The Left's way forward

How do you know Corbyn won't win, roses?

That's exactly what you didn't do Ana. You said "it's only families who have more than two children after that date who will be affected." This really isn't exactly true. As I said in my post "or falls out and then back into eligibility including those with more than two children, will, after that date, only receive benefit for two children." The issue arises not just with those who have more than two children after the date and you seem to be ignoring the fact that the system is fluid.

It still feels to me as if there is a section of society who feel their version of what is moral - just as extremist tend to do to "rule" the society according to their views - are punishing children in order to make their point. This is not about morality it is about looking after children in a way we can afford.

We have all had to alter our spending( the cutting one's cloth etc) over the years, when things happen like loss of job.It has certainly happened to us, and we managed until better times.If an extra child comes along, then the share just has to be stretched over the whole family as it always has done.

I meant that it was silly to make a wild assumption that the third child would starve or be put up for adoption of course, gillybob.

And yes, Gracesgran, I made that point myself at 12.35 today.

I think Labour can relax, Corbyn won't win.

Roy Hattersley has just been on the radio saying that Jeremy Corbyn would make Labour unelectable and that Margaret Beckett regrets putting his name forward.

An interesting article about Tony Blair's intervention last night.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/07/22/tony-blair-is-to-blame-for-the-rise-of-jeremy-corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn is way ahead.

I don't think its silly at all Ana. When people say "cut their coat......." the point is that things can and do change for many of us.

All I'm saying is that people know that from April 2017 they won't get tax credits for a third child

That isn't exactly right Ana. Anyone who is receiving tax credit for a child before that date and continues qualify for receipt of the benefit after that date will continue to receive it for those children. Anyone who does not qualify by that date, or falls out and then back into eligibility including those with more than two children, will, after that date, only receive benefit for two children.

That's just silly, gillybob. The whole family would have to cut down, as do families today when one or both partners lose their jobs or are forced to accept reduced hours.

1.3% rise in the national wages bill.
So very very roughly, inflation increase of 0.4%?
Not huge but there will be an impact.
[others may come up with more accurate figures. They may be on the KPMG link].

Yes I know that Ana but what if ............. man and woman both have decent jobs. They make ends meet. They have 3 children (the 3rd child born after 2017) man or woman loses job. What does child 3 do? Starve or be put up for adoption?

All I'm saying is that people know that from April 2017 they won't get tax credits for a third child. That date is when the size of the 'cloth' is due to change.

Exactly durhamjen. Crossed posts.

Circumstances can and often do change though Ana. My DS and DDiL have 3 children. They both work hard and neither are on good wages but they just about get by. All it would take for them to be in total poverty would be for either one of them to lose their job (heaven forbid).

Personally I only ever wanted 2 children. When my DH and I met, loads of people asked when we would be having a child together. My answer was always, "never". I think too many people chop and change partners feeling this need to have a baby every time in order to "cement" the relationship.

What happens when your cloth changes, Ana?

Trisher, Every Child Matters was Labour policy. That explains why it's disappeared.

www.livingwage.org.uk/news/kpmg-economic-analysis-raising-minimum-wage-living-wage-would-benefit-staff-and-businesses

KPMG did an analysis of what the living wage would mean to the staff and businesses. It meant a 1.3% rise in the wage bill. That's the proper living wage.

It's known as cutting one's coat according to one's cloth.

So if I say I was raped I can have a child, but if I don't I can't. That is really ridiculous. Firstly women don't necessarily report rape, secondly if a child is born will the child then realise-my mum must have been raped? I would love to see families able to survive without claiming tax credits, but they are necessary and this idea that by 2017 people will start having only 2 children because the government says so is ridiculous. There used to be a policy called "Every Child Matters" are we now saying "Every Child Matters except for the 3rd child of low paid parents who are claiming tax credits"?

You must have missed the bit about exemptions to the two children rule announced in the budget, trisher. Victims of rape and women who have multiple births will not be penalised.

Those who already receive tax credits for more than two children will continue to receive the same amount after April 2017 - it's only families who have more than two children after that date who will be affected.

Perhaps it might make people think twice about having another child they can't afford.

When I see this sort of remark I remember that this countries culture is based on centuries of Christianity and, for most of that time, a version of that religion that dwelt most on ascribing what we didn't like or felt affected society overall as a "sin" which had to be punished. I can see no way in which punishing parents who have more than two children will help either society or those children, in fact it is more likely to harm both.

I do not think paying people according to the number of children they have is a good thing but I do not think this is the fault of those who have children. This sort of narrative is just produced to make some people those who feel they are "without sin" feel good.

I have said this before but I will repeat it as I feel quite strongly about it. I do not think any of the tax credits help in the long run. However, you cannot just destabilise huge numbers of working households by just taking them away. Raise the minimum wage and set a sensible course towards a proper living wage. Each time this goes up you can reduce the tax credits - carefully. Use the savings to put in place wrap around care for children; they are not to blame for the society, small or large, that they are brought into.

Slowly phase out all tax credits, raise wages to a living wage, build more houses (making more jobs available) and provide wrap around care for children and young people that is available to all families and stop blaming small sections of society for any challenges we face.

magpie123 the reasons for a third child are many and complex. What if a woman has been raped is she then to be forced to abort the baby or have her other 2 children suffer? And I wonder whose 3 children we are talking about? If a woman is abandoned and takes up with someone else is she then not allowed a child with this person? Whilst dad presumably can swan off and impregnate as many women as he likes as long as they don't already have 2 children. It's a stupid and punitive piece of legislation.

My problem with employers who object to paying the minimum wage is the question. "If you don't pay your people enough to live, what should these folk do in order to get by?"

I'm not saying that a good education stops people from having more than two children but young girls will be more inclined to look to having a career rather than having children straight from leaving school. Everything, imo starts with a good education as no one can better themselves without it. Of course it's also important for people to have incentives to set up their own businesses and I do understand that those that do tend to vote Conservative because they do seem to give better incentives to them [I'd be interested to get info from those people with small businesses about that]. The problem is that Governments look on their 5 years as a time to save money in some way so that they can then make everything look rosy at the next election and dangle tax cuts etc to get people to vote for them...there doesn't seem to be a long term policy with regards those who suffer in the meantime .