Cameron’s “patronising drivel” is offensive and costs the same as EMA

The Tory flagship 'family values' policy, the Married Tax Allowance, has been found to have little impact on children's lives, a new report from Demos reveals.

The Conservatives’ flagship ‘family values’ policy, the Married Tax Allowance, has been found to have little impact on the lives of children, according to a new report from the think tank Demos. The research says the policy – slated as “patronising drivel” by Nick Clegg during the general election campaign, is:

“… a distraction from the real challenge, which should be to ensure that children grow up in stable and nurturing environments that support their social and emotional development…

“There is no evidence of a ‘marriage effect’; rather marriage is probably a proxy for more successful relationship. Government is right to support a proxy for more successful relationships in so far as they impact on children. However, many married couples do not have children, making this proposal both moralising and inefficient, as it draws resource away from some of the most at risk families.”

David Cameron intended the policy, which would entitle one third of married couples with children to an extra £3 per week, to “send a signal” about marriage. However, many families who do not meet the prime minister’s template have found the message offensive.

Josie Cluer, campaign director of the Don’t Judge My Family Campaign, said:

“The proposed marriage tax allowance would cost over half a billion pounds a year to implement. If David Cameron really cared about what was best for families and kids, he would be using that money to protect Sure Start, EMA and child benefit: not using to appease the dinosaurs on the right of his party.”

In total, the Married Tax Allowance is projected to cost £550 million by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, approximately the same amount as, or more than:

• The EMA, projected to cost £564 million in 2010/11;

• Cuts to the Early Intervention Grant, which enables councils to pay for Sure Start, of £300 million;

• Cuts to the legal aid budget, which helps those on modest incomes secure legal representation of £300 million.

41 Responses to “Cameron’s “patronising drivel” is offensive and costs the same as EMA”

  1. HJ Hampson

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  2. russsmith

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  3. Sarah Mingay

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  4. NUS UK

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  5. WH

    RT @nusuk: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  6. James Doman

    RT @nusuk: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  7. GoldAnthUncut

    RT @nusuk: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  8. Ed Hitchon Godfrey

    RT @nusuk: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  9. Martin Wilson

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  10. College of NW London

    RT @nusuk: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  11. Tony Dowling

    RT @nusuk: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  12. Watching You

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  13. NUT Young Teachers

    RT @nusuk: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  14. Save EMA

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  15. dolly daydream

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  16. Tom King

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  17. UCU

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  18. Who needs it’s more – married couples or poor families? « Blog Jono

    […] is an interesting piece on the Left Foot Forward website today which criticises Cameron’s proposals for a Marriage Tax […]

  19. Éoin Clarke

    At the crucial age where young adults are balancing their studies, their family and their growing social life, the pressures they face can be extremely difficult. As a result of the EMA abolition, 1000s of young adults will now undertake evening or weekend work. I have taught children who opt for this route. Some of them arrive in school mentally and physically drained. They cannot possibly be learning as efficiently as their more rested counterpart. All too often these young adults will face pressure from their parents to financially contribute. If these people are going to have the normal functional teenage life one should expect for one of the worlds eading economies, we should be able to make a financial provision for these young adult learners. It is less about the fear of these children dropping out of school but more about taking on increased committments of Saturday and Sunday work at precisely the times when would hope they would be revising.

  20. Daniel Stevens

    Cameron's “patronising drivel” is offensive and costs the same as EMA: The Conservatives' flagship 'family value… //bit.ly/huNvZc

  21. Jacob Richardson

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  22. Katie H

    Cameron's "patronising drivel" re: marriage tax allowance //bit.ly/hXLRbT I'm not married but have a daughter – what about her?

  23. Carlo Suffolk

    It was obvious form the off that the MTA could not impact social mobility and fairness in the very simple (but effective way) the EMA did. This research is another nail in any contention that it does.

    This very right wing Tory-led government have a arsenal of such ideological anti-fairness policies.

    Their impact will subsume any polling boost they might get if they are able (IF) to reduce the defict and offer tax cuts.

    That is the fundamental flaw at the herat of the ConDem stratgey.

  24. Save EMA

    Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  25. Stephen Milward

    RT @SaveEMA: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  26. toni pearce

    Excuse me Mr Cameron, but I'd rather you rewarded women for getting an education than rewarding them for marrying off. //bit.ly/hoKuST

  27. John Cantrell

    RT @SaveEMA: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  28. Pat Raven

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA //bit.ly/hXLRbT

  29. Mr. Sensible

    Daniel, it seems that yesterday the Coalition took 1 step forward and 2 back with regard to families.

    The step forward was Mr Clegg continuing Harriet Harman’s policy to allow couples to share maternity and paternity leave, but the steps back were the continuation of these proposals on the MTA.

    When the cuts to child benefit were announced in October, I think the IFS said that if the coalition decided to extend the allowance to offset Child Benefit losses from higher rate taxpayers, the total cost of the married couples tax allowance would work out at almost as much as the saving from cutting Child Benefit.

  30. Daniel Pitt

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  31. Trakgalvis

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  32. Prym face

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  33. Leo Boe

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  34. Nicole Baughan

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  35. SSP Campsie

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  36. Polly Worthington

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  37. Broken OfBritain

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  38. Top Politics Tweets

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  39. Bored London Gurl

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  40. Trakgalvis

    RT @ucu: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron's "patronising drivel" is offensive and costs the same as EMA: //bit.ly/hoKuST reports @DanielElton

  41. Mr Nasty: The regressive, judgemental horror of IDS’ marriage tax plans | Left Foot Forward

    […] this year, Demos said it was: “… a distraction from the real challenge, which should be to ensure that children […]

Leave a Reply