Welfare reform bill sees cuts in committee
Marisa Lavallier, Londinium Courier
The welfare reform bill presented by the Clark government and referred to the Social Services committee laid out an ambitious agenda. Monthly payments to the majority of Nova Anglican households, an expansion of the child allowance, a full year of paid family leave, monthly home visits to new mothers, a plan to use the unemployment system to spur new business development, and all of this while only making minor cuts to the housing and daycare subsidies. But in the PJP, as with any big-tent party, everyone's got to have input, and the final product may look substantially different from the original vision. And as more details emerge about the bill, the centrists that represent the party's right flank appear to have struck a blow, whittling away at the programs for one reason or another.
Semi-UBI
The top-line number of A£1,000/month for the poorest of households has not been touched, but the income limits have now been established at lower levels than those more on the left of the party would prefer. The new limit has been set at 200% of the poverty line, which yields the figures of A£24,960 for a single person (2.08-1 phaseout), A£37,440 for two people (3.12-1 phaseout), A£49,920 for three people (4.16-1 phaseout), A£62,400 for four people (5.20-1 phaseout), adding A£10,000 for each additional person above that (add 0.83 to the phaseout ratio). It is important to emphasise that this still represents a doubling of the income level eligible for assistance, but far less than universal, even when discounting the fact that university students and those receiving pensions will not be eligible. Under this plan, a person working 30 hours/week for minimum wage, a yearly figure of A£18,720, would receive A£3,000/yr, or A£250/month, while a family of 4 with a yearly income of A£39,000, approximately two-thirds of the median household income, would receive A£4,500/yr, or A£375/month. Neither would have been eligible for any payments under the old welfare system. Nevertheless, more vociferous advocates of the welfare state had proposed limits as high as A£120,000, a phaseout of 10-1. The centrists proposed these income limits as a way of preventing costs from spiraling, as well as saying that targeted assistance was a fairer allocation of Nova Anglicana's resources.
Housing and daycare subsidies
These were in for some cuts even within the original bill, but centrists have reduced them even further. Under the old system, anyone making 60% or less (and up to 80% in some circumstances) of the metropolitan median income was eligible for the subsidies, which could run as far as several hundred pounds per month for each one. Under the new proposals, the income limit would be set at 150% of the poverty line, and the sliding-scale maximum benefit at A£3,000/yr, both of which represent substantial cuts from the original system. For example, under the old system, a full-time minimum-wage worker (A£24,960/yr) in an area where the median income was A£45,000/yr would have paid no more than A£520/month for housing, a subsidy that was likely to have been at least A£200/month. Under the new system, they would not be eligible for a housing subsidy. In the old system, a family with one child in private daycare (A£10,000/yr) that made the same income as above, would have received a subsidy of A£3,756/year for daycare and likely a similar amount in housing subsidy. Under the new system, that would be reduced to A£1,000/year each for daycare and housing (1/3 of the maximum benefit, as they earn 2/3 of the maximum eligible income), but they would receive A£6,000/yr under the new basic-income system. Again, this is largely justified by cost.
Paid family leave
Here is where a severe cut has taken place. The amount of family leave has been slashed by 75%, with a proposed 52-week benefit being reduced to just 13 weeks. The deputies responsible raised several reasons for the cut, the first being the cost of multiple billions of pounds per year for the original benefit and the second being the possible unintended consequences of such a drastic expansion, for example the additional cost to businesses of hiring long-term replacement workers, among other reasons and consequences. The economic liberal wing of the Liberal Secularists is alleged to have teamed up with PJP centrists to amend the bill in this manner. Diana Branzino, the head of the Coalition Supporting Mothers, blasted this change, saying, "13 weeks is the absolute minimum necessary, especially when one considers the effects of potential surgery as well as the latest research on mothers bonding with their children. 52 weeks would provide flexibility for mothers in all circumstances and allow them to respond to potential emergencies. It also holds down the cost of childcare for families, especially as the bill cuts subsidies in that area."
Child allowance
The child allowance hasn't been changed as much as some of the other programs. The original plan was to reduce benefits by A£50/month each year, with the 0-1 year-old benefit of A£6,000/yr falling to A£2,400/yr for children six and up. This has instead been doubled to A£100/month, with the new six and up benefit being A£1,200/yr. The original cost of the child expansion was supposed to be tens of billions of pounds over a 10-year period; this will now be cut to fewer tens of billions of pounds. A centrist on the committee who voted for the changes said, "We should evaluate the cost of the program by studying it for a decade. If the cost at the current level is reasonable, future economic and revenue growth would make it possible for us to go back and increase it if it proves to be too little for some families."
Home visits for new mothers
The original proposal of monthly home visits by nurses to all new mothers has been pared back as well. The committee has adopted a sliding-scale benefit, with mothers making 100% of the poverty line or less being eligible for 12 visits, progressively being reduced to 4 visits for new mothers making 275-300% of the poverty line and the current 3 visits for all others. The stated rationale was to reduce the workload on the Nova Anglican Health Administration, as the new work might overextend nurses, especially those working in relatively understaffed rural areas. One anonymous deputy who voted against the changes, but who sympathised with some of those who voted to approve them, said, "I can see why we don't want to create a whole mess of extra work for nurses, but that's why there was supposed to be funding to hire additional nurses in the first place." One can read this change as petty penny-pinching, or as cautious deputies wishing to preserve the future and level of performance of a major social program.
There has been no change to the unemployment insurance reforms, as far as can be seen. This is unsurprising, as the unemployment insurance scheme was more the brainchild of prominent PJP centrist Bruce Russell than anyone else. These changes have angered the left wing of the party, but they are in little position to vote against, as they do represent a not-insignificant expansion of the welfare state. The bill remains under review, and whether the left, or the PM, who has promised to stay neutral, but no doubt is following the bill closely, make any additional changes is still up in the air.
SF vs Lisander
Scoring Summary: Emmanuel Laurin 16' (Wilson conversion), Ben Gordon 28' (Wilson conversion), Jamie Wilson penalty 49', Thomas Dupuis 58' (Wilson conversion), Kerry Warner 66' (Wilson conversion), Jamie Wilson penalty 69', Jamie Wilson penalty 75'
