'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.

CBA, you're right. I should have been more specific, and not illustrative. I want the means-testing to be more stringent: if you can afford to house, clothe and feed your DC on your income, you don't need CB. I ache when people tell me they put their CB "in a uni fund" or use it for holiday spending money (or as in my examples above). Sure, those things benefit the children in those families, but the money could be put to better use elsewhere, in families where there is real poverty.
I get that the intention to provide the main carer (a mother, most frequently) with a separate source of money is important, and that financially controlling spouses exist in all salary brackets, but I feel certain that, for every woman stuck in a financially controlled and coercive relationship, there are hundreds who are not, who are on a healthy joint income (both incomes just below upper limit for CB) and don't actually need CB. There need to be more effective and targeted ways of supporting women in financially abusive relationships.

I think (some) men should be actually pay for their children. Too many men are not paying their share leaving women in poverty. This is always framed as women’s fault when most of the time it’s not.

This policy only hurts women and children. There are three women in my crappy estate with multiple children by what appears to be clearly abusive men. I don't think the women get a choice in more children. If you saw how nasty the dads are and how broken the mums look when walking alone you wouldn't think this policy is a good idea.

Don't have a problem with a two child cap on benefits.

If Labour announced they were removing it, I would see this as shorthand for 'we are going to give all the money to the feckless poor'.

Which is why Labour don't have it as a policy.

No doubt they will have plenty of other stupid ideas. I see we plan to pay unions to spend more time out of the office on training days. Perhaps a war on Iran this time. At least let's not encourage more people to have large families they can't afford.

I have never had so little money as when my partner earned too much for me to get child benefit and my disabled child's needs stopped me working. I had literally nothing then we had debt collectors turn up because he had not paid a bill and I cleared my savings to keep the car from being taken.

If a family doesn't qualify for CB they should take the equivalent directly from the father (if he's the high earner) and give to mother.

Or something I don't know but the needs of women and their children are being lost in this "don't have more kids than you can afford" mantra. That's not the biggest problem. I literally can't earn because there isn't childcare/available school places for disabled children like my kiddo. I know sooo many mums who are in situations like me I don't know a single dad who gave up work for their disabled child and most of these mums only have access to the benefits not his wage that's if the dad doesn't leave because it's better financially and freedom for him not to stay.

It is a tricky one- no-one has a right to multiple children that they can't afford. the situation described " a low-income mum in an overcrowded council house, and she was pregnant with a surprise but wanted baby.." doesn't really make me that sympathetic- there is such a thing as contraception. But there are so many situation where this doesn't work - losing jobs etc after having more than 2 children and ultimately the people to suffer are the children and that should never be the case that the policy should be scrapped. I do think people need to be encouraged/incentivized away from a life on benefits but it isn't the biggest problem and shouldn't be the headline news - Labour should be looking to help the poorest people, to give people a living wage and not to kick them when they're down - thats the job of the tories
PurpleBugz I thought with child benefit one parent (generally the mother/lower earner) could claim it and then it was just clawed back through the tax system from the highest earner- at least thats what happened to us

But that utterly gross comment is why Starmer isn’t including a change to this particular “demonise poor people” policy as a manifesto commitment. He knows that, if he did, the Mail would run a series of “benefit scroungers” front pages.

Miriam Cates started her “future party leader” campaign with that profile in the importance of families and the importance of mothers, and then - instead of pointing to the destructive and failed policies of George Osborne, escalating house prices, reductions in spending power, as barriers to couples starting families - she blamed “wokism”. So in her world view, families are important but it’s ok for some children to live in poverty if you don’t like their parents.

on the importance of

Prince Philip thought people were having too many children. They were a burden on society. He had four kids himself of course and didn't pay tax.
It seems quite a lot of people agree with him. How depressing.

@ArcticSkewer If Labour announced they were removing it, I would see this as shorthand for 'we are going to give all the money to the feckless poor'.

Which is why Labour don't have it as a policy.

I hope this is what’s happening. It’s the same with Brexit, if Labour even mentioned that Brexit is a financial disaster for this country, which it factually is, the Tory’s and every media outlet would be twisting the remark and saying Labour will be taking us back into the EU.

Posters are seeming to forget that child tax credits which now come under UC was also an in work benefit. (This is where the 2 child rule applies not CB). Not everyone claiming it is sat around 'pushing out children like a pinball machine '

But have your froth, the title is like a flame to the moths who would never usually post in this dark corner of MN. They don't care, just want the opportunity to froth.

The way this thread has gone is slightly astonishing to me.

So many people seem to demonise "rich privileged kids", private schools, "the elite" etc. Yet, the same people (I assume they are the same people) say that this country "doesn't need" more poor women to have babies. As if rich women produce better babies...?!

