We are all in this together but some of us are more in this than others

By Joshua Fenton-Glynn / @joshfg

The proposed changes that will cap the benefits that one household can receive and lead to less people being entitled to child benefit are an attack on some of the most vulnerable groups in society. These attacks make the slogan ‘we are all in this together’ ring as hollow as the idea of the ‘big society’.

The true effects of these policies will be far reaching and damaging to Labour’s legacy on child poverty and in some cases they will lead to families being left homeless. These are things that the Labour movement must be at the forefront of opposing.

A Universal Child Benefit

While some have argued that Labour should accept but modify the Conservative proposal to cut child benefit to those on high incomes, I believe that the principle of a universal benefit needs to be protected for practical and ideological reasons.

The reason child benefit is universal is because it is based on an understanding that it is more expensive to live with children than without. This is the case whether one is well off, or not. The universality of child benefit also means it’s one of the most popular benefits. These proposals threaten the level of support for child benefit as it will become seen as ‘just another support measure for those on low incomes’.

The practical reason for keeping child benefit is because as Kate Green MP former head of Child Poverty Action Group points out, it is consistently found to be the single most effective benefit in reducing child poverty. This is because of the simplicity of the process and because claiming it is not stigmatised, leading to an almost 100% take up rate. Both advantages will be compromised by the proposed changes.

Tying this benefit to the amount of tax people pay is simply a poor policy. As many have already noted, it means that a couple with a combined income of £80,000 earning 40,000 each could receive the benefit, whilst a single mother earning £43,000 would not.

The Conservatives tell us that it is not right that someone on minimum wage should pay tax to fund a benefit for those on high incomes. If they hold that principle dear, all they need do is raise tax thresholds and recoup that money by increasing taxes on those with higher incomes, rather than just taking money away from those who happen to have children.

A universal child benefit is something that has been supported by Labour, since its introduction by the Attlee government in 1945. We must protect it today and point out that there is no mandate for this cut as it was ruled out before the election by both coalition parties.

A Cap on Benefits

The other policy announced this week is that no household will earn over the average wage (about 23,000) in benefits. This is a headline grabbing, ill-considered proposal that risks plunging larger families into poverty and even homelessness. I have previously blogged on the problems of chasing headlines, and this shameless Daily Mailism ignores the complexity of some families’ needs.

This policy is mainly an attack on large families, already disproportionately likely to live in poverty with 40% of children in large families below the poverty line. It is not difficult for a large household to claim £500 a week in benefits, when you consider entitlements for multiple children receiving child benefit and a need for a larger house – although they are still often inadequate. This change will mean that children born into those families will be punished by the government for the crime of having more brothers and sisters or living with their grandparents. As these families fall further into arrears with their rent (as they inevitably will do), then we will see more and more families evicted from their houses.

Britain is the sixth largest economy in the world and the idea that such a country will put families on the street is frankly abhorrent. When Labour talks about the society that we want to see, it must include defending those benefits designed to protect the vulnerable.