There isn't one really. I'll probably vote Labour because my MP is one of the good ones and the alternative (Lib Dems in my area) is no better, but I'm not going to pretend to be excited about it, or be surprised when Starmer does feck all except keep the government benches warm for the next lot of Tories.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
There isn't one really. I'll probably vote Labour because my MP is one of the good ones and the alternative (Lib Dems in my area) is no better, but I'm not going to pretend to be excited about it, or be surprised when Starmer does feck all except keep the government benches warm for the next lot of Tories.
Your argument only works on the premise that Starmer has to go exactly this level of leaning to the right and that there's no room to lean left at all? Is that what you believe because it's very convenient?
I've banged this drum for years on here but people always make post hoc conclusions that X had to be the stance. Yet you'll never see said people argue prior to the event for these policy shifts, so did they think them wrong at the time or only when told.
Political discussion can't be so shallow that it's waiting for events and nodding ones head.
It's curious to me how some people seem to hold the concept of "electable" up as some holy ideal, while at the same time admonishing those who aren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the candidate. How is one thing part of being electable, while the other isn't? It gets worse when they're very often, at least in the case of this thread, talking to people who by their own admission will still vote for Labour (they'll just vent about it in the thread).
I'm sure that when Labour inevitably win the next election it will be used as final evidence that they were right about "electable", and that it will continue to be the right strategy. But the next time Labour lose those same people will blame the left for not voting for them, rather than blaming Labour for not making themselves electable to the left. And so no matter the result, Labour continues its inevitable shuffle to the right, while the Tories shuffle (or leap) ahead of them.
I'm sure that when Labour inevitably win the next election it will be used as final evidence that they were right about "electable", and that it will continue to be the right strategy. But the next time Labour lose those same people will blame the left for not voting for them, rather than blaming Labour for not making themselves electable to the left. And so no matter the result, Labour continues its inevitable shuffle to the right, while the Tories shuffle (or leap) ahead of them.
That's the key to all this in my view. So many people on both sides of the discussion pretending to have the definitive, objectively right answer to this. But they don't, just like I don't.
Yep. He appeals directly now to those selfish middle class Tory voters who's bank balance has been directly affected by the current clowns in office.
They couldn't vote for Corbyn as there was a risk he might have put some policies in place that cost them a few quid but now they're lecturing everyone else on taking one for the team to get them out at the next election. Couldn't make it up.
I think Starmer is basing his decisions on what has worked historically, which I fundamentally believe is a mistake as Brexit has shifted the reality. I think (if they could find a way to survive the paper onslaught) he'd win power on a platform of putting forward a 2nd Referendum about returning to the EU. I think policies such as UBI, nationalisation of infrastructure including Boradband etc will be vital, and that governments will fall because they didn't look ahead on these topics.
But I also see the realities of the country we're in - Labour leads on a platform of potentially returning to the EU, UBI for all, nationalising industry etc, and you could watch in real-time the polls shift due to the groupthink of Express, Mail, Telegraph, Sun readers.
Exactly, you can say we should do this or that, but there's far too many vested interests (Murdoch, Barclay etc) who'll pump millions into steamrolling it.
What is the two-child benefit cap?
It prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for any third or subsequent child born after April 2017. It was introduced by the former chancellor George Osborne in his austerity drive with the aim of encouraging parents of larger families to find a job or work more hours.
What impact has the cap had?
It has affected an estimated 1.5 million children, and research has shown that the policy has impoverished families rather than increasing employment. Last week a study found that as many as one in four children in some of England and Wales’s poorest constituencies are in families left at least £3,000 poorer by the policy. It also found that in the most ethnically diverse communities, 14% of children were hit by the cap.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/16/labour-keep-two-child-benefit-cap-says-keir-starmer
How much would it cost to scrap the cap?
Abolishing the cap would cost £1.3bn a year but would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 would be in less deep poverty, according to campaigners. The End Child Poverty coalition says removing the cap would be the most cost-effective way of reducing the number of children living in poverty.
£1.3bn in an economy worth £3.5tn. 68 million people. 12.5 million children (16 or under) and 1.5 million of those directly affected (into the poverty zone). Close to 10% of all UK children, then, written off for the sake of £1.3bn. Sounds fecking insane to me.
