When tabloids decide to support political parties, they certainly don’t hold back.

Much has been made of the positive coverage given to the Conservatives by the Sun newspaper during the campaign.

However on the other side of the political divide, the Daily Mirror weighs in behind Labour with its editorial today. Yet how has backing Gordon Brown affected the Mirror’s coverage of other parties?

Conservative changes to the child tax credits have been one of the most common attack lines used against David Cameron’s party in recent weeks.

The plans, which according to the Tory manifesto would see households with an income over £50,000 losing the credit, have come under heavy fire.

Yet in the battle for headlines, a row has developed over just who the policy would affect.

The Claim

On the front page of its final edition before polling day, the Mirror launched an attack on Conservative plans to reduce state spending, including the reduction on child tax credits.

The report, by Deputy Political Editor Jason Beattie, states that David Cameron will “scrap vital child tax credits for the neediest families”.

Is this an accurate portrayal of Tory proposals?

The Background

This is not the first time that Tory policy has been portrayed as cutting tax credits for those on low incomes.

In last week’s leaders’ debate Gordon Brown claimed Conservative plans would see tax credits cut for the “very poor”.

Over the weekend Shadow Chancellor George Osborne hit back in an email to party supports, calling Mr Brown’s claim “completely dishonest”.

In theory, the dispute centres on whether people earning over £50,000 count as “the neediest families,” as the Mirror puts it.

Alas, it is not as simple as that.

When George Osborne announced plans to cut child tax credit for anyone earning over £50,000, he said that the move would save £400 million of public money. This has fuelled most of the subsequent debate.

Labour looked into the £400 million savings estimate and claimed this could only be done if credits were cut for households earning over £31,000.

The Conservatives have since said that the actual effect of their policy would be for payments to taper off above £40,000 finishing completely at an estimated £48,175.

With these two sides of the argument in mind, does the Mirror provide an accurate reflection of the effect of Tory plans?

Analysis

While terms like “the neediest” and “very poor” are to a certain extent subjective terms,  there are definitions of poverty.

For instance, absolute poverty concerns a minimum standard of living, below which people are deemed poor, while relative poverty considers peoples incomes in relation to the average for the rest of society.

The working definition of poverty used by the Government is relative poverty, where people are deemed poor if they receive income below 60 per cent of the median level.

Such figures are calculated in the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistical series.

These figures are based on disposable income rather than gross salary so are not directly comparable to the cut off rates for child tax credits.

Disposable income is also adjusted for the number of people in a household, so it is not as simple as determining what salary level falls below the poverty line to reach a conclusion.

Likewise the figures are calculated before and after housing costs – a significant regional variable in determining the poverty line.

Nevertheless, on the most recent figures,  a couple with two children aged five and fourteen is deemed poor if they receive less than £361 per week (£18,772 per year) before housing costs. For a single person with two children of the same age the level £283 per week (£14,716 per year).

While these amounts exclude tax deductions, the annual figures appear to suggest few who fall below the line would be affected by a cut to tax credits for households receiving over £40,000.

Indeed analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggested last week that the policy would have very little effect on the lowest three tenths of the income distribution scale.

Even if the cut off point planned by the Tories was £31,000 as claimed by Labour, it is only slightly more likely that households below the poverty line would be affected.

Full Fact contacted the Child Poverty Action Group who suggested such households may stand to lose tax credits, for instance in the event of a family with a large number of children. However for what are often considered traditional family structures, the policy would be less likely to have an effect.

Analysis by the IFS also suggests this interpretation of Tory policy is unlikely to hit those at the very bottom of the income scale. James Browne, research economist, at the IFS told Full Fact:

“If someone introduced the £31,000 threshold, that would obviously hit people slightly lower down the income scale but even so it is still unlikely that it would affect very many people who were in poverty.”

He added: “So it is not the very poorest who would lose out from even that policy. If you are saying would anyone who is in poverty according to the Government’s definition lose out even from the threshold of £31,000, it seems pretty unlikely.

“You would have to have a very large number of children for a household on that level of income to be below the poverty line.”

Even Labour’s Ed Miliband seemed unwilling to back the figure as hitting the very poor when pressed on the issue this week, dismissing the issue as a “debating point”.

Conclusion

The portrayal of Conservative proposals by the Daily Mirror must be considered inaccurate.

This is because they are apparently based on a flawed interpretation of Tory policy by the Labour party.

Independent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) took the Tory policy as only affect people over £40,000 not £31,000 raising problems for defining such people as the neediest.

Even if the £31,000 threshold is used it is still questionable that the term would be widely applicable to those affected.

The portrayal becomes even more problematic when the policy is put in context of the rest of the two parties’ tax and benefit proposals.

For instance according to the IFS, the Conservatives plan to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples “increases the gains at the bottom and middle of the income distribution relative to Labour’s plans”. 

Overall the Tory tax plans overall were viewed as “probably regressive” relative to Labour but in general “broadly progressive.”

Basing estimates on the proposal set out in the manifesto, rather than savings claimed in speeches, it is therefore inaccurate to suggest tax credits would be scrapped for the “the neediest families”.

Patrick Casey