Big welcome from centre right press for IDS' report

The traditionally right-of-centre newspapers give a warm welcome this morning to yesterday's policy recommendations from Iain Duncan Smith.  Although there is some discussion of the breadth of the report, the main focus is on the promises to help families.

Daily Mail (not online): "For ten years, Gordon Brown has presided over a tax and benefits system that not only destroys incentives to work, but positively encourages parents to live apart, while penalising those who stay together.  Mr Cameron's determination to redress that balance not only makes good sense for Britain; it makes good politics for the Tories too.  If he has the sense to match properly costed policies to his brave words, he'll find he's on to a vote-winner."

Daily Telegraph: "The outcomes for children raised by two parents living together are far better than for those raised by single parents, and couples are far more likely to remain together if they are married rather than cohabiting... This is clearly a sphere in which Mr Cameron feels comfortable and to which he can bring sincere personal conviction. It may well be his key to a successful opposition strategy."

The Sun (not online): "For the first-time, the Tories have carved out vote-winning territory beyond the reach of New Labour.  They promise to use the tax and welfare system to reward marriage... A stable and happy marriage offers the best family environment for children... Now - instead of suggesting we pay more for our booze, museums and cheap flights - the Tories are backing marriage.  And that has to be a good thing."

Daily Express (not online): "David Cameron is right to set a political course that encompasses tax breaks for married parents.  Marriage should be encouraged because children thrive when they grow up in stable, two-parent families.  Labour's welfare state tinkering has led to parents lower down the income scale being much better off if they split up.  That cannot be right."

Leaders in The Guardian and Independent are critical of the marriage recommendations although The Independent is impressed with much of the report: "This voluminous report is for the most part admirably free of preconceptions, and contains ideas that would deserve consideration by a government of any complexion."

David Cameron writes for the Mail about his commitment to marriage.

Comments

[Alan S]

This is some of the best coverage we have had since DC became our leader. The rehabilitation of Iain Duncan Smith appears complete.

[601]

"Leaders in The Guardian and Independent are critical of the marriage recommendations "

Wow. Then it really must be a vote winner!

[Jennifer Wells]

Perhaps all of this good news coverage will finally put grammars-gate behind us.

[Og]

First, well done Cameron for supporting the IDS conclusions (and of course to IDS for his commitment and integrity - he doesn't look so useless a politician now, does he, media luvvies?)

But, can Cameron and Hilton understand what has happened here? A traditional conservative position is found to be justified by exhaustive recent research and empirical evidence, and is applauded by those, who if they all voted Conservative, would return the party with a majority at the next election.

Drop the leftie-outreach tactic and stick to honest hard work and facts-of-life conclusions - they are vote-winners and respect-winners.

[Edward]

Fantastic!

[Edward]

"and is applauded by those, who if they all voted Conservative, would return the party with a majority at the next election"

Og - how do you know this?

[malcolm]

I notice you didn't mention the Times. The report was buried on page 27 and there was no comment of it on their leader page. Perhaps journalists have not yet had the chance to absorb the whole report before deadlines approached.
Peter Riddell (Times political editor) was at a CWF meeting last night ,he admitted to being impressed with the scope and scale of IDS' report which he described as 'extremely interesting'. Alan Duncan at the same meeting made the point that we had to be very careful in the language we used when debating the merits or otherwise of this report or we could face a 'back to basics' scenario.

[James Maskell]

There was nothing wrong with the Back to Basics idea. The problem was that it was undermined by the people who were advocating it.

[Richard Lowe]

Excellent news - I also like how IDS came off so much better on the Today programme than Ed Miliband!

All we need now is hard policy!

[David]

"The problem was that it was undermined by the people who were advocating it. "

Regardless whether you think the idea was sound or not, the fact that it was undermined and in doing so was so linked with the whole Tory sleaze/incompetance image means that being linked with 'Back to Basics' again will be toxic. Labour know that, which is why they are trotting out the line.

[Michael McGowan]

David, if the Tory Party is so timourous and incompetent that after ten years of epic Labour sleaze and incompetence, it cannot produce three examples for every moth-eaten example that Labour dredges up, then it doesn't deserve to win an election.

[David]

Throwing sleaze allegations at each other wasn't really my point.