This country, factually, statistically, really needs more babies. Please, look at countries with an aging population and low birth rate. Or just go to villages/towns in the uk that are losing their young people. It's not just a bad thing for our economy and health care system, it's tragic for the culture and feel of a place. And it's a slippery slope. Once your country's birth rate declines, its extremely difficult to claw it back.

One of my ex-boyfriends came from a low income family who were in receipt of various benefits. He wasn't a great boyfriend but he got a First from Oxford and is now an energy engineer. He's exactly the sort of man this country needs. He had two siblings too as it happens, so technically from a three-child family.

Deterring mums from having more babies these days is just practically unwise, even if you ignore any ideological feelings about whether we should be effectively coercing abortions.

I can't actually believe what I'm reading. So let's restrict children to the rich, then we end up with the likes of Boris Johnson and David Cameron.

Most benefits claimants are in work. They are subsidising the rich with their poverty. How do you think you're in a comfortable position? Because costs and wages are so low, that's how. People emptying your bins for 17k, people looking after your kids for 12k, people scrubbing your toilets for 6k. And you have the audacity to condemn them for cushioning your life! I know who I'd prefer to have children, that's all I can say.

Boris '9 kids' Johnson has expressed the same opinion

Again I would like to mention why it is acceptable for people who don't support benefits to be over the moon at receiving free childcare in the future saving them thousands and thousands of pounds at the expense of the tax payer.

The cost of full time childcare for a baby, which is what is being proposed, will cost far more than the government gives out to a 3rd child.

Except they don't see it as a benefit or a subsidy. One could argue that if you can't afford childcare then don't have children. Except no this is an "acceptable" benefit.

The wealthy get a lot of "acceptable" benefits and tax cuts which take far more out of the system than the extra £60 a week for a 3rd child in tax credits.

I wish we had a like button on here 👏🏻👏🏻

I had to check I was on the feminism board then, some of the comments are appalling....'popping out babies' ffs!

Listening to LBC at the moment and it’s disgraceful how Labour are set on keeping kids in poverty and justifying it by saying there’s no money to allocate for this. I say that these non child benefit supported kids will go onto to contribute to society. They should get a tax rebate once they are working to acknowledge that they were refused financial child benefit support.

Looks like this has caused utter mayhem:

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/a-starmer-u-turn-too-far/

(Although I'm far from convinced Starmer "misspoke" )

You qualify for an exception or special circumstances for each third (or subsequent) child if:

They are the second (or more) child born in a multiple birth

It is undeniably true that children born into certain sectors of society do far worse. Giving often feckless parents more money is not the answer, the money needs to be spent directly on the children. Therefore the education system needs far more resourcing. Make decent school meals free to all children, free wraparound breakfast and tea clubs. Properly equipped libraries and homework clubs. Lets give all children the chance to fulfill their potential

Regarding the two child limit, please stop being so naive. It is having relatively little affect, the latest ruse is to state that other family members are caring for the children. I'm seeing mothers declaring to UC that their newborn babies are to be living with their father at a different address etc. This gives two "families" increased amounts of UC, an increased likelihood of social housing and turns off work commitments for a while. Sadly, the "special circumstances" clause is also being abused by some

I would reinstate the universality of Child Benefit, there needs to be fairness in the system. High earners are contributing enough in tax to get a little back. Especially if the non working parent receives the payment. All children born before 05/04/2017 are paid for through the benefits system anyway, the cap is relatively easy to have lifted should that apply

People deliberately having more children to make themselves under accommodated doesn't work anymore, over crowding that occurred once a person has moved in doesn't give them priority. Most people on UC aren't working either, the figure is just under 40%. This needs to change, and the triple lock etc needs to be reviewed as it is unaffordable and other Departments deserve greater funding.I agree that the Child Maintenance Service needs to use their powers more often re non paying parents, there needs to be greater collective responsibility

It is undeniably true that children born into certain sectors of society do far worse

The solution to this is not to deprive them further.

It is undeniably true that children born into certain sectors of society do far worse. Giving often feckless parents more money is not the answer, the money needs to be spent directly on the children.

Poor children do worse because less talented and intelligent children lucky enough to be born into the grasping middle classes are gifted opportunities they do not deserve.

Feckless parenting is hardly the preserve of poor people - quite the opposite. Look at the state the UK is in, from the abysmal leadership down to the privileged kids having tantrums because someone used the wrong pronouns. As a society, we need to interrogate how middle-class parents are never held responsible for their children's behaviour and upbringing and how that affects everyone.

I'm pregnant with a third child, do get child benefit but nothing else (earn 30k husband 38k) and was under the impression you don't get it for a third child but you do, it's £24 a week for the first child and £15 a week for any subsequent children, so the two child cap doesn't apply for CB. It does for UC.

Curious that Labours stance on this policy seems to draw more fire than the Tories ever did when they introduced it.

It's because Labour seem to have morphed into a subset who just want to fling money at the underclasses.

My working class grandparents wouldn't have had much time for lazy non working parents demanding handouts. But middle class labour loves them.