You’re being subjected to two sides of the same con: Labour and the loudmouths are gaslighting us over child benefit.
Whether it’s a government minister quietly defending the two-child benefit cap as “popular with voters,” or a smug post on social media declaring, “If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them,” the result is the same: working-class families are being blamed for their own poverty, and millions of children are paying the price.
Let’s call this what it is: a coordinated con. And both the Labour government and the loudmouths of social media are in on it.
Labour insiders admit they’re keeping the two-child cap – not because it’s right, but because it’s popular with swing voters in key marginals1. That’s not leadership—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism.
They say it’s “too expensive” to scrap—estimated at £3.6bn a year2. But campaigners point out that lifting the cap would immediately lift 350,000 children out of poverty, and reduce the severity of poverty for another 700,0003.
Instead of doing what’s clearly right, the government is pushing breakfast clubs and free childcare as a “solution.” Helpful, sure—but it’s window dressing on a structural wound. Families lose thousands under the benefit cap. Breakfast clubs might save £450 a year4.
Then come the online warriors. The Mac Woods of Britain. The people who post:
“If you can’t afford more than two children, don’t have more than two. Why should I pay for other people’s sprogs?”
I mention Mac Wood because Mac’s is the X post I found when I trawled the web:
This kind of smug finger-wagging isn’t just cruel—it’s intellectually dishonest.
Let’s name these false arguments – and shame those who use them:
🔁 False Equivalence
“Breakfast clubs and free childcare are just as good as benefits.” No. Child Benefit is cash for food, heating, rent. Toast before school doesn’t pay the gas bill.
📊 Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum)
“The cap is popular.” So were austerity and tuition fees. Popular doesn’t mean ethical. If a policy directly increases child poverty, it’s wrong5.
⚖️ Moralistic Fallacy
“Don’t have kids you can’t afford.” Life happens. Jobs are lost. Relationships break down. The system is the problem—not the children born into it6.
💰 Zero-Sum Thinking
“Why should I pay?” Because society functions when we all contribute to a safety net. Today’s children are tomorrow’s taxpayers, carers, and key workers.
🎯 Blame Shifting
“It’s the parents’ fault.” No. This is the result of a deliberate policy choice, introduced in 2017 by the Conservative government, designed to disincentivise larger families7.
If the arguments are false, why does the con work, then?
Easy: Labour is scared of challenging the middle-class voter’s moral comfort zone. Rather than educate and lead, the government validates loudmouth selfishness—and lets social media scolds do the moral dirty work.
The result? A gaslit electorate, believing that cruelty is a form of fairness, and that child poverty is inevitable.
What can you do about it? Quite a lot, actually:
-
Call it out. Challenge falsehoods when you hear them.
-
Share the facts. Poverty is a policy choice.
-
Hold Labour to account. Being “less cruel than the Tories” is not a governing principle.
-
Support campaigners like the Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardo’s, and Save the Children.
This isn’t just a budget issue. It’s a values issue.
Do we want a society where children suffer so politicians can win a few more votes? Or do we believe every child deserves dignity and security—regardless of when they were born?
Labour and the loudmouths are selling us the same lie: that we must choose between fairness and compassion.
That’s the real con. Don’t buy it.
Footnotes
Like this:
Like Loading...
Two sides of the same con: Labour and the loudmouths are gaslighting us over child benefit
You’re being subjected to two sides of the same con: Labour and the loudmouths are gaslighting us over child benefit.
Whether it’s a government minister quietly defending the two-child benefit cap as “popular with voters,” or a smug post on social media declaring, “If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them,” the result is the same: working-class families are being blamed for their own poverty, and millions of children are paying the price.
Let’s call this what it is: a coordinated con. And both the Labour government and the loudmouths of social media are in on it.
Labour insiders admit they’re keeping the two-child cap – not because it’s right, but because it’s popular with swing voters in key marginals1. That’s not leadership—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism.
They say it’s “too expensive” to scrap—estimated at £3.6bn a year2. But campaigners point out that lifting the cap would immediately lift 350,000 children out of poverty, and reduce the severity of poverty for another 700,0003.
Instead of doing what’s clearly right, the government is pushing breakfast clubs and free childcare as a “solution.” Helpful, sure—but it’s window dressing on a structural wound. Families lose thousands under the benefit cap. Breakfast clubs might save £450 a year4.
Then come the online warriors. The Mac Woods of Britain. The people who post:
I mention Mac Wood because Mac’s is the X post I found when I trawled the web:
This kind of smug finger-wagging isn’t just cruel—it’s intellectually dishonest.
Let’s name these false arguments – and shame those who use them:
🔁 False Equivalence
📊 Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum)
⚖️ Moralistic Fallacy
💰 Zero-Sum Thinking
🎯 Blame Shifting
If the arguments are false, why does the con work, then?
Easy: Labour is scared of challenging the middle-class voter’s moral comfort zone. Rather than educate and lead, the government validates loudmouth selfishness—and lets social media scolds do the moral dirty work.
The result? A gaslit electorate, believing that cruelty is a form of fairness, and that child poverty is inevitable.
What can you do about it? Quite a lot, actually:
Call it out. Challenge falsehoods when you hear them.
Share the facts. Poverty is a policy choice.
Hold Labour to account. Being “less cruel than the Tories” is not a governing principle.
Support campaigners like the Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardo’s, and Save the Children.
This isn’t just a budget issue. It’s a values issue.
Do we want a society where children suffer so politicians can win a few more votes? Or do we believe every child deserves dignity and security—regardless of when they were born?
Labour and the loudmouths are selling us the same lie: that we must choose between fairness and compassion.
That’s the real con. Don’t buy it.
Footnotes
The Guardian. Ministers reject calls to lift two-child benefit cap despite poverty warnings
Resolution Foundation. The cost of lifting the two-child limit
CPAG. Child poverty and the two-child limit: the case for change
Department for Education. Breakfast Clubs Expansion: Impact Analysis
IPPR. Public opinion and child poverty: attitudes vs outcomes
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Misconceptions about poverty and benefit claimants
House of Commons Library. Two-child limit on benefits: Background and impact
Like this:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Like this:
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Like this:
Michael Gove highlights his own lies; Tony Robinson is right
Like this:
Like this: