Universal Credit is the flagship social policy of the\nConservatives launched with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, which after nine\nyears of spending and chaotic waste of resources, with numerous glitches, is\nstill in the process of being \u2018rolled out\u2019. The Conservatives\u2019 manifesto for\nthe General Election pledges to \u201ccontinue the roll out of Universal Credit\u201d,\nwithout a hint about why it has taken nine years to implement so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Labour is committed to abolishing Universal Credit initially\nby simplifying its complex behavioural and other tests for obtaining state\nbenefits. Labour is also committed to piloting basic income, i.e., a flat-rate\nbenefit paid to all legal resident citizens, coupled with needs-based payments\nfor those with disabilities and with other special needs, such as maternity,\naccidents, frailty or old-age. The Green Party is also committed to abolishing\nUniversal Credit and to replacing the core with a basic income, with housing\nand disability benefits retained. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Voters and commentators should realise what Universal Credit\npurports to do and what it does. It is the most strategic policy of modern\nneo-liberalism, more important in its ambition than most people realise. By the\nearly 2020s, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, half of all children\nin Britain will be enmeshed in it. Every candidate and every voter should\nregard it as a central issue in the election\u2026\u2026and yet the Conservatives and its\nmedia supporters want to keep it away from public debate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Basically, Universal Credit combines six means-tested\nbenefits into one. A means-tested system is one that aims to give benefits only\nto the deserving poor. That requires administratively complicated tests to\nprove somebody is poor and administratively complex tests to determine that\ntheir poverty is not their own fault. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Universal Credit (UC) subjects vulnerable desperate people to\nsuch invidious tests, which are stigmatising, arbitrary and often hard to\nunderstand. Observers should realise that in every country where means-tested\nbenefits have been applied low take-up rates have resulted, i.e., many of those\nwho should receive benefits do not receive them. In Britain today, according to\nthe government itself, about two in every five people who should receive\nbenefits do not obtain them. The Treasury even budgets on the basis that many\nwho should be receiving benefits will not do so. This is unfair, and is\ndeliberate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Then there is the Catch-22 trick played on claimants. They\nare required to apply for benefits online. But many do not have computers or\naccess to one or even know how to use them. They are told that they should use\npublic libraries to apply online. But the Conservatives\u2019 austerity policy (long\nbacked by the Liberal Democrats) has resulted in the closure of over 750 public\nlibraries. Even the designers of UC can work out what happens. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
To compound the failings of means-testing, if benefits are granted\nonly to those who are poor, then somebody who makes an effort to obtain a\nlow-paying job faces loss of benefits \u2013 known as a poverty trap \u2013 that makes\nany gain from taking it small. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) admit\nthat such a person faces a marginal tax rate of about 80%. That is ridiculous.\nYet the Conservatives are committed to continuing this policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The situation is worse, because of what I call the precarity\ntrap<\/em>. The problem starts with the government\u2019s mean-spirited rule that someone\nwho becomes entitled to a benefit must wait for five weeks before claiming it (it\nwas six weeks until evidence of hardship became overwhelming). Actually, according\nto the National Audit Office, a quarter of all claimants do not receive their\nbenefits for over nine weeks. Could someone explain to the designers and\nsupporters of this policy how impoverishing this practice must be. It can only\nbe deliberate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Now we come to the precarity trap. If someone loses a job,\nshe must wait for at least five weeks without money. Suppose that after\neventually obtaining benefits she is offered a short-term job. She would face\nnot only the 80% poverty trap but also the prospect of being out of a job again\nshortly, having to wait for another five weeks or more before receiving\nbenefits again. It would be irrational to take that job. Yet if she refused to\ntake it, she would be \u2018sanctioned\u2019 and lose all her income. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where we come to the worst feature. Under Universal\nCredit a claimant must be ready to be interviewed and assessed regularly, at\nshort notice, and must prove they are \u2018working\u2019 indefatigably looking for a job.\nIf a local bureaucrat says they have not been looking hard enough or are late\nfor an interview, the bureaucrat \u2013 usually poorly trained, inexperienced and\nworking for a private company paid by how much they can save the system \u2013 can just\nsanction the claimant, by suspending payment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This contravenes a basic principle of common law \u2013 due\nprocess. <\/em>In effect, they are deemed guilty until they prove themselves\ninnocent. They can appeal, but that takes about nine months, during which they receive\nno money. Extraordinarily, most people who do appeal win. This is not justice,\nsince they have suffered the penalty for months. Many drift into homelessness\nand ill-health, many commit suicide or attempt to do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Conservatives claim the threat of sanctions improves work\nmotivation and social integration. There is not a shred of evidence to support\nthat. On the contrary, research has shown it has the opposite effect. But even\nif there were evidence an instrumental justification for an immoral illegal act\nis itself abhorrent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another amoral feature of UC is that benefits are only paid\nfor the first two children, which obviously penalises any third or fourth child\nin a family. What has the child done to face such discrimination? Again, the\npolicy is moralistic, rationalised as deterring childbearing by \u201cthe poor\u201d\n(unless the mother can \u2018prove\u2019 she was raped). This is toxic utilitarianism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there is the rule that anybody dismissed from a job for\nalleged misconduct is denied benefits for at least 13 weeks. This rule fails to\nrespect due process. The DWP should not presume one party or the other is\ntelling the truth. A woman may have been dismissed for some petty action but in\nreality have earlier refused a sexual advance. Or a worker could have objected\nto having to do menial tasks that were not in his job description. The point is\nthat it is unfair to presume<\/em> guilt and subject the person to a very\nharsh punishment \u2013 loss of an only source of subsistence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most telling statistics is that so far the number\nof claimants who have been sanctioned and lost vital income exceeds the number\nof people properly convicted of crimes or misdemeanours in magistrates and\nsheriffs\u2019 courts and the penalties have been more severe. Every legally trained\nperson should be protesting at this legal inequity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Universal Credit is morally repugnant. Any Party advocating it deserves contempt. It is that wrong. \u00a0Every leader should use the last few days of the campaign to expose what Universal Credit will do to poverty, insecurity and inequality in Britain over the next five years. Where it has been rolled out so far use of food banks by the precariat and social underclass has risen fourfold. The dystopia is here and will grow much, much worse.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n