Labour MPs said that while they strongly supported breakfast clubs, it was clear that the emphasis on the clubs helping to end child poverty was evidence of a wider initiative to “soften us up” to be told that the two-child benefit cap would remain.Well, yes. If government (in reality, the taxpayer) has to feed other people's children, limiting them seems sensible, surely?
They said there were now signals that ministers would reject scrapping the cap this summer despite the fact that most experts and charities say it would be by far the most effective way of reducing poverty. Introduced by the Tories in 2017, the two-child limit prevents families from claiming child tax credits or universal credit for more than two children.
Proof the Tories did get a few things right, if only by accident.
A group of Labour MPs has been pressing for the government to meet them halfway by extending the cap from two to three children, which they claim would cost very little. But government insiders suggested that the idea had already been rejected by the government’s own child poverty taskforce which is chaired jointly by Phillipson and the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall.
Principled of them to decide not to encourage the breeding of more voters, though maybe it's because Rachel from Complaints is too worried about the so-called Black Hole in the finances.
Last July seven Labour MPs were suspended from the whip for voting in favour of scrapping the two-child limit which has been criticised by several senior figures in the party as punitive and indefensible. But while ministers have suggested they would like to see it lifted they have said this can only be done if the public finances allow.
And they don't.
4 comments:
Personally I'm in favour of scrapping all child benefit, and raising income tax on parents for every child they choose to have
What is "child poverty"? Where did that come from? Do they really mean "parent poverty"? Deliberately stated as single parent.
Is it because if the total benefits that the parent and family gets were known generally there would be uproar. And by benefits I mean everything - money, funding, material benefits, exemptions from having to pay for things and services, all charitable benefits.
I suspect that the organisers, facilitators, charidee chiefs, contractors and sub-contractors and all the other beneficiaries of the "poverty industry", including the tax "man" would be very upset if this boondoggle hit the buffers. This mixed metaphor has been composed without any taxpayer, QUANGO, NGO, USAID, oligarch, WEF, UN, WHO, add your own, financial support.
My parents were pretty poor when I was growing up. My two brothers and I were always shipped off to school after a bowl of cornflakes and a cup of tea. I think it's pretty disgusting to send your kids to school without breakfast and to just expect the state to do it just because you can't be arsed. Of course, those who are in favour of more and more government have a vested interest in encouraging dependency.
More than 20 years ago, men from a particular culture would have children with the several wives their culture allows, and then go round to each wife (all living separately in local housing) and collecting the child benefit. Today, "experts" are concerned that the birth rate of white British babies is far lower than than those of other cultures. No shit, Sherlocks. I suppose the building of mosques and the closure of Christian churches is just a coincidence? We are governed by morons.
Penseivat
Post a Comment