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

[IwantToRetire]

Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed that Labour will not scrap the two-child benefit cap and the so-called rape clause.

In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, the Labour leader refused to be drawn on a number of other spending commitments but was definite on the policy recently described by his Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Jon Ashworth as “heinous”.

The two-child policy was introduced by George Osborne in his 2015 budget. It came into effect in 2017 after MPs backed the measure in the House of Commons.
It means that households claiming child tax credit or universal credit are unable to claim for a third or subsequent child born after 6 April 2017.

Earlier this week, the latest statistics revealed that 1.5 million children were growing up in families impacted by the cap. Children's charities, including Barnados and the Child Poverty Action Group have said this "tax on siblings" is the "biggest driver of rising child poverty in the UK today."

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/rape-clause-row-keir-starmer-090500712.html

There are lots of posters on FWR who feel alienated from Labour, some have even been kicked out.

But then other posters say anything is better than the Tories.

So without listing all the sins of the Tories, it would be really interesting to see information of proposed and actual Labour policies that will be good for women.

I mean actualyl centred on the reality of women's lives, not on the notion that women's rights should go to the back of the queue and women should sacrifice themselves for the "greater good".

Or in fact is the difference between the Tories and Labour wafer thin with nothing but self id being the dividing line.

Labour make me despair. Sarwar in Scotland also saying the same. Utterly depressing.

I can't answer your question but I just want to say this policy (two child benefit cap) makes me very sad. On a thread a few weeks ago was a low-income mum in an overcrowded council house, and she was pregnant with a surprise but wanted baby... so many comments were saying she should abort. And, practically, that might be the best thing. But it breaks my heart that we live in a society where a loving mum would have to abort a wanted baby because she can't afford it. And most of my friends and family call me conservative (small c). Domestic birth rates are so low in this country, we should celebrate mums and babies.

Labour are looking more and more like the Tory party, its ridiculous, i understand the need to be prudent and avoid the tax and spend shite the Mail will throw at them but people need some hope after 13 years of the Tories but Starmer is offering none at all.

The 2 kids benefit rule is awful, one of the worst things the Cons have done to the family, on par with china's former one child rule.

What is Labour's stance on abortion?

Will no doubt get flamed but I agree with the cap. No one needs to have 3 children. Three children is a luxury.

Gods this is awful. Every Western country goes on about the declining birth rate but does nothing to help mothers!
Immigration is a huge expense...maybe less of that and a big allowance for those mothers who want a big family.

My sister fell pregnant with a much wanted second child, after secondary infertility and miscarriages.

Only, she naturally conceived twins.

What should she have done, to avoid this "third child"? Selectively aborted one of her twins?

If the UK had a 2 child policy (like China had a 1 child policy) it would be different.

But the reality there are any number of reasons why someone might have a 3rd child, and sometimes it isn't a choice.

What if your second pregnancy was twins. Are you supposed to give one away, or not feed it as well.

Also in situations of coercive control many women go ahead with pregnancies they didn't want to begin with.

Or like many in this country thought they were living well within their means for 3 or 4 children and then events happened. External like Covid and Ukraine, or personal, like illness or accident.

The 2 kids benefit rule is awful, one of the worst things the Cons have done to the family, on par with china's former one child rule. This from @Howpo is exactly my sentiment.

And, like China, it is going to bite us in the bum. Domestic birth rates are way under replacement level: without substantial and increasing immigration we are going to be such an aging society our health services (and other services) will be crippled and there will be widespread health catastrophe. Within a generation or two. I'm not exaggerating if you look at the stats.

In China they're now desperately giving out tax rebates and other incentives to parents but it's too late. Smaller flats were built, and culturally people got used to having fewer children.

Multiple births are excluded from the policy.

I do wonder if Starmer is actively trying to lose. This is insane. It seems like, under Labour, nothing much will especially change, with the notable exception that things for women and children will get worse at light speed. Why are they doing this?

I also agree. Plus under labour the poorest people will be better cared for so money should go further

Politicians are often complaining we aren't having enough kids. The Tories recently had the cheek to complain despite the 2 child limit and the general financial mess that makes even having 1 or 2 tough with childcare and cost of living.

@Vebrithien thankfully multiples are not included in the cap, unless you have twins first and then a third child. But if you have a first child and then twins, the cap doesn't apply.

So apart from not getting rid of the rape clause (that requires women to disclose rape which they might not want to) where Labour is in line with the Tories, what are Labour proposing that is different from the Tories (excluding self ID)

Housing? Education? NHS? Asylum seekers?

In what way will we be better cared for? It's a statement of hope overrriding logic and political understanding. Reeves has said many times that she plans to crack down on benefits claimants for example. What if Sunak decides to drop the 2-child cap? Even if it's kept it makes Labour no better than the Tories.

Well, that's a relief for my sister (thank you)

You know what I am again utterly unsurprised. Labour don't give a fuck. They will slur and smear the Tories for certain policies that they will then maintain themselves. Bunch of sleekit buggers, the lot of them.

I agree, when Blair was campaigning in 95/96/97, he gave hope of change, whilst accepting things wouldn't be easy.

Starmer is promising more of the same, i understand that in terms of spending commitments but this 2 child rule is not particularly cost effective, all its really doing is punishing the family with the 3rd child, i mean why not make it 1 child or none at all... the logic is the same.

I maybe gave this thread the wrong title but there are so many threads where a few regular posters turn up telling us how wrong we are not to get rid of the Tories I really thought that maybe at least one would come and tell us what was positive in voting Labour.

Or is it in fact there is nothing positive.

The only reason to vote Labour is to get rid of the Tories?

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. As for Labour, they're pathetic and do nothing except slag off the Conservative party without offering any real solutions. Hard to imagine what Labour would or could do to improve things these days ( except erode women's rights even further).

The 2 child cap affects mothers more than fathers though right?
A man may father children with several women with no penalties, but the recipient of child benefit, usually the mother is penalised.
Well. The children are penalised with poverty through no fault of their own.

That's great. But what about the future? Death, illness, loss of job, divorce?
What happens then?
That happened to me and I was plunged into poverty and social stigma to boot.

Taxpayers should not be paying for women to sit at home, (also paid for by taxpayers) push out more children and claim so many benefits they are better off than decent, hard-working people! Benefits should be a last resort for those in real hardship.

I don't think it's unreasonable to try to disincentivise the poorest mothers from having very large families, but I can't think this is the way to do it - once a child has been born into a poor family, depriving them of £ that bit further is about the worst thing government could do for the family's chances. I'd prefer something like an incentive for the very poorest mothers to get sterilised after two kids - maybe they could be given a grant roughly worth an extra year or so's worth of child benefits or something.