[Politics] The Labour Government

[armchairclubber]

Once Trump gets re Elected Lammy's time will come to an abrupt end as well.

Well, if your theory is correct (and I'm not so sure it is) it's a shame it should have to wait until November.

 

[Rdodge30]

Bloody hell.

Has Johnson hooked up with a Rwanda GF?

The upper house knocking it back 5 times might have something to do with the overall cost and lack of successful deportations?

 

[Rdodge30]

Sir Keir Starmer stamping his authority on the 7 rebels!! What a statement of intent that is

Already showing he can run a Government better than the last lot

 

[armchairclubber]

(Derailing Thread Alert)

Getting more and more confused by Starmer. Sure I heard him describe himself as a socialist.

Personally I think just about every word that comes out of his mouth is Utter Bullshit.

Keep the Red Flag Flying.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.

The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.

 

[Nicks]

(Derailing Thread Alert)

Getting more and more confused by Starmer. Sure I heard him describe himself as a socialist.

Personally I think just about every word that comes out of his mouth is Utter Bullshit.

Keep the Red Flag Flying.

They don't call him Flip Flop Starmer for nothing you know.

 

[The Clamp]

I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.

The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.

It’s baffling.

Fallen at their first important hurdle.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The upper house knocking it back 5 times might have something to do with the overall cost and lack of successful deportations?

I am not sure whether this means it was a good plan, thwarted by the vindictiveness of an unelected and archaic upper chamber, or a stupid plan that was thankfully stymied, once again vindicating our oft-mocked system with its unelected upper chamber.

 

[armchairclubber]

They don't call him Flip Flop Starmer for nothing you know.

That's not what I call him.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.

The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.

If you have produced a third malnourished child, at what point might you be considered somewhat feckless?

Maybe Starmer will cave in on this at some point. I can see that removing the cap would be a hugely popular move right across the nation, and I'm sure that those with two kids or fewer would graciously pay a bit more tax to help these poor families out. But perhaps there are slightly more pressing issues to deal with first?

(Gosh, what a strange feeling it is to suddenly find myself on the extreme right of the political spectrum ). .

 

[Lever]

The Toolmaker’s son means business, don’t you dare vote against him

..another dissenter attempting ineffectual irony?

 

[abc]

I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.

The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.

I don’t think it is as clear cut as you make out for Starmer. He needs to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to create the confidence for investment in the Uk to drive growth which he believes will lift the country out of the mess we are in.

Economic stability creates the conditions that can (with the right social policies aligning) offer the best long term and permanent solutions to child poverty.

It is not Starmer’ fault that he inherited the two child policy or that he doesn’t have the money to change it now. I think he is right to make the stand he has right now but hope he will make it a priority to reverse as soon as the taxpayer can afford it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

They don't call him Flip Flop Starmer

Edited for you

 

[chickens]

I can't believe the moral vacuum in the Labour party regarding the two child cap. Healthy and well educated children are one of the best returns of investment the country can make. The tens of thousands of malnourished children are going to have poor education outcomes and health issues in the future which will cost the public purse more in years to come.

The two child cap is morally wrong and financially illiterate. Starmer you have a massive majority, grow some balls and scrap it.

The reason for not lifting it is that it’s seen as “moral hazard”, it suggests that the state will bankroll couples who choose to have large families without thinking about whether they can afford them.

Now, what’s interesting is the people who get the most exercised over families living off the state, tend to be the same people who get the most exercised over migration.

A large chunk of migration occurs because Britain simply doesn’t have the numbers to fill gaps in its jobs market itself.

So, a genuine question for those who do get exercised by the issues above, would your preferred solution be:

a) remove the two child cap, allow greater public funding for British families, so after an 18 year lag we have a greater potential workforce of our own. (We’d still need current levels of migration for the next 18 years, and the increased public spending would require tax rises)

b) Keep the two child cap, lower migration and effectively say “Britain is prioritising migration over business, please move your business or European HQ elsewhere.” - this will lower tax take, unless the business is Amazon, who we have actually provided a rebate to in at least one of the last 5 years.

c) keep things the same.

