Voters are wrong on two-child benefit cap and Keir Starmer must tell them why

In November 1942, as battle was waged in Stalingrad and baby Joseph Biden was brought spluttering into the world, history was also being made on the home front. William Beveridge presented his now-famous report to Cabinet that month, urging them to transform the British state and tackle head-on the “five giants” – want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness – that threatened to block the road to post-war reconstruction.

That Cabinet, and the one elected in 1945, did just that. They peered into the empty coffers of a Treasury emptied by two successive world wars and vowed nonetheless to fundamentally rewire the British state, to rewrite the social contract between government and citizen, and to build an economic model that could set their country back on the path to prosperity.

I wrote just a few weeks about the scale of political ambition that characterised that period, including Churchill’s manifesto pledge (!) to “heighten what is splendid and glorious in life and art”, and the whole-of-society approach that was routine to politicians then. Where are we today, 80 years on?

The ink on that contract between citizen and state has faded a lot in those eight decades. At times, like the ‘nimby’ debates over infrastructure construction, the UK Government seemed increasingly unable to articulate any overriding conception of societal or national interest and make the argument for acting in it. We saw this again during the recent debate over the two-child cap.

A popular policy

You do not need to be a minister – of the Kirk or of the Treasury – to see that this is a policy which is morally wrong and economically short-sighted. I will be astonished if Keir Starmer does not abolish it in his first Budget. And yet, time and time again, polling makes clear that it is one of the Conservative government’s most popular policies.

It is likely that you, dear reader, want to keep it. Almost every single demographic in the United Kingdom does. The only group that opposes the cap in greater numbers than support it are 18-24-year-olds – and even a third of them back the policy. These are remarkable numbers.

Why SNP, my party, must finally move on from 2014 independence referendum

Support from the two-child cap comes from good people across the country – indeed, I met more than a few of them during the recent election campaign – and they are people who have at some point had to sit down and think about whether or not they can afford the extra childcare, the bigger shop, or the extra room that another child would need. More often than not, the answer has been a resounding no.

Long-term national interest

I do not doubt that every single one of those people recognises the ethical issues inherent in the state punishing children for the sins of their fathers. But at the same time, those same people will nonetheless legitimately ask why those in receipt of state benefits – people they are paying to support – should be exempt from the constraints that they themselves have to deal with. This is a question that Starmer and his ministers cannot leave unanswered.

This is where politics comes in. Steering the ship of state through increasingly choppy waters must involve more than streamlining bureaucratic processes and balancing the books. The UK Government needs to rapidly get comfortable with making the case for the long-term domestic national interest – even when it conflicts with the short-term interests of some citizens. Sure, reversing the two-child benefit cap will be both unpopular and expensive, but Starmer’s job is to tell voters they’re wrong and win them over. Why? Because it is in our societal interest. This isn’t complicated.

Safe pair of hands

Across the West, however, politicians seem to have lost the art of argument. Think of Biden and Starmer: neither were elected to office based on the fire they stirred in the bellies of the electorate. They were elected because they offered citizens competence and professionalism after years of chaos and self-serving corruption.  They were elected because they were a safe pair of hands.

Just as the government will have to make the arguments over planning reform, high-speed rail and green energy infrastructure, the polling around the two-child cap makes clear that, sooner or later, Starmer will have to go to the British public and tell them – you, us – that we are wrong. The Prime Minister will have to be frank and say that, while people may feel a sense of unfairness today, to enforce the two-child cap is to stunt the future of the next generation of British citizens.

The Prime Minister will have to stand before us and make the case anew for the welfare state. It may be tough to argue for redistributive fiscal policy at a time when people across the country are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, but the welfare state does not exist for the benefit of what Margaret Thatcher might have called individual men and women. It exists for the benefit of society – and the Prime Minister must have the courage to say so.

Do the right thing

How Starmer goes forward with the two-child cap will be the litmus test of his premiership. Will he focus on counting the beans in the here and now, or will he show himself willing and able to go against public opinion and do the right thing for our society and for future generations? The economic and demographic challenges we collectively face will only continue to mount while we wait for the answer.

The Prime Minister must make the case for a renewed social contract that invests in the future of this country and its people. This will require courage, conviction, and a willingness to challenge prevailing public opinion. The alternative – a slow erosion of our social fabric and shared prosperity – is too high a price to pay for a bump in the polls and a hardman image.