Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Without being too contrarian, surely there is a better lever to lift children out of poverty than child benefit?

I feel like the scheme is a bit nuts when you think about it and I’m extremely left wing economically.

How can there be a scheme where people who are extremely well of get benefits at the same rate as those who actually need it?
 
Oo0AahCantona said:
Without being too contrarian, surely there is a better lever to lift children out of poverty than child benefit?

I feel like the scheme is a bit nuts when you think about it and I’m extremely left wing economically.

How can there be a scheme where people who are extremely well of get benefits at the same rate as those who actually need it?
Click to expand...
Plenty of ideas from the Child Poverty Action Group

https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/solutions-poverty

But removing the cap would be an easy, quick and obvious way to reverse the hundreds of thousands of kids pushed into poverty by the cap.
 
NHS finances so dire that whole service may collapse, says spending watchdog

The NHS’s finances are so dire that the whole health service may break unless it receives a massive cash injection, Whitehall’s spending watchdog has warned.

Years of underfunding have left the NHS in England so cash-strapped that it cannot treat patients quickly enough, and the rising tide of ill-health will make matters worse, the National Audit Office (NAO) said.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...e-service-may-collapse-says-spending-watchdog

Goody.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
OK, I’ll bite.

Here’s what I want in this country:
- a four day working week
- rent control and affordable housing
- childcare and parental leave that promotes having children
- schools that teach critical thinking and an NHS that is once again the envy of the world

But here’s what the ‘few billion’ (from memory) that lifting the cap would do for the immediacy; add a percentage point to the offer to striking NHS workers. This can help make a deal and stop doctors from striking. It could also mean a percent of doctors / NHS staff thinking of quitting in the next 6 months / 1 year won’t, giving the NHS a bit more time and staff.


I swear to God, some people on here, “same old shit”, “more of the same” blah blah blah are just fecking pathetic. Labour have been in power for 3 weeks but the country isn’t immediately a socialist Shangri-La so feck those Red Tories. Take a look in the mirror and grow the feck up!

We all want the same thing, but we can’t click our fingers like a fecking genie and go, “POOFT” sorted!
Click to expand...

Is this offer to striking NHS workers a proposed Labour policy?
 
Dobba said:
Bit late for that they already did.

So again, how they can afford one and not the other?
Click to expand...
You asked my opinion on the Ukraine funding, I gave it.

I don’t know the financial situation they have inherited, they do so they’ve based a decision on that. Funding for Ukraine was always going to be given considering the security situation. It would have been continuous funding already earmarked. I assume anything to fund the child benefit cap is new and Labour have looked at the financial situation and felt they cannot fund at the present time.
 
NotThatSoph said:
He has said that there will be negotiations, not that he's giving them all the government can afford to, no?
Click to expand...


incredulous.gif


One is a policy Labour committed to, one isn’t.

We all agree the cap should be lifted, but it’s never been on their manifesto, so why (politically) divert funds from a key pledge, potentially putting a deal in jeopardy, for something that wasn’t campaigned on?

They’re whole mandate is to get things done that they say they would. It’s pretty pointless if, when asked, they go, “Yeah well, erm, gee, yeah so we didn’t actually do anything we promised to, especially with regard to the NHS, but we did do X, Y or Z”
 
TheGame said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was the easiest decision to make, a monkey could have made it, cancelling a program that cost 700m to voluntarily deport 4 persons? who with 4 brain cells would keep that?
 
Jericholyte2 said:
incredulous.gif


One is a policy Labour committed to, one isn’t.

We all agree the cap should be lifted, but it’s never been on their manifesto, so why (politically) divert funds from a key pledge, potentially putting a deal in jeopardy, for something that wasn’t campaigned on?

They’re whole mandate is to get things done that they say they would. It’s pretty pointless if, when asked, they go, “Yeah well, erm, gee, yeah so we didn’t actually do anything we promised to, especially with regard to the NHS, but we did do X, Y or Z”
Click to expand...

I don't think either is a Labour policy. Streeting has said there will be negotiations about NHS pay, which there of course will be because that's how NHS pay is decided every year.

Of course they were never going to scrap the cap, they've been clear saying that they don't want to. I'm questioning your reasoning, not theirs. You're the one who brought up NHS pay as a reason for keeping the cap, and I very much doubt those two things are connected at all. What you've done is to pick a random cause you care a lot about, and then tried to use that as the reason for why Labour don't want to spend money on alleviating child poverty.

