Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

353 replies

IwantToRetire · 21/07/2024 18:33

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

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

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

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
AbraAbraCadabra · 25/07/2024 00:50

IsleofDen · 21/07/2024 18:58

This idea that we should punish children with poverty for the choices made/circumstances of their parents is frankly nasty.

We have the money, it's a matter of priorities.

This 100%. I'm surprised by the PPs on this thread.

You are all assuming that these people couldn't afford more children when they decided to have them. Most people have an unexpected change of circumstances that lead them to claim benefits. They could afford their children and then suddenly they couldn't because of one or more significant changes in their life. I don't think it's fair to penalise people (and especially not their children) for this.

I hope labour scrap it.

AbraAbraCadabra · 25/07/2024 00:57

Also the other families penalised by this rule are blended families. So you might have a mum with 2 children who married a dad with 2 children. If they need support via benefits for some reason they then can't get support for two of their children. They haven't decided to have more than 2 children, they just have acquired them through changes in life's circumstances, yet those children are being penalised because they are being treated as if they were sat at home going "fuck it, I'll just have another child and get more money from the government".

mydogisthebest · 25/07/2024 08:46

AbraAbraCadabra · 25/07/2024 00:50

This 100%. I'm surprised by the PPs on this thread.

You are all assuming that these people couldn't afford more children when they decided to have them. Most people have an unexpected change of circumstances that lead them to claim benefits. They could afford their children and then suddenly they couldn't because of one or more significant changes in their life. I don't think it's fair to penalise people (and especially not their children) for this.

I hope labour scrap it.

But anyone who thinks it is a good idea to have more than 2 children needs to think about how they would cope if there is a change in their circumstances.

Anyone with half a brain should realise many thing could happen - illness, divorce, death, loss of job etc etc. To just have x amount of children without thinking about what the future may hold is plain stupid.

As I said before, me and DH gave more thought to getting a dog (and we made provision for anything happening to us) than it seems many give to have children

suburburban · 25/07/2024 09:16

AbraAbraCadabra · 25/07/2024 00:57

Also the other families penalised by this rule are blended families. So you might have a mum with 2 children who married a dad with 2 children. If they need support via benefits for some reason they then can't get support for two of their children. They haven't decided to have more than 2 children, they just have acquired them through changes in life's circumstances, yet those children are being penalised because they are being treated as if they were sat at home going "fuck it, I'll just have another child and get more money from the government".

They need to cut their cloth

It might motivate them to strive instead of relying on benefits

Lammarammma · 25/07/2024 09:19

Before any cap is lifted, I would like to see support put back into public services.

Past decades had functioning and funded Social Services, Police, Teachers.

We had SureStart and funded FE adult training. Legal Aid and council housing. Etc. Etc.

All of the above helped with child poverty.
Now- we have nothing.

So no to adding more poverty into the equation, without any infrastructure to support it and mitigate the effects on vulnerable children.

Leggyhermit · 25/07/2024 09:27

TruthorDie · 21/07/2024 18:41

I really don’t think it is. No one has to have more than 2 children. I wanted (note want not needed!) more but can’t afford them so stopped at 2. That’s just life 🤷‍♀️. No one can blindly pro-create without consequences. I am not a fan of 99% of the stuff the conservatives did but this was totally fair enough.

No one HAS to have any children, it's a choice, I chose to be a mother. I have 3 children because I wanted to. I don't receive any benefits for them because our current lifestyle means we don't need them, but things change. What if I became a single mother suddenly?

You can't also blindly put all you're faith in your marriage working out, your job being secure, your savings holding up in todays climate. No one is totally safe from all scenerios and if you think you are you're really naive.

My first child was created in a seemingly loving relationship. I blindly thought all was well, untill one day when I was 8 months pregnant he beat me black and blue, he couldn't handle the pressure of becoming a father and literally tried to stop it happening at the last minute. Thankfully he was unsuccessful and I became a single mother very abruptly. For the first 4 years of my son's life I was on benefits while I tried to rebuild my life. You never know when you're going to need that support

BIossomtoes · 25/07/2024 09:31

Lammarammma · 25/07/2024 09:19

Before any cap is lifted, I would like to see support put back into public services.

Past decades had functioning and funded Social Services, Police, Teachers.

We had SureStart and funded FE adult training. Legal Aid and council housing. Etc. Etc.

All of the above helped with child poverty.
Now- we have nothing.

So no to adding more poverty into the equation, without any infrastructure to support it and mitigate the effects on vulnerable children.

Those children affected will have their own children before the cap’s lifted if that happens. Lift the cap for an instantaneous effect, it will take at least a decade to restore the infrastructure to pre 2010 levels. I doubt that’s even possible now.

