Liz Kendall

Our research shows the harm the two-child limit on benefits is doing. Only scrapping it can end this

Spread the love
Malysheva Liudmyla/Shutterstock

Kate Andersen, University of York and Kitty Stewart, London School of Economics and Political Science

Since the UK Labour government took office in summer 2024, calls have intensified to scrap both the “two-child limit” – which restricts support for children through universal credit to two children – and the overall benefit cap. With Chancellor Rachel Reeves resisting this pressure as she tries to manage deteriorating public finances, ways of tweaking the two-child limit policy have been proposed.

But as researchers of child poverty, we have no doubt that the best place to start reducing the high and rising numbers of children growing up in poverty in Britain today is by fully abolishing the two-child limit and the benefit cap.

We argue that both policies are astoundingly unfair. As our four-year research programme has documented, both are causing wide-ranging harm to children. They restrict children’s everyday experiences and damage their ability to thrive – which in the long run affects everyone in the UK.

Children live in poverty because their families don’t have an adequate income. This is partly a simple question of maths: wages don’t adjust when there are more mouths to feed. It’s also partly because things happen unexpectedly for some families – job loss, disability, relationship breakdown – leaving them needing extra support for a period of time.

Countries across Europe respond to these dual challenges by providing financial support that adjusts to family needs. Until recently, the UK did too. Indeed, the UK welfare state was one of the pioneers of “family allowances” in the post-war period.

But since 2017, the UK has reformed the system so that in families with three or more children, the support on offer when things go wrong deliberately and explicitly falls far short of what is needed. The UK’s two-child limit, an approach that differs to other countries in Europe, restricts means-tested support to two children in a family only. It bakes child poverty into the fibre of the UK.

Its sister policy, the benefit cap, limits the maximum benefit amount available to households without adults in work. This removes further help from some of the most vulnerable.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Struggling to get by

The parents we spoke to frequently talked of difficulties in affording basic necessities for their children, including clothes and food. Many parents had resorted to using foodbanks or cut back on food spending.

The material impacts also affected children’s education and their social and emotional wellbeing. Jessica is a single mum of four. Her business went under during the pandemic and her partner left the household, leaving her affected by both the two-child limit and the benefit cap.

When a hole appeared in Jessica’s daughter’s school shoes, there was no money to replace them straight away. Her daughter went to school wearing trainers and was put in isolation for not adhering to the dress code. Jessica explained:

I got the phone call to say she had to go into isolation and, and things and I just said, “I’m not the type of person that just has £20 sat in the bank” … it was kind of a bit public shaming her really, taking her away and putting her in isolation.

Our interviews also showed that, despite parents’ best efforts to shield them, children are often aware of household financial hardship and in turn try to protect their parents. Christina, a mum of three affected by the two-child limit, said of her middle child:

He won’t say he needs new clothes and he won’t say his shoes don’t fit anymore … I think he’s got it into his head now that we can’t go out and spend or he can’t ask, and I feel so bad for that.

Our research also documents the importance of abolishing the benefit cap alongside the two-child limit. Otherwise, some families affected by the two-child limit won’t see much financial gain, while others will be newly pushed into the benefit cap.

Complete removal

Suggested alternatives to the full abolition of the two child limit include a “three-child limit”, or an exemption for children under five. These options would undoubtedly help some families, but would leave many of those in the greatest need still struggling.

Girl eating
Families are struggling to get the food they need. Klemzy/Shutterstock

Pound for pound, a three-child limit is less effective at reducing poverty than simple abolition, precisely because it is less well targeted on those in deepest poverty. An exemption for under fives would create a new cliff edge, removing significant support on a child’s fifth birthday, even though we know that the costs of children rise as children get older.

Further, these approaches continue to enforce a separation between what a family needs and its entitlement to support, and therefore will continue to embed child poverty as an institutional feature of our social security system. Children’s life chances will continue to be circumscribed by the number of siblings they have. Given what we know about the long-term costs of child poverty for society, these are short-sighted ways to save money today.

It is very encouraging that the government has committed to a child poverty strategy, and that the prime minister has said he will be “laser focused” on tackling child poverty.

But, as we wait for the strategy to be published, the number of children harmed by the two-child limit rises daily. Nearly two-in-five larger families are now affected and this is predicted to rise to 61% of larger families by the time the two-child limit has full coverage.

If the child poverty strategy is to have real impact, its starting point is straightforward: both the two-child limit and the benefit cap need to go, and urgently, before more damage is done to children’s lives.

Kate Andersen, Research Fellow, School for Business and Society, University of York and Kitty Stewart, Professor, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keir Starmer says that his Labour Party is intensely relaxed about assaulting the very poorest and most vulnerable.
Keir Starmer says that his Labour Party is intensely relaxed about assaulting the very poorest and most vulnerable.
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Continue ReadingOur research shows the harm the two-child limit on benefits is doing. Only scrapping it can end this

The UN blasts Labour for its failures to address income inequality and poverty

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/un-blasts-labour-its-failures-address-income-inequality-and-poverty

TORY 2015/LABOUR 2025 SPOT THE DIFFERENCE: (Above) Workers and disabled people protesting outside Norfolk County Hall against Norfolk County Council cuts to services on October 2015 Photo: Roger Blackwell/flickr/CC

DR DYLAN MURPHY asks why Labour is continuing the Tory war on the disabled, when viable alternatives have been spelt out in detail

IN LATE February of 2025 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a damning report into the failures of Labour to address income inequality and the deepening levels of poverty in the UK.

