HAVING yet to truly match its fine words on welfare reform with firm action, the government again found its nerve being tested today on proposed cuts in disability benefits - and ended up putting off the deed for fear of unleashing what could be possibly be its biggest-ever back-bench revolt.
Yet, the problem of cutting the country's £100 billion welfare bill is a nettle that has to be grasped with the whole system coming under increasing strain as the balance between contributions and claimants shifts at the hands of demographic change.
But having backed away, albeit temporarily, from putting its planned reform of incapacity benefit to the vote - and having, with its proposed cuts in single parents' benefit, seen 18 months ago the scale of rebellion such measures can provoke on its own side of the house - the government, two years into office and virtually fireproof from all but treacherous dissent, still ought to be proceeding more resolutely on such a key issue.
It is, of course, easy for the matter to be clouded by emotion - with any assaults on the benefit rights of the disabled sure to attract claims of heartlessness. But the plain fact is that many claimants are in fact quite well off and might never have been on this benefit in the first place if the last government had not used it as one of the many cosmetic devices it used to make the unemployment figures look better.
The doubling of the number of claimants in the decade up to 1985 is evidence of this and not some sudden surge in disability across the country.
And considering the fact that nearly half the people drawing this allowance are retired on occupational company pensions and are in the top half of the country's income group, it is indisputable that in seeking to means test it and target the benefit at people for whom it was originally intended, the government is in fact only aiming to reduce it for people who do not depend on it, other than for luxury.
It need not be nervous about doing what is right, but the fear is that in the time that it has bought by this postponement it will be watering down its proposals in a bid to accommodate the potential rebels when it ought to confront them and the issue head on.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article