Grammarnut · 25/07/2024 09:37

HappiestSleeping · 24/07/2024 21:14

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

That's what they said. The Conservatives are - apart from Boris Johnson, who was hated for it and removed - small statists. They believe in removing support for people to make them stand on their own two feet. They also prefer tax cuts to decent services, forgetting that the majority of their supporters rely on those services too.

Grammarnut · 25/07/2024 09:41

HappiestSleeping · 24/07/2024 22:01

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.

Very rich people spend a very small percentage of their wealth. They buy super yachts, yes, but do not put their money into the economy, and do not necessarily save it/spend the little they spend in the economy they inhabit. In contrast, the rest of us spend much larger percentages of our wealth where we live, and there are more of us so that we put most of our money into the economy. If we all behaved like the very rich and left our money invested rather than spending it, our economy would falter badly.

Lwrenn · 25/07/2024 09:42

@leggyhermit I'm so sorry that happened to you. Its no isolated tale by any means, but doesn't make it any less shocking and disgusting.

I hope your life is filled with joy and love and your trauma heals more every day x

ohfook · 25/07/2024 09:44

Yes it does curtail women's right to choose but so does life! Very few women can have as many children as they choose without having to take a variety of things into account - income being one of them.

Leggyhermit · 25/07/2024 09:47

Lwrenn · 25/07/2024 09:42

@leggyhermit I'm so sorry that happened to you. Its no isolated tale by any means, but doesn't make it any less shocking and disgusting.

I hope your life is filled with joy and love and your trauma heals more every day x

You're very kind, yes it is Thankyou, I will never forget but I have moved on from it, my son is going to be 10 soon and he's amazing I've also been blessed with 2 daughters too and a wonderful hardworking man 🩷

mydogisthebest · 25/07/2024 12:18

Leggyhermit · 25/07/2024 09:27

No one HAS to have any children, it's a choice, I chose to be a mother. I have 3 children because I wanted to. I don't receive any benefits for them because our current lifestyle means we don't need them, but things change. What if I became a single mother suddenly?

You can't also blindly put all you're faith in your marriage working out, your job being secure, your savings holding up in todays climate. No one is totally safe from all scenerios and if you think you are you're really naive.

My first child was created in a seemingly loving relationship. I blindly thought all was well, untill one day when I was 8 months pregnant he beat me black and blue, he couldn't handle the pressure of becoming a father and literally tried to stop it happening at the last minute. Thankfully he was unsuccessful and I became a single mother very abruptly. For the first 4 years of my son's life I was on benefits while I tried to rebuild my life. You never know when you're going to need that support

So even though you knew that things can go wrong you chose to have 3 children!

Of course no one can be sure that things will stay the same so if they can afford 3, 4, 5 or even 10 children now they will in the future. So they should either stick with 2 knowing that they will get benefits for both or put arrangements in place should something happen.

WanOvaryKenobi · 25/07/2024 13:46

I'm a big believer in incentives. I don't think the current benefits system incentives people who can work to work and contribute positively to the economy and society. It also punishes the disabled, carers, etc. Wages are too low, the cost of living crisis needs dealt with as this affects every family whatever the size or circumstances.

It is angering that we live in a country where teachers and nurses are struggling to survive and it is deemed that we do not have enough money for educated and hardworking people to live and support their children on decent wages - but we also want to support people who do not work to have unlimited children. This just isn't fair or sustainable.

The very wealthy do not pay their share so the burden of responsibility falls on your average MC taxpayer. The same people who often carefully choose how many children they have, if they have children at all. That's where the anger comes from.

If you earn a decent wage you pay a hefty amount of tax to cover other families and also have to cover your own childcare. I won't get a raise at my job for having more children or get a bigger house. If I want to stay in my house I have to go back to work. Most of my income will go on childcare. There is very little incentive to have children if you are MC.

I grew up in a mixed area. My middle class friends (some of whom grew up working class with parents who worked) have children later and often only have 1 or 2. Affordability is their biggest concern. Most of the people I grew up with who had parents who did not work have gone on to do the same, and they have larger families. It's a strange state to be in.

If you don't work, and don't have a high standard for your lifestyle then there is a lot of help and incentive to have children. That does lead to questions about the outcomes of families who are entirely funded by the state and whether this is a worthwhile investment. We need productive people at all levels of society from bricklayers to surgeons. Everyone should have a role. So everyone should be supported in having families but it does not feel that way. If we should support all children regardless of their parents why is it more difficult for a single mother on 50k than an unemployed woman to have a second child? Why does the unemployed woman have more of a right to a second child? Or third?

