UK Politics

3137 readers

98 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Streeting explains why Labour disagrees with Braverman on ending child benefit cap (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive

Wes Streeting has defended his party’s policy not to scrap the cap on child benefit for just two children in each household.
[…]
Labour had been in favour of scrapping the child benefit cap but reversed on the proposal late last summer because shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said it was unaffordable, provoking huge anger and debate in the party.
[…]
[Ms Braverman wrote in The Daily Telegraph]: "The truth is that Conservatives should do more to support families and children on lower incomes... A crucial reform that Frank [Field] advocated was to scrap the two-child benefits limit, restricting child tax credits and universal credit to the first two children in a family. If they have a third or fourth child, a low-income family will lose about £3,200 per year.

"Over 400,000 families are affected and all the evidence suggests that it is not having the effect of increasing employment or alleviating poverty. Instead, it’s aggravating child poverty."

Mr Streeting told The Independent that poverty in the UK is forcing women to choose to have abortions because they cannot aford to keep the child.

But when The Independent asked him about Labour’s U-turn on scrapping the two child benefit cap, he insisisted that dealing with child poverty was “more than just about handouts”.
[…]
[He said]: "I also know that that the answer to child poverty, ultimately, is not simply about handouts, it is about a social security safety net, that also acts as a springboard that helps people into work and with good work that makes the cost of living affordable for everyone.

"That means that if you aren't doing the right thing, and earning a living and playing by the rules, that you don't just have enough to make ends meet, but you have enough to do the things that make life worth living. And we’re some way from that from that now."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I'm of the view that if you can't afford to have kids, you probably shouldn't have kids.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Children are long-term costs and sometimes life happens. You could lose your job, a cost-of-living crisis could hit, or your relationship fall apart and mean there's only one income now (this is the reason I grew up in poverty).

Besides, should we really just let some children grow up cold and hungry for the crime of being born to 'irresponsible' parents?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If you fall on hard times, that's perfectly understandable. But there's a lot of people out there who have kids knowing full well that they can't afford them. Some of which aren't even in work.

That's completely irresponsible and an awful thing for the child to have to live with.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Unfortunately that answer just leads to punishing all due to some people.

Even if we could change the benifit system to value the position of the parents whe they choose to have children.

You would still be punishing the children for the actions of an adult.

And ignoring the fact that your policy basically forces abortion on anyone who accidentally gets pregnant.

I hate to bring of the pro life pro choice debate. But when you start pro forced abortion I think pretty much everyside is going to respond negatively.

Simple fact is. Birth control is not perfect. And abstinence even less so. And using finances to force anyone in poverty to abortion when they accidentally get pregnant. Or to force all poor married couples into abstinence. Is morally way worse then the idea of supporting the children.

And unfortunately. Anytime you try to value welfare on the right or wrong of having children. Those are the choices you are making.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'll also add. Its far far from an old fashioned idea. The very possibility for people to avoid children is an extreamly modern one. Pre the 1960s it was impossible. And morally shunned for married couples to avoid children. And the idea that birth control was widely effective and available. Did not really hit until the 1980s.

Heck even as recent as the 2000 doctors failed to warn patients on birth control of medicines that can cause it to fail.

Not to mention the many many health reasons (for women) why some couples still need to choose less effective methods.

The only truly effective method with limited health. Involves males choosing a permanent solution. (Yes it is permanent. You have a max of 10 years for reversal. And even then odds are far from 100%. )

Hell of a choice to ask a young couple to make. If they are to poor to have children now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah... I'm split on this.

On one hand, parents have to be the main caregivers and support for their children, meeting their needs. It's not practical or reasonable for all children to be entirely supported by the state.

Parents should absolutely make a reasonable best guess on whether they're able to care for a child and that has to include financial.

On the other hand, do we want a society where children are a luxury only affordable to the rich and wealthy? It's got shades of some really dark stuff from the 20th century.

Clearly the answer is that we need a society where anyone who wants children can get themselves into a place where they can take care of them. All the usual, a financial safety net, appreciate medical care, housing, etc. all the stuff we all know we're supposed to be working towards.