How the Autumn Statement hit "the strivers"

Sixty per cent of welfare cuts made in this parliament will fall on the working poor.

For a Chancellor who prefaced his Autumn Statement with a declaration that he was "on the side of these who want to work hard and get on", George Osborne has made some rather inconsistent announcements yesterday.

Consider, for example, his decision to uprate tax credits at below-inflation levels for the next three years. Both working couples and lone parents look set to lose over £23 of their working tax credit (WTC) in 2013-14 as a result of this move. Not so bad, one might think, but remember that this comes on top of a prior freeze in value of other key elements of WTC which will remain in place, and which will shave an additional £60 off a working family’s entitlement next year.

The changes being made to the personal tax allowance will do little to offset this shortfall. Extending the threshold potentially leaves basic rate taxpayers £47 better off in 2013-14. But for low-income working families, much of this gain evaporates as other forms of support are tapered away in response to their higher post-tax income. While those further up the income scale will keep the full £47, a working family eligible for both housing and council tax benefit will gain only 13p a week extra as a result of extended allowances.

Osborne is fond of the notion that there is a group of hard working "strivers" out there who throw "those with their blinds down" into sharp relief. In truth, the vast majority of those who rely on benefits and tax credits for part of their income have worked, are in work, or will be back in work very shortly in the future.

And with estimates suggesting that around 60 per cent of welfare cuts made in this parliament will hit the working poor, the Chancellor must do much more to show he understands the problems that those on low incomes face. Rather than glib words, Osborne needs to start providing real, rather than merely rhetorical, support for hard-pressed working families and individuals.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith leaves 10 Downing Street on 5 December, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

Alison Garnham is chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Home Office made Theresa May. But it could still destroy her

Even politicians who leave the Home Office a success may find themselves dogged by it. 

Good morning. When Theresa May left the Home Office for the last time, she told civil servants that there would always be a little bit of the Home Office inside her.

She meant in terms of its enduring effect on her, but today is a reminder of its enduring ability to do damage on her reputation in the present day.

The case of Jamal al-Harith, released from Guantanamo Bay under David Blunkett but handed a £1m compensation payout under Theresa May, who last week died in a suicide bomb attack on Iraqi forces in Mosul, where he was fighting on behalf of Isis. 

For all Blunkett left in the wake of a scandal, his handling of the department was seen to be effective and his reputation was enhanced, rather than diminished, by his tenure. May's reputation as a "safe pair of hands" in the country, as "one of us" on immigration as far as the Conservative right is concerned and her credibility as not just another headbanger on stop and search all come from her long tenure at the Home Office. 

The event was the cue for the Mail to engage in its preferred sport of Blair-bashing. It’s all his fault for the payout – which in addition to buying al-Harith a house may also have fattened the pockets of IS – and the release. Not so fast, replied Blair in a punchy statement: didn’t you campaign for him to be released, and wasn’t the payout approved by your old pal Theresa May? (I paraphrase slightly.)

That resulted in a difficult Q&A for Downing Street’s spokesman yesterday, which HuffPo’s Paul Waugh has posted in full here. As it was May’s old department which has the job of keeping tabs on domestic terror threats the row rebounds onto her. 

Blair is right to say that every government has to “balance proper concern for civil liberties with desire to protect our security”. And it would be an act of spectacular revisionism to declare that Blair’s government was overly concerned with civil liberty rather than internal security.

Whether al-Harith should never have been freed or, as his family believe, was picked up by mistake before being radicalised in prison is an open question. Certainly the journey from wrongly-incarcerated fellow traveller to hardened terrorist is one that we’ve seen before in Northern Ireland and may have occurred here.

Regardless, the presumption of innocence is an important one but it means that occasionally, that means that someone goes on to commit crimes again. (The case of Ian Stewart, convicted of murdering the author Helen Bailey yesterday, and who may have murdered his first wife Diane Stewart as well, is another example of this.)

Nonetheless, May won’t have got that right every time. Her tenure at the Home Office, so crucial to her reputation as a “safe pair of hands”, may yet be weaponised by a clever rival, whether from inside or outside the Conservative Party. 

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