Labour’s reversal on benefits cap spells more contortions to come

Receive free Labour Party UK updates

We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest Labour Party UK news every morning.

Good morning. Ben Wallace’s retirement from Westminster has nothing to do with the opinion polls.

The next Labour government will not scrap the two-child benefits limit.

Both these statements are firmly in the “if you believe that, I have a picture of an ape to sell you” category in my view. Some more thoughts on that in today’s note.

So, what’s changed . . . ?

Defence secretary Ben Wallace is stepping down at the next election and leaving the cabinet this summer. One factor, surely, is that the polls look like this:

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

There are several reasons why Keir Starmer has said he will not scrap the government’s cap on welfare payments for children, but one of them is that the polls on that issue look like this.

The thing is though, the polls only tell you so much, and in many ways, the two-child limit is the Labour party equivalent of, say, cutting defence spending for the Conservatives: there is no plausible universe in which a re-elected Rishi Sunak would be able to get away with implementing it. Equally there is, I think, a similar array of forces that will mean the next Labour government has to scrap the two-child limit.

The Conservatives’ policy — which caps the amount a household can receive in benefits if they have no, or low, earnings — upsets the party’s social liberals, its Christian socialists, its feminists and its pro-welfare tendency . . . Essentially every part of the Labour party hates this policy, which is one reason why almost every major figure in the party is on the record calling the policy “immoral”, “heinous” or “social engineering” or some variation thereof.

The only question will be whether a change to the current cap is enforced on the leadership — perhaps by some equivalent of the bill currently working its way through parliament — or if the policy never gets that far.

You can see at the moment that Keir Starmer is trying to win, essentially, a doctor’s mandate: that was the subtext of his piece for the Observer this weekend. The short version is “the UK is sick, the disease is low growth, give me a mandate to cure the illness”. And you can see, too, how Labour might find its way around this commitment, whether through spinning its changes to universal credit or pointing out the problems that UK benefits create for growth. (Good column on that more broadly by Adam Posen.) A three-year research project — conducted by the universities of York, Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science — published today found no evidence the two-child limit meets its aims on employment and fertility, and, in some cases, has had the opposite effect, “meaning its main effect is to push families with three or more children further into poverty”.

Or you can see how the change might be enforced on the leadership by a backbench revolt.

The open question is whether the policy will get that far. You can easily see how, over the coming weeks and even more during the Labour party conference, the question is going to be asked of so many Labour MPs and frontbenchers: given you’ve said, in some cases this measure is heinous, social engineering, immoral, and so on . . . what’s changed?

This is going to be the big theme of the rest of the parliament: a Labour leadership that wants to cleave as close to Conservative spending plans as possible this side of the next election is going to face all sorts of pressure and have to drag itself into all sorts of contortions to do so. If there’s any reason to think that Ben Wallace’s retirement might be taken early, it’s that the effort of all those contortions might yet make the Labour party look both shifty and ridiculous.

Now try this

I had a lovely weekend. I very much enjoyed this week’s Lunch with the FT, which features one of my culinary heroes, Rob Armstrong’s column on Ron DeSantis’s ailing campaign and ugly wardrobe and Emma Jacobs on the childless city.

Also, to engage in some shameless self-promotion, it’s always exciting, when I sit down for a big breakfast and read the FTWeekend to see my own name in there.

Top stories today

• Sold a ‘false dream’ | Universities in England offering courses with poor employment prospects and high student dropout rates will be subjected to stricter regulatory controls under plans to be unveiled today by Rishi Sunak.

• NAO chance | The government will fail to meet the Tories’ 2019 election manifesto pledge to build 40 new hospitals by 2030 and is facing spiralling costs to complete the programme, according to a new report by parliament’s spending watchdog, the National Audit Office.

• NHS consultants step up strike plans | Consultants who are members of the British Medical Association will be striking in England this week for the first time in over a decade, shortly after junior doctors end an unprecedented five-day walkout. They also plan to walk out for two days on August 24 and 25, in protest at the government’s “derisory” pay offer.

• Labour plans new task force | Contractors linked to hostile foreign powers such as China will be targeted by a new security task force if Labour wins the next general election, the Guardian’s Rajeev Syal reports.

• Absent from parliament | Tory MP Andrew Rosindell has not attended parliament for more than a year after being arrested for sexual offences, misconduct in public office and more, Gabriel Pogrund of the Sunday Times reports. Rosindell denies any wrongdoing and is on police bail, which has been extended five times. He has not been charged and therefore remains innocent.