Listen to the voters by all means. But recognise that they aren't calling for a cut in child tax credits
As it is apt to do, Twitter went into meltdown yesterday at the announcement by Labour interim leader Harriet Harman that the party would not oppose the Conservative proposal to limit tax credits to two children.
Harman also stated that Labour would not oppose other specifics in chancellor George Osborne’s planned cap on household welfare benefits.
Some of the backlash came from Harman’s contemporaries in the race to be the next Labour leader. Three of the four leadership candidates have so far come out in opposition to the limiting of tax credits to two children, with only Liz Kendall yet to set out her position.
In justifying Labour’s apparent support for Osborne’s plan to cut tax credits, Harman claimed that Labour could not tell the public they were wrong after two general election defeats:
“We cannot simply say to the public you were wrong at the election…we’ve got to wake up and recognise that this was not a blip; we’ve had a serious defeat and we must listen to why.”
In other words, the Conservatives have a mandate from the voters to cut tax credits (and benefits more generally) and therefore the Labour party should ‘listen’ (i.e. vote them through).
The problem is that this analysis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
It’s certainly arguable, regrettably, that the voters have given the government a mandate for swingeing departmental cuts – the chancellor has even rowed back to some extent on the scale of cuts he promised earlier this year. But there’s no mandate for cutting tax credits for those with children.
First of all quite simply because George Osborne did not tell the electorate prior to the election that he would cut child tax credits – in fact during the pre-election television debates David Cameron promised not to cut child tax credits.
The other reason we should not assume the Tories have a mandate to cut child tax credits is because fresh polling indicates that the public are against cuts to tax credits for those with children.
According to a survey done by Sky News last week, while the public back a cut in the amount of benefits that a household can receive from £26,000 to £23,000, they don’t support a cut in tax credits for those with children. The survey found that 63 per cent of people were opposed to cutting tax credits for those with children. The same number also opposed cutting benefits for disabled people who are working.
So no, there isn’t a public mandate for cutting child tax credits. And while it’s probably correct to say that in many policy areas the public are, regrettably, not in the same place as the Labour party, tax credits for children are not one of them.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
65 Responses to “Harriet Harman is wrong: the Conservatives don’t have a mandate to cut child tax credits”
stevep
Same old Tories, Same old story.
Spin and promises over policies before elections, brutal implementation afterwards when in power.
They did the same in 2010, promising no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. We all know what actually happened.
When will The UK electorate ever learn. If you vote Tory you vote for a party dedicated to preserving and enhancing the wealth and power of the rich elite. They do this by reducing the wealth and power of everyone else.
jacko
Why should anyone have to subsidize someone else’s large family? If you want 3,4,5,6,7 children -fine, but you pay for them. Perfectly reasonable.
JD
Whilst this was not a specific election commitment you are somewhat misleading when quoting the Sky News poll which was carried out before the budget was announced and was a general rather than a specific question.
People quite rightly react to benefits cuts being targeted at children. However they have a different view of changes which effect future behaviour. The planned child tax credits change affects children born in 2017 when the parents already have 2 children. The post budget polling by YouGov shows 67% think this a good thing with 20% a bad thing. My interpretation is that most voters can see that people have a choice on whether to have a 3rd or subsequent child in the future and are much more comfortable with this approach.
The data is here https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/09/osbornes-first-all-tory-budget-initial-scorecard/
stevep
Yes, in an increasingly overpopulated world, there is an argument to not subsidize excess children. But in the short to medium term governments need them when they grow up, to work, pay taxes and pay for the pensions of the generation preceding them.
Not to mention a healthy generation of cannon-fodder in case of war.
Matthew S. Dent
Because those children, once they grow up and start work, will be helping to support the ever larger demographic of older people through their retirement.
Just a thought.