Leaving aside the question of the benefit cap for a moment (and Labour seem to be like people scrabbling down the back of the sofa for change with which to pay the milkman), this obscenity comes to light:
Lifting the cap will also inject money into the economy, for those who are struggling that extra money will be spent on food or rent or the electric. Thus, it will not only help people in need it will help boost the economy and hence tax income (though, additional tax will be less than the money spent, but longer term (as @Arethosemyfeet has already said) the savings in other budgets will be greater than the cost - longer term because easing the financial burden on the poor will reduce criminality and poverty related illnesses, but mainly in children who are still very young, the damage of poverty for those who have been failed by Tory austerity is largely set in and will take more than a few extra quid for their parents (assuming they're still young enough to be considered children) to address those problems.
I am sure that Labour would do it if they thought they could do it, even though they would possibly be betraying the many families who have made conscious decisions not to have more than 2 children
Around 500,000 pregnancies a year in the UK are unplanned you know. (And we have an aging population with a declining birth rate so either we need to encourage people to have more children, or we need to encourage more young immigrants.)
In what way, exactly, will they be *betraying* families who have decided to restrict the number of children they have? What an odd word to choose.
Many famalies have chosen not to have children they realised they couldn't afford. I will happily accept a better word than betrayed.
It's a silly argument, not to say insulting. Who are you blaming? The families who had three children before the cuts were announced, or the families who had three children after the cuts were announced (who knew they weren't going to get benefits) ?
(And we have an aging population with a declining birth rate so either we need to encourage people to have more children, or we need to encourage more young immigrants.)
...or we need to adapt to an older demographic distribution.
In what way, exactly, will they be *betraying* families who have decided to restrict the number of children they have? What an odd word to choose.
Many famalies have chosen not to have children they realised they couldn't afford. I will happily accept a better word than betrayed.
It's a silly argument, not to say insulting. Who are you blaming? The families who had three children before the cuts were announced, or the families who had three children after the cuts were announced (who knew they weren't going to get benefits) ?
So Silly that Parliament have voted by a massive majority not to remove the cap.
In what way, exactly, will they be *betraying* families who have decided to restrict the number of children they have? What an odd word to choose.
Many famalies have chosen not to have children they realised they couldn't afford. I will happily accept a better word than betrayed.
It's a silly argument, not to say insulting. Who are you blaming? The families who had three children before the cuts were announced, or the families who had three children after the cuts were announced (who knew they weren't going to get benefits) ?
So Silly that Parliament have voted by a massive majority not to remove the cap.
Parliament has voted for many silly, nay, downright stupid things.
I'm late to this thread so apologise if I'm repeating things others have already said. However I'm disappointed in several things this week in the Labour government
* On support for trans people
* On support for carers unfairly penalised for slightly exceeding earning allowances (and even given wrong information by HMRC leading to sanctions)
* On refusal to make changes that they know would help children in poverty
I appreciate it is hard, but this is the point where they set out their stall for the whole government term. And at the moment the message they are giving is that things are very bad and it is all too difficult and just wait until we tax school fees and that.
Which might be a long wait if it’s challenged under the ECHR on the grounds of (Lord Pannick and Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s 1987) legal opinion that VAT on private school fees would be incompatible with British membership of the ECHR…
Link deals with a range of options for things you could do to private schools, and does cover VAT as a separate issue to the overall thrust of the article which is about the (not currrent) 2019 Labour policy vote.
I realise we’ve dealt with all this on here before but I only saw that article yesterday and it does seem like there’s at best an issue which is going to be argued extensively, expensively, and lengthily here - especially given that (allegedly) the funds are in place from wealthy opponents of the policy to do so.
I'm late to this thread so apologise if I'm repeating things others have already said. However I'm disappointed in several things this week in the Labour government
* On support for trans people
* On support for carers unfairly penalised for slightly exceeding earning allowances (and even given wrong information by HMRC leading to sanctions)
* On refusal to make changes that they know would help children in poverty
I appreciate it is hard, but this is the point where they set out their stall for the whole government term. And at the moment the message they are giving is that things are very bad and it is all too difficult and just wait until we tax school fees and that.
Wow.
I agree about the importance of these things but to be disappointed that they haven't done certain things in the first 19 days strikes me as unreasonable.
On the subject of the 2 child cap, this is a strong argument:
It is absolutely ridiculous to throw out the slur that Labour want to keep children in poverty simply because they didn't lift the 2-child benefit cap within their first 18 days in office after 5,174 days in opposition.
