The two child limit for benefits

Ilovecheese

Daisyannreturns there is a video on iplayer of his interview on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, in which he states his intention to keep the 2 child limit.

I watched the interview on Sunday, he came across as more Conservative than Labour.

His current soundbite appears to be grow the economy

I do wonder how long it will be before others come out to join Mick Lynch in saying that KS is not a Labour politician.

Beetlejuice

^Well, I'm seeing Keir Starmer already being designated 'Sir Starver' and I think that one will stick, too.^ Sir Kid Starver.

Absolutely pathetic the depths some people will sink to. Is name calling all you have left?

I assume that this was aimed at me as well as at Joseann.

I agree that it is pathetic the depths to which some people will sink, but please don't include me among them. I was just pointing out that Starmer has blundered badly here and has laid himself open to being given a nickname that will stick and is likely to be remembered whatever he might do in the future.

I'm not happy about this at all. There is a lot of criticism of Starmer coming from the left. While I can understand what has provoked it, I dread the thought of it possibly contributing to the re-election of the most appalling tory government I have ever known.

GrannyGravy13

Ilovecheese

Daisyannreturns there is a video on iplayer of his interview on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, in which he states his intention to keep the 2 child limit.

I watched the interview on Sunday, he came across as more Conservative than Labour.

His current soundbite appears to be grow the economy

I do wonder how long it will be before others come out to join Mick Lynch in saying that KS is not a Labour politician.

The left is already a long way into labelling Starmer as tory lite; they've been doing it practically since he was elected leader and more and more as he appears to reject so much that the Labour Party has stood for in the past.

Like you, GG13, I begin to feel politically homeless.

Can I ask what you’re calling Rishi Sunak Joseann? I hope you have an apt name for him as this is a Tory policy. We don’t yet know what Labour are going to do to support families with children, but we do know exactly what the Tories are doing now.
Absolutely. Blaming someone for not reversing a policy but not the party who initiated it makes no sense, and we don’t know what measures a Labour government would put in place. As we do know, as soon as the LP mentions any possible measures they are asked how they will be funded, so if I were in their position at this early stage I would be saying nothing either.

Even if he doesn’t reinstate CB for all children KS will not be ‘starving kids’. It is likely that he will have another plan to ‘level up’ in mind. It might not go as far as many (including me) may like, but a new Labour government will inherit a struggling economy.

Do you believe that people should have as many children as they want regardless of whether they can afford to look after them, because they know the good old taxpayer will subsidise them over and above child benefit? Wouldn’t that be somewhat irresponsible

For once GSM and I are in agreement about something. In fact I would reduce the limit at one and make it means tested. I have already paid in too much in taxes for other people to bring more consumers and producers of waste into the world willy nilly.

What good would means-testing do though? More of the money would go to the very people you don’t want to support.

Just popping by to say I do remember not having child benefit for DD1 and the delight at receiving 90p a week for DD2. Mind you 90p went a lot further then.

A caring society should always provide a safety net for those who are going through financial difficulties, for whatever reason those difficulties have arisen.

Children should not be penalised for their situation or made to go hungry in the U.K. in 2023

Absolutely agree GG13. There are already an estimated 4.3 million children currently living in poverty in the U.K. and it will be shameful if this continues under a “Labour” government, if they are elected.
Sadly I don’t recognise much of what Starmer is saying as having any Labour principles at all.
As a precious Labour supporter I now find myself politically homeless and profoundly depressed about the future of this country.

Previous, not precious supporter!

I feel the same, Farzanah, but let's wait and see the manifesto before giving up hope?

Honestly, this thread wins the Bonkers award of the week.
Has Starmer said there will be no support for families with children NO
Is Labour in power NO
Is he foolish not to commit himself to specific policies now NO
Is anybody complaining that the Tories started a policy 6 years ago to only provide benefit for the first two children NO
Are there more foodbanks under this government than there have ever been YES
Will a Labour Government under Starmer provide more support for families than there currently is YES
It’s plain silly.

biglouis these " waste producers" ? Are they not currently, and in the future,paying their taxes to support essential services, driving the buses and staffing medical hubs and police stations? Are you not ever in need of these? Or are you completely sure that you'll never require an ambulance driven by a " consumer"?
Presumably you could consume nothing
and make no waste yourself.

Such an interesting subject, and again one that shows very different politicies and attitudes from different countries.

France has long realised that it is not replacing itself - and that the pyramid of ages is inversing- so have long had a policy of increasing child allowance and other support with each child.

So the first and second child get a small amount, and more for the 3rd, and 4th , and so on - always increasing in value, per child.

With my 6th Formers we used to study a book called 'les petits enfants du siècle' - the story of a teenager who lives in a rough 'banlieue' (yes, funny too that in the UK 'suburb = 'good'- whereas in France 'banlieue = 'bad'- interesting historical reasons, due to early industrialisation in UK) - and has more and more sibblings so family can afford a new settee, new TV, etc, and then, eventually, the big prize, a car! In the 60s (or 70s) can't remember.