Also very cool that the guy preaching about civility and nuance (while telling people to feck off and calling them kids) is leading with reaction gifs from the noughties. No practice, just preach, right?
 
Frosty said:
NHS finances so dire that whole service may collapse, says spending watchdog

The NHS’s finances are so dire that the whole health service may break unless it receives a massive cash injection, Whitehall’s spending watchdog has warned.

Years of underfunding have left the NHS in England so cash-strapped that it cannot treat patients quickly enough, and the rising tide of ill-health will make matters worse, the National Audit Office (NAO) said.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...e-service-may-collapse-says-spending-watchdog

Goody.
Click to expand...

The staffing issues are really bad, which we hear is a result of a lack of funding. We work understaffed everyday. This then turns into a vicious cycle of becoming frustrated with the system and wanting to leave (I struggle to see any real incentive to continue within the NHS after training) which then cycles back to ending up with a shortage of doctors.

People genuinely don't realize how bad the pay for doctors is in the NHS. In practical terms I am making significantly less as a registrar here than I was in a much poorer country before I came here.

Edit: Forgot to add in, these are issues taking place in a country where the cost of living is exponentially higher, which compounds these issues further
 
Last edited:
NotThatSoph said:
I don't think either is a Labour policy. Streeting has said there will be negotiations about NHS pay, which there of course will be because that's how NHS pay is decided every year.

Of course they were never going to scrap the cap, they've been clear saying that they don't want to. I'm questioning your reasoning, not theirs. You're the one who brought up NHS pay as a reason for keeping the cap, and I very much doubt those two things are connected at all. What you've done is to pick a random cause you care a lot about, and then tried to use that as the reason for why Labour don't want to spend money on alleviating child poverty.

Also very cool that the guy preaching about civility and nuance (while telling people to feck off and calling them kids) is leading with reaction gifs from the noughties. No practice, just preach, right?
Click to expand...

I try very hard to practice what I preach, then people come back with nonsense, such as disingenuously suggesting that an NHS pay agreement would take all of the government's money, or conflating a Labour government with the Tory predecessors when they have (yes I'll say it) set clear water between themselves and the Tories in the 3 weeks they've been in power, not only with actual policy, but with the rhetoric around such policy (see Streeting discussing sickness and disability benefits vs Mel Stride as a clear example), or suggesting that I don't care about child poverty because I understand why (despite disagreeing with them about it) they have decided it's not a financial priority.

I try very hard to explain my thoughts in a nuanced manner and then, as detailed previously, I get attacked from both sides for simultaneously being some lefty loon and a Tory-loving, child-hating fascist, mostly by people who believe that such things as a nations economy can be resolved with easy answers.

So yes, I slip sometimes.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I try very hard to practice what I preach, then people come back with nonsense, such as disingenuously suggesting that an NHS pay agreement would take all of the government's money, or conflating a Labour government with the Tory predecessors when they have (yes I'll say it) set clear water between themselves and the Tories in the 3 weeks they've been in power, not only with actual policy, but with the rhetoric around such policy (see Streeting discussing sickness and disability benefits vs Mel Stride as a clear example), or suggesting that I don't care about child poverty because I understand why (despite disagreeing with them about it) they have decided it's not a financial priority.

I try very hard to explain my thoughts in a nuanced manner and then, as detailed previously, I get attacked from both sides for simultaneously being some lefty loon and a Tory-loving, child-hating fascist, mostly by people who believe that such things as a nations economy can be resolved with easy answers.

So yes, I slip sometimes.
Click to expand...

If you're trying so hard, why not read better, or ask clarifying questions if you're unsure about something, instead of going straight to the boomer Facebook memes?

That might get you better results in the future.
 
NotThatSoph said:
If you're trying so hard, why not read better, or ask clarifying questions if you're unsure about something, instead of going straight to the boomer Facebook memes?

That might get you better results in the future.
Click to expand...

OK, deep breath, here goes.

- Do you believe that condescending comments suggesting people 'read better' are helpful during an emotive debate?
- Do you believe that 'boomer Facebook memes' or the use by other users of childish names like 'Sir Kid Starver' when talking about such complex, serious topics, are also helpful?

Hope that's meeting the requirements...
 
Jericholyte2 said:
OK, deep breath, here goes.

