“You are the co-architects of austerity” grimaced the Mayor of London, pointing his finger at me, when he responded to a simple question of asking him to write to the new government to scrap the two-child benefit cap.
For many, it was shocking that the Mayor was so aggressive and angry in his response, which can be viewed here.
But for Liberal Democrats active in Labour facing areas like London, we have too often seen this nasty side of Labour Party where councillors, members or activists are attacked for daring to question Labour and daring to question what Labour see as their monopoly on progressive politics and government.
The response is too often entirely predictable, start shouting about the coalition as way to avoid them answering for their own actions. Well, they are in the driving seat of National Government now and have nowhere to hide. Rachel Reeves’ speech this week already outlined what will likely be Labour’s very own version of austerity.
I’m really proud that the London Assembly started to raise the issue of the two-child benefit cap very early on, before it really came to national attention. 11 per cent of children in London are impacted by the two-child cap and a staggering 33% of children in the capital live in poverty.
Various London Assembly committees heard evidence from expert panels on the extremely damaging nature of the two-child benefit cap, particularly on ethnic minority communities in London. A later cross-party report for the Cost-of-Living Working Group on the Assembly also made clear recommendations that removing the cap was one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to reduce child poverty in London.
It is why the Liberal Democrats got cross-party support when we did our motion asking the Mayor to write to the previous Conservative Government to scrap the cap (which he did).
I will continue to push the Mayor and I’m proud that Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, voted to remove the cap in Westminster. We have also seen many Liberal Democrat councils also push their Labour run councils to do the same. ALDC have a great motion that you can use too which can be found here.
What worries me is why Labour will not remove this policy sooner. The decision is purely a political choice. It also proves that in government it is not the Labour Party that brings progressive change it will be the Lib Dems who are the party of real change.
We must continue to hold the new government to account. They were only elected with 34% of the national vote and we have a responsibility to make sure that every voice is heard, especially the most vulnerable, the children in poverty.
Notes:
Estimated 14% of families are affected in the most ethnically diverse communities
The IFS specifically talks about those from Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnicities. The IFS states that 43% of children in families with one Bangladeshi or Pakistani parent will be affected by the cap compared to 17% of children from other households.
This paper from the UK Parliament also expects those from ethnic minority background families to be more affected.
Martin Lewis has explained confusion over the ‘two-child benefit cap’ and the ‘two child benefit limit’.
* Hina Bokhari is the Liberal Democrat Leader on the London Assembly and the most prominent elected Muslim within the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Getting things done - Colinton Place #dundeewestend
Have cyber criminals been swindling taxpayers?
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Alex Hosking
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
4 Comments
I agree with the above however there are signs that Labour could get very nasty indeed. Their “mandate” is built on sand. They received 33.7% of the vote with 63% of the seats on a turnout of 60%. They have already seemed to declare some kind of war on pensioners, supposedly “intergenerational envy” by removing the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners. They could also force the over 60’s to pay for their prescriptions under the belief in the Govt’s mind that pensioners are loaded, which isn’t so. I hope that Lib Dems in the Commons can hold this Government to account on how they proceed in the coming five years and portents do not look good. For those of us of a certain age, we recall Labour’s period in office in the 70’s which was characterised by high tax, high spend, high borrowing and giving in to union demands for higher wages without higher productivity. This may be happening now. Lib Dems thankfully can provide a non-socialist alternative to the Labour and Conservative Parties, both of which are not fit for purpose.
Of course, the two child limit should go…. but there’s a Lib Dem difficulty of credibility. It’s a well worn adage, but no less true, that ‘past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour’. Hina Bokhari’s case would be much stronger if this was not the case.
According to the IFS and the Office for Budget Responsibility, when the Lib Dems were in government they were party to changes to social security reduction measures across the UK between 2010 and 2015. This amounted to just over £22 billion less being spent on social security by 2015/16 (in 2018/19 prices) than would have been the case had the changes not occurred.
Question : has the current 2024 party stance been approved, agreed and vetted by the IFS and Office for Budget Responsibility ? If not why not ?
@DavidSymonds, In the words of the late Sir Thomas More, we have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.
Following on from my previous comment, i take the view that Labour is not progressive at all and are a left over from their roots in “the Labour movement.” Even the name of the party is outdated and reflects the cloth cap image of 1900 with clogs, smokestacks and factories. I have no doubt that Labour over the years has done a lot of good, particularly 1945-51 with Clem Attlee and other reforming ministers but Labour has often been plagued with class envy and doing the wrong thing, by overtaxing (33% on lowest levels at one stage) and caving in to their union paymasters. Labour is not “Labour” at all but a socialist party rather than social liberal or liberal and believes fervently in collectivist theories to govern, despite good intentions. Their heavy handed control of planning is a case in point and they don’t care about local communities wanting something different. Even Denis Healey, a moderate, believed in swingeing taxes which the super-rich in the 70s managed to avoid which then forced the rest of us to pay higher taxes as a result. Labour loves nationalisation, which often does not work as politicians have little or no experience in managing businesses. Lib Dems can now provide decent progressive politics as Labour has passed that baton a long time ago. Labour are socialists and Starmer admitted that, not even social democratic.