Reader supports Farage on two-child benefit cap
I’m behind Nigel Farage’s plan to bring back the two-child benefit cap (in order to fund a cut in VAT for the hospitality industry) (Metro, Wed).
I couldn’t believe it when it was brought in – it felt like slap in the face for workers.
Under Reform’s proposals, only households with two British parents who work full-time would be able to claim welfare for more than two children.
Most workers can’t afford to have more than two children – one reason I only have two is the cost.
Has there been a comparison done on the number of children whose parents work and those who don’t?
Poverty charities say it will push more children into poverty – do they know for a fact that the benefit money is actually spent on children?
I’ve watched some non-working parents have more gadgets, designer gear and surgical procedures than those who work!
I feel it has become easier and the choice is to not work. Is that not more harmful for children as it sets a bad example? If my wages were cut, I’d find ways to make the money stretch – it’s what workers do. Non-workers just complain. Esther, Uxbridge
‘Farage has lost his mind over hatred for immigrants’
Mr Farage appears to have lost his mind to hatred for immigrants.
His plan to pay for reduced VAT by bringing back the two-child benefit cap doesn’t make any sense.
He wants to win the election by conning people into believing his sweet dreams.
If he is a real saviour for British people, his plans must be applicable. He must provide figures (from authentic sources) on how blocking single-parent families and families with non-Brit parents will pay for reduced VAT on hospitality.
Had he enjoyed a pint too many of his favourite ale when drawing up this proposal? Pubs’ owners must be more vigilant which old men they’re serving pints to… Raheel, London
Reader weighs in on Mandelson
Got a question about UK politics?
Send in yours and Metro’s Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro will answer it in an upcoming edition of our weekly politics newsletter. Email alrightgov@metro.co.uk or submit your question here.
Just how the serially disgraced Peter Mandelson (aka Teflon Pete/The Prince of Darkness) has been able to avoid retribution for his questionable (and that’s putting it mildly) activities for so long can probably be explained by the fact that it’s not so much who or what you know but what you know about who you know!
Despite being a close ally, he was twice forced to resign from Tony Blair’s cabinet.
For anyone other than someone with friends in very high places, that would have been the end of Teflon Pete’s career.
But in 2004, Blair nominated him as the UK’s EU Commissioner for Trade, where he remained in post until 2008 when he was elevated to the Lords by Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown. Not bad, eh?
Then, in 2025, in an act of stupendous folly, our current prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, appointed Mandelson as the UK’s Ambassador to Washington as part of his grovelling approach to the Trump regime. And that went well, didn’t it?
After just seven months, Starmer was forced to sack him from that post over his links to the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Further revelations about this relationship have seen Mandelson resign from the Labour Party and face a criminal investigation.
Having watched this Machiavellian manipulator get away with so much over the years, I confess to enjoying a degree of schadenfreude over the downfall of a scoundrel. Bob Readman, Sevenoaks
What causes pot holes?
I’d say as many as 90 per cent of pot holes in the UK are caused by a crowd of cowboys who work for water, gas and electricity firms and the like.
They dig their holes to repair faults or replace pipes, wires etc and when they are done they fill in the hole. They are supposed to revisit their work days later to make sure the hole has not sunk or distorted and is safe for cars.
Obviously this is not happening. So why do councils not have the work checked themselves? If it is not up to scratch, they can fine the company and make them repair their faulty work. Andy, Edinburgh
Is the US’s ‘attack’ on Iran about oil?
J Smyth (MetroTalk, Tue) implies that a possible US attack on Iran is to do with the fate of Iranian protesters.
Oil, is all it’s about. Oil, oil, oil. When the attack happens, innocent civilians will die in their thousands as usually happens when the US and it’s allies indulge in illegal wars. B Butterfield, Leeds
Is February a ‘Happy New Year’?
I heard someone say ‘Happy New Year’ on Tuesday. It was February 3. Pedro, London
