Comments by "Michael RCH" (@michaelrch) on "Stephen Flynn takes Keir Starmer to task over two-child benefit cap" video.

1:03 you don't get to be proud of a government that you weren't part of and you weren't even an MP of. And you especially can't when you reject the policies of what was already a very moderate centrist New Labour Party.
19
Ok here's why it's a bad policy in pretty much every way. 1. It has been shown NOT to disincentivise low income people having more children. 2. Its victims are children who did not choose to be born. 3. It causes permanent damage to the educational attainment of children in the impoverished families which means they end up less productive citizens for the rest of their lives. 4. Hungry children are more disruptive so it damages the education of other children. 5. It causes long lasting health problems in the children who are undernourished. This is not just cruel but it puts an ongoing burden on the NHS. 6. It reduces aggregate demand in the economy and therefore reduces overall prosperity. It fails on its own terms in every way. And it's cruel. It's a terrible policy that only exists to be performatively harsh to people deemed unworthy for some reason. I was brought up by a single mum - the third of three kids. My mum worked as much as she could but we mainly survived on benefits. I went to Oxford, got a masters in Engineering and run an international internet services business. That would have been impossible if I had to go to school hungry every day.
11
He knows there is. It's a pretext for continued class war aka austerity.
4
@JustSmurfinAround you are a citizen. He is the prime minister claiming credit for a different government. A government whose policy he actively disagrees with.
3
@leehenry5764 what does the 5% number refer to? What does the 5600 number refer to? Which populations do the overweight and obese percentages refer to? And where do these figures come from? And no, I daresay food banks and breakfast clubs didn't exist when you were young. I imagine that like when I grew up, families could afford for a parent to look after the kids back then. And the state didn't leave so many people in poverty that food banks were even necessary. They are a shameful symptom of a broken society.
2
@twistedsister2568 no you wouldn't. And you aren't punishing the parents that you despise for their choices. You are punishing their children who had no say about who they were born to. Reaching for an extreme and unusual example is always the tactic when you have a weak position. It's the slippery slope argument and it's fallacious.
2
@stephenwood2172 exactly. And there are a few misanthropic people out there who just hate the idea of being good to other people.
2
@leehenry5764 would it matter if I could? Do you think it's worth £2.5 billion per year to take 300,000 kids out of poverty?
1
@leehenry5764 I asked you if you think it would be worth it. You didn't answer. I actually posted the evidence that it would be my comment was deleted. In any case, I suspect you would care anyway. Would you?
1
@leehenry5764 firstly yes the kids do get fed. I don't know what you think low income people are like but they aren't psychopaths. And 81% of parents affected are actually in work. Food stamps are more expensive to administer so it's both patronising and a waste of money. As usual, trying to be stingy out of misguided principle costs more and has worse outcomes.
1
@leehenry5764 btw I notice that you are still avoiding my question
1