The Means of Life

I have no idea why John McDonnell or Apsana Begum would want the Labour whip, but one hopes against hope that the Government may be facing up to the reality that was detailed here:

Calls are being reiterated for the “two-child benefit cap” to be scrapped as evidence suggests it could be a significant factor in many women’s decisions to have an abortion.

The two-child benefit cap was introduced in 2017, affecting households that had a third or subsequent child born on or after 6 April 2017, but it is likely that awareness of its introduction began to influence women’s decision to have abortions earlier in that year.

An analysis of official abortion statistics for England and Wales shows that between 2016 and 2021, the number of abortions had by women who had previously had two or more births resulting in a live or stillbirth (this includes the population of women affected by the two-child benefit cap) increased by 25.96%. At the same time, the number of abortions had by women who had previously had one or no births resulting in a live or stillbirth (this includes the population of women not affected by the two-child benefit cap) increased by only 9.89%.

This data shows there has been a disproportionately large increase in abortions among mothers with two or more existing children over this period.

The results of a survey suggest that the two-child benefit cap was a significant factor in many of these mothers’ decisions to have an abortion.

The abortion provider BPAS surveyed 240 women with two or more children who had had an abortion between March and November 2020. Of these, 59% said they were aware of the two-child benefit cap prior to their abortion.

Of those in receipt of tax credits or universal credit, and therefore most likely to be affected by the two-child benefit cap, 57% “said that the policy was important in their decision-making around whether or not to continue the pregnancy”.

Among those women surveyed, one said “I did something I never imagined I would ever do… But at the back of my mind all I kept thinking is how would I have managed financially… I had to do this”.

Another said “[The two-child limit] was a big factor for me. My husband has lost his job so we are on a very tight budget and when we looked at our finances we realised we couldn’t afford to have another baby”.

Similarly, another woman said “If there was no two-child limit I would have kept the baby, but I couldn’t afford to feed and clothe it … I’ve really struggled to come to terms with [my decision]”.

Cabinet ministers could soon recommend removing the cap, reports say

The two-child policy was introduced in 2017 and “prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for more than two children”.

The calls for change come as cabinet ministers and Whitehall officials tasked with exploring ways to reduce child poverty will reportedly recommend lifting the cap as the most effective method, according to reports.

The recommendations are due to be delivered to the Prime Minister before the Budget in November. The Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said “As the co-chairman of the child poverty taskforce, I am determined that we will make greater strides to shrink the number of children living in poverty”.

“Everything is on the table, including removing the two-child limit. My top priority will be for this Labour Government to tackle child poverty”.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates that the cost of removing the two-child limit to the taxpayer would be £3.4 billion. However, they say “this is equal to roughly 3% of the total working-age benefit budget; it is also approximately the same cost as freezing fuel duties for the next parliament, or cutting the basic rate of income tax by half a penny”.

According to The End Child Poverty Coalition, the loss of benefits as a result of the two-child benefit cap is worth £3,514 per child impacted in 2025/26. Government data shows that in April 2025, 469,780 Universal Credit households were affected by the two-child limit policy.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “We are calling on the Government to urgently scrap the two-child benefit cap”.

“When women discover they are pregnant, they should be met with the practical help and support they need to continue their pregnancy, not told that they will receive less financial support for their next child than for their previous children”.

“The two-child benefit cap was introduced in 2017, affecting households that had a third or subsequent child born on or after 6 April 2017, but news of its introduction likely began to influence women’s decision to have abortions earlier in that year”.

“Official data from the Department of Health and Social Care shows there has been a disproportionately large increase in abortions among women with two or more previous children compared to women who had one or no children between 2017 and 2021”.

“The results of a survey of women with two or more children who had had an abortion suggest that the two-child benefit cap was a significant factor in many of these women’s decisions to have an abortion”.

“Of those in receipt of tax credits or universal credit, and therefore most likely to be affected by the two-child benefit cap, 57% ‘said that the policy was important in their decision-making around whether or not to continue the pregnancy’”.

And Ellen Morrison, disabled members’ representative on the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, writes:

A year into Labour’s return to government, disabled people have been left confronting the reality that instead of a new deal rooted in solidarity and dignity, we have been forced to fight a rearguard action simply to hold on to what we already have. The defining battle of this first year has been over social security. Ministers came to office promising to reset the relationship between the state and disabled people after years of Tory cruelty. Instead, their opening move was to propose deep cuts to Personal Independence Payment and to push through changes to Universal Credit that will leave new claimants substantially worse off. The message could not have been clearer: disabled people are once again the first target when the Treasury demands savings.

