Amid the churn of daily politics, it’s easy to move on from the two-child benefit controversy to the next issue. We cannot. ‘Children are our future’ is a cliché, but it is nevertheless absolutely true. A forward-looking society looks after its children above all else.
At last, we have adults in the room! To misquote Dominic Cummings, gone are the days of shopping trolley governments veering from side to side. However, after fourteen years of austerity and chaos, perhaps our new government needs to do more than be a steady hand at the tiller.
The ‘we do not have any money’ fallacy
We all know it is true that the Conservative government left us an almighty economic mess. In simple terms, austerity has shrunk the economy, quite apart from the long-term social and human damage it has caused. Most Labour MPs – if not all – surely recognise this, but it seems that now they have the levers of power, the temptation to continue the austerity myth is just too great.
In fact, government always has the means to raise money. Theresa May famously told nurses ‘there is no magic money tree’, only for a forest to appear a few years later in the shape of furlough and billions in dubious PPE contracts. Starmer has three billion for Ukraine for ‘as long as it takes’, and Labour has chosen to spend billions on settling industrial disputes. Both may be worthy causes, but fundamentally this does show that money is available if we think something is essential.
Perhaps the argument that we haven’t got any money is only ever a half-truth. After all, if ever we had an excuse not to spend money, it was after the Second World War when we were bankrupt and literally in ruins. Yet we rebuilt our nation and introduced the NHS. We must invest in what matters in order to grow the economy; the greatest investment is investment in people.
Historical context – George Osborne to the Poor Law
If we cast our mind back to George Osborne’s great austerity con, the two-child cap in 2017 was one of the policies that took our breath away. Let’s be frank – it really says ‘you are on your own if you have more than two children’. This is nothing less than an attack on poverty, vulnerable children and the rights of women. Just because it has now become part of our harsh reality, it does not mean we should regard it is as normal or acceptable.
If we look further back, we have a shamefully long history in our country of blaming the poor for having children. The Osborne narrative is nothing new. In 1834 the government was influenced by utilitarianism and believed that people in poverty – not least women and children – should be punished. Their condition should always be ‘less eligible’ (worse) and they were sent to workhouses akin to prisons, where they were frequently split up from family and semi-starved. In novels like Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens savagely revealed the cruelty and immorality behind this policy. Consequently, we all look back on workhouses with a shudder.
What is the new Child Poverty Task Force for, if it doesn’t abolish the two-child limit?
It is extremely positive that Labour have committed, as a key mission, to tackle child poverty and have set up a Child Poverty Task Force. But, children’s charities (including Save the Children UK and Barnado’s), think-tanks such as the IFS and many school leaders are clear that at the very minimum we must get rid of the two-child benefit limit, which applies for universal credit and tax credit. In truth, we cannot be serious about aims to tackle child poverty if this cap remains in place.
Declining birth rate
If we look at the big picture, demographics reveal the folly of the two-child policy. As a nation, we are facing a severe birth rate shortfall. Currently, the reproduction rate is at its lowest ever – 1.49 – but for a sustainable population we need 2.1. Nations such as Germany and China know that a falling birthrate is an extremely serious long-term problem and have tried to correct it, with immigration in Germany’s case and a new three-child policy with policy incentives in China’s.
However, it seems that our politicians do not have the will or foresight to address the birth rate issue. Instead, we have arguably the worst set of circumstances for new families – exorbitant housing costs, a cost-of-living crisis, unprecedentedly high nursery fees and mountains of debt for higher education. The very last thing we should do is put yet more barriers in the way of having children.
The knock-on effects of the two-child limit
The negative ramifications of the two-child benefit cap reach a long way.
It is a feminist issue, because women usually look after children so are disproportionately affected. It is good news Labour now have a balanced cabinet and we have at last achieved 41% of the House of Commons as women MPs. But, however positive this move towards equality in parliament may be, it only really matters if it leads to policies that benefit women.
It is a minority issue, because many minority groups often have more children. These minorities often face discrimination in other areas, so the two-child benefit cap is bound to push them further into poverty.
It is a disability issue, because disabled families are disproportionately in poverty. Dan White of Disability Rights UK says the evidence is overwhelming and we are failing the most vulnerable, citing the 2023 SEND report by the Childhood Trust which reveals rates of disabled families in poverty have grown significantly since Covid and during the cost-of-living crisis.
As a society we have a special responsibility to our children, especially those born in poverty. In our democracy, children do not have the vote and are not part of the decision-making process, presumably because it is felt we as responsible adults will naturally consider their best interests.Therefore, when we vote or legislate, we should be acutely aware of their interests. If we continue to ignore the plight of our children, we will continue to suffer the consequences.
Yes, we do have adults in the room now. But adults have a duty to look after children.
