More like this
Why Tory hacks have got it in for George Osborne
Why are Tory journalists so furious about benefit cuts? Because they're going to suffer as much as anyone
The sense of anguish among Conservative-supporting journalists was something to behold yesterday, with Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph hacks reacting in horror to Chancellor George Osborne's decision to cut child benefit for anyone paying higher rate tax.
Following the announcement of the move during the morning news programmes, blogs and Twitter - the main conduits of political hacks and diarists these days, it seems - were abuzz with Tory journalists slamming the proposal.
Benedict Brogan, the Daily Telegraph's deputy editor, said the move was "brutal" and would be a "whacking great hit" on a single-income middle-class family with four children.
Paul Waugh, the Evening Standard's deputy political editor, asked on Twitter "Will the middle-classes rebel?" while pointing out that a family with three children would lose £2,449 a year.
The hacks didn't stop there. During an uproarious briefing by Osborne's economics and politics Spads (special political advisors) Rupert Harrison and Mesh Chhabra, media umbrage continued as journalists hammered the luckless aides, forcing Harrison to admit that it would be a better situation for someone to earn £43,000 than two grand more. So much for aspiration.
Later, Richard O'Hagan of the Daily Mail joined the battle. "There are so many flaws with the Chancellor's planned changes to child benefit that it would take until his retirement to list them all here," he wrote.
It was the Daily Mirror's political editor, Kevin Maguire, who put his finger on the reason for all this fury when he cheekily suggested that Waugh's anger was due to his being exactly the sort of comfortably-off, middle-class welfare recipient the Chancellor is after.
While Waugh and the others claimed to be championing the hard-working "squeezed middle", what was really in play here was good old-fashioned vested interest.
For it doesn't take a genius to work out that a senior journalist on a national newspaper will be taking home quite a bit more than £44,000 a year - the higher rate threshold.
Take into account the long and unsocial hours that the political beat entails, and you're more than likely to be looking at a middle-age man with a stay-at-home wife looking after the family - the exact group most threatened by Osborne's benefit changes.
It's not the first time that the coverage of an important national issue has been distorted by the personal prejudices of this select group who interpret the news for millions. That there is a national debate over private education - which covers only seven per cent of British schoolchildren – simply reflects the fact that a high proportion of media executives make use of private schools.
If David Cameron wants his party's next big idea to escape similar opprobrium, he might want to take a leaf out of Tony Blair's book.
Blair and his chief press aide Alastair Campbell were perpetually aware that much of their intended message was lost through the politicised prism of the media. By the time a policy initiative reached the public, it had been skewed by the inherent bias of a publication such as the Daily Mail and lost its impact.
So they decided to talk over the heads of the newspapers directly to the public by appearing on TV programmes such as Richard and Judy or Des O'Connor's afternoon show.
Those particular chat shows may no longer be open for business, but there's no end of similar programmes that would be delighted to have the PM on as a guest, any time he chooses. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
@ crispin; two really useful pieces of information, thanks. @ fruitbat; £44K is not an unusual salary in London and the bulk goes on huge mortgage payments, not chavvy designer outfits. These people are worried because the end of child benefit and the hike in VAT, plus high job uncertainty in both the public and private sector, could put their families and homes at risk very soon. I agree that waste should be stripped out of household budgets. In recognition of Rupert Murdoch's role in helping the Coalition in to power, cancelling the Sky subscription would be a good place to start.
So far I haven't heard a single person affected and complaining say that they won't be able to cope without the extra cash. Plenty have said things will 'be tight' or 'we'll notice the difference' but not one has even implied that they'll have to move, or sell things to manage. It's anger that they're losing income, not fear that they won't have enough income to cope.......two grand a year? Have one less holiday/don't run about with your kids in a 4x4 etc etc. For years I've heard well-off housewives who turn up in my local post office to collect their breeding bonus wearing designer clothes and dripping in jewellery complain that things are 'difficult' because of the price of school fees/holidays/clothes etc. That's not difficult, that's choice, and if you have enough money to choose where to send your children to school and where to go on holiday you don't need a government hand-out to help you raise your children - you need a reality check.
I chose not to have children partly because I didn't want to bring kids up always having to say 'we can't afford it' and to have to rely on benefits, and to hear families on over 44K whining that their lives will be 'a bit difficult' because they lose their child benefit is sickening.
I'm surprised the press haven't focused on two fair criticisms to level. First, it would not be difficult to apply the cut off in a fairer way as child tax credits have been based on combined income for several years now. Second, currently non earning wives (or husbands) still get state pension earning NI contributions from Child Benefit; when they loose the right to claim Child Benefit do they also loose their right to a full state pension? As we all know, marriages do fail and the non-earning partner could be left high and dry.
"Benedict Brogan, the Daily Telegraph's deputy editor, said the move was "brutal" and would be a "whacking great hit" on a single-income middle-class family with four children."...............
Anyone with four kids deserves a good whacking.... People create congestion and pollution (and, more generally, high demands on limited resources)................................................
.....If the cut off were based on joint income there would, for some, be a disincentive for those who might seek a second income (if I'm not PC I mean wives). That would mostly affect middle class families, typically fairly well educated, where the wives could make a valuable contribution.
Well done on the great children's benefit; now stop shucking out our cash on hopeless teenage single mothers, giving them council houses whilst they conceive another unwanted child to get a better house and more of our cash.
You might like to consider doing something about the under age mums too - we've got a 27yo grandmother in Croydon as like breeds like. Make the mother of the teen that gives birth responsible ........ no gain = no claim.
What on earth is someone on GBP44,000 or more doing claiming a benefit that was created to support the low paid not as an electoral bribe.
I have noticed elsewhere that many of these "journalists" point out that a couple both on over GBP40k can claim Child Benefit under the proposed changes even though their joint income would be over GBP80k. They "forget" to mention that under the proposed new rules if a couple was greedy enough to claim child benefit when their joint income was as high then it will be taken back off them in their taxes.