armchairclubber
Well-known member
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.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... š
[Politics] The Labour Government
- Thread starter Super Steve Earle
- Start date
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.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 5,932
FWIW - I donāt think scrapping the 2-child cap long term should be a priority and in fact, I think there are good arguments for maintaining it.
I can definitely see the equity, popularity and common sense in an argument to maintain a means-tested benefit temporarily for existing families already with more than 2 children or those already expecting another child (eg those born before 2025 ) to help them out of poverty now.
Ducks head now because this sounds like some Chinese approach to social engineering but that is not what Iām suggesting before I get pilloried by the morally outraged who think we have absolute rights to do as we please:
However, IMO, there are good economic and environmental reasons why society as a whole (globally) needs to ask whether we should build population growth disincentives (not control!) into economic and social policy and whether a two-child cap on child benefits could be part of that? Should there be not some personal responsibility upon families already struggling to maintain two children or even for those who are not struggling, to question whether they should keep on having more than two children without considering the financial cost to themselves or broader costs society and the environment if they do so?
Population growth is directly linked to worsening environmental degradation and strain on public services both as an increasing burden on existing resources and in waste management (ie sewage/pollution/carbon footprint). Improved healthcare, improved living conditions and reduced mortality rates means natural population limiters (old age, disease) are no longer keeping populations to a sustainable level.
Can the public purse or the environment continue to sustain the rates of childbirth we are currently seeing or does the 2-child benefit cap inadvertently help to address some of the wider implications of the current levels of population growth ?
Hiding with HWT behind the far right sofa on this one.
I can definitely see the equity, popularity and common sense in an argument to maintain a means-tested benefit temporarily for existing families already with more than 2 children or those already expecting another child (eg those born before 2025 ) to help them out of poverty now.
Ducks head now because this sounds like some Chinese approach to social engineering but that is not what Iām suggesting before I get pilloried by the morally outraged who think we have absolute rights to do as we please:
However, IMO, there are good economic and environmental reasons why society as a whole (globally) needs to ask whether we should build population growth disincentives (not control!) into economic and social policy and whether a two-child cap on child benefits could be part of that? Should there be not some personal responsibility upon families already struggling to maintain two children or even for those who are not struggling, to question whether they should keep on having more than two children without considering the financial cost to themselves or broader costs society and the environment if they do so?
Population growth is directly linked to worsening environmental degradation and strain on public services both as an increasing burden on existing resources and in waste management (ie sewage/pollution/carbon footprint). Improved healthcare, improved living conditions and reduced mortality rates means natural population limiters (old age, disease) are no longer keeping populations to a sustainable level.
Can the public purse or the environment continue to sustain the rates of childbirth we are currently seeing or does the 2-child benefit cap inadvertently help to address some of the wider implications of the current levels of population growth ?
Hiding with HWT behind the far right sofa on this one.
Indeed.
In all seriousness, though, if you are living in poverty, reliant on child benefit to prevent your two kids from starvation, what the actual f*** entitles you to pop out another one? As a plan?
We all heard the story during the election run up about a couple whose finances were so badly affected by the Truss clusterfuck budget, they decided they could not afford to have a child. Why should people like this be made to pay more tax so that a couple (or a single mum) can get the taxpayer to underwrite their third (and fourth and fifth if they so decide) child?
That sounds like the exact opposite of what I understand to be socialism and the sort of tomfoolery that has many people understandably leaping into the arms of the socially conservative right wing parties.
Having one child you can't support is unfortunate. Having a second seems like carelessness. Having third sounds to me like a deliberate strategy. Socialism to me is not the surgical separation of actions and consequences.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
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.
JackB247
Well-known member
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.
Balanced and sensible comment.
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.
I will be interested to see how close Diane Abbott sails to the wind in coming weeks.
Corbyn may have built a career voting against his own party. This sort of narcissism won't work any more. Play in the team, and seek agreement to change tactics if you don't like playing down the centre. If you aren't happy being at the club, and can't get any traction to effect your desires, seek a transfer.
(Actually.....to be honest.... I don't give a shit. She is finished as a political force).
drew
Drew
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!
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.
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.
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.
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
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.
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,".
(An acquaintance of mine was struggling s an academic at the University of Manchester, unable to fund her research, and not exactly ripping the place up with her teaching innovation. I then found she had moved to MMU, and had been made a full professor.
)When RL-B stood as labour leader "She was endorsed by Unite the Union on 24 January after general secretary Len McCluskey said she had the "brains and brilliance" to "take on" Boris Johnson.[31] She was also endorsed by the Momentum organisation.[7] ". That's Len McCluskey, veteran of tea and biscuits at number ten. Now age 73, with the official political affiliation as "Independent, former Labour". What are these people like?
Some people simply lack the insight to realize they are not leaders, that they do not understand how things work, and that the best think they can do is shut the f*** up. And a cup of tea would be nice. I'm referring here to Corbyn and McClusky, and the whole Momentum gang, as well as Wrong Bailey here.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I've been puzzled by the various things I have read about this, and, as ever, Martin Lewis clarifies things.
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.
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.
This is very interesting. I too assumed it was limiting Child Benefit to two children. But that's not quite the case.
aolstudios
Well-known member
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.
We all know that.
But you do you, it's comical watching you
Last edited:
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,772
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?
Last edited:
aolstudios
Well-known member
Sums it up ^
But they can't help it. They're slogan shouters, it's all they have
Southern Scouse
Well-known member
- Jul 21, 2011
- 2,061
Really pleased about the suspensions. Itās ok to be able to stick by your convictions but the only way the changes that need to be made for the improvement of lives for millions of our citizens needs unity. I hope this trend continues.
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?
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?
armchairclubber
Well-known member
Was it also an issue that came up in their leadership campaigns (against each other)?
Exactly this.
Its amazing how many people are getting exercised about this issue, believing it refers to a cap on Child Benefit, when in fact it refers to an additional and entirely different benefit.