Gordon Brown on the 'cruel' two-child benefit cap
(Photo by Jeff)
The two-child benefit cap is 'cruel', the former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown tells the New Statesman Podcast in a special interview out on Friday 23 May.
Devised by the former Conservative chancellor George Osborne in 2016, the limit is considered a driver of child poverty and it is a certain source of division within today's Labour Party. The Labour government chose not to scrap the cap, and has removed the whip from MPs rebelling against this decision. The party promised in its manifesto to end reliance on food banks, and to reduce child poverty in this Parliament. Removing the two-child benefit cap could pull hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.
Speaking to the New Statesman's Britain Editor and podcast host Anoosh Chakelian ahead of his guest-edited issue themed around child poverty, Brown laid out his funding ideas for reducing child poverty. These include a gambling tax, commercial bank levy, and changes to Gift Aid rules for higher-rate taxpayers, among other measures. Outlining these on the podcast, Brown suggested they would be possible without 'breaking the government's tax commitments' or 'breaking the fiscal rules, which, of course, [the Chancellor] Rachel Reeves is obviously right to be concerned about'.
In the interview, Brown drew on exclusive polling for his New Statesman guest edit by Focaldata, which revealed 42 per cent of voters are against the cap, and more than 75 per cent of those who support it say it should be scrapped if it is shown to be a cost-effective way of reducing poverty.
'The Reform Party, many of the Conservative Party, the Liberals, the [Scottish] Nationalist Party, they all support lifting the two-child limit,' Brown revealed. 'Now, of course, it's expensive because it was designed to save a lot of money at the expense of children, but you just think of a family that has lost £66 a week overnight – their child is born, the third child, and they don't get the same amount that they get for the second child.
'It really is cruel to see a third child as almost a second-class citizen in that way, and that's what's got to change. Now, I think the government can do this because I've suggested the ways it can be funded. I think it should be hypothecated in the sense of earmarks, so that people know that the money is going for a good purpose.'
[See more: Inside the Conservative Party's existential spiral]
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
MPs could vote to force government to build 150,000 social homes a year
A proposed change to the Planning and Infrastructure bill would demand a 150,000 target for building social homes this Parliament LIb Dem MPs will push for a vote to force the government to set a target on social homes. A proposed change to the Planning and Infrastructure bill would demand a 150,000 target for building social homes this Parliament. It comes amid reports Deputy PM Angela Rayner is locked in a struggle with the Treasury over the Housing budget ahead of this weeks spending review. Agreement has yet to be reached on funding for the Housing department, which is responsible for delivering Labour 's target of 1.5 million new homes - including a promised social housing 'revolution' - by the end of the Parliament. The Lib Dems amendment would also make it mandatory for new car parks to have solar panels on them. And it would create a pubic register of donations made to the Housing Secretary from developers whose projects they have commissioned, dating back ten years. Liberal Democrat Housing and Planning Spokesperson Gideon Amos MP said: "For too long, planning and infrastructure regulations have been in the slow lane, preventing economic growth that would help put money back into British families' pockets. 'If the Government is serious about kickstarting the economy, they need to be far more ambitious. This starts with finally setting a social housing target, and pushing ahead with the healthcare, GPs, transport and energy infrastructure that communities want to see come first where new housing is proposed.' The Party is also pushing for stricter protections for local wildlife and habitats, with requirements on ministers and Natural England to take steps to prevent and reduce adverse effects on the environment. One of their amendments would also ensure development corporations provide green spaces in all new developments.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Government stalling in efforts to cut foreign aid spent on asylum seekers
The government is struggling to cut the amount of money from the foreign aid budget it spends on asylum seekers in the UK, new figures show. Home Office figures show the department expects to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year, of which £2.1bn is expected to be spent on asylum support. The predictions for this year are only slightly less than the £2.4bn spent in 2024/25. Official development assistance (ODA) – which was slashed earlier this year to 0.3 per cent of GDP to pay for a boost to defence spending - is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. A portion of this money is handed to the home office to support asylum seekers after they arrive in the UK, most of which goes towards their accommodation. But the government's failure to cut back on this spending has led aid organisations to accuse ministers of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', claiming they are in danger of a 'reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' Figures published in March revealed that the number of asylum seekers housed in costly hotels has increased by more than 8,000 since the general election, with 38,079 migrants being housed in hotels at the end of December. It comes despite Sir Keir Starmer previously saying a Labour government wouldn't use the foreign aid budget to pay for asylum seekers' hotel costs – but admitted that the government would not be able to stop doing so immediately. 'I'm not going to pretend to you we can do that in the first 24 hours', he said in May 2024. Meanwhile, Labour's election manifesto vowed to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, warned that 'cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul', he told the BBC. Meanwhile, Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK. The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." The Home Office told the BBC it is committed to ending asylum hotels and is speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The department also said it had reduced overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds in the last financial year, saving £200m in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. In April, The Independent revealed that the government had awarded a contract which allows for hotels and barges to house asylum seekers up until September 2027, despite Labour vowing to end the practice. The contract, advertised ahead of the election, was awarded by the Cabinet Office in October 2024 – just months after Labour won a historic landslide election victory - and runs up until September 2027. In June, the home secretary admitted she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation, adding: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."
