'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.

Pretty sure I have never received Child Benefit.

Child benefit should be scrapped completely. If you can't afford them don't have them.

Contraception is a thing. Used correctly, ‘accidents’ do not occur as often. People should not be having more children than they can afford.

The cap at 2 is perfectly reasonable. Being Labour doesn’t mean a free for all. But when the ‘self-ID’ bomb is dropped in, it becomes clear Labour can do no right until they say they’re anti trans. Reminds me of the Christian church I left who discussed Mr Cameron as the only believer and moral candidate. What they meant was ‘anti-gay’.

I think the two cap rule is fair. Surely if (some) woman/ teenagers think they can continue to have children at the expense of the tax payer then you can bet your bottom dollar there will be some mothers that will continue to have them, I mean why would they not? Sounds like a perfect plan if any of above just happens to be work shy. That's my opinion anyway, I'll wait until someone tells me how unfair im being.

Child Benefit was introduced as a mechanism for ensuring that a fraction of family income was under the control of the mother. It meant that male breadwinners didn't have total control. Don't lightly throw it away.

So what are you planning to do to encourage working, non benefit 'reliant' mothers to have more children, because fewer and fewer of those are, and removing benefits for third children does nothing to encourage those either.

At what point do you start euthanising pensioners? After all, if you're so aghast at people being dependant on welfare and benefits but are serious about dealing with the problem, that's your other option.

Rubbish, it’s means tested. We don’t get it and know very few people who do.

Starmer is promoting the active abolition of all protections for women through self-id. I've been saying for years he's a misogynist. Here is more proof.

Child Benefit was introduced as a mechanism for ensuring that a fraction of family income was under the control of the mother. It meant that male breadwinners didn't have total control. Don't lightly throw it away.

Excellent point JanesLittleGirl

If receiving child benefit for a third child is so important, you can’t really afford a third child can you.

In the short term I believe Immigration, is more cost effective as it does not take years to increase the workforce

Wether you think this or not this legislation is anti-women. How can you agree with a policy that leaves women financially destitute should the father either leave or take no responsibility? Contraception is not 100 per cent. Don't say child maintenance because that too is a joke.

That wouldn't be a healthy thing to do.
Nobody can deny a woman to become a mother. What if her financial circumstances improved and she wanted a third/fourth child well within her means?

Goodness I know a lot of threads are based on links from the Daily Mail etc., but am astounded at the remarks on this thread.

Nobody can care for a child with child benefit. It is merely as small token towards those bearing the cost of bringing up a child.

And for those who seem to think they can just assume what the policy was about it had absolutely nothing to do with reducing the population or children from what some on this thread seem to think are benefit scum.

The 2 child cap was supposed to encourage mothers back into work. But case what, most women's salaries are so low they cant afford to go to work and pay for child care.

Just astonished at what seems to be personal bigotary being attached to a policy which has nothing to do with these opinions.

Just wonder what commentators on this thread think about those using food banks.

Most people getting benefits are in work.

The idea that there are hundreds and thousands of families living off benefits because its earier than not working clearly have no idea of how much an adult can get, added to which because the amount of money you can get towards rent has also been restricted, you are more than likely to be in one room in a grotty hostel witth all your children or louse invested bedsit via a private landlord who has a deal with the local council.

Added to which as others have said, not enough children are being born to become the future work force this country needs.

Only today it was announced the Government has had to agree to another group of workers from other countries to be allowed to come and work here because we dont have the number of workers we need.

Having an opinion about what size other people's families should be is just an opinion.

This thread was meant to be about political decisions and how they are made.

If these personal beliefs are the basis on which people vote no wonder the UK is in the shit it is in.

In the past the anarchists and lefties liked to say in a superior sort of way "whoever you vote for the Government gets in" .

But reality is, as other has said, is we get the Governments we deserve. ie the politicians dole out what the think will appeal to the lowest common denominator even though they know it wont work. And then people go nothings working without thinking that's what I voted for.

I also agree with the 2 child limit. It seems fair that people should have the family they can afford.

However I would like to see the widowed parents benefit reinstated to child is 18 rather than the current 3 year post bereavement.

Don't you think there should be better legislation to make father's contribute? Why should it be the woman who suffers if the father walks out. Also what account families who might lose their jobs & then their savings due to mortgage rate increase.

What?
Bit blinking hard for the father / mother to contribute if they are dead!

I mean, this is only fiddling around the edges of the problem anyway, as 70% of the countries benefits bill is pensions. Until the triple lock is addressed, everything else is a red herring.

I agree with the 2 child benefit cap. While I understand that the ageing population of the UK will need caring for etc, I don't think the planet needs more super-consumers born into this western growth economy. Few of us chose to procreate out of a sense of duty to society; people just 'want a baby'. Nobody seriously needs more than 2 of those.

And while I'm at it, I would love to see means-testing of child benefit and redistribution of the funds which would be thus released. Many of the children I work with are growing up in the kind of poverty most of us don't imagine still exists. I find it so frustrating that they get the same child benefit as a worker whose salary keeps a secure roof over their family's head, pays for groceries and clothes and allows them to spend the equivalent of their child benefit on music lessons or drama classes. I'd love to see the poorest children given so much more.

Child benefit is means tested & has been for a long time

A couple of points that need clarifying.

Child benefit (family allowance as it was then called) was introduced to ensure that part of the family wage reached hard pressed house wives struggling to feed children. In the days when men were paid cash on a Friday, if the man went to the pub or the bookies on the way home, too many families ended up starving. The method of payment has changed but the need to ensure at least some funds get to the home maker remains. @JanesLittleGirl is right. Child benefit is an essential safety net and must stay.

And it may not happen in your circles OP, but there are plenty who see additional children as a revenue source. It has always gone on. After my little sis was born, my df tried to persuade my dm to have baby no. 6 so he could give up work and live off benefits. I know one woman today who has just had daughter no 4 at 22 because she wants a house not a flat.

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.

I agree with this. No-one's stopping you having more than two kids, they're just not giving you additional funding if you do. And I don't know anyone that receives child benefit, they pay for their own kids. As a result most stop at one or two children.

We complain about the lack of social housing and the pressure on schools and the NHS on one hand but support additional benefits for large families? We already have a high population that's putting considerable pressure on public services and infrastructure.

I agree, when we dictate a woman's fertility down to the amount in their bank account we are worse than the poor villages in the world where family is their life but live in poverty.

Not really.. as animals surely children isn't a luxury it is a natural instinct..

Although I agree in part with not subsiding other children, I do have concern that the expectation and decision on another woman's body will crossover. Why a man is exempt but not a woman is unjust and casts hostility solely at her feet.