If ministers are “privately ruling out” scrapping the two-child social security limit in part because polls suggest that voters support it, that is profoundly depressing (Ministers privately ruling out scrapping two-child benefits cap, 21 April). Tony Blair once observed that politicians face a tension between wooing and leading the electorate. This is an issue on which to lead.
If voters see the two-child limit as “a matter of fairness”, as claimed, we have a responsibility to explain why it is so unfair on children and on their parents, both in and out of work. While lifting the two-child limit is not a sufficient condition for eradicating child poverty, it is a necessary condition.
The onus is on politicians, especially the leadership, to explain why it has to be part of the welcome promised ambitious child poverty strategy. The last Labour government led the way in improving benefits for children and reducing child poverty, but too often it did good by stealth, which made it easier for the Conservatives to undo the good it did. We now need to have the courage of our convictions, if we are to achieve a serious lasting reduction in child poverty.
Ruth Lister
Labour, House of Lords
• Government sources are reported to have invited those of us calling for an end to the two-child limit to “read the tea leaves”, and accept that the fiscal context and alleged popularity of the policy makes such a move untenable. This could not be wider off the mark, and we can only hope that reason will prevail, and that Labour will do the right, and indeed the only, thing and get rid of this heinous, poverty-producing policy.
Indeed, were we all to take a close look in our tea leaves and imagine a future in which the two-child limit remains, we would see two things. First, a UK that will cement its position as an international outlier on child poverty; a nation that fails to protect the poorest, and continues with a policy that is unique worldwide. And second, a future in which Labour’s whole reason for existing is called into question. If Labour cannot and does not act to drive down child poverty, what is the Labour party even for?
Prof Ruth Patrick
University of York
• The most urgent problem facing the UK is the increasing burden on the poorest. The changes to personal independence payments are intended to “save” £5bn by 2030, and the Treasury saves about £2.5bn a year by imposing a two-child cap on benefits. The entire cost of these restrictions for the coming year can be covered by the rise in the value of our gold reserves since the election.
The Treasury holds over 300 tonnes of gold. Its value has risen by about £750 an ounce, a total increase of over £8.25bn. We could sell (or borrow against) that much gold and still be left with the same value as we had in July last year. The gold is a rainy day fund, and this is clearly a very rainy day. We hear a lot about “difficult decisions” – the choice between taking this unexpected profit and clinging to it while millions are pushed ever deeper into financial desperation does not seem at all difficult. Swift action could even help rescue the government from its grim opinion polling.
Alan Ereira
Professor of practice, University of Wales, Trinity St David
• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