Free contraception and social benefits including housing for up to two children regardless of employment status is extremely generous whatever way you look at it. We could do more to go after feckless fathers but need to accept that women are having babies with feckless men. I don't think any particular social class should be exempt from accepting personal responsibility for their choices, we all have to budget for the lives we want our families to live.

I don't know what the answer is but I don't think throwing money at the individual level when there is a lack of support for wrap around childcare and affordable housing across the board is the way to go.

EasternStandard · 25/07/2024 13:55

Duffield has a strong view although I don’t recall her voting as one of the seven Labour MPs

HappiestSleeping · 25/07/2024 14:09

Grammarnut · 25/07/2024 09:37

That's what they said. The Conservatives are - apart from Boris Johnson, who was hated for it and removed - small statists. They believe in removing support for people to make them stand on their own two feet. They also prefer tax cuts to decent services, forgetting that the majority of their supporters rely on those services too.

I would normally agree with this, apart from taxes have had to be raised to the highest level in decades to account for the money wasted lining the pockets of their mates lack of money available for completely legitimate reasons.

HappiestSleeping · 25/07/2024 14:11

Grammarnut · 25/07/2024 09:41

Very rich people spend a very small percentage of their wealth. They buy super yachts, yes, but do not put their money into the economy, and do not necessarily save it/spend the little they spend in the economy they inhabit. In contrast, the rest of us spend much larger percentages of our wealth where we live, and there are more of us so that we put most of our money into the economy. If we all behaved like the very rich and left our money invested rather than spending it, our economy would falter badly.

I couldn't disagree with you more. All the high net worth individuals I know have much nicer cars than I do, live in much nicer houses, eat out in high end restaurants and wear more expensive clothes. All of that fuels the UK economy way more than I do, despite me spending a much higher percentage of my income compared to theirs.

suburburban · 25/07/2024 14:22

WanOvaryKenobi · 25/07/2024 13:46

I'm a big believer in incentives. I don't think the current benefits system incentives people who can work to work and contribute positively to the economy and society. It also punishes the disabled, carers, etc. Wages are too low, the cost of living crisis needs dealt with as this affects every family whatever the size or circumstances.

It is angering that we live in a country where teachers and nurses are struggling to survive and it is deemed that we do not have enough money for educated and hardworking people to live and support their children on decent wages - but we also want to support people who do not work to have unlimited children. This just isn't fair or sustainable.

The very wealthy do not pay their share so the burden of responsibility falls on your average MC taxpayer. The same people who often carefully choose how many children they have, if they have children at all. That's where the anger comes from.

If you earn a decent wage you pay a hefty amount of tax to cover other families and also have to cover your own childcare. I won't get a raise at my job for having more children or get a bigger house. If I want to stay in my house I have to go back to work. Most of my income will go on childcare. There is very little incentive to have children if you are MC.

I grew up in a mixed area. My middle class friends (some of whom grew up working class with parents who worked) have children later and often only have 1 or 2. Affordability is their biggest concern. Most of the people I grew up with who had parents who did not work have gone on to do the same, and they have larger families. It's a strange state to be in.

If you don't work, and don't have a high standard for your lifestyle then there is a lot of help and incentive to have children. That does lead to questions about the outcomes of families who are entirely funded by the state and whether this is a worthwhile investment. We need productive people at all levels of society from bricklayers to surgeons. Everyone should have a role. So everyone should be supported in having families but it does not feel that way. If we should support all children regardless of their parents why is it more difficult for a single mother on 50k than an unemployed woman to have a second child? Why does the unemployed woman have more of a right to a second child? Or third?

Free contraception and social benefits including housing for up to two children regardless of employment status is extremely generous whatever way you look at it. We could do more to go after feckless fathers but need to accept that women are having babies with feckless men. I don't think any particular social class should be exempt from accepting personal responsibility for their choices, we all have to budget for the lives we want our families to live.

I don't know what the answer is but I don't think throwing money at the individual level when there is a lack of support for wrap around childcare and affordable housing across the board is the way to go.

I think you make some valid points

Grammarnut · 25/07/2024 14:25

HappiestSleeping · 25/07/2024 14:11

I couldn't disagree with you more. All the high net worth individuals I know have much nicer cars than I do, live in much nicer houses, eat out in high end restaurants and wear more expensive clothes. All of that fuels the UK economy way more than I do, despite me spending a much higher percentage of my income compared to theirs.

Very likely. But they are not spending the proportion of their income that those lower in the wealth heirarchy do, and there are more of us on lower incomes. The argument that the rich are fueling the economy with their expensive spending was being trotted out to Georgianna, Duchess of Devonshire (by her mother, if I remember correctly) in the 1770s. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now.
It is the 99% who fuel the economy, not the 1% who hold most of the wealth. Because, though individually, the 99% are poorer, overall they spend much more of what they have.

