0:00

Saver the best of spring with

0:02

great everyday prices at Whole Foods

0:04

Market. Yellow low price signs help

0:06

you save money without compromising quality.

0:09

Like on organic chicken breast and

0:11

thighs, ground beef and more. All

0:13

with no antibiotics ever. Plus brighten

0:15

your plate for less with 365

0:18

by Whole Foods Market Briosh. Smoke

0:20

salmon, cherry tomatoes, organic apples, and

0:22

more. Shop low prices daily at

0:24

Whole Foods Market, in store, and

0:27

online. Auto insurance can all seem

0:29

the same until it comes time to

0:31

use it. So don't get stuck paying

0:33

more for less coverage. Switch to USA

0:36

Auto Insurance and you could start saving

0:38

money in no time. Get a quote

0:40

today. Restrictions apply. Charlie

0:43

Heller is the CIA's most brilliant

0:45

computer analyst, whose life is turned

0:47

upside down when his wife is

0:49

murdered in a terrorist attack. Rout

0:52

with grief, Charlie decides her killers

0:54

must pay. Without any field experience,

0:56

Charlie must track the globe and

0:58

use his biggest weapon. His intelligence

1:00

to enact his revenge, because the

1:02

most unexpected threat is an amateur.

1:04

Starring Academy Award winner

1:07

Rami Malek, an Academy

1:10

Award nominee Lawrence Fishburn,

1:12

the amateur rated PG

1:15

13. only in

1:18

theaters

1:24

9th,

1:29

April

1:35

11th.

1:40

and we're getting used to it I

1:42

wasn't there last week I was first

1:45

time I've missed it actually and you

1:47

were all brilliant so you know I

1:49

was disappointed it's very kind you were

1:51

miss big hope it would sound terrible

1:54

and boring but it was great we

1:56

did miss you actually Steve and not

1:58

just for your you know analysis

2:00

but also because we needed somebody

2:02

to do a Jimmy Stewart impression.

2:05

Yeah that is the only reason

2:07

I was missed. I know I

2:09

know the brutal reality of the

2:11

situation. We were quite good though

2:13

because we didn't sort of I

2:15

don't think try to sort of

2:18

get something out there that we

2:20

knew you'd be Absolutely disgusted by

2:22

as an opinion. Did we? No,

2:24

I don't think we were naughty.

2:26

No, don't think so. No, we

2:28

didn't strain to Brexit or anything

2:31

or... I disagree with some of

2:33

your assessment on Isstama Blair, but

2:35

we'll have to do a follow-up

2:37

on another cake, although it might

2:39

come up on the theme we're

2:41

going to be exploring inevitably in

2:44

this podcast, which is the government's

2:46

big welfare. announcement which comes on

2:48

many different layers. So unless you've

2:50

got anything else to reflect on,

2:52

we'll get going with that. Have

2:54

you got good weeks and all

2:57

that kind of thing? You know,

2:59

anything to report back? Well, the

3:01

world gets more and more interesting.

3:03

Please talk about it to put

3:05

it to, you know, put it

3:07

politely. But yeah, no, you're absolutely

3:10

right, Steve. This is the big

3:12

question this week after... Weeks, months

3:14

even where it just seemed as

3:16

though nothing is happening domestically, although

3:18

of course a lot is happening

3:20

domestically, but everything's been about the

3:23

international stage, it's back to the

3:25

really hard yards, the difficult business

3:27

of domestic politics. So welfare is

3:29

the question. Yeah, so here is

3:31

my broad assessment and then the

3:33

two of you can tell me

3:36

the degree to which you disagree.

3:38

that if they had been deadly

3:40

serious about welfare reform, and it

3:42

is, as everyone would agree, a

3:44

massive challenge and wholly legitimate to

3:46

contemplate reforming welfare, they would have

3:49

done a huge amount of work

3:51

before they got into power and

3:53

be ready on day one to

3:55

announce that they were going to

3:57

do some more work on welfare

3:59

reform. and then look at the

4:02

degree to which that leads to

4:04

savings over time. Instead it seems

4:06

to me that this has been

4:08

treasury driven. Rachel Reeves needed five

4:10

billion pounds so the OBR can

4:12

give her a tick and she

4:15

sticks to those fiscal rules in

4:17

the current situation. I don't meet

4:19

many people who think those fiscal

4:21

rules or some of them are

4:23

remotely appropriate in the current situation.

4:25

They then dress it up as

4:28

welfare reform. And then they brief

4:30

how tough they're going to be

4:32

because people like Morgan McSweeny are

4:34

getting focus groups telling them voters

4:36

that they are targeting approve in

4:38

inverted commerce of benefit cuts. Then

4:41

they have to retract a bit

4:43

in the days leading up to

4:45

the announcement because they realise some

4:47

of it is either untenable or

4:49

politically impossible. and then we get

4:51

this sort of announcement which I

4:54

think will in some to some

4:56

degree unravel and my concern is

4:58

it's been welfare reform at a

5:00

shallow level. not a deep one

5:02

like we have with beverage, we've

5:04

had equivalents of this, even new

5:07

labour, even though they got into

5:09

a complete mess early on they

5:11

had to sack the Harriet Harmon

5:13

who was in charge of welfare

5:15

and Frank Field who they had

5:18

deified as the junior minister. They

5:20

had given some thought to welfare

5:22

to work and the new deal

5:24

and so on before they got

5:26

to power. This seems to me

5:28

to have been done in a

5:31

very shallow way and that some

5:33

of it will unravel. Miranda, what

5:35

did you think? I'm afraid I'm

5:37

going to be dull and say

5:39

that I agree. I'm sure we

5:41

will tease out points of disagreement

5:44

though, Steve, on the detail. But

5:46

before we start, should we just

5:48

have this little quiz? Because I've

5:50

failed my own quiz, trying to

5:52

write down. The five giants. Beverage

5:54

is five giants. I've only got

5:57

four. I've got want, hunger, ignorance

5:59

and idleness. What is the fifth?

