It would never have happened under the Tories or Labour.
The Uk would have to leave the ECHR first.
Don't think Starmer fancied being taken to an International court or losing any goodwill with the EU.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
It would never have happened under the Tories or Labour.
The Uk would have to leave the ECHR first.
Don't think Starmer fancied being taken to an International court or losing any goodwill with the EU.
I thought the plan was to elect a Labour government and hold them to account once they were in power?
Don't tell me the plan has changed to just accepting whatever they do because, hey, you can't have everything you want?
Don't tell me the plan has changed to just accepting whatever they do because, hey, you can't have everything you want?
Centrists gonna centrist.
Yeah but he faced a lot of pressure as being seen as weak on immigration with the policy but still cancelled it. And you are right, the the two right wing parties would have led us down a more dangerous path.
The Tories left an economic disaster, but £3bn is not a great deal of money in terms of a £1 trillion budget. Spending this money has clear positive implications and will save money in the longer term, and I am not sure why we seek to means test child benefits but don't do it with pensions. I'd have it the other way round personally.
Of course they should be held accountable but they are doing what they promised already and not lifting the cap. They were quite clear they would not lift it before the election.
And if a few people have to be put on planes and deported or whatever then so be it. They can take comfort in my ideology and hanging on for the greater good.
Oh yeah I fully agree regarding the pensions view. I believe Labour don’t want to be seen as irresponsible with the budget and have already said to public sector (councils where I work) that there isn’t going to be a lot of more money available. The financial situation is clearly a mess but the hope is a scheme could be introduced in the future.
I agree, that's been their position.
What I don't understand is the stance of some posters defending it. Surely you can support a party and still disagree with some of their actions?
All its going to do is waste a few billion on people who still wont look after their kids properly, that's what happened before the cap and that's what will happen if its removed.
Spend the money on providing better support services for the kids who are being neglected, where the kids are the ones guaranteed to see the benefit.
Braverman voting to lift the cap 
She has literally no shame.
She has literally no shame.
Haven’t seen people defending the decision, merely the surprise of others and then silly childish comments made like it’s news to them. I mean I’m quite clear that some sort of means tested scheme is needed but can understand why Labour have said it’s not affordable at present. People can criticise that but the childish comments are stupid.
She is fecking pathetic. She needs to feck off and join reform. Imagine the morons who vote for her as their MP.Braverman voting to lift the cap
She has literally no shame.
It's a nice thought but they'd need funding and a party bureaucracy behind them.
Why do you think that would be limited to poor people?
There would be people who massively benefit from the cap lifting who skip meals so their kids don’t have to, or out on extra layers so they don’t have to put the heating on (not now) during the hours the kids aren’t in the house.
And then there are people comfortably well off who treat their kid(s) as an afterthought!
Love getting advice on childish comments just after saying you think a policy is too expensive right now and that it should instead be means tested (i.e. adding enormous cost and a level of bureaucracy to a policy that was already unaffordable.)
Good old neoliberalism, where expense is simultaneously making a policy unchangeable and a price worth paying if it stops just one child who doesn't need help from receiving it.
I said Labour have said it’s too expensive and I can reason why they said that? You think we should be giving more benefits to individuals who earn £60k? Two people in the house could earn just shy of that which is combined over £120k and you want to give them more benefits? Where is the fecking sense in that? A means tested scheme need not be more expensive if people below the threshold it is set can only apply. Surely a scheme where the people who actually need that money get it is the way forward.
That's why i think the money should be directed to providing services instead of a simple cash benefit. Where people are neglecting their children the state can step in and provide what is needed, be that food, shelter or whatever else.
I don't believe just handing out cash often fixes the problem its hoped to.
It would cost just one of the indefinite yearly payments to Ukraine Starmer took about 0.01 seconds to find the funding for.
Means testing anything costs a ton of money. If your excuse for why a policy can't be changed is its cost, adding more to it just looks absolutely farcical.
No, the main cost of the policy will be the money given out. If the money is given to the people who need it most not everyone then it will be cheaper. I mean it’s simple maths! I then have clearly explained why a policy for everyone would be stupid.
It's highly unlikely both parents will be working full time with more than 2 kids. And if they are 120k isn't much after you factor in full time childcare costs, esp if you live in the south of England.
Then you have single parents, again 60k isn't much to take care of more than 2 kids, work full time and fund full time childcare.
