I hope they do enact policies that eradicate child policy. Fair response about the manifesto, but they did vote against their party at the very first opportunity, so my opinion remains, if not well-argued.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Have I read correctly that Starmer is banning second jobs for MPs (that don’t benefit their constituency).
Great move if true.
Great move if true.
Game changer for politics in this country. So many become MPs because it’s a gravy train and the second jobs they are given are nothing more than bribes. Some are earning 6 figures a year for 4 hours a month. It doesn’t take a genius to work out what is going on there.
Another example of Labour being exactly like the Tories.
here the actual “policy”
All pretty vague tbh.
Could be because it's a newspaper article rather than the actual "policy"
You don't have to list every policy you intend on keeping in a manifesto. It was widely known and acknowledged by Labour that they were not considering lifting the cap 'until their fiscal rules allowed'. Their fiscal rules are clear in the manifesto. Continuation of support for Ukraine, along with matching the Conservative funding commitments of £3 billion was also confirmed prior to the election.
Exactly! I’d argue that MPs actually deserve a pay rise now! I want the MP to be a super attractive job for bright people, with them earning well as they cannot take money elsewhere.
I suspect this is the reality.
These seven are effectively part of the left over members of Corbyn's reign over the Labour party. At best their actions can be seen as misguided in allowing that they believe that their personal views should hold sway over everything; at worst they are remnants of the old Party, playing the political equivalent of the kids game 'knock-a-door-run'.
Seems as if Starmer's barn-storming attempt at 'Changing the Party' didn't stretch far enough, he missed a bit in the corners.
Well, wasn't Labours battle cry to put party above service? Oh wait.
scrapping the benefit cap would be the most effective way of lifting lots of families out of poverty isnt just a 'personal view', its actually a sensible, decent position (supported by a lot of study and research) to hold and id expect everyone in the labour party to have that as a 'personal view'.
Apparently there's a £20bn hole in the public finances, which Reeves will announce soon.
It may explain why we had a July election.
Tax rises are planned for the Autumn.
It may explain why we had a July election.
Tax rises are planned for the Autumn.
Yes, it probably is, but now is not the time because it needs to be a much wider understanding of child poverty that prevails, not just within Labour voters but within the views of many more people beside. It may well be part of the answer but such an answer has to apply to the families of all children, who suffer in poverty.
Individual MPs who pull stunts like this don't help Labour do the job it was voted into do. Voting with the opposition against such a piece of legislation as the Kings speech, when the governments wider view on child poverty is well known, is the worst example of 'grandstanding' for the individuals concerned and deserves the restrictions the PM has applied.
Government delays university free-speech fines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2gj1x11nmoControversial new powers for universities and student unions to be fined for failing to uphold freedom of speech have been put on hold by the government.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said that would allow time to consider whether the law, which was due to come into force next week, would be repealed.
In the statement to parliament, Ms Phillipson also said the Office for Students (Ofs) should be “more sharply focused” on the financial stability of universities.
A review of the regulator by Sir David Behan, recommends that the government should revise the structure of the Ofs to stop perceptions that it is “not sufficiently independent”.
Sir David has been announced as interim chairman, following the resignation of the conservative peer Lord Wharton last week.
The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act, which was passed last year, said universities had a duty to "secure" and "promote the importance of" freedom of speech and academic expression.
It would have allowed the Ofs to fine or give sanctions to higher education providers and student unions in England from next week.
It also included a new complaints scheme for students, staff and visiting speakers, who could seek compensation if they suffer from a breach of a university's free- speech obligations.
Bridget Phillipson told the BBC on Monday that culture wars on university campuses “end here”.
---
Good.
I'll be relieved if it's only 20 billion.
Its not new information, it was known before the election. The question is, why is reeves pretending it is all new to her.
I'm going to quote myself from the start of the month
These people are grade A ballbags, who specialise in trying to fool the dumb rather than confronting real world problems.
No doubt in their drive to over demonstrate this myth that austerity equals financial prudence that's what we're going to get. More household budget nonsense.
