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

Still voting Tory now, eh ?

Personally, no, never. Not dead.

I doubt you'll win Tory voters over with that tone, either, TBH.

Oh they do. They were quite explicit about "making work pay". Starving those who don't is the inevitable corollary.

I don't know why nobody at Conservative HQ has ever discovered the carrot, though, since they are so terrified of people needing tax £s.

The benefit is it's a vote winner.

I get sick of the irresponsibility narrative. I had 4 children in a two parent family, both of us working full time on good salaries.
One of my children got a brain injury. Something that any of your kids could get too through illness or accident. My husband couldn't cope, had a breakdown and left us. I had to give up work to manage all the appointments and hospital stays, let alone my own grief. I can only claim benefits for two of my children though. Because somehow people think that the youngest two don't need to eat or wear clothes

Because I had a good job then I had children suddenly I was incompetent and unreliable then managed out its really not that hard to work out

Where I used to live (a town renowned for its poverty) people used to have as many dc as possible to get the maximum benefits. This has definitely decreased now.

Many of the dc weren't well looked after but the money still flowed in. Giving money also doesn't equate to happy dc.
People who have dc they can't afford have dc that risk being at a disadvantage in life. We can keep trying to limit the dc disadvantages, education imo being the number one priority but in the end they will usually be disadvantaged in some way or another.

This is why we chose to have 1 child, 4 is a lot even with decent salaries and both together.

I had a baby and then twins. Which one of them do you think I should have not had?

If the Tories want more people in work - increase the minimum wage so people really see the benefit of going to work. Companies can cover the cost of paying their junior workers more by reducing the obscene salaries and bonuses paid to their executives.

Ah yes, the undeserving poor argument 👏👏👏👏

🙄
you do need to get some life experience and find out that plenty of people

1. get made redundant or have other issues where their job ceases to exist
2. are on short term, gig jobs through TUPE events beyond their choosing
3. become physically unwell or develop a disability
4. become mentally ill
5. Have marriage breakdowns where main breadwinner leaves
6. have contraception failures - no contraception is 100% accurate

if you, your loved ones, your friends, has yet to be impacted by any of the above , thank your lucky stars, god or whatever but do not be so naive and arrogant to suppose this is n ver going to happy to you or someone you respect.

Still no need to have multiple children.

When it came to having our DC I had a very extreme as i grew up in poverty and it was shit, really really shit. People say at least you're here- yes but with lifelong issues stemming from it, I have a sibling who sadly is no longer is as a direct result of it. Affordability was a huge deal to me and I wouldn't have had a child if we couldn't work out safety nets. I'm confused when people bring up illness, the other parent leaving etc; surely this is something people should consider before having a child? I don't think people who can't afford it shouldn't have children, but what's wrong with having 2? I think lots under value the huge commitment children is and the effects of not being able to provide for them. It's sad. The best way to break the cycle is to discourage the support stepping in, of course children already born should be supported but I don't think it's unreasonable for people to take responsibility.

My neighbour has really struggled financially so we and many others have helped out, we all thought they were both hideous for planning a 3rd baby knowing they couldn't afford the 2 they had; and yes planned as they spoke about it a year before falling pregnanct.

"Still no need to have multiple children."
@Pugglemuggle so who will pay for your pension? Work in your nursing home when you're elderly or infirm? We actually need couples to have over 2 children to support the current system.

No we don't, the demographic is really skewed currently and the older population is outnumbering people of working age, it won't always be so. The planet and the country does not need people to have more people than they can afford. Its selfish and cruel to the children, people should also plan their finances and for different eventualities rather than just hoping things will work out

Sorry but given the attitude and work ethic (or lack of) of todays teenagers - never mind children who aren't born or are young- I'd be surprise if there'll be a pension in 30/40 years time! A lot of them seem to think they don't need to work or are too fragile to handle the grown up world of work and being told what to do by their boss. Everyone will have a label that precludes them from working and there'll be no pension pot for the above generation.

Bloody hell, that is the take you took from yoms post. Life can change in the blink of an eye and for yom and her child it certainly did.

Yom for you

Thank you @WhiteFire. It's interesting how people think terrible things can't possibly happen to them.

@molly1995 are you 28? My generation would have said the same about yours. It's just a perception everyone has about the next generation, doesn't make it true. I know plenty of hard workers of all ages.

Whatever your opinions on people's family planning, it is never the child's fault. Why would you want someone's children to live in poverty? It sounds like you want to punish them for their parents decisions. Even if you don't want them to have a better life for altruistic reasons you must realise that poverty affects crime levels, education levels and therefore the country's GDP etc?

I don’t think we can limit benefits for extra children because it would penalise the child, who didn’t ask to be born. I’d happily penalise the parents in other ways though. Reduced state pension perhaps? Conscripted work/volunteering hours?

I’m probably being a bit mean spirited but I grew up in near poverty as one of four siblings (six if you count step siblings). It was shit and I still can’t understand the sheer stupidity of my parents. I wish the state had put some kind of disincentive in place for their daft family (non)planning.

Turning 28 soon. Every generation will always have people who don't want to work/ are lazy/ insert excuse here, but seeing people now who think their employer should be grateful to have them, and as such they can do what they please is commonplace.

I'd hate to be employing someone, as these days everyone says they have x,y or z issue, so employers are scared to challenge them. As well as seeing so many parents insist kids can't work at school/ uni etc Incase it damages them.. the parents are half the problem. Really, some people shouldn't have kids

‘Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?‘ It always amazes me that this country has gone so far right as to be considering eugenics as being something acceptable and thinking that child poverty is a good way to prove an ideological point. Yes, it is irresponsible to have more children if you can't afford them. Will pushing them into poverty stop children being born which people can't afford? This shows that the answer is no. Didn't work in Victorian Britain when the punishment was shame, the workhouse, illness and death, won't work now. And in purely mercenary terms if your only end goal is keeping more money from your tax for yourself because you object paying for "other people's mistakes" (those mistakes being actual, innocent human beings); you will end up paying more in the long term when these kids end up poor, uneducated and unhealthy and quite possibly in and out of the criminal justice system. Remember what the ghost said to Scrooge: ‘This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom unless the writing be erased.’

The dodgy / struggling families in my horrible estate are still having kids. I don't think the women have much choice tbh. The tories don't care about them anyway.

It always amazes me that this country has gone so far right as to be considering eugenics as being something acceptable and thinking that child poverty is a good way to prove an ideological point.

It is starting to look like the only reason for defeating the Nazis was to nick their clothes.

I agree in principle but it's the children that suffer if feckless parents have too many of them, so there needs to be a safety net to keep children out of poverty. Childhood poverty has a huge impact on futures.

And you're never going to stop people having children if they want them.

so there needs to be a safety net to keep children out of poverty.

Why ?

Childhood poverty has a huge impact on futures.

<Tory mantra> Not mine

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.

what’s wrong with encouraging someone to get out of poverty? Or ‘teaching’ them not to be poor?

what’s wrong with working?