One does not imply the other - that's a lazy, lazy argument.
Look at the full context:
1. This was a vote on the Kings Speech, the first and most high profile vote since Labour took office (and for a long time to come). A rebellion was obviously therefore going to be deeply embarrassing - and the rebels were absolutely aware of that.
2. Labour ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. This was clear as daylight to every Labour candidate. It's not some wild swerve foisted on them after the election was won.
3. Labour are working at speed to produce a full picture of the economic situation the Tories left us in. That should be published before the summer recess. Things may look different within days. (For better or worse? We'll have to await the report.)
4. Labour have said they are reviewing concrete action to alleviate child poverty. Are the rebels claiming they're lying?
5. Senior Labour figures have indicated the 2-child benefit cap is potentially part of the wider review.
6. This was an SNP amendment. Supporting it was pure performative politics. It was never going to pass in a trillion years.
7. To come back to where we started, not voting for the amendment is not the same as seeking to keep children in poverty, wanting to keep children in poverty, planning to keep children in poverty, delighting in keeping children in poverty, or whatever other emotional framing lazy people choose to resort to instead of making a logical analytical argument.
A painful related truth: the hard Left of the party has a problem. They need to stay visible to stay relevant. It's like sharks have to keep swimming or they die. (That's a metaphor. It doesn't mean I think they're sharks. Sigh.) They therefore thrive on outrage farming just as much as those on the other extreme of politics, even though their actual political views are poles apart. One way to increase that visibility very quickly is to pick opportunities to have highly visible fights with the core party and the leadership.
That's what happened last night. Nothing more. Nothing less. No nefarious plot to keep children in poverty (or "starving" as the even more emotionally manipulative put it).
Starmer had two choices:
1) Let the rebellion go
2) Take strict action
1) would have given every group and faction within Labour the green light to start creating their own version of the ERG, Common Sense Group, or whatever they wanted to call themselves. Soon, the party would be as riven as the Tories were. Imagine herding those cats for the next 5 years!
Instead, by doing 2), Starmer called the bluff of people who knew exactly what they were doing.
Did Starmer's action indicate Labour won't lift the cap? No. It told us nothing of the sort.
Did Starmer's action indicate Labour are fine with child poverty? No. It told us nothing of the sort.
If in a few months - around the Autumn statement or shortly thereafter - Labour are still grinding their gears on child poverty without any progress, then you have the right to be aggrieved.
But 18 days into their term of office, and after all the clear signals they're trying to do the right thing as swiftly as prudence allows? Get over yourself.
The SNP thing is a whole lot of nothing, just playing at party politicking by saying an amendment is bad because look at the SNP record in Scotland.
I'm fully accepting that it makes no difference and it has given Starmer an early opportunity to kick the left. I suppose I would have been happier if he actually talked to people impacted by this stuff, listened to concerns and made it clear that he was working on a change. As it is, we are just left with the idea that the only political tool he has with a massive majority is to slap anyone who stands out of line.
I'm late to this thread so apologise if I'm repeating things others have already said. However I'm disappointed in several things this week in the Labour government
* On support for trans people
* On support for carers unfairly penalised for slightly exceeding earning allowances (and even given wrong information by HMRC leading to sanctions)
* On refusal to make changes that they know would help children in poverty
I appreciate it is hard, but this is the point where they set out their stall for the whole government term. And at the moment the message they are giving is that things are very bad and it is all too difficult and just wait until we tax school fees and that.
Wow.
I agree about the importance of these things but to be disappointed that they haven't done certain things in the first 19 days strikes me as unreasonable.
On the subject of the 2 child cap, this is a strong argument:
It is absolutely ridiculous to throw out the slur that Labour want to keep children in poverty simply because they didn't lift the 2-child benefit cap within their first 18 days in office after 5,174 days in opposition.
One does not imply the other - that's a lazy, lazy argument.
Look at the full context:
1. This was a vote on the Kings Speech, the first and most high profile vote since Labour took office (and for a long time to come). A rebellion was obviously therefore going to be deeply embarrassing - and the rebels were absolutely aware of that.
2. Labour ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. This was clear as daylight to every Labour candidate. It's not some wild swerve foisted on them after the election was won.