The UN committee criticised Labour for failing to address “income inequality or reducing poverty,” which hamper “the progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights.’’

Ironically enough, the UN called on Labour to increase spending on housing, health, education and social security in order to reverse the huge damage caused by blue Tory austerity from 2010 to 2024. Since this call the red Tories in power have announced their intention to make massive cuts to public spending across all government departments except defence and maybe health.

On the issue of social security, over which Labour is determined to make killer cuts, the UN expressed serious concern about the impact of blue Tory austerity which had “resulted in severe economic hardship, increased reliance on food banks, homelessness, negative impacts on mental health and the stigmatisation of benefit claimants.”

Of course, food bank usage under Labour continues to grow as does the stigmatisation of benefit claimants which Starmer and company have engaged in with relish over the last few months.

Starmer, Reeves and Kendall seem to take a sadistic glee in attacking the disabled through the platforms of the Tory media using ultra right-wing rags such as The Telegraph and Sun to stigmatise the sick and disabled.

The biggest irony in this recent UN report is its call for Labour to actually increase the value of disability benefits such as PIP so that the UK can meet “the recommendations made by the special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.”

…

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/un-blasts-labour-its-failures-address-income-inequality-and-poverty

Keir Starmer says pensioners can freeze to death and poor children can starve and be condemned to failure and misery all their lives.
Keir Starmer says pensioners can freeze to death and poor children can starve and be condemned to failure and misery all their lives.
Keir Starmer explains the moral case for cutting disability benefits. He says work will set you free.
Keir Starmer explains the moral case for cutting disability benefits. He says work will set you free.
Continue ReadingThe UN blasts Labour for its failures to address income inequality and poverty

Reeves plans new cuts as economy sags

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/reeves-plans-new-cuts-economy-sags

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during a meeting at Downing Street in London with regulators. She is expected to use the meeting to announce more detail on how the Government will cut the cost of regulation by a quarter and set out plans to slim down or abolish regulators themselves, March 17, 2025

CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves is set to announce a huge new programme of spending cuts as unemployment rises and anger at Labour’s assault on disability benefits mounts.

She will use her spring spending statement next week to unveil a fresh austerity programme as the government continues to rule out tax rises on the wealthy as an alternative.

Despair is turning to anger among backbench Labour MPs and trade unions at the government’s course, which is already seeing Labour plunge to record lows in the opinion polls.

Ms Reeves’s death-wish economics come as official statistics showed joblessness increasing, including among young workers.

Unemployment is up by 0.1 per cent, with a youth unemployment rate of 12.9 per cent.

Commenting on the figures, Public and Commercial Services union general secretary Fran Heathcote said: “The labour market figures today highlight the cruelty of the government’s reforms to disability benefits.

“Unemployment is rising, and the wider measure of underemployment is now at 4.75 million with only 816,000 vacancies in the economy — meaning there are already nearly six people chasing every vacancy.

“Those figures exclude disabled people currently deemed unable to work or with only limited capacity for work.

“The reality is that the government’s proposals will not help disabled people off of benefits and into work, but off benefits and into deeper poverty.”

…

Article continues at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/reeves-plans-new-cuts-economy-sags

Keir Starmer says pensioners can freeze to death and poor children can starve and be condemned to failure and misery all their lives.
Keir Starmer says pensioners can freeze to death and poor children can starve and be condemned to failure and misery all their lives.
Keir Starmer explains the moral case for cutting disability benefits. He says work will set you free.
Keir Starmer explains the moral case for cutting disability benefits. He says work will set you free.
Continue ReadingReeves plans new cuts as economy sags

Morning Star Editorial: What is the point of Labour? The key question

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/what-point-labour-key-question

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during a reception to celebrate St Patrick’s Day at 10 Downing Street, London, March 19, 2025

…

[T]he Starmer-Reeves agenda is entirely dictated by the needs of finance capital, mediated through the Treasury and the military.

There is no question, of course, of arms spending being affected by this renewed austerity — on the contrary it is slated to carry on rising for the next decade. Critics of the welfare cuts should not be reticent about making this connection.

Trying to protect spending on services without challenging this renewed militarism hands the Starmerites a free pass by allowing a key argument to go unchallenged.

Starmer’s priorities have a mounting number of victims. Again in Commons questions, Northern Ireland social democrat Colum Eastwood identified one, a deeply disabled constituent able to access benefits under the Tories but now facing destitution as her personal independence payments are withdrawn.

Eastwood then asked the key question. Given all that — what is the point of Labour?

It is a question millions across the country, including many who voted Labour last July, are now asking. This is governance in the interests of capital, not labour by any stretch.