6:01

Squaller. Squaller. Oh, is it? Right,

6:03

okay, so that's sort of housing

6:05

and hygiene and health care, right,

6:07

okay, really interesting. So here we

6:10

are, yes, absolutely, I agree, there

6:12

ought to be... are sort of

6:14

going back to first principles probably

6:16

and thinking which of those five

6:18

are relevant now and how you

6:20

tackle them and instead you get

6:23

a kind of slightly half-assed rhetorical

6:25

attempt to have a crack at

6:27

the concept of idleness because that's

6:29

what the focus groups don't like

6:31

and you don't properly sort of

6:33

tackle the underlying structural issues. Also

6:36

I have to say sort of

6:38

endorsing your analysis Steve but also

6:40

there's been some really bad briefing.

6:42

I mean, really briefing. I mean,

6:44

there's one government press release that

6:46

apparently got the numbers completely wrong

6:49

and was suggesting that there'd been

6:51

a quadrupling of claims in a

6:53

particular category, you know, several hundreds

6:55

of percent. And it wasn't anything

6:57

like that at all. The true

6:59

percentage was 40 percent, which is,

7:02

you know, quite a large rise,

7:04

but it's not, you know, 300

7:06

and something. There's a general sort

7:08

of attempt, I think, to just

7:10

portray this in such a light

7:12

that you cut, you know, it's

7:15

kind of like erecting a straw

7:17

man that you couldn't possibly object

7:19

to some of these cuts. But

7:21

actually I've been really interested to

7:23

go back to your point about

7:25

are they or are they not

7:28

Blairite? I don't know if you

7:30

heard it, but John Hutton, you

7:32

know, really one of the most

7:34

uber Blairite of the ministers of

7:36

the last Labour government. was all

7:38

over the radio saying this isn't

7:41

the way to do it and

7:43

actually there's a huge difference between

7:45

what the Starmer government is doing

7:47

and what the Blair Brown governments

7:49

did because if you just cut

7:51

and you don't help people into

7:54

work you are adding to that

7:56

wonderful fifth S that you you

7:58

identified Steve you're adding to squalor

8:00

you're not really tackling the five

8:02

giants at all and so there's

8:04

a real difference between a cutting

8:07

exercise a fiscal exercise in the

8:09

run-up to the spring statement on

8:11

March 26 which just really does

8:13

sort of seem to be and

8:15

as you say try to satisfy

8:17

the OBR that this will affect

8:20

the the projections and actual proper

8:22

welfare reform so I'm not I'm

8:24

not sold on it, I'm not

8:26

sold on it and there are

8:28

political problems with it as well

8:30

which I'm sure we'll come on

8:33

to in terms of managing the

8:35

Labour Party and also the electorate's

8:37

expectations. I'm really interested. I hadn't

8:39

heard John Hutton, as you say,

8:41

he was an ultra-blairite in that

8:43

era. And if he's critical, I

8:46

think what the criticism is, is

8:48

it's a lack of coherent. So

8:50

their argument, and Liz Kendall made

8:52

it in the House of Commons,

8:54

is labour, it's in the name,

8:56

they believe in work and the

8:59

dignity of work, but a lot

9:01

of the benefits that they are

9:03

targeting. Quite a lot of, for

9:05

example, disabled people who claim PIP,

9:07

this PIP disability benefit, are in

9:09

work. So there's a lack of

9:12

coherence, of course they haven't dealt

9:14

with the huge issue of pensions,

9:16

which takes up a vast amount

9:18

of the costs of benefits. They

9:20

are protected by this ridiculous triple

9:22

lock. Ian, what's your broad take?

9:25

And then we can look at

9:27

some of the politics of it

9:29

in the detail. My broad take

9:31

is that while I think I

9:33

hear exactly what you both say

9:35

and I think there's a lot

9:38

of validity in those criticisms and

9:40

certainly cause me to reflect, I

9:42

wouldn't make the claim, I wouldn't

9:44

claim that this is brilliantly planned

9:46

and brilliantly implemented, but I want

9:48

to give them actually quite a

9:51

lot of credit. I was going

9:53

to say a bit of credit,

9:55

but I think actually in the

9:57

circumstances. quite a lot. And don't

9:59

worry, I'm listeners, I'm not going

10:01

to go back immediately into defense

10:04

and what a dangerous world this

10:06

is and the world has been

10:08

completely transformed. But I think it

10:10

is important to acknowledge in terms

10:12

of what the government is trying

10:14

to do, that they are operating

10:17

in an emergency situation. I'm increasingly

10:19

struck by how the country seems

10:21

to be divided almost in two

10:23

when you look at the polling.

10:25

and stuff like defence and what

10:27

people think about what's going on

10:29

in the outside world, divided almost

10:32

in two between those who understand,

10:34

it seems to have some grasp

10:36

of the enormity of what's happening,

10:38

the change in our circumstances. the way in

10:40

which the international system is unraveling, not

10:42

to our advantage, but it also does

10:44

open up opportunities in terms of manufacturing

10:46

and industrial resilience, all of these things,

10:48

but it's going to be very, very

10:50

painful process, divided between that part of

10:52

the population and then the other part

10:54

of the population, which seems to be

10:56

living in a parallel universe, as though

10:59

this stuff is not happening. And I

11:01

watched the coverage of some of this

11:03

welfare stuff, we'll get to the details

11:05

of what to cut, what shouldn't be

11:07

cuts, mistakes, mistakes, mistakes that they're making.

11:09

But the broad analysis as encapsulated

11:11

and expressed by someone like

11:13

Pat McFadden of the Blair

11:15

era now a central figure,

11:17

one of these central figures

11:19

in the government, I think

11:21

is absolutely correct. Firstly, there's

11:23

the moral argument about how

11:25

the system is failing. You

11:27

know, come back to that. But

11:29

secondly, there is just look around

11:32

you, look at what's actually happening

11:34

in the world. This is not

11:36

a blip, this is going to

11:38

require a complete re-engineering of the

11:40

state and our attitude to public

11:42

spending what we choose to spend

11:44

resources on and where we deploy it

11:46

more effectively to not just to

11:48

rearm but to build infrastructure, resilience,

11:51

all of this stuff that's going

11:53

to be the story of the

11:55

next 10-20 years. In those circumstances,

11:57

it is not going to be

11:59

remote. affordable to carry on

12:01

with this model that we've got which

12:04

has you know even in the last

12:06

five years and we understand why it's

12:08

happened post-covid that is definitely an element

12:11

that should not be dismissed which is

12:13

that long COVID is a is a

12:15

serious thing I know some people sometimes

12:17

dismiss it but anyone who knows people

12:19

have suffered from it deeply knows

12:22

that it's a real thing it's

12:24

then that's then had an impact

12:26

on the labor force and we

12:28

know that there are There's increased

12:30

diagnosis on mental health, over-diagnosis, some

12:32

doctors say, but there's a debate

12:34

about that. But at the very

12:37

least, we know that not all

12:39

of that increase, which has happened

12:41

since 2019, can really be justified.