3. Labour are working at speed to produce a full picture of the economic situation the Tories left us in. That should be published before the summer recess. Things may look different within days. (For better or worse? We'll have to await the report.)
4. Labour have said they are reviewing concrete action to alleviate child poverty. Are the rebels claiming they're lying?
5. Senior Labour figures have indicated the 2-child benefit cap is potentially part of the wider review.
6. This was an SNP amendment. Supporting it was pure performative politics. It was never going to pass in a trillion years.
7. To come back to where we started, not voting for the amendment is not the same as seeking to keep children in poverty, wanting to keep children in poverty, planning to keep children in poverty, delighting in keeping children in poverty, or whatever other emotional framing lazy people choose to resort to instead of making a logical analytical argument.
A painful related truth: the hard Left of the party has a problem. They need to stay visible to stay relevant. It's like sharks have to keep swimming or they die. (That's a metaphor. It doesn't mean I think they're sharks. Sigh.) They therefore thrive on outrage farming just as much as those on the other extreme of politics, even though their actual political views are poles apart. One way to increase that visibility very quickly is to pick opportunities to have highly visible fights with the core party and the leadership.
That's what happened last night. Nothing more. Nothing less. No nefarious plot to keep children in poverty (or "starving" as the even more emotionally manipulative put it).
Starmer had two choices:
1) Let the rebellion go
2) Take strict action
1) would have given every group and faction within Labour the green light to start creating their own version of the ERG, Common Sense Group, or whatever they wanted to call themselves. Soon, the party would be as riven as the Tories were. Imagine herding those cats for the next 5 years!
Instead, by doing 2), Starmer called the bluff of people who knew exactly what they were doing.
Did Starmer's action indicate Labour won't lift the cap? No. It told us nothing of the sort.
Did Starmer's action indicate Labour are fine with child poverty? No. It told us nothing of the sort.
If in a few months - around the Autumn statement or shortly thereafter - Labour are still grinding their gears on child poverty without any progress, then you have the right to be aggrieved.
But 18 days into their term of office, and after all the clear signals they're trying to do the right thing as swiftly as prudence allows? Get over yourself.
We can look at the two child cap in any way you like. However, this was the opportunity for Labour to get ur sorted. I know they intend to get rid of it. All they had to do was promise to look at it as a priority. To see if they could finance it even at the expense of other less important things. A leader doesn’t have to remove the whip on a three line whip. Particularly if the rebellion is as small as seven MPs. Is this an indicator of what is to come? Draconian attitudes to those who vote with how they feel is right.
How the government behaves in the early weeks of a parliament sets the tone for the next five years
In what way, exactly, will they be *betraying* families who have decided to restrict the number of children they have? What an odd word to choose.
Many famalies have chosen not to have children they realised they couldn't afford. I will happily accept a better word than betrayed.
It's a silly argument, not to say insulting. Who are you blaming? The families who had three children before the cuts were announced, or the families who had three children after the cuts were announced (who knew they weren't going to get benefits) ?
So Silly that Parliament have voted by a massive majority not to remove the cap.
Rubbish.
It has not been ruled out of court. Do try to keep up.
No doubt we all wish the new regime would act more quickly on this one, but where is the money to come from? What's your answer?
Harking back momentarily to the Royal Estate, I am surprised that the Episcopal Digit seems to have forgotten that at least since 1662 devout C of E congregations have regularly ptayed for the monarch 'in health and wealth long to live'. A clear demonstration of the power of prayer.
In what way, exactly, will they be *betraying* families who have decided to restrict the number of children they have? What an odd word to choose.
Many famalies have chosen not to have children they realised they couldn't afford. I will happily accept a better word than betrayed.
It's a silly argument, not to say insulting. Who are you blaming? The families who had three children before the cuts were announced, or the families who had three children after the cuts were announced (who knew they weren't going to get benefits) ?
So Silly that Parliament have voted by a massive majority not to remove the cap.
Rubbish.
What bit was wrong?
It has not been ruled out of court. Do try to keep up.
No doubt we all wish the new regime would act more quickly on this one, but where is the money to come from? What's your answer?
Harking back momentarily to the Royal Estate, I am surprised that the Episcopal Digit seems to have forgotten that at least since 1662 devout C of E congregations have regularly ptayed for the monarch 'in health and wealth long to live'. A clear demonstration of the power of prayer.
You are possibly right, of course, especially in the case of Her late Majesty.
