Coffee House Shots
Two-child benefit cap row – Starmer’s first big test?
Get three months of the spectator for just three pounds. Go to spectator.co.uk/trial. Hello and welcome to Coffee Hose Shores. I'm Lucy Dunn and today I'm joined by Katie Vols and Isabel Hartman. Sarqueer Summer has been in parallel for just under two weeks and already there is some talk ramping up about the two-tailed benefit cap that's farmers' government is not going to get rid of. Isabel, can you tell us a little bit about what exactly is going on here in regards to the S&P stance on this and also Scottish labour as well? Yeah, so this is a hugely emotive issue for a lot of labour MPs. It was obviously a conservative benefit policy, limiting the amount of child benefit that has paid per family to the first two children and it's not a retrospective benefit. So it doesn't cut off children who were born 10 years ago, but obviously the more children who were born the more we're seeing the impact of the policy and there's quite clear evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that it is increasing child poverty, which was sort of the point of the policy was to underline to people considering whether or not to have another child, whether they would have to support that child through their own means or via the state. It's obviously been something that labour MPs have opposed ever since it was introduced, John Ashworth, now former MP, but was Shadow Work and Pension Secretary for quite a while for labour when they were in opposition called it he-ness. I think you'd struggle to find a Labour MP who hasn't at some point really emotionally criticised it. However, as part of Rachel Reeves' tough fiscal regime, the party committed to only promising to scrap Tory policies that it could afford to scrap and the two-char benefit fell into the category of cantaford to scrap. And that's where we are now heading for the King's speech with Labour MPs. Some of them hoping that there might be a change of heart. Some of them expecting there won't be, but that this will be the point at which they should be having a row with their leadership days after winning a landslide about this policy. And I think the fact that there has been a landslide probably makes the row more likely because you've got more MPs. You think, well, we've got the luxury of huge numbers here. We can afford to vote for an amendment that's put by an MP. Now, there was an SNP amendment calling for this benefit cap to be scrapped, which would obviously have put quite a bit of pressure on Scottish Labour, not least because Anasawa has said that the benefit cap should go. And he told the Daily Record recently that he was pushing a turn open door with the leadership who do say that they want to get rid of it, but they just can't afford to do it at the moment. Then Kim Johnson, who's a left-wing Labour MP, said that she was going to table her own amendment to the King's speech because she feels that the opposition to this policy should come from within the Labour Party rather than from opposition parties. And I've spoken to lots of Labour MPs who are going to speak against the cap in the Queen's speech debate, who are going to sign Kim Johnson's early-day motion about this, and who plan to vote for this amendment if it is called by the speaker. Now, it's much harder to say, "I can't support an amendment from a Labour colleague," than it is to dismiss an SNP amendment as a political stunt, because you have to argue about why your party colleague is wrong. And I think the way out from this for the leadership, they're probably not going to announce that they're going to scrap the cap in the King's speech. This week, but they may try to set out a roadmap for scrapping it. Roadmap being a word we've become very familiar with when the Conservatives were in government, when it came to tax cuts. Now we're going to be talking a lot about a roadmap to reversing unpopular Conservative policies. And I think that will be the way, and I think it will have to be quite a short road map, rather than a long haul direction of travel. I think it's an interesting test in not so much, you know, other than numbers to force Kistama's hand, obviously the SNP, but you're not going to see the Tories going for this. But I think it's interesting in terms of how does Kistama handle the first flex from Labour backbenchers, because I think how you handle that does set the tone for future potential rebellions. And as Isabelle says, it's clearly a very innovative issue. I think that most Labour MPs do think that, you know, Kistama would want to do it, but they made a point, you know, before entering government of doing it, almost as a sign of we're so responsible with the economy. We will even do the things that, you know, we really want to do to show you this. And therefore, there probably is an orderly way for Rachel Reeves and Kistama to get to a point where they, you know, no longer have the cap. But if I think if they look rushed into it, if it looks like John McDonnell and others are, you know, instigating this flurry of activity in the Labour backbenchers, and therefore they are doing something quicker than expected, I think that would probably suggest to some of those on the backbenchers that there is a route despite the majority being very big and completely grievous about it. Almost when a majority is so big, everyone thinks they can relax a bit. But, you know, we speak on more issues, you know, they'll listen to us and get to that way. So I think it's an interesting test for Kistama and party management. How about they're going about, you know, something which we do expect them to do is almost just a matter of when, but when is, tell us, you know, about how this number 10 is going to operate in relation to the parliamentary party. And it's not the only issue-dogging Labour this week. We've seen just a day that in Wales, von Geithin has resigned as the Welsh Forest Minister. Katie, can you tell us a little bit about what has been going on in the lead-up to this resignation? What hasn't been going on? Effects of it. I think we keep talking about Kistama's honeymoon period, you know, how long will it last? I think that we could argue that von Geithin never really had a honeymoon period. His Labour leadership campaign to be first minister was, you know, dogged by lots of problems, questions on donors, etc. And there's been