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

Our taxes pay for all sorts. It pays for meals for paedos and rapists in prison. Bailouts for banks. Billions on the "track and trace" app.

"Paying for other people's children" to have a good start in life is one of the more worthwhile things our taxes go on, in my opinion - especially when we are increasingly short on uk born children, and we'll need them to provide essential services in a generation's time

OP, you started this thread and you’re still confused about the figures. It’s not £800 a year, it’s about £3000. That’s huge. If you’re going to argue your point give accurate information otherwise other posters will be getting the wrong idea.

*Look at the nordics- generous benefits and family friendly policies. No caps on number of kids.

…..Their birth rate is the same as ours.*

Well there we go then! That proves that this policy is useless as a deterrent.

The children will still be born. They'll just be (even) poorer.

Not just social cleansing, but ineffective social cleansing. Not ideal is it?

"Erm, immigration. I want more migrant friendly policies and a steady stream of healthy, fit, young migrant workers to plug the labour gap.

We really don’t need people to have more babies. That’s actually just creating more pressure on the system. Homegrown citizens need more resources and take out more than they put in. Migrant labour is superior in all ways."

There is something really repulsive about treating people as economic entities without considering culture, family and community.

It's not about the parents it's about the kids. All kids should get a free school meal then no stigma to having it and we know all kids will have at least one meal a day. If they don't have to provide lunches for primary DC then the parents with 3 DC will be saving money.

But that's the problem, they won't have the best start in life due to their parents (statistically speaking). Why would you encourage children being born into poverty? That's just cruel.

People can have as many children as they want as long as they pay for them. I don’t agree that the taxpayer should be paying for an infinite number of children, two is fair enough. Those saying we can afford it if we prioritise, what are you going to cut to afford it? There’s no extra money, there’s been a recommendation for teachers and NHS staff to get an above inflation 5.5% pay rise which will cost billions too. Would you rather their pay rise wasn’t implemented so that this cap can be lifted?

I'd rather they focused on forcing non resident parents to pay their share.

Ideally the mum gets the amount due from dad paid direct by the state and the state pursues dad.

So often men use this as a way to try and financially abuse and control the mother after she leaves.

Yes that would be ideal, and then the maintenance amount can be included as income for UC assessment as it would be guaranteed income from the state. That would be a fair way of doing it for everyone. I’d support that.

The parents on a low wage and those who arent working already get fsm for however many children they have

Oh, and there's no stigma, no one knows who gets it anymore

But this is exactly the social cleansing argument that Rosie is trying to make. What I'm reading here in this comment I'm quoting is that because these babies were born poor, they're going to be scum, so we shouldn't invest in them. [I know you didn't use the word scum. But, really...that is basically what I'm reading.]

And I think you're naive/idealistic if you think mothers have babies because they're encouraged by benefits or stop having them because of the lack thereof. I see no evidence that this policy has deterred poorer mothers from having more children, since it was put into place.

Given that these kids are being born anyway we need to decide: invest in them? Or give up, because they're scum?

i'm a big Rosie Duffield fan but don't agree with her on this.

As an aside we would be paying for huge immigrant muslim families' children.

Exactly. And the men either pay the govt as required or if "out of work" (aka getting cash in hand)/sudddenly deciding to study /become a stay at home dad for the next family they start then they can either have a charge secured against their house or if they don't have assets they can do voluntary work (community service) instead,

Whew this is a new angle on social cleansing that I don't think even Rosie considered

Edit - in case it isn't very clear, I'm not in agreement with the comment I'm quoting!

If you have an issue with treating people as economic identities, feel free to @ the posters who seem to want us all to bonk for Britain so our kids can go to work and pay for pensions.

It’s the same thing.

We are all economic entities, whether you like it or not.

I want to be part of a community that is tolerant and open for business to anyone who wishes to come here and work. And a lot of people do.

I didn’t think of it like this but you’re completely right. We’ve got one child, will likely have another but stopping at two because of affordability.

People who continue to have children knowing that they aren’t going to be able to afford to look after them properly don’t strike me as people who care enough about their children to spend any extra benefit money on them, nor people able to make good financial choices, so we wouldn’t be investing in children. We can support children from those kinds of homes far more effectively by investing in early years initiatives, education, parenting support, social services, school meals programmes, and things which directly benefit the neediest children. It’s not about deciding these children are scum, but acknowledging a need to ensure the money actually does what it’s intended to do.

I wasn’t really talking about the thread topic. Just addressing the constantly rolled out trope that benefits = booming birth rate.

as you have said- it doesn’t. an educated female population means a dipped birth rate no matter the benefits and subsidies on offer.

Because the world over- women who have the means and access to contraception generally don’t have any more than 2 kids and are waiting later to do so.

Or they choose to remain childless. We aren’t all getting married to the bloke down the road and having our first of three babies at 22 any more.

don’t strike me as people who care enough about their children to spend any extra benefit money on them

Please... It's just a cheap dickensian stereotype that less-well-off mothers are bad mothers, spending their benefit money on cigarettes and alcohol, maybe beating their kids, etc.

I don't buy it. It doesn't fit with my observations in real life.

Those mums are just as likely to love and cherish their children, want what's best for them, advocate for them as well as they can, make sacrifices on their behalf.

Of course some mothers are selfish and abusive. In all classes of society, though.

So far, many of the comments on this thread illustrate Rosie's argument better than even she did. Social cleansing is exactly what the intention is.

This

i had my third child knowing I wouldn’t be entitled to more child benefit, my choice.

Although hands up 🙌 I don’t know much about the rape clause. I thought that a woman who was raped and kept the child was exempt as with women who conceived twins/triplets etc...

I know there was a thread recently talking about change of circumstances. I think in some cases there should be some form of help/temporary assistance if circumstances drastically changed due to unforeseen circumstances. I know in an ideal world we would all have back savings or insurance but not everyone dose and some situations can’t be foreseen.

@MyMauveBiscuit
"If you have an issue with treating people as economic identities, feel free to @ the posters who seem to want us all to bonk for Britain so our kids can go to work and pay for pensions.

It’s the same thing.

We are all economic entities, whether you like it or not.

I want to be part of a community that is tolerant and open for business to anyone who wishes to come here and work. And a lot of people do."

It's not about not seeing people at all as economic entities my point is that your view is quite extreme in my opinion. Taking your stance in its purest form, completely disregards the feelings of a significant number of U.K. citizens and of people who have already migrated and settled in the U.K.

The more political parties promote the views you've presented, the more likely it is that far right parities will gain more and more seats. People will say they can't possibly understand why others vote for NF etc but it's because other people have no consideration for concerns of lower paid workers who are much more dependent on their community, local culture etc and state assistance and so would feel the negative aspects of higher immigration to much more extent. I think Labour and conservatives need to be really careful

Exactly, and with the col women on low incomes or benefits are having to choose between food and heating, also with the price of food what they are feeding their children

While so many on mn are going on about upf some people don't get much of a choice.

Not the mothers necessarily, it could be a controlling father.
I shouldn't have been financially stretched when I was with my ex but he started spending all our money on beer.

Money that gets direct to the kids through free meals at school, decent healthcare and education etc is the best way to get it to them. I think the goal to have free breakfast clubs in every school is a good one, as is the goal to expand holiday clubs with meals for those on low incomes.

These children have suffered the most from the decline in dentistry and healthcare and from overstretched schools.

I think in some cases there should be some form of help/temporary assistance if circumstances drastically changed due to unforeseen circumstances.

In practice, that's a bit like saying "we'll help poor mums but only if they used to be rich, recently". That wouldn't look good as a newspaper headline...!