The two-child benefit cap is social cleansing. Starmer must end it - Rosie Duffield

[IwantToRetire]

In an outspoken challenge to her leader, Labour’s Rosie Duffield says Tory rules penalising women with three or more children are worthy of The Handmaid’s Tale

Key points

• Labour MP condemns “anti-feminist and unequal” legislation, especially its “rape clause”
• Sir Keir Starmer has said scrapping the law is unaffordable at present
• More than a dozen backbenchers are forcing the issue with an amendment to the King’s Speech
• Like her friend JK Rowling, Duffield has previously attacked Labour’s record on women

The two-child limit is a feminist issue. It is a heinous piece of legislation and the reason above all others that I was driven to stand as a member of parliament. With the introduction of such a sinister and overtly sexist law, I was propelled towards Westminster to stop it.

article continues at https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rosie-duffield-mp-two-child-benefit-cap-scncpn9dd

and at https://archive.ph/5On4a

Sir Keir Starmer has suspended seven Labour MPs from the parliamentary party after they voted against the government to call for the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap.

Richard Burgon, John McDonnell, Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum, Zarah Sultana, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Ian Byrne have all had the whip suspended for six months, at which point the decision will be reviewed.

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-suspend-seven-mps-who-rebelled-over-two-child-benefit-cap-13183879

I wonder, is this much to do with the issue at hand, or is it an opportunity for Starmer to slap down the Corbynites? "We're in charge now". Personally, I don't blame the Corbynites.

I don't think that family should have that house. Not on

What would they get in any other country

Starmer is no more a socialist than T. Blair (pink Tory). Dropping the two child benefit cut-off (and the rape clause - shameful in a civilised country) would cost 3.5 billion, which is about 3% of the welfare budget. I am with the Corbynistas (though do not agree with their likely/possible views on Gaza).

Agree. Feminism is for all women, and motherhood, mothering and having children are feminist issues. I dislike intensely some of the classist stuff on here. I also dislike the assumption that if you do not have a career you are wasting your life, a totally tone-deaf attitude many m/c feminists hold.

So what 3% of the welfare budget would you cut to fund it?

Why does the funding have to come from the welfare budget? There are numerous other budgets available.

Why would you take it from the welfare budget? Maybe a bit less divisive equality, diversity and inclusion spending?

Which budget should it come from then? I think the point was to fund this, the money has to come from somewhere.

The interesting point that has been made on most of the other threads about this, is that the removal of the cap doesn't necessarily equate to a reduction in child poverty.

They can fund it in the same way it was funded before the Tories introduced the two-child limit.

but how are the children punished?

the state will still pay for the third, fourth, fifth, child etc to have a free education and to receive any necessary medical treatment on the NHS. They aren't being penalised compared to their older siblings.

the money doesn't go directly to the children, so any benefits for the first 2 children will go into the general family budget. It's unlikely that a parent would buy their oldest 2 kids christmas presents, for example but tell the third 'Sorry, Keir Starmer says santa can't afford presents for you.'

I understand that perhaps a family overall would have less money to spend than if all the children in the family were receiving child benefit, but

a - not to get into stereotyping but that's assuming the extra money is spent on the children, which it is hard/impossible to put restrictions on unless you start thinking about introducing food stamps rather than money

and b - that would also be the case for multiple other factors - e.g. overall a family of 2 would get more money if their sibling was disabled - does that mean that children without disabled siblings are punished by the state? A family with children of different sexes will be a higher priority for a larger house once they get over a certain age - does that mean a family with 2 boys is being punished by the state?
A family where the parents both work as admin assistants for their local hospital are going to have less money coming in than one where the parents are doctors - are those kids being punished? The family's income is still coming from the state, and the state has chosen to pay doctors more than admin assistants...

I think 'a family has less money to spend because of choices they made therefore the state is punishing their children' is a false equivalence.

Disagree. If you can't afford more than two kids then don't have them, don't expect me to pay for them.

The funding was removed as there wasn't any money (allegedly), so there was no money for it before the Conservatives removed it.

No, it doesn't. However, increasing a family's spending power does contribute to the economy. Poor people spend all their money and therefore put more into the economy than the rich, who spend very little. Thus, benefits at the bottom end will help high streets etc thrive.

According to the IFS removing the cap would take 1.5 million children out of poverty. Most children’s charities agree.

So it's the decent thing to do. There's plenty of worse ways to spend our tax dollars.

I agree that increasing a family's spending power contributes to the economy, but surely you are not suggesting that wealthy people spend less than poor people? That's just nuts. They may spend less of their income as a percentage, but I don't see many wealthy people driving battered old Ford Fiestas (nothing wrong with battered old Ford Fiestas by the way), or living in cramped houses etc.

There's already enough child poverty, for some families this would be an incentive for more children. And the amount is not enough to make their lives comfortable

That theory is unmitigated bollocks, just like the urban myth that girls used to get pregnant to get a council house.

urban myth that girls used to get pregnant to get a council house.

That's definitely not a myth though as I know a fair few who tried it.

Everyone seems to “know someone” who did something to milk the welfare state. God knows where you all live.

Rebecca Long Bailey has been suspended before I think, have I got that right?

Wow!

I agree. Let's get shot of equality, diversity and inclusion, which mostly turn out to be 'everyone has the same outcome' (not equality), 'we accept diversity as long as it meets our criteria i.e. TWAW and exclusion, mainly of women. That should produce a few billion.