What does the childcare announcement really tell us?

By prioritising support for dual-earner couples, the coalition is shunning backbench Tory calls to favour the 'traditional' family.

Before we rush to dissect the government’s new childcare policy it is worth pausing to reflect on the very fact that in an unprecedented time of austerity a Conservative-led administration is proposing to spend near on £1bn on childcare. There are all sorts of caveats and problems with the policy, when it will be introduced and how it will be paid for. But before we rush into all that we should note that today’s announcement confirms that the issue of childcare will remain at the centre of the political arena.

There has already been plenty of unpicking of the proposals. But there are several aspects of what has been announced that say something significant about the policy and politics of the coalition that need to be drawn out.

First, there is the issue of who benefits. When highly constrained governments decide to spend new money, the issue of who gains the most provides an unusual moment of clarity about its distributional priorities. Choosing to spend the bulk of the new resource (£750m out of £950m) on a policy that excludes those on tax credits is very significant (bear in those on tax credits do already get support – see below). It rules out a lot people from the headline announcement. Indeed not many commentators are aware of how many people won’t access the new voucher policy because not many people realise how far up the income ladder universal credit reaches for working families relying on childcare (there is a hazy notion that UC is about the 'poor' when it actually reaches many households on middle incomes relying on childcare). A couple with two children in childcare would have to be on more than £40k of post-tax income before they come off universal credit (the figure is significantly higher if they are renting rather than home-owners). That is above the middle of the working-age income distribution. Those who have highly misleadingly referred to the vouchers policy as being ‘universal’ need to change their language.

Second, the announcement confirms something important about the type of family that the coalition is prioritising. As with all governments, it’s best to ignore the words that ministers are using and instead focus on the deeds. Child Benefit was means-tested in a way that helped dual earning families far more than single earning couples – much to the chagrin of Conservative backbenchers. The childcare announcement further ups the ante: not a penny of the £1bn of extra spending will benefit a couple where one parent stays at home. What’s more, some of the future spending will be paid for by ending the eligibility of single earner couples to vouchers (though existing claimants will be protected): to the extent there is a clear group of ‘losers’ it is single earner families wanting to claim vouchers in 2015 and beyond. And bear in mind this is happening at a time when the revealed preference of the Conservative leadership is to determinedly ignore its manifesto commitment to a married couples’ allowance, shunning calls to support the ‘traditional’ family. Whether you like or loathe this direction of travel (and I’ve long called for new support to be geared towards dual earners) it is pretty stark and reveals a willingness to ignore the sentiment of a large swathe of influential backbench support who feel ideologically disoriented (to put it politely) by these choices. This strategy on the family also hardly fits with the characterisation - popular among some centre-left critics of the Conservative leadership – that it is now largely captured by backbencher sentiment.

Third, today’s announcement included a significant, highly welcome, and largely unnoticed U-turn. One of the first cuts the coalition made was to the support on offer to low and middle income families for childcare via working tax credit. It was reduced from 80% to 70%. Privately some senior Lib Dems bitterly regret this decision (and their lack of scrutiny of it at the time). Following today’s announcement some of those on Universal Credit will be eligible for 85% of their childcare costs. This is a partial correction of an early mistake and should be welcomed as such.

It is, however, only a partial correction as from 2015 there will be a two-tier system of support for childcare within Universal Credit (bear with me). Depending on the level of family earnings, support for childcare costs will either be set at 85% or 70% - to be eligible for the higher rate both adults need to earn more than the (rapidly rising) personal tax allowance. This means a couple or lone parent with someone on the minimum wage working fewer than roughly 30 hours will miss out on the more generous level of support. ( It’s also striking that the new policy re-introduces cliff-edges to the tax credit system of the type that existed during the Labour years that Universal Credit was supposed to be getting rid of). I’ve yet to hear anyone even begin to justify how excluding these struggling part-time workers can be right when families with two children on a household income of up to £300k are set to receive a generous payment of £2.4k per year.

Fourth, this is a very fiddly announcement – and the fiddliness has important consequences. At a time when there is a lot of interest and potential support for simplifying childcare funding, today’s announcement - should it become policy beyond 2015 – cements three different childcare funding regimes: more generous tax-break vouchers for middle and higher income parents; and (for some) more generous tax-credits; as well as an entitlement to free childcare hours for 2, 3 and 4 year olds. As a result, the future politics of trying to pool spending on childcare in order to move towards a single, universal, supply-side funded system of childcare provision has just got harder.

Fifth, and related to this complexity, the announcement continues the awkward evolution of our tax system from one based solely around individuals to one which increasingly takes into account the earnings of partners. In addition to the highly clumsy system of means-testing introduced via the child benefit reforms, we will now need new systems for assessing childcare support entailing a joint assessment of earners in a household. Do they both earn enough to pay income tax in the case of universal credit? And do either of them earn enough to pay the 45% rate of tax in the case of the childcare voucher? Our tax and benefit systems continue to bump into each other.

Whatever you make of today’s announcement we can be sure that childcare is an issue which will run all the way to the next election (and quite possibly beyond). Labour’s response will be keenly awaited. It will certainly need one. The government’s announcement has in no way settled the childcare problem but it has signalled the start of the argument about how to solve it.

David Cameron is pictured during a visit to a London Early Years Foundation nursery in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Gavin Kelly is a former Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war