Government’s employment reforms clash with its welfare plans

Good morning. The major national political event in the coming weeks will be the well-being reform plan. When work publishes his green paper, there will be a lot to say about it. For today, I wanted to talk about a neglected sub-contort, this is how these plans are complicated by the own reforms of the government.

Political conflict

An idea of ​​the Ed Miliband which considerably shapes the way in which this government thinks is a “pre-distribution”, which refers to the reorientation of the economy to solve social problems, whether by regulations or other levers, instead of spending money.

This is partly why the government's labor market reforms are so radical. At least in theory, reforms save money because companies invoice the invoice. (There is, I think, risks in this approach, but this is a question for another time.)

But there is a conflict between employment reforms with a large extent of the government and its hopes of increasing employment by further reducing long -term patients at work.

There are many reasons why the number of people who present themselves on a form of disease and cannot work has increased, but one is the decline of the so-called light work: the cinema bailiffs, the parking attendants and so on. These works could be carried out by a wider range of people than other modern professions. (There is an excellent article on the substitution of Ben Geiger on this if you want more.)

The government's explicit logic behind the increase in national employers' insurance contributions is that the replacement of a person who sits behind an automated payment is good for the economy as a whole. It is, widely speaking, true. But he ignores that many jobs that can be automated are “light”.

Part -time work helps people who have been economically inactive to reintegrate the labor market. Let's say after falling ill a few years ago, you have recovered and you want to start working again. You face two large barriers. First, unemployment benefits are significantly lower than that of disease services, so you are facing a very painful cliff edge to return to work. This is something that the government can correct (and indeed in its next green newspaper, although the way it can end up being false).

The second barrier is to find a light or part -time shape of light. But increased the NICs of employers, the more the eligibility extended to the remuneration in statutory disease (for the first time, all Workers, even those who earn less than £ 6,400 per year, will be eligible), both increase the cost of hiring. This does not mean that none or all these plans are bad in themselves. It's just to say that there are big compromises involved.

There will be much more to say about what is good and bad in the approach of the government for the reform of well-being when its green article is published. But a problem is that, by conception, government policy is to eliminate many jobs that have offered a path to full -time work, while reducing support to those who cannot go back to work without part -time work providing.

Now try this

I saw Otherwise At the Almeida Theater. It is a piece that stimulates the reflection, although I am not sure that the transition to the allegory of the second act worked for me. Sarah Hemming The review is there.

The best stories today

• Divided and conquered | The government has trouble implementing its economic growth policy due to a lack of cooperation Between the Whitehall departments, the National Audit Office warned.

• Revolt of administrative formalities | The payment systems regulator, the child's payment dog, will be abolished As part of labor pressure to stimulate the economy. Keir Starmer said that the decision would prevent the regulatory system acting as a block on innovation, investment and growth.

• “A solid elephant in the room” | Children as young as 11 are treated for dependence on vapes The first NHS clinic Like in Liverpool.