There are options, but there are no “free” options.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don’t think it is as clear cut as you make out for Starmer. He needs to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to create the confidence for investment in the Uk to drive growth which he believes will lift the country out of the mess we are in.

Economic stability creates the conditions that can (with the right social policies aligning) offer the best long term and permanent solutions to child poverty.

It is not Starmer’ fault that he inherited the two child policy or that he doesn’t have the money to change it now. I think he is right to make the stand he has right now but hope he will make it a priority to reverse as soon as the taxpayer can afford it.

This.

(What is wrong with people? Minutes after Labour win they are agitating to undermine him and open the doors to let the f***ing Tories back in. Just because he hasn't gone full batshit Corbyn. Weird. No patience. Just a need for instant gratification).

 

[aolstudios]

That's not what I call him.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The reason for not lifting it is that it’s seen as “moral hazard”, it suggests that the state will bankroll couples who choose to have large families without thinking about whether they can afford them.

Now, what’s interesting is the people who get the most exercised over families living off the state, tend to be the same people who get the most exercised over migration.

A large chunk of migration occurs because Britain simply doesn’t have the numbers to fill gaps in its jobs market itself.

So, a genuine question for those who do get exercised by the issues above, would your preferred solution be:

a) remove the two child cap, allow greater public funding for British families, so after an 18 year lag we have a greater potential workforce of our own. (We’d still need current levels of migration for the next 18 years, and the increased public spending would require tax rises)

b) Keep the two child cap, lower migration and effectively say “Britain is prioritising migration over business, please move your business or European HQ elsewhere.” - this will lower tax take, unless the business is Amazon, who we have actually provided a rebate to in at least one of the last 5 years.

c) keep things the same.

There are options, but there are no “free” options.

I largely agree but state subsidy of feckless* parents isn't necessarily going to deliver a high quality workforce. According to some, these families are living millimeters next to poverty, and it would only take a lack of handouts for any third child on the way to push them under, so the general health, welfare and employability of these borderline children may not quite be what the employer ordered. Even though they would of course be 'British Bred'.

*As defined as opting to have a third child without the resources to support the child.

 

[Rdodge30]

I am not sure whether this means it was a good plan, thwarted by the vindictiveness of an unelected and archaic upper chamber, or a stupid plan that was thankfully stymied, once again vindicating our oft-mocked system with its unelected upper chamber.

My view is that it was a terrible idea from a terrible government HOWEVER… this is a democracy, the people voted that Government in and it is not the right of the unelected house to block the will of the elected house. Regardless of the policy. The fact that the Government didn’t manage to deport anyone through that scheme is simply the fault of the upper house. Bad policy? Absolutely.. waste of money? Absolutely.

Procedure wise I don’t know why the Government didn’t invoke the parliament act.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sir Keir Starmer stamping his authority on the 7 rebels!! What a statement of intent that is

Already showing he can run a Government better than the last lot

I just looked this up an, lo!

It is Becca Wrong Bailey (previously suspended for re-tweeting anti-Semitic bollocks) and Spare Head Three!

A pair of political self-harmers. Ta ra.

Edit: and three others of the seven are possibly harbouring a grudge against the labour leadership for not declaring war on Israel. Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum and Zarah Sultana.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

 

[chickens]

I largely agree but state subsidy of feckless* parents isn't necessarily going to deliver a high quality workforce. According to some, these families are living millimeters next to poverty, and it would only take a lack of handouts for any third child on the way to push them under, so the general health, welfare and employability of these borderline children may not quite be what the employer ordered. Even though they would of course be 'British Bred'.

*As defined as opting to have a third child without the resources to support the child.

Agree, when I was growing up there were a couple of larger families that were state-bankrolled (no employment at all)

I certainly didn’t begrudge them public funds for fundamentals, but none of the kids that I knew from the family were working when I lost contact with them at around 19yo. In fact they were a bit of a mini crime syndicate.

You didn’t mess with any of them because if you did, another eleven of them would be round your house later on that evening.