Politicians get the benefit of the doubt. Working people do not. That is the plain meaning of Andy Burnham saying he wants the welfare bill cut as soon as possible while being unable to guarantee it before the next general election.
Welfare spending is forecast to rise from £353bn this year to £431bn in 2031/32. Burnham warns against crude cuts and says the aim is sustainable employment. Downing Street says it is not setting an arbitrary target or timetable. Conservatives accuse Labour of being addicted to welfare. Those are the facts on the table.
We hear the hurry in the words. We do not see the hurry in the numbers. The bill is set to climb for years. That gap is the whole problem.
If a household on a tight budget said it would get costs under control as soon as it could, then refused any date, the people waiting would not clap. Same rules should apply when public money is at stake. Talk of working flat out does not change a forecast that still points up.
Some will say he is right to refuse crude cuts that push people into crisis and shift the cost somewhere else. That is true as far as it goes. That does not change this. A promise of sustainable employment without a date still leaves the rising total on our backs while the election window stays open.
A till after a long shift does not run on promises. It runs on what is left once the week’s costs are paid. The public purse works the same way. When the forecast keeps climbing and the only firm answer is that no timetable will be set, the people who already earn and already pay are the ones carrying the delay.
I weigh the duty to get people into work against the duty not to let the bill keep swelling with no brake in sight. The second duty is being ducked. Supporting people off benefits is a fair goal. Leaving the reduction floating past the next election is not fair to the ones who fund the system now.
The other side throws the addiction charge. Fine. Throw it. The failure still sits with the people now in charge of the bill. They can speak of speed and priority all day. Speech does not reverse a climb that has already been written into the forecast.
Every extra year of rise is not an abstract line. It is money taken from the same pot that pays for the services ordinary streets rely on. When leaders refuse a date, they are choosing who feels the pressure first. It is not the people writing the statements.
If this reading is right, the country is being asked to accept rising outlay dressed up as careful reform. That is a straight failure of nerve. Hold the people with the power to the date they will not give. Make them answer for the climb they will not stop.
Comments