The benefits cap, which limits household welfare benefits to £26,000 a year, the level of average earnings, was brought in on 15 April in four London boroughs. It will be extended to the rest of the country in July.
Ed Balls last week told LBC that Labour would “definitely keep” the cap, so long as it is “set in the right way”.
I thought this was quite significant, but it was hardly reported.
Does “set in the right way” merely mean that Labour in government would bring in regional caps, which I think has been the party’s policy all along? If so, and assuming the policy has no net cost, does that mean that some claimants in London will gain while others elsewhere will lose out?
And, if so, why did Labour not simply support the policy – ”in principle” if necessary – in the first place, instead of putting itself on the wrong side of one of the most popular Government policies ever tested by opinion pollsters? Or, rather, I should say that the benefits cap is an extremely unpopular policy – because most people think that the cap is set far too high.
Eagle Eye 