What is the Labour Party for if it does not make lifting children out of poverty a priority?

Well let's be clear the position of Kirstam and his government is that lifting children out of poverty is not a priority and they are

choosing consciously to drive kids into poverty and deeper into hardship and squaller. That's what today's King's speech which sets out the

government's legislative agenda confirms. Now I get I get it quite the

allegation to make particularly given I'm censoring this critique on the two-child benefit cap,

which is a conservative policy introduced by the former Chancellor George Osborne,

who in my view has done more to wreck this country in the last

14 years than almost any other politician. What does what it does this policy?

This disgusting policy frankly and I'll set that out why

is bang universal credit or child tax credit for third child or more

that is social security entitlements to help with the cost of raising a child. It was introduced by George Osborne

because he thought it would cause political problems for the Labour Party and to help fuel

the toxic Victorian era caricature of the undeserving poor to justify rolling back the

frontiers of the welfare stay. At present, 450,000 households are affected by it. Each year more and more households have been affected.

It drives around a quarter of a million children below the poverty line.

It drives another 800,000 children further into hardship. In total,

it's estimated to affect financially 1.5 million children. 57% of those kids affected have at least one parent in work.

The research suggests that if the policy actually has official aims other than cruelty, then it has failed on those terms.

If it's about pushing families into work, then it has failed. Again, it mostly affects working households

and research by the London School of Economics shows it has not impacted employment levels of those affected.

Indeed, as the co-author of that research finds, that is Kitty Stewart, the Associate Professor of Social Policy

at the London School of Economics, we found that rather

...