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?
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
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?
Your logic applies to another idea which you seem unwilling to defend. It's pretty simple actually.
Child cap removal costs 1.3 billion.
Last year alone we gave 2.5 billion to ukraine.
I don't care how enthusiastic you are to sticking it to putin, a country that can't look after its own fecking kids should not be sending money to anyone else.
I'm glad si kid starver is trending. The pious dick deserves it.
Last year alone we gave 2.5 billion to ukraine.
I don't care how enthusiastic you are to sticking it to putin, a country that can't look after its own fecking kids should not be sending money to anyone else.
I'm glad si kid starver is trending. The pious dick deserves it.
No I'm discussing the child benefit policy but people want to hijack it and start talking about cutting benefits etc which I've not mentioned nor I'm in favour of (clearly said to raise them with inflation). I'm asking those people who want it to justify it to the rest of the country who are also struggling to put food on the table and getting access to basic healthcare but all of a sudden £1.3bn + is found to support people who've had 3 kids when there is already child benefit and other benefits for people who've had 2. Good luck with selling that to people. Also people want investments and costs including public sector wages, where is the money coming to fund that? It's all well and good saying we want this and that, to get elected, you need to justify that to the electorate with backed up budgeting and tell them where the money is coming from or what will be cut to fund it.
Last edited:
It worked because the general public are idiots - the Tories have pissed up tens of billions during a pandemic & a cost of living crisis but if Labour choose to help families and those in need, then they’re the ones being irresponsible.
You don’t see how idiotic that is??
If we make policy based on the comprehension & opinions of the average voter and continue to do what we’ve been doing for the last 15 years or so that the Tories have been in power, how will anything change? That’s the definition of insanity.
We can’t be scared to make radical changes within society just because Jane, 56, Bristol, thinks that Labour are wasteful with money, so she’s going to vote Tories.
No you shouldn’t be scared to make radical changes but if you want to make a real difference to people’s lives you have to get in power first. To do that you need to appeal to a wider electorate due to the FPTP system we use. To appeal to a wider electorate you need policies to help you achieve this. That is the point.
I’m in agreement with you about the Tories, there needs to be proper investigations and they need to be held to account. Labour first need to get into power to pass any laws whatsoever otherwise they will be say moaning in opposition like they have been doing. Maybe a means tested system could be created to help the most at need with more than 2 children. That would cost less than a blanket policy. There are different options they could use to help people.
Good resignation letter by Jamie Driscoll, who raised more than his £25k funding target in less than two hours.
Our birth rate has been declining for decades. We need more children being born. The government shouldn't be seen to be punishing families for having more than two kids. Our ageing population isn't creating enough new people to support it.
We need more immigration, too.
We need more immigration, too.
We need to be in the single market and customs union. Sadly we won’t be getting that with either Labour or Conservative.
Hey! Remember when the Tories actually voted against FSM during school holidays during an actual pandemic?
But yeah, Sir Kid Starver, really fecking funny!
(I disagree vehemently with the 2 child limit but come on, have some fecking perspective!)
But yeah, Sir Kid Starver, really fecking funny!
(I disagree vehemently with the 2 child limit but come on, have some fecking perspective!)
I'm not sure how pointing out the bad things the outgoing government is doing and has done is going to help us deal with the incoming government. It's important we hold those in power to account, the outgoing and historical Tory governments were dreadful, but they're not really of consequence any more, are they? With a seemingly inevitable Starmer premiership, is it not important we question his ideas and not just dismiss everything with a wave of the hand, a pinch of the nose and a snort of 'well at least he isn't them'?
I do see what you’re saying but Sir Kid Starver is a really funny pun, at least to my immature mind.
Challenge, yes
Question, yes
Hold to account, of course
But it has to be ranked against what came before. There isn’t a great reset button when governments change over. The UK economy won’t suddenly be at pre-pandemic, pre-Brexit, pre-Osbourne levels, so incoming policy is going to be shaped by the state of the country that they inherit.
Okay, so if you're flying into a head on collision, do you try and do something different to change the situation, or just enjoy the moment because it's better than that time you nearly drowned?
Yeah, but if the guy who sold you the car cut the breaks, there’s not much you can do.
grim.
That's not the situation, though. There are many options to raise wealth and change direction. Many. We already know that Osborne lay the groundwork for the NHS to fail and for our unpreparedness for a pandemic, austerity was not inevitable, it was a choice that did not work and has only made our recovery all the more challenging. We all know a continuity candidate will not bring real change, we might take some comfort on our side being in charge, but if they're not brave enough to do something more radical, we're heading in the same direction in a different coloured car. If we allow don't challenge Starmer, we're encouraging him to do nothing more than a soft reboot.
