[Politics] The Labour Government

[Chicken Run]

When the Tories introduced the two child cap it was "vicious", "cruel", heartless" and would only serve to increase child poverty. As soon as the new Labour government has the opportunity to bin it off, not only does it not do so, it suspends those MPs who support its removal.

I don't know the constituencies of all the suspended MPs but I know Rebecca Long-Bailey represents Salford. Is it not possible that the Tory (now Labour) two child cap might be adversely impacting northern urban communities more? Is it not possible that her constituents are raising this issue with her more than the constituents in more affluent areas?

MPs are elected to represent their constituents and if she is getting representations from those who re-elected her regarding the very real consequences of the cap, should she not, in a democratic Party, be allowed to vote as guided / directed / influenced by those she represents? Instead she gets her legs slapped and put on Starmer's naughty step for six months.

The people who voted for her as the Labour Party candidate in the GE no longer have a Labour MP. That's not particularly democratic either is it?

Is it time to abandoned the outdated custom of "whipping" Party MPs to support a particular line (open to bullying, blackmail and bribery) and allow them to vote in accordance with their personal conscience or the stated wishes of their constituents?

When the Tories introduced the cap did that mean anyone with more than two children at the time immediately lost their benefits for the xtra children or was it for new applications from a certain date?

 

[Bodian]

When the Tories introduced the cap did that mean anyone with more than two children at the time immediately lost their benefits for the xtra children or was it for new applications from a certain date?

Only for children born after 2017.

 

[Chicken Run]

Only for children born after 2017.

Thanks for clarifying so the parents of children born before and under 16/20 are still getting their entitlement?

 

[Bodian]

Thanks for clarifying so the parents of children born before and under 16/20 are still getting their entitlement?

The wording says that if they were getting tax credits at the time, they will continue. Not sure whether this means if they were born before 2017, and now fall into the tax-credit bracket they can start a new claim. Quite a lot of exceptions as well.

2 child limit | Low Incomes Tax Reform Group

From 6 April 2017, a two child limit policy was introduced to child tax credit which limits the amount of child tax credit awards. This page explains

www.litrg.org.uk

 

[fly high]

The short and simple answer is a phase out - to remove the cap on universal credits and tax benefits for existing families who already have more than two children but make it strictly means-tested. At the moment it is claimable even to families on relatively high incomes. End the eligibility for all 3rd or more children born after 2025 so families can plan ahead.

That helps lifts existing families out of poverty while making it strictly means tested alleviates the public purse incrementally and annually until all 3rd ( or additional ) children born before 2025 will have reached 16 years old and beyond eligibility ( or a bit longer if we include some children in full education until they are 18). After that, the 2-child cap is de facto reinstated for everyone regardless of income without forcing existing children into poverty.

Proper child benefit is capped on income, if one parent in a household earns more £50k they lose it completely but then if both parents earn £45k each they get the lot. Universal credit per child is different and is limited to 2 children. Tax credits are another matter and yes limit is currently set too high but with mortgage/rental costs, plus food and energy so high at what point do you draw the line? Who decides the limit?

 

[Notters]

Proper child benefit is capped on income, if one parent in a household earns more £50k they lose it completely but then if both parents earn £45k each they get the lot. Universal credit per child is different and is limited to 2 children. Tax credits are another matter and yes limit is currently set too high but with mortgage/rental costs, plus food and energy so high at what point do you draw the line? Who decides the limit?

Not quite, it's a sliding scale. For the last tax year you start to lose it all if one parent earns more than £50k and lost it all at £60k. From this tax year it's £60k to £80k.

 

[Rdodge30]

I just looked this up an, lo!

It is Becca Wrong Bailey (previously suspended for re-tweeting anti-Semitic bollocks) and Spare Head Three!

A pair of political self-harmers. Ta ra.

View attachment 186017

Edit: and three others of the seven are possibly harbouring a grudge against the labour leadership for not declaring war on Israel. Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum and Zarah Sultana.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

It’s ‘Wrong - Daily’ not wrong Bailey

 

[drew]

This is very interesting. I too assumed it was limiting Child Benefit to two children. But that's not quite the case.

View attachment 186023

Have to say I assumed the same. We haven't had child benefit for 4 years anyway so didn't dig deep into the detail.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Reeves to appoint Covid corruption tsar to claw back billions of waste | Rachel Reeves | The Guardian

Chancellor understood to believe £2.6bn of public money lost to fraudsters during pandemic could be recouped

amp.theguardian.com

All for this, first thing they should do is refund everyones lockdown fines with any money clawed back.

 

[Rdodge30]

When the Tories introduced the two child cap it was "vicious", "cruel", heartless" and would only serve to increase child poverty. As soon as the new Labour government has the opportunity to bin it off, not only does it not do so, it suspends those MPs who support its removal.

I don't know the constituencies of all the suspended MPs but I know Rebecca Long-Bailey represents Salford. Is it not possible that the Tory (now Labour) two child cap might be adversely impacting northern urban communities more? Is it not possible that her constituents are raising this issue with her more than the constituents in more affluent areas?

