Child benefit u-turn ahoy!

Ed Balls is attacking the Chancellor on child benefit cuts partly because he knows it is a policy th

Ed Balls has written an article for the PoliticsHome website previewing Labour's lines of attack on the government ahead of the Budget. Alongside the usual complaints that not enough is being done to boost jobs and growth, there is a new specific emphasis on cuts that, according to the Shadow Chancellor, represent a "bombshell" for families.

On Monday Labour will use an Opposition Day debate in the House of Commons to repeat our demand a plan for jobs and growth in next month's Budget. And we will call on the Chancellor to think again on changes to tax credits and child benefit which will cost families with children up to £4,000 per year.

Labour knows this is a weak spot for the government. The cuts Balls identifies are particularly ill thought through and he knows it. Tax credits were raided in a panic late last year to find extra money to pay for a back-to-work scheme for young people that was hastily cobbled together when it became clear that youth unemployment was becoming a political problem. Child benefit cuts for higher rate tax payers were announced ahead of the 2010 Conservative party conference partly as a tactical gambit by the Chancellor to demonstrate that he had the courage to raid his own party's supporters' pockets for the deficit reduction programme - thereby proving to everyone else that "we're all in it together."

The problem, as more and more people are noticing, is that the cuts are unworkable. James Forsyth reports in today's Mail on Sunday how anxious George Osborne and David Cameron are about child benefit in particular. The chief problem is that two-income households in which each earner is just below the higher rate threshold keep their benefit, while a single-income household just above the line gets hit. Yet the former family is much better off. Desperate compromises are being debated in Downing Street.

A shadow cabinet minister recently complained to me that Labour have not pressed the government enough on this issue, leaving it to Tory backbenchers to demand changes. "There's clearly going to be a u-turn on child benefit cuts," I was told. "Why aren't we lining up to get the credit for it?" Well now they are.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

David Blunkett compares Labour membership to failed revolution “from Ukraine to Egypt”

The Labour peer and former home secretary says new members need a “meaningful political education”, and accuses unions of neglecting their “historic balance”.

There are three sorts of opposition. There’s the civil society opposition, with people campaigning in their own specific areas, people who’ve got an interest group or are delivering social enterprise or a charity. I don’t think we should underestimate that because we're going to have to hang on to it as part of the renewal of civil society.

The second is the opposition formally, within the House of Commons: those who have agreed to serve as the formal shadow ministerial teams. Because of what I’d describe as the turmoil over the last two years, they’ve either not been able to be impressive – ie. they’re trying very hard but they don't have the coherent leadership or backing to do it – or they’ve got completely different interests to what it is they’re supposed to be doing, and therefore they’re not engaged with the main task.

Then there’s the third, which is the informal opposition – Labour linked sometimes to the Lib Dems and the SNP in Parliament on the opposition benches as a whole. They’re not doing a bad job with the informal opposition. People getting on with their work on select committees, the departmental committees beginning to shape policy that they can hopefully feed to the National Executive Committee, depending on the make-up of the National Executive Committee following this year’s conference. That embryo development of coherent policy thinking will be the seed-bed for the future.

I lived through, worked through, and was integrally involved with, what happened in the early Eighties, so I know it well. And people were in despair after the ‘83 election. Although it took us a long time to pull round, we did. It’s one reason why so many people, quite rightly in my view, don't want to repeat the split of 1931 or the split of 1981.

So they are endeavouring to stay in to argue to have some vision of a better tomorrow, and to persuade those of goodwill who have joined the party – who genuinely believe in a social movement and in extra-parliamentary non-violent activity, which I respect entirely – to persuade them that they’ll only be effective if they can link up with a functioning political process at national level, and at townhall and county level as well.

In other words, to learn the lessons of what’s happened across the world recently as well as in the past, from the Ukraine to Egypt, that if the groundswell doesn’t connect to a functioning party leadership, then, with the best will in the world, it’s not going to achieve its overall goals.

How do we engage with meaningful political education within the broader Labour party and trade union movement, with the substantially increased rank-and-file membership, without being patronising – and without setting up an alternative to Momentum, which would allow Momentum to justify its existence as a party within a party?

That's the challenge of the next two years. It's not just about someone with a vision, who’s charismatic, has leadership qualities, coming forward, that in itself won’t resolve the challenge because this isn't primarily, exclusively about Jeremy Corbyn. This is about the project being entirely on the wrong trajectory.

A lot depends on what the trade unions do. They command effectively the majority on the National Executive Committee. They command the key votes at party conference. And they command the message and resources that go out on the policy or programmes. It’s not just down to personality and who wins the General Secretary of Unite; it’s what the other unions are doing to actually provide their historic balance, because they always have – until now – provided a ballast, foundation, for the Labour party, through thick and thin. And over the last two years, that historic role has diminished considerably, and they seem to just be drifting.

I don’t think anybody should expect there to be a party leadership challenge any time soon. It may be that Jeremy Corbyn might be persuaded at some point to stand down. I was against the challenge against him last year anyway, purely because there wasn't a prepared candidate, there wasn't a policy platform, and there hadn’t been a recruitment drive to back it up.

People shouldn’t expect there to be some sort of white charger out there who will bring an immediate and quick end to the pain we’re going through. I think it’s going to be a readjustment, with people coming to conclusions in the next two years that might lead the party to be in a position to fight a credible general election in 2020. I’ve every intention of laying down some good red wine and still being alive to drink it when the Labour party is elected back to power.

David Blunkett is a Labour peer and former home secretary and education secretary.

As told to Anoosh Chakelian.

This article first appeared in the 30 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Wanted: an opposition