No U-turn on child benefit, says PM

[Bald Bouncer]

Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg are to publish a review of the coalition's progress on Monday

David Cameron has said there will be no turning back on the decision to remove child benefit from better-off families.

Speaking a day before the coalition publishes a review of its progress since 2010, the prime minister told the Sunday Telegraph the government had taken some "difficult" choices.

He added he was also committed to same sex marriage and protecting spending on aid for developing countries.

Both policies have irritated some on the Conservative backbenches.

But Mr Cameron told the Sunday Telegraph "this is an enormous reform agenda" and urged critics in his own party to "stop complaining."

He added he wanted to "win back" disaffected Tory supporters who had left the party.

'Right direction'He also said he hoped to stay on as prime minister until 2020, telling the Sunday Telegraph: "I want to fight the next election, win the next election and serve - that is what I want to do."

Mr Cameron said: "In mid-term in government you are taking difficult decisions. There's always going to be a tendency for people to look at protest.

"I don't think my job is to try to identify different segments of people who going his way or that. My job is to steer the ship in the right direction."

Changes coming into effect on Monday will see families with one parent earning more than £50,000 lose part of their child benefit. It will be fully withdrawn where one parent earns above £60,000.

Ministers have said the changes are needed to help the government's deficit reduction plan.

Saying it was a "very difficult" thing to do, Mr Cameron said: "I have complete understanding for people who are having their family budgets changed and money taken away and if there is more we can do to make it easier for people, yes of course."

He said the coalition could have promoted its same-sex marriage reforms better.

"One of things we haven't got across properly is this is what is going to happen in the register office," he said. "We're not changing what happens in church or synagogue or mosque."

Mr Cameron, who is due to make a major speech on Europe later this month, added: "Britain has a role in Europe ... but we're not happy with the way the relationship works at the moment and so we want change."

Mr Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will set out their top priorities for the rest of their term, which could take them through until a General Election in May 2015, on Monday.

Their review is expected to include details of a cap on social care costs in England as well as pension and child care reforms.

BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said the leaders wanted to emphasise the government is doing more than just driving down the deficit and will also highlight changes to the benefits system and reforms to schools in England.

Labour's vice chairman Michael Dugher said: "Another year, another relaunch and still none of the change that David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised. They said they'd fix the economy. But living standards are still falling for the hard-working majority...

"Families who put their trust in David Cameron and Nick Clegg's promises of change will be bitterly disappointed to see that another relaunch is all they are offering."

BBC News

[4me2]

Just waiting for the day some cunt puts a bullet through his head !

[blacksheep]

Come on this kind of makes sense, whilst I think total income would have been a better way of doing this as you could get two parents earning 49k each receiving full child benefit and a family with a total income of 60k from one parent receiving nothing why should the country pay for well off people (or anyone) to have children? I see this as no different to cutting winter fuel allowance/bus passes to well off pensioners which a lot of people are in favour of. Maybe it needs phasing in where if you already have a child/are pregnant you still get it (as you may have budgeted for this) but new kids are on the new scheme.

[DavidF]

It makes sense yeah. It would have made sense IF they had went household income. It would have made sense IF they had come up with a system that meant you have to opt in to receive the family allowance but no they have went for an "opt out" style.....that should prove interesting...They are basically saying "please call up and let us know that either you or your partner is earning over 50k" and in the next breath saying "if you dont play nice and call us up we will take it from your tax code" WTF ???? Really ? The tax inspectors and the rest of them can't even cope with the shit they have to do now with all the different stuff they have to think about and calculate.
Good idea stupidly implemented.
I think they know they are on the 2nd half of their 1 and only term in office and are just going through the motions.

[Bald Bouncer]

It's all one almighty scam anyway and none of the media is reporting the truth on this, they should stop all child benefit simple.

Child benefit was introduced by my understanding to be an amount of money given to every family with a child for that child above and beyond any income and then at some point it was considered income to be deducted from any benefits so this means anyone on unemployment benefit, Tax credits, disability benefit etc basically the poor people it was really introduced to help the children of. If they removed it completely these people would still get the same amount of money as the difference would be made up with either tax credits, unemployment benefit, disability benefit or whatever benefit they are on.

[baggy13]

Never mind a bullet bring back guy Fawkes and kill the fuking dishonest lot of them

[bomberman]

They have completely lost the plot and I will be spoiling my ballot paper as a post "none of the above" unless things change, but having said that I could think of worse that could have been in power!

[Thalamus]

Amazing a couple who earn up to £49k each still receive it you just couldn't make this up. May be they are testing the waters and will target high earning couples next ? btw if you earn over £60k they are also expecting you to call and opt out of child benefit if you don't they continue to pay you it and then try and claim it back from you at some point.

[BigBird]

I know families that have more kids just to have more money. If it was up to me there would be no benefit after the first three. You want four or more kids then you earn the money to pay for their keep. An unemployed guy with ten kids once told me he would keep on having kids because he was raking it in in benefits.

My girlfriends daughter is 22 and did child care for three years in college. She now works one to one with a genuine special needs kid in a local primary school. She earns around £700/month. She is renting a house privately at £450/month which leaves her with £250/month for everything else. She has a part time job in Argos on Sundays just so she can afford to run her car. Every girl who was in her form at school had a kid or was pregnant by the time they were seventeen. Most of them are single mothers and all have houses supplied and paid for by the local authority. Many of them had a kid so they could get a house. That's another thing I would change. You shouldn't go to the top of the housing list just because you have a kid, especially at 16/17 years of age. There are exceptions but generally around where I live, if you have a kid at 16 then it is because you wanted a house or you are too stupid to use protection, in which case you are also too stupid to bring that child up properly. Get a relative to care for the child, or put it up for adoption so you can go out to work for a few years before you start ripping off the taxpayer.

