Daily Archives: March 7, 2012

Elizabeth Rigby

Labour MP Sharon Hodgson was given short shrift from the prime minister today when she asked David Cameron whether the following statement was true:

The problem is policy is being run by two public school boys who don’t know what it’s like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can’t afford it for their children’s lunchboxes. What’s worse, they don’t care either

The prime minister told the MP for Washington and Sunderland West to celebrate the fact Nissan is building a new car in Britain rather that focusing on “whatever nonsense” she had read out.

That “nonsense” actually came from his own benches in the form of the rebellious and outspoken Nadine Dorries – she made the comments to my colleague Kiran Stacey this week when asked to discuss child benefit. Hers is not a lone voice: Mark Pritchard, MP for the Wrekin, also made similar remarks to the FT about the prime minister a few days ago. Read more >>

Kiran Stacey

After a couple of questions on Afghanistan, following the news that six British soldiers are presumed dead, Ed Miliband turned his attention to more domestic, and combative topics: specifically welfare.

What would the prime minister say, asked the Labour leader, to Tim Howells, a man from Dartford with a wife and three children, who faces losing his working tax credits when the minimum number of hours that must be worked to claim them rises from 16 hours to 24?

David Cameron had a reply: the 24-hour threshold was for couples, meaning each one only has to work 12 hours.

The problem is, replied Miliband, that his wife spends her time looking after the couple’s three children. And Howells simply can’t find the extra hours the government is asking him to do.

Cameron effectively acknowledged the unfairness, but was able to turn it to his own advantage: Read more >>

Kiran Stacey

I wrote earlier this week about the options open to ministers for solving the child benefit conundrum.

To recap, the government’s current proposals to axe child benefit for higher earners lead to two problems:

  1. Families with one person earning above the threshold (around £42,000) will lose their benefit, but those with two earning just below it will keep it.
  2. The lack of any tapering means it will become a disincentive to earn a promotion that takes you just above the £42,000 mark.

The most likely answer appears to be that George Osborne will find some extra money to move the threshold to £50,000 instead. But that solves neither issue, only moves the problem higher up the income scale.

But another proposal is floating round the Treasury: to reverse the plan altogether and instead cap child benefit at a certain number of children (most likely to be three). Read more >>