Society

Thursday

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Hunt the heretic

Eureka, the science magazine from The Times, is in many ways a brilliant accomplishment. Advertising is following readers in an online migration – but James Harding, the editor, personally persuaded advertisers that a new magazine, in a newspaper, devoted to science would work. And here it is: giving the New Scientist a run for its money every month. That’s why it’s such a shame that today’s magazine opens on an anti-scientific piece denouncing those who disagree with the climate consensus. My former colleague Ben Webster, now the paper’s environment correspondent, is an energetic and original journalist – so it’s depressing to see his skills deployed in a game of hunt-the-heretic.

Peter Hoskin

Delaying the cuts

Put aside all the post-match analysis of David Cameron’s speech: the most intriguing story in the papers this morning is this one in the FT. It claims that the Treasury is working on plans to “reprofile” the spending cuts, which basically means “delay” them. The idea would be to push the bulk of the cuts back to the end of this Parliament. And the underlying concern is, apparently, that early cuts could trigger various financial penalties, such as those for breaking contracts. The paper even suggests that ministers are worried that, “deep deficit reduction in 2011-12 could undermine the fragile recovery.” The Treasury have firmly denied the story, and I’d

Wednesday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The government’s strategy has kept the child benefit story running

We have heard much since the coalition was formed about how Cabinet government has been restored. The child benefit flap reveals how limited this restoration is. There was no Cabinet approval of the decision and, as Andrew Grice confirms this morning, Iain Duncan-Smith was unaware of the change until the morning of the announcement. The other thing that strikes me, as someone who supports the idea and thinks it is potentially good politics, is the very odd approach to spinning this story. Sending David Cameron round the broadcast studios in the morning and then again in the evening to say ‘sorry’ about this policy and suggest possible compensatory measures was,

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Britain’s welfare families

We have a new facts and figures column in the magazine, Barometer, and I thought CoffeeHousers might like a preview of one of the data series we have dug up for tomorrow’s edition. George Osborne has this week pledged that, from 2013, no family on benefits should receive more than the average family does through work. But how many will it affect? Those living in expensive areas, for example, but also those with large families. CoffeeHousers may remember Karen Matthews, who lived on benefits with seven children. She was demonised, understandably, but I was left thinking: we paid her to do that. The more kids she has, the more money

Rod Liddle Rod Liddle

The moronic inferno strikes again

A remarkable lack of nerve shown by the Conservative Party over the cuts to Child Benefit, don’t you think? It occurred to me, when the announcement was made, that this would be an almost uniformly popular measure. Those on the left like would it because it smacks of progressiveness, those on the right wouldn’t mind it because it is a trimming of our benefits system which is de facto a good thing. And, from an admittedly limited sample space, this seemed to be borne out by your replies to my blog on the issue. And yet somehow Conservative Central office seemed gripped by panic, not least as a consequence of

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

IDS sets out his vision for combating poverty

There was a quiet momentousness about Iain Duncan Smith’s speech in Birmingham today – even before he started speaking. When IDS resigned the Tory leadership in 2003, he could barely have imagined that he would one day address his party as a leading member of the government. Even a few weeks ago, he couldn’t have been sure that the coalition would implement the policy agenda that he developed during his time at the Centre for Social Justice. Yet here IDS was, receiving a standing ovation for his efforts. What a difference seven years make. And then to the speech itself. Much of it reverberated to the same reforming drumbeat that

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Daily Mail and F Scott Fitzgerald

Top spot by Amol Rajan: Daily Mail, p5:  “Being slim ‘makes a woman happier than any man could’”. Daily Mail, p11: “Having a big bottom and thighs could shape up to a longer life, claim researchers”. As Amol says, living long and being happy ain’t necessarily the same. But what this means, I think, is that the Daily Mail  has a high opinion of its readers (at least its female readers anyway) since it expects them to satisfy Scott Fitzgerald’s definition of a first-rate intelligence, namely “the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” To wit: I

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Child Benefit Rumpus Cont.

The case against George Osborne’s plan to eliminate Child Benefit for higher-rate taxpayers runs roughly like this: We work hard, we’re successful –  in fact we pay most of the income tax collected in this country –  and we produce the children who will help pay for everyone’s pensions and now we’re the ones targetted by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why are we being penalised for having children? And yes, one can see why this would grate. According to this way of thinking Child Benefit is a small, but often very useful, rebate that is a kind of reward for Doing the Right Thing. It’s a thank you

James Forsyth James Forsyth

This is not a 10p tax moment

Last night, one minister came up to me nervously and asked, ‘is this our 10p tax moment?’ He was talking, obviously, about the decision to take child benefit away from households with a higher rate taxpayer in them.   My answer was no. The comparisons with Brown’s removal of the 10p tax rate miss a crucial point: Brown tried to hide what he was doing. In his final Budget statement to the Commons, the abolition of the 10p rate wasn’t even mentioned. Instead Brown boasted about a 2p reduction in the basic rate, to huge cheers from the Labour benches.   By contrast, the Tories have been upfront about the

Peter Hoskin

Cameron tries to defuse the child benefit row

Whether you agree with the plan to restrict child benefit or not – and, broadly speaking, I do – there’s little doubting that it has met with some fiery resistance in the papers today. The Telegraph leads the attack, calling it “a hastily conceived about-turn bundled out on breakfast TV”. The Daily Mail highlights the “blatant anomaly,” currently riling up the Mumsnet crowd, that a single earner family on £44,100 a year might lose the benefit, while a dual earning family on £87,000 can keep it. And the Independent does likewise. It should be said, though, that the Sun, the Times and the Financial Times are considerably more generous about