OTOH, I no longer count myself as either *devout* or *C of E*, and have just renewed my modest subscription to Republic...
Just be honest, it's just performatively punching left. [Separately the same tendency believe that Harris needs to do the same thing].
Look, that's just ridiculous. You seem to be blind to the fact that government MPs voting in favour of an Opposition Amendment in a King's Speech Debate is actually a big deal. It really is in our parliamentary system. This is not performatively punching left - at least that's not the primary purpose - it is Parliamentary discipline.
You may well agree with the cause. I do. Starmer does. But the method is really provocative. Starmer wants to govern. This kind of behaviour is literally a threat to the Government's ability to govern.
Is it an over reaction? Maybe. But at this point in the cycle; new government, very large number of new MPs, trying to establish a narrative of quiet competence... etc. would you really expect anything less?
It really is still very early days for the New Regime.
We would do well to cut them a little bit of slack whilst they get going - even Sir Keir has only been in Parliament since 2015, and (AIUI) quite a few of the new MPs are still trying to find office space in Westminster!
Yes, maybe the PM has come down like a ton of bricks on the rebels, but it could be argued that he does need to have room in which to work...
I wonder if the hated Tories were *ever* cut the same slack on here when they were in government - even in 2010. Or if those saying 'oh well, it's procedural and makes parliamentary sense, you've just got to wait and see what they really mean, never mind what it looks like' are mostly motivated by the colour of the government doing it...
My suspicion is that there's a clear answer to that.
It really is still very early days for the New Regime.
We would do well to cut them a little bit of slack whilst they get going - even Sir Keir has only been in Parliament since 2015, and (AIUI) quite a few of the new MPs are still trying to find office space in Westminster!
Yes, maybe the PM has come down like a ton of bricks on the rebels, but it could be argued that he does need to have room in which to work...
Not a ton of bricks at all. They cannot be whipped but they are still salaried MPs
I wonder if the hated Tories were *ever* cut the same slack on here when they were in government - even in 2010. Or if those saying 'oh well, it's procedural and makes parliamentary sense, you've just got to wait and see what they really mean, never mind what it looks like' are mostly motivated by the colour of the government doing it...
My suspicion is that there's a clear answer to that.
I can't comment on 2010 but they have been very unpopular on here at least since December 2019
Just be honest, it's just performatively punching left. [Separately the same tendency believe that Harris needs to do the same thing].
Look, that's just ridiculous. You seem to be blind to the fact that government MPs voting in favour of an Opposition Amendment in a King's Speech Debate is actually a big deal.
I think you are ignoring the framing and background of issue; which includes the 2015 vote becoming something of a totemic issue, numerous policy reversals to date, and the manner in which senior members of the party have briefed against their own voters when it suited them.
Even the Economist - leftie rag that it is - is willing to call this out for what it is: https://archive.is/AWso6
This kind of behaviour is literally a threat to the Government's ability to govern.
This is just silly, there was no chance of the Kings Speech failing to pass (and do you really want to suggest that Starmer at this point was failing to carry his MPs with him?)
Is it an over reaction? Maybe. But at this point in the cycle; new government, very large number of new MPs, trying to establish a narrative of quiet competence
Quiet competence would have involved swapping the timelines on the handling of the cases of Coyle and Abbott respectively, not trying factional replacements at the last minute, and not parachuting in some of the more unsavoury members of the NEC into safe seats.
Clearly we disagree quite radically on what competence would look like.
Of course the KS would pass, that's not the point. The point is that Starmer was laying down a marker about backbench MPs voting for opposition ammendments.
Even if the SNP ammendment passed, it would affect zero children in poverty.
Is it an over reaction? Maybe. But at this point in the cycle; new government, very large number of new MPs, trying to establish a narrative of quiet competence... etc. would you really expect anything less?
Quiet competence goes hand in hand with quiet confidence, something not generated by paranoid overreaction and knee jerk authoritarianism. Whatever else one may say about Blair's governments he didn't have to resort to this sort of heavy handed thuggery, and accepted occasional rebellions from SCG members as the cost of doing business.
Well, we have the Starmer regime in place for the next five years, unless the world comes to an end before then (and it might very well do so, if Trump II becomes a hideous reality).
Hopefully, once they've got the £££ sorted out, things will begin to improve. They've been in power for less than three weeks so far...
