I think it should be removed ASAP but it was never going to happen tonight or in the Kings Speech, that was telegraphed way in advance. It's perfectly normal for us to feel crap about it though.It’s hard isn’t it, with kids you feel immediately emotive, but they have said they won’t do anything substantial uncosted.
But I can’t help but think FFS let’s just help the kids. I am trying to reconcile my own feelings, if this is the tories I’d probably slag them right offbut also Labour have literally said they wouldn’t do this so why would they 3 weeks in?
Also, the tories who voted for it taking the moral high ground should get in a hole and die!
To conclude it’s a difficult conversation to have, 3 weeks in if they bring in a huge cost imagine the amount of criticism they’d get? But also… feck that help kids!
I really am so torn on this.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
If you voted for Starmer, why on earth would you feel crap about getting exactly what he said he'd do?
How many flights took off? Can you remind me?
The cornerstone of any civilised conversation, right there.
My mistake, Sir Kid Starver.
Is your argument that the Conservatives would have dropped the plan for the flights after being elected, or is it just pointless?
It's some 4d chess move where after winning the election the politician/party will do a 180 on most of their pre election pledges.
Do you honestly not know? That's a shame.
It's like setting yourself on fire and complaining about it being hot.
You got what you voted for.
It should be gone already. The whole thing is based on the view that the wrong sort of people shouldn't have too many kids.
Talk about costings is the wrong conversation for me. We have five year olds with stunted growth. The cost of £3bn a year has to be weighed against the wider long term costs to the country of not doing anything.
Well done! The award for most pointless contribution, even less than mine was.
What I'm saying is you are setting the bar really low if scrapping the Rwanda scheme is a benchmark for making good decisions. It's the least they could do.
And yes, if you want to compare removing the 2 child cap would have brought far more benefits to the country than scrapping the Rwanda scheme.
It’s incredible you manage to live in the human world with that ideological purity!
Again, no element of nuance or complexity, everything has to be binary, black or white, all or nothing.
You can vote for a Party without agreeing on them on everything.
Damn me and my ideological purity of hating the idea of a policy so much I wouldn't vote for anyone promising to keep it in place.
Real grown ups simply hand them five years of power and then complain about them continuing the policy they said they'd do when they're powerless to stop them.
Exactly this but according to a lot on here you have to pure and anyone they vote for don’t have any bad policies and would fix everything overnight.
The pensions triple lock costs £11bn a year, for contrast: https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...1bn-a-year-to-public-spending-report-12956841
When you buy an album do you have to love every track on it?
I guess with your purity you can keep voting for an independent, that way you get to heckle WHOEVER is in charge, always be the ‘pissed off opposition’ without ever actually having to deal with any complexities ever.
Congratulations!
It would be better to introduce a means tested scheme for people who are greatest in need and have more than 2 kids. The earnings threshold on the current scheme I believe is £80k. If rolling out to more than 2 kids, a means tested scheme aimed at the greatest in need would cost less and have more impact.
Equating child poverty to songs you might not like as much as others is an impressive low.
Sorry, in this scenario is child poverty being compared to a shit album filler track?
Someone should let the kids know they can just press the skip hunger button until food comes along.
Scrapping the scheme has already saved millions simply with that decision despite Labour being argued against by the Conservatives and Reform. The whole scheme would have cost billions so cancelling it saved that.
The threshold is 60k now, the Tories recently upped it from 50k.
But the child tax credit is the means tested benefit.
OH FOR feckS SAKE
Are you guys doing this deliberately in a disingenuous manner, or just ignorant? I’m comparing the album analogy to binary support / opposition to a Party.
I mean the poster isn’t doing that but using an example to argue that it’s similar to not agreeing to all a party’s policies. Anyone can see that from the discussion.
How many tracks do you need to dislike to not buy the album?
Means testing may not be the answer all the time. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation did some research into how a proportion of the poorest household don't claim means tested benefits.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/social-security/on-a-low-income-but-not-claiming-means-tested-benefits
Ah my mistake. It tapers after £60k and stops at £80k. Still believe in my view a means benefit scheme is the way to go for people with more than 2 kids.
It might just be me because I'm really struggling with the idea that a policy can bother you this much a fortnight into a new government, but the leader of a party telling you they'll be doing it doesn't bother you enough to not vote for them at the one opportunity you had for five years.
A fair point, I’d say whatever leads you to thinking the ‘album’ is a nett negative.
I'm going to own up and admit my ideological purity means I view starving kids as a net negative.
Yes the case still needs to be made to publicise the benefits people can claim and help them claim them. Some work will need to make sure that happens but if the Government want to introduce a more affordable policy, that may well be the way to go.
How does your purity view SureStart?
I mean the benefits of scrapping the 2 child cap has been looked into by many economists and it would bring in long term net benefits to the country . It's a perverse and inhumane ideological position to keep it, something that is expected of the Tories, but looks like Labour are following suit, this is why it's rubbing people the wrong way.
Their second album was their best work.
Because people can still be disappointed in the Government and hope the economic situation changes with their policy improvements that they could introduce such a measure in the future.
A half arsed policy, following in the footsteps of New Labour rushing to cut benefits to single mothers before their arses had warmed up the government benches in the Commons.
I'll stick to not voting for the guy who says he wants the policy to continue.
Obviously they would have looked at the cost implications and thought it’s not affordable and they don’t wanted to be accused of being economically unstable straight after coming into office. My belief is a means tested policy would help the people greatest at need.
We obviously have different opinions on this and will agree to disagree. Labour have shown other positive improvements they are going to make.
So improving education and health outcomes of some of the poorest kids, and helping their parents with employment was ‘half-arsed’…