Dear Chris Grayling: I was smacked as a child and it DID do me harm

If this is going to be a match of anecdotes, don't devalue mine, argues Glosswitch.

Chris Grayling, justice secretary, has defended a parent’s right to smack his or her child. In an interview with the Mail on Sunday (the main purpose of which appears to be to demonstrate just how rock hard he is – criminals, beware!) Grayling offers the following parental guidance:

You chastise children when they are bad, as my parents did me. I’m not opposed to smacking. It is to be used occasionally. Sometimes it sends a message – but I don’t hanker for the days when children were severely beaten at school.

Well, that’s all reasonable, isn’t it? Nice, loving parents shouldn’t have to spare the rod, although teachers – who are not to be trusted anyhow – bloody well should. I’m guessing, of course, that Grayling doesn’t mean all parents (one middle-class parent’s reasonable chastisement is another working-class parent’s beating the living daylights out of an innocent child). Still, Grayling was smacked as a kid, and he smacked his kids, so that’s all… fine?

The argument most commonly used in favour of smacking seems to be “I was smacked as a child and it didn’t do me any harm”. It is, on the face of it, a ridiculous argument. I was accidentally thrown into a half-frozen pond filled with ornamental carp as a child and it didn’t do me any harm. That’s not the sodding point. The question is not whether it harmed you personally but whether, potentially, it could be damaging to others.

And yet, on the other hand, it’s a very clever argument, because it silences dissent. You don’t want to be the person who says “I was smacked as a child and the experience scarred me”. After all, it makes you sound like the less rational person in the debate, seeing as you’re already admitting to being psychologically damaged. Plus it positions you as the kind of tosser who blames his or her parents for everything. Mummy and/or Daddy hit me and I’ve never forgiven them. Waah! That’s what it sounds like, even if actually, you now get on with your parents pretty well and consider them to be good people. You’re trying to make a point based on limited personal experience – in response to one which is similarly based on limited person experience – yet you sound like Kevin the teenager while your interlocutor somehow appears to have the wisdom of Solomon.

Well, I’ll stick my neck out here (please don’t hit it): I was smacked as a toddler, child and teenager and yes, the experience did cause me a great deal of fear and distress. This has lasted well into adulthood. I’m still terrified of people “turning” and becoming violent with me if I do the wrong thing. And yes, this might sound like I’m blaming Mummy and Daddy for my own personal flaws. And yes, perhaps you were hit too and you coped with it more successfully because you’re so much stronger than me. Frankly, I don’t think it matters (and yeah, I’ve effectively confessed to being less resilient than Chris Grayling. Although that in itself probably takes a certain amount of courage). Anyhow, let’s just not hit children. It’s surely not a risk worth taking.

I realise I might be pulled up due to the way I’m slipping between using the words “smack” and “hit”. Apparently they’re very different things. Great. Just tell me the cut-off point, because it’s not all that obvious to me. It might just come down to pressure that’s been ever so slightly misjudged, or the edge of a door getting in the way, or someone losing their balance, or the chair that you’ve been hiding under turning out to be more fragile than everyone believed. Nobody’s fault, all an accident. Because “reasonable chastisement” is, by its very nature, “reasonable”, and as for the rest, well, nobody’s perfect. A “loving slap” might occasionally be administered in anger. After all, we all get angry, don’t we? As long as it doesn’t leave marks it’s legal, and if it does? Well, some children bruise more easily than others. The law is a blunt tool. It’s messy. Hence it’s a good job that, for the most part, no one ever finds out what goes on behind closed doors. We just have a halfway-house legal compromise that, to take Grayling’s own words, “sends a message”, namely that administered correctly, physical violence can be an expression of love.

I don’t smack my children. I presume at this point in the argument I’m meant to list all the alternative forms of discipline I use. It’s something I’m loathe to do, on the basis that I don’t smack my partner, parents or colleagues either, and I doubt I’d be expected to offer up alternatives for dealing with them, too. All the same, I know it will be suggested that since children are less rational than adults, they form a special case. I don’t buy this. If they know enough about cause and effect to link being naughty with feeling pain, they also know enough to link it with things they value – praise or favours – being withheld (at least, mine seem to, and I definitely wouldn’t declare either of them to be more rational than the average child). Moreover, I’ve been around adults whom I’d consider less rational than my five-year-old (I’ve spent time in a psychiatric hospital and no, I’m not blaming my sodding parents for it). Some adults who are delusional strike me as less susceptible to grasping the long-term consequences of their actions than children are. I don’t see anyone making a moral case for hitting them (even if, in reality, that’s what some carers – the ones we regard as abusive – end up doing).

Clearly we don’t grant very small children the same rights to bodily integrity as everyone else, and there are reasons for this. I wash my children; I dress my children; I brush their teeth and rub shampoo into their hair even if it makes them cry. I do it “for their own good”, but I’m not always comfortable with it. Even so, there is difference between this and causing them fear and pain for the sake of it. Our children’s bodies are separate from our own. The older they get, the harder it is to just pick them up and plonk them wherever you need them to be. You have to use persuasion instead, and clearly that’s a pain in the arse when they’re ranting and raving about not wanting to wear pants on a Tuesday or needing to watch one more episode of Peppa Pig. When is it right for me to drag my children by the wrists and when is it abusive? I don’t know. What I do know is that unlike Grayling, I wouldn’t sit in the cold light of day, miles away from the complexities of family life, and calmly defend physical assault.

I don’t think I’m a better parent, or indeed a better person, than those who smack. The cultural acceptability of physical chastisement means it’s not the same as other forms of abuse. I think it’s possible to feel conflicted, and even guilty, for not smacking, given the number of people insisting it’s what parents should be able to do. Non-smackers face insinuations that if you don’t hit, you must be using psychological abuse to discipline your children, with the implication being that that’s far worse. But you can use both, one or the other, or neither. Surely at least attempting the latter is best.

And now I’m due back on parent duty to prevent someone from smacking my five-year-old. Obviously I’m against this, but at least this someone has an excuse; unlike Chris Grayling, he’s three.

Photograph: Getty Images

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.

Show Hide image

Q&A: What are tax credits and how do they work?

All you need to know about the government's plan to cut tax credits.

What are tax credits?

Tax credits are payments made regularly by the state into bank accounts to support families with children, or those who are in low-paid jobs. There are two types of tax credit: the working tax credit and the child tax credit.

What are they for?

To redistribute income to those less able to get by, or to provide for their children, on what they earn.

Are they similar to tax relief?

No. They don’t have much to do with tax. They’re more of a welfare thing. You don’t need to be a taxpayer to receive tax credits. It’s just that, unlike other benefits, they are based on the tax year and paid via the tax office.

Who is eligible?

Anyone aged over 16 (for child tax credits) and over 25 (for working tax credits) who normally lives in the UK can apply for them, depending on their income, the hours they work, whether they have a disability, and whether they pay for childcare.

What are their circumstances?

The more you earn, the less you are likely to receive. Single claimants must work at least 16 hours a week. Let’s take a full-time worker: if you work at least 30 hours a week, you are generally eligible for working tax credits if you earn less than £13,253 a year (if you’re single and don’t have children), or less than £18,023 (jointly as part of a couple without children but working at least 30 hours a week).

And for families?

A family with children and an income below about £32,200 can claim child tax credit. It used to be that the more children you have, the more you are eligible to receive – but George Osborne in his most recent Budget has limited child tax credit to two children.

How much money do you receive?

Again, this depends on your circumstances. The basic payment for a single claimant, or a joint claim by a couple, of working tax credits is £1,940 for the tax year. You can then receive extra, depending on your circumstances. For example, single parents can receive up to an additional £2,010, on top of the basic £1,940 payment; people who work more than 30 hours a week can receive up to an extra £810; and disabled workers up to £2,970. The average award of tax credit is £6,340 per year. Child tax credit claimants get £545 per year as a flat payment, plus £2,780 per child.

How many people claim tax credits?

About 4.5m people – the vast majority of these people (around 4m) have children.

How much does it cost the taxpayer?

The estimation is that they will cost the government £30bn in April 2015/16. That’s around 14 per cent of the £220bn welfare budget, which the Tories have pledged to cut by £12bn.

Who introduced this system?

New Labour. Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, developed tax credits in his first term. The system as we know it was established in April 2003.

Why did they do this?

To lift working people out of poverty, and to remove the disincentives to work believed to have been inculcated by welfare. The tax credit system made it more attractive for people depending on benefits to work, and gave those in low-paid jobs a helping hand.

Did it work?

Yes. Tax credits’ biggest achievement was lifting a record number of children out of poverty since the war. The proportion of children living below the poverty line fell from 35 per cent in 1998/9 to 19 per cent in 2012/13.

So what’s the problem?

Well, it’s a bit of a weird system in that it lets companies pay wages that are too low to live on without the state supplementing them. Many also criticise tax credits for allowing the minimum wage – also brought in by New Labour – to stagnate (ie. not keep up with the rate of inflation). David Cameron has called the system of taxing low earners and then handing them some money back via tax credits a “ridiculous merry-go-round”.

Then it’s a good thing to scrap them?

It would be fine if all those low earners and families struggling to get by would be given support in place of tax credits – a living wage, for example.

And that’s why the Tories are introducing a living wage...

That’s what they call it. But it’s not. The Chancellor announced in his most recent Budget a new minimum wage of £7.20 an hour for over-25s, rising to £9 by 2020. He called this the “national living wage” – it’s not, because the current living wage (which is calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, and currently non-compulsory) is already £9.15 in London and £7.85 in the rest of the country.

Will people be better off?

No. Quite the reverse. The IFS has said this slightly higher national minimum wage will not compensate working families who will be subjected to tax credit cuts; it is arithmetically impossible. The IFS director, Paul Johnson, commented: “Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.” It has been calculated that 3.2m low-paid workers will have their pay packets cut by an average of £1,350 a year.

Could the government change its policy to avoid this?

The Prime Minister and his frontbenchers have been pretty stubborn about pushing on with the plan. In spite of criticism from all angles – the IFS, campaigners, Labour, The Sun – Cameron has ruled out a review of the policy in the Autumn Statement, which is on 25 November. But there is an alternative. The chair of parliament’s Work & Pensions Select Committee and Labour MP Frank Field has proposed what he calls a “cost neutral” tweak to the tax credit cuts.

How would this alternative work?

Currently, if your income is less than £6,420, you will receive the maximum amount of tax credits. That threshold is called the gross income threshold. Field wants to introduce a second gross income threshold of £13,100 (what you earn if you work 35 hours a week on minimum wage). Those earning a salary between those two thresholds would have their tax credits reduced at a slower rate on whatever they earn above £6,420 up to £13,100. The percentage of what you earn above the basic threshold that is deducted from your tax credits is called the taper rate, and it is currently at 41 per cent. In contrast to this plan, the Tories want to halve the income threshold to £3,850 a year and increase the taper rate to 48 per cent once you hit that threshold, which basically means you lose more tax credits, faster, the more you earn.

When will the tax credit cuts come in?

They will be imposed from April next year, barring a u-turn.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.