I wonder if the hated Tories were *ever* cut the same slack on here when they were in government - even in 2010. Or if those saying 'oh well, it's procedural and makes parliamentary sense, you've just got to wait and see what they really mean, never mind what it looks like' are mostly motivated by the colour of the government doing it...
My suspicion is that there's a clear answer to that.
I'm 56. As a Bursary lad at a public school I was educated with Tories. I watched their governments destroy our industries and give not a shit about the discarded workers. I know they despise the poor and anyone they consider below them because they made it obvious.
I don't give them any slack because I know them, how they think, and who they hate.
I wonder if the hated Tories were *ever* cut the same slack on here when they were in government - even in 2010. Or if those saying 'oh well, it's procedural and makes parliamentary sense, you've just got to wait and see what they really mean, never mind what it looks like' are mostly motivated by the colour of the government doing it...
My suspicion is that there's a clear answer to that.
I'm 56. As a Bursary lad at a public school I was educated with Tories. I watched their governments destroy our industries and give not a shit about the discarded workers. I know they despise the poor and anyone they consider below them because they made it obvious.
I don't give them any slack because I know them, how they think, and who they hate.
Quite.
They deserve even less slack now than in 2010, given the ghastly mess they've inflicted on the country since then. It was, perhaps, not obvious in 2010 just how awful they would turn out to be...
I wonder if the hated Tories were *ever* cut the same slack on here when they were in government - even in 2010. Or if those saying 'oh well, it's procedural and makes parliamentary sense, you've just got to wait and see what they really mean, never mind what it looks like' are mostly motivated by the colour of the government doing it...
My suspicion is that there's a clear answer to that.
I'm 56. As a Bursary lad at a public school I was educated with Tories. I watched their governments destroy our industries and give not a shit about the discarded workers. I know they despise the poor and anyone they consider below them because they made it obvious.
I don't give them any slack because I know them, how they think, and who they hate.
that is quite literally QED though isn't it? Doesn't matter why, you go into it thinking 'Blue Bad, Red better'
Both are wretched and should be nowhere near power.
I was sent to war (on lies, as it turned out) by a *Labour* government which close to home got some of my friends and acquaintances killed or maimed, and more broadly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis.
But we gloss over any amount of Labour adventurism because that was 20 years ago so they're cleansed of all that and anyway, 'Boo to the evil Tories. Baa.'
Sorry, I'm not 56. I'm a dozen years younger and *my* experience of Labour in power is to want them and their enablers/supporters in the bin with the Tories.
I wonder if the hated Tories were *ever* cut the same slack on here when they were in government - even in 2010. Or if those saying 'oh well, it's procedural and makes parliamentary sense, you've just got to wait and see what they really mean, never mind what it looks like' are mostly motivated by the colour of the government doing it...
My suspicion is that there's a clear answer to that.
I'm 56. As a Bursary lad at a public school I was educated with Tories. I watched their governments destroy our industries and give not a shit about the discarded workers. I know they despise the poor and anyone they consider below them because they made it obvious.
I don't give them any slack because I know them, how they think, and who they hate.
that is quite literally QED though isn't it? Doesn't matter why, you go into it thinking 'Blue Bad, Red better'
Both are wretched and should be nowhere near power.
I was sent to war (on lies, as it turned out) by a *Labour* government which close to home got some of my friends and acquaintances killed or maimed, and more broadly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis.
But we gloss over any amount of Labour adventurism because that was 20 years ago so they're cleansed of all that and anyway, 'Boo to the evil Tories. Baa.'
Sorry, I'm not 56. I'm a dozen years younger and *my* experience of Labour in power is to want them and their enablers/supporters in the bin with the Tories.
Labour in power have done some awful things, which I opposed vehemently at the time. Do I think the current Labour leadership would do much the same, given the opportunity? Yes. But I also know the last Labour government did some good things, and I have modest hopes that the current want may do some among all the awful shit. The tories, meanwhile, were just as gung ho regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and have done virtually nothing good in their 14 years in power. It's the difference between cow shit and dog shit. You don't want to stand in either but at least the former can be put to some use.
Every type of fish I've ever tried has tastes absolutely terrible to me. I don't bother trying new types now.
Same with Tories. Assuming the worst saves so much time.
Kinder, gentler…
Certainly when it comes to the policies for the people politics is supposed to serve, not so much when it comes to the politicians wreaking havoc on those communities.
I was sent to war (on lies, as it turned out) by a *Labour* government which close to home got some of my friends and acquaintances killed or maimed, and more broadly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis.
