news & politics:discussion

[kaosmark2]

I genuinely don't understand people defending Starmer on this and Streeting's "lets not offer hope" article. I get the need to be electable, but they've already thrown immigrants and queer people to the wolves in the name of "appealing to swing voters", now they're prepared to do it with kids in poverty?

I'm just finding it exhausting.

[Neil]

20 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Name some greater priorities please and how they’ll be paid for! I’m all ears. You still haven’t provided a single bit of evidence to refute the article I sent with the figures lol. By your logic we can’t put an extra billion into anything cause it’ll crash the economy 😂😂

 

 

Labour policies are costed, presumably the costed  ones are a greater priority. let's have the govt seize  private pensions so it can  have policies to cover your wishlist to win your vote.

[Neil]

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I genuinely don't understand people defending Starmer on this and Streeting's "lets not offer hope" article. I get the need to be electable, but they've already thrown immigrants and queer people to the wolves in the name of "appealing to swing voters", now they're prepared to do it with kids in poverty?

I'm just finding it exhausting.

You can see how keen some are to misrepresent labour policies, so it's better if the party doesn't give the haters a leg up.

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

 

it's ok, Labour will reverse it when they get in.

haha

[steviewevie]

ok...so there's two trains of thought...one that Labour need to do all this dropping of pledges and not reversing tory policies because they don't want to scare the horses and give any ammunition to tory media machine as we get closer to the election...the other labour are just looking less and less progressive and what's the point. I am of the former still, as there's still some good stuff in there, and as others have said I am hopeful they will be better in office. But, this 2 child cap thing I think has gone too far and has upset many within labour. Ultimately, the policy is f**king sh*t. Not sure they will u-turn before the by-elections, but maybe something will happen before conference, a u-turn of sorts. 

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it's ok, Labour will reverse it when they get in.

haha

Why bother their alternative will create just as much trouble. Better to go with the Tory version to show it doesn't work.

[Neil]

9 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Funny how some people can argue without insulting every post yet the poster that’s been called out before for bullying is incapable of doing so. Must be overcompensating for something. 

Over compensating for his small dick  with his big mouth.

[hodgey123]

16 hours ago, Neil said:

So you reckon Labour policies can alter how you vote, but can't alter anyone else's  vote?

I said the opposite, i.e. I will still vote for Labour. But I understand why people feel they have nothing worth voting for given the current offering of Tory or Tory lite.

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Why bother their alternative will create just as much trouble. Better to go with the Tory version to show it doesn't work.

Bizarre way of thinking 

 

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Over compensating for his small dick  with his big mouth.

good one… playground insults from a grown man. Bizarre 

[fraybentos1]

Still no one has been able to tell me why spending 1.3 billion to lift 250k kids out of poverty and lessen the poverty levels of a further 850k is such a bad idea. Supposed  ‘Left wing’ people actually arguing for a cruel Tory policy. Do you not have any shame?

[hodgey123]

10 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Still no one has been able to tell me why spending 1.3 billion to lift 250k kids out of poverty and lessen the poverty levels of a further 850k is such a bad idea. Supposed  ‘Left wing’ people actually arguing for a cruel Tory policy. Do you not have any shame?

It's because the "fiscally responsible" argument does not excuse the inhumanity of this policy on balance (where it perhaps would for other pledges Starmer has u-turned on), so it doesn't quite cut it, and then all you are left with is supporting an inhumane Tory policy.

[steviewevie]

looks like the messaging is it is a bad policy but we can't afford to reverse it.

[steviewevie]

...and if there is no more money...maybe they're going to have to get some more from the public purse.

[hodgey123]

Just now, steviewevie said:

looks like the messaging is it is a bad policy but we can't afford to reverse it.

Which of course is complete tosh and incredibly short-sighted. The reversal of this cap would pay for itself many times over when you consider the proven wider social impact/cost of children being brought up impoverished. Any Tory argument about fiscal irresponsibility could also of course be instantly rebutted by their PPE/Covid record.

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

looks like the messaging is it is a bad policy but we can't afford to reverse it.

It’s 1.3 billion and tbh you could make an argument that a lot of that would be recouped in terms of future health/ education/ crime spending. It’s a no-brainer. 

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, hodgey123 said:

Which of course is complete tosh and incredibly short-sighted. The reversal of this cap would pay for itself many times over when you consider the proven wider social impact/cost of children being brought up impoverished. Any Tory argument about fiscal irresponsibility could also of course be instantly rebutted by their PPE/Covid record.

Yep spot on, at least someone has some sense round here 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Which of course is complete tosh and incredibly short-sighted. The reversal of this cap would pay for itself many times over when you consider the proven wider social impact/cost of children being brought up impoverished. Any Tory argument about fiscal irresponsibility could also of course be instantly rebutted by their PPE/Covid record.

yeah...well they're not going to say it polls well in selby...

[fraybentos1]

If people like Neil and ozanne were about in the 1940s, they’d have been screaming that we can’t have nhs or mass build homes cause it’s unaffordable. 
 

Don’t want to spook the markets though !!

[gizmoman]

9 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

If people like Neil and ozanne were about in the 1940s, they’d have been screaming that we can’t have nhs or mass build homes cause it’s unaffordable. 
 

Don’t want to spook the markets though !!

That is a ridiculous argument/statistic, the reason the debt/GDP ratio was so bad then is that GDP was in the gutter after the war, the debt wasn't that bad but GDP was so low. We were still on rationing and would be for years, you can't compare the situation with the one now.

The public debt in 1945 hardly registers on the chart, even allowing for inflation we are in a far worse debt situation now.

I'm not saying I support the Cap, I'm in 2 minds about it actually, but this statistic isn't a valid argument.

[fraybentos1]

8 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

That is a ridiculous argument/statistic, the reason the debt/GDP ratio was so bad then is that GDP was in the gutter after the war, the debt wasn't that bad but GDP was so low. We were still on rationing and would be for years, you can't compare the situation with the one now.

The public debt in 1945 hardly registers on the chart, even allowing for inflation we are in a far worse debt situation now.

I'm not saying I support the Cap, I'm in 2 minds about it actually, but this statistic isn't a valid argument.

The important statistic is a 1.3 billion spend takes 250k kids out of poverty. If you don’t think that’s a good trade off then you aren’t left wing. 

[fraybentos1]

A good thread 

[cellar]

Raise CGT rate by 2% and you'd have more than 1.3bn to cover the cost.

Also I can't believe that policy came in in 2017, seems much more recent than that in my mind.