'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.

I don't understand why more benefits aren't means tested or at the least taken back by the tax system. The latter would be better as it avoids the concern that people don't apply for means tested benefits- although it does put the onus on both people declaring it to the tax authorities and teh tax authorities being able to process/manage it

But i do wish the Labour party would actually try and move the narrative to looking at tax avoidance/evasion rather than focusing on benefits- or even on the need for a more progressive tax system full stop

I thought the op was asking about Labour policies that were good for women? It seems to have taken a strange turn.

I'd be really interested in hearing about any Labour proposals which unapologetically centre women. The only one I can think of was to do with employers having a menopause policy.

I don't understand why more benefits aren't means tested

Because having the state sticking it's nose into everything you do is overly intrusive ?

Because it costs more than it saves ?

Because it's never less than a year behind reality, when you consider we all pay tax "annually". And the last attempt to deal with this - Universal Credit - cost so much and failed so hard they had to pretend it all started afresh after spunking billions on it with literally nothing to show except a log, a slogan, and a jolly at Alton Towers.

It is slightly beside the point, but many posters have mentioned the low birth rate and that we need more babies in the U.K. I never understand why this 'shortage' can't be addressed by immigration. Is it a racist thing?

Yes, short answer.

Those posters want British babies not foreign adults, doing the jobs

Yes.

Yes.

The women who are only having one child, or none at all, are in the majority from better educated and better paid socioeconomic groups. Many of them would not be eligible for child benefit in the first case, and even if it was not means tested, an extra £50 a week or whatever is hardly likely to change their mind.

Educated women, with greater social and employment opportunities, have fewer children and later. This has been observed the world over and offering them more money does not change their minds.

I don’t believe for a moment that getting rid of the cap or the means test would have any effect on the birth rate whatsoever. It would however alleviate some suffering among children living in poverty.

The cap isn't on child benefit. It's on universal credit/child tax credits.

There's no reason why people on benefits shouldn't have to think about whether they can afford more children. After all, it's the same approach taken by people who are not on benefits and who choose/are forced to limit family size due to finance. Benefits shouldn't perversely influence the growth of low income families and restrict the growth of higher income families (who have to pay tax to support other people's children).

This rule creates a more level playing field. Two children is plenty - it's already above the average family size in the UK.

We need more adult skilled labour, not babies. The world does not need more babies. The environment does not need more babies.

Educated women, with greater social and employment opportunities, have fewer children and later. This has been observed the world over and

Is under attack all over the world.

No, not in my case at least. I'm an immigrant myself.

It's because of the economy. It's because many of our immigrants in this country, who thankfully provide essential services like working in our health care system, nonetheless only live here temporarily. Many have family abroad and send their savings and earnings out of the country. When they have earnt enough, many leave and settle back in their home country to have their families. Don't get me wrong, they are absolutely entitled to do these things and we should still be grateful for their contributions.

My point is that immigration can only be part of the solution of an aging society. It's a stopgap, a plaster. Not a fix. Because it doesn't enrich the economy long term in the same way, and doesn't contribute to the birth rate in real terms if they move their families away again.

It's short sighted and ignorant to put labels on people like "racist" instead of thinking things through more thoroughly. I'm choosing not to be insulted, and instead making the effort to explain it to you.

We need more adult skilled labour, not babies. The world does not need more babies. The environment does not need more babies

Surely anyone can see how short termist this thinking is?! In one generation's time, those skilled workers become old people in need of services. Those babies become skilled adults. Surely this is obvious...?

It's much better for the economy to have economically active, fit people, who live here temporarily then leave rather than become a net drain via schooling for children, health, old age care.

There are seven billion people in the world. That's too many, on any count you want to consider.

I don't have an issue importing temporary skilled labour to cover gaps. It's win -win. Plenty of people in overpopulated underemployed countries are happy to move for work.

It demonstrably isn't, if they send their money abroad. And it's short termist again, because if anything happens that makes other countries in Europe more attractive to working migrants, the supply of skilled immigrants will stop.

Oh wait, that is already happening. Look at the soaring skilled worker shortages we are having in many sectors.

I agree with the 2 child cap, however this is spot on. The single biggest drain on the benefits bill is pensions. Why is the triple lock so sacrosanct? Also all this focus on benefits let’s tax avoiders and evaders off the hook!

Plenty of British born people send money abroad as well, it's not limited to temporary residents.
The money sent abroad does not include
-taxes paid

• rent
• day to day living costs.

Working age healthy people need less government spending on them - less healthcare, no care costs etc

Why is the triple lock so sacrosanct?

Because [enough] people wouldn't have voted Tory otherwise. Remember how quickly that suggestion it be removed disappeared on contact with reality ?

If you want to remove the triple lock, you will need to get [enough] people to voted to do so.

Over to you.

Do people not remember the times when pensioners were really poor?
No money for heating?
The official advice was to where a woolly hat indoors?

I don't think we should be looking to reduce the value of state pensions that we will all benefit from one day.
Our state pension is already quite low compared to other countries and we do rely on people having a decent private provision too.

It staggers me that people are blaming Starmer for not committing to removing a policy that he did not introduce, yet do not criticise the Conservative party that did!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/17/labour-critics-record-keir-starmer-election-britain

Have as many children as you want, why should you get any benefits for having children, if anything we need a worldwide reduction in population, a reset if you will, to help with climate etc
i really don’t understand why people think they should get money for there children and upbringing it’s a personal decision to have children, have IF you can afford them

It staggers me that people are blaming Starmer for not committing to removing a policy that he did not introduce, yet do not criticise the Conservative party that did!

+1 (again)

TBF to Labour, they didn't introduce this policy did they? were you up in arms against it when the Tories bought it in?

Plus, it saves £1.6bn, now i think it should go, it keeps families in poverty after all and that costs money.

But Labour will face an economy in such dire crisis as never before, at least after the GFC of 2008, Borrowing to GDP was at 65% so the tories had headroom to borrow more (no matter what Bryne wrote)

Starmer wont have such a luxury, he will have to tax more and spend less.

I just hope he will also re join, or at least try too, the CU and SM.

i suspect a lot of what he says is to keep the rabid Tory press off his back, we ve all seen what they can do with the recent SUN/Mail story, the truth isn't anything they concern themselves with.

Probably to avoid having too many child beggars on the streets?

Education is the biggest driver in having less children, this should be the focus not punishing the resultant child.

i suspect a lot of what he says is to keep the rabid Tory press off his back, we ve all seen what they can do with the recent SUN/Mail story, the truth isn't anything they concern themselves with.

You mean the current "Sir Kid Starver" jollyment ?