Sheila Gilmore: Simple isn't straightforward

On Wednesday David Cameron said "Look what we have done in five months; imagine what we can do in five years". In just one week the Conservatives have started picking away at the fairness of the universal social security system.

The biggest uproar this week has come from the changes to Child Benefit. Announcements on benefit reform show all the signs of policy being made on the hoof. As the criticism came out, another rushed announcement - a promise to introduce a married couples' tax relief.

One of the underlying themes on benefits has been "simplification". Anyone who has claimed benefits or helped anyone claiming benefits will know how complicated some can be. But the Child Benefit proposal illustrates the pitfalls of simplicity. The Government went for a simple cut off where a household with an earner in the higher tax band loses eligibility. But simple changes like this cause big anomalies, for example a household with one earner just into the higher rate tax band loses the benefit but a household with two earners both just below that tax band does not.

It's no accident that this Government talks about "welfare reform" and "the burden of the rising welfare bill". Gone are words like social security or national insurance. Words are important - and the stress on welfare is to convey the picture of people who don't want to work. It would be naive to deny that there are people who exploit the benefits system, just as there are people who evade paying tax.

I agree with David Cameron's sentiment that those with the broadest backs should bear the bigger load. But it would be fairer to achieve that through taxing the wealthiest, not by attacking child benefit.

This is not the "Big Society". It's a return to Margaret Thatcher's "No Society".

Sheila Gilmore is Labour MP for Edinburgh East