If you study Milton Friedman, neoliberal architect, Chicago School, you'll come across the term "neighbourhood effects" (often). Greater than the sum total of its parts (his theory). Now, he wouldn't be in favour of UC but he would also pronounce the UK/US (and more) monopolies which require breaking up (many sectors). So, taking 1.3bn, a tiny amount given it represents 9% or so of all children, and thus Y % of all families, you could map it easily, and lifting people out of absolute poverty. These are neighbourbood effects. It's an austerity agenda which cannot see the forest for the trees which says otherwise.
(25% of the poorest directly affected by £3k in an era of cost of living crisis and inflation unknown in decades).
There is no version of Labour which would not scrap this cap. Their refusal to commit to it means it isn't Labour. Even the Tories might consider scrapping it, it is that nonsensical. Indeed, if I were Sunak I would scrap it and outmanoeuvre Labour from the centre. Leaving them with impossible questions to answer.
It prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for any third or subsequent child born after April 2017. It was introduced by the former chancellor George Osborne in his austerity drive with the aim of encouraging parents of larger families to find a job or work more hours.
What impact has the cap had?
It has affected an estimated 1.5 million children, and research has shown that the policy has impoverished families rather than increasing employment. Last week a study found that as many as one in four children in some of England and Wales’s poorest constituencies are in families left at least £3,000 poorer by the policy. It also found that in the most ethnically diverse communities, 14% of children were hit by the cap.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/16/labour-keep-two-child-benefit-cap-says-keir-starmer
How much would it cost to scrap the cap?
Abolishing the cap would cost £1.3bn a year but would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 would be in less deep poverty, according to campaigners. The End Child Poverty coalition says removing the cap would be the most cost-effective way of reducing the number of children living in poverty.
£1.3bn in an economy worth £3.5tn. 68 million people. 12.5 million children (16 or under) and 1.5 million of those directly affected (into the poverty zone). Close to 10% of all UK children, then, written off for the sake of £1.3bn. Sounds fecking insane to me.
If you study Milton Friedman, neoliberal architect, Chicago School, you'll come across the term "neighbourhood effects" (often). Greater than the sum total of its parts (his theory). Now, he wouldn't be in favour of UC but he would also pronounce the UK/US (and more) monopolies which require breaking up (many sectors). So, taking 1.3bn, a tiny amount given it represents 9% or so of all children, and thus Y % of all families, you could map it easily, and lifting people out of absolute poverty. These are neighbourbood effects. It's an austerity agenda which cannot see the forest for the trees which says otherwise.
(25% of the poorest directly affected by £3k in an era of cost of living crisis and inflation unknown in decades).
There is no version of Labour which would not scrap this cap. Their refusal to commit to it means it isn't Labour. Even the Tories might consider scrapping it, it is that nonsensical. Indeed, if I were Sunak I would scrap it and outmanoeuvre Labour from the centre. Leaving them with impossible questions to answer.
Last edited:
We can't even fund basic healthcare, how on earth is anyone going to justify spending £1.3bn on this? You can just see it being a lead balloon with the electorate who will argue people shouldn't have more than 2 children if they can't afford to feed them. I don't agree with a number of Starmer's policies but you can see why they are not scrapping this. We need to get the proper investment across healthcare as a priority along with helping people with the cost of living.
I'm genuinely glad to hear you say this.
That’s what his post literally just did
But at the bottom of the message the post said 'there is no version of Labour that would not scrap this cap'? so I took it to mean he wants Labour to scrap it.
Tough on the causes of crime.
Causes of crime = poverty.
There, from Blair's first manifesto.
10% of the nation's future workforce forced into relative and absolute poverty for the sake of 1.3bn out of 3.5tn. Do the sums. It's simple.
I mean, there would be nothing stopping Starmer proposing a one-off 1% wealth tax on assets over £10m... raising over £10 billion that could be used to scrap this cap, and plenty leftover to go towards healthcare investment. Although I am sure he wouldn't want to upset the 0.04% of the population that would have to pay it.
I do. Everyone should. It's common sense economics, feck the perception. It's one tiny issue in an election where the party, historically opposed to poverty, is refusing to scrap a policy which, for the sake of 1.3bn guarantees child poverty.
People get too far into "and the press will say this, the Tories will do that". So. Lead the conversation instead of blindly following trends. That's how the UK turned to utter shite over a 13 year period.
