Nick Clegg avoided a universal cut in child benefit for 16-18 year olds
I was handed a free copy of the Sunday Telegraph today at the Royal Parks Run in London. My cup runneth over. Not only did I have the Torygraph to labour through in the afternoon while “my girls” were at Primark, but it included a free 20 track CD of Cliff Richard’s best tracks. Let joy be unconfined.
Any road up, during my deep trawl of the Torygraph I found this gem in an article by Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite:
The controversial decision to “pre-announce” the child benefit decision was made 10 days ago by the key Conservative power-broking trio of David Cameron, Mr Osborne and William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, it is understood.
A couple of days later they informed Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, and his party colleague Danny Alexander, the Treasury Chief Secretary – but did not tell their fellow Tories in the Cabinet, including Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary.
The large majority of Tory ministers only found out about the decision when Mr Osborne announced it in a TV interview last Monday.
It is also understood that the original plan had been to axe child benefit for all families once their children reached 16, instead of 18 at present, but that this was abandoned after protests from Mr Clegg.
Note that little bit at the end, mentioned in passing. So Nick Clegg was able to steer the government away from an end to Child Benefit from 16-18 years old and towards the cut for high income tax band payers.
I see that as a very significant shift indeed. We had the budget and the IFS’s (admittedly debatable) verdict that it was mildly regressive. A 16-18 year old cut in child benefit would have been another big blow for lower, average and even well above average earners with children. The eventual move to the cut for higher band taxpayers, despite its potential unfairness, is at least progressive.
Are there that many households with two people on £40,000 anyway? All these people bleating about unfairness (including me) are understandable. But if you take the main question in isolation, should a household with someone earning more than £43K receive child benefit, the simple answer, in these straitened times following a mildly regressive budget, is “no”.
I am glad that the polls bear this out.
Tweet
Related posts:
4 Responses to “Nick Clegg avoided a universal cut in child benefit for 16-18 year olds”
Leave a Reply
Burbler-in-chief
Thanks, I had missed this article in the online version!
[...] Paul Walter has spotted an under-reported point in the child benefit coverage of the past few days: that payments for children aged 16 to 18 were originally intended to be stopped, but that this plan was dropped after Nick Clegg intervened. [...]
This does raise the interesting question as to what Clegg and Alexander knew about impending events at the time LibDem conference was discussing the motion on fairness, and making commitments on universal benefits.
Clearly if they knew they felt unable to share important information with Conference. If they did not know then they were let down by their coalition partners. This is worth pondering for future guidance in coalition politics.
[...] Paul Walter has spotted an under-reported point in the child benefit coverage of the past few days: that payments for children aged 16 to 18 were originally intended to be stopped, but that this plan was dropped after Nick Clegg intervened. [...]