12:43

It's explained by things like the

12:45

move away from face-to-face appointments and

12:47

the diminishment of reassessment, which are

12:49

just locking people in these benefits.

12:52

And you know also the figures are

12:54

tragic that if someone is out of

12:56

work in those circumstances, for a month,

12:58

every month that goes by it

13:01

becomes less and less likely that

13:03

they will find employment and satisfaction

13:05

and all of that through

13:07

work. So the system is

13:09

broken, it's been made much

13:11

worse since COVID, and I

13:13

think the government deserves quite

13:15

a lot of credit for

13:18

actually... connecting that with what's

13:20

happening in the outside world and saying

13:22

that this enough is enough has got

13:24

there's got to be some kind of

13:26

change. The detail Steve I know you're

13:28

going to come back at us on

13:30

this is another is another matter but

13:32

the big picture story I think that

13:34

they're telling is correct broadly. Yeah

13:36

and there's probably very little disagreement anywhere

13:39

in terms well there would be in

13:41

terms of you know how much should

13:43

be spent on defence and so on

13:46

but that's a different argument. The

13:48

idea that it's a good thing

13:50

that millions aren't working and are

13:52

on benefit, I don't think anyone

13:55

sort of says, yeah, what a

13:57

great symbol of a modern civilized

13:59

society. most recognise that work can

14:01

be deeply fulfilling. As I said,

14:03

I think the question is the

14:06

depth of this work that has

14:08

been unveiled by Liz Kendall, the

14:10

coherence of it, and some of

14:12

the detail. We'll look at the

14:14

politics at the end, but let's

14:16

briefly look at the detail. So

14:18

if Miranda, they are serious about

14:20

welfare to work, getting people back

14:22

to work, people I speak to

14:24

in this world say, there have

14:27

to be mediators to... transition the

14:29

route back to work and they

14:31

have to find the right jobs

14:33

and the employers have to be

14:35

convinced that this is a good

14:37

thing etc. And therefore there are

14:39

upfront costs and of course this

14:41

is one of the things I

14:43

think that Liz Kendall has been

14:46

arguing with the Treasury over and

14:48

she's got some money but it's...

14:50

It is really tricky, isn't it?

14:52

I think no one would be

14:54

against the theory that it would

14:56

be great for some of these

14:58

people on benefits to be in

15:00

work. It's how you bring that

15:02

about that is deeply challenging. Yeah,

15:04

so I think you're quite right

15:07

about Liz Kendall versus the Treasury

15:09

on this. So certainly what I

15:11

have been hearing over the last

15:13

two to three weeks is that

15:15

she's been trying to retain within

15:17

her budget. enough of the savings

15:19

to actually realistically help those people

15:21

back into not just paid employment

15:23

but to help them escape you

15:26

know what Ian was describing spending

15:28

the rest of their lives or

15:30

you know what would have been

15:32

their career sort of parked by

15:34

society on benefits. So yeah that's

15:36

that side of it's really really

15:38

important so I think one of

15:40

the things that people are most

15:42

upset by is what comes out

15:44

in the figures in terms of

15:47

young people that there are so

15:49

many of a younger generation going

15:51

on to sickness benefits because they're

15:53

in such a state. they can't

15:55

work or you know I clearly

15:57

there probably is a bit of

15:59

over diagnosis on the margins but

16:01

you know they're obviously not in

16:03

a good way quite a lot

16:06

of these young people there's obviously

16:08

coming out of COVID clearly as

16:10

you say a significant number of

16:12

of children who have been and

16:14

young people have been really badly

16:16

damaged by what was done you

16:18

know, it's the anniversary of lockdown

16:20

which as you'll know I regard

16:22

as a disaster in the form

16:24

in which it was carried in

16:27

which it was carried out and

16:29

that has had an impact on

16:31

young people. It has had an

16:33

impact and also let's not forget

16:35

that that's this is starting to

16:37

be the generation that's been experimented

16:39

on in terms of you know

16:41

smartphones and social media and all

16:43

of the isolation and atomisation that

16:45

comes with that as well. Really

16:48

bad combination lockdown plus social media

16:50

and you know being in the

16:52

internet rather than in human relationships.

16:54

So I think, I think, you

16:56

know, what I've found talking to

16:58

people who work with the young

17:00

who are in danger of becoming

17:02

needs, i.e. not in education, employment

17:04

or training, is that the architecture

17:07

and the infrastructure for trying to

17:09

help people into one of those

17:11

pathways education training or employment is

17:13

really, really inadequate for the task.

17:15

I do strongly think that it's

17:17

all very well to have this

17:19

kind of conceptual conversation about whether

17:21

we want to have people on

17:23

benefits or in work clearly as

17:25

Steve said I mean I agree

17:28

with you Steve it's a bit

17:30

ridiculous to pretend that anyone actually

17:32

thinks this is a great outcome

17:34

at the moment but you need

17:36

to have those roots and I

17:38

think the government would do well

17:40

to listen to some of the

17:42

experts in the area for example

17:44

there's a really impressive guy who

17:47

is at the moment in charge

17:49

of the social mobility commission. The

17:51

first commissioner I think in that

17:53

role was Alan Milburn. It's been

17:55

through various kind of steering all

17:57

over the road politically slightly since

17:59

it was founded, let's put it

18:01

like that way. But Alan Francis

18:03

who currently runs the Social Mobility

18:05

Commission, he also runs an FE

18:08

college in Blackpool. So he's an

18:10

actual practitioner trying to work out

18:12

how you get young people who

18:14

are not on a kind of

18:16

obvious high-earning route through an academic

18:18

qualification and then a profession. What

18:20

is it that's missing for them?

