That’s some whataboutery and not what I’m saying at all.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
That’s some whataboutery and not what I’m saying at all.
I was asking. Don't you think it would be a good idea?
Of course not! You were asking when it wasn’t even the point being discussed or raised. No one is saving money as more isn’t being spent on it. The point is the amount of money needed for it and the justification in the current climate to fund that over other things.
£19bn worth of benefits goes unclaimed each year. There is more than enough money to fund changes to punitive welfare decisions taken by the Tory party. Same as sanctions, they should stick to the pledge to end those, especially in this current climate. To stop anyone's money is bad, but to do it to the most vulnerable is simply evil. There is no justification that Labour can push here, this is purely ideology straight out of the Murdoch media play book and the red meat they like to throw out to their readers. No surprise he met with him recently.
Tory
They use it on flat screen TVs and everything.
And scratchcards and heroin.
Why wouldn't it be a good idea? It would save a lot more than 1.3b, which is nice in the current climate. It would also hit a larger proportion of higher income families, since number of kids is negatively correlated with wealth, so if you want to avoid benefits not going to the kids then smaller families are the ones you want to target. Starmer can then attack the Tories for being financially irresponsible because they want to spend many billions that Labour would cut.
There's an interesting dynamic going on in this thread. Every time a promise or pledge is reneged on, or a conservative proposal is put forward, you have a crowd in here saying that this is just how it has to be. It would be nice if more could be done, but it's impossible. Yet, none on this crowd are ever arguing for these cuts before they happen, and they never say that Starmer/Labour should be even more conservative than they are. Unless Starmer is God or Goldilocks, it seems unlikely that he would get every budget related decision exactly right.
Yep so easy to say Tory rather than debate the actual topic. I won’t be even bother to argue that pathetic insult. Considering we already fund child benefits for 2 children, trying to explain to everyone in the country sorry I know you are struggling right now but we need to pay for everyone else’s kids as those parents have decided to have children without working out whether they can afford them or not.Sorry, are you saying you're not a Tory? Because your words are very much Tory mantra.
We're in a society with the biggest tax cheaters ever (the royal family), an openly corrupt government handing billions in the form of government contracts to their family & friends, and tax-avoiding billionaires and corporations shelling their money elsewhere.
But no, the parents shouldn't use tax benefits for a korma every now and then.
This country deserves what it gets honestly.
You can see by my post history that I despise the Tories. I just find it pathetic rather than debating a policy or a discussion, people just shout Tory because that’s easy for them to say. I’ve been critical of Starmer on many things as well however I can see why they are deciding the way on this policy.
FFS! That is not what I said! I said there was no guarantee that money reaches the children it needs to! Also my main point is convincing millions of others across the country that they have to fund other people who have chose to have more than 2 children even though they can’t afford it.
I am flattered that you have been following my posts. Really.
I am not disillusioned with centrist policies as such.
I am simply a realist who has followed politics for most of my life. And as I have mentioned, the UK has no historical president for voting for left wing parties or left wing policies.
It is true to say that I have been supportive of Starmer. And to a degree still am.
But I also agree with many here that say that Starmer and Labour have to offer the electorate something other than just following Tory policies because that is the safest thing to do.
All money that parents receive (assuming they aren't negligent parents) help the kids in some way - whether directly or indirectly - especially in a cost of living crisis. If one month it means it has to go towards food shopping or paying a bill but it means the kid can't get the latest shoes for school (for example) but at least the parents aren't falling back on their bills or having to starve themselves - then what's the issue? Or alternatively what's the solution to this 'problem' - spend more tax payer money to hire government employees to check over bank statements?
The country is full of millions of brain washed idiots who would rather punch down on "benefit cheats" while literally praising & support the ones at the top who are really ripping us off, if we only make policy based on what the public think they want, then no progress will be made.
The majority of people in this country don't want a better country, they just want to feel like they're getting a better deal than the foreign/unemployed/disabled/lower class person down the road.
True and they also enjoy struggling and living through adversity: "£20 can get you tuna, baked beans and bread to last the entire week" rather than protest for better conditions for themselves and others.
This is so inaccurate I don't know where to start.
1) To criticise Starmer does not equal being "hard left". That characterisation is incorrect. I was fully behind Starmer after he became leader. He lost that support.
2) If Starmer cares about party unity and "uniting the party" to avoid criticism them he shouldn't have told so many lies to become leader and U turned more often than Boris Johnson since becoming leader. That's on him.
3) What defines the left, politically are policies that help normal working people, Starmer has U turned on every pledge to do this. So again, that is on him, what do you expect?