The scale of the attack was breathtaking. PIP, already one of the most contested and distrusted parts of the system, was set for further restrictions. It took an unprecedented rebellion of backbench MPs, allied with disabled people’s organisations and grassroots campaigners, to force the leadership to back down. At the last minute, the PIP cuts were stripped from the bill. This was rightly celebrated as a victory, but the damage was already done. The leadership had shown its instincts: not to extend support, not to fix a broken system, but to squeeze disabled people further. And even after that U-turn, the government pressed ahead with its cuts to the health element of Universal Credit, creating a two-tier system in which new claimants are automatically consigned to a lower rate of support. International human rights experts have already condemned the reforms as discriminatory and unjustified. That is the reality of Labour’s first year in power.

We were told to place our hope in a new review of PIP, led by Stephen Timms, that would supposedly “co-produce” a reformed benefit with disabled people. But disabled people have every reason to doubt whether this will be meaningful. We know from bitter experience what “consultation” usually means: managed conversations, carefully selected voices, and decisions already made behind closed doors. Trust cannot be rebuilt by repeating the same patterns that destroyed it in the first place. If Labour wants to show it is serious, it should be looking not at inventing yet another review from the top down but at the work disabled people have already done for ourselves.

The Commission on Social Security’s proposal for an Additional Costs Disability Payment shows exactly what genuine co-production looks like. Over years of patient organising, disabled people, people on benefits, unions and allies came together to design a replacement for PIP. It is based not on arbitrary points systems or suspicion, but on the real additional costs disabled people face in our everyday lives. It is rights-based, supportive, and rooted in dignity. The process itself was democratic, with thousands of disabled people feeding in their experiences. The result is a serious, workable plan for a new system – one that would not only support people properly but also rebuild trust in the very idea of social security.

That is what Labour could embrace if it chose to. Instead of forcing disabled people through another bruising battle over cuts, instead of treating us as a budget line to be trimmed, the party could champion a policy written by those who live the consequences every day. It could say: we hear you, we trust you, we will build a system with you. That would be a transformative moment. But right now, there is little confidence that the leadership has any intention of doing so.

This is why so many disabled people feel profoundly let down after Labour’s first year in government. We did not expect miracles, but we did expect better than being targeted as the first victims of a new austerity. The betrayal runs deep. And it is not just about policy; it is about values. The Labour Party was created to stand with working people, with the marginalised and oppressed. To stand for solidarity over scapegoating, dignity over punishment. When a Labour government chooses instead to cut disabled people’s income and to rehearse Tory language about “hard choices”, it is not only hurting us materially – it is corroding the moral foundation of the party itself.

The other flashpoints of the year underline this sense of betrayal. The assisted dying bill, though formally a private member’s bill, advanced through the Commons only because the leadership allowed it to do so. For disabled people, this was another gut-punch: a law that risks normalising the idea that our lives are burdensome and expendable, pushed forward at the same time as support is being cut away. Whatever the intentions of its sponsors, the combination of social security cuts and assisted dying legislation leaves many of us feeling that the government would rather facilitate our deaths than secure our lives. That is a devastating indictment of any party that calls itself Labour.

The deputy leadership election is taking place against this backdrop. It will not solve the crisis of trust, and no one should pretend otherwise. But it does provide a chance to open up a conversation that has been shut down for too long: what kind of Labour Party do we want? Do we want a leadership that continues to triangulate, cut, and ignore members? Or do we want a party that is at least open to debate, to dissent, to being pushed by its base? Bridget Phillipson has consistently defended the government’s welfare policies, even as they entrench child poverty and undermine disabled people’s security. For members who want any chance of shifting Labour back towards its values, Lucy Powell represents the better option.

But the real issue is bigger than any deputy leadership contest. It is about whether Labour will continue down the road of cuts, suspicion and betrayal, or whether it will finally embrace the alternative that disabled people ourselves have put on the table. The Additional Costs Disability Payment proposed by the Commission on Social Security is proof that another way is possible. It is proof that when disabled people are in the lead, we can design policies that are humane, effective and rooted in justice. What we need is a party willing to stand with us, not against us.

If Labour wants to renew itself, if it wants to win back trust, this is where it must start. By ending the attacks on disabled people’s income. By abandoning the cruel logic of “hard choices” that always fall hardest on those with the least. By championing policies that have been co-produced in practice, not just in rhetoric. And by proving, through its actions, that it is once again a party of solidarity.

Disabled members like me cannot endure another year like this one. We cannot be asked to celebrate retreats from attacks that should never have been made in the first place. We cannot be expected to trust reviews designed without us. We need a party that recognises our worth, listens to our solutions, and commits to a future where social security really means security. The Commission has shown what that future could look like. The choice now is whether Labour has the courage to follow.