Analysis Breaking

Breaking: Starmer says he will NOT change 2-child cap impoverishing 1.5 million kids (video)

At least 1.5 million children are living in poverty because of the Tories’ two-child benefit cap – many of them going hungry – damaging their health, their education and their chances throughout their entire life and leaving them stigmatised and traumatised.

Keir Starmer has previously caused outrage by refusing to commit to ending the cap if Labour gets into government. But this morning on the BBC he went a step further and confirmed that he will not end the cap:

The cruelty and cowardice of it has been called out on ITV.

On everything else the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg asked him, Starmer refused to answer one way or the other, using the excuse that he’s ‘not going to write our manifesto here’.

But lifting at least 250,000 kids out of poverty and giving another 1.25 million a massive leg-up to being out of poverty that they are suffering through no fault of their own?

No – on that, Starmer was more than happy to ‘write the manifesto here’, confirming that Labour has no interest in those children or their 400,000 families, most of them working, let alone their relatives who will be equally horrified. Presumably, he thinks poor people don’t vote – or that he doesn’t need them if he can suck up to enough Tories and big business.

A Starmer win means another five years of Tory government, just as much as would a win for the blue version.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. I saw earlier that he was talking about radical change to public services. So that’s more asset selling.

    He also spoke about no reckless spending, instead focusing on growth. Growth of what?

    The other thing was creating wealth. Bad choice of words. Starmer should be focusing on creating value.

    He doesn’t care about any of us. Remember this. Best we can hope for is no overall control. It won’t be great, but it’ll highlight just how chummy the various parties are.

    1. He looks like what he is: an instinctively authoritarian, Thatcher worshipping right-winger, sent into a party he appears to despise in order to prevent it making any reforms judged harmful by the elite. Many are trying pretend this isn’t the case by projecting their own centre-left values onto Starmer, values he doesn’t share and likely loathes. His alleged ‘hates tree-huggers’ comment saw the mask slip a little and surprised the few supporters he has.

      Even the Guardian’s ‘moderate’ aka centre-right columnists seem to be waking up to the fact Starmer is as much an empty vessel politically as he is intellectually; the establishment’s gofer, happy being called a ‘conservative,’ someone who’ll change nothing. Someone who’ll be the plaything of right-wing privatising forces when in power.

      It’s all utterly depressing, and if the unions and members had any backbone they’d say, thanks, but no thanks, and vote no confidence in this leadership. However big a majority the Tories gift them, a Labour party led by Starmer will likely be one term, due to the sheer frustration and disenfranchisement changing nothing but for ushering in more private involvement in the public sector, will bring.

      1. Even the Guardian’s ‘moderate’ aka centre-right columnists seem to be waking up to the fact Starmer is as much an empty vessel politically as he is intellectually…”

        The more astute ones have even gone slightly further than saying that he’s a bit vacuous and empty-headed. By telling us so little about its policy plans, Labour tells us all we need to know “As it stands, “Britain: pretty much like now but slightly better” is the election slogan they will get” (from Starmer).

        “Empty pots calling extreme racism “empty moments’ ” as my grannie would have said. This man’s dangerous.

      2. I agree Andy, if Starmer manages to form a government with a majority without the need for a coalition government it would last only one term.
        If Starmer in order to form government is in need of coalition partners, he will have to agree:
        – to PR as otherwise the LibDems, Greens and Plaid aren’t going to support him
        -Will have to agree to a 2nd ref in Scotland as otherwise the SNP isn’t going to support him.
        Once PR is enshrined in law and a date for a 2nd ref in Scotland settle. Then Starmer isn’t going to last as PM for the whole term.
        Once with have PR the Socialist Campaign Group could split from Labour and form a new Political Party. This is why Starmer is so against PR, why he is know targetting for expulsion the leaders in favour of PR within Labour. Starmer knows that once we have PR the control of the right over the Labour Party is over.

      3. Supporting proportional representation and rejoining single market would carry them to a guaranteed Tory crushing majority.

        Even most of the left could happily lend their support knowing political options will open up in the future. Rejoining the single market should be a no-brainer for an arch remainer too. The #FBPE crowd are baffled by Starmer’s embrace of Johnson’s self-harming hard Brexit. It’d also lend some crdibility to their promised ‘growth, growth, growth’ , fastest in G7 claims, which seem to be based on pie in the sky assumptions about employment and industrial activity. In reality, Reeves is no doubt champing at the bit to force through cruel workfare proposals.

      4. ……the Guardian’s moderate……….columnists?

      5. Andy, dear God. The oily one will be on the box all the time. What with Reeves and Screaming life will be ahee with no escape. Posters, ads, pics etc. Ropes all round folks.

