By stewartb
One of the most conspicuous examples of a Labour MP shifting their stance on the urgency of reducing child poverty – specifically on the urgency of abolishing the two-child benefit cap – must surely be that of Kirsty McNeill, the new member of parliament for Midlothian and significantly, the Under Secretary of State for Scotland.
Prior to being elected, Ms McNeill was Executive Director of Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns at Save the Children. In reading what follows, bear in mind Ms McNeill’s job title with this major charity operating in the UK and internationally – note ‘policy’, note ‘advocacy’, note ‘campaigns’!
In this context, it is illuminating to visit the Save the Children website and discover its recent policy, advocacy and campaigning work within the UK. Firstly from a statement dated as recently as April 22, 2024: Seven years of the two child limit – a very unhappy birthday. (https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/blogs/2024/seven-years-of-the-two-child-limit )
Here we read: ’It has now been seven years since the introduction of two-child limit, or Sibling Tax. This policy is one of the main drivers of rising child poverty in the country, and removing it would be an immediate and the most cost-effective way for the UK Government to dramatically reduce child poverty. This is why Save the Children, alongside impacted families and over 100 organisations who form the End Child Poverty Coalition, are urging both the Government and the Labour Party to commit to abolishing it.‘ (my emphasis)
The Save the Children article goes on to spell out the harms: ‘Today, 1 in 10 children are impacted by the two-child limit. In reality this means children are going without essentials, like nutritious food or a warm-enough home, and they don’t get to enjoy the same enriching experiences as other children. Parents have told us of children going to school in uniform that doesn’t fit, missing out on after school clubs, and not being able to have friends to the house, as there isn’t enough food to feed an extra mouth.
It then quotes a mother, ‘Thea’ who has also. been campaigning for the abolition of the benefit cap: “The Universal Credit child element for [my third child] Baby Isaac would at least lift my kids out of poverty so they can focus on learning, playing and being kids. Baby Isaac will not be exempt from income taxes and NI contributions when he grows up. He will be paying for our state pensions and NHS services when we’re retired. So why is he exempt from receiving state benefits now? Why do my kids deserve less than other kids just because there are three of them?”
And the article concludes: ’Both the UK Government and the Labour Party must commit to scrapping this damaging policy as part of a wider drive to reduce child poverty in the UK. ‘
There can be zero doubt that Save the Children – the organisation which up until a short time ago had Ms McNeill as its Executive Director of Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns – wanted the benefit cap abolished as a matter of priority.
Here are some press releases published on its website since the General Election:
‘SAVE THE CHILDREN WELCOMES ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHILD POVERTY TASKFORCE BUT THE TWO-CHILD LIMIT MUST BE SCRAPPED AT THE AUTUMN BUDGET’
Dan Paskins, Executive Director of Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns at Save the Children UK (apparently Ms McNeill’s successor)is quoted: “We welcome the announcement of a Child Poverty Taskforce today as a signal of intent towards improving the lives of 4.3 million children living in poverty. We look forward to the joint taskforce setting out clear targets to ensure every child has an equal chance to thrive. Save the Children is pleased to be working alongside the UK government on this.
“However, good intentions are not enough. Children growing up in poverty need action and no child poverty strategy will be credible unless the two-child limit is scrapped at the Autumn Budget. With 1.6 million children impacted by this cruel and unfair policy, the two-child-limit punishes children just for having siblings. Scrapping it could immediately lift half a million children out of poverty and would be the first major step to deliver on the aims of the Child Poverty Taskforce.”
And another press releasee: ’COMMITMENTS IN KING’S SPEECH A POSITIVE START BUT CRUEL TWO-CHILD LIMIT MUST BE ABOLISHED IN THE AUTUMN STATEMENT’
‘Becca Lyon, head of UK child poverty at Save the Children, said: “Today’s announcements are a positive start but with 1.6 million children affected by the cruel two-child limit, the quickest and most effective change the UK government can make is abolishing it at the Autumn budget.”
We await the ‘Autumn Statement’ with interest – and with hope that finally the Labour government will do the right thing and act in the way that Ms McNeill’s former employer has been advocating and campaigning for! The puzzle is that having known about the harms of the two-child benefit cap for many years why Labour has not acted with the urgency that Save the Children and others have been advocating and campaigning for!
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
’Country before Party’ is what the Labour manifesto pledged. Setting aside for the moment what ‘country’ connotes, how does Ms McNeill and other Labour MPs justify their decision to support the continuation of the ‘two-child benefit cap’?
Their argument is that ‘the country(?) cannot afford it at present.
But, who constitutes the country? Surely, families in poverty are part of that?
And, why are they in poverty? Because they have not got enough money even though, in most cases, at least one member of the family is in paid employment, and wages are low, hours are few and uncertain and, often, unsocial.
And why are wages so low? Because of ‘optimising shareholder return’, i.e. rapaciously taking as much as they can. And because of weakened trade unions and strong employment rights. And, even if wages are higher, many families are in rented accommodation, with extortionate rents and a lack of security of tenure and this takes a disproportionate amount of the income. As does very high energy charges.
Now, Labour has, indeed, promised to act on such things quickly: within 100 days in the case of employment legislation. Labour has promised to build more houses and to give tenants greater security. It has embarked on a ‘green’ energy policy, which might, or might not, in the fullness of time, reduce energy costs for consumers. It is pledging nutritious school meals for every child. All of these are laudable and have my support.
But, I can eat nutritiously every day and heat the home which I own. People in poverty cannot do that. They need more money NOW, not when £1100 handbag Rachel Reeves decides the ‘country’ can afford it, because, as she proudly announced, ‘the fingerprints of bankers are all over our policies.’ That will be these bankers whose reckless greed almost destroyed the world economy. That will be these bankers with their large salaries and huge bonuses and offshore accounts.
What people in poverty can do is go to the food bank or one of those multi banks Bodger Broon is promoting.
I am sure Ms McNeil with her £91k (minimum ) salary, plus generous expenses and subsidised meals, is not going hungry.
Alasdair Macdonald
LikeLiked by 4 people
Labour chooses not to help the people even to the extent of allowing the UK’s children to develop diseases related to hunger and poor nutrition. For example, it has been reported that rickets has been making a comeback. We already had food banks, now families need baby banks.That is disgraceful in a wealthy country in the 21st century.
Labour, as the Tories did before them, prefer to keep the wealthy onside and don’t tax them at the correct rate on their wealth. Those on lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the very wealthy. That’s a political choice.
Starmer was fond of saying ‘Labour will put the country before the party’.
Quite frankly, he’s a liar like the long line of liars that have occupied 10 Downing Street.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ms McNeil will have , no doubt , explained to Labour’s Hit-man , Pat McFadden , that ”open to debate ” is not acceptable when discussing the effects of the Child Benefit Cap – or has she ?
LikeLike
Absolute disgrace. Totally unfit for public office. The lowlife Labour Mafia. Absolutely disgusting. How low can they go. Lie, after lie, lie after lie.
LikeLike
£3Billion (Billions for war). Nothing for children. The Westminster warmongers. Responsible for millions of deaths.
LikeLike
YET AGAIN THE RETURN OF BLAIRISM
LikeLike
Looks like she has already ditched ethics. These people are a total disgrace quite frankly, voted in on a massive pile of lies, and they do not care one bit for starving children or anyone struggling to make ends meet. How the heck was she even voted in anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How the heck was she even voted in anyway.”
Sadly, because we Scots must be the most gullible electorate in the world. We always believe their lies, and never believe our own strengths. Such has it always been!!
We’ll still be here doing the same thing decades from now, we have been absorbed …………
LikeLike
Agreed A.H, but, as you ask, why was she/he/them voted in in the first place? Are a goodly proportion of the Scottish electorate so stupid? I’m afraid the answer must be yes. Fooled again, for the umpteenth time. The Tartan Army singing to send the English home, and here we are, inviting another English Government in, once again, to steal all our resources. I’ve spent years going around doors, in all weather, trying to convince folk that the best way forward for Scotland is Independence, and this is the result. Condemning future Scots to being a colony of England, for at least the near future. Frustrated doesn’t describe my feelings.
LikeLike
typical Westminster unionist – party first party last – as for building all these new homes – impossible without a massive influx of labour – yet another BREXIT dividend
LikeLike
Ethics and “Scottish” Labour?
Surely a county near Sussex?
You will be telling us next that Anas Sarwar is an actual politician and not a cardboard cutout operated by Jaikie B and MI5.
LikeLike
After drawing a big fat salary from Save the Children. Now troughing at Westminster. Not caring about any children. The charlatans. Not caring a damn. Same old, same old Labour. Liars and hypocrites. Children dying because of Westminster unionist policies. Worldwide. Life expectancy falling. In the UK and the world. 76 in the US. Killing people at home and abroad. Lack of gun laws. Lack of health care funding.
Japan low Defence budget. Not allowed after 2nd world. Highest life expectancy 85. Spain 84. Lower Defence funding. Higher life expectancy. Spent eradicating poverty. UK 79. Health expectancy linked to mother’s health on contraception.
LikeLike