The left in Labour must transition from protest to action against the government if there is to be any positive answer to Eastwood’s question. Issuing statements is not enough if Starmer and Reeves can continue to count on votes in Parliament and canvassers in the country for their anti-worker programme.

Absent that fighting approach, the logical conclusion must be that something new, articulating the values of socialism, is needed.

Original article at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/what-point-labour-key-question

Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Keir Starmer commits to play the caretaker role for Capitalism through the "hard times".
Keir Starmer commits to play the caretaker role for Capitalism through the “hard times”.
Continue ReadingMorning Star Editorial: What is the point of Labour? The key question

Cutting welfare goes against Labour’s core values – that’s the point

Spread the love
House of Commons/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Tim Bale, Queen Mary University of London

“It’s one thing to say the economy is not doing well and we’ve got a fiscal challenge … but cutting the benefits of the most vulnerable in our society who can’t work, to pay for that, is not going to work. And it’s not a Labour thing to do.”

So says former Labour big beast turned centrist-dad podcaster Ed Balls about the government’s welfare reform proposals. Cue furious nods from all those who were hoping and expecting better – or at least not this – from Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.

Reactions like these are wholly understandable. After all, the Labour party has long viewed support for the welfare state as both a flag around which the party can rally, and a stick with which to beat the Conservatives.

But while that may have been the case in opposition, in office things have been a little more complicated.

Going all the way back to the MacDonald and Attlee governments, through the Wilson era, and into the Blair and Brown years, Labour governments have often seen fit to talk and act tough to prove to voters, the media and the markets that they have a head as well as a heart. And if that means upsetting some of their MPs, their grassroots members and their core supporters in the electorate, then so be it.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Welfare encompasses a raft of policies that are as much symbolic as they are substantive. Choosing between them has tangible implications for those directly affected. But those choices also say something – and are intended to say something – about those politicians and parties making that choice.

For Labour governments – and in particular Labour chancellors – cuts in provision, even (indeed perhaps especially) if they involve backtracking on previous commitments, have always been a means of communicating their determination to deal with the world as it supposedly is, not as some of their more radical colleagues would like it to be.

Think of Philip Snowden insisting on cuts to unemployment benefits in 1931 in an eventually vain attempt to retain the gold standard. Or Hugh Gaitskell insisting on charges for NHS “teeth and specs” to pay for the Korean war in 1951. Or Roy Jenkins reimposing NHS prescription charges in 1968 to calm the markets after devaluation. Or Dennis Healey committing to spending cuts to secure a loan from the IMF (and to save sterling again) in 1976. Or Gordon Brown insisting on cutting single parent benefits in 1997.

On every occasion, those decisions have provoked outrage: a full-scale split in the 1930s, the resignation of three ministers (including Harold Wilson and leftwing titan Nye Bevan) in the 50s, parliamentary rebellions and membership resignations in the 60s, more generalised despair in Labour and trade union ranks the 70s, and yet another Commons rebellion in the 90s.

But what we need to appreciate is that the fallout is never merely accidental. Rather, it is a vital part of the drama. For the measures to have any chance of convincing sceptical markets and media outlets (as well as, perhaps, ordinary voters) their authors have to be seen to be committing symbolic violence against their party’s own cherished principles.

The proof that sacred cows really are being sacrificed is the anger (ideally impotent anger) of those who cherish them most – Labour’s left wingers. Their reaction is not merely predictable (and expect, by the way, to see Labour’s right wingers employ that term pejoratively in the coming days), it is also functional.

The cruelty is the point

Away from the Labour party itself, both those directly affected by the changes to sickness and disability benefits and those who campaign on their behalf, are – rightly or wrongly – already labelling those changes as cruel. But, likewise (and to put it at its most extreme) the cruelty, to coin a phrase, is the point.

The government will naturally be hoping that, in reality, as few people as possible will be significantly hurt by what it is doing. But the impression that it is prepared to run that risk in pursuit of its wider aim is, in many ways, vital to its success.

As to what that wider aim is? Labour’s essential problem is that, for all its social democratic values, it understandably aspires to become the natural party of government in what is an overwhelmingly liberal capitalist political economy.

It has all too often sought to achieve that, not so much by creating expectations among certain key groups and then rewarding them, as it has by aiming to demonstrate a world-as-it-is governing competence.

That, in the view of its leaders (if not necessarily its followers), is the master key to the prolonged success experienced by the Conservative party – a party which has traditionally enjoyed the additional advantage of being culturally attuned to the market and media environment in which governing in the UK has to be done.

So, no, Ed Balls, you’re wrong: for good or ill, this week’s announcement is very much “a Labour thing to do”.

Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keir Starmer commits to play the caretaker role for Capitalism through the "hard times".
Keir Starmer commits to play the caretaker role for Capitalism through the “hard times”.
Keir Starmer confirms that he's proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.

[21/3/25 dizzy: I had better say that I disagree with “… what is an overwhelmingly liberal capitalist political economy”. It’s only that way because the left is denied opportunity. Consider Corbyn’s popularity for example and the many forces that attacked him.]

Continue ReadingCutting welfare goes against Labour’s core values – that’s the point