But we gloss over any amount of Labour adventurism because that was 20 years ago so they're cleansed of all that and anyway, 'Boo to the evil Tories. Baa.'
Right and in a just world Blair and Campbell would in the Hague rather than rehabilitating their reputations via podcasts (shame on the listeners), but the Tories were as keen to vote against investigating him, the better to preserve the freedom for future foreign adventures.
Labour in power have done some awful things, which I opposed vehemently at the time. Do I think the current Labour leadership would do much the same, given the opportunity? Yes. But I also know the last Labour government did some good things, and I have modest hopes that the current want may do some among all the awful shit. The tories, meanwhile, were just as gung ho regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and have done virtually nothing good in their 14 years in power. It's the difference between cow shit and dog shit. You don't want to stand in either but at least the former can be put to some use.
Thing is, Tories everyone knows where they are with them, so it’s priced in.
Labour - kill a million Iraqis ‘but they did some good 1997-2010. And anyway, the Tories would have done it too’
Every type of fish I've ever tried has tastes absolutely terrible to me. I don't bother trying new types now.
Same with Tories. Assuming the worst saves so much time.
Kinder, gentler…
Certainly when it comes to the policies for the people politics is supposed to serve, not so much when it comes to the politicians wreaking havoc on those communities.
I was sent to war (on lies, as it turned out) by a *Labour* government which close to home got some of my friends and acquaintances killed or maimed, and more broadly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis.
But we gloss over any amount of Labour adventurism because that was 20 years ago so they're cleansed of all that and anyway, 'Boo to the evil Tories. Baa.'
Right and in a just world Blair and Campbell would in the Hague rather than rehabilitating their reputations via podcasts (shame on the listeners), but the Tories were as keen to vote against investigating him, the better to preserve the freedom for future foreign adventures.
Labour in power have done some awful things, which I opposed vehemently at the time. Do I think the current Labour leadership would do much the same, given the opportunity? Yes. But I also know the last Labour government did some good things, and I have modest hopes that the current want may do some among all the awful shit. The tories, meanwhile, were just as gung ho regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and have done virtually nothing good in their 14 years in power. It's the difference between cow shit and dog shit. You don't want to stand in either but at least the former can be put to some use.
Thing is, Tories everyone knows where they are with them, so it’s priced in.
Labour - kill a million Iraqis ‘but they did some good 1997-2010. And anyway, the Tories would have done it too’
Or we just don’t enable either of them.
Which is why I've never voted Labour in parliamentary elections except when Corbyn was leader. I think you'll agree that Corbyn was never going to involve us in an Iraq-style debacle.
I was sent to war (on lies, as it turned out) by a *Labour* government which close to home got some of my friends and acquaintances killed or maimed, and more broadly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis.
Did you believe there were weapons of mass destruction at the time ?
I get the party discipline arguments. That taken into account. Starmer’s draconian measures are going to mask any good things. Good policies are irrelevant if you are going to be hard on a tiny amount MPs who don’t agree with you. Your policy may be excellent but pushing through no matter what is never good.
I may be missing something, but the aim of helping relieve child poverty - with removing the benefit cap being one of the ways to do that - has surely not been ruled out?
That said, I'd certainly be happier if it were done far more quickly than seems to be envisaged.
I may be missing something, but the aim of helping relieve child poverty - with removing the benefit cap being one of the ways to do that - has surely not been ruled out?
That said, I'd certainly be happier if it were done far more quickly than seems to be envisaged.
You haven't.
It has not been ruled out at all.
It is essentially a budgetary measure.
Labour has said it will do a proper budget in the autumn.
The government doesn't want to fiddle with financial issues before then. (With the exception of the legislation for VAT on school fees).
So it's obvious that the 2 child cap would not be in this King's Speech.
The SNP tabled an Ammendment on the KS debate to make a point.*
There was no way the government was going to accept that ammendment.
That's it. That's what happened. Expect the cap to go in first budget.
AFZ
*it's up for discussion why the SNP tables this: I.e. because they believe in it or because they wanted to embarrass the government, knowing that some Labour MPs would want to vote for their ammendment... FWIW (absolutely nothing), my money's on both.
I seem to recall that a few weeks ago those of us on the left were being told that we should get Labour elected then push them to the left once they were in office. Seems like that's not allowed either.
