armchairclubber
Well-known member
Once Trump gets re Elected Lammy's time will come to an abrupt end as well.
Well, if your theory is correct (and I'm not so sure it is) it's a shame it should have to wait until November.
Once Trump gets re Elected Lammy's time will come to an abrupt end as well.
The upper house knocking it back 5 times might have something to do with the overall cost and lack of successful deportations?Bloody hell.
Has Johnson hooked up with a Rwanda GF?![]()
(Derailing Thread Alert)
Getting more and more confused by Starmer. Sure I heard him describe himself as a socialist.
Personally I think just about every word that comes out of his mouth is Utter Bullshit.
Keep the Red Flag Flying.
It’s baffling.I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.
The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.
I am not sure whether this means it was a good plan, thwarted by the vindictiveness of an unelected and archaic upper chamber, or a stupid plan that was thankfully stymied, once again vindicating our oft-mocked system with its unelected upper chamber.The upper house knocking it back 5 times might have something to do with the overall cost and lack of successful deportations?
They don't call him Flip Flop Starmer for nothing you know.
If you have produced a third malnourished child, at what point might you be considered somewhat feckless?I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.
The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.
..another dissenter attempting ineffectual irony?The Toolmaker’s son means business, don’t you dare vote against him
I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.
The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.
Edited for youThey don't call him Flip Flop Starmer
I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.
The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.
This.I don’t think it is as clear cut as you make out for Starmer. He needs to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to create the confidence for investment in the Uk to drive growth which he believes will lift the country out of the mess we are in.
Economic stability creates the conditions that can (with the right social policies aligning) offer the best long term and permanent solutions to child poverty.
It is not Starmer’ fault that he inherited the two child policy or that he doesn’t have the money to change it now. I think he is right to make the stand he has right now but hope he will make it a priority to reverse as soon as the taxpayer can afford it.
That's not what I call him.
I largely agree but state subsidy of feckless* parents isn't necessarily going to deliver a high quality workforce. According to some, these families are living millimeters next to poverty, and it would only take a lack of handouts for any third child on the way to push them under, so the general health, welfare and employability of these borderline children may not quite be what the employer ordered. Even though they would of course be 'British Bred'.The reason for not lifting it is that it’s seen as “moral hazard”, it suggests that the state will bankroll couples who choose to have large families without thinking about whether they can afford them.
Now, what’s interesting is the people who get the most exercised over families living off the state, tend to be the same people who get the most exercised over migration.
A large chunk of migration occurs because Britain simply doesn’t have the numbers to fill gaps in its jobs market itself.
So, a genuine question for those who do get exercised by the issues above, would your preferred solution be:
a) remove the two child cap, allow greater public funding for British families, so after an 18 year lag we have a greater potential workforce of our own. (We’d still need current levels of migration for the next 18 years, and the increased public spending would require tax rises)
b) Keep the two child cap, lower migration and effectively say “Britain is prioritising migration over business, please move your business or European HQ elsewhere.” - this will lower tax take, unless the business is Amazon, who we have actually provided a rebate to in at least one of the last 5 years.
c) keep things the same.
There are options, but there are no “free” options.
My view is that it was a terrible idea from a terrible government HOWEVER… this is a democracy, the people voted that Government in and it is not the right of the unelected house to block the will of the elected house. Regardless of the policy. The fact that the Government didn’t manage to deport anyone through that scheme is simply the fault of the upper house. Bad policy? Absolutely.. waste of money? Absolutely.I am not sure whether this means it was a good plan, thwarted by the vindictiveness of an unelected and archaic upper chamber, or a stupid plan that was thankfully stymied, once again vindicating our oft-mocked system with its unelected upper chamber.
I just looked this up an, lo!Sir Keir Starmer stamping his authority on the 7 rebels!! What a statement of intent that is
Already showing he can run a Government better than the last lot
I largely agree but state subsidy of feckless* parents isn't necessarily going to deliver a high quality workforce. According to some, these families are living millimeters next to poverty, and it would only take a lack of handouts for any third child on the way to push them under, so the general health, welfare and employability of these borderline children may not quite be what the employer ordered. Even though they would of course be 'British Bred'.
*As defined as opting to have a third child without the resources to support the child.