To think the 2-child benefit cap is fine?

Starmer needs to be tougher with these clowns if anything.

It’s not about Palestine with these people. They have a history. Moyle is nasty piece of work who screams down gender critical MPs, in parliament, in front of everyone watching. An utterly deplorable character.

Abbott and Corbyn. Well, if these are the people we want in parliament then then the bar is below sea level.

These people are a relic from a bygone era that should be in a museum to show how they lost Labour the 2019 election.

They are just laughable clowns, detached from reality. Starmer should crack down even harder if he wants to achieve economic growth to pay for freebies as he says he does.

I think you haven't met enough abusive men. There were several couples at my dcs primary school who had more than two dcs. The mums were always miserable and the dad was an abusive shit.
As there isn't a magic wand to allow mums to get away from these men then I don't begrudge them extra UC / TC money.

Yes, they will have to eventually.

I’m aware of the whip. Labour MPs won’t return to this specific policy

What are you expecting though, that they will?

In France it’s the opposite. Government policy is actively pro-natalist in many ways and larger families are supported by the state. Many of my kids friends are from families with 3, 4, 5 kids - and these are generally pretty well-off families. Benefit payments increase with the number of children, there are various ‘primes’ (grants) for school supplies etc, larger families can apply for discounts on public transport, longer parental leave is available

Of course, child care is subsidised by the state from day one right through to school age so that is one massive expense that French parents don’t have. And before / after school care is heavily subsidised.

i think the underlying belief is that more children = good for the country as a whole. and France is basically a socialist country. I don’t think people in the UK really approve of large families, and they certainly don’t seem very keen to support them financially.

It wasn’t a free vote. It was whipped because it was an amendment to the King’s speech.

I was referring to the benefit cap. A Labour MP who has just voted no can’t apply pressure on that specific policy change anymore. Only seven voted against it.

No suggestion poverty disappears and Labour can decide what else to do

Yes, the discussion moves on
It moves on to how to tackle child poverty if the benefit cap is not going to be lifted immediately. The issue of child poverty - a disgrace to this country - does not disappear because the benefit cap isn’t lifted.

Re asking for it to be lifted specifically. Why keep asking if you know it’s voted down

I can’t see the vote reoccurring soon. It’s been in the media for about a week and I don’t see they’ll keep talking about lifting it

And no not “daft” media cycles work on building pressure and a vote moves the discussion on.

Don’t be daft. They can’t “move on”. Child poverty still has to be tackled.

A vote at least settles it. MPs can move on

Unfortunately you can't rely on parents to be responsible and make decisions that put their existing children first. Plenty have a 3rd, 4th, 5th just because they want to with no thought for the rest of the family. I don't know any middle or upper class families with more than 2 children, almost as if there's more conscious planning and thought that goes into it if you have to pay yourself.

Children shouldn't suffer because of their parents selfishness though, but not sure of the answer

Well, the cap is not being lifted. Seven MPs have been suspended for voting against the government on this last night:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c978m6z3egno

But looking after children as a job is minimum wage most of the time for a lot of childcare practitioners, so if a parent wants to look after their child (under 5?) maybe we should be recognising that as a valid choice and scrapping the 2 child UC cap and relaxing the work requirements for those with dc under school age? It could help to create emotional and financial stability for some dc and their families . At the same time maybe they could offer more than 85% childcare costs if these families do decide to work so that they have the choice and incentives rather than sanctions.

I have been told on a similar threat a few days ago that it gets spend of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes... 🙄

Are you not very bright? The King's Speech is the entire programme for government for a year. A successful amendment buggers up their financial calculations. So there is always a three-line whip for any amendment. Laugh as much as you like; it would be the same if the Tories were in power with a massive majority, and just repeating the same ill-informed nonsense won't change that.

In case no one else has posted this yet

https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/poverty-facts-and-figures

Well considering the shenanigans that went on with Abbott and Corbyn, dumping Russell-Moyle as a candidate on the back of mysterious "complaint", dumping other candidates for no other reason than being outspoken on Starmer's support of Israel's heinous behaviour towards Palestinians and ultimately costing his own party a seat, he hardly looks like a unifier, more someone so utterly terrified of being torn up by the right-wing media like his predecessor that he's willing to chuck everything the Labour Party once stood for into the garbage bin until he, and his party, are essentially indistinguishable from the Tories.

And again, pulling a three-line whip with a majority of 170+ is just laughable. Total insecurity, and yes, thin-skinned.

I am utterly appalled by some of the attitudes to the 2 child benefit cap.
•death happens
• divorce happens
• men fuck off & don't pay child maintenance

Either one believes in big society or one doesn't.
E.g. I don't have school age kids why should my taxes go towards education?
I don't have elderly parents why should there be elderly care or research into dementia or resuscitation of those over 80 ?
I don't smoke - why should smokers get medical care
I don't climb mountains - why should my tax be spent on rescuing those who do & harm befalls them ?
And so on and so on.

This me me me attitude stinks.

We pay in & we get out at some or other point in our lives & tomorrow is not a promise to anyone.

There would always have been a three-line whip on an amendment to the King's Speech, whoever was in power and however large their majority. Presumably it's only Labour PMs who are "thin-skinned dictators"?

It’s the low wage, high tax issue we have. 50 k is not a higher earner……

There are some, very few, people that are there (poverty) through bad choices.

I didn’t really understand the cap issue until I read this thread, it blows my mind that a Labour govn voted against removing the cap.

This country needs more children…of course there will be the people that will abuse it, but that happens with everything - there are probably many more that won’t.

And no, I am not a leftie luvvie, a net contributor (by a country mile) who fears what the country is turning into. The welfare state is to assist when the going gets rough - so maybe the cap should be lifted in certain circumstances, but I guess administratively that would be too difficult.

OK. Its seems clear to me from the discussion of net contributors that part of the debate here should be: what percentage of the so-called benefits recipients are actually in work? Because yes, 53% or so of the population now receive "benefits" but that includes by definition, I find online, the state pension for people who worked all their lives and paid in. What I can't seem to find is what % of the people who are NOT net contributors are actually working full-time. Because where I live, London, no one earning minimum wage in a full-time job is a net contributor if single; no couple where both are working full-time would be net contributors; and in short, one of the many underlying problems appears to be that wages are not high enough in the UK. At the bare minimum every job needs to pay enough to keep the worker him- or her-self off the street and fed, even if you don't think every such worker is entitled to have children? Please note I'm asking, not telling.

You are not wrong OP. It’s a cap in name only because it excludes so many benefits.

MN and the public in general now think that freebies really are free. The default response to everything is it’ll be fine and someone else can pay for it. Countless kids that people can’t afford, unlimited welfare for people who choose not to work, or work enough, energy bills, pointless lockdowns, the list is endless.

Of course that someone who pays is always someone else. And that has now come home to roost.

Less than half the population of the country are net contributors. just think about that. More than half the country have no way of paying themselves to live and rely on other people to pay for them. And that number of net contributors is shrinking fast. With them shrinks the list of freebies. Unless you are deluded enough to think that that the ever shrinking number of net contributors will continue to pay more and more for others.

So no, the two child benefit cap is not unreasonable.