18:22

You know, the stuff is not

18:24

there. You know, further education and

18:27

vocational and training routes have been

18:29

absolutely cut to the bone. And

18:31

then all sorts of terrible, unnecessary

18:33

structural changes to qualifications, which means

18:35

that employers don't even understand it

18:37

now. You know, tea levels are

18:39

really not a very good substitute

18:41

for BTX that everyone understood. There's

18:43

all sorts of really boring policy

18:45

detail that's gone a bit wrong

18:48

across the piece and when you

18:50

put it all together it means

18:52

young people without a good root

18:54

through and into work and I

18:56

think actually some of this is

18:58

to do with kind of cross-departmental

19:00

lack of working together. and maybe

19:02

not listening to the experts because

19:04

I'm with you on this Steve,

19:06

the people I talk to in,

19:09

certainly in my sort of education

19:11

type world, so you have to

19:13

have the roots into work, otherwise

19:15

it's kind of, you know, it's

19:17

a bit sort of, it's a

19:19

bit overly kind of macho the

19:21

way it's been talked about, I

19:23

think, you know, we're proving that

19:25

we're not soft left. by veering

19:28

right on welfare. I'm not mad

19:30

about that aspect of it. It's

19:32

very, very easy and they get

19:34

a buzz out of it. You

19:36

know, the media strategy, put a

19:38

Starmer article in the Daily Telegraph,

19:40

get a kind of front page

19:42

splashing the telegraph. Yeah, this is,

19:44

you know, reaching the parts that

19:46

New Labour used to reach and

19:49

now we're doing it. That's easy.

19:51

It's getting the policy right that

19:53

is so... challenging. And it seems

19:55

to me there isn't a cited

19:57

beverage was that that Labour government

19:59

in 45 at least they had

20:01

a really detailed thought-through blueprint. You

20:03

could disagree with some of it,

20:05

but it had been thought-through, beverage

20:08

was published in the war, labour

20:10

came in in 45, and actually

20:12

it was implemented more or less.

20:14

And then you look at other

20:16

attempts, which would be more less

20:18

thought-through. 97. I say with new

20:20

labour, Blair and Brown revered Frankfield.

20:22

They thought he was the great

20:24

welfare reformer. But they didn't look in

20:27

any detail what he was proposing.

20:29

And when he came in, they

20:31

discovered that there would be huge

20:33

upfront costs to implement Frankfield's plans.

20:35

And they sacked him. So these

20:38

things, you look at the clashes

20:40

between George Osborne and Ian Duncan

20:42

Smith, but spoke to Tim Montgomery

20:44

about the time because he was

20:46

still very close to him, Duncan

20:49

Smith. And in the end, Ian

20:51

Duncan Smith resigned over clashes about

20:53

welfare. And here we are again,

20:55

and it seems to me

20:58

it's on that kind

21:00

of scale, improvisation rather

21:02

than the deep thinking.

21:04

But in terms of

21:06

where this goes, this

21:08

is a green paper,

21:10

supposedly for consultation. But

21:12

do you sense that

21:14

stoma and reefs have

21:16

kind of so... identify

21:19

themselves with this and as

21:21

Miranda said a kind of

21:23

macho approach to welfare spending

21:26

that they can't really afford

21:28

to concede much ground. Obviously

21:30

a green paper is more

21:32

consultative than a white paper

21:35

in the coming weeks and

21:37

months. Well I will give

21:39

my answer to that after

21:41

this quick break. The

21:46

last thing you want to hear when you

21:48

need your auto insurance most is a robot

21:50

with countless irrelevant menu options, which is why

21:52

with USAA auto insurance you'll get great service

21:55

that is easy and reliable all at the

21:57

touch of a button. Get a quote today.

21:59

Restrictions apply. I

22:02

know I'm not alone when I say,

22:04

adulting can be overwhelming. And what we

22:06

all could use is a drink. That's

22:09

where Apple and Eve juice comes in.

22:11

As the rulers of the juice box,

22:13

they've been making juice joyful for 50

22:15

years. With refreshing juice blends bursting with

22:17

bold flavor, one sip sends you right

22:20

back to childhood. So when the grind

22:22

dulls your shine, remember to kid yourself.

22:24

Apple and Eve has delicious juices for

22:26

at home and on the go. Shop

22:28

today. Thank

22:34

you Ian for reminding me about

22:37

the quick break. It's one thing

22:39

I always forget the breaks. So

22:41

do give your answer to that

22:43

now about whether this is genuinely

22:46

a consultative green paper or whether

22:48

Starmer and Reeves because she needs

22:50

to keep the OBR on board

22:53

with her sort of elevation of

22:55

the OBR as a kind of

22:57

defining. ruling body over what she

23:00

does and and stoma because you

23:02

know he's getting a lot of

23:04

praise from Ewian and others about

23:06

how this is the kind of

23:09

tough approach that's required that actually

23:11

the scope for policy to be

23:13

developed within a consultative white green

23:16

paper is genuine. Well the main

23:18

person that Rachel Reeves needs to

23:20

keep on side is That's I

23:23

think one of the biggest developments

23:25

of British politics since Donald Trump's

23:27

inauguration and the world changing is

23:29

that a Chancellor who two months

23:32

ago was beating up on defence

23:34

and was seen as kind of

23:36

unsackable is now in a much

23:39

more difficult situation for all sorts

23:41

of reasons almost another episode. So

23:43

I don't... I don't really see

23:45

them as a duopoly. or as

23:48

a partnership, I actually see he

23:50

has clearly become, he's risen in

23:52

stature in the last couple of

23:55

months and she has diminished since

23:57

the budget. I mean, the other

23:59

thing about the politics of this

24:02

that fascinate me, you talk about

24:04

improvisation, Steve and the not thinking

24:06

things through, this is where I

24:08

will be really, really critical and

24:11

it is infuriating to watch, actually.

24:13

We talk about trying to help

24:15

people get into work. Miranda's absolutely

24:18

right and you look particularly at

24:20

the young who need those entry-level

24:22

jobs. Now, unfortunately, in that budget,

24:25

that budget is having a calamitous

24:27

effect on precisely that part of

24:29

the economy, jobs in retail, in

24:31

supermarkets, in pubs, because of the

24:34

national insurance increase. You look at

24:36

what's happening on hiring there. that's

24:38

the part of people can say

24:41

give them help to get into

24:43

work of course of course of

24:45

course but who is going to

24:48

actually provide the jobs that pay

24:50

them in the end and get

24:52

them you know foot on the

24:54

on the ladder of employment well

24:57

the government has just absolutely clobbered

24:59

business which is which is what's

25:01

going to do it what is

25:04

supposed to do it now turns

25:06

around to well we want to

25:08

help getting these people into the

25:11

whole thing you want to get

25:13

wind back to the autumn when

25:15

the treasury was being so smug

25:17

about this and just did not

25:20

think the whole thing through so

25:22

it now there is something illogical

25:24

and incoherent in coherent there which

25:27

does I think speak to your

25:29

point Steve that I don't think

25:31

it is there isn't a deep

25:34

piece of thinking that's been done

25:36

here this this is this is

25:38

a mad scramble I still think

25:40

the instinct is broadly right and

25:43

we have to do in this

25:45

country do something quite dramatic with

25:47

our welfare system. But still, there's

25:50

a, you know, there's an incoherence.

