Two-child limit: Three big questions about Labour’s safety-first strategy

If making clear to voters Labour will not reverse the two-child benefit limit was the goal, then even on its own terms Keir Starmer’s stance is probably not working.

Any casual observer is now just as likely to hear many Labour people think Labour must swiftly reverse the welfare policy as they are the fact the party leadership don’t.

“People are going bananas,” as one Labour source put it. The revolt continues to grow and dominate headlines for another day just before by-election polling day, in a curious echo of the peculiarly timed tuition fee abolition U-turn just before the local elections. “Sir Kid Starver” briefly trended on Twitter.

Several Labour metro-mayors have put the boot in too; as has Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar. A string of Labour MPs from across the party reportedly spoke out at a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting yesterday. I hear deputy leader Angela Rayner told MPs she stood by opposing it, Labour must tackle child poverty and she has listened to colleagues, but it shows “why we need to win” and can’t make unfunded commitments.

The Trojan horse electoral ploy?

There are three much bigger questions this and every other step to the right raises, though, beyond the perennial moral one about how far the ends justify the means. The first is how far it is purely a Trojan horse, a gritted-teeth electoral strategy to get through the door of Downing Street and then let the cat out of the bag, to mix metaphors. Members understandably question more and more just how radical that cat wants to be.

Yet even John McDonnell saw the value in reinventing himself as an avuncular bank manager as Shadow Chancellor, and in fully costed plans. And as The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee notes, the leadership is haunted by the fact mistrust of Labour’s stewardship of the economy is “why Labour lost and lost”.

Do voters buy it, and would caution trump boldness in office?

The second million-dollar question is – will the strategy work? Will enough of the party lump it, and enough of the public either buy it or lump it too? Arguably Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband weren’t convincing enough to make it work as leaders, so the understandable responses are to shun the act altogether (a la Corbyn) or redouble the effort (a la Starmer).

You either trust the near-consensus not just on the left but among the commentariat that Starmer must offer more to win the election, or you trust the poll leads as proof an anti-Corbyn, anti-Tory, safety-first strategy can get Labour over the line.

The third question is, might caution become so ingrained it prevails in office too? U-turns get more headlines, but day in day out the shadow cabinet talk about their desire to tackle poverty, cost-of-living, climate, housing, NHS and other crises, and the broken economic systems that underpin them. Will political events in power let them justify new spending commitments, taxes and public ownership?

Or will the public finances, self-imposed spending restrictions, the pressures to stay in office or pressure from the right trump that? One Labour figure told me we need a “leap of faith” that the party will tackle child poverty, and Toynbee highlights its proud past record. Yet the more convincing the mask, the bigger the faith it takes that it’s not the real face.

Selection divisions on show over Driscoll and Rahman

It’s not even the only big Labour divide on show right now. First up is over the north-east mayoralty race, with blocked aspiring contender Jamie Driscoll’s decision to quit Labour yesterday and run as an independent overshadowing the party’s selection of Kim McGuinness. He’s already raised £74,000 towards his campaign.

On top of that a leading Labour left National Executive Committee member, Mish Rahman, has just said he has not made the selection longlist for the Wolverhampton West seat despite having seven unions’ and affiliates’ support. He noted his role meant he is “allowed to longlist candidates but not to be longlisted myself”. He said it was over his refusal to back party rule changes relating to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on antisemitism in the party, and argued being blocked for “casting a vote” should be “serious concern” for everyone in Labour. Labour was not immediately available for comment.

And finally, Welsh Labour faces continued troubles of its own over its controversial decision not to extend holiday meals for children, with several Labour councils saying they’ll fund it themselves.

All of which makes for a momentous backdrop to the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change’s Future of Britain conference underway today, and particularly for a joint appearance by Blair himself alongside Starmer from 4.15pm. Tune in here. Ditto for a Compass and Open Labour event later too on “can Labour embrace pluralism”, with MP Jon Cruddas, who spoke out fiercely over Compass chief Neal Lawson being disciplined by Labour over tactical voting, among those speaking.