As The Guardian notes this morning:
Ministers are privately ruling out scrapping the two-child benefit cap despite warnings from charities that a failure to do so could result in the highest levels of child poverty since records began.
Government sources said charities and Labour MPs who were concerned that wider benefit cuts would push more families into poverty should “read the tea leaves” over Labour's plans.
As they then noted, the reason is:
“If they still think we're going to scrap the cap then they're listening to the wrong people. We're simply not going to find a way to do that. The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness,” one source said.
I think we can safely presume that 'one source' is in Downing Street and close to Keir Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.
This is politics without empathy.
It is managerialism without consideration of consequence.
It is rule by focus groups.
It is lowest common denominator self-interest.
It is straightforwardly abusive.
It is indifferent to suffering.
It is all about rewarding prejudice.
It is about compounding hate.
It rewards the performative cruelty towards which some in society are inclined.
It shows an absolute absence of care, both now and about the future.
It indicates an absolute absence of the willingness to lead.
Those who hold these views are not worthy of public office, because it is children who suffer through no fault of their own as a result of this policy.
And the people delivering this policy call themselves Labour politicians when in reality they are as remote from what such people should be as is Farage, who is the real force behind this policy, which indicates that Labour is so frightened of him that it is willing to join the far-right by aping its ability to impose cruelty.
I am sickened by these people. Sickened, appalled, disgusted and revolted.
I am not sure that there is much more to say.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
John Boodle
“popular with key voters”?
Whatever happened to a principled Labour Party?
Not sure who these “key voters” are but…
A one term Government it is.
One wonders when democracy was expanded to include the notion of a key voter, whose vote counts more than the aggregated votes of a much larger number of non-key voters, to the extent that the wishes of the sum of non-key voters can be ignored in favour of the wishes of a vastly smaller number of designated key voters.
It strikes me that this is not democracy at all, but a form of tyranny that seems to be completely at variance with the founding principles of the Labour party.
Perhaps when he was articulating the list of things he was pretending he was going to do in government, but patently has, (and perhaps also had), no intention of doing, Starmer might have advised the electorate of the details of the post-electoral vote-ranking system and how they might determine whether they would be categorised as key voters or not, so that non-key voters-to-be, might have had an opportunity to exercise their votes in favour of candidates who genuinely intended to conduct democratic government as opposed to autocracy by selective consensus.
“Lifting the two-child benefit cap, which caps the amount of child-related benefits a family can receive based on the number of children, would cost the government around £3.4 billion per year. This is approximately 3% of the total working-age benefit budget. Scrapping the cap would also lift an estimated 250,000 children out of poverty and reduce the level of poverty for a further 850,000 children.” [Gemini]
One day,maybe it will be explained how we can find £2Bn to widdle away on carbon extraction, based on, as far as I can tell, sucking carbon out of antiquated construction methods, when multiple construction technologies already exist to reduce the footprint of concrete and the like, and £8m to darken the sky (chrissakes!) but at the same time we can’t find it £3.4Bn to take a quarter of a million children out of poverty.
But, of course, Starmer is probably right, rather than spend £3.4Bn to directly address child poverty, which Reeves could authorise now, without risking anything other than money being spent by the wrong kind of people, i.e. poor people, which would nevertheless create some of the growth Starmer and Reeves claim to want, it’s probably much better to rely on “Our plans to Make Work Pay, Get Britain Working – from [Tackling Child Poverty: Our Strategy – gov.uk]” as the way to address child poverty.
Odd, but quite a few of us probably expected, (or at least hoped for – expected is probably a bit of a stretch), something more direct and related to actually spending public money to address child poverty, rather than the issue of a vacuous document on the causes of poverty, (we know what they are – the very wealthy have sucked the nation dry), and some statements about writing a ten-year plan which increasingly looks likely to take ten years to produce, during which nothing will be done to reduce child poverty, but a great deal will be done to exacerbate it, starting with a massive and unnecessary drive towards greater austerity.
Sadly it’s felt like we have had rule by focus groups since the Blair/Cameron days. But now it’s gone beyond any sense, or ability to read the room. The need to be seen to punish certain groups of people seems to go beyond any sense of decency. Those who chose to have more than 2 children and then scrounge off the state totally misses the fact that 40% on Universal Credit work full time and those whose relationships breakdown etc. And that the disabled do not chose to be disabled and have little ability to earn the money needed to cover their additional costs, especially when the PIP payments that might have enabled them to work are taken away.
A decent local politician was canvassing on Saturday and I was saddened by the number of disenchanted Labour voters, many working in education who now feel unable to engage in politics at all. One friend said he didn’t want to speak to any politicians as he no longer trusted them, although he would still vote. I wasn’t taken in by the current version of the Labour party, but I’m still shocked by how brutal and heartless they are. They’re going to be battered at the local elections and I wonder how long before the more decent MPs feel they can no longer tolerate what they are being asked to support.
