craigpberry.bsky.social
Welfare policy manager, Citizens Advice (he/him). Additionally: Associate at @bennettinstitute.bsky.social | Author of The Political Economy Blog: https://craigberry.substack.com
293 posts
2,318 followers
1,228 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yes, expecting the Access to Work scheme to be cut (although overall higher spending on employment support)
comment in response to
post
Now suddenly paralysed by the need to know what you think of snooker (which has to be watched at the Crucible - world championship final this weekend btw)
comment in response to
post
We think the UC review needs to look at adequacy - and wider issues that affect UC outcomes such as local housing allowance, overpayment recovery, two child limit, benefit cap, etc
wearecitizensadvice.org.uk/the-universa...
comment in response to
post
It does not even get the UC standard allowance back to the value it started from
2029 rates will still be £15 pm (£174 per year) lower for single claimants, and £23 pm (£273 per year) lower for couples, than would be the case if the they had been increased consistently by inflation since 2014
comment in response to
post
This small uplift does not come anywhere close to offsetting the loss of UC income resulting from freezing/halving the UC health element for current/new claimants
comment in response to
post
It is a good thing the government has proposed increasing the standard allowance in the years ahead beyond the rate of inflation. But this is curiously as part of disability benefits reform, not the review of Universal Credit now underway
comment in response to
post
If the Universal Credit standard allowance had been raised in line with inflation since 2014, the rate for people aged 25+ would now be £34 per month (£404 per year) higher for single claimants, and £53 per month (£635 per year) higher for couples
comment in response to
post
You're absolutely right on the implications of this question, but I think it's a product of ideology rather than its absence. Starmerism is social democracy in its purest, thinnest form
comment in response to
post
Every 8 centuries or thereabouts en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshir...
comment in response to
post
I don't mention NLW in this essay, but it helps to explain why Starmerite social democracy would focus on the legal framework for workers, rather than actual labour market conditions and bargaining power craigberry.substack.com/p/power-with...
comment in response to
post
Ideologues don't always know what core ontological claims lie beneath their political views and strategies. I'm a social democrat... has taken me a few decades
comment in response to
post
The impact of higher NLW on the benefits system is largely negative. Brings more people into the benefit cap, and conditionality. Takes free school meals away from children. And can lead to big UC cuts for the self employed
comment in response to
post
Pre-election shenanigans now firmly forgotten. Short sighted perhaps: PR would be tactically astute. But not really ideologically compatible with British social democracy
comment in response to
post
and @nickod.bsky.social @katealexandershaw.bsky.social @chrisdillow.bsky.social @mds49.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
Might be of interest @npjgarland.bsky.social @eunicegoes.bsky.social @dmk1793.bsky.social @morganj0nes.bsky.social @georgeeaton.bsky.social @samfr.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
Forging a way forward will not be easy - Britain's options for growth and fiscal policy are extremely limited
Developing a shared purpose is an essential first step. And social democracy alone does not have the intellectual resources Labour needs to achieve this
comment in response to
post
Stripped to their technocratic bare essentials, social-democratic governments cannot build the social foundations needed to deliver change
Blue Labour is a distress call, not serious set of ideas. It reveals rather than resolves Labour's distance to the working class
comment in response to
post
Social democracy isn't primarily about moderating capitalism, a mixed economy, regulation, industrial policy or the welfare state
The Starmer government is dismantling some of these institutions. And there is a wider context to its more left wing policies on workers rights and rail nationalisation
comment in response to
post
Social democracy is preoccupied by the state. It originates in the socialist tradition but is a distinct body of thought
The Starmer government is strongly committed to social democracy, hence its primary focus on how machinery of government works
comment in response to
post
Thanks to my outstanding team including @maddyirose.bsky.social @victoria-anns.bsky.social @scollerton.bsky.social @kslharrison.bsky.social @beccastacey.bsky.social for all their work on this!
medium.com/@craig.berry...
comment in response to
post
One of the possible outcomes from this process must be that the government thinks again on the cuts
The case has not been made. The hardship that will be inflicted is too severe. And these reforms will impede the government meeting its social and economic aims (8/8)
comment in response to
post
The impact assessment also fails to provide analysis for group who will experience the most severe financial hardship - people losing both PIP and UC health
This underlines the need for a proper consultation (7/8)
comment in response to
post
Note also that the actual rise in poverty will probably be much higher. The impact assessment chose an inappropriate baseline for analysis (6/8)
bsky.app/profile/iain...
comment in response to
post
(BTW the 'we haven't modelled employment support impact' doesn't work, as the OBR seems to imply, because the new money is not being invested quickly enough, the UK doesn't have a great track record on ES, and there's no serious effort to address wider barriers to work resulting from poverty) (5/8)
comment in response to
post
The impact assessment published yesterday is grim enough already: 250,000 people pushed into poverty, including 50,000 children.
For those already in poverty, it becomes more deeply entrenched (4/8)
comment in response to
post
... which reveals that the entire disability benefits reform agenda is primarily focused on cost reduction.
The government found another £0.5 billion in cuts *after* publishing the green paper so that the Spring Statement forecasts could meet the fiscal rules (3/8)
comment in response to
post
The rationale for not consulting on the main, devastating cuts don't stack up.
The main reason surely is that the cuts needed to be a done deal so they could be scored in OBR forecasts... (2/8)
comment in response to
post
The next sentence is the truly bizarre one