I don't agree with Cameron and his cronies on a lot of issues because they are targeting the poor and the genuine people who rely on benefits. But just maybe if they cut these benefits to the well off and put a cap on the amount of combined benefits a household can receive regardless of how many kids they have, then maybe there will be more money available for the people that genuinely need, and rely on it. Too many people have taken the piss for too long. There are unemployed people out there who genuinely want to work, but there are those who don't want to work and rely on having more kids to up their income.

Not satisfied with everything they get already they make out their kids are special needs so they can get even more. Their kids have one to one in school and also have a taxi to and from school paid for by the local authority. These kids seem well enough to catch a bus to town with their mates on the weekend though. One chap living across the road to my girlfriend has a mobility funded car for his 'special needs' kid. The boy walks the third of a mile to and from school every day though, even in the pissing rain.

I don't agree with the conservatives but I agree with Labour's way of doing things even less because in my opinion they created this mess in the first place. I think the Liberals would be a balance between the two. Not as harsh as the conservatives when it comes to cutting benefits to genuine people, but not as reckless as Labour with the taxpayers money. If the Liberals were not in coalition with the government I believe the cuts would be much harsher. The Liberals have had a hard time with the public's opinion but they are seriously limited in what they can do while in a coalition government. (">

[blaggard]

A cap makes a lot of sense though I'm inclined to agree that it should all be stopped. If a couple get into difficulties then help can be given far more efficiently, being paid because your genitalia works is fucking ridiculous!

[Roach-Rampino]

I find it abhorrent that people (and I use the word loosely) reproduce for financial gain. It shows a complete erosion of morals, compassion, values and appreciation for the gift of life (don't worry I'm not going religious on you all here).
However life is a special gift and for the importance and significance to be diluted down by the awarding of more benefits to those who spawn more offspring which in turn has lead to the abuse of a social system that was created to care for those unable to care for themselves. I find it a very sad indication of the sort of "average person" that the UK has generated.


Speaking from personal experience as an employer I see that there is little or no work ethic in our younger generations today. Again through no real fault of their own as they are surrounded by this mirage of a "footballer lifestyle for doing fuck all" - people who bring very little in actual terms to our society are grossly rewarded while those who sacrifice so much are often rewarded with very little. Can you blame young people for being deluded?


This country needs someone to be firm, to take decisive action and get us back on the bloody rails.

Oh and not Labour please...they had 13 years to sort things out and they did no real good...oh apart from getting us involved in two illegal wars which have cost the UK over £20 billion (almost a fifth of our current national debt).


It's all quite depressing really.

[GTI]

Amazing a couple who earn up to £49k each still receive it you just couldn't make this up

Don't forget the cost of childcare, which in some cases can almost equal a person's salary (£1200 a month??). After Tax and other deductions you might find that a working couple may only be marginally better off than a single working person so its not quite as simple as 'addition'.

[Nibb]

Oh and not Labour please...they had 13 years to sort things out and they did no real good...oh apart from getting us involved in two illegal wars which have cost the UK over £20 billion (almost a fifth of our current national debt).

Sorry m8 do you really think the Conservatives wouldnt have allowed the UK to get involved??

[blaggard]

Sorry m8 do you really think the Conservatives wouldnt have allowed the UK to get involved??

I reckon possibly not, Tony Blair (Thankfully) is one of a kind and his Cabinet at the time was pretty much in his pocket . . .

[blaggard]

Don't forget the cost of childcare, which in some cases can almost equal a person's salary (£1200 a month??). After Tax and other deductions you might find that a working couple may only be marginally better off than a single working person so its not quite as simple as 'addition'.

It's a simple question, can I afford a child? if at a later date the Parents hit trouble fine but couples MUST be able to afford a child at the time the decision is made.

[Nibb]

I reckon possibly not, Tony Blair (Thankfully) is one of a kind and his Cabinet at the time was pretty much in his pocket . . .

Sorry m8...gotta disagree with you....also I'm pretty sure military action was agreed via a parliamentary vote even though it isn't required!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...vasion_of_Iraq

[blaggard]

Sorry m8...gotta disagree with you....also I'm pretty sure military action was agreed via a parliamentary vote even though it isn't required!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...vasion_of_Iraq

Oh it was for sure. . . . .it's more about whether the misinformation fed to them would have worked quite so well, Blair was soooo far up his own arse that a bit of flattery from a few Intelligence types was guaranteed to work. It's likely that we would have but LESS likely I reckon....

[bomberman]

Don't forget the cost of childcare, which in some cases can almost equal a person's salary (£1200 a month??). After Tax and other deductions you might find that a working couple may only be marginally better off than a single working person so its not quite as simple as 'addition'.

My other half goes to work so we need childcare for one, only for her to work for nothing and her salary dosnt even cover the petrol or car parking fees. I have to top this up from my salary........ We only do this as its important that the little one mixes with other children.

[Thalamus]

Don't forget the cost of childcare, which in some cases can almost equal a person's salary (£1200 a month??). After Tax and other deductions you might find that a working couple may only be marginally better off than a single working person so its not quite as simple as 'addition'.

Thats a fair point but it does not apply to all and its really only to the age of 4 when kids start school and childcare costs are not such an issue. Many of my work colleagues rely on their parents to avoid the cost of childcare be it they are retired or unemployed and still receive child benefit.

[BigBird]

There was nothing wrong with the tried and tested method of years ago where one parent stayed at home to look after the kids and maybe take a part time job when they start school. Wages should be high enough to make it possible to live with one parent working. You may not be able to afford to change your car every couple of years or have two holidays abroad every year, but those are the sacrifices you make when you make the decision to have kids in the first place. (">