Kemi Badenoch suggests an excessive amount of welfare is unchristian

Kemi Badenoch has suggested that generous welfare policies funded by high tax rates go against Christian teachings and traditions.

The Conservative leader was on Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast to debate Rachel Reeve’s Budget when she identified that there was “no state or welfare” in early Christian times. 

Being charitable to others was not the identical thing as imposing “compulsory taxation in an effort to pay welfare”, she argued.

Reeves announced on Wednesday that the two-child profit cap might be scrapped in April at an estimated cost of £3bn a yr by 2029-30. At the identical time, the Chancellor unveiled tax rises of £26bn, saying she was “asking abnormal people to pay a bit of bit more”. 

Discussing the Budget on the podcast, Badenoch argued that welfare spending needs to be reined in, not increased, and that the onus of presidency policy needs to be on incentivising people to work. 

She suggested that using high tax rates to fund welfare was a contradiction of the Bible and Christian tradition. 

She quoted 1 Timothy 5:8, which says, “Anyone who doesn’t provide for his or her relatives, and particularly for their very own household, has denied the religion and is worse than an unbeliever.” 

“My message is let’s get people off welfare into work,” she said.

“Let us not leave debt for our kids and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

Asked if she thought welfare spending was unbiblical, she said: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I believe that you could argue that, actually.

“The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in an effort to pay welfare.

“We need a celebration that also talks about personal responsibility. We are the one party that’s talking about limiting welfare.”

Christian groups have largely been positive concerning the end of the two-child profit cap, which they argue will lift more children out of poverty. 

Right to Life UK argued that it might save more unborn babies from being aborted as evidence suggests that the cap was a consider some women’s decision to have an abortion.