The Independent View: In tough times, parents need the government to help them, not to judge them

fifties-familyBackbench Conservative MPs are causing trouble and the marriage tax allowance is rearing its ugly head again. First, the so-called Alternative Queen’s speech would introduce tax breaks for married couples, alongside other excruciatingly right wing measures such as a Margaret Thatcher Day and the reintroduction of the Death Penalty. Also this week Tim Loughton has tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill which would introduce a tax break for married couples with children under five, where one parent is a breadwinner and the other is a homemaker.

Don’t Judge My Family, the campaign against the marriage tax allowance, has been inundated with emails from people across the country, angry and outraged that the government wants to use the tax system to enforce an old fashioned model of family life. How dare the government tell us being married and having one parent staying at home is the right way to bring up our children?

Those who would lose out from Tim Loughton’s amendment include:

  • those couples who are least well off, where neither parent is able to work
  • single parent families (in which 1 in 4 children grow up)
  • widows or widowers with young children
  • parents where both (or one) earn a low wage
  • parents who choose not to get married.

This is simply unfair. The amendment is a kick in the teeth for all these hardworking families who are doing the best for themselves and their kids. In these tough times, Mums and Dads need the government to help them, not to judge them.

Because the amendment leaves it open for the Chancellor to set the thresholds for the tax break, it’s not yet clear how much this policy would cost. Based on figures quoted by the House of Commons library, we estimate between £0.5bn and £1.5bn. When the government is just about to cut another £11.5bn from public spending, it’s even more outrageous if they can find money to judge our families.

If they were really serious about supporting children and families, they could invest in relationship counselling, reopen SureStart centres, tame the cuts to child benefit or put more money helping families fleeing domestic violence. But they aren’t. They care more about chasing right wing votes.

The Coalition Agreement enables Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on a marriage tax allowance, although  Nick Clegg is a vocal opponent.  This amendment – to be debated 1st or 2nd July – will not be supported by the government. So Liberal Democrat MPs are free to say what they really think. We hope they join with us and say Don’t Judge My Family!

You can sign up here: www.dontjudge.org.uk and follow at @dontjudgemy

* Julianne Marriott is Campaign Director of Don’t Judge My Family.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in The Independent View.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/35065 for Twitter and emails.

2 Comments

  • “The amendment is a kick in the teeth for all these hardworking families who are doing the best for themselves and their kids. ”

    No, it’s the current system – the one the author’s article supports – that is a kick in the teeth for single income hardworking families. Maybe if the author actually believed in the concept of “Don’t judge my family”, she would ‘t exclude single income families from her category of “hardworking families”.

    This proposal will win votes for the Conservatives from other parties. The Lib Dems as partners in this coalition will lose votes to them if they ignore this idea. “Gifting” votes to other parties does not make electoral sense.

  • Peter Davies 25th Jun '13 - 8:36pm

    The Amendment is unfunded so your list of who loses is pure speculation. There are a lot of ways to raise 1.5 bn that have no impact on any of these groups.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarRichard Dean 29th Jul - 2:27am
    @T-J. There are issues, certainly, but it would be foolish to throw away opportunities that the commonwealth provides, including the 20% that jedibeeftrix mentioned. And...
  • User AvatarMark Valladares 29th Jul - 1:55am
    An interesting debate, as these types of philosophical debates often are. As someone who has been part of the LDV team in the past, then...
  • User AvatarT-J 29th Jul - 1:48am
    Credibility in human rights isn't needed for credibility in business, no. But credibility on the rule of law is. And if the law on whether...
  • User AvatarRichard Dean 29th Jul - 1:30am
    Credibility in the human rights sphere has never been a significant determinant of credibility in business and trade. But what's this about "steering"? Maybe more...
  • User AvatarT-J 29th Jul - 1:11am
    I'm not complaining. I already asked myself those questions and found the answers pointing in a different direction. Like I say, I used to be...
  • User AvatarDavid Allen 29th Jul - 12:53am
    LJP: I'm with Stephen Hesketh about status indicators. I think they would help if available for voluntary use. Someone like you could opt to leave...