefits older people receive and by making some minor changes to the pensions system.   Such a cull would include: the abolition of free bus travel (which would save £1.3bn per year), free TV licences (£0.7bn) and the winter fuel allowance (£2.1bn). In addition to those cuts, the state pension age should be raised to 66, which would save an extra £5bn. Abandoning the “triple lock” policy for pension increases from 2011 would save another £5.

Last week, Reform published its 2011 scorecard of the coalition government’s public service reform programme. Yesterday, Thomas Cawston explained how the coalition can get NHS reforms back on track. Today, Patrick Nolan, Chief Economist at Reform, discusses why the government’s welfare reforms scraped through with a pass. The government’s welfare reforms are significant. The 2010 Emergency Budget and Spending Review announced cuts of £18 billion to benefits, so the DWP had to respond with a radical agenda. The Work Programme aims to incentivise providers to deliver better outcomes from welfare to work services and the Universal Credit promises to create a simpler system where “work always pays.

The good news is that most people in Britain think that people in their local area mix pretty well  regardless of differences in race, religion and the rest of it. According to the latest Citizenship Survey from the Department for Communities and Local Government for April-September last year, about 85 percent of people think that their neighbourhood is cohesive, community-speak for the absence of overt ethnic and religious tension. But when it comes to attitudes to immigration a slightly different view emerges. About 78 percent of Brits would like to see immigration reduced; well over half, or 54 percent, want to see it reduced a lot. That's roughly the same level for the four years that this exercise in Cohesion Research has been underway.

Has Howard Flight just done a Keith Joseph? The latter’s run for Tory leader ended when he made a speech about poor people breeding.  As David said earlier, plain speaking can have its problems. But Flight’s danger is in being mistranslated. He sought to make a simple point: that many working families can't afford to expand their families, while the state provides a substantial cash incentive for those on benefits to do so. But his use of the word “breeding” sounds like he’s into eugenics, and the language – talking about the poor – sounds dodgier still. Given his struggle with foot-in-mouth disease, it’s surprising that Cameron ennobled him.  But still, his quote is a far cry from what Joseph said in Edgbaston.

For years, I have complained that the Conservatives have timidly stayed within Labour’s intellectual parameters, arguing that they need “permission” to make certain arguments and need to stay within the limits of what the public find acceptable. Such intellectual timidity confined them to opposition: they can never win, playing by Labour rules. Iain Duncan Smith is breaking free of this. It may be rash to predict it now, but I believe he is on the brink of a breakthrough in the way that welfare is regarded in Britain. This victory in a battle of ideas could be the greatest single blow against poverty in a generation. The extent of this was crystallised by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian yesterday.

This morning's welfare event was one of the great "Who'da thunk it?" moments of this government so far. Here we had the Lib Dem leader providing backing vocals for a former Tory leader who has not only become a minister, but who is implementing an agenda that only a few months ago was little more than an idea in a think-tank report. Reviewing that Centre for Social Justice report for Coffee House at the time, I said it deserved to influence welfare policy for years to come. Now, it looks as though it will do just that. The immensity of Iain Duncan Smith's achievement should not be underestimated. No doubt, the path to a Universal Credit and a more robust version of workfare will be one that meanders into controversy.

The coalition has few better defenders of its cause than Nick Clegg. And if you need proof, then I'd point you in the direction of his article for the FT when the IFS first called the Budget "regressive"; his article on welfare reform for the Times in September; or his summertime speech on social mobility, which, along with his 2009 conference speech, is perhaps the defining statement of his politics. I mention all this now, because there's another effective Clegg article in the papers this morning – again on welfare reform, and again dripping with punchy arguments in the coalition's defence.

The New Statesman's George Eaton has already homed in on the key passage from James Purnell's article in the Times (£) today, but it's worth repeating here. According to the former welfare minister, he pitched something like Iain Duncan Smith's Universal Credit to Gordon Brown, and the reception it received catalysed his departure from government: "Before I resigned from the Cabinet, I proposed a similar plan to Mr Brown. But he was scared that there would be losers, and his refusal to give me any answer made me think that there was no point in staying inside the Government to try to influence him." This is of more than simple historical interest, not least because it suggests why both Labour and the coalition are where they are on welfare.