'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.

Until this was asked as a “labour” question, most people on MN entirely agreed with the two child policy (see old threads etc).

I agree it’s sensible. Women can also be forced to have more children by men who want more money. It’s not a simple issue. And we really need to reduce global population and not encourage bigger families.

I suspect most MNers don’t remember what it was like when labour were in power: more money for schools, NHS shortest waiting times ever, NHS dentists readily available, infrastructure to make access easier for people with mobility issues, green grants for home insulation, money not siphoned off in the billions to obscenely rich donors.

but yes all the same I’m sure

Me too. Absolutely have as many children as you can afford but I don’t think the taxpayer should be footing the bill for unlimited children.

The thing is everyone supports subsidising expensive childcare for parents who earn a lot of money. This childcare subsidies cost more than the 3rd child tax credits that would've been given out.

They are both benefits, except one is deemed acceptable because the money is going to working people who earn.

Working benefits going to people to earn or are studying makes perfect sense - enabling women/parents to have the option to stay in the workplace or education is absolutely the best thing for society.

This. I agree with the 2 child cap.

What an utterly gross comment.

No it is not.

The Chinese one-child rule was appalling, a modern day horror imposed with the utmost cruelty, imposing forced abortions and sterilisations.

The two child benefit rule simply reduces the load on tax payers, many of whom have limited their own families because of the expense.

Fully agree on the two child cap. The country cannot afford for people to be popping out children like pinball machines.

Not sure what's gross about it, but you are entitled to your opinion; as am I.

Declining population and a growing tax burden. "The country" needs more women popping out more children.

Ok but why do they need to come from people who are reliant on child benefit to raise them? We need more children maybe but maybe not ones that the taxpayer needs to pay for perhaps? (yes, i know, my comment is gross etc etc)

Declining population and a growing tax burden. "The country" needs more women popping out more children

And I have no problem with that, as long as the parents pay for them.

No point funding somebody to have loads of children of those children then also live of the state. That only makes the problem worse rather than better.

of those children then also live of the state

if those children also live off the state.

Ok but why do they need to come from people who are reliant on child benefit to raise them? We need more children maybe but maybe not ones that the taxpayer needs to pay for perhaps

Nail
on
head

"The taxpayer" subsidises ALL children born in the UK. We're facing an ever growing tax burden thanks to our ageing population, so the only credible solutions to that problem in the mid to long-term involve upping the birth-rate to redress the balance. More children = a larger workforce and larger tax take, so we should be encouraging ALL women to have children, even if that means the State has to subsidise some to a greater degree than others.

The idea that this country is, in any way, going to become better off by discouraging women from having children is risible.

Starmer is a Tory. Controlled opposition, same as Blair.

I'm very left. I do think for the sake of the planet, we should not encourage people to have more than two kids. But those that are here should not live in poverty either.

The cap doesn’t apply to multiple births.

I do agree with it too - it is reasonable to restrict some benefits to two children only.

No I think that’s reasonable.

They'll detonate a bomb in education with their private school fees plans. Fine, plan a long term programme to gradually remove private school - make the case for it. But don't cause overnight chaos. It's so irresponsible.

It's perfectly possible to make your point without characterising women as 'pushing out' children. It's demeaning and insulting to both the women and the children.

EVERYONE gets child benefit regardless of income.

@MistyGreenAndBlue no they don't

Thank you for pointing out that the Chinese one-child policy was nothing like the benefits cap.

I can't believe anyone would think the benefits cap is "on a par" with the one-child policy unless they were completely ignorant about it.

You have to pay it back (if you claim it) once you earn 60k so not sure what you are on about. It's also tapered after 50k!

Well IMO we really shouldn't be encouraging women who are reliant on child benefit or benefits in general to have more children. It's not the best case scenario for the child if the parent is reliant on it for starters.