- Do you believe that condescending comments suggesting people 'read better' are helpful during an emotive debate?
- Do you believe that 'boomer Facebook memes' or the use by other users of childish names like 'Sir Kid Starver' when talking about such complex, serious topics, are also helpful?

Hope that's meeting the requirements...
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't give a shit about civility. You can be as uncivil as you like, and I was just giving the condescending attitude back to you. I'm finding it funny that you're so quick with the attitude and name-calling, while pretending to be above it, I don't actually mind it.

What I wrote was accurate, though. It shouldn't be very hard to understand what I was saying: the only way the child benefit cap is relevant for the NHS pay negotiations is if Labour are scrambling for money, and are offering all they can within their budget. Meaning that if they chose to scrap the cap, they would have no choice but to lower the NHS offer by £3.4m. That is not how the negotiations are going, and it's not how anyone in the whole world has even tried to present it, except you.
 
Anyone viewing the vote in the 2 child cap as just some good people trying to do the right thing, and not an initial inroad into testing how together the Labour Party is, is daft. It’s both. But it’s more of the latter.

It was a free hit for the SNP and one probably born of an act of spite after the election losses.

That they have an entirely justified policy to do that with is rare in politics, but that’s what it is.

A weeks old Governing Labour Party that is full of new MP’s that don’t even know each other, or how Westminster works is ripe for an early challenge.

Labour couldn’t allow a free vote as it would have fractured the new collective over one issue.

None of this matters. But the tail can’t wag the dog, even over something as critical as feeding children.

You simply can’t run an election saying ‘We won’t promise anything that we can’t pay for’ and then go against that immediately. I’m sure that the cap will be lifted in the first budget. They’ve lost the sales pitch on it with this vote, but our democracy is working as it’s designed to. Constituencies and the MP’s that represent them are supposed to effect change in the totality of government. That’s the system. But that’s only within a system that sees the country pay for what it can afford.

I think the country is still on the Tory setting that sees us just jump up and down because EVERYTHING is bad and there’s no good. So much good shit is happening and it’s been only weeks.

I expect it to take several months to create a package of fully costed policies to help the poorest in society. I think the totality of the budget will help those people and not even handedly give wealthy people a bunch of cash to provide ‘balance’.

I do think that suspending the whip for 6 months is a far too harsh punishment. But it also feels like the equivalent of a ref booking someone in the first five minutes to set a tone for the rest of it. It’ll take me a few days to work out where I land on it being too much or justified.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Anyone viewing the vote in the 2 child cap as just some good people trying to do the right thing, and not an initial inroad into testing how together the Labour Party is, is daft. It’s both. But it’s more of the latter.

It was a free hit for the SNP and one probably born of an act of spite after the election losses.

That they have an entirely justified policy to do that with is rare in politics, but that’s what it is.

A weeks old Governing Labour Party that is full of new MP’s that don’t even know each other, or how Westminster works is ripe for an early challenge.

Labour couldn’t allow a free vote as it would have fractured the new collective over one issue.

None of this matters. But the tail can’t wag the dog, even over something as critical as feeding children.

You simply can’t run an election saying ‘We won’t promise anything that we can’t pay for’ and then go against that immediately. I’m sure that the cap will be lifted in the first budget. They’ve lost the sales pitch on it with this vote, but our democracy is working as it’s designed to. Constituencies and the MP’s that represent them are supposed to effect change in the totality of government. That’s the system. But that’s only within a system that sees the country pay for what it can afford.

I think the country is still on the Tory setting that sees us just jump up and down because EVERYTHING is bad and there’s no good. So much good shit is happening and it’s been only weeks.

I expect it to take several months to create a package of fully costed policies to help the poorest in society. I think the totality of the budget will help those people and not even handedly give wealthy people a bunch of cash to provide ‘balance’.

I do think that suspending the whip for 6 months is a far too harsh punishment. But it also feels like the equivalent of a ref booking someone in the first five minutes to set a tone for the rest of it. It’ll take me a few days to work out where I land on it being too much or justified.
Click to expand...

Bang on the money there, a 'revenge hit' of sorts for Labour hijacking their bill on the Gaza motion a few months ago.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Anyone viewing the vote in the 2 child cap as just some good people trying to do the right thing, and not an initial inroad into testing how together the Labour Party is, is daft. It’s both. But it’s more of the latter.