[reality check]

So my sister, whose husband has walked out on her, leaving her with 3 kids is now going to be penalised by the conservative party by having to pay more tax as well as look after the kids on hr own.

How modern.

[David]

Your sister will be getting the same amount of benefits that single parents currently get. Sounds modern to me.

[malcolm]

Please 'reality check' refer me to the section in the report where it states that someone in your sisters situation would have to pay more tax. I'm fairly sure it isn't true.

[Valedictoryan]

So my sister, whose husband has walked out on her, leaving her with 3 kids is now going to be penalised by the conservative party...

And my sister, whose husband hasn't walked out on her, is currently being penalised by the Labour Party for staying married.

Anyway, the report doesn't propose to take away from your sister. It proposes to give more to mine -- which is why the cost is £6bn, not neutral.

[reality check]

David - she works, in a reasonably well paid job. She gets no benefits.

Malcolm - had her husband stayed, who looked after the kids, she would have been entitled to a transferable allowance.

The effect of her husband leaving will be that she will pay over £1000 more in tax at a time she will be incurring greater child care costs.

The problem many of you seem to have is that you are stuck in a 1970s view of the world where a single mum is living on benefits on a council estate, not a hard working graduate who has been thrown a curve ball in life and is trying to pay a mortgage and bring up her kids.

Sometime I think you simpley have no idea about real life.

[David]

"David - she works, in a reasonably well paid job. She gets no benefits."

So she's not really going to struggle then.

"The problem many of you seem to have is that you are stuck in a 1970s view of the world where a single mum is living on benefits on a council estate, not a hard working graduate who has been thrown a curve ball in life and is trying to pay a mortgage and bring up her kids."

But she'd be in exactly the same situation as a single mum if all of these proposals get enacted as she is now.

[reality check]

Valedictorian: more like d minus I'm afraid!

"And my sister, whose husband hasn't walked out on her, is currently being penalised by the Labour Party for staying married." - Not true, unless they are entitled to benefits as they are taxed the same as an unmarried couple. The benefit system my discriminate against married couples however the tax system taxes married couples as if they were not married (changed in 1998)except that they benefit in inheritance tax (so can stay in a house they share) and capital gains tax).

Anyway, the report doesn't propose to take away from your sister. It proposes to give more to mine -- which is why the cost is £6bn, not neutral. - They point still stands that my sister would be paying more tax that if her husband had not left her.

it appears that many of those knee jerk supporters actually don't know what they are talking about.

[Victor, NW Kent]

Never mind dotting the i's and crossing the t's - it should be clear to anyone that British society is in crisis with elevated teen crime, people smuggling, benefit fraud and lifetime unemployment.

If one can face up to that simple fact then anybody who comes forward with some fresh ideas should be welcomed. Not one of the major society ills will be solved by Green initiatives, however laudable they may be.

I can even forgive IDS for his vigorous support for the Iraq war and for being so easily taken in by Blair and Campbell.

[reality check]

David:

"David - she works, in a reasonably well paid job. She gets no benefits."

So she's not really going to struggle then.

I assume you as still at school, or a spotty CF member as you clearly have no idea about what it takes a single parent to bring up three kids and pay a mortgage. It is still a real struggle even with reasonably paid job like a senior teacher. Your attitude is why many still won't vote Conservative.

"But she'd be in exactly the same situation as a single mum if all of these proposals get enacted as she is now". No she won't - she'll be contributing more tax to cover the £6 billion bill and wondering what it is the Conservative party has against widows and deserted wives. Perhaps our next proposal will be for them to have to cover their heads in public!

[David]

"It is still a real struggle even with reasonably paid job like a senior teacher."

She doesn't get the £1000 at the moment. She'd be in exactly the same situation she is now. Ergo, if she's not struggling now, she won't struggle under the proposals.

"be contributing more tax to cover the £6 billion bill"

Where does it say that?

[malcolm]

It doesn't David. Reality Check just made it up.

[reality check]

David
"be contributing more tax to cover the £6 billion bill"

Where does it say that?

I really do worry about the intellegence of some posters. Let me explain how tax and spend works. If you spend £6 billion, which is the projected cost of these proposals, taxes will go up to pay for it so each taxpayer will pay a little more.

