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

If the money benefitted the child, then yes, but too often it doesn't. Just because something is given for a specific reason, does not mean it is spent as it should be. Take Universal Credit and the fact that the whole rent payment (for many) is given to the tenant, who then should pay their rent, but check out how many don't, regardless of income and whether they have disposable income. There are arguments for and against. I would rather that every child, at every stage of their education, through to FE, receives a school meal, of good nutritional standard, each and every school day, breakfast and lunch. This would be a game changer for so many young people, as giving a benefit does not and never has ensured it is spent as it should be. This meal though could have a huge inpact on socially levelling up at school, nutrition, health and their education. Holidays could be handled in a different way. Just an idea from someone who works with those who often have sufficient benefits (not all, but many) on top of other income and choose to spend it elsewhere, often to the detriment of their children. I am not sure just throwing more money at an issue is the solution. I'd like to see free state childcare, upskilling of the unemployed, dealing with mental health and living wages, across all sectors, but too often it is not about the sums involved, but where they are spent to make the most beneficial changes to lives.

The trouble is that this punishes the children, it's not their fault. Sadly adults can't be forced into taking responsibility for their actions, children shouldn't suffer for this. They'll likely have a challenging upbringing as it is without mixing more financial hardship into the mix.

Absolutely.

But if you look at the current state of schools, housing and the NHS can we really afford to have more children raised on UC?
Shouldn't the money rather be spent on these services instead of giving to families who contribute next to nothing towards raising their children?

That sounds horribly classist to me. It shouldn't matter who a child's parents are. Good quality schooling for all allows children to escape poverty. Having grown up on FSM, my school helped me go on to take a degree, giving me a way out.

We need to spend money on the dcs who already exist. They need supporting now. There is no reason to encourage people in to irresponsibility.

Wow you think because I'm on UV credits I contribute next to nothing towards raising my children ? You know the individual circumstances of everyone on UC do you?

This threads comes across . As how dare peasants have children. Be calling them barstards next and sending them to work houses. Begging etc.

Exactly

And anyone who thinks vouchers would work well is clueless, years ago they had milk tokens and there were plenty of places that took them for money off fags

People who have little interest in spending the money on fruit or shoes would find somewhere that does the same or sell them for less money than they are worth

If people have that attitude, then there is zero point in giving them more money because they'll just spend it on themselves and not the kids.

That's the whole problem summed up. Feckless parents ruin their kids lives and no amount of money will fix that.

But why punish those people, well let's face it women who do spend the money on their kids with a 2 child rule or by giving them vouchers ?

Even fsm goes on to the child's account now so they don't have the stigma of everyone knowing

Shouldn't the money rather be spent on these services instead of giving to families who contribute next to nothing towards raising their children?

This is really projecting the worst stereotypes onto women in poverty. There is more to raising children than money. I can think of many people not on Universal credit who I'd consider pretty awful parents.I can also think of women struggling on Universal Credit who are heroically trying to do the best for their children teaching them resilience and showing that they're loved and wanted.

How about considering how things can go wrong for good people. Contraception fails - should the state demand a good mother have an abortion. The state expects a victim of rape to declare that to a faceless bureaucrat - a barbaric requirement IMO.

Take him to court. He should be paying for his DCs. What a dick, too.

Not tax payer's fault you picked a dud !

Wow. So if a woman is in a DV relationship manages to leave with her 3 kids. That's her fault for choosing a dud. .

Whilst I certainly hope my DC will do better than I have, as I have my own parents, I think what you're saying is wrong.
Low earners will always be needed.
A Oxford student is never going to care for the elderly on minimum wage as I did and with that argument I'm never going to be a rocket scientist.
Just because we have poor people jobs, we aren't unimportant to society.
We do the jobs other people will not "lower" themselves to do.
Last year possibly there was a thread, jobs you'd hate to do, most commonly were jobs in nursing homes.
Let me tell you, I absolutely adored caring for the elderly, I loved it but I like old people, we look at the ageism on here and it's clear (actually someone on here called me disgusting once for saying I enjoyed working with elderly people) that I'm in the minority. And the majority of carers I've worked alongside have also loved their jobs and cared for their patients in the way they'd want to be cared for as an elderly person.
Health care assistants, auxiliary nurses, support workers, cleaners, shop assistants, care takers. We might not be taxed much but we contribute. Poor people offer you the opportunity to lead a comfortable life without worrying you'll ever have to do the jobs you'd not want to do.
Don't discount our importance please.