I seem to recall that a few weeks ago those of us on the left were being told that we should get Labour elected then push them to the left once they were in office. Seems like that's not allowed either.
Comments
I am sure that Labour would do it if they thought they could do it, even though they would possibly be betraying the many families who have made conscious decisions not to have more than 2 children
Many famalies have chosen not to have children they realised they couldn't afford. I will happily accept a better word than betrayed.
It's a silly argument, not to say insulting. Who are you blaming? The families who had three children before the cuts were announced, or the families who had three children after the cuts were announced (who knew they weren't going to get benefits) ?
...or we need to adapt to an older demographic distribution.
So Silly that Parliament have voted by a massive majority not to remove the cap.
Parliament has voted for many silly, nay, downright stupid things.
Many people find their circumstances change. Spouses die. Jobs are lost. Marriages fail. So do contraceptives for that matter.
The people being betrayed are those who found themselves in this position.
We went through this a week or so ago but here you are again with the same half-baked nonsense.
* On support for trans people
* On support for carers unfairly penalised for slightly exceeding earning allowances (and even given wrong information by HMRC leading to sanctions)
* On refusal to make changes that they know would help children in poverty
I appreciate it is hard, but this is the point where they set out their stall for the whole government term. And at the moment the message they are giving is that things are very bad and it is all too difficult and just wait until we tax school fees and that.
Which might be a long wait if it’s challenged under the ECHR on the grounds of (Lord Pannick and Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s 1987) legal opinion that VAT on private school fees would be incompatible with British membership of the ECHR…
https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/abolishing-private-schools-and-redistributing-their-assets-social-justice-at-the-expense-of-human-rights
Link deals with a range of options for things you could do to private schools, and does cover VAT as a separate issue to the overall thrust of the article which is about the (not currrent) 2019 Labour policy vote.
Wow.
I agree about the importance of these things but to be disappointed that they haven't done certain things in the first 19 days strikes me as unreasonable.
On the subject of the 2 child cap, this is a strong argument:
From TwiX: https://x.com/edwinhayward/status/1816017821140165037?t=pCLMOpt3aAZUjtIYCI3bmg&s=19
Conversely, I am very concerned about how Streeting is handling the Cass Report. That is a fair criticism, I think.
AFZ
I'm fully accepting that it makes no difference and it has given Starmer an early opportunity to kick the left. I suppose I would have been happier if he actually talked to people impacted by this stuff, listened to concerns and made it clear that he was working on a change. As it is, we are just left with the idea that the only political tool he has with a massive majority is to slap anyone who stands out of line.
The SNPs record in this area, evidenced by the Scottish Child Payment, is pretty good.
This.
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1816154131645567123?s=19
How the government behaves in the early weeks of a parliament sets the tone for the next five years
I may not have done that but it makes a lot of sense, politically.
Yes, thank god the 'grown ups' are in charge: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTU_RHYWwAActde?format=jpg&name=large
Just be honest, it's just performatively punching left. [Separately the same tendency believe that Harris needs to do the same thing].
Rubbish.
It has not been ruled out of court. Do try to keep up.
No doubt we all wish the new regime would act more quickly on this one, but where is the money to come from? What's your answer?
You are possibly right, of course, especially in the case of Her late Majesty.
OTOH, I no longer count myself as either *devout* or *C of E*, and have just renewed my modest subscription to Republic...
Look, that's just ridiculous. You seem to be blind to the fact that government MPs voting in favour of an Opposition Amendment in a King's Speech Debate is actually a big deal. It really is in our parliamentary system. This is not performatively punching left - at least that's not the primary purpose - it is Parliamentary discipline.
You may well agree with the cause. I do. Starmer does. But the method is really provocative. Starmer wants to govern. This kind of behaviour is literally a threat to the Government's ability to govern.
Is it an over reaction? Maybe. But at this point in the cycle; new government, very large number of new MPs, trying to establish a narrative of quiet competence... etc. would you really expect anything less?
AFZ
We would do well to cut them a little bit of slack whilst they get going - even Sir Keir has only been in Parliament since 2015, and (AIUI) quite a few of the new MPs are still trying to find office space in Westminster!
Yes, maybe the PM has come down like a ton of bricks on the rebels, but it could be argued that he does need to have room in which to work...
My suspicion is that there's a clear answer to that.