IDS appears stuck in the "stay at home era.

[a-tracy]

RC - won't her husband have to pay her maintenance? It used to be nearly one third of his net wage; he’ll have to take on full time work again to put a roof over his head and if he doesn’t surely he will still look after the children? Then there will be allowances from child tax credit, working tax credit and others e.g EMA's.

[Tory T]

Reality,

Nobody is going to penalise her. They're going to incetivize lower income couples who do indeed get benefits to marry and stay together. That's good for the housing crisis, the crime crisis, the couple and the children!

And these benefits apply to civil partners as well as spouses - no "back to basics" here.

[reality check]

Malcolm - so you think the £6 billion is going to be paid by the tooth fairy?

[Og]

@ Edward 0942

Polls consistently show support for tax structure support for marriage. The Mail's online poll today shows 79%-21% in favour, and I'll wager the response from the Express, Sun and Telegraph readership would be majority in favour. This is a very much bigger voting block than you'll find at the Guardian and Independent. I'll give you the Mirror as well, as they will doubtless back the Brown line, out of ignorance and partisanship.

And Edward, nobody "knows" in politics until the results are in, as you well, er... know. Call it informed opinion.

[David]

i Let me explain how tax and spend works. If you spend £6 billion, which is the projected cost of these proposals, taxes will go up to pay for it so each taxpayer will pay a little more.

Unless you make savings elsewhere. Or levy the taxes on those who are able to pay, such as high earners. As you point out, this won't apply to your sister.

"IDS appears stuck in the "stay at home era."

That'll be why the report stressed the need for a family, whether a couple or single, needed to have at least one role model that went out to work then.

[reality check]

RC - won't her husband have to pay her maintenance? It used to be nearly one third of his net wage; he’ll have to take on full time work again to put a roof over his head and if he doesn’t surely he will still look after the children? Then there will be allowances from child tax credit, working tax credit and others e.g EMA's

Of course he will, if he gets a job, and it will help cover some childcare costs. But she will still be paying more tax under these proposals that if he had not left and that strikes me as penalising someone unfairly at a pretty difficult time.

Ditto a widow - "sorry your husband has died, by the way your tax bill is going up as you no longer qualify for a transferable allowance" doesn't strike me as compassionate conservatism.

Let's face it - noone will get married or stays together for £20 a week. This just stigmatises single parents

[David]

If you think that this report stigmatises single parents, I'd say that reflects your own issues about them.

[Sean Fear]

Reality Check, how much extra tax do you think your sister will pay as a result of Iain Duncan Smith's proposal?

[Sean Fear]

"Let's face it - noone will get married or stays together for £20 a week. This just stigmatises single parents"

At the income level of most people contributing here, probably not. At below average earnings, it could make a considerable difference.

[MikeA]

This is great stuff.
To be honest Labour's response looks confused. They can't argue against the cold facts about marriage and stability for children. So they attack with guff about supporting all children and discriminating against single parents which is intellectually weak and pretends that DC & Co will actively discriminate against certain children.
I knew the Ed Balls was a weak media performer, but I was surprised about how poor Ed Milliband was

[Louise]

Too little, too late.

The people who were advocating Back to Basics last time round (ie 1993-94) were actually in a government which had just won its fourth election.

Cameron has basically made the same speech four times since the beginning of December (and several times before that but frankly until Blair pulled the plug on himself in the beginning of September I was too depressed with the whole lot of you all to read the papers and got on with my normal life), and every time he trots it out it is just after something has hit him for six in other more important policy areas: to wit:

a) being praised by the Guardian for dumping on Churchill
b) bored after Christmas
c) after messing up BADLY in Clapham - I thought once you walked out on being insulted you usually walked out of your job, because a successful PM has to be able to take the odd two-finger-salute or two not run away from it...maybe I was wrong though!

and now, (d) after Grammargate and the election of a new Labour leader who actually bothers to go and talk to flood victims, who actually sounds like at the next election he will have some sensible and dare I say it, old-fashioned policies...and any allegations of sleaze are going to now fall at Bliar's door, not Gordon's. I'll let you into a secret: my Uncle Ian knows him and up until 1997 always voted Tory...and then changed permanently because of Gordon's handling of the economy. It was Blair who was making Labour unelectable in the end, which was why we gained more marginal seats last time round, which if my own personal research is anything go by, we are actually going to lose unless we get some FUCKING POLICIES.