25:52

Then those low-hanging jobs in the

25:54

economy, the jobs which young people

25:57

particularly or people who've been out

25:59

of work for a long time

26:01

and need that help. Well, there

26:03

are a lot fewer of those

26:06

jobs than there were six months

26:08

ago. Yeah, I mean, I absolutely defend Rachel

26:10

Reeves of putting up taxes. I think

26:13

she put up the wrong one. And

26:15

I agree with you about that. And

26:17

it's very interesting. Up until that point,

26:19

wherever you must have all experienced this

26:21

and listeners and everything, wherever you went

26:24

in a pub or whatever restaurant, you

26:26

sort of saw adverts vacancies for bar

26:28

staff vacancies for, you don't see as

26:30

much of that now. And I think

26:32

they're just busking it with fewer staff

26:35

and with the consequent decline in services

26:37

rather than employing people with this

26:39

additional cost. And it is a

26:41

contradiction when there's now this focus

26:43

on getting people back. to work.

26:45

The other thing, sorry Steve, can

26:47

I just, this kind of thing

26:49

about, you know, the missing pieces of

26:51

the jigsaw is it work, because I

26:54

think that's what we're saying, isn't it,

26:56

that it's all very well to say

26:58

all these people on sickness benefit should

27:01

be working. But it's, it's, what's, what's

27:03

gone wrong and what's missing that's preventing

27:05

them being in work, even if

27:07

it's part-time work, and where might

27:10

those pieces be found? another really

27:12

important set of those pieces is

27:14

the problems with the NHS and

27:16

social care because you know if

27:18

you actually don't have the the

27:20

support to get people back to

27:22

health or to look after the

27:25

family members who need round-the-clock

27:27

care or care several times

27:29

a day you know in their own

27:31

homes or a place in a care

27:33

home then you are actually keeping a

27:35

whole chunk of people out of the

27:37

workforce because they're either at home sick

27:39

or they're looking after the vulnerable family

27:41

member, you know. So it all fits

27:43

together in a slightly disastrous way and

27:45

some of the things that we know

27:47

could be done quickly on social care

27:49

have now been sort of kicked into

27:51

touch through this review that's going to

27:53

take, what is it, three years I

27:55

think, the social care review? Yeah. So,

27:58

you know, again, it's sort of, I mean...

28:00

I'm sounding incredibly negative about the whole

28:02

sort of prospectus that they've outlined.

28:04

I also, like Ian, agree with

28:06

the sort of big picture, it's

28:08

just a question that the policy

28:10

detail is as important as the

28:12

desire on this piece of territory.

28:14

I think they're absolutely at one

28:17

with that. I mean, me too.

28:19

And there are far too many

28:21

people claiming benefit in my view.

28:23

But how you deal with that

28:25

is a deep, deep... question. I

28:27

mean there is... I think they

28:29

delve deep. Yeah that Steve there

28:31

is there is one thing which

28:33

we're recording this in the afternoon

28:35

before it comes out before it

28:38

comes out this might have been

28:40

resolved by the time listeners are

28:42

listening to this so apologies if

28:44

it has been dealt with but

28:46

they seem to have almost... They've

28:48

got themselves in a situation here,

28:50

the announcement that Liz Kendall's made,

28:52

in which people talk about a

28:54

menu without prices, but this is

28:57

a menu without ingredients because they're

28:59

not sharing the impact assessments. And

29:01

as we came into the studio,

29:03

there was stuff swirling on Twitter

29:05

with various people saying... this is

29:07

an unsustainable position. You cannot wait

29:09

until the spring to give people

29:11

who are on benefits and then

29:13

commentators, an analyst, an economist, the

29:15

numbers on how this is going

29:18

to, how the five billion actually,

29:20

that they want to save, what

29:22

that means in practice. So we

29:24

simply don't know, but that does

29:26

also smack of a lack of

29:28

coherence. It suggests that this has

29:30

been done as... as an emergency

29:32

measure. Now, someone who I did

29:34

want to flag on this, but

29:37

just because he's written for years

29:39

on welfare, my old colleague and

29:41

friend Fraser Nelson, if you, well,

29:43

I was going to say subscribe

29:45

to his sub stack, but that's

29:47

obviously, you know, listeners, once you've

29:49

subscribed to my sub stack first,

29:51

but then when you've done that

29:53

first, go to, go to phrases,

29:55

and there's a brilliant piece from

29:58

this week, which was picked up

30:00

on... social media as well, called

30:02

how not to reform welfare. Blair

30:04

messed it up, Liz Kendall can't

30:06

afford to. Now I won't go

30:08

through the whole thing, it's just

30:10

that it's divided into headline errors

30:12

and it's really instructed from someone,

30:14

Fraser was writing about welfare when

30:17

we first worked together 25 years

30:19

or so ago, so he went

30:21

through the whole Blair field. Alan

30:23

Milburn experience and new ideas very

30:25

well. Essentially the headlines were taking

30:27

away payments from the genuinely disabled

30:29

is absolutely the worst place to

30:31

start. So for some reason they've

30:33

got themselves into a situation where

30:35

that's running as an idea and

30:38

they're obviously not going to end

30:40

up doing it. But there's just

30:42

no point even getting into that

30:44

argument. There's no support for it.

30:46

So, you know, back off on

30:48

that. So, you know, clarify. Then

30:50

the key thing, reduce the inflow

30:52

is the easiest place to start,

30:54

carries the lowest possible risk, which

30:57

is essentially how you, he says

30:59

you can almost be. be done

31:01

almost invisibly. You've got 2,000 people

31:03

a day signing up on long-term

31:05

sick, which as he says is

31:07

the single most appalling statistic in

31:09

the whole mess. So you try

31:11

to sort of cut that down

31:13

quickly, so you don't get people

31:15

onto the system and then it's

31:18

more difficult to get them out.