MPs are elected to represent their constituents and if she is getting representations from those who re-elected her regarding the very real consequences of the cap, should she not, in a democratic Party, be allowed to vote as guided / directed / influenced by those she represents? Instead she gets her legs slapped and put on Starmer's naughty step for six months.

The people who voted for her as the Labour Party candidate in the GE no longer have a Labour MP. That's not particularly democratic either is it?

Is it time to abandoned the outdated custom of "whipping" Party MPs to support a particular line (open to bullying, blackmail and bribery) and allow them to vote in accordance with their personal conscience or the stated wishes of their constituents?

I don’t think it’s time to abandon whipping MP’s at all. There has to be a party line or you have chaos. To vote against your own government on the very first King’s speech of a parliament is absolutely asking for trouble and no doubt John McDonnell is pleased with the result, I imagine if it wasn’t the 2 child cap it would’ve been something else in the very near future. Interesting that he only had 6 on board though - even more interesting that Diane Abbot wasn’t one of them. Rebecca could very easily have abstained which would have had exactly the same result (zero) and would have signaled equally that she was not on board with the party line …although the party line as I understand it is to review the 2 child cap anyway?

This was political hooliganism from McDonnell and co and Sir Keir has quite rightly slapped a severe penalty of 6 months on the offenders. The only person responsible for Salford no longer having a Labour MP I’m afraid is the MP herself who must’ve known this would happen

 

[abc]

FWIW - I don’t think scrapping the 2-child cap long term should be a priority and in fact, I think there are good arguments for maintaining it.

I can definitely see the equity, popularity and common sense in an argument to maintain a means-tested benefit temporarily for existing families already with more than 2 children or those already expecting another child (eg those born before 2025 ) to help them out of poverty now.

Ducks head now because this sounds like some Chinese approach to social engineering but that is not what I’m suggesting before I get pilloried by the morally outraged who think we have absolute rights to do as we please:

However, IMO, there are good economic and environmental reasons why society as a whole (globally) needs to ask whether we should build population growth disincentives (not control!) into economic and social policy and whether a two-child cap on child benefits could be part of that? Should there be not some personal responsibility upon families already struggling to maintain two children or even for those who are not struggling, to question whether they should keep on having more than two children without considering the financial cost to themselves or broader costs society and the environment if they do so?

Population growth is directly linked to worsening environmental degradation and strain on public services both as an increasing burden on existing resources and in waste management (ie sewage/pollution/carbon footprint). Improved healthcare, improved living conditions and reduced mortality rates means natural population limiters (old age, disease) are no longer keeping populations to a sustainable level.

Can the public purse or the environment continue to sustain the rates of childbirth we are currently seeing or does the 2-child benefit cap inadvertently help to address some of the wider implications of the current levels of population growth ?

Hiding with HWT behind the far right sofa on this one.

I think you make some fair points. Means testing for all benefits is fair. If you don’t need financial support from the taxpayer then why should you get it? This then saves money that can be put to good use elsewhere or, my own personal campaign, can be used to give MORE support to those at the bottom end of the rung that desperately need it.

I don’t think anyone would be happy with a Chinese style legal limit on how many children you can have but I am not convinced that the taxpayer should support you to have as many as you want (though the taxpayer will be for at least the next 18 years of that child life anyway).

The problem with the 2 child cap however, is that the child can suffer because of the financial irresponsibility of the parents that knew they could not afford to have more children. The strong argument for reinstatement is that the children are suffering as a consequence not the (quote from elsewhere) ‘feckless’ adults

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think you make some fair points. Means testing for all benefits is fair. If you don’t need financial support from the taxpayer then why should you get it? This then saves money that can be put to good use elsewhere or, my own personal campaign, can be used to give MORE support to those at the bottom end of the rung that desperately need it.

I don’t think anyone would be happy with a Chinese style legal limit on how many children you can have but I am not convinced that the taxpayer should support you to have as many as you want (though the taxpayer will be for at least the next 18 years of that child life anyway).

The problem with the 2 child cap however, is that the child can suffer because of the financial irresponsibility of the parents that knew they could not afford to have more children. The strong argument for reinstatement is that the children are suffering as a consequence not the (quote from elsewhere) ‘feckless’ adults

It has been known for a single pregnancy to be followed by a twin birth. What price feckless adult?

Many working class people are on universal credit because employers don’t pay decent wages.

 

[Zeberdi]

I think you make some fair points.

Thanks

The problem with the 2 child cap however, is that the child can suffer because of the financial irresponsibility of the parents that knew they could not afford to have more children. The strong argument for reinstatement is that the children are suffering as a consequence not the (quote from elsewhere) ‘feckless’ adults

That is a strong argument for scrapping the cap not reinstating it (it is already in place) - I don’t know how you deal with ‘feckless’ irresponsibility but taxpayers end up footing an enormous bill for the irresponsibility of adults daily who commit crimes, who are addicted to alcohol or drugs, who have obese-related diseases or just fcuk up their kids mentally and physically so they simply fail to thrive as ‘grown ups‘. Education, better access to family planning, better access to housing? Better basic/universal minimum wage? Not sure there is a cure for irresponsibility but won’t be reckless over-spending of limited public funds and it shouldn’t be enabled by social care policies either.

