As your editorial (14 July) and the piece by Larry Elliott (14 July) say, Labour should not hesitate in scrapping the two-child cap on benefits. How this cruel and unfair policy can be tolerated by a Labour government “laser-focused on poverty” is anyone’s guess.
As Elliott states, there are plenty of ways the chancellor could find the £1.7bn needed to fund its abolition – and scrapping it, in fact, would cost much less when the economic multipliers, with poor families spending most of their income, are taken into consideration.
An additional reason to do it now is for those “left behind” to see that this government really is on their side, before they can be persuaded to move their allegiance to Reform. If Keir Starmer is being persuaded to delay its scrapping, perhaps by those on the right wing of the party, he needs to remember that Tony Blair’s government did so little in its early years that it lost 3 million votes by the time of the 2001 election. And unlike Starmer, Blair didn’t have an already frighteningly popular rightwing party to contend with.
Bernie Evans
Liverpool
If the new government wants growth, it can happen at a stroke, throughout Britain: just remove the cap on benefits for more than two children in a family. Simples! Poorer families not only spend more of their income, but crucially, they are more likely to spend it locally: on food, clearly, but also perhaps getting their washing machine repaired, or even (shock! horror!) on a couple of drinks in the pub.
As local businesses and their suppliers begin to feel the benefit of increased spending, they may feel inclined to take on extra staff, who in turn will have more money to spend on local services. In this way, prosperity begins to circulate within a community. It’s called “the multiplier effect”. Did Rachel Reeves not study Keynes in her philosophy, politics and economics course at Oxford?
Hazel Davies
Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside
Following the king’s speech on 17 July, an amendment to the humble address should call for legislation to tax unearned income at the same rate as earnings, as was the case under Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson, in order to abolish the two-child benefit cap, restore the £20 a week uplift to universal credit (two in five claimants of which are in work), and extend that uplift to disability benefits.
Across six parties, plus five leftwing independents, there are at least 97 MPs who ought to sign that amendment. Moreover, Nigel Farage has said that he is in favour of lifting the cap. Since he now leads five MPs, that takes the total to 102. Suella Braverman is of the same view, and ought to bring with her any MPs who supported her candidacy for leader of the Conservative party.
David Lindsay
Lanchester, County Durham
Every year £23bn of benefits to which people are entitled go unclaimed, according to Policy in Practice, the social policy software and analytics company. Abolishing the two-child limit would cost just £3.4bn. So the money is there to end this cruel policy.
Jan Pahl
Professor emeritus of social policy, University of Kent
We hear a lot about the cost of lifting the cap. What about the costs of retaining it? The educational and health costs of poverty – costs which are both economic and social.
Jon Marks
Tring, Hertfordshire