    2. I agree NVLA, no overall control is the most desirable result. A hung Parliament that needs the votes of the LibDems, Greens and Plaid to be PM, will necesitate for Starmer to agree to pass legislation in favour of changing from FPTP to PR.
      Once PR is the new voting system, Starmer government could only survive with the support of the Tories. One with have PR, I will expect the members of the SCG to mount a stronger opposition to Starmer within the Labour Party.
      I guess the Tories will give him a couple of years to mess it up and then, they will bring him down with the help of the other smaller than with PR will have a better chance of increasing its numbers of MPs

    3. Viral horror on Twitter towards Starmer’s response here. Ditto everywhere else no doubt…

  2. The pretense that Starmer is just using language that won’t frighten people, should now obviously be seen for what it is. The world wide drive through Neo-Liberal politicians everywhere only serves the interest of corporate power.

    The same power that held working people back in the 17 and 1800s are being employed today for the same reasons.

    Put simply, life doesn’t have to be this way, it is because of lying politicians that have spent the last forty years reinstating wealth and privilege from above, and human rights don’t matter.

    We don’t just need change, we need to make sure every one of those that worked against us, never gets re-elected.

  3. What do you expect? He’s shielded those who’ve sexually abused kids, the vermin.

    But of course, keef KNOWS what poverty entails. He dreaded the phone bill coming through the letterbox when he was a kid…One godawful wrong’un, that.

    1. He supports the long-established UK policy of cruelty to children e.g. shipping them off to Australia and Canada as late as the 1960s, raping them in Kenya, killing and maiming them in Northern Ireland (1969-1998), starving them in England since the start of austerity

    2. My parents were responsible for paying the bills when I was a kid. You have to have some empathy for a child who had to pay for the family’s bills. Really fucking harrowing. Worse than Wigan Pier.

  4. Ironclad fiscal discipline and sound money: Starmer and Reeves are today’s MacDonald and Snowden. Index-linked benefits next?

  5. Fiscal Responsibility: The last refuge of a scoundrel.

    Do not vote Labour while Starmer is in charge of it.

  6. Well you see the thing is that if you give the hoi poloi money to support their children, next thing you know they’ll be breeding like rabbits because as everyone knows you have children so you can get more money. Heaven forfend either that you spend money on birth control counselling either, no no leave women to have endless pregnanciesbut make their misbeggotten spawn suffer by growing up in dire poverty – sorry did I hear you say Boris Johnson? – different kettle of fish – he complies with all neo-liberal Econ mic norms. “Means testing” “targeted help” what are they?

    1. I don’t want to harp on about Starmers under privileged, poverty filled childhood. But it the phone bills that get me. I doubt that the Sunday Sport existed so its unlikely that the bill included chat lines of a special type. Was he secretly building a portfolio for his family.?

      1. alex – Is this childish nonsense really the best that you could manage to come up with.😞.

  7. Herr Flick
    As our Resident Nazi can you confirm the Fuhrers position on the Bedroom tax

  8. Starmerism explained: Keith doesn’t like the Tories because they do nasty things like denying child benefit to any other than the first two kids. He wants to win an election to get rid of the Tories then he can do different things. But to win the election he has to do the same things, even though there’s no evidence of any need. So he does the same nasty things as the Tories in order to get rid of the Tories who do nasty things. When he gets to power he’ll be just as nasty as the Tories to show everyone he knows how to be PM. The Tories leave millions in poverty which Keith doesn’t like. To show how much he doesn’t like it he’s rubbing the noses of the poor in the dirt and giving poor kids a big kick in the teeth. This is the only way to get elected to stop the Tories leaving people in poverty. People who say he should help the poor are irresponsible and want him to break the fiscal handcuffs he has put on himself to show people how responsible he is. The rich will do very well out of his restraint and the poor very badly which is proof of how fit he is to be PM. He will go on saying how nasty the Tories are keep doing the same things as them. This is called realism. He hopes there will be a war then he can throw his handcuffs in the sea and spend billions killing children overseas. His friend Tony told him this is what PMs do. Keith’s friend Angela agrees with him. She was once poor and a single mother but she wants to be deputy PM so she kicks the poor in the teeth too. When they win a big majority they will say it is proof that people like to see the poor ground into the dirt. Then they will be even nastier than the Tories because that’s the best way to keep the nasty Tories out of power. In the end, they’ll all go to the House of Lords and stop any legislation which might help the poor, just to prove how much they hate the Tories.

    1. Not having it. Reeves and the holder of her leash are worried about food… in the subsidised troughs of the Houses.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: