By iamsoccerdoc

One of the things to remember is that under the devolution settlement welfare is devolved only to a limited degree, focused mainly on the disabled and carers. Such as Universal Credit- where the two child limit (and indeed the bedroom tax) live here is most definitely NOT devolved. The point here is that, if/when Starmer becomes PM, it would be possible politically at least to address these two unfairnesses.

Listening to Starmer increasingly reminds me of a less radical Harold Wilson (1964). At that election, and indeed through most of that administration, Wilson banged on about “productivity” (eg more output per hour) – we would probably describe this as “modernisation” now, but the desired outcome is the same – “economic growth”. This was such a mantra that it almost a relief (though not quite) when Margaret Thatcher kicked thirty years of economic policy failure into the long grass of “the market rules”.
Starmer is taking us back to these days with his cop-out that they’ll do away with the two child limit when govt finances allow – ie have grown enough that the deficit increase wont scare the financial markets. With other depts having their own aims/ projects as well as the conservatism of the Treasury if you’re looking to see the limit removed even when conditions allow, I wouldnt hold my breath.

But note the influences –

1. Fear of the market, though in fairness Truss’s utter lunacy still resonates, and Covid and the energy crisis have been significant negative factors, though they were for other even smaller/ less wealthy countries as well, who seem to have managed this better. Moreover, what is the consequence of the traditional nostrum in the face of inflation – higher interest rates – transfers income from the less off (younger folk with mortgages for instance) to the better off (bond holders etc, who are already wealthy). Moreover it increases bank profits – if you have savings, are your rates going up? But the take home point is that financial interests trump social need. Hardly a surprise with the likes of Sunak, but the leader of the Laabour Party?? One of the positives with Gordon Broon was that during his time as Chancellor he did get childhood poverty down (though other types were less influenced), leading nicely to the second influence.

2. The balance of opinion within the Labour Party which seems likely to let Starmer away with this. Don’t know if you witnessed Dame Jackie Baillie’s performance on this has been described as “car crash”

“Asked whether she was “embarrassed” by what’s happened on Good Morning Scotland, Baillie said: “No look Scottish Labour have a very clear position on this, we’ve not changed that position and we remain completely opposed to the two-child benefit cap because we know it damages families, we know it exacerbates poverty.

My understanding of what Keir Starmer was saying is that they are worried about the financial mess that we will inherit from the Tories.”

It was then pointed out to Jackie Baillie that Anas Sarwar (below) had agreed with this, claiming that changing the policy would risk a repeat of the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget. (note here that the cost is estimated to be 1.3 billion).

“There is absolutely a recognition as there should be among responsible politicians that we’re not going to be able to do everything immediately.
“We recognise we can’t do everything immediately and my understanding is Keir Starmer doesn’t want to make pledges that he cannot then deliver on.”

She said that it was not possible to know the “financial mess” the Tories would leave should Labour come to power at the next General Election.

The most positive commitment of a practiced liar, sorry astute politician like Dame Jackie, was this:

““The party has agreed to reform universal credit and I would expect the two-child benefit cap as part of that process. It’ll be examined as part of that process.” It will be examined – or put another way, mibbes aye, mibbes naw.

But of course, despite this not being a devolved matter, it’s the fault of the SNP. She suggests ““But I’m very clear. In Scotland it would take 80,000 children, it would have an impact on them, it would cost £250 million. We all care about tackling child poverty.

Indeed we do Jackie, but that small amount is twice the proportion of the Scottish Government budget, as the proportionate cost in the UK as a whole. I expect you hope we dont know/ wont ask

The SNP in Scotland have the power and the opportunity to change this. They haven’t changed it so far and that is the disappointing thing.

“Because we could have ended that cap in Scotland almost immediately because we had the power to do that.”

This last bit reminds of the edition of QT when Damian Green brayed at Stephen Gethins (think it was the bedroom tax,) “go ahead create a benefit. You have the power to do this”. which the Scottish Government does. But, I have the power to order up a Rolls Royce – I just don’t have the money to pay for it. Moreover for the Scottish govt this is a real constraint, as having much more limited borrowing powers they are on a much more cash limited budget than the UK where it’s always possible to just borrow.