news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Ryan1984 said:

 

he govt has forced clean air zones on councils both Bristol and Manc were forced to introduce clean air zones by the govt.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

potential labour policies.

I’d argue they are still Labour policies even before a manifesto but yes we should probably wait for that before we judge too harshly. 

[pink_triangle]

18 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Almost like Labour are meant to be the party of the working class (the clue is in the name!)

Are you confident that if you polled the “working class” about the benefit cap they would come out on your side? I suspect you may be surprised.

To me the best way to help the working class is get in power and get things done.

[Neil]

55 minutes ago, zahidf said:

There was a study which showed getting rid of the cap was the easiest and most cost effective way to reduce chold poverty 

 

di it also look at the effect of the cut in funding somewhere to pay for ending the 2 child cap.

[Guest]

Director of polling company, More In Common. 

[steviewevie]

33 minutes ago, Neil said:

he govt has forced clean air zones on councils both Bristol and Manc were forced to introduce clean air zones by the govt.

yeah, nanny state. Just keep your kids indoors, simple.

[zahidf]

42 minutes ago, Neil said:

di it also look at the effect of the cut in funding somewhere to pay for ending the 2 child cap.

Well if you want to fight child poverty, you're going to have spend some money. Ending the cap would be easiest and most costs effective way

There's no free way of doing it.

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well if you want to fight child poverty, you're going to have spend some money. Ending the cap would be easiest and most costs effective way

There's no free way of doing it.

I would also argue that it’s an investment that will make savings in the future.

However I still think it’s reasonable to ask the question what is the most effective way to take people out of poverty. As I say removing the cap redistributes to middle and higher earners and does nothing for 1 and 2 children households. Is a targeted approach not possible?

[cellar]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Not a quota at all, just me guessing how many are currently there. I think people with different ages and backgrounds offer different perspectives.

Ah yeah fair enough, I misinterpreted the tone. I'd prefer if there were a lot more young people in politics.

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

Are you confident that if you polled the “working class” about the benefit cap they would come out on your side? I suspect you may be surprised.

To me the best way to help the working class is get in power and get things done.

No I am not confident about that at all to be honest, but there is a daft discourse in the UK about benefit claimants and migrants amongst many other things. I think if you polled the UK public on a range of political questions they'd come back with a lot of mental and contradictory stuff. A lot of it is to do with how the question is framed.

Is the argument really we will only do things if the policy is overwhelmingly popular? They're meant to present ideas and inspire voters.

[cellar]

19 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I would also argue that it’s an investment that will make savings in the future.

However I still think it’s reasonable to ask the question what is the most effective way to take people out of poverty. As I say removing the cap redistributes to middle and higher earners and does nothing for 1 and 2 children households. Is a targeted approach not possible?

Removing the cap helps lower income families, to a much larger degree. If you want it to be targeted, make it means tested - but that argument already applies the way things stand. 

It's really mental how much people are trying to argue against this. 

[pink_triangle]

4 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

No I am not confident about that at all to be honest, but there is a daft discourse in the UK about benefit claimants and migrants amongst many other things. I think if you polled the UK public on a range of political questions they'd come back with a lot of mental and contradictory stuff. A lot of it is to do with how the question is framed.

Is the argument really we will only do things if the policy is overwhelmingly popular? They're meant to present ideas and inspire voters.

Well if your the Green Party you can offer the moon on a stick knowing you will never get the opportunity to implement anything. If you are labour then you need to win an election as that’s the only way you get in power and change things. It would be great to live in a country where everyone in the middle and higher was putting their hands up to pay more for a more equal society. Unfortunately Starmer has to work with the electorate as it is, not what we would like it to be.

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, cellar said:

Removing the cap helps lower income families, to a much larger degree. If you want it to be targeted, make it means tested - but that argument already applies the way things stand. 

It's really mental how much people are trying to argue against this. 

I’m not arguing. I didn’t support the cap in and would be quite happy if it is removed. I have no doubt that removing the cap would bring people out of poverty.

However removing the cap won’t impact on anyone in a one or two child household living (or borderline) in poverty. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask that while this may lift people out of poverty, is there a better way of doing it. I don’t feel my left wing credentials are tainted in the slightest by asking the question.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I’m not arguing. I didn’t support the cap in and would be quite happy if it is removed. I have no doubt that removing the cap would bring people out of poverty.

However removing the cap won’t impact on anyone in a one or two child household living (or borderline) in poverty. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask that while this may lift people out of poverty, is there a better way of doing it. I don’t feel my left wing credentials are tainted in the slightest by asking the question.

I agree, there isn’t a uniform approach to this for the left and is completely fair to see if there is a better way of doing it.

