news & politics:discussion

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, cellar said:

Found it quite difficult to find any data on this - but from the ONS website:

"Of all families with dependent children, families with one child made up 44% (3.6 million) in 2022. Families with two children made up 41% (3.4 million), and families with three or more children made up 15% (1.2 million)."

The numbers I've seen suggest around 400,000 families affected by the 2-child cap, so about a third. That doesn't say anything about the other two thirds though.

I looked and struggled to find much in terms of data. The question I suppose is whether there is a way to redistribute the money to those who really need it, while leaving in place for those who don’t. I still lean towards this being a bad thing, even if I know why labour are doing it.

[Neil]

15 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

The fact you refer to money for poor kids as a 'giveaway that most can't access' is extremely bizarre. Shall we cut your PIP while we are at it cause most people don't benefit? No, cause that would be mental.

i'm happy for pip to be reformed (most of it is being pissed up the wall. - 

- i'll still get top wack whatever.  because i have serious need of help for a normalish life,govt can pick up the cost of daily carers instead if they like.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I looked and struggled to find much in terms of data. The question I suppose is whether there is a way to redistribute the money to those who really need it, while leaving in place for those who don’t. I still lean towards this being a bad thing, even if I know why labour are doing it.

The Tories did it... labour are just too scared to reverse it

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I looked and struggled to find much in terms of data. The question I suppose is whether there is a way to redistribute the money to those who really need it, while leaving in place for those who don’t. I still lean towards this being a bad thing, even if I know why labour are doing it.

the number of kids doesn't define who really needs it, my cousin had eight kids, wasn't in poverty or claiming big benefits cos both parents worked.

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

The Tories did it... labour are just too scared to reverse it

reversing comes at a cost to something else, they don't want to hurt that something else, bentos doesn't care.

[cellar]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I looked and struggled to find much in terms of data. The question I suppose is whether there is a way to redistribute the money to those who really need it, while leaving in place for those who don’t. I still lean towards this being a bad thing, even if I know why labour are doing it.

Yeah I guess what I meant is - we can confirm from that that at least a third of the families are from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

The other two thirds, who knows? There could be people right on the edge of that means testing, or it could be families that don't need to worry about it (because it's okay to have more than 2 kids if you're rich).

 

Separate to all of the money talk, at the very least Labour could commit to addressing the rape clause.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

reversing comes at a cost to something else, they don't want to hurt that something else, bentos doesn't care.

We're a rich country apparently.

Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I looked and struggled to find much in terms of data. The question I suppose is whether there is a way to redistribute the money to those who really need it, while leaving in place for those who don’t. I still lean towards this being a bad thing, even if I know why labour are doing it.

Yes that would be the measured response from someone that can see the bigger picture.

I stress again that people should wait for further policy announcements from Labour as this will likely be addressed. 

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

We're a rich country apparently.

Won't somebody think of the children?!

however rich we are, there's limited resources the job of govt nowadays is about allocating those resources, extra borrowing doesn't do it cos that doesn't create extra resources, that just expands how they can be distributed.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Yes that would be the measured response from someone that can see the bigger picture.

I stress again that people should wait for further policy announcements from Labour as this will likely be addressed. 

the issue might be addressed via a completely different policy. we have to wait and see and then make a judgement in the round.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Neil said:

however rich we are, there's limited resources the job of govt nowadays is about allocating those resources, extra borrowing doesn't do it cos that doesn't create extra resources, that just expands how they can be distributed.

Ok...so surely the whole point is we redistribute...so that no kid is disadvantaged just because he/she has more than one sibling.

[fraybentos1]

14 minutes ago, Neil said:

 the cost will be carried by another programme just as worthy.

what programme and at what cost? how it could it be more efficient than just going back to how it was pre 2017?

9 minutes ago, Neil said:

reversing comes at a cost to something else, they don't want to hurt that something else, bentos doesn't care.

but you just suggested another programme just as worthy. what is that and how much does it cost?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We're a rich country apparently.

Won't somebody think of the children?!

It’s not really about the money, it’s about the optics. You follow politics all the time surely you can see how the media would twist it?
 

1 minute ago, Neil said:

the issue might be addressed via a completely different policy. we have to wait and see and then make a judgement in the round.

Yes indeed, there might be something better or no different but at least wait.  I understand getting upset but the way some people have acted is so OTT.