Oh the hard choices of a MP on £80,000 a year.
I suppose the counter argument would be after you watch Putin abuse all Ukrainian children because you saved enough money to have the UK state look after its own. We all get to watch as his next move leads to the incineration of everyone's children. Well done on your care for children decision making tree, you sure showed us all how it should be done.
Don't want to derail but the UK profited from the death of 300k Yemeni children directly via BAE (and others). Not a great decision tree, as you put it, to drag military aid in whatsoever if we're looking at purity tests for "saving children abroad". £17bn in arm sales since 2015. Best kept domestic imo.
Yeah we need youth to contribute to the tax burden, be that families having more children or imported from abroad.
Our society just isn't sustainable with its current age demographic.
Problem is that they are proposing such policies as a means to get in power, when actually, due to the incompetence of the Tories, they could say nothing and still get elected.
They don’t want to do that, they are actively championing policies that won’t help the very vulnerable in society in order to appeal to Tory voters. Also he’s ruled out changing from FPTP, so even if he does become PM for a term, we’ll be right back to Tories for another extended period of time.
I agree the voting system needs to change, it's not a fair reflection of the voting which occurs and resigns the country to a 2 party system. There is a lot of talk about policies however I would wait until the manifesto is released for a proper judgement on what Labour is proposing. I've not been impressed with their pro Brexit stance and their unwillingness to overturn the anti protest laws. Hopefully they can present something effective in their manifesto.
You are quite right that in order to get back into government, you really do have to appeal to the widest electorate possible. And that is what Starmer has been trying to do.
But @villain is also right in the Labour could pretty much say nothing and get back elected.
That says nothing about how good they are but how absolutely terrible the Tories are and have been. Certainly the worst government I can remember in my long life.
The 3 by-elections will confirm that.
I do have very mixed feelings about Starmer. He was probably the best of a pretty average bunch to become leader of labour. And he has turned labour round from the awful 2019 result.
But assuming they win next year, they will inherit a country that is in a desperate state.
And they will have to prioritise what they will have to do.
So don't expect much from them in terms of major changes because of that. Fact of life I am afraid.
You justify it in the exact same way you justify child benefits for the first two kids. There's no difference and the only reason you agree with the former and not the latter is you're being agreeable rather than critical, to the point you won't extend your discussion beyond post hoc justification of Starmers decisions. Or worse you're being selfish because you only have two kids and screw those with more but then why should someone with no kids be paying for anyone elses?
This wouldn't be a new policy we didn't always have the cap you know. It was part of the failed austerity drive. Reversing the policy has also been Labour policy since then with every cabinet member publically on record against it and voting against it. Everyone already assumed they'd reverse it because they said they would so it was baked in to the polling lead.
Yet the policy you so subserviently defend isn't even being upheld on it's own merits but by the fact Starmer can use it as a soundbite to appear tough. Children will remain in poverty because of a convenient soundbite. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside eh.
He’s already reversed all policies he proposed to become Labour Leader, so maybe by the time the manifesto comes out he’ll reverse them again. I wouldn’t hold my breath though
Polls can be looked at to an extent as can by-elections but the main election won't be plain sailing for Labour by any means and the gap in the polls will inevitably shorten.
Sadly the country is in desperate need of investment. This is only possible by fairly taxing the high turnover companies and extend high value individuals.
Fundamentally Starmer will not do this as he is courting these groups for funding and support. All while alienating the alternative source of funding and support which is the high number of workers in this country (Labour!).
It may have been the Labour policy but clearly they have may have access to further financial information indicating it's not something they can do when they come into government. I've asked how this is going to be funded, so far people have suggested stop sending money to Ukraine and cut the defence budget, don't think any of those will happen. You then have other aspects to pay for, health, police, public sector pay, cost of living. All which have been neglected. Starmer indicated in his interview they may offer other support, this could be along the lines of targeting the most vulnerable with 3 kids who actually need the money rather than a blanket policy which means everyone gets it. People can claim child benefit if they earn up to £50k a year and can claim after that but have to pay a charge. If you think getting an extra £15.90 a week is going to suddenly resolve child poverty in this country then that's wishful thinking. There is greater investment needed in all areas to solve that.
I never said stop funding Ukraine.
I pointed out that there is never 'no money' to send for war, and if we can afford that, we can afford less than that for children.
You talk as if this is something new, this cap has been in place since 2016, before that the country managed fine supporting children.
Anyway, here is an alternative question. When research has shown that the cap has put 800K children into poverty, and has led to children actually starving, how in the world can we not afford to remove it?
