Nick Clegg averted the axe from over-16s’ child benefit

Paul Walter has spotted an under-reported point in the child benefit coverage of the past few days: that payments for children aged 16 to 18 were originally intended to be stopped, but that this plan was dropped after Nick Clegg intervened.

Paul spotted this in a “deep trawl” of the Telegraph:

The controversial decision to “pre-announce” the child benefit decision was made 10 days ago by the key Conservative power-broking trio of David Cameron, Mr Osborne and William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, it is understood.

A couple of days later they informed Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, and his party colleague Danny Alexander, the Treasury Chief Secretary – but did not tell their fellow Tories in the Cabinet, including Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary.

The large majority of Tory ministers only found out about the decision when Mr Osborne announced it in a TV interview last Monday.

It is also understood that the original plan had been to axe child benefit for all families once their children reached 16, instead of 18 at present, but that this was abandoned after protests from Mr Clegg.

Paul Walter responds:

Note that little bit at the end, mentioned in passing. So Nick Clegg was able to steer the government away from an end to Child Benefit from 16-18 years old and towards the cut for high income tax band payers.

I see that as a very significant shift indeed. We had the budget and the IFS’s (admittedly debatable) verdict that it was mildly regressive. A 16-18 year old cut in child benefit would have been another big blow for lower, average and even well above average earners with children. The eventual move to the cut for higher band taxpayers, despite its potential unfairness, is at least progressive.

You can read Paul’s full article at Liberal Burblings.

Read more by or more about , , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

9 Comments

  • Angry ex-Lib Dem 11th Oct '10 - 10:11am

    This is outrageous! I would much rather Nick Clegg were sitting impotently at the sidelines, unable to use his influence in government to steer the Tories away from damaging cuts. True, hundreds of thousands of young people would have been discouraged from entering training and higher education by the need to pay their way in the short term. But at least the Lib Dems would have remained ideologically pure, unsullied by anything as tawdry as real power! That way, I could continue my feeling of smug self-righteousness!!!

  • Excellent intervention by Clegg. Stopping state-handouts to those earning nearly twice the national average wage, rather than stopping them to parents of children in college is clearly the progressive and better option. So, cue Labour trolls’ posting frenzy saying why Clegg is evil for doing this…

  • @ Angry ex-Lib Dem

    How childish …come on admit who youb really are ?

  • After her awful performance on Question Time when she happily ignored the Conference resolution on Child benefit and went on to support a cap on benefit payments equal to the average wage irrespective of number of kids I fail to see how any self respecting Lib Dem could support Susan Kramer.

  • I don’t see why this should get anyone outside of the Lib Dem bubble excited. Big deal. This is surely minor versus the big issue of means testing child benefit?

  • Mike(The Labour one) 11th Oct '10 - 6:30pm

    Good. But there’s a “but”- had this happened you would be defending it as being “necessary”. Imagine if this had happened to all the things sold as “necessary”- the attacks on benefit claimants and so on. How much of what will happen could the Lib Dems have stopped or watered down, if they had the inclination?

  • I agree with Nick

  • ok Miek (the Labour one) – I can see that you are, *cough* Labour. Your comment says it all really. See second comment on the thread.

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 13th Nov - 12:14am
    Correction. Shoud say above - As a rule of thumb projects need to be able to generate a minimum of £1.50 in the form of...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 13th Nov - 12:07am
    Arnold Kiel gets to the crux of the matter when he writes "Public investment works if it triggers the deployment of private capital, but not...
  • User AvatarMartin 12th Nov - 11:52pm
    I see that Peter Martin's economics requires an autocratic and dictatorial, isolated system.
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 12th Nov - 10:43pm
    The £50m 'Remain Bonus' (splendid notion!) will need some rather careful figuring out of how it can be spent on 'public services and tackling inequality'....
  • User AvatarClive Sneddon 12th Nov - 9:44pm
    Gary J- How do you know the victims were not trafficked? The police have kept the lorry driver for questioning for so long because they...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 12th Nov - 9:24pm
    frankie, OK This is your last chance. You probably think my business cards aren't worth very much. You won't have any "faith" in them as...