We've replaced one bunch of lying cheating scumbags for another one.
im sorry but if the government was more serious about eradicating child poverty then it would start with the 2 child cap. and if taxes have to rise to fund it then so be it. this big picture outlook on poverty is all well and good, but its not a very clear picture if youve ruled out most tax rises in order to fund it. The IFS have been quite clear on this for months. Prolonging suffering from poverty whilst tinkering around the edges in the short term, whilst having some grandiose long term vision is of little use, and its also lacks courage and principle.
My ex works in the cabinet office. From my somewhat inside track on it…
The shadow chancellor has top level figures only (those forecasts are detailed but not granular). It doesn’t have detailed assessments and doesn’t have access to the assumptions contained in budgetary forecasts.
As a shite example; Reeves will have known how much annual budget had been allocated to Rwanda. But no visibility on Year 2-5 costs. She wouldn’t have known the forecasts on how much the Tories had decided Rwanda would ‘save’ when it was effective and operational. She wouldn’t have had briefing papers on what another two terms of Tory would have cost.
Labour are OBVIOUSLY overselling aspects of this. That’s the game. But they really didnt know the costing formulas for Tory long term forecasts.
You can go back just 15 years and make the case that ‘the opposition knows’ (funny how it’s always that exact time window, probably something in that). But it’s simply not been the case since then.
My ex insisted that internal Tory comms would be presented with cost predictions that an area of the economy would shrink in the forecast period, and be ask to recast. That’s not to say the forecast suggested a contraction. But if 2018-2019 showed 3% growth, and 2019-2020 showed 1.5% growth, that answer would not be accepted.
You’re allowed to suggest that Labour are leveraging Tory chaos. But they’re not lying. It’s more insane to suggest Reeves knew everything, than accept that she didn’t. Why would she know? Even if she did, without the assumptions and supporting calculations, the data is a nonsense. The wrong sums were done.
Yes and no.
If UK children were given blanket free school meals to account for breakfast and lunch, and had funded after school clubs to allow parents to work more flexibly… that ARGUABLY helps children in poverty more than free money for 3rd children.
I’m not advocating for that. But our country is fecked. Realistically, we need a solid decade that sees parents treated as economy drones that earn and pay tax for as many hours as possible.
If you can foster efficient systems for their children in that time, that’s a larger social benefit than handing over money.
Handing over cash money largely supports rent increases. It funds the wrong parts of the system.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d tax the feck out of anyone earning £100k and tax those earning £80k more too.
But I do think giving children in poverty a level playing field between the hours of 8am and 6pm is justified. I’d probably only allow it as an idea if we also had a change to the curriculum that saw kids aged 12-16 taught how the government works. Allowing them to vote in the first election after their 16th birthday.
We can make holistic effective changes without just saying ‘yeah have some money’. Our systems are broke. Our economy is deficient. I do think the 2 cap policy is awful and I think it will be lifted in The first budget. But I’m open minded enough to consider other avenues.
If Labour had proposed that the Tories would still be in power
Whilst reducing/eradicating child poverty is obviously a good thing I'm afraid that the parents have huge culpability in this, if the £17 a week (or whatever it is) is needed to feed a child properly then there's something badly wrong with the choices a large proportion of them are making
I grew up the oldest of 4 boys, my Dad never earned anything close to the 'average' wage and my Mum only worked part time after we had all been thru Primary school
Because my parents made the right choices, we didn't have much of anything because they didn't have the money, I never went hungry and to the best of my knowledge they never skipped meals
'They're not starving so they don't need it' seems pretty harsh.
edit: Like it seems to me that parents that "make all the right choices" and still end up without "much of anything" could put an extra £17 a week to good use.
Last edited:
I'm questioning why are they starving, to me having 3 children and relying on the government to feed one of them properly means there's something very badly wrong in a large number of cases
Obviously there are some exceptions, but to my untrained eye, this is more a case of feckless parenting than anything else, giving these people money is just papering over the cracks and won't actually resolve anything.
Maybe it's time to end child benefit completely and use the money to provide the education system the means to provide breakfast/lunch and the after school clubs, wishful thinking perhaps but I don't see how else the government can ensure kids don't starve
Single parents, sudden illness, unemployment, the quadrupling of your mortgage, rent suddenly exploding through the roof, giant increases in your utility bills and in the cost of food while your wage lags behind. There's a lot of kosher reasons why people struggle that doesn't just boil down to "shouldn't have had the third kid".
