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
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
65 Responses to “Harriet Harman is wrong: the Conservatives don’t have a mandate to cut child tax credits”
GhostofJimMorisson
Labour lost because the Murdoch Empire ran a serious campaign against them for at least 2-3 years (just as Blair held on for so long because the Murdoch Empire backed him for so long).
Delusional, patronising guff! You honestly think working people are so gullible they will vote for the Tories just because the Sun tells them too? Most people aren’t stupid – unlike your comments – and voted for the Tories not because they had any great love for them, but because Labour’s message and its leader was weak; the people still did not trust them on the economy.
It’s about time we clipped the wings of the media and their ability to be so bias. The news should not be media, it should be factual and impartial.
So, you don’t believe in a free press, then? Because left-wing papers are NEVER biased!
pravjey
Would that also apply to the Guardian which does tend to be more favourable to Labour but can also be critical? The problem with claiming media bias is that (a) one looks like a sore loser, (b) one cannot have it both ways and (c) it is an easy way to be tainted as being against freedom of speech.
Matt Booth
The whole media is bias, it’s about time it became the news and not the spin rags of political parties! And that includes the left wing papers too!
And utter twaddle. People voted Tory because of a concerted effort against Labour for years of the Coalition. It was hammered into people that Labour were at fault for all our financial woes, and you ask any blue collar British person and they will repeat, verbatim, the lines from the newspapers. When, really, it’s all rubbish.
Do I believe in the freedom of the press? Sure, if it’s the TRUTH. Should a newspaper be allowed to back a political party?! No.
Also, note how you conveniently missed how I also stated the obvious fact that the reason Blair had so much support was because of the Murdoch media as well. That man has influenced UK politics for a long, long time and that HAS to end.
Matt Booth
That would apply to all media, left and right. It cannot be denied that Murdoch has influenced British politics for decades.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/sep/30/sun-ditches-labour-for-tories
pravjey
This isn’t entirely true. Liz Kendall has come out against cutting tax credits and she is in favour of a proper living wage rather than the Osborne’s national “living wage”.