I guarantee that dealing with the fallout of a third of children in a generation living in poverty, from the illness in life, the mental health problems it causes, and in a purely fiscal perspective, the loss of productivty that will result in, will cost a hell of a lot more than lifting the cap ever will.
The longer I work in the public sector the more frustrated I get by the inability of people both inside and outside of government to grasp the basic relationship between cause and effect.
Child poverty is a major cause of poor educational outcomes, poor health and job prospects later in life, antisocial behaviour/crime and so on and so forth. £1.3bn a year to tackle child poverty would save the DWP and other public bodies such as schools, the NHS and policing immeasurably more in the medium-long term.
As with any discussion regarding spending public money on public goods, the UK's curtain-twitching freaks and the politicians who court their votes get bogged down in quibbling over whether we can or should spend money to make the country better, whilst merrily forking over far more money dealing reactively with the societal problems the spending would alleviate.
Child poverty is a major cause of poor educational outcomes, poor health and job prospects later in life, antisocial behaviour/crime and so on and so forth. £1.3bn a year to tackle child poverty would save the DWP and other public bodies such as schools, the NHS and policing immeasurably more in the medium-long term.
As with any discussion regarding spending public money on public goods, the UK's curtain-twitching freaks and the politicians who court their votes get bogged down in quibbling over whether we can or should spend money to make the country better, whilst merrily forking over far more money dealing reactively with the societal problems the spending would alleviate.
That's the wrong policy. It's the up to £3k tax credit you get for your first and second child, but since Osborne and now Starmer not the next ones.
Last edited:
It's odd because most large organisations have this shit down. For instance I work in financial services, we have an internal portfolio director and if you make the case for a cost saving you get the funding. Now at the government level that's way easier as you don't have the same constraints.
I'm good friends with someone that works in regional policy and from what I'm told it's a mess and even projects with fairly guaranteed savings get canned.
If a Labour government can't make the case for investing in a better future then what hope do we have. Everyone understands spending to achieve savings/efficiencies.
I do take your point about by-elections. But if sufficient voters vote for labour as opposed to the liberals, then that will give a reasonable indication.
The first reason for that is they don't care about the future, only about the here and now. If they did they'd be far more in place to tackle climate change for one. It's off the table though politically because it would cost too much money and people are inherently selfish.
The second reason is that it doesn't make them any money. Again, we've got a government seemingly only concerned with fleecing the public purse. Look at their response to immigration and covid as two recent examples that became an opportunity to syphon our cash away rather than actually solve anything.
I also work in the public sector and I can tell you the upper management is infested with private sector chancers who again only think in monetary terms. As an example we built an automation here a year or so back that won won awards for the good it did in alleviating pressure on social services and improving customer journeys and the first response from a high level manager was "ok that's good but how can we make money from this".
At the risk of oversimplifying: self-interest, short-termism, silo-thinking and turnover amongst the ministers and senior civil servants leading departments makes it very difficult for the Civil Service to get stuff done, plan for the long-term or work across departments. It's not uncommon for a project to be shelved halfway through implementation because an incoming minister doesn't like it, thinks they know better, doesn't like the minister they've replaced or just because because they want to make an impression. It's not uncommon for ministers to make decisions which will make themselves and their department look good in the short term whilst placing a greater burden on the department in the future when they'll have moved on, or place a greater burden on another part of the public sector they aren't responsible for.
The culture amongst senior civil servants therefore becomes about delivering quick-wins which reap immediate and obvious results within a single department (e.g - this year we spent X amount less), rather than good decisions which would benefit the country in the long-run.
Last edited:
The first reason for that is they don't care about the future, only about the here and now. If they did they'd be far more in place to tackle climate change for one. It's off the table though politically because it would cost too much money and people are inherently selfish.
The second reason is that it doesn't make them any money. Again, we've got a government seemingly only concerned with fleecing the public purse. Look at their response to immigration and covid as two recent examples that became an opportunity to syphon our cash away rather than actually solve anything.
I also work in the public sector and I can tell you the upper management is infested with private sector chancers who again only think in monetary terms. As an example we built an automation here a year or so back that won won awards for the good it did in alleviating pressure on social services and improving customer journeys and the first response from a high level manager was "ok that's good but how can we make money from this".
Yeah absolutely agree with all of that, I'd replied to Smores before I saw this but covered some of the same ground there.
When Starmer calls starving kids a hard choice, I think he means it's a choice that makes him hard.
A hard choice would be saying 'the wealth of the UK's billionaires has skyrocketed by over 1000% between 1990 and 2022, it's time they paid their fair share'. Probably wasn't the policy he was discussing at Rupert Murdoch's party.
Such a hard desciion he can sit with tony and have a laugh about it apparently.