And all you need to do to make it cheaper is use the money you're saving to employ a bunch of civil servants to determine what the cut off point is (especially as it'll change depending where the person is across the country). Then a campaign to ensure people who should be getting them actually apply for this benefit, in a way that'll make them forget they live in a country that has spent the last two decades labelling anyone who gets benefits lazy scroungers. Then have those civil servants determine who is and isn't eligible to receive the benefits amongst those who apply. Then a bunch more costs in people who deal with appeals. Then a bunch more people in other departments catching the people who inevitably fall through the cracks.
But it might stop one family receiving these benefits when they don't need to, so who cares about cost? Oh you, about ten minutes ago when you were using it to excuse Labour not binning the policy in the first place.
Along with McDonnell, Apsana Begum; Richard Burgon; Ian Byrne; Imran Hussain; Rebecca Long-Bailey; and Zarah Sultana all voted for the amendment, and 42 Labour MPs did not vote.
All seven have had the whip suspended for six months, when there will be a review. The move caused anger among some backbenchers, who said they believed it was a major strategic error.
The Nottingham East MP Nadia Whittome, who did not vote for the amendment but spoke earlier in favour of abolishing the cap, told the Guardian: “The government’s approach to party discipline has been appalling. No MP should have lost the whip for their vote this evening, especially on a policy that almost everyone in Labour opposes.
All seven have had the whip suspended for six months, when there will be a review. The move caused anger among some backbenchers, who said they believed it was a major strategic error.
The Nottingham East MP Nadia Whittome, who did not vote for the amendment but spoke earlier in favour of abolishing the cap, told the Guardian: “The government’s approach to party discipline has been appalling. No MP should have lost the whip for their vote this evening, especially on a policy that almost everyone in Labour opposes.
Yet there are already staff in place to do that. I mean there currently is a threshold which needs to be administered and is done so. Youve just made alot of assertions without any basis to staff currently working on current schemes. Obviously the idea will need to be thought out. I was making a suggestion. Whereas your solution is to fund a scheme without any idea where the money is coming from and just criticise anyone else who says they can sympathise with Labour that it may not be affordable at present.
Yes I can see that there may be situations like you described. I’m just trying to suggest a policy which won’t cost the same as a full roll out but still target those who need it most.
Once again, Starmer has already pledged the exact same amount it would cost to bin this policy to Ukraine every year indefinitely.
The funding argument is demonstrable bollocks. It took Starmer longer to wipe his arse last time he had a shit than it took for him to find Zelensky that money for as long as he needs it
Very curious to know who someone as pure as Dobba would vote for.
Do you not think we should be funding Ukraine? Thereby letting it be taken over by Russia and then causing massive security concerns for the country? Just letting their people perish and die whilst being taken over by Putin?
There is also the possibility of effectively taxing things like wealth which we do a bad job of doing.
It's not just that, child poverty often leads to anti social behaviour and crime which results in much wider costs and implications.
It doesn't make sense keeping it. Money is the excuse, this isn't really a cost in the long term either it's more of an investment that will result in future savings.
So you haven’t answered my question and just used whatabountery, great stuff!
Of course we should be looking at child poverty. Those in need currently would be able for current benefits and assistance. Labour should be looking to introduce a scheme in the future once they can identify the funds. Those in Ukraine if we withdraw, would just be most likely killed and who would be next for Putin? And Ukraine do need it! They are trying to fight a country way more bigger and with more resources than them.
Your argument presumably is that money should be no obstacle in helping the people of Ukraine. So again, why does this not apply to kids in poverty over here?
If £3bn for Ukraine every single year doesn't make you demand to know where the funding is coming from, nevermind come up with affordability excuses for why it shouldn't happen, why do you care so much when it's being spent on binning this bullshit policy?
Again I have stated several times, a policy should be introduced and if Labour say they can’t afford it, I can sympathise with that but they could look to introduce another scheme which can help those in need. I still at the same time think we need to help Ukraine. We clearly have different views on this. Let’s hope something can be introduced going forward.
Yet again, how can they simultaneously not afford this but guarantee Ukraine the same amount of money every single year indefinitely?
Even you don't actually buy this bollocks.
I mean I agree guranteeing into the future is not a decision I think they should make right now rather around the time of the next years budget and so forth. As the financial situation may change.
Bit late for that they already did.
So again, how they can afford one and not the other?
Is it an extra 3 billion a year? I thought it was just sticking to the previously planned for commitment. Or maybe that funding should be removed and reallocated? I can see a lot of costs to that though.
3 billion to Ukraine, and 3 billion to remove the two child limit.
E: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ment-to-deliver-3-billion-of-military-support
Thank you for that.
More shite talking from Labour