HappiestSleeping · 25/07/2024 14:51

Grammarnut · 25/07/2024 14:25

Very likely. But they are not spending the proportion of their income that those lower in the wealth heirarchy do, and there are more of us on lower incomes. The argument that the rich are fueling the economy with their expensive spending was being trotted out to Georgianna, Duchess of Devonshire (by her mother, if I remember correctly) in the 1770s. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now.
It is the 99% who fuel the economy, not the 1% who hold most of the wealth. Because, though individually, the 99% are poorer, overall they spend much more of what they have.

Edited

Oh, I'm with you now. You mean that the total impact of the 1% spending does not equate to the impact of the 99% spending.

I'd still disagree when you consider that the greater proportion of income tax revenue is generated by those 1% earners. I suspect that their spending is generates more than half the stamp duty, inheritance tax, and VAT too.

WanOvaryKenobi · 25/07/2024 15:04

suburburban · 25/07/2024 14:22

I think you make some valid points

Thank you.

Mumoftwo1316 · 25/07/2024 15:18

Earlier in this thread I and others raised the issue of a falling birth rate. Once birth rate starts to fall, the fall accelerates as fewer children are born and grow to have their own children etc.

We are probably less than a generation behind the crisis that Japan is going through. They're trying desperate and expensive measures to raise the birth rate, which is more expensive the longer you leave it. Such as giving mums payments for each kid they have, including extra benefits for having at least three!

See this in the Times today, I've screenshotted a relevant bit.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6e95de91-82e7-4905-b42d-0b768e47a41a?shareToken=cedfcfe45ad48458e91dbf9ca7262589

The two-child benefit cap is social cleansing. Starmer must end it - Rosie Duffield
Mumoftwo1316 · 25/07/2024 15:20

Note that those benefits listed in the screenshot are in addition to means-tested welfare.

As I say, I think we are only a generation behind (and so do some analysts).

Wait 30 years and we'll be implementing measures like those in the screenshot. We're better off taking modest measures now

HappiestSleeping · 25/07/2024 15:24

WanOvaryKenobi · 25/07/2024 13:46

I'm a big believer in incentives. I don't think the current benefits system incentives people who can work to work and contribute positively to the economy and society. It also punishes the disabled, carers, etc. Wages are too low, the cost of living crisis needs dealt with as this affects every family whatever the size or circumstances.

It is angering that we live in a country where teachers and nurses are struggling to survive and it is deemed that we do not have enough money for educated and hardworking people to live and support their children on decent wages - but we also want to support people who do not work to have unlimited children. This just isn't fair or sustainable.

The very wealthy do not pay their share so the burden of responsibility falls on your average MC taxpayer. The same people who often carefully choose how many children they have, if they have children at all. That's where the anger comes from.

If you earn a decent wage you pay a hefty amount of tax to cover other families and also have to cover your own childcare. I won't get a raise at my job for having more children or get a bigger house. If I want to stay in my house I have to go back to work. Most of my income will go on childcare. There is very little incentive to have children if you are MC.

I grew up in a mixed area. My middle class friends (some of whom grew up working class with parents who worked) have children later and often only have 1 or 2. Affordability is their biggest concern. Most of the people I grew up with who had parents who did not work have gone on to do the same, and they have larger families. It's a strange state to be in.

If you don't work, and don't have a high standard for your lifestyle then there is a lot of help and incentive to have children. That does lead to questions about the outcomes of families who are entirely funded by the state and whether this is a worthwhile investment. We need productive people at all levels of society from bricklayers to surgeons. Everyone should have a role. So everyone should be supported in having families but it does not feel that way. If we should support all children regardless of their parents why is it more difficult for a single mother on 50k than an unemployed woman to have a second child? Why does the unemployed woman have more of a right to a second child? Or third?

Free contraception and social benefits including housing for up to two children regardless of employment status is extremely generous whatever way you look at it. We could do more to go after feckless fathers but need to accept that women are having babies with feckless men. I don't think any particular social class should be exempt from accepting personal responsibility for their choices, we all have to budget for the lives we want our families to live.

I don't know what the answer is but I don't think throwing money at the individual level when there is a lack of support for wrap around childcare and affordable housing across the board is the way to go.

Are you able to explain more how the statement "the very wealthy don't pay their share" and the statement "If you earn a decent wage you pay a hefty amount of tax to cover other families" please?

The 1% earners pay a good proprtion of the revenue generated by income tax. The top 50% earners account for 90% of the revenue generated by income tax. Add to this stamp duty, fuel duty, council tax and VAT and it is hard to believe that the very wealthy are not paying their share.

Swipe left for the next trending thread