Starmer delays tackling child poverty leaving tens of thousands on the brink
Just weeks after coming to power, ministers said they would consider ditching the 'cruel' two-child benefit cap in a bid to head off a backbench Labour revolt.
But the overall strategy in which the policy was expected to be included has now been pushed back, despite fears of another rebellion on welfare cuts within weeks.
But the new timings, designed to coincide with the budget, have raised some hopes ministers could push ahead and abolish the two-child cap, amid reports Sir Keir Starmer is in favour of the move, while his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is less convinced.
Both are under increasing pressure from Labour backbenchers on the issue.
The benefits cap affects more than 1.6 million children by limiting welfare payments to the first two children in most families.
New costings released recently by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) show another 109 more children are pulled into poverty by the policy every day.
The number affected will continue to increase until 2035 - when the first children born under the turn 18.
The charity says that scrapping the cap would be the most cost-effective way to lift kids out of poverty.
It it were dumped, 350,000 children would be lifted from poverty at a stroke, while the depth of the poverty experienced by another 800,000 children would be reduced.
As well as pressure over the cap, No 10 is still facing a potential rebellion from Labour MPs next month when tough welfare cuts, including to disability payments, are due to be voted on in the House of Commons, despite his partial U-turn on winter fuel payments earlier this week.
Downing Street has insisted the government is taking a "comprehensive approach" to child poverty, including rolling out free breakfast clubs, increasing the number of affordable homes, and raising the minimum wage.
Lord John Bird, an anti-poverty campaigner and founder of the Big Issue, criticised news of the delay and said ministers had "just kicked the issue of child poverty into the long grass".
He added: "The impact of their inaction will be grave. It is shameful that child poverty is forecast to not fall, but rise significantly, to 31.5 per cent of children under this Labour government.
"We need action now, not in six months or a year's time. I will relentlessly pursue my intervention of adding child poverty targets to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill with the vigour that the 4.3 million children living in poverty in our country deserve."
But Helen Barnard, from the Trussell Trust, which provides food banks, said: 'This may be good news. Better a delayed child poverty strategy with measures to really protect children… than one hitting the deadline but falling short on substance.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Suranne Jones details 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for thriller role
Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller and detailed one fiery moment in particular Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller. The former Coronation Street actress, 46, is now starring as fictional Prime Minister Abigail Dalton in Hostage, and follows the events that unfold after her character attends a summit with the French president Vivienne Toussaint (Julie Delpy) and her husband is kidnapped. As part of her research for the role, Suranne took a trip to Downing Street and ventured into the House of Commons, where she managed to catch a heated moment with the real-life Prime Minister. Speaking on Wednesday's edition of This Morning, she told hosts Sian Welby and Craig Doyle: "I did go to the House of Commons. It was great because when we then built our set, I'd been in the actual place. We did see Keir Starmer having a...[debate] it was quite rambunctious." The actress noted her disbelief at watching it all take place in front of her as she added: "There was a lot of shouting in there. You don't believe it til you see it!" The UK has only seen two female Prime Ministers in its time, with the late Margaret Thatcher having served a leader of the Conservative party from 1979 until 1990. In October 2022, Liz Truss became the shortest-serving Prime Minister in the country's history having managed to survive just 50 days in office. Suranne noted the lack of females in such a role of power but approached the role with a 'fresh' perspective, which she believes was necessary when taking into account the current political climate. She said: "We haven't got a lot of women to look at, have we? But that's another great thing. What I did and women in power, I wanted Abigail to be a fresh set of eyes, and the political landscape as it is, we needed that as it is." However, Suranne, who has carved out a stellar career in drama since leaving her role as Karen McDonald on ITV's flagship soap more than two decades ago, recently admitted she wouldn't want to take on the top job at number 10 in real life, mainly because of the amount of 'baggage' her new alter-ego has to carry round. She said: "A woman, before she's even put on her very high, hurty shoes, she has a lot of baggage and a lot of things that she is carrying: the way she looks, the way she dresses, the way she's been educated. "All of those things. How she behaves with her family or her background, everything, before she starts to go out into the world and getting judged for it. "Obviously, I'm well known. People recognise me. I try to keep a private element to my life, but then I do want to show support of the charities I work for and all of that stuff, and the community theatre that I like to give elevation to, so I drew on a lot of that stuff. But I wouldn't want to be a prime minister." She continued: "The early name for the show was The Choice and I think that's the thing, the choice of wanting a job like that, the choice of your family or your country. "It blows my mind, I can't even imagine... obviously, I had to because I play the prime minister, so I did have to imagine. But these big, big choices, they're huge and so it's just making people think." The five-part political thriller witnesses Dalton being blackmailed following her husband's kidnapping whilst he's working overseas, with the captors threatening his murder unless she steps down from office.
Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Closing hotels won't stop the migrant crisis
After yesterday's landmark decision on the Bell Hotel in Epping, the next question must be: where do we go from here? What is essential to understand is that yesterday's High Court judgement was what might be called an 'Al Capone reckoning'. One ultimate actor, the state, and by extension the government, has been humbled on a mere technicality. The Essex hotel was deemed in breach of contract for using its rooms to accommodate refugees, rather than paying guests. The state was not brought to heel on its ethically unsound and socially corrosive laws on immigration and re-settlement. That the Home Office sought to block Epping Forest council's application for an injunction is important. Campaigners and the public will still face an elite establishment – especially, despite yesterday's judgement, a judiciary – that has an intransigent and indulgent attitude to migrants, and a slavish, literal-minded adherence to human rights laws. The fundamentals of the migrant crisis, then, have not been resolved by the closure of the Bell Hotel. They will not be resolved by the closure of other hotels, either. Illegal migrants will still come to Britain, and they will still be housed. This crisis will end in the same way it was always going to: with changes in policy and attitudes. We have already witnessed the effectiveness of one stern response. That was the Rwanda scheme. Although the plan for its establishment was fraught with difficulties, when it did briefly come into law last April many illegal immigrants responded by taking flight to the Republic of Ireland, as complaints by the Dublin government at the time attested. This principle of deterrence must be re-visited. Keir Starmer's plan to 'smash the gangs' has not worked. A government that really wanted to stop illegal migration would consider more stringent measures, such as automatic deportation of illegal immigrants or those with criminal convictions languishing in our prisons. These policies would prove popular, but Starmer isn't going to enact them. One might imagine that only a Reform government would. The ultimate 'uncompassionate' policy is the unsayable one: stop picking up migrants from their boats in the first place. Return them to France, with or without the French government's cooperation. This would most likely contravene maritime law and cause legal challenges and a diplomatic fallout with our neighbours. Lurking behind so many of these preventative measures are not legal or political obstacles, but rather intangible ones, those which can't be revoked or reversed by diktat, legislation, court ruling or vote. In order for matters to change for good, attitudes need to change and lazy assumptions need to be dismantled. The first is the one parroted by those with no imagination, no will or just no wish: this is that there is 'no solution' to this fundamentally global problem. There is, as outlined above. It just takes determination and the willingness to risk the opprobrium of bien-pensants. Passive and defeatist mantras should have no place anywhere in political discourse. The second is to confront the idle axiom that British people today increasingly hate foreigners. This is mostly untrue. Rather, many are angry at the increasing number of immigrants and their decreasing quality. If there is ire directed against one group of people, it is the liberal elite and those who have favoured cheap labour in their factories and homes. It is imperative that the thought-terminating accusation of 'xenophobia' is ignored or rebutted. A third shibboleth contains other weedy platitudes: that migrants who force their way onto our shores are 'fleeing persecution' and 'are only seeking a better life'. That first bromide is refutable. Those who come by boat are arriving from France, a democracy where no-one is persecuted by the state for their beliefs or ethnicity. The second statement represents a worrying detachment from reality. Of course illegal immigrants are seeking a better life. We all want a better life. The ultimate mindset which demands the most patience and perseverance in overturning is the embedded belief and unspoken truism that 'compassion' is inherently good. Sometimes it manifestly isn't. Sometimes, voicing compassionate sentiment only improves the feeling of well-being among those who voice it. Immigration policies based on compassion have so far only served to increase feelings of resentment and anger among the native population. Yesterday's judgement about the Bell Hotel matters, but real change will only come when we upend the conceit that compassionate beliefs or saying nice things necessarily correlate with or result in positive outcomes. Only an unfashionable attitude and 'uncaring' policies will solve the migrant crisis.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Increased betting tax would be a hurdle that horse racing may not overcome