31:20

Restart reassessments. Also low political risk,

31:22

as he says, so that people

31:24

are not signed off on sick

31:26

forever. we explained that whole, you

31:28

know, where COVID came into it

31:30

as well. Redeploy Com staff as

31:32

in-person WCA assessors, which was, as

31:34

he says, the permanent, in a

31:36

pre-lockdown, the standard assessment was in

31:39

person. And as he says, don't

31:41

do it in darkness, publish data

31:43

on the benefits, claimants by total

31:45

amount claim. So just be much

31:47

more transparent about the, about what

31:49

the data is actually telling you,

31:51

don't go with... This is great.

31:53

No frauds and scound, scoundures language,

31:55

no matter how much face. focus

31:58

groups like it and it gets

32:00

to your point Steve. It's the

32:02

easiest thing, it's the easiest money

32:04

for a pollster stroke focus group

32:06

consultant to make to put together

32:08

a tough on welfare focus group

32:10

and to get a bunch of

32:12

voters annoyed and say this is

32:14

appalling. You know, hold up pictures

32:16

of someone and say do you

32:19

think this person should get benefits

32:21

and it would be outraged. Once

32:23

you then a week or two later show them

32:25

images on the news that... news at 10

32:27

of a genuinely disabled person who's going

32:29

to be hit by it, they'll backtrack

32:32

very quickly. It becomes very complicated just

32:34

by reality. So I think that's another

32:36

good piece. Yeah, that's a very good

32:38

point. I want to bring him around

32:41

about this impact assessment because I sense

32:43

that this is going to become a

32:45

very big... story, but just on that,

32:47

it always, this is the danger of

32:50

focus groups. And I say this, and

32:52

that, you know, Morgan McSweeny, via focus

32:54

groups and all the other stuff, guided

32:56

Labour to a landslide, acknowledged that. But

32:59

focus groups, you know, it's like public

33:01

spending. Everyone's against public spending, saying, oh,

33:03

much better to have more money in

33:05

our pockets until you... come to a

33:08

precise example and suddenly Tory MPs themselves

33:10

change to say there should be more

33:12

on X, Y and Z and it

33:14

strikes me exactly that with this that

33:16

when you get to specific examples they

33:19

could soon make the front page of

33:21

the Daily Mail or whatever this is

33:23

quite dangerous but let's take a short

33:25

break and then we'll come to

33:27

the politics of this beginning

33:30

with I'm pleased you mentioned

33:32

it this they haven't published

33:34

the impact assessment which to

33:36

me smacks of naiveity if

33:38

they were going to get

33:40

away with it. but bring

33:42

me a

33:45

rounder in,

33:49

let's take

33:53

a short

33:56

break. I

34:01

know I'm not alone when I say,

34:03

adulting can be overwhelming. And what we

34:05

all could use is a drink. That's

34:08

where Apple and Eve juice comes in.

34:10

As the rulers of the juice box,

34:12

they've been making juice joyful for 50

34:14

years. With refreshing juice blends bursting with

34:17

bold flavor, one sip sends you right

34:19

back to childhood. So when the grind

34:21

dulls your shine, remember to kid yourself.

34:23

Apple and Eve has delicious juices for

34:25

at home and on the go. Shop

34:28

today. Okay,

34:34

welcome back. We are exploring the

34:36

government's big welfare announcement this week

34:38

and Ian mentioned the fact they

34:40

haven't published the impact assessment, what

34:42

the detailed policy implications are for

34:44

each group and so on. And

34:46

they hoped to bury it in

34:49

a much bigger set of announcements

34:51

later on. But all hell is

34:53

breaking loose over this. Miranda, do

34:55

you think they will be able

34:57

to... sustain this. I mean, if

34:59

the Tories have done this, they

35:01

would be kicking up the most

35:03

or mighty fuss about it. It's

35:05

going to be ministers whenever they're

35:08

on the Today programme or whatever

35:10

are going to be asked about

35:12

it. Do you think they will

35:14

be able to bury this impact

35:16

assessment until they plan to publish

35:18

it later? No, they won't. And

35:20

we've got a very recent precedent.

35:22

for them also getting in a

35:24

mess in exactly the same way,

35:27

which is that the cuts to

35:29

winter fuel payments to the elderly,

35:31

there was no impact assessment. And

35:33

it's taken months and months of

35:35

objectors saying, well, you know, we

35:37

need to know, before you take

35:39

a decision like this, you know

35:41

who's going to be adversely affected

35:43

where and how. They've got a

35:46

bit of form on this, so

35:48

they should know. You know, this

35:50

is bad politics, right? You should

35:52

know. your vulnerabilities from the last

35:54

experience, the last punch up you're

35:56

in, you know, where are your

35:58

bruises? Don't get punched there again.

36:00

And I think also it's crucial

36:03

to this challenge of actually making

36:05

good policy. So, you know, in

36:07

terms of the, I think we're

36:09

all agreed and, you know, those

36:11

voices from the Blair era who

36:13

surface to criticize the set of

36:15

proposals in the Green Paper this

36:17

week, including John Hutton, who I

36:19

mentioned, were, yeah. Ed Bals, that's

36:22

right, Ed Bals said this is

36:24

not a Labour thing to do.

36:26

It was very involved in welfare

36:28

reform from the Treasury's perspective in

36:30

the 97 government. And Ed Bals

36:32

has said this is not a

36:34

Labour thing to do. You know,

36:36

and we can get on to

36:38

that sort of, I think that's

36:41

really interesting, the kind of party

36:43

political lens and how the electorate

36:45

really feels about their explanations of

36:47

a Labour government, but just on

36:49

this narrow point of the impact

36:51

assessment, yes, it's a real mistake.

36:53

not to be more up front,

36:55

they will have to do it.