It's not just about 'feeding starving kids' childcare, school uniforms, stationary, after/outside school clubs etc are just some examples of what parents are struggling with.
As a sad bastard who reads economist forecasts this just isn't true. This has been known for a long time and increasingly discussed in the media and not just forecasts.
I'll give you one clear example:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/budget-ifs-chief-says-jeremy-083259872.html
We're not talking the minutiae of government policy decisions here it's public spending budget shortfalls. Individual departments, the treasury, IFS, OBR all get the detail they know the forecasts. A shortfall created due to known issues with the country. Hunt did the budget not so long ago, did Reeves not identify it then? No they purposefully ignores it as it was politically inconvenient
I'll copy a passage from the IFS response on the budget back in March.
I mean, the Tories used a 'bad economy inherited from Labour' as an excuse to launch an austerity programme they did not tell the public the full details on.
I am going to give myself the weekend believing Labour are going to use this to push a big Keynesian economic programme. That way I only get disappointed on Monday.
You've never had your circumstances suddenly change? Been made redundant? Had some bullshit Tory ideology add hundreds per month to your / your landlord's mortgage on top of a far-flung conflict quadrupling your energy and food bills and decimated your finances? Or has this only happened to the feckless and lazy?
As I stated there are exceptions and yes a lot of these are feckless parents IMO, this is not a new thing and it predates a lot of the current issues which has obviously made it worse for some people
Jesus Christ, there are some truly heartless people on this forum.
Nothing to do with being heartless, it's clear the existing system doesn't work and maybe the money could be better spent ensuring that no child ever goes hungry
Yes because keeping their parents in the most abject poverty possible will ensure that.
It's not actually Child Benefit that is capped at two children. It's the child element of UC or any remaining Tax Credit claims that haven't migrated.
That’s it, it’s all the parents fault. Why not blame the kids themselves too for needing food?
Out of touch
Nothing at all to do with wage stagnation?
Nothing at all to do with the massive hike in interest rates, mortgage rates or rental prices?
Nothing at all to do with the massive hike in energy prices?
How about food inflation? Or that nursery prices have jumped by 30% in the space of 5yrs? Or something as simple as the household needing a new boiler or car (isn’t it about 40% who have savings of less than £100?), just try to imagine the balancing act you have to play in these situations whilst often managing two full time jobs as parents.
Even in these cases you’ll find it’s the parents missing meals so that the kids don’t have to.
@Red in STL you mentioned your situation, may I ask how old you are? I’m being genuine about it, but the decade you grew up in massively shapes your view on what the ‘average’ wage could do.
That is exactly what removing the cap would do, it would tinker around the edges. Child poverty is not a quick fix issue.
I doubt if the Government is thinking in grandiose terms at all, I suspect it's thinking is to alleviate child poverty in more significant terms, 'moving the dial' on this issue, in particular to underpin family/household costs generally, that sustain families going forward.
I am a child or the 60's, I'm well aware that housing costs in particular are way higher now, but the culture and expectations today are completely different, if we didn't have the money for something we had to do without, these days everyone seems to have every kind of electronics going
The inflation rate in 1975 was 20% and the mortgage rate would make you cry today, especially the 1979 one, so don't think everything was rosy back in the day, it wasn't
Very well said.
We were trying to buy our first house in the early 1970's when house prices shot up by almost 50% in a couple of years.
And the most difficult thing then was that the only place you could get a mortgage was from an old fashioned building society.
You had to have been saving with one for over a year before they would even consider a loan. And every month we had to make an appointment with them and apply for a loan. And once they had reached their individual branch limit, you had to reapply the next month and so it went on. Fortunately we were both saving with different building societies and eventually were given a loan. But only on a new build house.
As you rightly say, inflation was shooting up every month, as were house prices.
I fully accept that things are extremely difficult now. Don't doubt that for a minute.
But I have to say that it was also very very difficult then as well.