To think the 2-child benefit cap is fine?

[RealHousewivesOfTaunton]

I was surprised to find out today that the 2-child benefit cap doesn't affect the housing element of UC or child benefit. With that in mind, what's the big deal with the cap? Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

A vote at least settles it. MPs can move on

Don’t be daft. They can’t “move on”. Child poverty still has to be tackled.

Re asking for it to be lifted specifically. Why keep asking if you know it’s voted down

I can’t see the vote reoccurring soon. It’s been in the media for about a week and I don’t see they’ll keep talking about lifting it

And no not “daft” media cycles work on building pressure and a vote moves the discussion on.

Yes, the discussion moves on
It moves on to how to tackle child poverty if the benefit cap is not going to be lifted immediately. The issue of child poverty - a disgrace to this country - does not disappear because the benefit cap isn’t lifted.

I was referring to the benefit cap. A Labour MP who has just voted no can’t apply pressure on that specific policy change anymore. Only seven voted against it.

No suggestion poverty disappears and Labour can decide what else to do

It wasn’t a free vote. It was whipped because it was an amendment to the King’s speech.

In France it’s the opposite. Government policy is actively pro-natalist in many ways and larger families are supported by the state. Many of my kids friends are from families with 3, 4, 5 kids - and these are generally pretty well-off families. Benefit payments increase with the number of children, there are various ‘primes’ (grants) for school supplies etc, larger families can apply for discounts on public transport, longer parental leave is available

Of course, child care is subsidised by the state from day one right through to school age so that is one massive expense that French parents don’t have. And before / after school care is heavily subsidised.

i think the underlying belief is that more children = good for the country as a whole. and France is basically a socialist country. I don’t think people in the UK really approve of large families, and they certainly don’t seem very keen to support them financially.

I’m aware of the whip. Labour MPs won’t return to this specific policy

What are you expecting though, that they will?

Yes, they will have to eventually.

I think you haven't met enough abusive men. There were several couples at my dcs primary school who had more than two dcs. The mums were always miserable and the dad was an abusive shit.
As there isn't a magic wand to allow mums to get away from these men then I don't begrudge them extra UC / TC money.

These people are a relic from a bygone era that should be in a museum to show how they lost Labour the 2019 election.

They are just laughable clowns, detached from reality. Starmer should crack down even harder if he wants to achieve economic growth to pay for freebies as he says he does.

Starmer needs to be tougher with these clowns if anything.

It’s not about Palestine with these people. They have a history. Moyle is nasty piece of work who screams down gender critical MPs, in parliament, in front of everyone watching. An utterly deplorable character.

Abbott and Corbyn. Well, if these are the people we want in parliament then then the bar is below sea level.

Yes, I agree. It makes a change to have a PM strong enough to clamp down on unaffordable idealism.👍

People saying "we can't afford it" and "why should we pay for people who have more kids than they can afford" are missing the point. It has been proven that the child benefit cap does not deter low income families from having more children.

Since we know the cap is ineffective, those arguing to keep it are doing so purely on 'principle'. We all agree that children living in poverty is unacceptable, but those saying "yes, but why should I pay for them?" don't seem to realise they're paying anyway. Poverty is hard on the human body, and places an extra burden on the NHS. Schools are increasingly subsidising the families of children living in poverty which means cutting back elsewhere. Children in poverty are more likely to need intervention from already overstretched social care services. All these things cost money. A welfare system that is compassionate and actually works isn't just a moral requirement, its important for the health of our public services.

Parents who take responsibility for their 3 children after their spouse walks away are affected but the parent who walks away can have two more children with a new partner and claim benefits for them (and avoid maintenance).

Stricter rules on maintenance needed which takes into account all assets and a parent choosing to work on less money to pay less maintenance.

And surely if the benefit cap is meant to stop the feckless having more kids then Future children should not reduce maintenance paid by a non resident parent.