Thanks
“I wonder how long before the more decent M.Ps feel they can no longer tolerate what they are being asked to support”. Hazel, judging by Labour M.Ps voting record in the H.O.C since they came to power, that number would seem to be very few. Most are apparently content to follow their Government’s policies, no matter the damage being caused to real people.
If you listen to Rory Stewart, the whipping system makes it very hard to rebel. And most of the new MPs will already be finding parliament hard to navigate. It takes a lot of confidence to like John McDonell speak out in the way he has. I’m watching people like Clive Lewis who are on the left but are currently sitting very quiet. I should add I’m Green and the Labour party has been far to right wing for me to vote for for a long time. I was never a Corbynite, but I’m looking forward to hearing Jeremy speak at Greenbelt in August.
The “power” of the whips is far too strong. IMO the system is undemocratic as it interferes with a backbench MP’s ability to speak on behalf of their constituents and vote with their conscience. I have long believed it should be done away with. One thing USA does better than us – in theory anyway. We may see this in action with Trump soon – hopefully!
“The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness”……….regardless of the consequences.
I have ordered a book on cybernetics. It promises to be an interesting read. Do McSweeney & co assume that poor families don’t vote?.
Given the tories and LINO are following the sameish track … what does this leave for those that feel very hard done by and nowhere to turn?
It is puzzling, given a rich country that those that are poor cannot be supported (4 million children in poverty?)
Once again, we are seeing an output from the Wezzie village, reflecting careful political calculation, but absent all concern for the common weal.
Do McSweeney & co assume that poor families don’t vote?.
Well a number of studies show that there is a lower turnout amongst the poorest.
e.g.
https://www.johnsmithcentre.com/research-blog/election-turnout-in-poorest-areas-dropped-twice-the-rate-as-richest/
Nor do they necessarily vote for leftist parties.
The poorest cannot vote, as they don’t have passports or driving licences. There is a route to getting the right to vote without these, but my estimate is that it takes a total of 2 days effort to get this. Starts with registration requirements, goes on to passport-style photos. You’d need to be very commiyyed to do this, and, as expected, many do not.
I live in a relatively poor area of the West Midlands. Turnout at all elections here is shockingly poor. When I speak to people about it, they say all politicians are the same and none of them are interested in ordinary working people. On the evidence of the past 15 years, it’s difficult to argue with them.
Agreed
[…] But then, Labour is also rotten to its very core, as I have noted this morning. […]
The McTeam have clearly weighed up two things against each other wrt the 2 child benefit cap.
a) apparent “popularity with (Reform) voters”
versus
b) the lifelong damage done to 4.8m children by child poverty.
A party interested in governing for the benefit of the people, would prioritise the prevention of b).
An election campaign McTeam focussed permanently on 2029, would choose a).
What Labour Ministers and Labour MPs need to realise, is that the government cannot govern without the active approval of its MPs. It’s time >400 consciences woke up and exercised the power given them quite properly by the electorate.
They have the power to break the whip. Do they have the moral courage to USE it?
A party interested in governing for the benefit of the people, would prioritise the prevention of the lifelong damage done to 4.8m children by child poverty….and if this risked them being voted out of power, would still carry out this policy because the lifelong damage done to 4.8m children by child poverty should be more important than the career path of any MP.
Agreed
The new intake of Labour MPs last year were carefully chosen not to rock the boat. I met a few of them before I left the party. I didn’t feel that any of them had any real political conviction, they just saw politics as a career choice.
After all, it’s much easier than being a teacher or doctor, and can be very well paid if you toe the line.
Thank you and well said, Graham.
I echo from experience and add that many are relatively young and often see politics as a career stepping stone to something even more lucrative.
Older readers may remember this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_(magazine), and how it was marketed to typically Clinton fans as “politics as a lifestyle choice”. As Blairites fell and fall for the Clintons unquestioningly, this attitude prevails. And then they wonder how Brexit and Trump happened.
There were other reports over the weekend that a number of MPs are starting to wake up to this.
Perhaps still out of self interest rather than any sense of justice or empathy but it’s a start.
There is a marvellous article/long read in the Guardian today about end of life care in Denmark.
One of the Danish nurses says of assisted dying “It’s healthy people who want to introduce assisted dying. But the patients we meet here want to live. They do not want to die.”
Similarly I’m sure that it will be the better off people in focus groups putting forth their opinions on others who need help bathed in the light of their own success, luck, ducking and diving or criminality tut-tutting about a lack of this or that on the part of those who need help.
‘Key voters’. Jesus! Think about it: ‘Key voters’!!
I thought that in a democracy we were ALL key voters?
Apparently not. I stand vindicated.