Rod Liddle Rod Liddle

Now that’s what I call ‘progressive’

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching the left try to attack these changes to child benefit changes from the left. The truth is it is a far more “progressive” policy than Labour would have dared, or indeed did dare, throughout its thirteen years in power. I suppose it is easier for the Conservatives to get away with it without being called vindictive class warriors, mind. On Newsnight, Polly Toynbee attempted to make out it was the Conservative Party’s policy to kill all children, or something, insisting that its proposed cuts had so far borne the imprimatur of King Herod, but she made herself look very silly indeed. But what about some of

Martin Bright

Searching for the Big Society

I had been hoping for some answers at the Policy Exchange fringe meeting last night, helpfully entitiled “The Big Society, What does it really mean?” Unfortunately, I wasn’t alone at Conservative Party conference in my search for some clarity on this issue and it was quite impossible to get into the event. Note to my friends at PX, the Big Society needs more room to breathe. Everyone here is scrambling to get a piece of the Big Society action. There is something a little unseemly about it. This is because there is business to be had as the functions of the state are further contracted out. For the fragile organisations

Monday

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Andy Coulson Will (Probably, Maybe) Be In Court Soon

There’s lots of good stuff in Peter Oborne’s* Dispatches programme on the News of the World phone-hacking story even if, in the end and like many TV documentaries it over-reaches and tries too hard to build too large a conspiracy when simply laying out the established facts would seem enough. Nevertheless, it certainly deserves your time. Peter probably makes too much of the Murdoch-Downing Street relationship (and he should certainly have pointed out that Lord Puttnam is a Labour peer). Much worse from the perspective of Joe Public who kind of feels as though celebrities and politicians are some kind of fair game, was the story of “Sam” – the

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Taxing issues

Today was a reminder of the tax change that would give Tory re-election chances a massive boost, raising the threshold at which the higher rate kicks in. Indeed, electorally dealing with this is far more important than the abolition of the 50p rate and has been made more so by the decision to link the withdrawal of child benefit to the higher rate. During Gordon Brown’s time at the Treasury, the number of people paying the higher rate almost doubled – principally because of fiscal drag, Brown didn’t link the threshold to earnings. This means there are a whole slew of people paying higher rate tax who are comfortably off

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Withdrawing child benefit at 16 would be the wrong call

In the last few weeks, there has been much speculation that child benefit would be stopped when a child reaches 16. Today’s announcement suggests that this is not going to happen, although the Tories are refusing to rule it out. If there are to be changes to child benefit — and given the financial situation there need to be — then removing it from households with a higher rate taxpayer is a better move than stopping it at 16. Child benefit ending at 16 would send out a message that at 16 a child should start earning its way in the world. This would, for obvious reasons, have a negative

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The beginning of the end of universal benefits

The most important line in George Osborne’s speech was this one: “It’s very difficult to justify taxing people on low income to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more than them.” Logically, this argument applies equally to all other universal benefits. Why should someone on £12,000 a year be paying tax to help cover the cost of Ken Clarke’s pension? Personally, I’m quite happy to see universal benefits go. The end of universal benefits would, though, change the nature of the welfare state. Quite rapidly, it would become a safety net not a contributory system. This is why Labour will oppose so vigorously taking child benefit

David Blackburn

Is there an alternative to cutting child benefit?

Beware a mother scorned. George Osborne’s copping some stick on Mumsnet, social forum for the Latte-drinking classes, and with good reason. ‘Hard-working families’, many of them far from rich, will feel abandoned by the party that ought to be theirs. IDS, Cameron and Osborne have taken a huge a political gamble, as James noted earlier, and they have also taken an enormous social risk. It is telling that the Centre for Social Justice, IDS’ think tank, are lukewarm about the proposal, describing it as ‘probably appropriate’ but calling for an alternative.  Skipping through the comments on Mumsnet and you can see why. Many of those whose combined income is roughly

Alex Massie Alex Massie

14.5 vs 13.5

A great effort from the Americans today but when it came to the final match you knew Europe could rely upon that tough little Ulsterman, Graeme McDowell. Not a chance he was going to let Hunter Mahan get a grip on their match.  Great drama, mind you and pleasing too that every member of the side contributed points. Quality stuff all round. Even UKIP voters can like Europe today…

The Spectator

CoffeeHousers’ Wall, 4 October – 10 October

Welcome to the latest CoffeeHousers’ Wall. For those who haven’t come across the Wall before, it’s a post we put up each Monday, on which – providing your writing isn’t libellous, crammed with swearing, or offensive to common decency – you’ll be able to say whatever you like in the comments section. There is no topic, so there’s no need to stay ‘on topic’ – which means you’ll be able to debate with each other more freely and extensively. There’s also no constraint on the length of what you write – so, in effect, you can become Coffee House bloggers. Anything’s fair game – from political stories in your local

Peter Hoskin

Welfare dominates Osborne’s speech

George Osborne delivered everything we expected, and then some. This was a confident and wide-ranging speech from a Chancellor who has suddenly discovered a central message: what’s right about burning £120 million of taxpayers’ cash in debt interest payments every day? Wouldn’t it be better to get to grips with that waste as soon as possible? And that message percolated down through everything from his attack on Ed Miliband to his case for reforming our public services. “It’s like a credit card,” Osborne growled, “the longer you leave it, the worse it gets.” But if that was the theme of Osborne’s symphony, then the motif was certainly welfare. Huge chunks