The Treasury is currently consulting over plans to replace the existing structure of online gambling duties, which is comprised of three bands, to a catch-all Remote Betting and Gaming Duty. At present, there is a 15 per cent duty, but there are grave concerns that the government-induced changes could see it brought into line with the rate of tax on games of chance, such as online casino and slot machines, which is six per cent higher. Economic analysis commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority showed that the sport could lose £66m in income through the levy, media rights and sponsorship because bookmakers would be likely to respond by offering inferior-value prices and reduce budgets for such things as marketing and advertising. Horse racing is a sport that is part of the very fabric of British culture. Its two codes, Flat and National Hunt have been supported by monarchs and other royals for centuries. It also courted Sir Keir Starmer, who last September became the first serving Prime Minister since Sir Winston Churchill to attend the St Leger. Now, similar to one of the PM's current political allies, it has had a change of heart and is taking a more combative approach. Racing draws in more spectators annually than every other sport in the nation, except football. It provides jobs for more than 85,000 people. If betting tax levied on the sport is raised, it's been estimated that 2,752 of those jobs will be lost in the first year alone, and this could become an ever-decreasing cycle. As a show of strength and to underline the gravity of their concerns, the whole of the industry has committed to a one-day strike on 10 September, when racing is scheduled to take place at Carlisle, Kempton Park, Lingfield Park and Uttoxeter. For an industry that has so often taken a 'softly, softly' approach to such matters and wanted to keep respective governments onside, it's akin to throwing away the painstakingly prepared form book and, instead, tossing a coin. Will the 'heads' count in the sport be forced to reduce or will ministers turn 'tails' and elect to preserve the status quo? James Hutchinson, the managing director at Ripon racecourse, is clear on why the sport is right to take such action: 'It's important that we get across this message that the current proposals for this betting duty tax will have an enormous effect on British racing and the income into British racing and therefore the amount of money that it raises in terms of levy and the return therefore to racecourses and the return of prize money to owners and trainers. 'From our point of view as a small independent racecourse, we need to be seen to be a strong industry that can support all of its constituent parts and this potential change is going to put many of those at risk and that's not something we want to see. 'I'm in support of the action that's being taken because by doing so we will hopefully be getting across and extremely strong message to government that we feel very strongly about this and the industry is prepared to go to those sort of lengths to show what it means and the effect it could have if the changes take place.' 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' James Hutchinson, managing director at Ripon racecourse Isn't this, however, racing people expecting the sport to be treated as a special case purely because of its history? Hutchinson disagrees. 'I don't think it's necessarily a special case other than the fact that it has huge heritage. It's been an important part of the culture and the colour of the nation. 'Over five million people go racing every year and to introduce this huge increase could have a major negative impact on the industry. It could effect the amount of racing, the amount of people going racing and it would be a huge loss to the country. 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' Those involved in the sport are clear about the financial damage that could be inflicted and are similarly unified in their action, although all four tracks that miss out on racing on that date have been offered an alternative fixture on the calendar by the BHA, by way of compensation for those individual events. The government must act in the best interests of a sport that has given the nation great service since before there was a Prime Minister. It should get this enquiry overturned before the provisional result stands, scrap any plans to increase its tax burden and leave this piece of the fabric of our society unfrayed.
