Society

Monday

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

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Osborne vs Upper-Class* Subsidy Junkies

Fraser is quite right: it is absurd that higher-rate tax-payers are paid child benefit. Ben Brogan is also right to note – though of course he uses some pretty extreme examples – that some people will lose from this measure. But this is not the case of the “squeezed middle”, it’s removing an upper-class benefit. Reading the Daily Telegraph you could be forgiven for thinking that half the country pays tax at the 40% rate. In fact just 10% of taxpayers make it to that bracket (though a rather higher percentage of families do). Certainly, the coalition’s plans will “hit” stay-at-home mothers in the stockbroker belt but, as the FT

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Osborne’s benefit risk

George Osborne’s announcement that child benefit will be taken away from any family with a higher rate taxpayer in it to help fund welfare reform shows how far Cameron and Osborne were prepared to go to keep Iain Duncan-Smith on board. During the campaign and in the Budget, Cameron and Osborne had strongly implied that child benefit would remain universal. The move carries it with considerable political risks. The measure takes effect from 2013, so before the country will have seen the benefits of welfare reform. Also families with one earner on £44,000 a year don’t consider themselves to be rich; there is already considerable irritation at how Gordon Brown’s

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Osborne can go even further on middle-class benefits

George Osborne had been expected to subject child benefits to tax. Instead he is to abolish them entirely for higher-rate taxpayers. I’ve spent this morning talking to friends, whose judgment I respect, who are furious about Cameron hitting the squeezed middle. I cannot agree, and here’s why. We are not talking about the “squeezed middle” here – of the 30.5 million income tax payers in Britain, just 3 million pay the top rate of tax (figures here). They’re the best-paid 10 percent – and I have never worked out why the tax of the average worker (who’s on £22k) should be higher to afford the payment to those on twice

Peter Hoskin

Osborne takes to the stage, armed with cuts

Rewind the tape to last year’s Tory conference, and David Cameron was assuring us that, “It will be a steep climb. But the view from the summit will be worth it.” Today, it falls to George Osborne to tell us more about both the arduousness off the ascent and the beauty of that view – although I expect that there will be a heavy empasis on the former. Already, the main passages are spilling into the papers and, as you’d expect, it’s mostly cuts and debt. On that front, the main argument seems to be similar to that made by Nick Clegg in Liverpool: that the longer it takes us

Sunday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Ken Clarke in the firing line

There’s an intriguing pre-conference story in the Mail on Sunday today. The paper reports that: “Ken Clarke faces a whispering campaign by allies of David Cameron and George Osborne to move him from Justice Minister because of his ‘disastrous’ views on law and order, it was claimed last night. Conservative MPs say Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are ‘ frustrated’ by Mr Clarke’s refusal to take a tougher line on key issues such as prison sentencing.” Clarke’s liberal views on criminal justice certainly are infuriating his colleagues. Allies of Theresa May have been heard to complain that “Ken is going to send the crime rate soaring and we’re going to

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

How Osborne and IDS reached agreement

I have found out a little more about the Universal Credit – and how the arguments over the summer were resolved. First, the backdrop. Money was always going to be a problem. This policy is about saving lives, not money. Right now, we pave the road to welfare dependency, creating a vacuum in the labour market that sucks in workers from overseas. Under Brown, the Treasury accepted this: cheap workers pay tax too, and as do companies who profit from them. Result: tax receipts up, but never fewer than 5 million on out-of-work benefits throught the boom years. The IDS plan was not sprung on Osborne. As I blogged a

Peter Hoskin

Cameron sets the mood for Birmingham

It’s that time of year again: Conservative Party conference. And with it comes wall-to-wall David Cameron. Our PM has a couple of interviews in the newspapers today and, to accompany them, he slotted in an appearance on the Marr show earlier. In all three, he hops neatly across the all same lily pads – spending cuts, IDS’s historic benefit reforms and the defence budget – making the points and arguments you might expect. Yet two snippets stand out, and are worth pasting into the scrapbook. First, Cameron’s claim on Marr that, “We have got to ask, are there some areas of universal benefits that are no longer affordable?” It may