It was a free hit for the SNP and one probably born of an act of spite after the election losses.

That they have an entirely justified policy to do that with is rare in politics, but that’s what it is.

A weeks old Governing Labour Party that is full of new MP’s that don’t even know each other, or how Westminster works is ripe for an early challenge.

Labour couldn’t allow a free vote as it would have fractured the new collective over one issue.

None of this matters. But the tail can’t wag the dog, even over something as critical as feeding children.

You simply can’t run an election saying ‘We won’t promise anything that we can’t pay for’ and then go against that immediately. I’m sure that the cap will be lifted in the first budget. They’ve lost the sales pitch on it with this vote, but our democracy is working as it’s designed to. Constituencies and the MP’s that represent them are supposed to effect change in the totality of government. That’s the system. But that’s only within a system that sees the country pay for what it can afford.

I think the country is still on the Tory setting that sees us just jump up and down because EVERYTHING is bad and there’s no good. So much good shit is happening and it’s been only weeks.

I expect it to take several months to create a package of fully costed policies to help the poorest in society. I think the totality of the budget will help those people and not even handedly give wealthy people a bunch of cash to provide ‘balance’.

I do think that suspending the whip for 6 months is a far too harsh punishment. But it also feels like the equivalent of a ref booking someone in the first five minutes to set a tone for the rest of it. It’ll take me a few days to work out where I land on it being too much or justified.
Click to expand...
This is a really good post, completely agree!
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Anyone viewing the vote in the 2 child cap as just some good people trying to do the right thing, and not an initial inroad into testing how together the Labour Party is, is daft. It’s both. But it’s more of the latter.

It was a free hit for the SNP and one probably born of an act of spite after the election losses.

That they have an entirely justified policy to do that with is rare in politics, but that’s what it is.

A weeks old Governing Labour Party that is full of new MP’s that don’t even know each other, or how Westminster works is ripe for an early challenge.

Labour couldn’t allow a free vote as it would have fractured the new collective over one issue.

None of this matters. But the tail can’t wag the dog, even over something as critical as feeding children.

You simply can’t run an election saying ‘We won’t promise anything that we can’t pay for’ and then go against that immediately. I’m sure that the cap will be lifted in the first budget. They’ve lost the sales pitch on it with this vote, but our democracy is working as it’s designed to. Constituencies and the MP’s that represent them are supposed to effect change in the totality of government. That’s the system. But that’s only within a system that sees the country pay for what it can afford.

I think the country is still on the Tory setting that sees us just jump up and down because EVERYTHING is bad and there’s no good. So much good shit is happening and it’s been only weeks.

I expect it to take several months to create a package of fully costed policies to help the poorest in society. I think the totality of the budget will help those people and not even handedly give wealthy people a bunch of cash to provide ‘balance’.

I do think that suspending the whip for 6 months is a far too harsh punishment. But it also feels like the equivalent of a ref booking someone in the first five minutes to set a tone for the rest of it. It’ll take me a few days to work out where I land on it being too much or justified.
Click to expand...
My first thought last night was that this is just Labour playing politics.

All the points you make are correct IMO especially about the budget but the key thing for me is that Labour were never going to give the SNP the win over what is such a key policy for them.

The removal of the cap, or at least the extension to an arbitrary number of children in Labour’s eyes has to come from their own budget and be viewed as a their own win. SNP knew this full well and that’s the real reason they put it in last night, because they now have some level of ownership of the policy so when Labour do eventually address it, the narrative will be “why now and not when SNP tabled it?”
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Anyone viewing the vote in the 2 child cap as just some good people trying to do the right thing, and not an initial inroad into testing how together the Labour Party is, is daft. It’s both. But it’s more of the latter.

It was a free hit for the SNP and one probably born of an act of spite after the election losses.

That they have an entirely justified policy to do that with is rare in politics, but that’s what it is.

A weeks old Governing Labour Party that is full of new MP’s that don’t even know each other, or how Westminster works is ripe for an early challenge.

Labour couldn’t allow a free vote as it would have fractured the new collective over one issue.

None of this matters. But the tail can’t wag the dog, even over something as critical as feeding children.

You simply can’t run an election saying ‘We won’t promise anything that we can’t pay for’ and then go against that immediately. I’m sure that the cap will be lifted in the first budget. They’ve lost the sales pitch on it with this vote, but our democracy is working as it’s designed to. Constituencies and the MP’s that represent them are supposed to effect change in the totality of government. That’s the system. But that’s only within a system that sees the country pay for what it can afford.

