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

Over 65% of these children are in families where one or more of the parents work part time. This is by far the largest group of children in poverty.

Part time can be as little as 12 hours a week.

Chart is here. It's very informative.

https://stateofchildhealth.rcpch.ac.uk/evidence/family-and-social-environment/child-poverty/#:~:text=70%25%20of%20children%20in%20poverty,at%20least%20one%20parent%20works.&text=The%20risk%20of%20poverty%20for,to%20reach%2052%25%20in%202021.

If work doesn't pay enough to cover childcare...

I'll give you a clue:

"teach" is not "encourage". Quite apart from the spelling, the meanings are different.

I said:

Tory welfare is all about teaching the poor not to be poor.

The fact you chose to read it as "encourage" is on you.

Why do you need childcare if only one parent works?

What's wrong with teaching someone not to be poor? If you're so wedded to that word?

Surely teaching is as much about teaching a new skill as it is encouraging someone to use it?

And presumably depressed people should just cheer up then ?

Why do they work part time? Childcare responsibilities and the fact that working full time removes any and all extra help you may get with chikdcate costs etc. Still comes back to the same point.

It doesn't come to the same point, look at the chart.

If only one parent works, and they only work part time then how can anyone even expect to support a family on say, 16 hours a week? if that parent worked FT then the percentage of children in poverty drops sharply. The family still get the help they are entitled to, because they have a joint claim. Child benefit is not affected. Housing element is the same.

And there is no need for child care. The second parent can work PT, if that suits.

Only to the value of £210 a week per claim.

Again, if you look at the charts, the most child poverty is in families where only one parent works, part time. They aren't even using the £210.

Even £210 worth of childcare will make a big difference, when used.

Have you ever thought about why people in starving nations keep giving birth? Are these people lazy scroungers in your opinion?

@ChardonnaysBeastlyCat
aren't these families mainly single parents? So yes they might work part time and claim £210 for childcare?

No.

Single parents are on a separate graph.

My great grandma used to tie my grandma to her high chair then leave her in the care of great grandpa who was crippled by tuberculosis and go off to her job.

Is that the kind of thing you mean @ChardonnaysBeastlyCat
Because you can't think of any reason why both parents wouldn't be working?

No, that's not I mean and you know that very well.

Yes I work in many of these countries actually. High birth rates are often because of a lack of access to contraception, a stigma around using contraception, traditional social norms that pressure women to keep giving birth, women’s lack of autonomy in their sexual relationships and sometimes as a strategy to ensure you are taken care of in old age by your children (no pensions, social security etc).

Women in the UK have none of these hurdles, at least a population level. So they really should be exercising better decision making about how many (or ideally how few) children to bring into the world at other people’s expense.

I think we can get so focused on 'they shouldn't have children they can't afford' and forget we are all living in an interlinked society. The children born to those families didn't chose to be born and now they are here they are members of our society not belongings of the parents. We should be ensuring all members in our society have the basics of food, warmth and shelter no matter if they are the first born or fourth born to a low income family. Low earning working families shouldn't be placed in the same bracket as people choosing not to work just because they need benefits to support their income. The problem is a low wage no longer supports providing the basics.

second you've not met the nasty shitty men who live in my estate whose partners do keep having children. The women are so downtrodden it doesn't look like they have a choice.

@megletthesecond I did say at a population level, but point taken.

Women in the UK have none of these hurdles, at least a population level. So they really should be exercising better decision making about how many (or ideally how few) children to bring into the world at other people’s expense.

@Secondwindplease I know you kind of already acknowledged this but almost by definition anyone making choices that aren't really in their own best interests or that of their children, is likely dealing with some significant life challenges or personal limitations. We all play the hand we're dealt. Apart from the fact that I don't agree with the premise that having children is a societal detriment, of course we should be encouraging and helping people to make better decisions. But a punitive approach, particularly one that ultimately impacts the children negatively, is manifestly counterproductive. Ehat actually works is much longer-term thinking, investment and intervention, and the govt we have are unfortunately ideologically opposed to that approach, as well as having little electoral incentive for any proper long-term thinking.

This.

Because people who don’t understand these implications are still very much human beings.
We live in a society.

The children would be better off elsewhere in many cases. It's a shame there aren't an abundance of safe, warm homes with ample food for them to go to.

Can't tell if you are just really ignorant or trolling us.