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

An ex who used to say that when they were together, not an ex that says that as an excuse not to pay maintenance.

So if you think they were together what money was he giving her ? And why would she have been better having vouchers from a man she was in a relationship with? . That makes no sense at all

Oh, and hb is no longer paid straight to the council/ LL

We don't need low income families having more children.

We need high income families having more children. We need to support those mums back to work with subsidised childcare and wrap around care in primary schools.

We actually need net contributors to have more children as they are more likely to produce net contributors.

If she was in an abusive relationship where the man kept all the money, she (the kids) would have been better receiving vouchers for the children's shoes, etc, because the abusive partner wouldn't have been able to 'repurpose' that money for himself.

With regards to housing benefit, you're wrong. Councils still receive their rent money directly from central government. It is only private tenants that receive their housing benefit.

www.havering.gov.uk/housing-benefit-council-tax-support/benefit-payments-made

Hb/housing element can be paid straight to landlord/council. If the claimer asks for it to be done that way.

Agree with rest of what you say though. No be should have to have vouchers

Private renters can have their HB paid directly to landlord to. I always have

Same.

You can surely agree with two things at once? I do. Namely:

1. That people should make responsible choices about how many DC they have and not have more than they can afford to raise; and
2. That it's not a DC's fault that its parents had more DC than they can afford.

I'm all for incentivising people to make responsible choices, but what this policy has done is push more families and children into poverty. That doesn't benefit our country, it doesn't enhance our future, what it does is store up health and social problems, which benefits no one and will cost this country far more in the long run.

We have a demographic crisis upon us and we need people to have DC. Making it harder and more expensive is not in our interests as a country.

And, just for the record, I'm not left-wing at all! Just pragmatic.

Calling it 'social cleansing' is very manipulative. Trying to imply that it smacks of racism.

As you say - have as many kids as you like and can afford.

This is exactly the social cleansing argument, thank you for putting it so succinctly. This is saying that your birth directly determines whether you will be a net contributor, and this is set in stone, so let's try and reduce the scum by deterring them from having more kids.

Look, I'm a net contributor. I'm fed up of scroungers as much as the next person. As I say, I'm no leftie. For example I applaud stricter controls for adults who go on long term sick leave when they don't need to, I think many people should have more resilience and less selfishness. There are things I could say about violent prisoners (taxpayers pay their food and lodging entirely) that would shock mumsnet.

But no child is ever a net contributor, until they grow up. And I'm enough of a leftie to hope that at least some children born to poverty can be lifted out of it, and go on to become helpful scientists, doctors, nurses, engineers, plumbers whatever.

I think it's not just cruel, but bad economic sense to give up on children from birth because they might end up being useless in society. They might not. They might end up being very useful.

You know who else generally isn't a net contributor? Pensioners. And guess what, a plummeting birth rate means we'll have proportionately way more of those.

But that's your choice.

With council housing it is done automatically and the tenant doesn't get the option of receiving the money - which was my point regarding how the government already use 'vouchers' for some things because they don't trust people to spend the money correctly.

This is without doubt the most depressing thread I've read on FWR.
I haven't any children but I've been more than happy to pay for other people's children's welfare and education. How can people regard a child as a mistake, that they should never have been born. This policy doesn't solve anything it just inflicts more suffering on children.

This is about the welfare of children. All I'm hearing is a rant about feckless undeserving women with a strong whiff of holier than thou and eugenics.

There was an episode of Panorama on this week about this very issue. It sets out the consequences of what leaving all these families in poverty will mean for us as a country and as a society. You have to suspend your judgement about the parents and look at the DC:

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b006t14n/panorama

Couldn't agree more. Appalled to read some of these comments. These are children.

Children who their parents are responsible for funding and bringing up. Not the state. Not taxpayers.

Don't be depressed. Rosie Duffield is an MP and has been voted in as such. Enough people agree with her to have enabled her to be where she is and do what she does, which for me is heartening.

And I agree with her on more issues than just this one.

I'm also glad the Times platformed this article she wrote. Becoming more amd more of a fan of the Times in recent years.

And if the parents don't, or can't?

Rubbish, and yabu.

Every family has to decide how many dc they can afford to have and 2 is enough, so I think it's fair that only the 1st 2 dc are supported by child benefit.
I'd originally wanted 4, but we realised that we wouldn't be able to give 4 dc the same standard of living as we could give 2 (ie, we couldn't easily afford to have more than 2), so we stopped at 2.

Why should people who have been sensible, pay for those who aren't?

No one should be having dc they can't afford to keep, and large families (ie, over 2 dc) shouldn't be subsidised by the government/taxpayers.

Absolutely do not agree in the slightest that I and others should pay women to choose to have more than 2 babies. Why should I be liable for their life choices, for fucks sake?

I can't think of anything more relevant to the 'state' than the welfare of children. Children are the bedrock and future of this country and the whole species come to that. It's in everyone's interests to invest in their development. 'It takes a village to raise a child'

Or perhaps you want to dismantle schools, social services, libraries, health care and all regulations etc.

There are exemptions to the 2 child benefit list.
https://www.turn2us.org.uk/jargon-buster/two-child-limit-exception

The Two Child Limit means that you can only get more Child Tax Credit or Universal Credit for your third (or more) child if:

• They were born before 6 April 2017
• They are disabled (Disabled Child element only)
• You qualify for an exception in Child Tax Credit or special circumstances apply in Universal Credit

You qualify for an exception or special circumstances for each third (or subsequent) child if:

• You have adopted them or other children in your household
• You receive Guardian’s Allowance for them or other children in your household
• They are the second (or more) child born in a multiple birth
• They or other children in your household are the child of one of your children who is under 16 years old
• They or other children in your household are not your child or stepchild and you look after them under a Court Order
• They or other children in your household are not your child or stepchild and you look after them under an arrangement with Social Services (except for formal foster care)
• They were conceived as a result of rape and you do not live with the perpetrator

Your human rights give you a right to marry and have a family.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-12-right-marry

Having 2 children only paid for by the state is not a contravention of this.

Why are you assuming they were on benefits?

Not true, I get HB and it comes to me, I could ask for it to go to the council but they don't automatically give it them anymore , not in my area anyway

It's not paid by HB anymore either, it forms part of my UC

I agree with this too as it will combat two issues -

1- They won’t be as willing to ride bare back and will be more likely to use a condom and take their responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy on their part - instead of being dumbfounded when the partner says ‘I’m pregnant’.

2- If the parents separate later on he can’t just piss off and not pay.

Yeah, I should have said the can do, same with council tenants but it's not automatic anymore like before