Is this the coalition's 10p tax moment?

Child benefit cuts come under attack from all sides.

It must count as some achievement to attract the simultaneous ire of the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the trade union movement and the Labour Party. That's the unusual position George Osborne finds himself in this morning as his raid on child benefit comes under attack.

It appears that the cabinet was given little, if any, advance warning of the move, with one minister describing it as "complete bombshell". The Mail and Telegraph both attack the measure as a blow against the family in their leaders this morning and the IFS warns of the perverse anti-work incentives that result from the move. The decision to abolish child benefit for all higher-rate taxpayers means that a one-earner couple with two children with a gross income of £43,876-£46,850 would be worse off than if their income were £43,875. A one-earner couple with an income of £43,875 would need a pay rise of at least £2,975 to ensure they were no worse off after paying tax and losing child benefit.

It's for reasons like this that, less than 24 hours after the measure was announced, the children's minister, Tim Loughton, has already floated the possibility of "compensating measures" for those who have lost out. Is this the coalition's 10p tax moment? It would be foolish to rule it out. The decision to simultaneously abolish tax credits for all those earning over £30,000 means that there will be howls of anguish from those set to lose thousands of pounds of benefits in a single stroke.

But far more significant is the fact that this marks the opening salvo in the coalition's war on the universal welfare state. The decision to make child benefit universal was never just about income, rather it was the means by which society collectively recognised and supported the decision of couples to start a family. Once the poison of means-testing is injected into the system, the principles on which the entire welfare state is built start to break down. And it is the poorest who will suffer the most from the abandonment of universality. As the great sociologist, Richard Titmuss phrased it: "services for the poor will always be poor services." Ed Miliband must live up to his campaign promises and resist the coalition all the way.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

These are the two options for Brexit – which will Theresa May choose?

It doesn't really matter if the Tories are unified around a position that doesn't work. 

Has Theresa May taken control of the Brexit talks or lost it? On the plus side you have the poaching of Olly Robbins, from his post as chief mandarin at the Brexit department to Downing Street. He will retain his role as the UK's top civil servant in the Brexit negotiations, increasing May's involvement in the talks. Jim Pickard and Henry Mance have a good account of the consequences across Whitehall in the FT.

On the minus side, you have, well, everything else really. "Boris is Boris," was the PM's lukewarm response to his big intervention in the Brexit talks, an acknowledgement that she is too weak to move him. In the Times, Francis Elliott and Sam Coates report on May's plan to try to bind Johnson into her Brexit approach a meeting of the cabinet on Thursday, before her big speech in Florence at the end of the week.

May's predecessor-but-three, William Hague, has used his Telegraph column to warn her that she must unite the Conservatives on Europe or lose the next election to Labour. (He would know, to be fair.) "May must unite Tories on Brexit or lose election, warns Hague" is their splash.

The big divide, James Forsyth explains in the Spectator, is between those favouring a Canada-style loose arrangement with high levels of freedom but a low standard of participation in the single market, and those backing a Norway-esque close arrangement with a low level of freedom and a high level of participation in the single market. Which will May pick?

As one senior Conservative observed yesterday, political reality means that May will likely tilt towards the cabinet's Canada tendency, as Tory Remainers are reluctant to be "suicide bombers" against their own government. The PM has a lot less to lose by moving away from Philip Hammond, Amber Rudd and Damian Green than she does from Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Priti Patel.

There's a small problem here, though: which is that the United Kingdom can't negotiate a Canada-style deal in the time set out by Article 50, and will struggle to put one together even with a period of transition. There isn't really an off-the-shelf model here, as far and away the biggest part of the British economy is services and most big trade deals have done comparatively little for services.

That only compounds May's difficulties. The first problem is that unifying her party around a common position on Europe is easier said than done (just ask, say, anyone who has led the Conservatives since 1970). The second is, as her clash with Boris Johnson shows, she can't unify anything as she doesn't have the power any more. The third and the most important is that it doesn't really matter if the Conservative Party is unified around a Brexit position that doesn't work. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.