@mm81736 I really hope one day you don't end up in this situation, it's opened my eyes tbh as I never would of thought it would happen but it did and it could happen to anyone. Complete family man, worked as an academic, we both had school holidays with the kids, lovely holidays and he was super involved, went to all scans when pregnant, school appointments, helped round house completely equal etc etc hence why we had a few children as he was hands on, been together since young, families completely blended, good social life and group friendships. No signs of him being unhappy, we had just had our last baby, it came completely out of the blue and shocked everyone. As I said the person he is now is unrecognisable, his family don't even speak to him anymore.

I know people may have used it to keep having kids but some of us didn't and it's a safety net, as I said I work two jobs, I have always worked my whole life even when having the kids but I still do get a top up due to ridiculous house prices!

It's about responsibility, I don't feel it's the tax payers responsibility to finance larger famiies.That is the responsibility of the parents.

Of course, always the women's fault

I often wonder if its people like that who are responsible for raising these types of men

I don't. But if you claim UC you'll receive a child element, help with childcare costs. money towards a home. You don't carry all costs for your children. Your contribution is a % of the cost of raising a child. The state makes up your shortfall- so you feel you are entitled to a 3rd... 4th ... 5th ... child?

I don't get help with any of these costs. I pay 100% of childcare and I pay 100% for the rent on their home, I pay tax so ALL children can have a home, an education and healthcare.

Wow , well done you

Still don't seem to be able to grasp that people's circumstances change though

Looking at this from Rosie's POV here, I don't really see her game-plan. Is she looking to pick a fight with the Labour leadership? The topic is divisive, even amongst feminists, as this thread shows all too clearly. It seems unlikely that Starmer will back down on this, even more unlikely that he'd do it because Rosie demanded it. I've have thought there were better battles to contest, that would have more widespread support.

... and your safety net is there for you. It's called UC.
The only downside is, they'll fork out for 2 DC not 3....4... 5. And that even applies to myself should I ever need it.

People who are on universal credit who work are also paying tax. It's like when patients shout at nurses, "I pay your wages" without realising a nurse also contributes to their own wages via taxes.

Before I had children of my own I remember having a debate with a colleague who said she didn't want her wages buying kids new shoes and I asked her did she want to live in a society where children didn't have shoes.
She said she wasn't arsed either way but then I asked her if that wasn't a concern would the level of crime, drug dealing, burglaries, muggings not worry her. We were about 17 years old at the time we had this discussion. She thought I was daft, I thought likewise.
She had her opinion, I had mine. She married a bloke with parents who were higher than average earners and he beat her black and blue, social services were going to remove her dc if she didn't leave. He refused to pay anything (still doesn't!) To his dc as he works cash in hand for his dad. She during her time of leaving him got tax credits and is still on UC.
She is still a pal, she is currently in her last year of uni and is going to have a fabulous job and I'm very proud of her. She will give back to society and so much more.
But I'm also glad her kids had shoes when she had fuck all because of the welfare she was entitled to.
Not everyone thinks they'll need UC and i hope very genuinely those who don't need them never find themselves in a position to need them. But I'm also glad if they do end up in that situation, they have that option.

Money does supply the basics. Housing, food and clothes. Without it, you couldn't supply all the other tangible things that children need to thrive.

Money doesn't judge if you are a good or bad parent. It just enables parents to supply what they believe their children need.

You haven't been paying 100% childcare and 100% rent yourself though have you because you aren't a single parent

I’m pretty sure it’s only social cleansing if it were carried out like the 1-child-limit used to be handled in China: women hiding their 3rd pregnancy, getting turned in by the neighbours, being taken into custody, then given a late-term abortion against their will.

Women can have 30 babies if they choose—all under the care of the NHS and all educated for free in the state school system. They just need to be prepared to fund the kids.