Not a ton of bricks at all. They cannot be whipped but they are still salaried MPs
I can't comment on 2010 but they have been very unpopular on here at least since December 2019
I think you are ignoring the framing and background of issue; which includes the 2015 vote becoming something of a totemic issue, numerous policy reversals to date, and the manner in which senior members of the party have briefed against their own voters when it suited them.
Even the Economist - leftie rag that it is - is willing to call this out for what it is: https://archive.is/AWso6
This is just silly, there was no chance of the Kings Speech failing to pass (and do you really want to suggest that Starmer at this point was failing to carry his MPs with him?)
Quiet competence would have involved swapping the timelines on the handling of the cases of Coyle and Abbott respectively, not trying factional replacements at the last minute, and not parachuting in some of the more unsavoury members of the NEC into safe seats.
Clearly we disagree quite radically on what competence would look like.
Even if the SNP ammendment passed, it would affect zero children in poverty.
The rebels were playing games.
Quiet competence goes hand in hand with quiet confidence, something not generated by paranoid overreaction and knee jerk authoritarianism. Whatever else one may say about Blair's governments he didn't have to resort to this sort of heavy handed thuggery, and accepted occasional rebellions from SCG members as the cost of doing business.
Hopefully, once they've got the £££ sorted out, things will begin to improve. They've been in power for less than three weeks so far...
I'm 56. As a Bursary lad at a public school I was educated with Tories. I watched their governments destroy our industries and give not a shit about the discarded workers. I know they despise the poor and anyone they consider below them because they made it obvious.
I don't give them any slack because I know them, how they think, and who they hate.
Quite.
They deserve even less slack now than in 2010, given the ghastly mess they've inflicted on the country since then. It was, perhaps, not obvious in 2010 just how awful they would turn out to be...
that is quite literally QED though isn't it? Doesn't matter why, you go into it thinking 'Blue Bad, Red better'
Both are wretched and should be nowhere near power.
I was sent to war (on lies, as it turned out) by a *Labour* government which close to home got some of my friends and acquaintances killed or maimed, and more broadly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis.
But we gloss over any amount of Labour adventurism because that was 20 years ago so they're cleansed of all that and anyway, 'Boo to the evil Tories. Baa.'
Sorry, I'm not 56. I'm a dozen years younger and *my* experience of Labour in power is to want them and their enablers/supporters in the bin with the Tories.
Same with Tories. Assuming the worst saves so much time.
Labour in power have done some awful things, which I opposed vehemently at the time. Do I think the current Labour leadership would do much the same, given the opportunity? Yes. But I also know the last Labour government did some good things, and I have modest hopes that the current want may do some among all the awful shit. The tories, meanwhile, were just as gung ho regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and have done virtually nothing good in their 14 years in power. It's the difference between cow shit and dog shit. You don't want to stand in either but at least the former can be put to some use.
Kinder, gentler…
Certainly when it comes to the policies for the people politics is supposed to serve, not so much when it comes to the politicians wreaking havoc on those communities.
Right and in a just world Blair and Campbell would in the Hague rather than rehabilitating their reputations via podcasts (shame on the listeners), but the Tories were as keen to vote against investigating him, the better to preserve the freedom for future foreign adventures.
Thing is, Tories everyone knows where they are with them, so it’s priced in.
Labour - kill a million Iraqis ‘but they did some good 1997-2010. And anyway, the Tories would have done it too’
Or we just don’t enable either of them.
Agree.
Which is why I've never voted Labour in parliamentary elections except when Corbyn was leader. I think you'll agree that Corbyn was never going to involve us in an Iraq-style debacle.
Did you believe there were weapons of mass destruction at the time ?
That said, I'd certainly be happier if it were done far more quickly than seems to be envisaged.
You haven't.
It has not been ruled out at all.
It is essentially a budgetary measure.
Labour has said it will do a proper budget in the autumn.
The government doesn't want to fiddle with financial issues before then. (With the exception of the legislation for VAT on school fees).
So it's obvious that the 2 child cap would not be in this King's Speech.
The SNP tabled an Ammendment on the KS debate to make a point.*
There was no way the government was going to accept that ammendment.
That's it. That's what happened. Expect the cap to go in first budget.
AFZ
*it's up for discussion why the SNP tables this: I.e. because they believe in it or because they wanted to embarrass the government, knowing that some Labour MPs would want to vote for their ammendment... FWIW (absolutely nothing), my money's on both.
Give it time...early days yet.