I'm no longer disappointed when the so-called Opposition fail to oppose the Government on 'Welfare Reform' measures, as I've long since given up hope of seeing any but the few regular rebels try to counter the myth of the over-generous benefits system.
The 'Welfare Cap' as a concept causes no end of confusion amongst commentators. On this morning's Radio 4 news, there was a rambling reference to the 'cap' of £350 for a single person or £500 for a family, which is actually the 'wrong' cap entirely. The issue before Parliament today proposed a limit on overall Social Security Spending - excluding Retirement Pensions and Jobseekers Allowance.
The 'other' cap supposedly ensures that non-working households cannot be better off than someone on 'average' earnings. This may sound fair, until you allow for the fact that where housing costs are high, wages are low or the working family is a large one, Housing Benefit and Tax Credits will still be available to help, meaning that the 'hardworking family' with £26,000 in earnings can conceivably receive as much again in state help with their rent and living expenses. In practice, this measure throws people with children but without jobs out of London and the south-east - arguably the areas in which they are most likely to find a job - and forces them to move north, to areas of cheaper housing and fewer employment opportunities.
The last time Labour expressed an opinion on this cruel policy, the suggestion was made that the cap needed regional variation. At which point the prospects of me rejoining the party retreated just that little bit further over the horizon...
Of course, since they like to disguise attacks on our poorest and most vulnerable citizens as something benign, the Government didn't introduce this as 'The Welfare Cap'. They called it the 'Charter for Budget Responsibility'. So if this is about 'budget responsibility', where are the spending limits on other measures?
The 'cap' today excludes Retirement Pension, presumably because everyone accepts that the number of pensioners is rising steadily, people are living longer, pensioners are by definition 'deserving poor' and God forbid that we frighten the 'grey vote. Any pensioner reassured by this have overlooked that other benefits they might need - Attendance Allowance and Housing Benefit to name but the most obvious - are within the 'cap'. So severely disabled pensioners and those in rented homes could be affected, as presumably could the poorest who claim Pension Credit.
Excluding Jobseekers Allowance was an odd one - perhaps, for all the talk of recovery, the Government aren't confident that they can increase employment rates at all? It seems odd to exclude this working age benefit when all others stay in the cash-limited group. So if the Government accept they cannot prevent people growing older or losing their jobs, what do they expect to control?
Sickness and disability, apparently, since Employment and Support Allowance and the various disability benefits are within the cap. If that seems logical, imagine for a moment that the Government proposed an 'NHS cap' and pledged to limit spending on all hospital procedures, regardless of demand, except heart by-pass and chemotherapy. There would be an outcry if they challenged the opposition to accept a fixed limit on the cost of repairing broken bones or treating Alzheimer's disease.
Housing benefit is in there too - without any pledge to control rents or discourage over-inflationary house prices. On the contrary, we have 'help to buy' pushing up demand and prices and on-going, uncapped financial support for the banking industry.
Tax credits also fall within the cap - paid to low-waged workers and parents with children. Is there any moral case to restrict benefits for these people without also pushing up the minimum wage? And what else - bereavement benefits, industrial injuries payments, carers allowance. Anyone seriously think those are paid to 'scroungers'?
All credit to the thirteen Labour MPs who rebelled - arguably, the last 13 real Labour MPs left in the modern House of Commons. Or the only Labour members who could see through the lazy propaganda about 'skivers' and 'dependency' this measure was wrapped in.
So I'm not disappointed that there wasn't more of a rebellion. But that doesn't mean I'm not angry.
