60% of voters back two-child cap - so why is Labour set to scrap it?

The Herald Scotland

a day ago

Her comments came after Nigel Farage said he would scrap the limit, but there were already signs Labour was preparing to move on it, having delayed the publication of their much-anticipated child poverty strategy until the autumn. Farage's move, targeting Labour supporters, just adds to the pressure ministers were already under.
What Labour did about this Conservative policy was always going to be the key left-wing virility test of Keir Starmer's government. It speaks to Labour's values like no other policy, at a time when there's growing confusion and disquiet about what the party stands for.
If Labour jettisoned the two-child limit – at an estimated annual cost of £3.5bn – it would help placate backbench critics dismayed by disability benefit cuts and the scrapping of the winter fuel payment. More importantly, it would give voters a clearer picture of what this government is really about.
Read more
But the politics of it is not straightforward. Labour would be abolishing a policy that around 60 per cent of voters support. Some Labour strategists are thought to be opposed on the grounds it would be a big spend for little political gain.
If Labour didn't abolish the limit, however, the fall-out could eventually be much worse for the party, as child poverty rose and hardship increased. The Scottish election, up against an SNP First Minister who is committed to mitigating the two-child limit, could be a toe-curling affair. The threat of humiliation is a powerful political spur.
Introduced in 2017, the two-child limit prevents families from claiming means-tested benefits for third or subsequent children. The universities of Oxford, York and LSE published a study in 2023 describing it as a 'poverty-producing' measure. The Resolution Foundation estimates that lifting it now would take 470,000 children out of hardship.
Labour in opposition were widely understood to oppose the limit, though insisted abolition had to be affordable. They announced they would set up a taskforce to produce a child poverty strategy once in power, which they duly did, the first serious focus on child poverty since the last Labour government.
As one children's campaigner told me two years ago, there is 'no way' Labour could have a credible child poverty strategy if the two-child limit remained in place. This activist was confident the policy would go because how could Labour possibly allow it to remain?
The last 11 months may have sorely tested old assumptions like that, but it has always been hard to imagine a Labour government standing by a policy that ministers themselves have variously described as 'obscene and inhumane' (Angela Rayner, 2020), worthy of being 'binned' (Jonathan Reynolds, business secretary, 2021) and something that must go to help tackle 'vast social injustice' (Starmer himself, 2020).
Nigel Farage called for the benefit cap to be lifted (Image: free) And so it looks as though its days are numbered. The Prime Minister has apparently asked the Treasury to find the cash to scrap it. It would raise eyebrows now if an announcement on the policy didn't feature in autumn's budget.
But what of voter opposition? Labour voters are less likely than Tory, Reform and Lib Dem voters to support the limit, but 50 per cent still do.
Voters have tended to see the issue as one of fairness. The Tories sold it on the basis that people supporting themselves solely through work have to make decisions about how many children they can afford and people drawing benefits should have to as well. It was portrayed as a policy that would incentivise work and make people think harder before having big families.
But the 2023 study found the two-child limit had only a 'very small effect' on family size. There was no evidence at all of increased employment among families subject to the limit. Many people didn't even know the two-child limit existed until after their child was born; in some cases, conception was the result of failed contraception or an abusive relationship. There is an exemption for children born as the result of rape or domestic abuse (the hated 'rape clause'), but most people eligible for this were not getting it. Sixty per cent of affected children are in households where a parent works, with illness, redundancy and lack of childcare typical drivers of poverty.
The research found the two-child limit and the attendant benefit cap were causing 'extreme hardship'. Child poverty is at a high of 4.5m already and will rise to 4.8 million by 2029 if nothing is done. A mountain of research reveals that millions of children are affected and how: having no beds to sleep on, in homes where their parents can't afford to fix broken appliances or even provide enough food. Understandably, three quarters of Britons believe this to be 'morally wrong'.
Read more
The Government can argue robustly that the policy has failed in its aims and only succeeded in creating hardship. They can make the economic argument for abolition, since child poverty costs billions in lost potential, poor health and earning capacity in adulthood.
If the government does away with it, ministers will hope to stem the flow of support from their left flank to parties like the SNP and Greens. Paying to abolish it now, within tight spending limits, is a strong statement of values and leaves time for poverty reduction to be seen before the next election.
Nigel Farage is making the political calculation easier by supporting the idea. He can try and portray Labour as apeing his policies but it will be Labour that get to claim credit for actually funding and delivering it.
Labour's first year has left many voters wondering what their new UK government really cares about. Abolishing the two-child limit would be a powerful answer.
Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist specialising in politics and Scottish affairs. She can be found on Bluesky at @becmcq.bsky.social and on X at @BecMcQ