armchairclubber
Well-known member
What on Earth has Jeremy Corbyn got to do with it
![Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl: š¤£](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f923.png)
You're obsessed.
There's certainly a bunch of Sir Kid Starvers on here today.
Still a few missing though.
Indeed.Agree, when I was growing up there were a couple of larger families that were state-bankrolled (no employment at all)
I certainly didnāt begrudge them public funds for fundamentals, but none of the kids that I knew from the family were working when I lost contact with them at around 19yo. In fact they were a bit of a mini crime syndicate.
You didnāt mess with any of them because if you did, another eleven of them would be round your house later on that evening.
Well, it was quite clearly signalled so it's hardly beyond belief. If there is such a thing, the moral vacuum is actually via the voting system and the swing voters that are indulged by it and are consequently provided far too much prominence.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.
Balanced and sensible comment.Well, it was quite clearly signalled so it's hardly beyond belief. If there is such a thing, the moral vacuum is actually via the voting system and the swing voters that are indulged by it and are consequently provided far too much prominence.
I agree with you about the long-term consequences of this policy and any delay is causing further problems down the line. I also agree that this is a cheap way (cĀ£1.5bn) of making the remarkable impact of lifting 300,000 children out of poverty. But Labour were repeatedly challenged about this in a very narrow, shallow electoral campaign, and they came back with the same answer: lifting the cap wasn't an immediate priority, and they'd only be able to invest in public services courtesy of growth down the line.
They could, of course, have borrowed money or raised taxes to pay for it, but they didn't.
In terms of this specific policy change, there are two things to look for. The first is the report that Phillipson and Kendall have been commissioned to oversee -- and more importantly its release date which will be timed to announce the lifting of the cap. Second is Reeves' first budget. This will be interesting because the one thing Labour is keen to get across in its first year (and probably beyond) is the devastating state of everything they've inherited. This is mostly true. If it pertains, then there will be no new money to find in that first budget which points to no policy change.
While public services are utterly devastated after 14 years of being run down, the one area that there are signs of positivity is the economy: tentative signs of growth (historically low but decent compared to dire recent standards); inflation back to its expected level; and the potential of interest rates decreasing. All of this is reinforced by the investment drive that Labour deems central.
Spot on. Sums up why this element of politics is so easily (and correctly) mocked. Starmer has never had to have a 'war' with a 'split' party. He simply get on with things and responds each time these goons do something politically self-harmful by ensuring their self harm is recognized and suitably rewarded.Pros and cons of the policy aside, it's dumb politics from the seven suspended MPs - walked straight into the SNP trap. It wasn't in the manifesto, so abstain, stay in the PLP, and try and lobby the leadership to get it into the budget later in the year - I'd be willing to bet it will be in there.
Makes you wonder why she stood for Labour and not as an independent?I just looked this up an, lo!
It is Becca Wrong Bailey (previously suspended for re-tweeting anti-Semitic bollocks) and Spare Head Three!
A pair of political self-harmers. Ta ra.
View attachment 186017
Edit: and three others of the seven are possibly harbouring a grudge against the labour leadership for not declaring war on Israel. Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum and Zarah Sultana.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
She strikes me as being well-meaning, and not conspicuously hypocritical, but extremely naĆÆve. As for intellect...."Long-Bailey studied Politics and Sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University,".Makes you wonder why she stood for Labour and not as an independent?
She really doesn't agree with very much of the Labour Party manifesto.
Guess it's a safe Labour seat and she likes the salary and pension.
Hypocrite of the highest order.
Isn't it a bit bizarre that all those rallying on behalf of keeping the cap believe that by removing it, couples will suddenly start going at it like rabbits and produce families of 5 or 6 or 7 kids just to get their hands on the extra dough! I don't believe it will change the behaviour of anything other than a small handful, the same handful that the likes of the Daily Fail will seek out and put on their front page as evidence.
It's currently about Ā£1250 per year. Who is going to have extra children to get that payment. It wouldn't cover the cost of keeping that child so you'd still be making a loss!
![]()
How much will it cost to raise a child in 2024?
Rising parenting costs are causing difficulties for parents. But what will 2023 bring, and how can parents better manage their finances? Read here.www.lv.com
Removing the cap would alleviate some cost pressure but not all. That might be enough to lift some out of poverty which has to be a good thing. However, KS and RR are correct in saying they cannot afford this yet. Where they have been wrong is that they aren't getting the message across that this is something they will prioritise once they can fully finance it so it comes across that they only want to keep it. All about the optics.
I've been puzzled by the various things I have read about this, and, as ever, Martin Lewis clarifies things.
What Magic Grandpa has to do with it is you attack Starmer several times a day for not being him. With his easy slogans & dubious obsessions. (& similarly, every single suspended MP is a Corbynite zombie).What on Earth has Jeremy Corbyn got to do with it
You're obsessed.
There's certainly a bunch of Sir Kid Starvers on here today.
Still a few missing though.
it is means tested, payments for on universal credit are assessed on income. what you're suggesting is bring down the cut off level, so lower income group can get payments for 3+ children. reinstating the current rules in 2025 is applying the same thinking as applied when introduced in 2017. in conclusion, seems the simple answer is to leave as it is?The short and simple answer is a phase out - to remove the cap on universal credits and tax benefits for existing families who already have more than two children but make it strictly means-tested. At the moment it is claimable even to families on relatively high incomes. End the eligibility for all 3rd or more children born after 2025 so families can plan ahead.
That helps lifts existing families out of poverty while making it strictly means tested alleviates the public purse incrementally and annually until all 3rd ( or additional ) children born before 2025 will have reached 16 years old and beyond eligibility ( or a bit longer if we include some children in full education until they are 18). After that, the 2-child cap is de facto reinstated for everyone regardless of income without forcing existing children into poverty.
Sums it up ^Pros and cons of the policy aside, it's dumb politics from the seven suspended MPs - walked straight into the SNP trap. It wasn't in the manifesto, so abstain, stay in the PLP, and try and lobby the leadership to get it into the budget later in the year - I'd be willing to bet it will be in there.
When the Tories introduced the two child cap it was "vicious", "cruel", heartless" and would only serve to increase child poverty. As soon as the new Labour government has the opportunity to bin it off, not only does it not do so, it suspends those MPs who support its removal.
I don't know the constituencies of all the suspended MPs but I know Rebecca Long-Bailey represents Salford. Is it not possible that the Tory (now Labour) two child cap might be adversely impacting northern urban communities more? Is it not possible that her constituents are raising this issue with her more than the constituents in more affluent areas?
MPs are elected to represent their constituents and if she is getting representations from those who re-elected her regarding the very real consequences of the cap, should she not, in a democratic Party, be allowed to vote as guided / directed / influenced by those she represents? Instead she gets her legs slapped and put on Starmer's naughty step for six months.
The people who voted for her as the Labour Party candidate in the GE no longer have a Labour MP. That's not particularly democratic either is it?
Is it time to abandoned the outdated custom of "whipping" Party MPs to support a particular line (open to bullying, blackmail and bribery) and allow them to vote in accordance with their personal conscience or the stated wishes of their constituents?
Exactly this.This is very interesting. I too assumed it was limiting Child Benefit to two children. But that's not quite the case.