A friend of ours who helped Labour win their seat in my rural constituency at the last election was asked if she would help in the elections in May. She said no and told them why (lack of taxes on the rich, no control on the market pricing amongst a long list we are all familiar with).
Perhaps at some point in the future certain individuals will be given ‘block votes’ or single votes with more weight than normal votes? Honestly I can’t see it but by targeting key voters for favour and disenfranchising others, who then stop voting, the key votes do become key votes.
‘Key voters’ can only be:
1. Swing voters (inveterate Tory types who vote for nasty parties anyway )
2. Reform voters – those who live in misery and whose only pleasure in life is to see others either suffer more than them or just join in.
3. Daily Mail readers.
Utterly cruel and ignores the evidence-base.
Childhood is a unique period in the human life-span, what happens in childhood lasts. Harm has a damaging legacy, costly on different levels.
If they argue it’s due to fairness then they have to ensure fair access to food. Provide free breakfasts and free, healthy school meals until end of Year 13, across the year. The evidence shows developmental and educational outcomes increase when this happens.
Or do they think key voters applaud hungry, distressed children who can’t concentrate because basic needs are unmet.
There is more than a ring of truth in a recent tweet by Prof. Jeremy Gilbert :
‘Jeremy Gilbert @jemgilbert
Once again, it’s impossible to understand the current government without understanding that winning the next election, while relatively desirable to them, just isn’t their main priority.
Their priorities are: 1) keep control of the party patronage networks 2) prevent any viable progressive political force from emerging in UK politics.
Spot on. Their behaviour around the 2017 and 2019 elections are all the evidence needed.
Remember the look on Stephen Kinnock’s face when he realised Corbyn had come close to winning.
On the day after the passing of Pope Francis, I wonder, did Jesus need to rely on “focus” groups? If he had done so may be he would have toned down his teachings so as not to upset the pro-Roman supporters! I have always voted Labour in the past but not anymore. This lot offend my notion of what a Labour Party should be all about.
Being a deep green social democrat who strongly believes in ecological, social and economic justice I am definitely not now one of Labour’s ‘key voters’. I like to believe that I was once, when they used to stand for something. Whilst not being a true believer, as they weren’t green or MMT enough, I was a member, made donations, and in the 2017 election had a Labour placard outside my house like a For Sale sign, enthusiastically talking about the politics of hope to anyone who’d listen. That all seems like such a long time ago. I would now be no more likely to vote or lift a finger for the Labour Party than I would the Tories or Reform – essentially they are the same. I am SO OVER the Labour Party, and I see it as irredeemable: there is no use hanging on hoping for better people and better days. Maybe there are many people like me, maybe not. Those Labour MPs and activists who still have a heart and a conscience – people like Clive Lewis, really ought to wake up from their erstwhile dream of ‘Labour – for the many, not the few’.
Much to agree with
What about Political Leadership?
On a practical level of course many of these ‘more than two child’ families end up ‘on the parish’ having to be supported by Local Authorities using their various discretionary funds so they dont ‘go away’ they just end up being funded from somewhere else.
There is a report – you now have to ask for a copy published by Ekklesia
https://www.ekklesia.co.uk/
I think its this one
https://old.ekklesia.co.uk/node/18086
Points out that family size is identical in benefit dependant and non benefit dependant households
The idea of large benefit dependant households is a myth.
Available here:
https://www.jpit.uk/wp-content/uploads/Truth-And-Lies-Report-smaller.pdf
That goes back to my foodbank days. I remember it well because it was what my data told me too.
The tragedy is that back in 2013, Labour politicians waved that report indignantly at the coalition government. I know I did. I sent it to my coalition MP, I used it in talks and public meetings – I tried to publicise it as widely as possible.
Its been on my hard drive for a decade.
Now they would refuse to read it.
It’s THEM that’s changed, not the truth of the report.
I do wonder whether Labour has done its electoral maths correctly. Yes they might attract a few ‘key’ voters away from Reform (but seriously, how many will actually be swayed, give the myriad attractions of Farage and his lies). On the other hand, have they accurately measured how many core voters they will be persuading to stay home, or like me vote Green?
Just think how many votes they could retain and attract if Labour actually focused on fixing the country, instead of placating a few sad and cruel ‘key’ voters.
They obviously think they know
I think they are profoundly mistaken
I worry that when they get a soundly deserved kicking in the local elections, they will treat the swing to Reform as a signal that they aren’t being right wing enough and need to engage in more performative cruelty. I’m not sure there’s anything that could happen in reality that would make them change their mind.
I’m not sure I’ve seen political idiocy quite so ingrained before.
I’m another potential Labour voter who will be voting green in my council elections, despite Labour having a prominent local news presenter as their candidate.