36:58

And it is likely to be

37:00

a very, you know, unequal set

37:02

of impacts that are revealed because

37:04

always with cuts to the public

37:06

sector you find, for example, that

37:08

women tend to be more adversely

37:10

affected. And you know, it may

37:12

be geographical as well. You know,

37:14

the structural problems that we've got

37:17

that become manifest through... the figures

37:19

on our welfare system is a

37:21

really deep set of challenges for

37:23

the country. And so these kind

37:25

of superficial cuts here and there

37:27

and the political posturing really doesn't

37:29

deal with it. I mean, I

37:31

think one of the most difficult

37:33

things that we all have to

37:36

face up to, and I do

37:38

hear what Ian said at the

37:40

top of the programme, you know,

37:42

the world's changed, we cannot go

37:44

on in the way that we

37:46

have been doing because defense spending

37:48

will have to rise. and the

37:50

whole country's just got to have

37:53

a different mindset from now on.

37:55

I think that's true, but you

37:57

then need to sort of look

37:59

at why is it that our

38:01

economy uniquely coming back out

38:03

of COVID hasn't recovered to

38:05

the same levels of employment

38:08

particularly among young people so

38:10

there's something really deep going

38:12

on yeah yeah and it can't possibly just

38:14

be this one one set of benefit

38:16

criteria you know so I think

38:18

it's a it's a proper job of

38:21

work and not having impact assessments is

38:23

is part of that I just had a

38:25

question though on the impact assessments

38:27

and you mentioned winter fuel render.

38:29

I mean, I'm just posing the question

38:31

here. I don't know the answer and

38:33

I apologize to listeners in advance.

38:36

I know that I know that there are

38:38

listeners in advance who were furious with labor

38:40

on the winter fuel thing. I've heard them

38:42

say it to me and had it on

38:45

social media. I just posed the question. What

38:47

was the impact of the means testing of

38:49

winter fuel? We don't know. We don't know

38:51

Miranda's waving saying I don't know and I

38:53

don't know either Steve I mean if I

38:56

missed if I missed if I missed the

38:58

story quantifying it But was it really it's

39:00

a good point because she didn't publish it

39:02

on the day and actually I seem to

39:04

remember them saying there wasn't one I might be

39:07

wrong about that's correct. That's correct. Sorry.

39:09

That was the that was the point

39:11

I was in particularly trying to make

39:13

they didn't do when they made the

39:15

announcement but whether something has since

39:17

resurfaced or just I'm not a

39:19

maybe it's a media failure and I'm not

39:22

being I'm not dismissing it you

39:24

know dismissing the importance of the issue

39:26

at all I'm just we went into

39:28

the winter with this as a social

39:30

disaster in the making because

39:32

of government policy we're now into

39:34

March I just haven't picked up

39:36

on much the news was full of

39:38

it in October November about impending

39:40

disaster about impending disaster is that

39:42

just luck because it was a

39:45

mild winter. I don't know. But

39:47

please, it's a really good question actually.

39:49

I pledge, I pledge to come back

39:51

next week, having, having looked at this.

39:53

Brilliant. I mean, the other point, the other

39:55

point I was going to make, Steve, I

39:57

mean, it's just to finish off, just one.

40:00

One final point from Fraser's brilliant piece

40:02

on this, you know, how not

40:04

to do welfare. He's at the

40:06

very end, he makes the positive

40:08

point about, as he puts it,

40:10

don't forget to talk about the

40:12

workforce upside. I mean, as he

40:14

says, if it's only seen as

40:16

a demolition job. That's a political

40:18

disaster for labor because you get

40:20

instantly into questions of is this

40:22

really what a labor government is

40:24

for is this progressive as well

40:27

as it you know being you

40:29

know being counterproductive But there is

40:31

a there's a fascinating piece of

40:33

research from the the C EBR

40:35

economic think tank which showed that

40:37

if you essentially a million of

40:39

those people who are on you

40:41

know long-term benefits book, but you

40:43

know could sort of technically or

40:45

should be working if they were

40:47

employed, that's a 30 billion upside

40:49

to tax revenue and a 10

40:51

billion reduction in the benefits bill.

40:53

Now that is a, as a

40:55

very notional figure as Fraser points

40:57

out, and it would be a

40:59

miracle to get a million people

41:01

back, certainly quickly, back into the

41:04

workforce, but it just gives, it's

41:06

a kind of scenario planning which

41:08

just gives you a sense of

41:10

how you could sell this, that

41:12

this is upside for the individuals.

41:14

involved themselves because work in and

41:16

of itself is socialization, reward for

41:18

effort, communal experience, making friends, all

41:20

of that sort of the positive

41:22

things that good work is, but

41:24

there's also an upside for... for

41:26

the economy, but you've got to

41:28

get your messaging right on it.

41:30

Sorry Steve, I interrupted. Yeah, no,

41:32

it's not just messaging. It is

41:34

transitioning into that virtuous cycle. I

41:36

mean, it's really good for the

41:38

economy. You get tax revenues rather

41:41

than people claiming benefit. You get

41:43

higher productivity. I mean, there is

41:45

a virtuous cycle that he, Fraser

41:47

Nelson, has talked a lot about.

41:49

It's getting to it. That is

41:51

the issue and whether this does

41:53

it. But just on the politics.

41:55

If Miranda is right and they

41:57

have to concede on the impact

41:59

statement, and they are forced, who

42:01

knows whether this will happen, to

42:03

make further changes. You see, Kit

42:05

Starmer clearly is getting something of

42:07

a buzz out of the praise

42:09

he's getting from right-wing newspapers over

42:11

his conduct on the international stage

42:13

and over this issue so far.

42:16

I've read columns from relatively right-wing

42:18

commentators and here and you've been

42:20

praising it broadly today over his

42:22

toughness, his willingness to reform welfare.