IDS at least had more policy initiative and, may I add, a better Shadow Chancellor who actually helped him come up with a lot more policies. Cameron is in trouble and he knows it.

[reality check]

Sean - 2 reasonable comments:

Reality Check, how much extra tax do you think your sister will pay as a result of Iain Duncan Smith's proposal?

A: Probably £600-£1000 per year if you assume her household pays approx double the average tax of the 20 million UK households (as I said a senior teacher is a reasonable job so pays more tax than the ave. household)

"Let's face it - noone will get married or stays together for £20 a week. This just stigmatises single parents"

At the income level of most people contributing here, probably not. At below average earnings, it could make a considerable difference.

A: Unfortunatley at lower income levels the benefit system does discriminate heavily against marriage so the dis-incentived there are likley to outweight any tax advantages.

[MikeA]

"Let me explain how tax and spend works. If you spend £6 billion, which is the projected cost of these proposals, taxes will go up to pay for it so each taxpayer will pay a little more."
Er no. Lump of income fallacy (like labour). Assumes that there is only a finite amount of money to go around. Spend x on y and you have to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. A typical NuLab attack narrative which sounds simple but is economically illiterate. The economy is a complex thing with many moving parts. 6Bn is peanuts and could easily be found from e.g. cutting taxes to raise government income, but let's not go there as you clearly wouldn't agree. Economic growth, fiscal drag cutting ludicrous government spending on say the ID cards scheme, or by trimming administration costs by say 0.5% or so!
"Let's face it - noone will get married or stays together for £20 a week. This just stigmatises single parents"
Sean as ever is right. Family breakdown is occuring at the margins of society where the impact of the benefits system causes people to make sensible economic choices for themselves.
£100 a month makes no difference to you or i, but for some could cause them to re-think their relationship pattern. In any event it sends a welcome signal that the government supports marriage.
No one would accuse the French, Germans, The Dutch, Swedes or Belgians of skimping on welfare or discriminating against single mothers. But they all have tax breaks for marriage and go further and have tax breaks for children. We do not. Why? We load it into the working families tax credit system to make lower income families beholden to Labour and to keep 'em voting Labour

[reality check]

Mike A:

Please read the thread - unfortunately some children of single parents, not all of whom are Little Britain characters, will be worse of as a result of these proposals if a parent leaves or dies.

Neither fair, or modern

[reality check]

Mike A:

A typical NuLab attack narrative which sounds simple but is economically illiterate.

Sorry to spoil you rant but my poisting is not a NuLab economic illiterate - I am both a life long Conservative, and have a postgraguate economics degree.

Re the economy being a complex mechanism you are correct hoever if anything, the incentive a transferrable allowance creates, is for a "stay at home partent" as it increases the marginal tax rate of one spouse. This is likely to reduce economic growt and add to an already tight labour market.

[malcolm]

'An already tight Labour market,' with an official unemployment rate of 1,700,000 and an estimated 4-5,000,000 'economic inactives.Are you sure?
Single parents with children of school age and above are to be encouraged to find work so I fail to see how this is likely to reduce economic growth.

[Sean Fear]

Reality check, thanks. We couldn't really say whether your sister would be better or worse off until we saw the first Conservative budget. If it were tax neutral, and the £6bn were matched by tax rises elsewhere, then someone in your sister's position would be worse off (obviously depending on her spending habits, whether she had capital gains, etc.)

If the Conservatives reduced the tax burden overall, then there's no reason why your sister should be worse off. £6n is equivalent to about 1.2% of current government expenditure, and any Conservative government worth the name should be able to find that level of savings - and more - within the course of a Parliament.

[James Burdett]

The tax proposals regarding marriage need to be viewed not in isolation but as part of the package of measures designed to shore up family and society. This as I understand it is the thrust of IDS's report. Also having a transferrable tax allowance should be seen as a good thing as it means that parents who take their responsibility seriously and have a strong marital relationship are not penalised when one decides to spend time nurturing the next generation.

[reality check]

Malcolm

We have a tight labour market, reflected in recent wage increases, which is one reason why interest rates are being increased by the BoE.