Canvassing and leaflet delivery here (Staffs) for Labour local elections has been literally the candidates alone in some areas, and considerably less than half the old teams in general. Labour support has shrunk, Reform grown, despite local Tories, Greens and others publicly exposing Reform policies. The local MP is not winning followers with his unwavering Starmer support. I suspect we may see big Reform gains.
There is not much more to say – you’ve made yourself very clear, and you are absolutely right – but I do want to add that this whole Labour leadership conception of politics as following public opinion, regardless of what is right and wrong, or good for our children if not ourselves, is undermining democracy – which ought to be about putting your vision and policies forward and persuading voters of their merit, not finding out what undecided voters want and pandering to their every passing whim.
The focus groups get their information from whatever media they use. They respond to the message they are getting.
McSweeney and co obviously rule out the possibility of changing the message people are getting – by leading from the front – implementing progressive policy and explaining how and why they are doing it. But as Reeves and Starmer seem to have no idea how the economy works and how to implement ‘anything we can do we can afford’ they will continue to double down on their authoritarian cruelty.
My own MP sent me 700 words in response to my request he wouldn’t not support the disability cuts etc . He didn’t answer directly but suggested he was keeping an eye on things.
three extracts-
“”””I want to be clear that the Government’s plans will not result in any immediate changes to anyone’s benefits.
“”””””I will also be looking into how difficult it could be under new changes, for people to score 4 points in applying for PIP. Additionally, will also raise the issue of whether there will be protections for those who are already receiving PIP, so they do not lose PIP under new reforms.
“”””””””I can assure you that I am following the developments on this closely and will be raising the relevant points to the Government to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are supported.
How about
The two child limit and overall benefit cap were introduced without any obvious purpose or justification.
They are however causing widespread poverty amongst children and imposing costs on local authorities.
Pending a proper review of these policies we are removing the two child limit and the benefit cap.
Simples
I note this from Dan Goyle’s recent newsletter, the Antidote;
“It’s a common mistake. Decent, civilised folk try and use decent, civilised reasoning to persuade those on the far-right not to support evil things. As I have said many times, the moral reasoning we apply to our daily lives is not only different to those in the oligarch/far-right industrial complex, the cognitive morality function (the actual brain region) is defective and, at times, completely absent.
It sounds like hyperbole to say that those who support the oligarch takeover are deficient in key brain functions. But it is true. Indeed, for decades, the powerful elite (also themselves damaged) have groomed the more marginalised, the less well educated, and the victims of some form of domestic abuse or neglect (this includes the callous disregard of some wealthy parents). They create the ideal society to foster easily manipulated foot-soldiers.”
It feels like the upper echelons of Labour have been captured by this callous ideology, no doubt enticed by money.
The diminished prefrontal cortex is a well known finding in nutritionally neglected populations (as well as the abused), this has been known since the late 1990s, and is what Goyal is referring to. You may wish to connect the dots re UPFs being a major part of UK diet and the absence of critical thought in many.
Agreed
Thank you, Richard.
Not unrelated: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/04/keir-starmers-bromance-with-silicon-valleys-darkest-company-palantir.html. NB the first person named in the post and my comment BTL.
They have been warned and warned and warned, but our government will not stop selling us into a dystopian future. Our protests mean nothing, seemingly.
The absolute shoot-yourself-in-the-foot lunacy of all this is that every fertile woman needs to produce 2.1 children to maintain a viable society. The current rate is miles adrift at 1.44 children. In these circumstances then the only option to maintain a functioning society is immigrants, but what we have are intellectual pygmies that disincentivise UK families and in the same breath demonise immigration. I despair.
Thank you, Rob and Richard.
Some years ago, I heard from an American woman about some Clinton fan PMC women demonising women who had children in their 20s and not focusing on their careers. She had her first child aged 26, same age as mum when I was born. In addition to this demonisation, there was the usual about the deserving poor, aspiration etc.
I mentioned this to mum who said she had heard it at Save The Children, one of many reasons why she no longer volunteered there. I thought about that recently when I heard Labour MPs talk about aspiration, just like Thatcher forty years ago.
It’s this narrow segment of society, narrow minded, too, that Labour targets.
Agreed
They have never met the rest, or treat them like fools
I see Rachel-from-accounts believes free global trade is the answer to all our woes.
She is stupid enough to be believe in slogans
It’s hard to believe that these comments are being levelled at a Labour government, and it’s hard to see the difference from the Conservatives…
I’d agree this will be a single-term government, simply because they lack the drive or vision to go beyond the established script
Shame.
I totally agree.
I’m ashamed to ever have been a member of the Labour Party. My father, who was a Labour councillor in the early 60s, must be revolving in his grave. He was then seen as a moderate, but if he had the same views now he’d be evicted from the party for being an extremist.
This government can call themselves Labour if they wish. The truth is, they have no connection with Labour values at all.
Agreed. Thanks.