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

Good Society

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.

No related posts.

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

  1. toni pearce

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

  2. John Cantrell

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

  3. Pat Raven

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

  4. 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.

  5. Daniel Pitt

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

Comments are closed.