The impact on growth is likely to be negligible however I was responding to Mike A who seemed to think £6 billion could be spend without cost. I was simply observing a basic rule of supply and demand that if you put up the marginal cost of labour, which a transferable allowance does, the impact on growth is negative rather than positive.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

Very positive reaction to Grammarsgate. Well done DC, and Well Done to ConservativeHome for keeping his feet to the fire.

People Power expressed through CH and elsewhere is beginning to radicalise the Cameroons. We may get a choice of political philosophies after all.

[reality check]

Also having a transferrable tax allowance should be seen as a good thing as it means that parents who take their responsibility seriously and have a strong marital relationship are not penalised when one decides to spend time nurturing the next generation.

Oh dear - stay at home mums it is.

[True Blue]

He wants to get us into useless social engineering and increase taxes by £6 billion? Leave this nanny state rubbish to the Labour party. I want lower taxes and less interference in peoples' family arrangements. Anyone who can't see the flaw in this logic doesn't deserve to be in the shadow cabinet:

"Married people are more likely to stay together, therefore we will reward them more than people who choose to live together"

[James Burdett]

"Oh dear - stay at home mums it is."

Firstly there is nothing wrong with Mum's staying at home. Mine did and I'm glad she did. Secondly, if they do then the tax and benefits system shouldn't be skewed so that financial concerns enter the equation.

Also the evidence suggests that after a generation of parent's abandoning their responsibilities to their children by not staying at home often enough we are hardly in a social utopia.

[Opinicus]

What is really interesting is the Press response to these proposals. One whiff of a genuine tax cut and its like desert cacti getting a drop of rain. I hope someone in CCHQ is taking notice.

[reality check]

Let's try a poll on 2 familes:

The "Luckie" family:
Dad has god job, wife stays at home looks after 3 kids. Earns £50k. Pays tax of £?

The Unluckies:
Dad Dies. Mum works to keep 3 kids and pays childcare costs, including tax on the childminder. Also earns £50k.

Neither get benefit. Should the Unlukies pay more tax?

Personally I don't think they should.

[Michael McGowan]

Reality check, isn't your problem dealt with if there is a widow's allowance? There used to be in the days of the married couples' allowance. I find it hard to believe that this would greatly inflate the cost. As others have said, in the case of divorce, one parent has to pay maintenance. I should know: I am divorced and pay lots of maintenance.

[reality check]

James:
"Firstly there is nothing wrong with Mum's staying at home. Mine did and I'm glad she did. Secondly, if they do then the tax and benefits system shouldn't be skewed so that financial concerns enter the equation."

Two points: a) agree it is a reasonable lifestyle choice however there is an economic cost - a smaller workforce and lower GDP. B) I agree that the tax system should not skews the situation however this is exactly the problem with transferable allowances which DO skew the tax system by raising the marginal tax rate for a non-working spouse and reducing their incentive to work. IDS is proposing something which will encourage stay at home mums.

[reality check]

Micheal - "Reality check, isn't your problem dealt with if there is a widow's allowance? There used to be in the days of the married couples' allowance. I find it hard to believe that this would greatly inflate the cost. As others have said, in the case of divorce, one parent has to pay maintenance. I should know: I am divorced and pay lots of maintenance".

Yes, that would help, but you also need a "divorced and spouse not capable of paying maintenance allowance" to deal with those who have been abondoned and left to raise kids. Unfortunantely you will then have the proble of shamm marriages and quick divorces to lower taxes.

[Michael McGowan]

Reality check, the effect of a transferable allowance on the labour force and GDP must be relatively small. After all, all that the allowance does is go some way to offset the significant cost to a non-working parent in terms of lost income. At the moment, there is a serious financial penalty to those who wish to be full-time parents. If we are really worried about a reduced workforce and GDP, then we should be greatly increasing the retirement age and vigorously enforcing age discrimination laws.

[reality check]

"At the moment, there is a serious financial penalty to those who wish to be full-time parents."

Not true. - this is simply not the case as the services of the non-working parent are delivered tax free, whereas if a parent goes out to work, the bost pay tax of their earnings then tax on childcare costs. The tax incentive is already to stay at home, and this make it worse.

As an example a professional who could work wioth a full time childminder, or nanny it they are in a well paid profession has to earn enoungh NET to pas the GROSS cost of the person they employ to provide childcare. Hence a solicitor would need to earn £60 k to employ a nanny on £25k all things considered.

As a result many productive professionals saty at home so we loose valubel professionals, and provided fwere service jobs for eg childminders which are compatible with some of those who otherwise can't work.

[James Burdett]

"and reducing their incentive to work"

There is a lot more to life than work and earning money. Perhaps we should be concerned that as more and more families have had parents who shirk their familial responsibilites the incidence of crime, anti-social behaviour, educational failure, drug abuse, teenage alcoholism etc has increased. Maybe encouraging someone to stay at home and think of the kids wouldn't be such a bad idea. And I think personally the cost of all the above more than outweighs the potential cost to the economy of a few more families opting to have one parent stay at home.

[reality check]

Maybe encouraging someone to stay at home and think of the kids wouldn't be such a bad idea.

So be honest, that this is not about helping families, in all their guises, but encouraging stay at home mums.

[MikeA]

Reality Check - is the difference in view the principle or the implementation detail?
I think the principle is unarguable that state seeks to end family breakdown (as far as it can) through the support of marriage, with all the positive implications of that.
As you rightly point out the devil is in the detail, and it's difficult to design a policy that supports marriage but does not introduce perverse economic incentives and distortions.
But so what?
All i think is that IDS's proposal is a simple (and small) transferable tax break on marriage. Your example about your sister is valid, but doesn't disprove the principle. It just shows it is difficult to design such a policy and not be accused of discrimination against certain groups in society.
At least IDS is trying and stimulating interesting debate by doing so.
Whatever the conclusion we cannot continue as we are. The evidence of family breakdown is all around us through educational failure, crime, teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, violence....
If not supporting families as a 1st step, what do you propose instead to address these very difficult issues?

[James Burdett]

"So be honest, that this is not about helping families, in all their guises, but encouraging stay at home mums."

Not at all, the whole thrust of IDS report as I understand it (not having had time to properly read it) is to have a set of proposals that look at society as a whole of which the marriage proposals form a part. We need to urgently repair our society after decades of neglect and in some cases active damage and we do ourselves a massive disservice by focussing on miniscule movements in the size of our GDP. Especially when this would lead us to continue with the failed concepts that mean that a generation of people do not have the advantages that they should have had.

[Michael McGowan]

Reality check, in response to your post at 13.22, I can assure you that there are many many two earner couples who earn more than enough after-tax income to pay the gross costs of childcare and have money left over. In most cases, that is one of the main reasons why both go out to work. The current tax system helps them to do so because they get double tax allowances and two lots of access to the lowerprate tax bands. That doesn't alter the fact that childcare costs are high nor does it alter the fact that for some, the post-tax financial equation still does not make sense. But it is simply not true that there is a current tax incentive to stay at home.

[MikeA]

Can I second Michael McGownan's point. My wife also works, her salary is used to fund school fees. This is one of the major reasons she goes out to work. The tax system incents her to work, in addition the pension system does also as I can contribute her total salary into a stakeholder pension and recover her tax, making her effectively a 0% tax payer.

[Andrew S]

Personally, I’m disappointed. Marriage isn’t the be all and end all, and I think many of the advantages are overstated. It is perfectly possible for a married couple who stay together to have problem children as it is for single mothers to have children who are exemplary members of society.

We must also not forget that many families stay together due to this notion that being together is better for the child, when due to the problems of the marriage, the child would in reality be better off with one of his/her parents.

Also, I’m curious, what happens if the married couple in question have no children and have no intentions of having any children. Would they still receive this tax break?

[reality check]

Michael and Mike A;

If you mean that a working spouse can make a familly better off than a non-working spouse then of course i agree however my point is different. It is that the tax system already discriminates agoiant working couples in favour of stay at home parents and under a transferrable allowance the tax incentive is reduced for 2 earner households and the spouse decidieng between work and home will be paid net marginbally less under these proposals as they will start paying basic rate stright away.

I may not be making the point clearly but the tax systems already penalises work as a stay at hoem spouse is a tax free childminder, whereas childcare costs are not deductable for working spouses.