That would be weaponised like the ULEZ rollout has been. My car is 11 years old and is ULEZ compliant. Nearly everybody in the country has a car that is ULEZ compliant but it is still seen as a massive issue.
I'm not sure this is true, my car isn't ULEZ compliant and I know a few other people's aren't. Is this stated anywhere in any figures?
It's not that simple as throwing £1.3bn at the situation though is it. If they wanted to do it, they would have to fund it from somewhere but they would have a difficult time explaining to the electorate why they should pay for people's kids if they have more than 2 and can't afford to. Also there is nothing which states this suddenly gets rid of child poverty in the country.
Yep it would have to be funded from somewhere else but I would rather money go on issues such as healthcare and addressing the cost of living first.
People who work full time jobs, multiple, actually, compete with homeless people are foodbanks these days. That's the landscape you're in. 1.3bn for 10% of all children in the country. Is it the childrens' fault that their parents are poor or aren't working? It doesn't eradicate child poverty but all studies, as per the article, suggest that it greatly takes away from it. Scapegoating the parents, well and good, then fastforward 20 years and wonder why the social situation has turned even shitter.
Just last comment. This is cost of living (literally) for millions of people.
A one off 1% wealth tax on assets over £10m
is hardly going to face any significant political resistance from the general public. Let the media try and attack it.
No, this will not address the cost of living whatsoever, this will barely pay for the child's costs. I have 2 kids and I'm aware. The cost of living is much bigger.
3K pound. That is otherwise not present. How is that not cost of living when directly related to relative and absolute poverty (clothing, food, and so on)? It is a literal cost of living issue.
If you're employed, full time, or whatever - yes, the cost of living issue is larger than this. But for these 1.5 million children, this is about as direct as it gets for them in terms of making it less shit.
No one is scapegoating anyone, it's a valid question people have a right to ask. Those same people who are also trying to feed their kids and wondering why they have to pay for someone else when they are already paying for 2 kids for them. As a parent myself, I have a right to ask that question. Also there is no guarantee some parents who actually receive the money will actually spend it on the children and not other things. Aspects such as free meals during holidays have a greater impact as you know that goes to the child.
Do you know the costs would go towards the children? It is someone which cannot be afforded by the country right now unless money is raised through taxes on something else or by other means.
I agree but I see why he's not willing to go there.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards#:~:text=and Oyster account-,Over 90 per cent of cars driving in,now meet the ULEZ standards&text="This new data shows people,are preparing for the change."
I don't know why yours isn't but I just put mine in the checker and it's fine and it's a 12 plate.
That doesn't necessarily mean the country though?. I don't live in London but up north. I would be surprised if 90% reflects the country.
Apparently after putting my car in the checker they are saying that they can sell it in London for me, as there is a high demand.
It's 1.3bn. Defense Spending is 60bn. I'd make a cut there if I had to without adding tax receipt or borrowing. Otherwise, simply increase tax at the highest end. They don't pay enough anyway.
As for "costs go towards the children". Yes. That's the purpose of it. That's the entire point of it. It goes to the parents who have then to feed and clothe the children. That's literally the point of the credit.
The further right this bellend pushes the less likely I will be voting for him and Labour and I have nothing but hatred for the Tories.
This is the real Starmer showing himself to the public and he's fecking horrific. Pass.
This is the real Starmer showing himself to the public and he's fecking horrific. Pass.
Sir Kid Starver is definitely going to stick to this absolute cnut.
Of course I don’t doubt something could be cut to fund this however it isn’t as simple as cut this or that. As for your second point, the costs go into parents bank accounts, there will be irresponsible parents who will not use it for their kids. The question still remains, whether people should be paying for other people’s kids if they choose to have more than 2 and can’t afford it. Would be very difficult to sell this to the public in the current climate.
Criticise Starmer for many things (and rightly so!) but don’t think it’s this. They literally argued for free school meals against the Government.
Im not surprised with the charge and if you are going in regularly. Thankfully I only go to London now and then.
Do you think they should go on the offensive and cut benefits for all kids? It would save even more money.
You're getting him mixed up with Marcus Rashford.
Well Rachel Reeves doesn't believe Labour should even be seen to represent anyone in receipt of benefits, so give her time.
Labour backed the campaign by Rashford in parliament and voted for it.
Exactly.