It’s silly for anyone to claim this means they aren’t as ‘left’ as anyone else. 

[cellar]

16 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I’m not arguing. I didn’t support the cap in and would be quite happy if it is removed. I have no doubt that removing the cap would bring people out of poverty.

However removing the cap won’t impact on anyone in a one or two child household living (or borderline) in poverty. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask that while this may lift people out of poverty, is there a better way of doing it. I don’t feel my left wing credentials are tainted in the slightest by asking the question.

You can of course ask the question how the support could benefit families who need it more - the answer is to means test it. Which applies now already. You say you're not arguing against it, but you're trying to present an alternative.

"I don't support the 2-child cap, but..."

It's fine to want to question how targeted any benefit system is. But it's not fine to have a 2-child cap. I'm happy to have more well-off families receive extra benefit if it means lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. It's not even a difficult choice.

If it matters to you whether I think you're left or not by the way, then I actually do, and I understand wanting to question it - I'm just giving my take.

Ozanne clearly isn't left, but that's another debate.

[Guest]

I mean it raises the question why certain people didn’t ever mention this policy before last Sunday until it became an issue to attack Labour with. Seems like a tactic of the right that’s for sure.  

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, cellar said:

You can of course ask the question how the support could benefit families who need it more - the answer is to means test it. Which applies now already. You say you're not arguing against it, but you're trying to present an alternative.

"I don't support the 2-child cap, but..."

It's fine to want to question how targeted any benefit system is. But it's not fine to have a 2-child cap. I'm happy to have more well-off families receive extra benefit if it means lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. It's not even a difficult choice.

If it matters to you whether I think you're left or not by the way, then I actually do, and I understand wanting to question it - I'm just giving my take.

Ozanne clearly isn't left, but that's another debate.

Means testing adds an extra layer of administration, then you have to ask is the cost of that administration worthwhile.

My question is still whether there is a different way to lift the children (and those from 1-2 child houses) without giving the extra to the well off. Unfortunately with the Torys messing up the country and the finances we can’t afford to give more to the well off. Could you just adjust universal credit and leave the benefit cap in place and get a better result ? I hold my hands up that I’m not clever enough to know the answers, but think we should be asking the questions.

[cellar]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Means testing adds an extra layer of administration, then you have to ask is the cost of that administration worthwhile.

My question is still whether there is a different way to lift the children (and those from 1-2 child houses) without giving the extra to the well off. Unfortunately with the Torys messing up the country and the finances we can’t afford to give more to the well off. Could you just adjust universal credit and leave the benefit cap in place and get a better result ? I hold my hands up that I’m not clever enough to know the answers, but think we should be asking the questions.

I just don't think it's complicated. It should never have been brought in in the first place. I know the country is in a bad shape financially, but I could think of so many things I would divert funding from to raise 1.4bn for this. Also I'm not actually arguing for means testing - I'm just saying that's an answer to the targeting problem (I'm happy for all 3 child families to get the same amount of benefit).

And I guess fundamentally, it's the optics of it - you're right, there probably are ways that 1.4bn could be used to help those children in poverty, but that's not actually the issue on the table. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth to know that Labour have gone back on a pledge, and on an issue like this. 

[mattiloy]

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I’m not arguing. I didn’t support the cap in and would be quite happy if it is removed. I have no doubt that removing the cap would bring people out of poverty.

However removing the cap won’t impact on anyone in a one or two child household living (or borderline) in poverty. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask that while this may lift people out of poverty, is there a better way of doing it. I don’t feel my left wing credentials are tainted in the slightest by asking the question.

If Labour present something bette then I’m all ears.

 

44 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I mean it raises the question why certain people didn’t ever mention this policy before last Sunday until it became an issue to attack Labour with. Seems like a tactic of the right that’s for sure.  

came in in 2017 was mentioned lots, you were probs not into politics then cause you hadn’t got obsessed with starmer yet. 

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

‘Hands off our boilers’ 😂

What rubbish is that, who is that attached to their boiler!?

[steviewevie]

Maybe labour will have to bin next zero. Like autumn here anyway.

[steviewevie]

Feels like labour are on the back foot and the Tories are in the march....all thanks to the stupid people of uxbridge.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

A totally odd subject and if a mod is happy to move it to Films feel free.

I saw Watership Down when it came out in 78 and it was hard watching for a 10 year old but I had read the book so hey hum. It was a U. They have now reclassified that as a PG. Given they are editing books of some "kids" authors and changing film categories are we not in danger of creating a generation of wet blouses?

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66267414

Edited July 22, 2023 by Rufus Gwertigan