news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes, they are. Starmer said it in his speech...and there's been loads of briefings attacking Khan (and Milliband).

Starmer spoke about it in their National Policy Forum, which is a forum that discusses Labour policy, of course he’ll discuss it there. If anything it would be irresponsible if he didn’t. It’s a 3 day event so talking about it at times throughout is normal I’d say.

Don’t believe all the briefings you see in the media, especially those from ‘anonymous sources’, they are probably rubbish. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Ozanne

[Guest]

This is who Labour are up against, a child apparently. 

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Don’t believe all the briefings you see in the media, especially those from ‘anonymous sources’, they are probably rubbish. 

no, I expect they are from people within Labour who are trying to steer things a certain way. Hear a lot of negative stuff about Milliband.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

no, I expect they are from people within Labour who are trying to steer things a certain way. Hear a lot of negative stuff about Milliband.

Oh yeah I don’t doubt they aren’t from Labour but I’ll be from people with agendas so not necessarily accurate. 

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Oh yeah I don’t doubt they aren’t from Labour but I’ll be from people with agendas so not necessarily accurate. 

it's like Game Of Thrones.

[steviewevie]

Literally.

[steviewevie]

 

[cellar]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

You probably couldn’t go into an election campaign saying it, but surely increasing universal credit payments would get more out of poverty than removing the child benefit cap?

Aren't you someone who argues for Starmer doing what is necessary to win the election though? But in this case, you're arguing for something that you don't think he should campaign over, rather than stick to a pledge? It doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure you're not just trying to blindly justify Starmers actions?

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

there's no way of doing it without creating a negative impact somewhere else.

True of any policy costing any money

Either child poverty is a priority or it isn't. 

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

You probably couldn’t go into an election campaign saying it, but surely increasing universal credit payments would get more out of poverty than removing the child benefit cap?

Well yes, but that's not the alternative.... I guess labour could do that once elected!

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

i do, :- poverty is caused by  more than lack of money - also by a lack of wanting to do better.

Ok IDS. You want them to get on their bike and find work?

[cellar]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

True of any policy costing any money

Either child poverty is a priority or it isn't. 

This is exactly what it is.

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Ok IDS. You want them to get on their bike and find work?

i just don't think poverty is fixed with hyperbole.

[cellar]

https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/cost-child-poverty-2023

[pink_triangle]

28 minutes ago, cellar said:

Aren't you someone who argues for Starmer doing what is necessary to win the election though? But in this case, you're arguing for something that you don't think he should campaign over, rather than stick to a pledge? It doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure you're not just trying to blindly justify Starmers actions?

To me they are two different conversations. One is the most effective way to get children out of poverty and I was querying if that may be to increase benefits.

The second question is what can you sell to voters and I think taking people out of poverty by increasing benefits is a tough sell. I think it’s something he may do in power , but not something he is going to let the torys (and media) twist against him in an election campaign.

So I am basically back in Starmer as a person, rather than a list of pledges that may or may not be possible as circumstances change. I see him as someone who is in politics for the right reasons and easily could be making more money doing something else. The painting of him as a plastic Tory is silly in my view. I think his heart is in the right place and in power he will do good. He may be over cautious, but it’s a minor flaw compared to some of the previous leaders of the big 2.

 

[cellar]

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The second question is what can you sell to voters and I think taking people out of poverty by increasing benefits is a tough sell. 

I think this is ultimately my problem - it really shouldn't be a hard sell. But I do accept the reality of our situation, and I think in fact the only way to really change these conditions is to take away control of the media from the right. 

8 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

To me they are two different conversations. One is the most effective way to get children out of poverty and I was querying if that may be to increase benefits.

Check out the link I just posted - I don't claim to know the best way to achieve this anymore than you do, but some people more in the know do claim that removing the 2-child policy is the best way. As I see it, the burden of proof is on someone else to prove them wrong.

 

And yeah, maybe Starmers heart is in the right place, I just don't like his methods. Maybe I just hope for too much.

[zahidf]

53 minutes ago, Neil said:

i just don't think poverty is fixed with hyperbole.

Where's the hyperbole? Getting rid of the benefit cap would alleviate poverty. You haven't given any coherent reason other than you seem to think it will cost too much (ot won't) or they should just get on their bike to find work

[Rufus Gwertigan]

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Where's the hyperbole? Getting rid of the benefit cap would alleviate poverty. You haven't given any coherent reason other than you seem to think it will cost too much (ot won't) or they should just get on their bike to find work

Sorry I need to try to keep up. When we say benefit cap are we talking of the 2 child cap or the benefit cap in general. Either way I think both should go.

[Neil]

22 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Where's the hyperbole? Getting rid of the benefit cap would alleviate poverty. You haven't given any coherent reason other than you seem to think it will cost too much (ot won't) or they should just get on their bike to find work

poverty is not solely about lack of money, its also not caused by the 2 child cap, so won't be eliminated  by its removal. we need joined up policies, and  not soundbites instead of doing it properly.

[cellar]

44 minutes ago, Neil said:

poverty is not solely about lack of money, its also not caused by the 2 child cap, so won't be eliminated  by its removal. we need joined up policies, and  not soundbites instead of doing it properly.

https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/cost-child-poverty-2023

[Neil]

22 minutes ago, cellar said:

https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/cost-child-poverty-2023

the cap would probably be a good place to start but its not the whole solution to child poverty.

[Guest]

 

[Rufus Gwertigan]

10 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

Reform on 10%?

[fraybentos1]

31 minutes ago, Neil said:

the cap would probably be a good place to start but its not the whole solution to child poverty.

Once again you’re arguing against something that no one has said lol. Nobody claimed it would end child poverty, only reduce it. People have even provided some evidence and stats but of course you’ve ignored them.

[cellar]

31 minutes ago, Neil said:

the cap would probably be a good place to start but its not the whole solution to child poverty.

I know, and I'm not naive enough to think that it would solve everything, I just think it would do a lot of good that would be felt be a lot of people, a lot of people who are struggling.

I think after all these days of debating it, we're probably all actually on the same side fundamentally, we just disagree with the methods of change. But I am a bit tired of the argument now.