| Cameron defends child benefit cuts in face of criticism Prime minister forced to defend coalition welfare reforms as Labour seizes on minister's admission that plan may need revisionDavid Cameron today embarked on a round of media interviews as he attempted to head off growing controversy over the government's plans to cut child benefit for the better off.The prime minister admitted the decision to slash the benefit for higher-rate taxpayers "will not make us popular", but insisted it was the right thing to do.Defending the move against a growing backlash, he gave his full backing to George Osborne, who yesterday unveiled plans to unpick part of the universal principle at the heart of the welfare state with the withdrawal of child benefit from 1.2 million higher-income families.The move sparked warnings that the chancellor was punishing the Conservatives' middle class base and undermining stay at home mothers.Cameron visited a number of TV and radio studios to push his message that the measure was one of the "tough decisions" that needed to be taken to bring down the deficit.Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "I know what we are doing will not make us popular and many people will disagree with individual decisions or may disagree with all the decisions, but I profoundly believe it's the right thing to do ..."That is what motivates this government ... a sense that we have to roll up our sleeves, do what is right, take difficult decisions to get the country through these times to brighter times beyond."Osborne told the party conference in Birmingham he was withdrawing child benefit from parents earning enough to pay higher rate tax – currently about £44,000 – from 2013.The decision will mean a loss of £1,055 a year for one-child families and almost £2,500 for those with three children, and will save the Treasury £1bn a year.In an attempt to placate the right wing of the party, Osborne balanced his attack on middle class benefits by announcing a £26,000-a-year cap on the total value of benefits received by workless households.But his child benefit announcement – presented as part of "tough but fair" reforms to tackle the national deficit – has provoked disquiet within the Tory ranks.The children's minister, Tim Loughton, claimed the measure might need revising just hours after Osborne had unveiled it.The Treasury acknowledged that the cut would lead to the anomaly of a two-income family earning as much as £86,000 keeping the benefit while a family with one parent earning more than £44,000 and the other staying at home would lose it.Officials said the cutoff point had to be aligned with the higher rate income tax threshold to ensure simplicity and avoid complex means-testing.Loughton indicated that the measure could be revised, telling Channel 4 News: "If there are ways we can look at compensating measures for those genuinely in need, that will be looked at in future budgets."If the thresholds need to be adjusted, there's plenty of time to look at that."On Twitter today, Loughton played down his comments. "People over-excited over my child benefit comments," he wrote. "Calm down. Of course I'm not calling for review. Yes it's tough but fair."Cameron insisted that suggesting a review was "not quite what he [Loughton] said", but declined to comment further on the minister's intervention.Labour seized on the ministerial disarray over the policy.Yvette Cooper, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "The government's unfair attack on child benefit is now unravelling ... they have clearly been taken aback by the reaction of parents across the country."The government also came under fire from normally supportive newspapers such as the Mail and the Telegraph, as well as more usual critics such as the Mirror.Cameron said people earning £45,000 were not "rich", but added that it was "quite difficult" to justify spending £1bn on child benefit for the better off that could be spent in other areas.It was only right that "those with the broadest backs" bore their fair share of the burden while the 85% of people who did not pay higher rate tax continued to draw the benefit, he said.Asked why the government had opted to cut child benefit instead of free bus passes and winter fuel allowances, which benefit rich pensioners as well as the less well off, he denied that was because he had vowed to keep pensioner benefits in place during the election campaign.Osborne announced a cap on welfare payments, limiting the benefits paid to jobless households to the £26,000 average income of a family in work.The cap would restrict benefits to £500 a week from 2013, costing 50,000 households £93 a week on average.A small number of families would lose as much as £300 a week, but the limit would not apply to recipients of disability living allowance, war widows' pensions and working tax credit.The moves are part of an effort to slash the welfare bill, partly to help pay for the upfront costs of Iain Duncan Smith's planned radical benefits shakeup.He will today reveal details of his plan to combine many existing benefits into a single universal payment in an attempt to simplify the system and curb fraud.WelfareChild benefitCommunitiesChildrenConservative conferenceConservativesDavid CameronGeorge OsborneTaxTax and spendingEconomic policyAdam GabbattHélène Mulhollandguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
July 7 bombing survivor John Tulloch: how the media used my image How the image of John Tulloch with his suit in tatters and dried blood caked on his face became one of the photographs that came to symbolise the 7/7 terrorist attacks. telegraph.co.uk |
There goes Vince Cable, the coalition's Captain Oates The spending review is upon us and the mood is solemn. Even ministers with parachutes can't expect a soft landingWe are approaching the endgame. Ministers and their departments are gathered nervously at the edge of a cliff. It is best not to look down. When the spending review is published, we will all jump off together. There are only two parachutes, one for each of the protected departments, Health and International Development. Everyone else just has to hope for the best. In 2015, we will reach the bottom and assess who and what is still functioning. If voters like what they see, gathered on the ground in a broken heap, the government survives. If the injuries are too sickening, the government dies.The mood at the top is understandably solemn. There is uplifting talk that we are all in this together. There has been some last-minute panic. Liam Fox has been given a lifeline. Defence spending won't be cut as much as originally proposed. Every department has had their buildings budget slashed, the ultimate sacrifice for the defence of the realm. This was due to a highly effective lobbying campaign by the armed forces. Civil servants are frustrated at how quickly each prime minister develops a weakness of the knees when faced with a strong man in uniform.The two protected departments have been instructed to use their silky parachutes to distract attention from the painful screams of everyone else. They must put on a dazzling show and demonstrate money well spent. Andrew Mitchell at International Development is ready to jump. With some reforms in his department, it will not be too hard to show how aid money is going to good causes.In contrast, Andrew Lansley at Health is in serious trouble. He must explain how, financial protection aside, because of his radical NHS reforms there will be blood-curdling screams. Senior doctors and managers across the NHS have come to the conclusion that his reforms don't add up. Everyone is being terribly polite, but it will be impossible to make them work. The costs will be too high and the risks of failure and chaos too great.NHS leaders are hoping Lansley will set out a revised plan. They may hope in vain. The talk is that he has stopped listening and, even when he was, he was refusing to hear anything he didn't want to hear. To make matters worse, he has examined his parachute and discovered that the Treasury has cut chunks out of it. The official line is that the health budget has been protected and will increase. In reality, officials across Whitehall have been told that it has been reduced. Lansley will have to gush about his settlement while his department does more with less and the NHS implements a massive programme of hospital closures, job cuts and rationing vital treatment.The biggest shock was the suicidal antics of Vince Cable. Officials expected that he would agonise over tuition fees and be reluctant to tear up a major Lib Dem pledge. We were expecting a big ideological battle at the heart of government with tempers high until a messy compromise could be reached. Instead, he became the coalition's Captain Oates. He marched up to the edge of the cliff, spoke about the necessity of keeping the coalition together and said he was going for a walk and may be gone for some time. This bizarre episode left us civil servants scratching our heads. We no longer understand what the Liberal Democrats stand for. All ministers talk lovingly about coalition compromise and how it is a far more productive, wholesome kind of politics.But when the compromises become so extreme, isn't the love turning to lust? Aren't they just saying they will do anything to stay in power?Spending review 2010Vince CableAndrew Lansleyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Sunday's football as it happened Arsenal thump 10-man Man City, Javier Hernandez scores twice as Manchester United win at Stoke and Liverpool win at home against Blackburn in the Premier League. news.bbc.co.uk |
Cost of EU agencies triples to more than £2 billion The cost of funding European Union committees and agencies has more than tripled since 2005 and is on course to reach more than £2 billion next year, new research shows. telegraph.co.uk |