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

To be picky, this isn't about child benefit. Child benefit is paid for all children. The cap applies to child related parts of universal credit - I'm not actually sure what it's worth though.

Exactly - this has been a common misconception over all these threads. The cap is not on CB which is paid for ALL children (subject to the household income cut-off).

The issue is with the extra allowances on UC for each child which are theoretically limited to 2. The exclusions are children born before 2017, those with disabilities and multiple births. The amounts received untaxed for eligible children is something like £2-3000pa per child.

Hardly social cleansing!

It's women and children who are affected by this, men are not. Men can go onto have numerous children with numerous women. Imagine the outcry if the cap was placed onto men.

A male friend was left holding the babies when his wife ran off with her boss.

I agree that it's usually women that are left in the shit, but your sweeping statement is nonsense.

Yes - personal tax allowances need to be readjusted in line with inflation.

I agree!
This isnt all parents you're right. There are the ones who will still abuse & neglect their kids, but that's a minority. The stately homes thread is living proof children from all class get abusive parents. But abuse when your parents are dirt poor results more often in starving children who are eating out of bins at schools.

Anyone with a brain should realise there could be bereavement, illness, disability, redundancy etc hit them and think about what the consequences could be if they have chosen to have more than 2 children.

Having children is one of if not the biggest and most expensive choices you make and yet far too many people seem to give so little thought to that choice (some give no thought at all).

I think me and DH gave more thought to getting a dog than most people give to having a child.

I'd have thought the costs of removing 250,000 children out of poverty would be paid for in the long term by those children paying more tax as adults than they would otherwise, better health outcomes, less crime etc.

We're experiencing a government that is being careful in what it says publicly with an eye on the Reformy voters, who they don't want to rile up. Privately most Labour MPs know the cap has been a disaster and would scrap it if the optics were better.

Keep the cap but instead fund Sure Start again. That would make more difference to the lives of these kids and is proven to help break the poverty cycle.

Your argument for vouchers sounds a very similar logic to my coercive ex."if I gave you money you'd only spend it on rubbish" (like books and shoes and fruit for my children)

What is the argument against vouchers?

Some pps are tying themselves in knots to reconcile their feminist self image with their deeper scorn for poor women.

On the one hand - We can't possibly trust poor mums with free money. They have terrible judgement, they won't spend it on their kids.

When challenged - wait I meant the dads! The dads would steal the money for their beers!

That's the strangest justification for this policy yet. Trying to argue that this policy is good for those children because preventing it from being spent on beers.

If mothers are in a situation with an abusive partner, we should help them escape, not give up and simply restrict their benefits so they're even more trapped.

It just sounds more and more like "give up on them, scummy women with bad judgement and abusive partners, their kids will never amount to anything, it's money down the drain".

Have you met any cash-strapped women? Where are some of you getting your stereotypes from? The ones I've known go through extraordinary sacrifices to make sure their kids have everything they need.

This is not a serious comment. TFC earning threshold is pretty low, those below that are likely to have a % of childcare paid; up to 85%.

I don't know any self supporting families that have more than 2 children as they consciously choose to live within their means.

Totally disagree

Take responsibility for family planning

Very poor families don't use paid childcare as much as MC families do, or even at all. Of course childcare subsidies benefit MC families more.

I've nothing against childcare subsidies. I think all families should get more help than they do in this country.

I knew that Mumsnetters were generally more likely (I'm not saying everyone) to be middle class and educated, but the snobbery and classism on this thread is disgusting.
My ex was abusive as I said above. We had two children together, the only money I was able to control was child benefit.
One day I came home to find the house cleared out, all his belongings and everything of mine that was worth anything gone.
He vanished and neither I, nor the system could trace him, I suspect he moved abroad. So I got zero maintenance from him.
I relied on benefits until I was able to get on my feet and support my children myself and we all eventually thrived better without him, but I will be forever grateful that there was a safety net to catch us. And thank you to all the posters who've said they support this, since getting to the stage where I'm contributing I'm glad to be able to support women who are where I was.
This was before the introduction of UC and I had just the two so wouldn't have been affected personally, but I've been reduced to tears seeing the number of women who think that women and children should be forced to live in poverty due to reasons that are often out of the mother's control and absolutely nothing to do with the children.

But if they did choose to use it then they would get financial help which is worth more than TFC, if they don't access paid childcare as they don't require it then surely it's better to compare with others who aren't in paid employment- SAHPs won't get TFC because both need to be working to be eligible for example. Unsure what your point is?

I agree. Its all so easy to shout make the father pay. Problem is you often can't make them.

Mum is left holding the baby. Along with judgement and stigma. Whilst the father is living his best life.

So wouldn't it have been better for you to receive vouchers so that the money could be spent on children's shoes and fruit?

But we are not replacing ourselves, and face a demographic crisis. Also, whatever your views on more than 2 children, the children themselves ought not to be penalised.

What? You think there should be a voucher system for maintenance? Yeah, let's allow abusive men to dictate what maintanance is spent on

Thanks for explaining. Many find this difficult. Child Benefit (formerly family allowances paid to the mother by default) is for all children. I disagree with the income cut-off on this as well as the '2-child' rule for UC. All parents, multi-millionaires or on UC, should receive Child Benefit - my reason being that the rich have to see themselves as part of the Welfare provision. (Though the welfare state for the rich far exceeds that which the rest of us get e.g. top-up payments to employees on low wages etc. - they don't see that!)

I am a mum in this situation, I could afford more than two children before their dad left which I never thought would happen (he did used to be a decent family
Man), he met Ow had a complete personality change and now refuses to pay anything. It's now upto me to balance it all, work 2 jobs to support them with no support at all from him. There should be more regulations on men (and some women) who just up and leave and don't have any consequences to not supporting the children they wanted.

Your previous post made it appear that your ex behaved that way when you were together. How was I supposed to know that you're taking about maintenance payments?

Well first I'm not that poster

And 2nd the coercive ex who said if I give you money you'll only spend it on rubbish

What did you think they were talking about?