'Rape clause' row as Keir Starmer says Labour will not scrap two child benefit cap

It's harvesting the best workers from other countries, often after those other countries have paid to raise and educate those people through their own social systems.

I know. Good isn't it ? We learned about that in the second lecture of the course I did a few years back: "How the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor"

Good to see so many old classmates here <waves> !

There are lots of reasons people don't think immigration is the solution, and only has limited scope:

It's basically a ponzi scheme.

It has a rather unpleasant sense that you are importing less fortunate people to do the jobs natural citizens don't want. This tends to have economic consequence as well as social justice implications in terms of things like remuneration and worker protections, whether we like it or not.

It's harvesting the best workers from other countries, often after those other countries have paid to raise and educate those people through their own social systems.

And what no one on the left is ever willing to talk about - stable societies can absorb a certain number of new people, sometimes very successfully, but there are limits to that elasticity. The more language and cultural differences there are, or gaps in terms of thing like education, the more capacity is required to integrate people successfully. We can see all over Europe what happens when that capacity begins to be exceeded, and don't fool yourself that immigrants themselves are unaware of this. They don't want to be in unstable societies either.

I won't flame you because I agree.

And it wouldn't eg count if you had one child and then twins.

Given the climate crisis we do not need to be encouraging people to have more than two children.

There's a case to do away with child benefit altogether and put the saved cash into early year's education instead. However, it would probably just end up in a general pot and be wasted.

Howpo
as I said don’t have children if you can’t afford them, with your way of thinking let’s just chuck endless money at people.

@ArabeIIaScott it is isn't it? Can you imagine the uproar if well to do SAHMs were described as "sitting at home pushing out children". They are no less unemployed than the mums people love to look down on. There is a discussion to be had about benefits but derogatory language like that is awful.

Plus, it saves £1.6bn

But how much does it cost ?

Our local council could "save" millions of pounds by simply not fixing the roads, turning off streetlamps, and emptying the bins once a year.

Obviously someone else will have to pay to repair the cars, treat the injured and deal with the disease. But that's alright isn't it ?

i suspect a lot of what he says is to keep the rabid Tory press off his back, we ve all seen what they can do with the recent SUN/Mail story, the truth isn't anything they concern themselves with.

You mean the current "Sir Kid Starver" jollyment ?

Probably to avoid having too many child beggars on the streets?

Education is the biggest driver in having less children, this should be the focus not punishing the resultant child.

TBF to Labour, they didn't introduce this policy did they? were you up in arms against it when the Tories bought it in?

Plus, it saves £1.6bn, now i think it should go, it keeps families in poverty after all and that costs money.

But Labour will face an economy in such dire crisis as never before, at least after the GFC of 2008, Borrowing to GDP was at 65% so the tories had headroom to borrow more (no matter what Bryne wrote)

Starmer wont have such a luxury, he will have to tax more and spend less.

I just hope he will also re join, or at least try too, the CU and SM.

i suspect a lot of what he says is to keep the rabid Tory press off his back, we ve all seen what they can do with the recent SUN/Mail story, the truth isn't anything they concern themselves with.

It staggers me that people are blaming Starmer for not committing to removing a policy that he did not introduce, yet do not criticise the Conservative party that did!

+1 (again)

Have as many children as you want, why should you get any benefits for having children, if anything we need a worldwide reduction in population, a reset if you will, to help with climate etc
i really don’t understand why people think they should get money for there children and upbringing it’s a personal decision to have children, have IF you can afford them

It staggers me that people are blaming Starmer for not committing to removing a policy that he did not introduce, yet do not criticise the Conservative party that did!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/17/labour-critics-record-keir-starmer-election-britain

Do people not remember the times when pensioners were really poor?
No money for heating?
The official advice was to where a woolly hat indoors?

I don't think we should be looking to reduce the value of state pensions that we will all benefit from one day.
Our state pension is already quite low compared to other countries and we do rely on people having a decent private provision too.

Why is the triple lock so sacrosanct?

Because [enough] people wouldn't have voted Tory otherwise. Remember how quickly that suggestion it be removed disappeared on contact with reality ?

If you want to remove the triple lock, you will need to get [enough] people to voted to do so.

Over to you.

Plenty of British born people send money abroad as well, it's not limited to temporary residents.
The money sent abroad does not include
-taxes paid

• rent
• day to day living costs.

Working age healthy people need less government spending on them - less healthcare, no care costs etc

I agree with the 2 child cap, however this is spot on. The single biggest drain on the benefits bill is pensions. Why is the triple lock so sacrosanct? Also all this focus on benefits let’s tax avoiders and evaders off the hook!

It demonstrably isn't, if they send their money abroad. And it's short termist again, because if anything happens that makes other countries in Europe more attractive to working migrants, the supply of skilled immigrants will stop.

Oh wait, that is already happening. Look at the soaring skilled worker shortages we are having in many sectors.

There are seven billion people in the world. That's too many, on any count you want to consider.

I don't have an issue importing temporary skilled labour to cover gaps. It's win -win. Plenty of people in overpopulated underemployed countries are happy to move for work.

It's much better for the economy to have economically active, fit people, who live here temporarily then leave rather than become a net drain via schooling for children, health, old age care.

We need more adult skilled labour, not babies. The world does not need more babies. The environment does not need more babies

Surely anyone can see how short termist this thinking is?! In one generation's time, those skilled workers become old people in need of services. Those babies become skilled adults. Surely this is obvious...?

No, not in my case at least. I'm an immigrant myself.

It's because of the economy. It's because many of our immigrants in this country, who thankfully provide essential services like working in our health care system, nonetheless only live here temporarily. Many have family abroad and send their savings and earnings out of the country. When they have earnt enough, many leave and settle back in their home country to have their families. Don't get me wrong, they are absolutely entitled to do these things and we should still be grateful for their contributions.

My point is that immigration can only be part of the solution of an aging society. It's a stopgap, a plaster. Not a fix. Because it doesn't enrich the economy long term in the same way, and doesn't contribute to the birth rate in real terms if they move their families away again.

It's short sighted and ignorant to put labels on people like "racist" instead of thinking things through more thoroughly. I'm choosing not to be insulted, and instead making the effort to explain it to you.

Educated women, with greater social and employment opportunities, have fewer children and later. This has been observed the world over and

Is under attack all over the world.

The cap isn't on child benefit. It's on universal credit/child tax credits.

There's no reason why people on benefits shouldn't have to think about whether they can afford more children. After all, it's the same approach taken by people who are not on benefits and who choose/are forced to limit family size due to finance. Benefits shouldn't perversely influence the growth of low income families and restrict the growth of higher income families (who have to pay tax to support other people's children).

This rule creates a more level playing field. Two children is plenty - it's already above the average family size in the UK.

We need more adult skilled labour, not babies. The world does not need more babies. The environment does not need more babies.

The women who are only having one child, or none at all, are in the majority from better educated and better paid socioeconomic groups. Many of them would not be eligible for child benefit in the first case, and even if it was not means tested, an extra £50 a week or whatever is hardly likely to change their mind.

Educated women, with greater social and employment opportunities, have fewer children and later. This has been observed the world over and offering them more money does not change their minds.

I don’t believe for a moment that getting rid of the cap or the means test would have any effect on the birth rate whatsoever. It would however alleviate some suffering among children living in poverty.

Yes.