Skip to main content

Mr Cameron lied to voters on tax credits.

This week  the Tories were on the back foot over impending cuts in working tax credits. It demonstrated the effectiveness of Jeremy Corbyn's approach to PMQs. His use of a question from a real person demonstrating the impact of the cuts produced a response that hoisted the Prime Minister on his own petard.

The leader of the opposition planted a ticking bomb which put the government on the back foot through the week. The Labour leader repeated his PMQs tactic of asking questions submitted by the public, saying he had received 2,000 emails about tax credits. One was from a single mother who he said would be £1,800 worse off under the government's changes to tax credits.

Sure enough, the bomb exploded with an emotional intervention from a member of the BBC Question Time audience again illustrating the real impact, in this case on someone who had voted Conservative and feels betrayed.

Cameron had promised in the general election that there would be no changes to working tax credits.

Ironically Mr Cameron made his pledge on BBC Question Time election special in April. He was asked by Jenny in the audience whether it was true the Tories had plans to cut working tax credits.

He then gave an unequivocal reply.

"No, I don't want to do that. This report that's out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today."

The host David Dimbleby then pushed him on the detail, saying some people were clearly worried.

The PM replied: "Child tax credit we increased by £450."

"And it's not going to fall?" asked the presenter.

The PM confirmed: "It's not going to fall."

This was no slip. It was the Tory leader giving an unqualified response.

Now the government have been forced once again to give a response.

A spokesperson for Mr Cameron has said: “It’s worth remembering with tax credits ... they have increased over the years and so the spend on tax credits has gone up and up and up. If we’re going to tackle the overall welfare budget and try to move away from being a high welfare country to a low welfare country, then this is something we have to look at.”

They justify the cuts on the grounds that the bill for tax credits is too high. This is disengenuous. No doubt the bill is high, but that was as true in April before the election as it is now. There is only one conclusion we can draw. Mr Cameron knew he was giving a false answer in April. He lied.

It is also disingenuous in another way. Unemployment has fallen in large part by a massive increase in part time jobs and in those in work like the lady on question time. She set up her own small business - a nail parlour. She relies on tax credits. The government has forced many into low payed jobs and on tenuous contracts, or no contracts at all.

There are now more than 5 million people in low payed jobs. A recent report showed that workers in Britain were more likely to be low paid than workers in comparable economies like Germany and Australia.

So what is the truth on tax credits.  One in five of the lowest paid workers will be worse off. That is the bottom line.  Hard working families will be pushed into poverty. That is the incontrovertible truth.  It means that a hard working mum on £14,500 a year with a disabled child will lose £1,800 per year in support. That is the bottom line.  So who are these people?

Those who will suffer will not  be simply some statistic on a spreadsheet. They will be real people such as nursery nurses.  They will be real people such as carers. They will be many of the 5 million hard working people in low paid jobs.  That is the reality, and it is as disgraceful as it is unnecessary.


.











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,