I think the country is still on the Tory setting that sees us just jump up and down because EVERYTHING is bad and there’s no good. So much good shit is happening and it’s been only weeks.

I expect it to take several months to create a package of fully costed policies to help the poorest in society. I think the totality of the budget will help those people and not even handedly give wealthy people a bunch of cash to provide ‘balance’.

I do think that suspending the whip for 6 months is a far too harsh punishment. But it also feels like the equivalent of a ref booking someone in the first five minutes to set a tone for the rest of it. It’ll take me a few days to work out where I land on it being too much or justified.
Click to expand...

Good post, agree with this. Also not enough talked about the SNP doing feck all to address child poverty in Scotland when being in power there.
 
TheGame said:
Good post, agree with this. Also not enough talked about the SNP doing feck all to address child poverty in Scotland when being in power there.
Click to expand...
What have the SNP done to tackle child poverty in Scotland? I mean, despite living in Scotland I can't claim deep knowledge of the matter, but the Scottish Child Payment, free nursery up to 4 (I think) and free school meals in primary (up to a certain age perhaps) come to mind as well as, of course, free further education for young adults spring to mind. The SNP have been a bit of a shit show of late, but I'd not have thought that child poverty was an obvious attack line on them.

They have absolutely used the two child benefit cap as an attack line on a fresh Labour Government, but I don't doubt their sincerity that they would scrap it. As would most of Labour (and they may yet do so).
 
Jericholyte2 said:


Finally some grown-ups in Government using grown-up language!
Click to expand...


It's another gimmick as was said long before the election.

Employ more people to process applicants - is this funded?
They have no power outside the UK.
They have no agreements to return people and to where? Please do not say the EU.

Why not employ these new people in embassies or other locations throughout the world and introduce safe and legal routes.
Considerably cheaper and easier.

He's still appealing to the xenophobes;
Has he pivoted yet?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
It's another gimmick as was said long before the election.

Employ more people to process applicants - is this funded?
They have no power outside the UK.
They have no agreements to return people and to where? Please do not say the EU.

Why not employ these new people in embassies or other locations throughout the world and introduce safe and legal routes.
Considerably cheaper and easier.

He's still appealing to the xenophobes;
Has he pivoted yet?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's funded and it says working with international partners to strike new returns deals not that they are already in place. We don't know if they are due to employ people in embassies and other locations through the world. I'm not sure what you mean by them having no power outside the UK but it seems self evident that countries are sovereign and I don't believe Labour have ever said they will seek to exert power over other countries.
 
DanH said:
Yes, it's funded and it says working with international partners to strike new returns deals not that they are already in place. We don't know if they are due to employ people in embassies and other locations through the world. I'm not sure what you mean by them having no power outside the UK but it seems self evident that countries are sovereign and I don't believe Labour have ever said they will seek to exert power over other countries.
Click to expand...

On leaving the EU - the UK left the Dublin Agreement. So those return or replacement deals can no longer happen. Why would EU countries take more asylum seekers just to please Starmer?
Starmer spoke of working with EU authorities in his previous life (when the UK were in the EU) - they aren't now so that doesn't apply.

There will be some limited co-operation between police forces through Interpol for example but this has always existed to break up the illegal trafficking but this has been an ongoing situation for years and many gangs have been arrested without Starmer . UK police have no authority to work in other countries.

Asylum seekers are being dealt with in other countries than the UK - much more - does Starmer understand this and does he realise the Uk does not have the same abilities as they did in the EU?

Priority should be to train people to deal with processing asylum seekers - this is the major thing that's lacking.
 
Sweet Square said:
All correct points by Jones.
Click to expand...
Directed at the people that aren't doing it and are more than sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Calling out the people that aren't doing thing the actual person is doing isn't going to get you in the room to make a difference, it's going to shut the door in your face. But I guess OJ is happy with that, purity screaming on X is how the REAL change happens, right?
 
Does anyone really believe that this 'rebellion' had anything whatsoever to do with ending Child Poverty?

Just look at the people involved .......it was 'Grandstanding' of the highest order.

As well as suspension of the whip all privileges should be withdrawn, and those involved sent to sit on the 'naughty step' (outside, in the rain).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.