David Cameron's speedily administered slap on the wrist to Howard Flight was the result of his not being a conviction politician but a person too easily influenced by the media and the chattering classes. Howard Flight's words
"We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive. But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that's not very sensible."
may not have been very sensitively expressed and the use of the word "breeding" in relation to matters of class is a tricky area
but he was right.
The BBC's reaction to Howard Flight's comments was as predictable as it was vicious. They managed to get the usual suspects to line up with their evil Tory type comments. There was:
Shadow work and pensions secretary Douglas Alexander: "These shameful but revealing comments cast serious doubt over David Cameron's judgement in personally appointing Howard Flight to the House of Lords only a few days ago.
"Last week one of the prime minister's senior advisers told us we'd never had it so good and now his latest hand-picked peer comes out with these comments."
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber branding the ex-MP "an insensitive throwback to the worst of 1980s politics".
Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams branded the comments "disgraceful" and said they "showed the Tories' true colours".'
The Mirror of course lashed out and I presume the other left-wing papers did too.
I had a bit of driving to do this morning and so listened to more BBC Radio phone-ins than I would usually do and I was fascinated that the majority of the callers seemed to be supporting Howard Flight's comments and his right to make such comments. I was surprised by the number of callers ringing to say that they worked in Benefit Offices or similar and that they knew of many many young women who were having children for the benefits that would accrue to them as a result. Yes there were those who deprecated Howard Flight's sentiments but I get the feeling that they were the type who automatically hate anything a Conservative says and love to be offended on behalf of themselves and others. The weight of calls was such that I believe even Nicky Campbell was moving towards a position of agreement with Howard Flight; listen to the last half an hour of his Radio 5Live show and see if you agree. I don't know what the views were on the Victoria Derbyshire show as I have all but given up listening to her, her show being bad for my mental equilibrium. I do know that the callers to Vanessa Feltz's Radio London show that I heard seemed to be overwhelmingly supportive of Howard Flight.
I did learn an interesting fact from this listening; apparently once a child reaches the age of 10 he or she is no longer allowed to share a bedroom with a sibling so many council housed families are routinely moved to a larger house when they run out of bedrooms. I wonder how many children there are in private accommodation that share bedrooms after the age of 10?
What do I conclude from this? First, I may be wrong but it seems that the majority of the UK population seems to have realised that the excesses of the Labour years have to stop. They seem to have realised that whilst they were prepared to tolerate inefficiencies, waste and supporting scroungers when (they thought) they were getting richer, they are not prepared to do so now the economic pigeons have come home to roost.
Second, I wonder if David Cameron will realise that the country is willing to be lead to 'the right', or more accurately toward sense and prudence or if he will carry on trying to pointlessly carry favour with those elements like the BBC who hate him and all he stands for.
Third, I hope that the BBC take note of the seeming change in the country's sentiments but somehow I doubt that they will. Rather than listen to the people, the BBC will continue to listen to the likes of Polly Toynbee and carry on attacking the 'nasty Party'. Rather than listen to the people they will try and lead the people back to the sunlight lands of Labour righteousness.
Looking around the blogosphere it seems that I am not alone in my thoughts but what I also found interesting was the analysis of two sites. The first is
Channel 4's Fact Checker and here is their analysis and (somewhat reluctant) conclusion:
'Howard Flight’s turn of phrase was not only clumsy but offensive. But at its heart was a valid question: do tax and benefits influence how many children people have?
Earlier research suggests it might. In 1999, the independent financial think-tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, looked at the impact of the introduction of child-related welfare which went up the more kids you have – benefits like Gordon Brown’s cherished tax credits.
It found that between 1999 and 2003 government spending per-child on these benefits rose by 50 per cent in real terms, and that there was an increase in births (by around 15 per cent) among low-income families.
David Cameron has promised to stop child benefit for higher rate taxpayers from 2013. So will that discourage the better off from having more children?
Child benefit accounts for a smaller proportion of income for better off families than poorer households.
But that’s not the only middle class welfare cut the coalition government is making.
Higher rate taxpayers (the richest 15 per cent of families), will also have their tax credits taken away.
The poorest families, by contrast will keep their £21-a-week child benefit and will also see their tax credits increase from £44 to £47 per week.
The coalition’s decision to put up rail fares will also hit better-off commuters.
So it’s no wonder the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, is making attempts to reach out to what he calls “the squeezed middle”.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
To suggest, as Howard Flight did, that it was somehow more “sensible” for the middle classes to have bigger families was downright offensive. But if he’d expressed himself a different way he might have had a point. If he’d pointed out that the combination of spending cuts – everything from stopping child benefit to increasing rail fares – and the soaring cost of living was “squeezing” the middle classes, few would have quibbled with him.'
The second is from the always readable Chris Dillow aka
Stumbling and Mumbling, who is definitely no Tory, as his last line will demonstrate:
'But the truth - of course - is that people do, at the margin, respond to incentives. If you raise the cost of having children, people will have fewer of them.
For example,
this study of the introduction of working tax credits - which increased work incentives for single parents - found that the move "led to a significant reduction in single mothers’ subsequent fertility."
This paper finds that:
Financial incentives play a notable role in determining fertility decisions in France...Adding to the existing tax-benefit system a child subsidy of 150 euros per month...would raise total fertility by about 0.3 points.
And there's also evidence
here (pdf) from Israel.
It is, therefore, clearly true that withdrawing child benefit from top earners - forget that "middle class" crap - will discourage them from "breeding."
In this sense, Mr Flight is quite right. Where we might disagree with him, naturally, is in the class hatred indicated by that last sentence. But then,who would expect anything else from a Tory?'
I don't see any 'class hatred' in what Howard Flight said just some home truths that many on the left would prefer to ignore and many on the right are often too scared to vocalise for fear of the sort of vitriolic attacks that Howard Flight has experienced.
Of course there is another angle to this subject and that is the effect of immigration on the British indigenous poor but that is something that I will tackle another day.