4) if Starmer gets elected and is the same as Cameron or worse, even further right, then who cares if he is elected? What difference will he make?
5) A monkey could be leader of the opposition right now and be ahead in the polls. The Tories have imploded. Meanwhile Starmer has no ideas and no vision other than to continue the Tory destruction. Look at the vision Blair had, fully costed before his election win, then compare with Starmer.
6) Starmer getting into power but then nothing changing for the vast majority in the UK will lead to another 10 years plus of Labour being unelectable. Because he didn't improve anything. Hardly a long term vision he has, is it?
Last edited:
It's pathetic short-sightedness and punching down, which is what tories do. God forbid we take money from billionaires, but let's save a few quid by keeping it from the poorest, most vulnerable children in our society. Of course, there won't be any future consequences of such a policy. None of them will grow up broken. It'll be the making of them. They'll pull themselves up by the bootstraps and use their tough upbringing as an inspiration.
And if anyone dares have children without fully costing them first, well they're unhinged and sensible people shouldn't have to pay for them.
Btw, one of the functions of government is ensuring that money gets to where it's needed. If you are under the impression that certain parents will not use this money as intended, then that is a matter for social services, another arm of the state. One which has been routinely starved of money. It's all deliberate. What you think of as your understandable objections, have been carefully cultivated and used to distract you from the bigger picture. Tories are leeches whose only objective is to steal from the poor to give to the rich. And they get away with it because they're very successful at making people think that it's refugees, foreigners, single mothers, wokerati, disabled trans Just Stop Oil eco-terrorists, who are to blame for all of society's ills.
Keir Starmer is a Tory. Austerity with a red rosette is still austerity.
I'd be happy with a centrist Labour party at this point!
Meaningless but funny
Also
Also
I guarantee that every single poster in this thread, who is mocked as being 'hard left' or a 'Corbynista', wants the centrist vision of Starmer that the centrists in this thread are hoping he will be. Guarantee it.
You are acting like there is nothing there at all! There is already child benefit there for up to 2 kids! Why would you even think of having more than that if you cannot afford it (unless there were special circumstances obviously). You are then asking for another £1.3bn to scrap the cap and there is no mention of whether people can claim for up to 3, 4 or 5 kids. You are also acting like there isnt any other benefit that people can claim and there is. You have to make a policy which the public will vote for otherwise you won't get into Government but you will just stand by the sidelines making promises without ever making a difference. It's clear from the financial situation this policy isn't affordable unless it's funded by a cut elsewhere but still you are then asking other people who are also struggling and also trying to put food on the table to pay for other people to have more than 3 kids wondering why did they get to that number because they can't afford it. You stand in front of people who are struggling to make ends meet who have 2 kids or no kids and tell them that!
I am arguing against a policy, you are then mixing this with benefit cheats and pushing down. I've said nothing about that.
What are you even going on about? Having an argument for something which no one is even arguing in the first place. There is no 'saving' in the first place because the money isn't being spent, it has to be got from somewhere else.
There also seems to be a dynamic as soon as you say something which Starmer supports you get shouted down or called a Tory (proved on this page). I disagree with Starmer on a number of issues as do lots of people. I haven't seen a dynamic as you mention, just people actually debating the policy being discussed.
Yeah that's how I took it as well, what I meant was you asked how that spend could be justified but neverdie's post went into why that expenditure would be justified (in his, and in my opinion).
Yeah, I'm hoping that it ends up being the case, even as time goes on and it looks more unlikely.
Again you are mixing different policies/issues. I am simply discussing the child benefit policy. Of course I think we need to get tougher on tax dodgers and billionaires. As I said to the other poster, there is already child benefit for up to 2 kids, you are then asking other people to vote for a policy where they are also struggling to make ends meet but to vote for people to have child benefit for 3, 4 or 5 kids because they've had kids they can't afford. You are also acting like there isn't other support available yet there is already including for those vulernable. Of course more needs to be done including raising benefits with inflation so they actually help.
I'm not even going to begin to defend the Tories, but just because someone has a different view to you, it doesn't make them a 'Tory'. I'm debating a policy not Tory views on other subject, most of which I disagree with.
I'm offering a proposal that Starmer and Labour could campaign for. Every reason you gave for being against benefits to families with more than two kids applies even stronger for families with one or two kids, and those benefits are much much more expensive than £1.3b. Why wouldn't it be a good idea to either cut everything, or at least set the limit at one kid? Starmer could then use the saved money, either on generating a budget surplus or helping people in a cost of living crisis, instead of giving money to families having kids they can't afford.
