- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
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 must log in or # to comment.
So Suella Braverman - who is a right-wing Tory -is quoting Frank Field - who was also extremely right-wing. And Wes Streeting is criticising this from the right?
I’m running out of ways to describe how right-wing he is. Is he a literal fucking fascist?
He’s right-wing, but not the fascist kind of right-wing. He’s the kind that just doesn’t care about anything but himself and because he’s doing alright, the people below him can get stuffed.
He clearly took the saying “social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism” as a suggestion.
So, he’s saying ‘Scrapping that limit would be expensive and we think there are better ways to spend the money.’
I just don’t think this is a particularly bad position to hold. It might be wrong as a matter of fact, but it doesn’t strike me as wrong morally.
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
His comments in an exclusive interview with The Independent came just ahead of rightwing former home secretary Suella Braverman shocking Westminster by calling for an end to the controversial policy brought in by the Tories during their coalition with the Lib Dems.
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.
Mr Streeting was speaking to The Independent for a wider interview about his autobiographical book - One Boy, Two Bills and a Fry Up - in which he graphically describes growing up in poverty on east London council estates and how benefits allowed him and his mother to eat and put a coin in the electricity meter.
In her article for The Daily Telegraph, Ms Braverman dedicated her thinking to the work of the late Labour peer, former MP and welfare reformer Frank Field.
I grew up on a council estate with a single mum, and often the benefit system put food in the fridge and money in the electric meter.
When Sir Keir Starmer ditched the plans to scrap the two child benefit cap last July a number of Labour MPs including Stella Creasy, Rosie Duffield, and left-winger Lloyd Russell-Moyle as well as senior figures like Scorrish leader Anas Sarawar spoke out against the U-turn.
The original article contains 727 words, the summary contains 234 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
Holy crap, a politician that actually gets it, for once? Someone that actually understands that a strong foundation of social services will uplift the nation, making them healthier, happier, better educated, safer, etc, and thus more productive, more successful, more able to give back to the state to help support those very services and uplift the quality of the entire nation?
…Does he know that his party is basically at best a Centrist/Center-Right ‘Tory Lite’ these days? He won’t see a strong government run social system under either of the main parties, alas :-(
Labours would be slightly less ineffectual than the Tories, but they’re still just slightly shuffling things around to look like they’re doing something, whilst lining their pockets and focusing only on helping the economy (aka the rich). As opposed to focusing on helping their actual citizens, which in turn will help the economy.
Still, it’s amazing to see someone actually understand the situation for once and admit it publicly. It almost gives me hope!
He’s using those words to defend not giving benefits to the parents of a third child though. It’s just double speak: “it’s not about handouts is about a social safety net”. By playing into the framing of social safety nets as handouts he just defends the status quo. Definitely no evidence he really gets it.
