Why it matters: Suffolk County Council will now formally write to the county's MPs and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to set out its criticisms of the Government's approach to tackling child poverty.
The details: Cllr Richard Smith, the county's lead for finance, put forward the motion during a council meeting on Thursday, warning the Government's budget, announced by Rachel Reeves last month, would "encourage lethargy" and leave Suffolk worse off.
The motion criticised measures relating to council funding, the hospitality sector and benefits, with councillors of all parties broadly in agreement on these points, particularly around the struggling hospitality sector.
However, opposition to lifting the two-child benefit cap divided councillors.
The debate: Getting rid of the cap was one of the Government's key measures, meant to lift some 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030 at a cost of £3 billion a year.
Conservative councillors argued that encouraging people to work would be a better way to achieve that goal.
Cllr Richard Rout, a former finance lead, but now spearheading the One Suffolk campaign, said the new generation should not grow up thinking "living off the state is more rewarding than going to work".
"We lift children out of poverty by supporting business, growing the economy and creating jobs, not by the endless growth of the welfare state," he said.
Cllr Bobby Bennett, lead for children's services, stressed limited resources would be better off invested in childcare, employment and education.
She said: "[Lifting the cap] may well alleviate the financial pressure for some families, I do not deny that, and children should not be penalised for family size, but this is a handout, not a hand up. I really do have concerns that it will not address the root of the problem. I remain sceptical that this will not support the people that need it most."
The other side: Opposition councillors denounced these criticisms.
Cllr Annette Dunning, spokesperson for the Green, Lib Dem and Independent Group, said: "It makes absolute economic sense to help those children from families claiming support to have the ability to achieve their full potential.
"Children should not be punished for their parents' financial circumstances."
She proposed amending the motion, maintaining everything apart from the criticism of lifting the cap, but this was rejected by the monitoring officer.
Cllr Adele Cook, of the Labour Group, said: "Poverty colleagues, not frivolous expenditure – the poverty the children in this country are living in.
"Not my child, not your children, perhaps not your grandchildren, but children in this country live in poverty, and that's a shame we all carry."
Cllr Christopher Hudson, leader of the Reform Group, said: "I'm not in favour of waste, I am in favour of helping our demographic.
"I want them to be able to work, I want them to be able to raise families, and I want them to be able to receive money for that privilege."
What's next: With the amendment failing before it could be debated, the motion was approved as originally drafted with 32 votes for, 19 against and three abstentions.
Cllr Sandy Martin, former Ipswich MP and leader of the Labour Group, called the motion nothing more than "party political grandstanding".
The bottom line: Despite Labour's Martin dismissing the motion as political posturing, the council has formally committed to writing to Suffolk's MPs and the Chancellor to express its concerns about the Government's budget measures and approach to child poverty.
