The coalition government and social engineering

By Kathryn Rose

Why are people accusing the coalition government of social engineering? Maybe it’s something to do with their policies. George Osborne sent out a letter to all MPs, regarding the Child Benefit cut, stating that:

“I know some have pointed out that this approach will leave households that do not contain a higher rate taxpayer, but whose joint income is above the higher-rate threshold, still in receipt of child benefit. The only way to assess these joint income families would be…a new complex, costly and intrusive means test.”

In order to have a working Child Benefit system, based upon the highest earner in the household’s income, it is necessary to know who the highest earner is and what they earn. Is the coalition really suggesting that it is acceptable to ask who lives in the household and how much the highest earner earns, yet asking about the income of the other half of the couple (usually the mother and therefore more likely to be the primary carer of the child) is taboo?

It also helps to consider that they already ask for both people’s National Insurance numbers under the present system. If asking about both partners’ incomes were taboo then the government would have no use for the National Insurance numbers it already demands on child benefit application forms. George Osborne’s explanation for the decision to penalise stay-at-home mums does not make sense; but we can be sure that if one half of a couple earns just over the threshold to lose their child benefit and their partner does not go out to work, then that couple will be left to struggle by these ‘reforms’.

Child benefit is not the only benefit under discussion which affects children, when cuts to support the children of the unemployed were discussed, Jeremy Hunt suggested that:

“The number of children that you have is a choice and what we’re saying is that if people are living on benefits then they make choices…it’s not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices.”

There are two major flaws with this comment and the benefits cap it relates to. It suggests, as Jeremy does, that those on benefits should think carefully about whether or not to have a big family; this decision might be a choice for the parents, it is not a choice for the young people who will be the ones brought-up in poverty.

There is also an assumption that before deciding to have children parents will know whether they will be unemployed in the future. Under this benefit-capping concept it is fine to have six or seven children; but only if you are employed. If an employed couple decides that their jobs will enable them to support a large family and they lose those jobs in a recession, their children will suffer under the weight of these government restrictions.

Did David Cameron consult a financial advisor and ask him or her to make a calculation about how many children he should have, based upon a projection of his life-time earnings, with adjustments made for projected times of unemployment, before his baby daughter was conceived? I doubt it. Yet he seems to expect others to do so; an assumption made on cobweb-thin foundations. This coalition clearly considers its remit to stretch beyond children; it’s also, apparently, expert on relationships. On the subject of married couples’ tax allowance, David Cameron said:

“I have always supported the idea of supporting marriage through the tax system, specifically supporting the idea of a transferable tax allowance. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the coalition agreement.”

Apart from an over-emphasis of the terms ‘support’ and ‘idea’, which demonstrate the fact that he is supporting ideas rather than confessing his policies, this is a transparent attempt at social engineering. If a couple co-habit they are not rewarded; but if they marry then they are. A side-affect that the coalition does not appear to have considered is that if a man leaves the family home and divorces his wife, then proceeds to marry a new partner, the man and his new partner get rewarded for their marriage while his first wife who is left bringing-up the children is not rewarded.

Don’t worry parents; the coalition government supports your parenting so much that it wants your children to stay at home until they are twenty-one. When discussing student finance, Vince Cable told MPs:

“It is quite possible and indeed desirable, that we could move to a more sensible system where many students study in their home towns.”

Such a theory might seem acceptable to those whose home town is Oxford or Cambridge; however, if a bright young scholar happens to be born in the Shetlands then why shouldn’t they go to Oxford or Cambridge?

There’s also the inconvenient truth that valuable courses in subjects like neuroscience are not likely to be widely available; yet Vince Cable suggests that students should study in their home towns. Higher fees will mean that more students are under increasing pressure to stay in their home towns; this pressure is financial and so the richest will move to do the course of their choice and the poorest will, regardless of their ability, come under pressure to stay in their home cities. I don’t remember plans to artificially alter when students leave home being present in the Liberal Democrat election manifesto.

This is a coalition government financially pressurising families so that stay-at-home mothers are forced to work, poorer families are pressured to have less children, marriage results in a tax bonus, and poorer students have to stay at home until they graduate. If you are two married parents, living together, on forty-two thousand a year each, with a small number of children and none of whom leave home to attend university: then yours are the benefits.

Are they indulging in social engineering, you decide…