First Labour f up

Some Labour MPs support this. It doesn't mean it will happen.

So how's this the first Labour F UP?

Sure starts were cost effective. They showed good results.
Of schemes in the holiday with free food and help available. Food for children and adults alike.
Our local community centre still does drop twice a week morning (free tea/ coffee and biscuits) to keep warm and company. Has play area for children. Plus cheap community meal.

I suspect that the Labour leadership would also like the policy to go, but need to be careful as whilst it would save money in the long run, is it affordable in the short term?

They want to get rid of the cap because 1. It isn't working in preventing families having more children and 2. It's been proven it would be quick, affordable and effective as a method of reducing child poverty. It's a very divisive policy and its only effect has been negative and primarily affects babies and children who have no part in their circumstances. I will be happy to see the policy go.

Vouchers would be sold for less than face value.
No children should be going hungry in UK.
Hopefully the government bring back Sure Start centres .

I am surprised you could even understand that ramble, tbh.

You are correct, I have never met a racist South African.

When Bre it was being discussed, it was made clear that it would mean that we could look to the commonwealth rather than the EU. That is were we are now recruiting from for lower skilled jobs. A quick Google will tell you this. Hepatitis is one health condition that is often present, which causes inflammation in the body. Malnutrition growing up causes health issues. Thus isn't me being racist, I've partially grown up in SA, with my father being from there. I have friends from across Africa, none are perfectly healthy. In people whose ruce forms a large part of their diet, diabetes is common, it isn't just connected to weight. So the solution to a workforce that takes nothing, isn't just immigration. We need to support UK citizens and those with the right to remain to have children.

Agree

People really focus on the wrong parts of society. Any cash going into the pockets of the poorest is immediately circulated in the economy, even if it goes on booze and fags (clutches pearls in horror). The much worse offenders are the wealthiest who offshore their wealth, or overseas property owners who leave British property empty. That takes cash out of the economy and resources out of the hands of / In reach of ordinary people.

the bill for benefits for non-retired people is a pretty small proportion of government spending, but it’s made out to be the reason we’re in a financial hole.

I speak as someone whose cousin got pregnant at 16, went into a mother and baby home, and then went on to have 4 kids. She’s a carer to one of her twins who has significant learning difficulties and she spent a long time on benefits - but now she also has a decent job and can even afford a nice holiday once a year.

I got a PhD (didn’t pay tax on my stipend) and am a lecturer at university, but I also had an accident doing my sport that involved an airlift and treatment in hospital for a broken back. Didn’t pay a penny thanks to the NHS and now I’m fully recovered. Or that I had an elective section because I’m autistic and was scared of birth after previous hospitalisation?

Who is “worse” for the economy? Me or my cousin?

Or how about neither my cousin or me - and instead we focus on the fact that unde the tories we went from 25 to 176 billionaires and their wealth is mostly offshored and untaxed. Or Dyson supporting brexit then moving his work to Singapore and now cutting 1000 jobs in the U.K.? Or that our utilities make massive profits from the energy crisis and fuel poverty, and don’t pay windfall taxes but line their investors’ pockets?

This is just silly to say. It's not to please the rich it's about conservative values conservatism is about reducing state reliance, it believes in a smaller civil service and thay people should be more responsible for bettering their lives, hence why they are traditonally the party of low taxes ( these past few yrs being the exception due to havin to pay back debt from the pandemic although they had started to bring down NI tax) So if you want 3 children u work to afford that.

O look, we're back in the 6th form debating society. Let's have 1,000 words from each of you on the subject. No late submissions and bot will mark accordingly. Bloody hell! Do better Tory bots.

What you say in perfectly reasonable (although I’d disagree with the tone and much of the content). However, for me it always comes back to the fact that saying all of those things doesn’t make the hungry kids and less hungry, and it certainly isn’t their fault.

Cash / vouchers wouldn’t make any difference to the cost.

And ‘relative poverty’ is true in many cases (though not all, there are some people who are genuinely destitute). But again it doesn’t matter to the actual hungry child. If child is hungry, and plenty are, it is our moral duty to help them even if their parents are feckless.

Some Labour MPs call for children to be helped out of poverty. Shock horror. Seriously cannot get worked up about this. If you like the idea of children having poorer outcomes, you should seriously check yourself.

Child benefit is means tested but not capped at 2 children. Only child tax credits are capped at 2 children.

If the two child limit on receiving UC was lifted, for a third child and for each subsequent child the household would receive approximately £3500 each year (£291 a month).

So if a household has 4 children, they would receive an extra £7000 tax free a year.

A family working and earning £1 above the cut off limit for claiming UC doesn't get to go to their employer(s) and say I have a third and fourth child, so I need a £9000 pay rise to get the equivalent amount.

So this is why in polling more people are supportive of the two child cap for UC.

People who are just getting by without access to state funds will always resent those who have what they don't have, in this case they would have liked more children but due to affordability had to stop at one or two.

So what's the solution that would be acceptable to both sides, that protects the children but doesn't reward the parents? Maybe raise the limit to four children, but the money received for the extra two children should be reduced. Thus showing the parents that they need to take some responsibility as do other parents but providing some support for the children that are here.

Didn't they just 😀

It doesn't affect child benefit - when they talk about a 2 child cap, they are talking about people who get universal credit and working tax credits. You can still get child benefit for a third child.

@Hagr1d is that two children UC cap limited to children born after a certain year?

Absolutely
This is a plus for the new government
Thanks for the info.
( I had 2 kids by the way).

Yep

It's not child benefit that the cap has been applied to. This is about UC and working tax credits for 2+ kids. Child benefit hasn't ever been limited to only 2 kids.

Oh Dottie. It's not even going to happen, whether it's a good idea or not. You can stand down and wind your neck in. The PM and the Cabinet make policy - as it is, some backbench MPs are voicing their concerns.

I think you've got your spoonerism wrong.

Also the OP doesn't seem to understand that a minority of MPs - not even in cabinet - are not going to affect policy. They seem to think that it's a fuck up that there's some discussion about child poverty amongst 410 Labour MPs + the Liberals and Greens etc. Pretty sure it's just ordinary democracy.

No, it was brought in prospective with over a year's notice.