Ignoring the evidence to pander to the worst people in society

Starmer's Labour have stated their intention to keep the diabolical Tory two-child policy, despite the overwhelming evidence that it's driving unprecedented child poverty rates.

An article in the Guardian today quotes one of Keir Starmer’s inner circle as saying:

"If they still think we're going to scrap the [two-child] cap then they're listening to the wrong people. We're simply not going to find a way to do that. The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness."

The depravity and delusion is extraordinary.

Labour have no excuse for not knowing the disastrous impact of the depraved Tory family impoverishment scheme that they’re refusing to repeal.

There is abundant evidence that it’s a diabolical policy.

◉ The two-child policy is the single biggest driver of soaring child poverty rates over the last decade.

◉ The two-child policy has failed to deliver either of its stated objectives of driving increased employment rates among parents of large families or reducing birth rates.

◉ One in ten British children are growing up poorer because of the two-child policy.

◉ Nearly half of children with two or more siblings are already growing up in poverty, and this number is projected to rise dramatically over the coming years if the two-child cap is not repealed.

◉ Poverty experts say the policy should be repealed because it harms the poorest families.

◉ More than a third of British children are already growing up in poverty, which is the highest rate since records began, and this is only going to get worse if the two-child policy isn’t repealed.

◉ It’s beyond obvious that needlessly condemning over a million kids to poverty will end up reducing their future economic potential, meaning the country as a whole will be poorer in the long-term.

◉ No other countries in the OECD limit child benefits to just two children, and many other countries that have low birth rates like the UK, actively incentivise the those who choose to have larger families.

Apparently none of this evidence matters to Labour though, because they’re more interested in courting the votes of selfish reactionaries who believe that it’s a matter of "fairness" to economically sanction over a million children into poverty for the "crime" of having more than one sibling.

When it comes to fairness, you’ve got to wonder how these so-called "key voters" consider it "unfair" for society to minimise child poverty, but have no problem at all with issues like lower National Insurance rates for extremely high earners; lower tax rates on passive income (Capital Gains Tax) than wages for actual work (Income Tax); and much lower rates of Inheritance Tax for large landowners than ordinary people.

You’ve also got to wonder how much crossover there is between child poverty enthusiasm and anti-immigration sentiments.

As a country with a low and declining birth rate, we can either incentivise British families to have more kids, or we can import immigrants to fill the required jobs. If we do neither, then the kind of people who want neither more British kids nor more immigrants are going to have to get used to dramatically declining living standards in their old age as the working-age population shrinks dramatically in comparison to the number of retirees.

Then there’s the issue of whether the kind of reactionary child-poverty enthusiast Starmer is intent on courting is ever going to vote Labour anyway. Why vote for a party that merely refuses to repeal a Tory child-impoverishment scheme, when there’s the option of voting for parties like the Tories and Reform who would obviously come up with more horrifying new policies designed to further increase child poverty?

It’s a far cry from the previous Labour government (1997-2010), which despite their flaws and failings in other regards, actually did quite a good job of combatting the scourge of child poverty, achieving the lowest child poverty rate since the 1980s by the end of their run in power.

Instead of ignoring the evidence to panderer to child-poverty enthusiasts, who probably wouldn’t vote Labour anyway, perhaps it would be wiser to consider the views of traditional Labour voters?

It’s not just the Labour-left who believe that it makes both moral and economic sense to minimise child poverty rates, a lot of Blairites (rightly) point to Labour’s dramatic reduction of child poverty as a big success story from the last time Labour was in power.

It seems highly likely that Starmer’s decision to continue imposing cruel economic sanctions on children (as well as his economic assaults on disabled people and pensioners) will end up driving away numerous traditional Labour voters for every reactionary poverty enthusiast he attracts.

When it comes to future appraisals of this Labour government’s stint in power, how many of Starmer’s rapidly dwindling number of apologists are going to look back at his time in power and cite rising child poverty as one of his big success stories?

Yes we ignored the mountains of evidence; ignored the economic case for helping children achieve their full potential; and ignored the moral case against condemning over a million children to needless poverty, but at least we pandered to the worst "I’m alright Jack" wankers in society!