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

It is a tricky one- no-one has a right to multiple children that they can't afford. the situation described " a low-income mum in an overcrowded council house, and she was pregnant with a surprise but wanted baby.." doesn't really make me that sympathetic- there is such a thing as contraception. But there are so many situation where this doesn't work - losing jobs etc after having more than 2 children and ultimately the people to suffer are the children and that should never be the case that the policy should be scrapped. I do think people need to be encouraged/incentivized away from a life on benefits but it isn't the biggest problem and shouldn't be the headline news - Labour should be looking to help the poorest people, to give people a living wage and not to kick them when they're down - thats the job of the tories
PurpleBugz I thought with child benefit one parent (generally the mother/lower earner) could claim it and then it was just clawed back through the tax system from the highest earner- at least thats what happened to us

I have never had so little money as when my partner earned too much for me to get child benefit and my disabled child's needs stopped me working. I had literally nothing then we had debt collectors turn up because he had not paid a bill and I cleared my savings to keep the car from being taken.

If a family doesn't qualify for CB they should take the equivalent directly from the father (if he's the high earner) and give to mother.

Or something I don't know but the needs of women and their children are being lost in this "don't have more kids than you can afford" mantra. That's not the biggest problem. I literally can't earn because there isn't childcare/available school places for disabled children like my kiddo. I know sooo many mums who are in situations like me I don't know a single dad who gave up work for their disabled child and most of these mums only have access to the benefits not his wage that's if the dad doesn't leave because it's better financially and freedom for him not to stay.

Don't have a problem with a two child cap on benefits.

If Labour announced they were removing it, I would see this as shorthand for 'we are going to give all the money to the feckless poor'.

Which is why Labour don't have it as a policy.

No doubt they will have plenty of other stupid ideas. I see we plan to pay unions to spend more time out of the office on training days. Perhaps a war on Iran this time. At least let's not encourage more people to have large families they can't afford.

This policy only hurts women and children. There are three women in my crappy estate with multiple children by what appears to be clearly abusive men. I don't think the women get a choice in more children. If you saw how nasty the dads are and how broken the mums look when walking alone you wouldn't think this policy is a good idea.

I think (some) men should be actually pay for their children. Too many men are not paying their share leaving women in poverty. This is always framed as women’s fault when most of the time it’s not.

CBA, you're right. I should have been more specific, and not illustrative. I want the means-testing to be more stringent: if you can afford to house, clothe and feed your DC on your income, you don't need CB. I ache when people tell me they put their CB "in a uni fund" or use it for holiday spending money (or as in my examples above). Sure, those things benefit the children in those families, but the money could be put to better use elsewhere, in families where there is real poverty.
I get that the intention to provide the main carer (a mother, most frequently) with a separate source of money is important, and that financially controlling spouses exist in all salary brackets, but I feel certain that, for every woman stuck in a financially controlled and coercive relationship, there are hundreds who are not, who are on a healthy joint income (both incomes just below upper limit for CB) and don't actually need CB. There need to be more effective and targeted ways of supporting women in financially abusive relationships.

Although I agree in part with not subsiding other children, I do have concern that the expectation and decision on another woman's body will crossover. Why a man is exempt but not a woman is unjust and casts hostility solely at her feet.

Not really.. as animals surely children isn't a luxury it is a natural instinct..

I agree, when we dictate a woman's fertility down to the amount in their bank account we are worse than the poor villages in the world where family is their life but live in poverty.

I also can't say I disagree with the two child thing in principle. People should have the family they can afford to care for, and not the taxpayers responsibility to subsidise ad infinitum.

I agree with this. No-one's stopping you having more than two kids, they're just not giving you additional funding if you do. And I don't know anyone that receives child benefit, they pay for their own kids. As a result most stop at one or two children.

We complain about the lack of social housing and the pressure on schools and the NHS on one hand but support additional benefits for large families? We already have a high population that's putting considerable pressure on public services and infrastructure.

A couple of points that need clarifying.

Child benefit (family allowance as it was then called) was introduced to ensure that part of the family wage reached hard pressed house wives struggling to feed children. In the days when men were paid cash on a Friday, if the man went to the pub or the bookies on the way home, too many families ended up starving. The method of payment has changed but the need to ensure at least some funds get to the home maker remains. @JanesLittleGirl is right. Child benefit is an essential safety net and must stay.

And it may not happen in your circles OP, but there are plenty who see additional children as a revenue source. It has always gone on. After my little sis was born, my df tried to persuade my dm to have baby no. 6 so he could give up work and live off benefits. I know one woman today who has just had daughter no 4 at 22 because she wants a house not a flat.

Child benefit is means tested & has been for a long time

I agree with the 2 child benefit cap. While I understand that the ageing population of the UK will need caring for etc, I don't think the planet needs more super-consumers born into this western growth economy. Few of us chose to procreate out of a sense of duty to society; people just 'want a baby'. Nobody seriously needs more than 2 of those.

And while I'm at it, I would love to see means-testing of child benefit and redistribution of the funds which would be thus released. Many of the children I work with are growing up in the kind of poverty most of us don't imagine still exists. I find it so frustrating that they get the same child benefit as a worker whose salary keeps a secure roof over their family's head, pays for groceries and clothes and allows them to spend the equivalent of their child benefit on music lessons or drama classes. I'd love to see the poorest children given so much more.

I mean, this is only fiddling around the edges of the problem anyway, as 70% of the countries benefits bill is pensions. Until the triple lock is addressed, everything else is a red herring.

What?
Bit blinking hard for the father / mother to contribute if they are dead!

Don't you think there should be better legislation to make father's contribute? Why should it be the woman who suffers if the father walks out. Also what account families who might lose their jobs & then their savings due to mortgage rate increase.

I also agree with the 2 child limit. It seems fair that people should have the family they can afford.

However I would like to see the widowed parents benefit reinstated to child is 18 rather than the current 3 year post bereavement.

That wouldn't be a healthy thing to do.
Nobody can deny a woman to become a mother. What if her financial circumstances improved and she wanted a third/fourth child well within her means?

Wether you think this or not this legislation is anti-women. How can you agree with a policy that leaves women financially destitute should the father either leave or take no responsibility? Contraception is not 100 per cent. Don't say child maintenance because that too is a joke.

In the short term I believe Immigration, is more cost effective as it does not take years to increase the workforce

If receiving child benefit for a third child is so important, you can’t really afford a third child can you.

Child Benefit was introduced as a mechanism for ensuring that a fraction of family income was under the control of the mother. It meant that male breadwinners didn't have total control. Don't lightly throw it away.

Excellent point JanesLittleGirl

Starmer is promoting the active abolition of all protections for women through self-id. I've been saying for years he's a misogynist. Here is more proof.

Rubbish, it’s means tested. We don’t get it and know very few people who do.