That is true. Of course, the measure was not implemented straight away—it was a ticking time bomb, which the then Chancellor oddly chose to put under his own premiership, waiting to blow up when he assumed the post of Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right that people noticed. It is also interesting to note that the different categories of people who lost out noticed. I, too, received many letters from women aged between 60 and 64, who identified themselves as losing out as a result of the change. Members of another category wrote in smaller numbers. People under 25 on low incomes with no children also lost out. Some brought it to my attention because they had noticed the difference in their payslips. There was generally a keen awareness of the change.
The Labour party does not do well in my constituency. No one would say that it was an area with a strong Labour tradition, but many people approached me who had not voted Labour, and perhaps would never consider doing that, but were still shocked that a Labour Government had chosen to implement a policy that seemed so precisely to target and disadvantage those on the lowest incomes. They thought, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, that the sole purpose of the Labour party was to help people in those circumstances. They wondered, if it did not do that, what the point of it was.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jeremy Browne
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c877-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:41:50 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575428
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575428
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575428