
Kemi Badenoch is ‘wrong and strong' – particularly when it comes to the two-child benefit cap
How fitting, from the woman who complained that maternity pay was 'excessive' and said people should exercise 'more personal responsibility'.
The cap, you see, restricts the number of children that parents can claim certain benefits for – such as Universal Credit and Tax Credits – to just two per family.
It currently affects nearly 1.7m children in the UK and has been described by some campaigners, including the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), as a 'brutal policy' that makes children's 'lives hard and their futures bleak'. The group also said that scrapping it altogether would be the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty.
But Badenoch doesn't want to do that. Instead, she posted on X that the reason that she is determined to keep the cap is because 'families on benefits should make the same responsible decisions about having children as everyone else'.
'It is about fairness,' she claimed. 'Most working families plan their finances carefully. They budget based on what they can afford.'
Now, it's no secret that in the past I haven't been especially complimentary about Badenoch. I have constantly rejected the idea that I, as a Black woman, should feel inspired – simply to see a Black female leader of the Conservative Party.
I don't see anything good that this woman does for the Black community. She says she does not care about historical issues that still impact us to this day, such as colonialism. She fails to acknowledge systemic racism in the UK – saying Britain is 'the best place in the world to be Black' and arguing that Britain 'isn't racist' – and in many ways, such as when she uses phrases like 'ethnic enemies' to talk about northern Nigeria, I'd argue she's actually taking us backwards.
And now, in all of Badenoch's rants about those on benefits having babies, she has failed to consider people who have families aren't always on benefits before they have kids. People can easily lose jobs or have a partner die. The two child benefit cap doesn't take into consideration that in life, sometimes 'stuff happens'.
But Badenoch is an intelligent woman – I'm sure she realises this. So why is she so shamelessly expressing such a contentious point of view? We have an expression in Caribbean culture where we describe particularly hard headed individuals who refuse to concede their position, despite the fact it is clearly the incorrect one, as 'wrong and strong'. Badenoch exemplifies 'wrong and strong'.
For a good illustration of how she operates, Badenoch described Reform as 'another left wing party'. They've stormed ahead in the polls, causing some to describe them as the 'unofficial opposition'. Farage has indicated that if he were ever to make it as prime minister, he would 'scrap the cap', too. Meanwhile, the Tory Party trail behind in third place. The defection of former party chairman, Jake Berry, to Reform was a particularly embarrassing blow.
The Tories are now forcing this vote in parliament in order to use it as a wedge issue between themselves and Reform, who are hoovering up their voters as well as pinching their politicians. A foolish mistake, if ever I saw one.
Reform are by no stretch of the imagination a left wing party. But what they do have is a lot of working class support, many of whom are probably affected by the two child benefit cap. They intend to clamp down hard in areas like immigration and DEI, following the example of the Trump administration.
They are catering to their fanbase – and the Tories are foolish to try and challenge them from the right, because they simply can't win. You can't out-Farage Farage.
Labour are guilty of doing the same thing – and have duly been forced into embarrassing U-turns by the members of the so-called 'welfare rebellion' on the backbenches, who are rightly trying to force Starmer to keep his electoral promise to make significant progress in reducing child poverty.
There are also notable threats to both Labour and the Tories coming in from the flanks – the Green Party are making some significant strides in filling the gap left on the left who feel abandoned by Starmer; and the Jeremy Corbyn-Zarah Sultana coalition could make a serious dent on the political landscape (even if not quite in the way they may hope).
If Badenoch wants to continue to lead the Tory Party, full stop – let alone lead them into the next general election – she needs to stop targeting women and poorer families and prove she understands one thing: people.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Defence Secretary Healey told in April that news blackout on Afghans was probably unjustified
Defence Secretary John Healey was briefed in April about the likely outcome of the Ministry of Defence's review into the Afghan airlift – three months before the super-injunction was lifted, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The judge has expressed 'concern' over the MoD's sluggish pace in bringing its review to court. The Mail fought for two years in secret courts to reveal the Government's covert airlift of thousands of Afghans after it put 100,000 'at risk of death' by leaking a database of those who had applied for UK sanctuary. During the news blackout, last October ministers signed off a £7billion plan while parliamentary scrutiny was 'in the deep freeze'. After the draconian court order was finally lifted last Tuesday, Mr Healey told the Commons: 'I have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public.' He said he had commissioned an internal review by civil servant Paul Rimmer at the beginning of the year, to test whether the threat to Afghans was still as bad. The review was handed to Mr Justice Chamberlain at the end of June. But The Mail on Sunday understands from informed sources that Mr Rimmer was giving the Defence Secretary regular updates and that, by April, Mr Healey was aware of his report's likely conclusions – that the threat assessment had changed meaning there was no longer any justification for keeping everything a secret. After he finally got his copy, Mr Justice Chamberlain told the court: 'There are things which will have to be investigated out of the report. 'Further steps are going to have to be taken to discover why some of the details contained in that report were not made known before now.' In his final ruling at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, the judge said Mr Rimmer's assessments were 'very different from those on which the super-injunction was sought and granted'. Journalists, including from the Mail, warned in private court hearings that Parliament's summer recess was fast approaching, and the judge brought forward the lifting of the injunction. When he first tried to lift the super-injunction, in May last year, Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled that the 'continued stifling of public debate' was not justified. The MoD – then run by Grant Shapps – responded by hiring one of Britain's most expensive KCs, Sir James Eadie, to overturn the judge's decision. After the scandal was made public, Mr Healey was asked on Sky News why everything was kept secret for so long. He replied: 'The super-injunction was a matter for the court.' Last week, Downing Street defended Mr Healey. No 10 said his statement to the Commons on Tuesday, in which he said that 'to the best of my knowledge' no serving Armed Forces personnel were put at risk by the breach, was 'accurate'. But it was reported days later that MI6 spies and members of the SAS were among those named. The MoD was asked to comment on Mr Healey finding out about the likely conclusions of the report.


Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Time for politicians to confront the moral failures of Britain's welfare system
SIR – Singing the praises of rural life, Alastair Redman (Letters, July 13) expresses the hope that everyone, whether living in village, town or city, can agree that strong rural areas 'help to build a stronger nation'. I don't know how things are up in Scotland, from where Mr Redman writes, but in England Labour politicians have demonstrated complete ignorance of, and disregard for, rural life. The problem starts at the top, and was perfectly illustrated last year when Steve Reed, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary (a career politician from south London), had to be gifted a pair of shiny new wellies before visiting a farm. I would be extremely surprised if any rural area is still represented by a Labour MP after the next general election. Roger White Sherborne, Dorset SIR – I have recently been notified by Liberal Democrat-led Oxfordshire County Council that it will install a new footpath on my farm, going across four fields half a mile, because there might have been a footpath on this route 300 years ago. It will join two villages, Broadwell and Clanfield, even though there are already two good paths that achieve this, and cross four organic grass fields, presenting dangers for walkers among cows and calves, and disturbing to wildlife. Fencing will become practically impossible. We have just spent a lot of money clearing an overgrown bridle path, also on our farm, as the council said it has no funds to carry out its responsibility to maintain it. Why is it installing new footpaths at great cost, when old ones are not maintained and our village road is nearly impassable because of potholes? Ralph Mawle


The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government prepares for release of landmark review into ailing water sector
The Government is bracing for the release of a landmark review into the water industry, which could reportedly lead to the abolition of embattled water regulator Ofwat. The Independent Water Commission, led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, will outline recommendations to turn around the floundering sector in its final report on Monday. The review was commissioned by the UK and Welsh governments as part of their response to systemic industry failures, which include rising bills, record sewage spills and debt-ridden company finances, although ministers have ruled out nationalising companies. The Government will respond to the recommendations in Parliament later on Monday. The review reportedly includes proposals to establish a new system of regulation, which is currently split between Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Ministers will announce a consultation that could lead to axing Ofwat, which oversees how much water companies in England and Wales can charge for services, according to the Guardian. Ofwat has faced intense criticism for overseeing water companies during the years that they paid shareholders and accrued large debts while ageing infrastructure crumbled and sewage spills skyrocketed. In an interview with the Sunday Times, Environment Secretary Steve Reed suggested he was in favour of a new model where regional boards managed water in their areas, including representatives from water companies, local authorities and other organisations. He said: 'I think the catchment-based model has a lot to commend it. Because if you can manage what's going into the water better, you can clean up the water faster.' Asked on Friday if there were plans to scrap Ofwat as the regulator, Downing Street said the Government will wait for a final report. A No 10 spokesman said: 'We are waiting for Sir Jon Cunliffe's final report next week, you can expect us to set out our response after that on what more we will do to turn the sector around.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We are not going to comment on speculation.' Ofwat declined to comment. Mr Reed is also expected to announce a new Government pledge to halve sewage pollution from water companies by the end of the decade, during broadcast interviews on Sunday. He said: ' Families have watched their local rivers, coastlines and lakes suffer from record levels of pollution. 'My pledge to you: the Government will halve sewage pollution from water companies by the end of the decade.' But in his Sunday Times interview, he acknowledged that bills were unlikely to fall from their current level, saying instead that an investment of £104 billion in the sector would 'avoid the need for any big bill hikes in the future'. It comes after the Environment Agency on Friday said the number of serious pollution incidents caused by water companies across England rose by 60% in 2024 compared with the previous year. The figures showed companies recorded a total of 2,801 pollution incidents, up from 2,174 in 2023. Of these, 75 were categorised as posing 'serious or persistent' harm to wildlife and human health – up from 47 last year. The Environment Agency said it is clear some companies are failing to meet the targets it has set on pollution, attributing failures to persistent underinvestment in new infrastructure, poor asset maintenance and reduced resilience because of the impacts of climate change. Earlier on Friday, the Public Accounts Committee also released a report which called the level of pollution 'woeful' and recommended an overhaul of the regulation system. The cross-party group of MPs said the Government must act with urgency to strengthen oversight of the sector to rebuild trust and ensure its poor performance improves. The Independent Water Commission published its interim report in June, which found the sector to be beset with 'deep-rooted, systemic' failures. While the paper outlined the commission's direction of travel, it stopped short of providing detailed recommendations on policy, regulatory reform and corporate governance, which are now expected in the final report. The interim review pointed to the need for better regulation of water companies but it did not recommend the wholesale scrapping of Ofwat, which some have urged. Nationalisation, which some campaigners have also called for, was excluded from its terms of reference when commissioned by the Government. Meanwhile, the Conservatives accused Labour of copying the previous government's policies and doing nothing to halt rises in water bills. Shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins said the Government should be 'transparent' about where the money to fix Britain's sewers was coming from, warning that consumers may have to stump up some of the cash. She added: 'Labour's water plans must also include credible proposals to improve the water system's resilience to droughts, without placing an additional burden on bill payers and taxpayers.'