42:24

But if they start conceding on

42:26

some of this, the mood can

42:28

change very quickly into, oh, it's

42:30

weak, they don't know what they're

42:32

doing. And it strikes me that

42:34

that's one of the dangers with

42:36

all of this. You get, it

42:38

often happens to label prime ministers,

42:40

they get high praise for appearing

42:42

strong, and then actually the detail

42:44

of it begins to unravel a

42:46

bit. Is it your sense that

42:48

this could... happen this time around,

42:50

given that you say they're going

42:53

to have to do a U-turn

42:55

on the impact assessment and possibly

42:57

some of the policy. Well, so

42:59

here's the thing, on the policy,

43:01

what do you guys think of

43:03

this? It has been put to

43:05

me, I mean, I'm an innocent

43:07

abroad, as you know, but it

43:09

has been put to me that

43:11

some of this is a rather

43:13

cynical attempt to overstep the mark

43:15

so as to have some ground

43:17

to give away, so that... you

43:19

know on the personal independence payments

43:21

which is not work-related right which

43:23

is for the disabled or the

43:25

unfit to unfit to have help

43:27

with the extra expenses involved in

43:30

the disability. It's not related to

43:32

whether you're working or not. But

43:34

the reason why it sort of

43:36

comes into the firing line is

43:38

if you tot up all of

43:40

the different eligibility for people who

43:42

are out of work and get

43:44

the PIP, it adds up to

43:46

a much higher income than normal

43:48

out-of-work benefits, right? So that's what's

43:50

been in the firing line, but

43:52

I think they will have to

43:54

retreat on PIP, okay. But it

43:56

has been suggested to me that

43:58

some of this stuff is... deliberately,

44:00

you know, out there as kind

44:02

of territorial gains that they might

44:05

give up on when it goes

44:07

from the green paper to the

44:09

white paper. I don't know about

44:11

that theory, but it's possible. I

44:13

think one of the problems they've

44:15

got is slight, this slight sort

44:17

of swagger about taking on the

44:20

back benches, you know, well the

44:22

party won't like it, but you

44:24

know, we know that there's an

44:27

appetite for it in the country.

44:29

you know even when the international

44:31

aid budget cut was announced

44:33

and you know clearly

44:36

you know the minister

44:38

responsible resigned

44:40

she did sort of resign

44:43

in a very dignified

44:45

way but you know even at

44:47

the time there was a

44:49

bit too much slight sort

44:51

of appetite to see there's

44:53

a badge of honour that

44:55

some on the soft left

44:57

were unhappy and I think there's

45:00

a political trap there for them so

45:02

I think it's going to be interesting

45:04

to see whether if they do give ground

45:06

they do it because they realize actually

45:09

that this stance is a bit over

45:11

the top because their back benches are

45:13

not queasy for the sake of it

45:15

they're queasy for a reason on this

45:17

and for aid and you know and I

45:20

think I don't know if you've read it

45:22

but I have to say my colleague Stephen

45:24

Bush has written a... piece this week, which

45:26

I think is one of the best

45:28

things that's been written so far since

45:30

this government was elected actually,

45:33

which is basically saying, you

45:35

think these people are Blair

45:37

rights? No way. The genius

45:39

of the Blair government, he

45:41

doesn't say genius, that's me saying

45:43

it. The genius of the Blair

45:45

government was, you know, sort of tack

45:48

right on the economy. and tack left

45:50

on sort of a social democratic

45:52

attitude to social policy. If the

45:54

star, the government flips that and

45:57

they have left-wing economics and kind

45:59

of right-wing... cuts mentality about the

46:01

public sector. Who does that? Who does

46:03

that please? Morris Glassman. Morris Glassman. Is

46:06

that a winning prospectus or is it

46:08

even the right prospectus? But it raises

46:10

many many questions that is a brilliant

46:13

piece because it's a very clever device.

46:15

but actually you could argue that, I

46:17

mean the Blair government at the moment,

46:20

because this government is facing mountainous problems

46:22

and not rising to a lot of

46:24

them, you can romanticise how it went

46:27

in the early years of the Blair

46:29

government. That's quite true and quite fair.

46:31

Yeah, and you know, is Rachel Reeves

46:34

pursuing a left-wing economic policy with her

46:36

fiscal rules, meaning, you know, to some

46:38

extent she's to the right of Jeremy

46:41

Hunt with her fiscal rules in the

46:43

elevation of the OBR? So anyway, that's

46:45

another issue, but Miranda, you have perfectly

46:48

set up our second podcast, because clearly

46:50

one of the running themes in the

46:52

coming days will be the degree to

46:55

which this divides the Labour Party, and

46:57

the degree to which number 10 respond

46:59

to those divisions, as you say... Is

47:02

it with a swagger? We don't care

47:04

about this soft left? Ponzi people compared

47:06

to our focus groups who are showing

47:08

approval to this. Is that a way

47:11

of dealing with the divided party? How

47:13

do other leaders deal with divided? parties

47:15

going back quite a long way. It

47:18

will be a really, I think, great

47:20

discussion. That's our next one. The only

47:22

way you can be guaranteed to get

47:25

it is to subscribe and it will

47:27

just arrive automatically and tell all your

47:29

friends and family to do the same.

47:32

But I think we better stop for

47:34

this episode. This is going to be

47:36

a big running story, so no doubt

47:39

we will return to it. And there

47:41

are many kind of other themes which

47:43

we didn't have time to explore, which

47:46

we will do. Thanks very much for

47:48

listening for listening. Yeah. I

48:01

know I'm not alone when

48:03

I say, adulting can be

48:05

overwhelming, and what we all

48:07

could use is a drink.

48:09

That's where Apple and Eve

48:11

juice comes in. As the

48:13

rulers of the juice box,

48:15

they've been making juice joyful

48:18

for 50 years. With refreshing

48:20

juice blends bursting with bold

48:22

flavor, one sip sends you

48:24

right back to childhood. So

48:26

when the grind dulls your

48:28

shine, remember to kid yourself.

48:30

Apple and Eve has delicious

48:32

juices for at home and

48:34

on the go. Shop today.

48:36

Acast powers the world's best

48:38

podcast. Here's a show that

48:40

we recommend. How long was

48:42

the original director's cut of

48:44

the substance? It took how

48:46

many days to shoot the

48:48

sandworms in June Part 1

48:51

and 2? And why did

48:53

Brighton Beach become the location

48:55

of this year's best picture

48:57

winner, Anora? Hi, I'm Daniela

48:59

Taflin Lundberg and I host

49:01

Hollywood Gold, a podcast where

49:03

I interview filmmakers about their

49:05

iconic films. Listen every Wednesday

49:07

as we uncover untold stories

49:09

and fascinating trivia from this

49:11

year's Oscar nominees and other

49:13

legendary movies, like Apocalypse Now,

49:15

Scream, and The Devil Wears

49:17

Prada. All of a sudden

49:19

I see Harvey Weinstein marching

49:22

towards me. He's over the

49:24

table. He grabs me by

49:26

the collar. Oh my God.

49:28

Subscribe to Hollywood Gold. wherever

49:30

you get your podcasts. Acast

49:32

helps creators launch, grow, and

49:34

monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com