turmoil and questions in the party for some time. To the point, I think one of Kistama's last stops on the general election was an appearance alongside von Geithin in Wales. And not saying, does he really want to be stood next to him right now given some of the issues there? But of course, you saw some of the results in Wales, you know, every Tory lost. It didn't feel as though this was having a huge impact on the general election result, obviously, by Congress, in some places. But what we had was four ministers resigning, ultimately today, from the Welsh government. And this has prompted Geithin to now announce his own departure. Ultimately, I think this was an effort to force him out because he had lost a vote of confidence already, but he had refused to resign after that. And I think, you know, as we saw with Boris Johnson and the multiple resignations, that ultimately forced him to go. If you can't make someone choose at their own accord, there are other ways to pressurise the situation. And that appears to be what has happened here. As if it'll do you think that this resignation spells trouble down the line for your star around terms of how he moves forward? And, you know, he's only in his first two weeks in the top job. Is this something that he has to worry quite significantly about? Or given the turbulent background that we saw with one Geithin, is this actually a good thing? Yeah, I think it's probably a relief because otherwise, every time you go to Wales, you've got a question mark over your party's leader there. And look, you know, he has, for the sake of those devolved parties, as well as Scottish Labour, Welsh Labour, that they actually also need to be able to hold their ground against their party's leader, against their prime minister, because of the way their constitution is set up, they can have their own policies and their own stances on things. And so, you know, you see how that works with Anna Sauer and Scotland, where he can actually really make the, you know, make the politics of the centre change, or make life very difficult for Kier Starber. So I don't know whether this bit's a relief for him, but actually to have a party leader in Wales who has their own authority is quite important to that party. That's probably not something Starber does want. But, you know, you don't want to, every time you have a visit to Wales, have questions about a scandal. And actually, I'm sure it would be really nice for Welsh voters to hear Wales come up with prime minister's questions in a sort of neutral light, as opposed to Welsh Labour party or Welsh NHS, which tends to be the only time it's ever mentioned. And going, you know, looking across the pond now, we found out yesterday and last night that Trump has announced his running meet. J.D. Vance. Katie, can you tell us a little bit about why he's chosen that particular candidate, and what this means for us in the UK? Well, I think J.D. Vance was always seen as a contender and a serious contender to the point that someone in this office might have made quite a lot of money on that, not myself, unfortunately, by betting on the likelihood. But this wasn't a Tory, I think, inside of betting scandal to be very clear. It was good, honest, bet by a member to even a while ago. Anyway, moving on from that, I think that J.D. Vance has seen as very much, you know, standard bearer for the populist right. I think, of course, people think of Hillbelly as energy, the book that was later made into the film. But in terms of what it means, I think, for the UK-US relationship, and obviously, Americano, the pockets will have all covered on the US side, I think it's interesting because I think there will be light, some light relief in David Lammy's team, because he is one of the Republicans they have built a relationship with. David Lammy has spent time, you know, as Shadow Foreign Secretary, after various tweets about Donald Trump that I think are coming back to haunt him, trying to find Republicans who they had channels of communication open with should Donald Trump make his way back to the White House, which looks more likely by the day. J.D. Vance is one of them along with Mike Pompeo. J.D. Vance and David Lammy has spoken, I think, several times in the past couple of weeks, let alone months. So if the Labour strategy is effectively, perhaps, Donald Trump himself will be hard to control or reach out to other people around him we can. There's a tick there. But then I think, you do you want to know, is it really good news for Labour? I mean, ultimately, J.D. Vance is someone who has been very critical of funding to Ukraine and saying that it's not sustainable for, you know, ultimately, the West to be funding, like, you know, an ongoing war with no end in sight in Eastern Europe. And I think we'll add to the sense that if Donald Trump comes into the White House, there could be a significant change in terms of how the West or these parts of the West want to deal with the Ukraine-Russia situation. And then obviously that's a big question for what all the European allies do. And I think if you look at the response in Europe to J.D. Vance being picked, it's quite negative because of Ukraine and what you do about Russia regression. There's also comments from J.D. Vance, which suggests that despite the Lamy charm offensive, they're quite skeptical of the Labour government too, which are covered on Steerpike today, which is ultimately at a conference a week ago, National Conservatism suggested talking about nuclear powers and, you know, what would be the first is the Miss Country to have a nuclear power, talking with Pakistan and others, and then J.D. Vance said, "One of the big dangers in the world, of course, is nuclear proliferation." Though, of course, the Biden administration doesn't care about it. And I was talking about, you know, what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon? And we were like, maybe it's Iran, you know, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts. And then we sort of finally decided maybe it's actually the U.K., since Labour just took over. So some security diets, it seems, about the U.K. and the current leadership from the potential vice president of the States. Thank you, Giti. Thank you, Isabelle, and thank you for listening. And if you enjoyed the podcast, don't hesitate to give us a reading and review wherever you get your podcasts from. [Music]