X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Iain Duncan Smith’s latest welfare cut kite

25 October 2012

1:39 PM

25 October 2012

1:39 PM

It is strange that the government has chosen to trail a speech by Iain Duncan Smith on an issue popular with voters on the same day as good economic news. The Work and Pensions Secretary has already reached an agreement with Chancellor George Osborne that it is possible to cut a further £10 billion from the welfare bill (when he originally said he would block those cuts), and is now starting to prepare the ground for some of those cuts to take place. He knows that while the public supports further welfare cuts, the Lib Dems will not without a credible package which ensures the rich are paying more.

One of the proposals that Duncan Smith is flying as a kite today is limiting benefits paid to families with more than two children. He made clear on Radio 4 this morning that the limit would apply to parents having children in the future:

‘My view is that if you did this, you would start it for those who begin to have more than… essentially it’s about the amount of money that you pay to support how many children, and what is clear to the general public, and this is very clear to them, that they make decisions based on what they can afford for the number of children they have; that is the nature of what we all do.’

[Alt-Text]


This is sensible: rather than hitting an existing family for a decision taken years ago to have a third or fourth child, the benefit cut would apply to couples considering whether they can afford another baby in the future.

But as this is simply a kite rather than a policy announcement, the Lib Dems are keeping their mouths shut about whether this could be part of the package that they will approve. One senior party source tells me: ‘It’s not government policy and we haven’t signed up for it.’ Whether it will end up in their agreed package in exchange for a new policy that ensures the rich bear the greatest burden remains to be seen.

UPDATE, 2.45pm: A source close to Nick Clegg gets in touch to underline that this is indeed kite-flying and that they are not at all taken with the idea. The source tells me:

‘This is just Tory kite-flying, like they did at their conference. The Liberal Democrats have not signed up to it and it is absolutely not Government policy. The Lib Dems aren’t keen on it at all. It doesn’t even save very much money as we’ve already introduced a benefits cap.’

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close