Finally ! A government policy that worked.

[SerendipityJane]

Given how perfectly it delivered:

However, the study says the policy’s impoverishment of larger low-income households has helped few parents get a job – instead, its “main function” has been to push families further into poverty and damage their mental health.

It's impossible to believe that wasn't the aim all along. (See also bedroom tax).

Still voting Tory now, eh ?

(We'll put to one side the unspeakable policy if a rape resulted in a 3rd child. That can't be debated anywhere except Tennessee or Texas).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/01/two-child-limit-on-uk-welfare-benefits-has-failed-to-push-parents-into-jobs

Given how obsessed Tories are with getting everyone into work no matter what, I don’t see why they would want more impoverished families. So no I think it just went very wrong.

Well I think it is irresponsible to have more children when you can't afford it and entirely the fault of the parent(s) if they fall further into poverty as a result.

Why should people who have been responsible subsidise those that are not?

This. Perhaps you can explain what the benefit is to the Tories?

I do agree in principle, however there are two reasons against - 1) it's not the child's fault, and 2) the main point of the op, it doesn't work!

Sorry but I fail to see why the taxpayer should pay for people to keep having more children without the means to support them

Because otherwise the children suffer. See username.

Because it never does anyone any favours in the long run keeping families in poverty. As a country we end up paying a bigger price on the whole when you look at the toll on mental health services ect too.

Well anyone so irresponsible to have children they cannot support themselves are not likely to focus handouts on the children are they.
So the children suffer because of the parent whether benefits are paid or not.

The moral dimension to Toryism is that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor. It's the only logical extension to the Tory belief that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich.

Tory welfare is all about teaching the poor not to be poor. Which anyone who paid the slightest bit of notice to any of their policies will have noticed.

I wouldn't necessarily say that just because someone has more children than they have money for means that they won't spend what money they have on their children and go without themselves. Mostly quite the opposite in fact.

What is also to say that one party hasn't become disabled ect after having the 3rd or 4th child which they could've afforded at the time. Circumstances change.

Yeah because having 3 children they could afford at the time absolutely guarantees that the father doesn't leave or die. Best give the 3rd up for adoption now they can't afford it eh?

It may not have pushed those families into jobs but how do you measure the children we don't have because of it?

I don't think we are seeing as many families with seven and eight kids

Because sadly its the innocent children who are already born into disadvantage who suffer. I agree though, I don't know anyone on decent wages who have more than 2 or 3 children, finances play a key part in making a responsible decision as you know there's no one there to pick up the tab for you. There's no moral or ethical right for people to need more than 2 children.

Ummm... there is just so much wrong with that approach. It's responsible to have 17 children provided you are in work and not on benefits? Being in work doesn't mean that you can afford children, and this countries approach to child poverty is punitive - and doesn't work as such! It is the children who suffer most from that poverty, and the consequences of child poverty is a continuing cycle that means they are more and more likely to become the parents of children in poverty in the future.

And I also find it kind of disturbing that so many people on this site are fine with children living in poverty but absolutely hacked off that high earning families can't claim child benefit. Kind of two-faced hypocrisy, isn't it?

The thing is, I kind of understand why people think this way. Don't get me wrong - I am far to the left of just about anyone (my main worry about Jeremy Corbyn was that he is a little too far to the right for my liking 😀) and contrary to popular opinion about the left, I am amongst those that actually have no time for a society based on either worklessness or excessive wealth in the hands of the few. But this simplistic "people are out of work because they are too lazy to work / benefits are too good" approach might make a good sound bite, but it makes rubbish policy - as shown here.

If you want people to work then there is nothing that bad about making it impossible to avoid working - but you have to meiate that with ensuring that there really are opportunities to work. If childcare is too expesnive for those on middle / high incomes (and everyone on this site seems to spend half their time posting about that being the case) then it is simply unaffordable for those on low incomes to enable them to work. If the education system can't or won't do it's job in skilling up a workforce, then post-eduation skills and training has to be accessible and viable. If you want to wield a stick, you must also have carrots. The problem with Tory polices are that they love trumpetting the sticks, but they have no carrots. And that is for a simple reason - Tories like to have a lumpen proletariat. It is good to have an underclass that gives everyone else a target to blame for all of societies ills, to leave us all fearful that if we fall from grace we could end up there. Those in extreme poverty have a social function that involves keeping the rest of us in line based on our own fears of ending up like them, whilst giving us someone to look down on.

If you want people to work then there is nothing that bad about making it impossible to avoid working -

By the same token, there is everything bad about making it impossible to live by working.

And I also find it kind of disturbing that so many people on this site are fine with children living in poverty

They're not, but some probably get frustrated that some take zero personal responsibility yet the state is expected to. We have one child because although we are okay financially it'd be a stretch with more than one and unfair on our child. In an ideal world I'd have liked another, but part of being a parent isn't putting your selfish wants above what's best for your existing children.

1. The children will suffer and they have done nothing wrong

1. No contraception is 100%

1. It can be quite hard to get an abortion, vasectomy or sterilisation.

1. This policy doesn't help anyone. It costs taxpayers money and only does harm.

1. The Tories were told it would by everyone with a clue in the sector.

1. They did it anyway.

1. It's hard not to conclude that punishing poor people is the aim. Maybe they think of it like a sport? Like hunting or fishing, or making asylum seekers wait 3 years for their application to be processed.

Because sometimes people's circumstances can change and decline very rapidly? And that can happen to literally anyone. Because if we don't support these families a history of poverty is likely to repeat itself? Because supporting the most vulnerable members of society is the right thing to do? Because the repercussions of poverty affect the whole of our society?

It's disingenuous to suggest that the majority of people plan effectively and have enough to be financially comfortable before conceiving and then fall on hard times. Sure some do, plenty of people consciously have more children than they can afford. Lots of people have to make very challenging decisions and be very careful with contraception when they have to finance their children themselves.

It's a balance between offering compassion and deterring freeloaders.

What the left seem to be unable to grasp is that if you advertise that you are a doormat, then you'll find more and more and more and exponentially more people start walking over you! You may have been able to sustain 10 people walking over you, but suddenly that becomes 100, 1000, 10k, 100k and at that point, you will be ruined. At that point, it's TOO LATE, you had to have taken action earlier when you could actually afford it.

Because sometimes people's circumstances can change and decline very rapidly? And that can happen to literally anyone.

Sure, but that’s what insurances and savings are for. And if people didn’t have those then they couldn’t afford a child even when times were superficially good. Being able to weather storms is part of being a responsible parent.

It is perfectly possible to have several children when you can afford it, and to then fall on hard times through no fault of your own...

Like my SIL for instance, whose DH died and left her a widow with three small children aged 5 and under.

You have no idea what "the left" believe. There is no common "the left" any more than there is a common "the right".

I do agree - which is why a said that I have neither time for worklessness nor excessive wealth in the hands of the few. You quoted half a sentence out of context.

The purpose wasn't to get people into work nor make people poorer. It was just to get votes. That's it. It's a popular policy, as it the benefit cap and I think bedroom tax. So it has succeeded.