UK Politics

[Crazyfool01]

well at least that was adult ... 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

different times etc

they sure are

[steviewevie]

😄

[steviewevie]

 

[kaosmark2]

So there's been a few MPs saying they're doing the Collective Responsibility thing and trusting in the Labour government to deliver on child poverty despite voting to keep the cap for now:

 

as an example.

 

I think Starmer's authoritarian reaction to the rebels, combined with letters like this (private and public), will put quite a lot of pressure on him to not just remove this eventually, but to go beyond? I'd say the cabinet probably have to find another major policy to help fight child poverty to announce as well, that's at least as cost-effective as removing the 2cbc if not moreso.

 

That said, Phillipson is talking to teachers' unions atm, and will probably keep doing during the summer while schools are out. If she's asking "what do you see in your schools as signs of child poverty", I can see her coming up with a pretty effective policy equivalent to free school meals that makes a big difference.

 

 

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

So there's been a few MPs saying they're doing the Collective Responsibility thing and trusting in the Labour government to deliver on child poverty despite voting to keep the cap for now:

 

as an example.

 

I think Starmer's authoritarian reaction to the rebels, combined with letters like this (private and public), will put quite a lot of pressure on him to not just remove this eventually, but to go beyond? I'd say the cabinet probably have to find another major policy to help fight child poverty to announce as well, that's at least as cost-effective as removing the 2cbc if not moreso.

 

That said, Phillipson is talking to teachers' unions atm, and will probably keep doing during the summer while schools are out. If she's asking "what do you see in your schools as signs of child poverty", I can see her coming up with a pretty effective policy equivalent to free school meals that makes a big difference.

 

 

They all want to remove it...comes down to money. Everything needs more money, public sector pay, prisons, universities, local govt, social care, nhs, schools etc etc forever...billions and billions...and they've tied themselves down with fiscal rules and pledges to not raise the main taxes...so they are going to have a lot of money from somewhere else.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

They all want to remove it...comes down to money. Everything needs more money, public sector pay, prisons, universities, local govt, social care, nhs, schools etc etc forever...billions and billions...and they've tied themselves down with fiscal rules and pledges to not raise the main taxes...so they are going to have a lot of money from somewhere else.

You say money, I say priorities. The government/country can afford virtually any single policy it wants, but it has to come from somewhere else.

 

I do agree that basically every Labour MP wants to get rid of the 2cbc, but "is this a priority" and "where do you raise tax/make cuts to cover it" comes under the "fiscal responsibility" concept Starmer's been hammering on about for a year.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that "stopping kids going hungry" should be near top of the priority list, and it's not a flat loss, because kids that grow up properly nourished are more likely to thrive in education and then become "economically productive adults" (I hate this term but it's relevant to the Starmerist argument).

[steviewevie]

19 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

You say money, I say priorities. The government/country can afford virtually any single policy it wants, but it has to come from somewhere else.

 

I do agree that basically every Labour MP wants to get rid of the 2cbc, but "is this a priority" and "where do you raise tax/make cuts to cover it" comes under the "fiscal responsibility" concept Starmer's been hammering on about for a year.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that "stopping kids going hungry" should be near top of the priority list, and it's not a flat loss, because kids that grow up properly nourished are more likely to thrive in education and then become "economically productive adults" (I hate this term but it's relevant to the Starmerist argument).

yes, and maybe it will be. They have set up this poverty taskforce thing and there will be charities involved in that saying that the best thing they can do is lift this cap, and also for internal party politics they will need to do it. So could well come in the autumn budget thing. At same time the cap is popular with the public, so they will need to have that in mind when they're putting up taxes to pay for these horrid people's children.

But also there is public sector pay, if they don't get what they are hoping we could be looking at yet more strikes in the autumn and all that that will bring.

And some universities are apparently close to collapse, a lot are just cutting back on what they can provide, so that will either need more cash, or more likely increased fees.

And prisons, we've run out of space, that needs more cash (and hopefully some sensible reforms).

And on and on.

So in terms of priorities everything needs more cash because everything is in crisis.

[steviewevie]

 

[pink_triangle]

8 hours ago, steviewevie said:

But this always happens anyway, and he's got a big majority so really doesn't have to worry about it.

Just seems all so performative, from both sides actually.

I think the majority is almost irrelevant in this case, it’s about the message. I think Starmer feels the electorate are still cautious about labour and he doesn’t want them to look like they are backing down on election pledges 3 weeks later. I’m sure the change will come , but they need a narrative to support why they can fund the change when they couldn’t before the election. Time will allow that narrative to form.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

yes, and maybe it will be. They have set up this poverty taskforce thing and there will be charities involved in that saying that the best thing they can do is lift this cap, and also for internal party politics they will need to do it. So could well come in the autumn budget thing. At same time the cap is popular with the public, so they will need to have that in mind when they're putting up taxes to pay for these horrid people's children.

But also there is public sector pay, if they don't get what they are hoping we could be looking at yet more strikes in the autumn and all that that will bring.

And some universities are apparently close to collapse, a lot are just cutting back on what they can provide, so that will either need more cash, or more likely increased fees.

And prisons, we've run out of space, that needs more cash (and hopefully some sensible reforms).

And on and on.

So in terms of priorities everything needs more cash because everything is in crisis.

 

I think it's very high up the priority list of MPs. Even if it isn't Starmer's priority, he sort of has to make it one otherwise the next rebellion will be an actually relevant size.

 

WRT to Prisons, the appointment of Timpson gives me huge hope. It was the thing I had least faith in cos Starmer is functionally a cop, but I thought that was an inspired move and may lead to genuine progress in the Justice system for the first time in decades.

[pink_triangle]

8 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

or you just ignore them. Far easier and over quicker if you ignore them and carry on. Removing the whip gives them publicity and people who may not have known or cared about the vote may now become aware.

Like all too many things Labour does, it has been managed really badly.

Have they managed badly? What is the evidence? I think people are now switched off now the election is over. Maybe to those switched on Starmer looks strong. I can see people may disagree with the decision, think too  early to say he handled badly.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Have they managed badly? What is the evidence? I think people are now switched off now the election is over. Maybe to those switched on Starmer looks strong. I can see people may disagree with the decision, think too  early to say he handled badly.

yeah, way too early...and kind of silly saying Labour have managed stuff badly when they've just won a massive landslide and seem to be doing pretty well so far.

[steviewevie]

a lot of whipping in the news today.

[Nobody Interesting]

29 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Have they managed badly? What is the evidence? I think people are now switched off now the election is over. Maybe to those switched on Starmer looks strong. I can see people may disagree with the decision, think too  early to say he handled badly.

 

Cos the negativity is all over the news - had they just ignored the rebels little or nothing would have been said.

[Nobody Interesting]

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, way too early...and kind of silly saying Labour have managed stuff badly when they've just won a massive landslide and seem to be doing pretty well so far.

 

I remember how posters on here said pretty much the same over the Diane Abbott debacle at the start of the election. A couple of days later the same people agreed how badly it had been handled.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Cos the negativity is all over the news - had they just ignored the rebels little or nothing would have been said.

Starmer looks strong. The cap is popular.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if this backfires on this or other issues that more MPs want to rebel against though...

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

I remember how posters on here said pretty much the same over the Diane Abbott debacle at the start of the election. A couple of days later the same people agreed how badly it had been handled.

yes, and everyone is still talking about that

[steviewevie]

ok, I am definitely against this. f**king disgraceful. Starmer out.

 

 

[Joey Peeps]

There goes the 'they're just sounding like Tories to get elected' theory. 

[Nobody Interesting]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok, I am definitely against this. f**king disgraceful. Starmer out.

 

 

 

Scrapping small denomination coins is shown historically to add to inflation as all companies round prices up to the nearest new 5/10p level.

[Nobody Interesting]

Another Tory policy they 'want' to get rid of but are keeping instead....................

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Cos the negativity is all over the news - had they just ignored the rebels little or nothing would have been said.

What proportion of the electorate are watching the news in the school holidays now the election has finished? I think that’s political bubble thinking.