The money is there. We need to stop letting large corporations like Starbucks and Amazon pay 0% - 5% tax on massive profits. That is where the money should come from to invest.
Starbucks pays just £5m UK corporation tax on £95m gross profit
This article is more than 1 year old
‘Administrative expenses’ of £78m, including royalties, utilities and maintenance, helped bring taxable profits down to £13m
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-tax-profit-administrative-expenses-royalties
Amazon’s main UK division pays no corporation tax for second year in a row
Amazon UK Services received tax credit of £7.7m for investment in infrastructure under Rishi Sunak’s super-deduction scheme
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-tax-credit-government-super-deduction-scheme
Starbucks pays just £5m UK corporation tax on £95m gross profit
This article is more than 1 year old
‘Administrative expenses’ of £78m, including royalties, utilities and maintenance, helped bring taxable profits down to £13m
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-tax-profit-administrative-expenses-royalties
Amazon’s main UK division pays no corporation tax for second year in a row
Amazon UK Services received tax credit of £7.7m for investment in infrastructure under Rishi Sunak’s super-deduction scheme
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-tax-credit-government-super-deduction-scheme
So rather than debate the policy, you come with whataboutery which nobody is proposing or discussing, quite pathetic actually that people resort to that without actually even being able to debate the issue at hand. Again, people love twisting words, no one is saying no benefits for those families, they would already be entitled to help via other means and other benefits which they already would get and it would be better raising those with inflation.
Taxing big corporations should be top of the list alongside anyone else tax dodging and full blown enquiry into the covid PPE loans.
It isn't "whataboutery". I know it's the word of the year, but it doesn't apply.
Families with one or two kids are also already entitled to help via other means and other benefits, why would they need more? Cutting those would be deflationary, so it would help with cost of living.
Starmer makes our illusion of choice politics less of an illusion that's for sure. My only hope is that he's a Trojan horse, duping the I'm alright jacks into thinking he's right wing and then bam, he gets elected and ends torrent-up economics.
Unlikely though isn't it, normally dishonest people pretend to be honest, not the other way around.
Unlikely though isn't it, normally dishonest people pretend to be honest, not the other way around.
No one is proposing that so you've ignored the topic being discussed completely and just come up with someone else which is no one is proposing or discussing, I'll leave you to discuss that with yourself.
I don't drive into London but I knew my car would pass because they've got a similar scheme in Birmingham.
Two kids good, three kids bad.
You fund more than the two children for the exact same, identical, no different reason that you fund the two children.
Why should people fund more than two kids if the parents can't afford it? Because the third kid is not responsible for the previous kids and needs support.
But the parents are lousy and irresponsible with the money you say. Support the fecking child.
You fund more than the two children for the exact same, identical, no different reason that you fund the two children.
Why should people fund more than two kids if the parents can't afford it? Because the third kid is not responsible for the previous kids and needs support.
But the parents are lousy and irresponsible with the money you say. Support the fecking child.
I am proposing it!
I'm asking you why it wouldn't be a good idea. All the things in favour of scrapping it are things you like.
The % of households that have 2 or more kids is approx 2/3, and that doesn’t take into account the affects of cost of living & inflation either on things like childcare, school uniform, baby food & clothes etc.
So even the statistics tell you that providing benefits for 2 children should really be the minimum, not the cap.
And in one of the worlds richest countries if people ‘can’t make ends meet’ the issue is that of equality and distribution of wealth, not availability of resources - the money is there, and the resolution to that isn’t to punish the most needy within society.
Also if the government did look at appropriately taxing the super wealthy and funnel that money into things like public services, then the reliance on child benefits wouldn’t be so high either - so no, it’s not ‘whataboutery’
Nothing I have said adds to that. Have a good evening.
It would be better to raise the current benefits in line with inflation so the money actually can help. You statistic doesn't take into account the earnings of those households so some maybe entitled to a portion or nothing at all for child benefit. The problem I am saying is that you can't just conjure up £1.3bn (not sure how many kids that takes into account) otherwise it will just feed into the narrative of Labour being irresponsible with the public finances. The magic money tree was a weapon used against Labour in previous elections and judging by the results, it worked.
I don't understand what that means. Surely if giving money to families with three or more kids risk them spending it on other things than the kids, then that is also true for families with one or two kids? And if giving money to families with three or more kids means paying them for having kids they can't afford, then that is just as true for families with one or two kids? And, surely, if spending £1.3b on these sorts of benefits is a bad idea because healthcare and cost of living, then spending much more than £1.3b might also be unwise?