‘Like changes to winter fuel allowance, lifting the two-child cap may be easy in Parliament — and risky everywhere else’

There were two leading motivations behind the government’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap.

The first was a fervent belief in the damage wrought by the policy. Across every echelon of the Labour Party, there is a settled consensus that the cap is both morally and economically unjustifiable. It embeds poverty. And poverty costs.

The second motivation was political management. It was hoped that lifting the cap would buy breathing room, placating a Parliamentary Labour Party that is very actively contemplating the position of its leading figures, and perhaps even engendering some goodwill.

No one in government is under any illusion that the measure is popular beyond Parliament’s poky offices. The public remains hawkish on welfare, anxious about household finances, and instinctively hesitant about the prospect of subsidising others. But this was never a policy designed to assuage morbid polling figures. This was a case of hierarchies of danger; of shooting the wolf closest to the sled.

READ MORE: Ben Cooper Column: ‘Gaining public consent for scrapping the two child cap is difficult but essential’

And so, the legislation will make its way forward without the need for a theatrical parliamentary fight. There will be no organised resistance; no Rachael Maskells or Rosie Duffields. Easy, then. A matter of formality. In April 2026, Labour MPs will return to their constituencies with wagging tails, thrilled to have enacted a change that speaks to the beating heart of Labour values.

But that simplicity camouflages a trap.

The absence of internal opposition can be mistaken for the absence of the need to build a public case for the reform. If the government falls into that trap, it risks repeating the mistakes of their most instructive early failure – reform of the  winter fuel payment.

The risk in an easy parliamentary win

On 29 July 2024, Rachel Reeves stood in front of a red backdrop emblazoned with the stark words ‘fixing the foundations’. This was the background for her first major intervention as Chancellor.

Having “uncovered” a £22bn inheritance of overspend, the new government, barely weeks into its tenure, was being forced to cut spending on blanket winter fuel payments to pensioners. “If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it,” she said.

Labour MPs were disgruntled. Asking elected social democrats to take welfare payments away from a vulnerable cohort of society, is like trying to get a cat in a bath. With a swift, firm grip, it’s possible. But it’s not enjoyable for anyone.

Nevertheless, six weeks later, the plan passed the Commons by a majority of 120. The PLP had reluctantly swallowed the broad fiscal argument, hoping that short-term pain would roll the pitch for more favourable policies.

Why the winter fuel argument was never made

The government’s problem lay outside Parliament. The public rejected the changes, and the government never sought to change their mind.

Why?

Pensioners, by age cohort, are among the wealthiest and most asset-rich groups in the country. Undisputedly, universal payments subsidise many households in no material need. The savings could have been redirected to pensioners genuinely at risk of fuel poverty or to other groups facing acute hardship. And the reform aligned with long-term fiscal sustainability in an economy where a shrinking workforce is supporting a growing retired population

Is it really an effective redistribution of wealth for younger workers on stagnant wages, struggling to build a deposit, to fund a benefit for older, wealthier relatives who own their homes outright?

Such arguments might be right, or they might be wrong. That’s not the point. They are cogent arguments a centre-left government could have made, but didn’t.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

The official line remained that the change was an unfortunate economic necessity. And that was that.

There were reasons for this reticence. Pensioners remain a politically active and electorally decisive group. Public narratives about pensioner vulnerability carry real weight. Against this landscape, visibly and repeatedly explaining why winter fuel payments should be restricted was not a comfortable position for a Labour government.

So the government never made an affirmative case for the reform. 

The reform grew in unpopularity. Polling dipped. Pressure mounted. And on 9 June 2025, after nearly a year of attrition, the policy was effectively scrapped. The Chancellor confirmed that all pensioners of state-pension age would once again be entitled to winter fuel payments.

The result was a policy that had passed Parliament but could not survive the world outside Whitehall.

The same danger now faces the two-child cap

How is this relevant to the two-child cap? Because there’s a seemingly obvious lesson: unpopular policies need to be argued in favour of, not shied away from.

The two-child cap policy poses the same risks as the winter fuel payment reform, albeit in a structurally different way. Unlike the winter fuel reforms, the government already has the PLP securely on side. There is no factional revolt to navigate, so there is no need for a parliamentary argument.

But this is precisely the misjudgement the winter fuel episode warns against.

If public opinion sours further, or if negative polling begins to define the reform, the government could find itself under new pressure. That’s a pressure that could conceivably push leading figures over the plank.

If the figures at the top of government are ousted, any successor will be free to ignore Labour’s internal dissent, as it would be impossible to remove another leader before the next election. Instead, a successor would be focused only on improving polling. Dropping, delaying, or watering down unpopular policies, especially where an argument hasn’t been made, could become a temptation.

Unpopular reforms require proactive public justification

The long-term durability of lifting the cap therefore depends on something this government has struggled with – aggressively putting forward a values-based argument.

They will have to confront anxieties about welfare head-on; make the distributional logic explicit and couch it in the language of investment; and show how the policy fits within a broader strategy for improving long-term outcomes and reducing future fiscal pressure. Without a sustained public explanation rooted in values and economic logic, the government risks repeating the winter fuel debacle in a mirror image – Winning the parliamentary battle but losing the public one.

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

Ahead of the 2024 election, pollsters including John Curtice warned that Labour’s majority rested on unusually shallow support that could quickly wash away. That has proven true. This might explain the government’s reluctance to test the electorate’s patience by persuading it of difficult arguments. Indeed, time and again, the government has proven allergic to arguing its case on winter fuel payments, immigration, taxes, and PIP.

But announcing an unpopular policy, and then not arguing in favour of that policy, is not an effective strategy.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].