The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The Tories are in danger of appearing complacent over child benefit cuts

Even if the majority of voters support the policy, those who don't could yet hurt the Tories.

By George Eaton Published 29 October 2012 9:57

Chancellor George Osborne. Photograph: Getty Images.

Chancellor George Osborne speaks at the Conservative conference in Manchester earlier this month. Photograph: Getty Images.

In a bid to assuage Tory MPs fearful that the child benefit cuts could be their 10p tax moment, the Conservatives have released new private polling showing that the overwhelming majority of voters support the policy, including those who will lose out. The party's survey, conducted by Populus (and reportedly commissioned by George Osborne), found that 82 per cent of people favour plans to taper the benefit away from households in which at least one person earns more than £50,000 (those in which one person earns at least £60,000 will lose it all together), with just 13 per cent opposed. In addition, 78 per cent of people with children under-18 support the policy, as do 74 per cent of households earning over £69,000, 82 per cent of households with income between £55,000 and £69,000, and 80 per cent of households with income between £41,000 and £55,000.

We've yet to see the wording of the question used by the Tories, but the results are in line with previous polls on the subject. Despite this, it's hard to avoid the sense that the party is in danger of lapsing into complacency. As HM Revenue & Customs will inform those affected this week, families will lose £1,055.60 a year for a first child and a further £696.80 a year for each additional child, meaning that a family with three children stands to lose £2,449.20 - the equivalent of a £3,500 pay cut (since child benefit is untaxed).

The Tories argue that the policy, which takes effect in January 2013, differs from Gordon Brown's ill-fated decision to abolish the 10p tax rate in at least three respects. First, while Brown insisted for months, against all evidence to the contrary, that there would be "no losers" from the move, the coalition has been clear that some will lose out - they can't be accused of deception. Second, while it was the low-paid who lost out under Brown's policy (they saw their marginal tax rate double from 10p to 20p), it is the top 15 per cent of earners who lose out under the Tories'. Finally, while the 10p tax move was widely viewed as "unfair", the majority of voters believe the child benefit cuts are fair.

But as the Daily Express's Patrick O'Flynn suggests, more important than question of how many oppose the policy, is the intensity of their opposition. If the 13 per cent opposed to the move vote against the Tories in protest at the next election, the party will suffer significant losses. Thus, Osborne's poll, if intended to reassure Conservative backbenchers, is likely to have the opposite effect. Rather than persuading Tory MPs that the Chancellor understands their concerns, it will only confirm their fear that he doesn't.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Child Benefit Conservatives George Osborne Spending Cuts

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

10 comments

Tue, 2012-10-30 08:16 — same old (not verified)

Some things never change. Once again the Conservatives make cuts affecting children (remember maggie, who, in one of her first policies, stopped free milk in schools). And Cameron the so called 'family' man who spends more time with his family than in parliament. The tories will always make cuts in the public sector and lower classes. "the poor protect the wealthy' etc
Its no wander they are despised and almost anonymous in Scotland. Put simply, we can see right through them.

Thu, 2012-11-01 06:29 — GaryM (not verified)

I'm not sure I've ever seen so many contradictions in so few words.

Firstly, you state "Cameron the so called 'family' man" implying maybe that he neglects to spend time with his young family; but no you follow up by informing us that he in fact "spends more time with his family that in parliament." You are clearly confused.

Secondly, you say that the Tories will always make cuts in the private sector and to an extent this is true, but ask yourself why? Labour had 13 years of profligate spending in the public sector without attempting any significant reforms. The stauts quo could not continue, even if the country wasn't bankrupt.

This article describes how the Tories have reformed child allowance, removing it from those earning over £50,000. Please explain how this is an attack on the 'lower classes'? How is taking tax-payer money from those in the top 15% to cut the welfare bill the poor protecting the wealthy? Are you using traditional methods of social classification or those adopted by New Labour who remember were "intensely relaxed about people being filthy rich"?

The 'milk snatcher' only cut milk for 7 to 11 years olds, although why let facts get in the way of a good ideological rant, eh?

To sum up, and add my own views of the article, I would say that removing child allowance from those who would normally vote for you because it is that right thing to do is traditionally Conservative. Far from this caricature of the nasty party, the Tories more often than not look for ways to treat adults like adult and allow people to stand on their own 2 feet. Whether that mean selling them their council home, so they feel ownership, lowering tax rates or encouraging the private sector to invest in enterprise it is the Tories with the best interests of the country at heart.

Tue, 2012-10-30 08:12 — same old (not verified)

Mon, 2012-10-29 23:34 — Michael Dixon (not verified)

Unsure as to why a left of centre magazine does not support this policy, unless there is never any attempt to judge a policy as fair because it happens to be introduced by "the Tories."

What would you be saying if the Balls proposed this policy, assuming we were in fairyland and he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Supportive? Most likely, which opens the door to accusations of hypocrisy.

Mon, 2012-10-29 21:23 — Not_a_Tory_Voter (not verified)

User less policy from a useless government. Taxi for Gidiot !

Mon, 2012-10-29 18:49 — Eddy S (not verified)

makes sense to reduce benefits for the rich. we should promote such progressive policies !

Mon, 2012-10-29 13:04 — Lucidus (not verified)

One in six higher earners expect to see their child benefit payments reduced when the planned child benefit tax comes into force in January next year, but some who act now could save themselves thousands.

But there’s a clever, tax-efficient trick that should help you beat the child benefit tax, and boost your retirement savings. We take a look at how it works.

Paying larger contributions into a pension to push your total income below the threshold at which the tax kicks in stands to save you a considerable amount, as well as provide a big boost to retirement savings.

A quarter of higher rate tax payers expecting to see their child benefit payments reduced plan to use this method to avoid the tax, says Prudential.

thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2192562/Trick-avoid-losing-child-benefit-boost-pension.html

Mon, 2012-10-29 12:33 — mike cobley (not verified)

Has to be said, the Tories have played a blinder; 4 years after the banking and financial sector took the industrialised world to the brink of collapse, certain sectors of the public have been successfully indoctrinated to believe that kicking the poor will solve our problems. Of course, with the relentless support from those well-trained attack dogs, the Mail and the Express (as well as the wolfish Telegraph), their propaganda has swamped any valiant attempts to tell the truth. Trebles all round! Pretty soon, benefit claimants of any kind will no longer be able to sign on for state benefits until they have been through reeducation programs dedicated to producing useful and docile peons.

Mon, 2012-10-29 10:45 — Hugh C Markey (not verified)

With Bulgaria and other Eastern European EU countries within a whisker of coming on stream, labour as a resource or whatever will be coming on stream shortly and the procreative incentive will not matter. Yes, it's called trafficking. It's a nasty job but someone's got to do it.
The reason for the adopting sons(daughters) from related families by the Ancient Roman upper crust( not plebs, for the Gods' Sake ) is suspected to have been because of the lead pipes used in plumbing. Progeny by slave girls didn't count - some authority - Boris Ataturk, we theenk.
With ample labour resources why should a Tory government fork out for replacement workers or plebs, or shirkers or whatever word the Tories use. That's it - proles. What would Tory farmers think? The EU bungs 'em loads in agri-grants and now farm-labourers are abundant again.
And Tory employers - immigrants are schooled and cared for by other nations and arrive as self-starters in the UK. What's to complain?
It has not always had a bad name but this application of constricting the nationhood has been called 'euthanasia'.
Where are all those pro-lifers when you want them?

Britannia A*****d

Mon, 2012-10-29 10:26 — Shaun (not verified)

This policy is unfair, unworkable and the Tory's will soon be unelectable.

The Tory's could lose 2-5% of their core vote on this one policy.

I have lost count of how many Tory voters who have stated they will not vote Tory again due to sheer unfairness of this policy. They just can't except DC repeated cry that this policy is fair when it quite clearly is not.

Bring on the next GE.