[Matthew's Dad]

Why oh why did we miss a trick by putting up two of our very weakest media performers to explain the report.

Firstly IDS returned on the Today programme along with his old friend The Frog (in the throat). Totally muffled and obscured message as his spluttered away- a score draw at best with Ed Milliband. Surely Conservative HQ could have invested in a couple of packets of Lockets ??

Then on Newsnight, who turns up to go head to head with Milliband Jnr (again).......Oliver Letwin. The sort of guy who sits on his own in the corner of the pub with half a pint of bitter shandy, talking to himself.

Again, a score draw at best. Both Today and Newsnight were crying out for a Cameron, Gove or Hague to front up.

Bad missed opportunity- we must do better.

[Opinicus]

@Andrew S
There have now been ample studies showing that whilst we can name any number of specific cases where it is not true, it is generally true that successful marriage is the best method of bringing up children and two adults living together. It follows that public policy should support marriage and that incentives to single parenthood should be removed from the tax and benefit system. This is 2007 not 1967 and we have had 40 yrs experience to prove that your opinion is simply wrong in general (although not in every specific case). I have no problem with extending the tax break to civil partnerships, especially if they have adopted or step children.

[Richard]

I fail to see why the pro-marriage ideas are backward when many European countries have tax systems that support the institution.

Seeing as marriage is a particular arrangement similar to that of a contract it is understandable that the nature of that arrangement will result in certain legal differences from cohabitation.

The alternative way to support marriage is to smash up the benefits system so that single parenthood isn't as financially viable but would the Tories have the guts?

[Michael McGowan]

Sorry reality check, we are talking about the same thing. You are just focussing in isolation on the fact that a stay at home parent's childminding services are tax-free. But the question of whether the system discriminates against two-earner couples has to be looked at in the round. When looked at that way, the tax system applicable to two earners in most cases more than offsets any benefit from a stay-at-home parent's chlidminding services being tax-free.

[a-tracy]

RC "I may not be making the point clearly but the tax systems already penalises work as a stay at hoem spouse is a tax free childminder, whereas childcare costs are not deductable for working spouses."

Have you heard of Childcare Vouchers a working parent can get childcare vouchers now worth £18.15 per week in tax saving.

[Londoner]

Matthew's dad says: "Then on Newsnight, who turns up to go head to head with Milliband Jnr (again).......Oliver Letwin. The sort of guy who sits on his own in the corner of the pub with half a pint of bitter shandy, talking to himself."

I thought Oliver Letwin did very well on Newsnight - supporting the thrust of the report without being trapped into either supporting or opposing the transferable tax allowance. Someone trying to be "eloquent", or even more going at the Labour Party on it hammer and tongs, would have landed up giving hostages to fortune. What was also very good (for politics as well as for us) was that Ed M and Oliver had an intelligent and self-regulating discussion between themselves which amusingly more or less completely left out the interviewer.

Also - be fair. If this report proves to be the huge success that people are presently saying, then it is Oliver who is in charge of the policy groups process and he deserves some credit. Hague has many virtues but as the face of Tory social concern I feel he has some way to go. Whereas Oliver raised many of these issues years ago.

[Londoner]

a-tracy:

You are right to mention Childcare vouchers but (a) they are fairly limited in amount and (b) they depend entirely on whether ones employer happens to offer them. I work for an archcapitalist City firm and my wife works for the caring, sharing civil service, but only one of our employers provides these. Guess which? Yes, the City firm. Despite the fact that, apart from a small amount of admin, the cost falls on the Exchequor and not the employer providing the vouchers, many (most?) Government Departments do not offer them to their own staff. Presumably the Treasury hasn't forced them to because it's better to announce a thing than actually risk that it's taken up by enough people to start costing serious money. It is also incredibly bureaucratic to claim the benefit, but that is another story.

Would a Tory MP perhaps reading this blog, ask every Government department whether they are offering these vouchers and, if not, why not? I do not even know whether the Treasury itself is, but one presumes (without complete confidence) that they must.

[MikeA]

Note that Brown has very quickly dropped supercasinos. Is Labour wobbling over DC grabbing the high ground over family breakdown with causes like drinking (Labour's 24 hour drinking policy) and gambling (Labour's supercasinos) as noted causes?
Is Brown rattled?