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Ok...so surely the whole point is we redistribute...so that no kid is disadvantaged just because he/she has more than one sibling.

whether they're disadvantaged depends on a number of circumstances - not just a single welfare payment.

[Neil]

Starmer is mostly talking bollocks anyway, it was clear when he said he'd reduce the number of strokes, i'm still waiting to hear how exactly?

 

to find out, i've just emailed him. it might help him refine the policy into something that's possible.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Neil

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It’s not really about the money, it’s about the optics. You follow politics all the time surely you can see how the media would twist it?

yes, I see it...don't want to upset the mail/sun/express and all their wonderful readers...but even so...maybe sometimes you need to f**k the mail/sun/express readers and do what is right...you could actually make the argument how it is pushing more families into poverty and further disadvantaging already disadvantaged kids...instead of just doing what the mob want which is kind of pathetic.

But yeah, realpolitik and the c**try is full of c**ts.

[Neil]

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It’s not really about the money, it’s about the optics. You follow politics all the time surely you can see how the media would twist it?

 

it is about the money, first question would be 'how's it funded?'the funding is an integral part of it, as much as any other part of the policy, without the funding it doesn't exist.

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes indeed, there might be something better or no different but at least wait.  I understand getting upset but the way some people have acted is so OTT.

not just ott, brain-dead stupid too, an opinion on starmer's stance does not define who is left wing or not.

[Neil]

18 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

but you just suggested another programme just as worthy. what is that and how much does it cost?

you want to look at facts now??? long after fixing your opinion in stupid-land.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes, I see it...don't want to upset the mail/sun/express and all their wonderful readers...but even so...maybe sometimes you need to f**k the mail/sun/express readers and do what is right...you could actually make the argument how it is pushing more families into poverty and further disadvantaging already disadvantaged kids...instead of just doing what the mob want which is kind of pathetic.

But yeah, realpolitik and the c**try is full of c**ts.

Yes of course but if they try that and it falls back to the Tories/media playing their same old tricks then there will be less chance of addressing poverty at all. This country is a joke for that very reason so they have to work in the system that they are in.

Would you rather Labour tried and failed or played the game but won?

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

it is about the money, first question would be 'how's it funded?'the funding is an integral part of it, as much as any other part of the policy, without the funding it doesn't exist.

not just ott, brain-dead stupid too, an opinion on starmer's stance does not define who is left wing or not.

The vast majority are clearly arguing in good faith I believe apart from the one that doesn’t understand what ‘left’ means. 

[Neil]

19 minutes ago, Neil said:

Starmer is mostly talking bollocks anyway, it was clear when he said he'd reduce the number of strokes, i'm still waiting to hear how exactly?

 

to find out, i've just emailed him. it might help him refine the policy into something that's possible.

i've had an automated reply back from kier, am waiting to hear what lifestyle changes he'd have suggested for super-fit/clean-living Olympic athlete Michael johnson?

[fraybentos1]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

you want to look at facts now??? long after fixing your opinion in stupid-land.

I presented facts from the start which you have yet to acknowledge. Cost (£1.3 billion), result= 250k out of poverty, 850k poverty lessened. What exactly is 'stupid-land' about this? 

You have presented no facts cause you're thick as sh*t. You've just claimed another policy will replace this one which is just nonsense- the 'cost will be carried by another programme that is just as worthy'. At least I believe in a real thing, not just make believe like you.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes of course but if they try that and it falls back to the Tories/media playing their same old tricks then there will be less chance of addressing poverty at all. This country is a joke for that very reason so they have to work in the system that they are in.

Would you rather Labour tried and failed or played the game but won?

i want labour to win without that nothing changes.it would help them win if the whining w*nkers would pull their necks in. Corbyn is history!

[cellar]

Its all just going round in circles a bit isnt it. I really hope they u-turn and say they will reverse the 2-child policy - and no trying to pretend thats what you meant by "wait and see what they announce" Ozanne! 

And I knew I was on the left, but I feel extra left after the last few days discussing on here.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

Left means supporting callous tory policies apparently lol. Moron.

corbynistas live in fantasyland where nothing they say is thought thru or uses the facts or realities.

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Would you rather Labour tried and failed or played the game but won?

Perhaps some of us are bored with it being some kind of game and just demand honesty and integrity and our politicians not being twats … Labour can still win the election with some human policies and not just reverting to Tory . They really don’t have to do these things . Just sell things better .