It has been known for a single pregnancy to be followed by a twin birth. What price feckless adult?

Many working class people are on universal credit because employers don’t pay decent wages.

Multi-birth already comes under one of the exceptions to the rule so one can presume in a fair sytem, it would if the cap for universal credit and child tax credits were for example to be scrapped temporarily but reinstated for all 3+ children born after 2025.

Two Child Limit Exception

Turn2us jargon buster definition of Two Child Limit Exception

www.turn2us.org.uk

 

[Seagull27]

I don't know the constituencies of all the suspended MPs but I know Rebecca Long-Bailey represents Salford. Is it not possible that the Tory (now Labour) two child cap might be adversely impacting northern urban communities more? Is it not possible that her constituents are raising this issue with her more than the constituents in more affluent areas?

MPs are elected to represent their constituents and if she is getting representations from those who re-elected her regarding the very real consequences of the cap, should she not, in a democratic Party, be allowed to vote as guided / directed / influenced by those she represents? Instead she gets her legs slapped and put on Starmer's naughty step for six months.

The people who voted for her as the Labour Party candidate in the GE no longer have a Labour MP. That's not particularly democratic either is it?

Is it time to abandoned the outdated custom of "whipping" Party MPs to support a particular line (open to bullying, blackmail and bribery) and allow them to vote in accordance with their personal conscience or the stated wishes of their constituents?

If MPs were allowed to vote however they wanted on every issue, the government would struggle to get much done.

Yes, she's there to represent her constituents, and if that is indeed how her constituents wanted her to vote on the issue, then she's still been able to do that - but as an independent, not as a Labour MP (for 6 months). If she had stood as an independent in the election, would she have got in, or was her win somewhat down to being the Labour candidate? She can't have it both ways.

If you stand as a party candidate then you have to accept that there are times you have to follow the party line, or at least abstain. The first vote that the new government takes part in is obviously one of those times, they need to show unity.

 

[Bodian]

It has been known for a single pregnancy to be followed by a twin birth. What price feckless adult?

Many working class people are on universal credit because employers don’t pay decent wages.

Twins are classed as an 'exception' to the cap - so that's been addressed.

Yes indeed to your second point.

 

[A1X]

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

When the Tories introduced the two child cap it was "vicious", "cruel", heartless" and would only serve to increase child poverty. As soon as the new Labour government has the opportunity to bin it off, not only does it not do so, it suspends those MPs who support its removal.

I don't know the constituencies of all the suspended MPs but I know Rebecca Long-Bailey represents Salford. Is it not possible that the Tory (now Labour) two child cap might be adversely impacting northern urban communities more? Is it not possible that her constituents are raising this issue with her more than the constituents in more affluent areas?

MPs are elected to represent their constituents and if she is getting representations from those who re-elected her regarding the very real consequences of the cap, should she not, in a democratic Party, be allowed to vote as guided / directed / influenced by those she represents? Instead she gets her legs slapped and put on Starmer's naughty step for six months.

The people who voted for her as the Labour Party candidate in the GE no longer have a Labour MP. That's not particularly democratic either is it?

Is it time to abandoned the outdated custom of "whipping" Party MPs to support a particular line (open to bullying, blackmail and bribery) and allow them to vote in accordance with their personal conscience or the stated wishes of their constituents?

It was in the Labour Party manifesto.

If RLB didn't like it, or agree with it (or with KS's and the LP's stance on Gaza) it was quite possible for her to stand as an Independent at the GE.

She didn't (probably because in her constituency Labour would always win and she didn't want to lose her job/salary/pension) so she stands for Labour and then in the first vote, votes against her Party.

KS did the right thing IMO.

 

[aolstudios]

It was in the Labour Party manifesto.

If RLB didn't like it, or agree with it (or with KS's and the LP's stance on Gaza) it was quite possible for her to stand as an Independent at the GE.

She didn't (probably because in her constituency Labour would always win and she didn't want to lose her job/salary/pension) so she stands for Labour and then in the first vote, votes against her Party.

KS did the right thing IMO.

This ^
Multiplied by seven

 

[Machiavelli]

It was in the Labour Party manifesto.

If RLB didn't like it, or agree with it (or with KS's and the LP's stance on Gaza) it was quite possible for her to stand as an Independent at the GE.

She didn't (probably because in her constituency Labour would always win and she didn't want to lose her job/salary/pension) so she stands for Labour and then in the first vote, votes against her Party.

KS did the right thing IMO.

Do you make these accusations to everybody that has a job? Do you have a job?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Do you make these accusations to everybody that has a job? Do you have a job?

Yes thanks - I have my own business.

You?