Of course also causing controversy still now- as the middle and well educated classes stick to 1, 2 or none, and the poorer, less educated, and yes (the reality) immigrants, have large families and require a lot of support.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have always believed that one should only have the number of children that one can afford to look after properly without recourse to the State beyond the standard child allowance.

Agree.

I would like David Cameron's policy rescinded. One parent earns fifty thousand pounds and one penny, no child benefit. Both parents earn forty nine thousand pounds, child benefit. In the south east everything's so expensive that fifty thousand pounds after tax and ni..is not a huge salary

This policy shows how far the Labour party has moved from what were basic policies which brought people out of poverty and gave equal chances to all. It is Tory-lite.
I am surprised that Labour women are not up in arms about this. It is basically a policy which restricts the sexuality of poor women. Once they have had two children they have the option of being celibate or of playing Russian roulette with contraception, no method being 100% reliable. Should they accidentally conceive a child, they then have the option of having an abortion or stretching an already limited budget to feed more.
Men of course have no such restrictions. They can move from one woman to another and impregnate them, moving on after two children. So a man may have six children with three different women and all will get child benefit. Whereas a couple in a stable relationship can't have three. Where is the justice in that?

Casdon

Honestly, this thread wins the Bonkers award of the week.
Has Starmer said there will be no support for families with children NO
Is Labour in power NO
Is he foolish not to commit himself to specific policies now NO
Is anybody complaining that the Tories started a policy 6 years ago to only provide benefit for the first two children NO
Are there more foodbanks under this government than there have ever been YES
Will a Labour Government under Starmer provide more support for families than there currently is YES
It’s plain silly.

I wish I had your confidence, Casdon.

But the hope I had that on the day after a general election victory Clark Kent (a.k.a Kier Starmer) would step into a telephone box and emerge as Superman is being slowly eroded.

I know there will be lots of socially minded folks but here goes.
Where does the money come from?
We were in a hell of a mess after the banking crisis which was stoked by a Labour government. Then there was Covid and the billions that cost, rightly or wrongly. Everyone , doctors nurses, train staff, teachers all want more in salary. We can’t turn illegal immigrants away which costs millions . Should we pay mortgages for people who have overstretched themselves and struggle now that interest rates have increased? And so on.
I would say yes to all this IF you can tell me where the money will come from🤷‍♀️

Any children born before April 2017 will have child benefits from the UC after that only 2 children will be catered for, which I feel is right, before this ruling women were having child after child many with different fathers, they were getting more from benefits than two parents working could get in wages. Why are you expecting tax payers to pay for more than 2 children, if you can't afford them, and need to rely on benefits to raise them then don't have what you can not afford

There will need to be some hard decisions about how to manage welfare and this is just one of many. There may be other things in the pipeline to help bring people, especially children, out of poverty and I'd wait and see what the whole package looks like in a few years time before jumping reflexively on a single soundbite. CB probably isn't the only way out of poverty and is currently a very unfair benefit where two earners both earning just under the limit can claim it whereas if one parent works and earns just over the limit, but brings home far less money, the family will not get CB. This isn't as easy a policy decision for the labour party as it appeared to be for the current government, I imagine.

There is a lot of confusion in the responses. It is not about 'child benefit' where there is no cap on the number of children, though there is a High Income Child Benefit Tax Charge. Starmer is talking about the two child limit for those on benefits.

MaizieD

Casdon

Honestly, this thread wins the Bonkers award of the week.
Has Starmer said there will be no support for families with children NO
Is Labour in power NO
Is he foolish not to commit himself to specific policies now NO
Is anybody complaining that the Tories started a policy 6 years ago to only provide benefit for the first two children NO
Are there more foodbanks under this government than there have ever been YES
Will a Labour Government under Starmer provide more support for families than there currently is YES
It’s plain silly.

I wish I had your confidence, Casdon.

But the hope I had that on the day after a general election victory Clark Kent (a.k.a Kier Starmer) would step into a telephone box and emerge as Superman is being slowly eroded.

He isn’t declaring his hand yet for very good reasons in my opinion. He can’t afford to raise expectations now by making specific promises, or he is falling into the trap that so many governments do of promising but not delivering. Nearer the election, yes. Now, no, it’s too soon.
You know his values though MaizieD, I’m really surprised that you would align yourself with the doubters on something as fundamental as ensuring children are fed properly.

I had twins first and remember being miffed because I got the first child amount for the first born and the lower rate for her sister. I was however extremely grateful when child tax credits were introduced and paid to the mother because that meant I could save a little and leave a controlling relationship. The only previous option would have been the women’s refuge.

As a centralist (both myself and Starmer) I’m assuming he’s simply looking at what is and isn’t affordable. Having worked in the welfare system prior to retirement last year I think many of you would be absolutely horrified at the amount of money large families received prior to various caps being imposed Out of work benefits are there as a short term “safety net” not as lifestyle choices. Harsh as it sounds I genuinely feel, with it without children, those who can work should work and that we have a duty to ensure that those unable to work are appropriately cared for…those with illnesses and the disabled often aren’t receiving enough to make ends meet and that’s wrong. Starmer needs to ensure there’s enough cash in the coffers to cover basics before he looks at changing things back, our economy is in a very different place now and I guess he’s prioritising