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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As