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Society 3, The State 0

Cameron and Osborne may just be about to pull off something incredible. This time last year, The Spectator ran a cover story about a new proposal which we could revolutionise welfare: the Universal Credit. It was an IDS idea: he’d sweep away all 50-odd benefits, and replace it with a system that ran on a simple principle – if someone did extra work, they’d get to keep most of the money they earned. It meant a bureaucratic overhaul, of a system that controls the lives of 5.9 million people. The resistance from HM Treasury, the architect of the tax credit system, was as fierce as it was predictable. But Clegg

Saturday

The Spectator

Letters | 2 October 2010

Spectator readers respond to recent articles Darwinian faith Sir: I am always amazed at how little Darwin’s devotees seem to know about his theory of how evolution came about. In addressing the familiar riddle of why the fossil record does not show ‘intermediate forms’ between one species and another, Mr Lewin (Letters, 25 September) caustically claims that ‘intermediate is a mischief-word employed by creationists’. Had he read my article more carefully (or, more to the point, had he ever read The Origin of Species), he would realise that it was Darwin himself who first queried the absence of those ‘intermediate forms’. Darwin’s answer to these and other fundamental objections to his theory

The Spectator

Portrait of the week | 2 October 2010

The Spectator’s portrait of the week Home Ed Miliband, aged 40, was elected leader of the Labour party by 50.65 per cent of the vote, to 49.35 per cent for his brother David, aged 45. Ed Miliband had gained 15.522 per cent from MPs, 15.198 from party members — both lower figures than his brother, but 19.934 from unions. His speech to the Labour party conference used the words ‘new generation’ 15 times but invoked without apparent irony ‘the optimism of Harold Wilson and the white heat of technology’. David Miliband repeatedly called his brother ‘special’, but, during the passage in the speech disowning the Iraq war, he said to

Robin Oakley

The turf: Rescue remedy

Asked why he had sent a wreath in the shape of a lifebelt, a friend at the funeral of a man who had drowned replied, ‘It’s what he would have wanted.’ Does Flat racing, which keeps convincing itself it is drowning, need a lifebelt in the shape of a rich new fixture at Ascot on the second weekend in October to be called Champions Day? In the parade ring on Sunday, Ascot’s chairman Stoker Hartington, the Duke of Devonshire, just about convinced me that it does. Asked why he had sent a wreath in the shape of a lifebelt, a friend at the funeral of a man who had drowned

Melissa Kite

Real life | 2 October 2010

Tack shops. You can’t live with them, can’t live without them. There is no logical explanation for how compulsively these places draw you in. It is entirely probable they put something addictive in the air supply. Or would they even need to? The intoxicating smell of leather and leather soap, of soft brown suede, of waxed jackets, of hoof oil, of rubber and neoprene Hunters, ooh aah… Sorry, I’m having a moment. I know it’s not just me who suffers from addiction to specialist shops. Morrissey once made a very persuasive argument that he was in the grip of an obsessive compulsion involving Ryman’s the stationers. Every time he saw

Jeremy Clarke

Low life | 2 October 2010

I thought I’d never see the day when Sharon would be content to spend a quiet hour with me looking at my holiday snaps on the laptop. I thought I’d never see the day when Sharon would be content to spend a quiet hour with me looking at my holiday snaps on the laptop. Alcoholic nymphomaniacs, I suppose, must mellow over time like everybody else. Her interest was unflagging, even when we came to 50 pictures of the same three elephants enjoying themselves in the Shire river in Malawi. And when we got on to the ones I took of Madonna at a tree-planting ceremony near Lilongwe, she was avid.

Taki

High life | 2 October 2010

When Tom Wolfe harpooned Leonard Bernstein in his famous Sixties essay, he did it by quoting directly from those attending the infamous cocktail party Lenny gave for the Black Panthers. Wolfe had finagled an invite to the grand 5th Avenue Bernstein pad, and was taking notes throughout the evening. The end result was devastating. In fact, it killed radical chic once and for all. The rich and famous stopped giving dinners for cop killers and drug dealers and turned instead to philanthropy. Soon after, the great social climb began with a vengeance, John Fairchild’s nouvelle society was created and names like Steinberg, Kravis, Gutfreund, and so on became household ones