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

Nobody stops woman having more than 2 children.

It's only the state that says we'll only pay for 2 and all subsequent children are on you.

Think! We have a housing crisis, climate change is real and the world is overpopulated

This x1000

How about allow couples to keep more of their income so they can afford to pay for their own kids, no matter how many they have, so others aren't forced to pay? You know, stop taxing the work ethic out of decent people? Crazy idea, I know.

MC families are the ones paying all the taxes that support poorer families.

I’m a higher rate tax payer, if I don’t get childcare subsidies I can’t afford rent or kids. If I can’t afford kids why should I pay for other people’s kids?

Not forgetting that bringing in the 2 child limit was Tory posture politics to throw a bone to their right wing.

If they had used the census and other information they would have realised how short sighted it was.

... the number of children per woman of childbearing age, means that without immigration the UK’s population would drop by about 25-30 per cent over a generation ... . A shrinking natural population requires accepting either “more immigration, higher taxes, worse public services or a higher retirement age” ...
(Financial Times https://archive.ph/yvyZh )

I am certainly not advocating any sort of forced child bearing on women, and suspect if the all round the cost of living, ie housing, travel, food, fuel, etc., were not increasing at a staggering rate, more families would have more children.

Not forgetting (and there are figures on this) the increasing number of women who dont have children, so their unused child benefit could be given to someone who want children!

I dont have children, so am not directly impacted, but it is such a mean spirited, pointless and potentially long term damaging regulation, that I think it will end up being like other Tory policies that end up costing the country as a whole. ie privating water, etc..

And again whilst I am not that bothered whether or not the UK population is made up of people that Reform or Miriam Cates etc., think are properly British, there are also cultural aspects to this.

“Almost a third of all those births were to non-UK-born women. This is the highest proportion of live births to non-UK-born women seen since our records began, with India now the most common country of birth for non-UK-born parents,” said James Tucker, the head of health analysis at the ONS.

It replaced Romania as the most common country of birth for non-UK-born women, according to the ONS figures. There were 17,745 live births to Indian women; a 16.3% increase from 15,260 in 2021. Pakistan was the most common country of birth for non-UK-born fathers.

Afghanistan was the seventh most common country for non-UK-born women; appearing in the Top 10 for the first time since reporting began in 2003.

That coincided with the increase in Afghan arrivals to the UK through government resettlement schemes, the ONS said, after the Taliban takeover of the country two years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/17/birthrate-in-england-and-wales-drops-to-lowest-level-in-two-decades

And whilst some young people rightly or wrongly blame Boomers etc., for may things, this might be another aspect of their future life that they feel they cant have / have been deprived of the opportunity to have.

I want every child to be a planned for and wanted child, supported by their family and the government.

To ensure this, each family needs to make sensible decisions about their family planning, being realistic about what they can afford now, and in reasonably predictable futures. Divorce, losing a job, becoming unwell - these are all possible to predict and plan for

I think to suggest that having two children (ie replacement level) is social cleansing is utterly ridiculous - and I very much like much of what Rosie Duffield has to say, but disagree with her strongly on this.

This. 100% this.

Is that for women only or for men?

The issue I have with this argument is that any child costs WAY more than you get in child benefit. I can’t believe that not getting child benefit is such a big part of a decision whether you’ll be able to afford a child.

Like anyone is going to think, oooh, I’ll have that third child as then I get an extra £800 PER YEAR. That isn’t even going to touch the sides.

I love Rosie, but I disagree with her on this.
No one needs to have more than two children.

Y7 onward is going to be very expensive for us as the bus is over 800 a year.

Its just not rewarding people for having more kids they cant afford.
If you think its 5k a year to support a child through uni so thats 15k straight off. For parents

It costs say £6k for 14 years for school for the state

Then £1k child benefit

People with more kids expect more housing. But most homes are 3 beds. We could not fit more than 1 more kid in our house so 3 kids.
Then there can be limited space for homework.

Even just kids shoes are say 30-60 at least once a year so 60 - 120 for school shoes and trainers then there is wellies etc etc.

Even with UC say £3 a year isnt a huge amount once you add in any clubs or swimming etc.
Parebtal time is limited too so time for reading with them and homework and spellings.

For me, the NHS is priority.

We can't choose cancer, a broken leg or appendix surgery.

We can choose how many children we have. Effective birth control is also free on the NHS!

I dont have children.

Why should my taxes pay for education, child health, let alone child benefit?

Why this relentless hostility to a group who say compared to tax dodgers, MPs getting subsidised food and alcohol, who in total are probably draining the country of far more money.

Its really weird how vindictive and mean spirited posters on a "mothers" forum become.

I don't see vindictiveness and meanness. I just see disagreement.

It's universal credit that is capped, not child benefit.

I cant remember what Child Benefit used to be called but it was basically introduced because of the number of feckless men.

And was only paid to women.

When the Government (Labour) tried to change this there was an instant campaign against it sucessfully organised and taking place within hours by the time honoured but now forgotten method of the telephone tree!

Why have more than 2 children.

People who don't receive benefits more often than not stop at 2. Why should they pay for their children and yours when you go onto have more. Pay for your own kids or stop at 2.

Where does that end, though?

If a feckless parent gambles away all the family money or spends it on Botox, then their children will be 'punished' for their parents bad decisions.

Why is having more children, that they can't afford without additional benefits payments, any different?

One of the big problems is that a couple together might think they can afford three or four children, but if they break up it's usually the woman who bears the costs. And why should those extra children be punished?

Apart from which, we do now live in an ageing population, and there aren't enough young people to pay taxes to pay for the social care of the older generation. Young people are already deterred from having children by housing costs - why make it harder for them?

the number of children per woman of childbearing age, means that without immigration the UK’s population would drop by about 25-30 per cent over a generation

@IwantToRetire - would a population drop really be such a bad thing?
I am aware that for a growing economy, we need a growing population. (This is, on very simple terms). Maybe our market economy system is outdated and we need new, fresh ideas?

Kids shoes do not cost that at all if you shop in cheaper places.
My daughter had shoes from Afsa, or Shoezone, she's now 22 and no harm has been caused.

Totally with you, op. It’s a monstrous policy.

I agree, but I also think that labelling of this cap as the "two child benefit cap" is incredibly misleading. It sounds as if there is a cap on child benefit but there isn't! (Well there is a cap, but it's a salary/earnings cap rather than a numerical child cap). The cap applies to the child element of universal credit or tax credits so only people who claim UC/TC are affected.

Instead of scrapping the policy I'd rather see support given directly to children through education, surestart, food vouchers, etc.

we are making a conscious choice to (probably) only have two, and a large part of that is money and our financial future. We could afford 3 relatively easily but we want to be very comfortable and secure. I don't see why all parents shouldn't make decisions about family size in terms of how much they can or cannot afford.

I recently bought two pairs of Clarks kids shoes in their sale - £22.50 a pair.

Good quality and affordable for the vast majority of the British public.