I’ve not got time to read the full thread at the minute so apologies if it’s already been mentioned but the criteria for qualifying for carers allowance is not that high. You “just” have to have a child on middle or higher rate care on dla. There is a hell of a lot of people that would be entitled to carers allowance based on their child’s dla but don’t qualify as they are working so their income is above the threshold. We both work full time I’m in a fairly decent paid job but dh earns not much over minimum wage for full time in a warehouse. He changed to this job so we can be more flexible for ds who is autistic and in special school, dh starts work very early and does pick up as there are no after school clubs in special schools. It’s bloody hard at times juggling things but dh earns more than he’d get on carers so it’s worth him working if carers was increased to level of min wage as some people suggest he would definitely give up work, and that’s what the chancellor has to factor into her decision, not just increasing carers allowance for existing claims but the number of people that would then leave the workplace to claim carers. I know of alot of people with similar type children to mine so no different care needs as such but one of them has had to give up work due to other factors eg. Child being out of school due to delays with getting ehcp, Sen school transport being totally inflexible, lack of before/after school care at special schools and mainstream schools not accepting Sen children at clubs due to staffing, no childcare available in holidays- I could go on and on with this reasons. Personally I would prefer the government to fix these things that would enable parents of disabled children to work rather than just throw money and make it so it’s no longer worthwhile working. Obviously there are severely disabled children who require 24 hour constant care at a high level including someone staying awake through the night and that is a completely different situation and it’s not possible for one or both parents to work, I would totally support more money going to that type of parent but not everyone who qualifies for carers through dla middle or higher rate care.

I think there should be either the two child cap OR the benefits cap but not both.
I have more objections to the benefits cap, as it penalises families who have to privately rent in expensive areas. Removing that would take a lot of children out of poverty

Who would you class as severely disabled?
My son goes to a special school too for children with severe and profound learning disabilities
He gets the highest rates of DLA I'm both care and mobility under SMI rules
He's 14 ,but cognitively around 2/3 years of age
But a lot more able the children in his schools ie those with profound and multiple learning disabilities who are in wheel chairs unsble to move ,on oxygen, tube fed,I don't think it's quite as simple as youvthink and everyone's circumstances are different

i don’t think it’s simple at all!! It’s massively complicated and there will be variations due to circumstances and I don’t know where the bar should be set. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t get carers as it is now it’s that if carers allowance was raised to 35 hours at minimum wage they’d be a hell of a lot of parents giving up work that presently do work my dh included. My friends son gets middle rate care for autism/adhd and she filled the form in honestly and he qualified (no mobility) but he goes to mainstream school, doesn’t need an ehcp and is getting on well, can walk to school independently, can be left at home alone for several hours at a time. Don’t get me wrong he is significantly more difficult to deal with than a nt child of same age and stills needs her to sort certain things for him that nt child could sort themselves but he is no where near the level of need your child is. Likewise my sons needs are much higher than her sons but not as much as your sons

Agreed. A 3 line Whip for the King's Speech is the norm.

I'd like to see the cap abolished or reconsidered and I think the rape clause is demeaning but this is not the time to defy the government. I'm beyond furious with my MP. I've already spoken to my local councillor who says he had no idea that he was going to do this. He agrees with me about the policy but fully understands my view that I voted for a Labour MP, not one who's going to be sitting as an Independent for a minimum period of six months. These MPs were warned and knew what would happen.

The cap wasn't instigated because of cost but purely as part of Cameron's and Osborne's disastrous austerity plan, serving no purpose except as part of their ideological attack of the poorest. It's shameful to see how embedded it's become in political discourse and with those who probably call themselves left-wing.

But it would cost to remove it and I think it needs to be looked at as part of the wider strategy to address child poverty. I don't think it's appropriate for elected Labour MPs to be defying the Whip at this point.

Yup. It would cost £3billion a year to remove. We need to be focused on growth as that is what will help every child in the UK. We also need to look at other ways to support children in low income homes - free school meals, subsidised breakfast and after school clubs so their parents can work. Another option is additional benefits only for those with any child under 5 - once all school age, UC benefits only for 2. That could be difficult to administrate but it is important to demonstrate the value of work to children as well - so the cycle is broken

Wow, I'd abandoned the thread after the first response (I did check Active for existing threads first) but there's been lots of discussion since then.

FWIW I was a single mum on benefits. I know all too well that feeling of being judged and looked down upon, mainly by my exH who sneered at me while threatening to withhold child maintenance. CMS payments absolutely need to be looked at and I agree with NRPs being held to a baseline payment. If the state thinks that a child needs £287 a month, that should be the minimum CMS payment. It's ridiculous that so many absent parents get away with paying paltry amounts or nothing at all. It would make the men affected think twice before having children they can't afford to support. ExH is now on his 4th child with 2 ex-wives and 1 ex-gf and has just moved in with his latest gf 🙄

A strong argument to me for lifting the cap is removing a financial barrier to women leaving abusive relationships.

That could be difficult to administrate but it is important to demonstrate the value of work to children as well - so the cycle is broken.

Right. Let’s educate children in the value of work by forcing them to go hungry? Are you mad?