Environment agency coastal patrol surely?
These tribute bands with contrived similar but not the same as original names are getting silly.
So far… this chaos with Ed Miliband thing seems pretty calm… take that video… Grant Shapps had 5 different government jobs in under 2 years.
“Here’s some news to cheer up the climate deniers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/11/cumbria-coalmine-was-unlawfully-approved-government-says “
I cant see the problem with mining our own coal, we still need coal, and will be importing it from other Countries for many years, so why not mine it ourselves, keep jobs in our Country, and reduce the carbon footprint by not importing it?
Same with North Sea oil and gas, again it will be used for many years to come, so why not use our own oil and gas?
We will still extract and use oil and gas, what is stopping is exploring and developing new fields¹ which wouldn’t come on line for years… by which point we shouldn’t need it. The coal from the Cumbria² mine would mostly be an export product.
¹ North Sea ² Irish Sea
Should we start a new thread?
~anyway - the pressure is on from parties to the left of labour.
Starmer faces test of Labour discipline after SNP proposes vote on ending two-child benefit cap in king's speech debate
Keir Starmer faces a possible test to his authority in the Commons next week after the SNP said that it would table an amendment to the king’s speech saying the two-child benefit cap should be abolished.In a letter to the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, Stephen Flynn, said that “the moment Keir Starmer stepped into Downing Street, the Tory two-child cap became the Labour party two-child cap”.
How can labour defend this? Its an abhorrent policy and cast children into poverty given how l;ow our benefits are at the best of times.
Should we start a new thread?
Probably.
Prediction: Gov will say that it'll be dropped, but not in the first budget, and most MPs will get in line.
Personal: Labour should have said during the campaign that it would go immediately.
Grant Shapps had 5 different government jobs in under 2 years.
Grant Shapps has had at least that number of names, let alone jobs.
just to point out according to the guardian article the cost of eliminating the 2 child benefit cap is less than the aid promised to Ukraine and less than the tax breaks promised to business by Reeves. Its a tiny sum in terms of the government budget
I think its utterly disgusting that they have not agreed to remove this by now. Shameful and shows how wedded they are to the cruel tory austerity
Same with North Sea oil and gas, again it will be used for many years to come, so why not use our own oil and gas
Because there isn't enough gas* and we export 80% of the oil as it is.
That we need to somehow keep granting new licenses to manage the transition is up there with "we need to put up water bills to pay for sewage treatment" as things shareholders say that are clearly just rubbish and in their own self interest.
*INEOS Grangemouth import from North America, Milfoird Haven imports from Qatar IIRC, if there was enough gas we wouldn't have had the trouble we've had the last few years.
Shameful and shows how wedded they are to the cruel tory austerity
Yes I can imagine how the entire Labour front bench are cackling with glee about carrying on with a universally condemned policy started by Osbourne. I can think of no other reason they'd do this.
What other reason is there for NOT removing the cap? Its not financial.
Yes I can imagine how the entire Labour front bench are cackling with glee about carrying on with a universally condemned policy started by Osbourne. I can think of no other reason they’d do this.
If that doesn't work try accusing TJ of trolling.
BTW just out of interest why do you think that the Tories maintained this policy which you claim was "universally condemned"?
Were the Tories also cackling with glee?
It's performative cruelty designed specifically to appeal to mouth-breather "red wall" voters who may otherwise support rebrexkip, or, worse even than that, the tories. It makes no sense from an economic, humanitarian, or social perspective.
Just over a week in power and they've not solved child poverty yet, Kier Starmer is to blame for all of it!
Argee - this a is a very simple step to take.
According to argee's hilarious sarcastic comment Starmer needs much more time to reverse a Tory policy
I suspect they'll stick to what they said just a few weeks ago, when trying to get elected... no reversal straight after the election if they were to be elected... but that they want to reverse it as soon as "possible". And by that they were talking in the scope of avoiding day to day spending increases in year one. In my opinion, they absolutely should have made an exception for this, but they didn't. So they won't 'till they've had some time in government and can say that stability has enabled the removal of (or at least a staging of) the multi child cap. It has to go. But I don't think they'll get rid of it this year, not without some unexpected good news to explain away the extra immediate costs.
If they can't even do the easy, right stuff to do, then I may have been right in my doubts that they will do much at all.
I fully expect this first year they will do what they said they would do. Which is limited and contained, compared to all the things "we" would like them to be doing everywhere all at once. They pressure to change this multi child cap crap will be great though, and it's pushing at an open door really... it'll happen before the end of next year I would expect... but not before. I could be wrong.
According to argee’s hilarious sarcastic comment Starmer needs much more time to reverse a Tory policy
Why do you state Starmer, rather than the government, they are just over a week in office, working out where they stand and formulating plans, yet people think they should just fire out some quick hits, where there may not have been any real assessment of the impacts, such as where to find the reported £3.6. billion a year to pay for this change?
Kelvin - so continuing with this senseless deliberately cruel tory austerity policy then?
such as where to find the reported £3.6. billion a year to pay for this change?
Perhaps the same place as the money to Ukraine has been found or the money for tax giveaways to businesses?
Perhaps the same place as the money to Ukraine has been found or the money for tax giveaways to businesses?
How much has Labour provided for this since being in power, can you be more prescriptive so that the rest of us can understand where you believe these funds are to provide nearly £4 billion extra per year, every year?
Finally, £1.7bn is a tiny sum in the context of a £2.7tn economy, and there are plenty of ways the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, could find it without any difficulty. As the tax expert Richard Murphy has shown, taxing capital gains at the same rate as income would net the Treasury £12bn a year, while restricting tax relief on pensions to the basic rate of income tax would raise a further £14.5bn. Removing the losses the Bank of England makes on its gilt holdings from the way the government’s debt rule is calculated would raise an estimated £20bn, according to the consultancy Oxford Economics.
From the Grauniad.
Or plenty of other places - its a tiny sum. tiny % on corporation tax or a tiny bit on income tax or a little bit more money printed or a tinsy winsey wealth tax
its not a financial decision its a political one
Why do you state Starmer, rather than the government, they are just over a week in office, working out where they stand and formulating plans, yet people think they should just fire out some quick hits, where there may not have been any real assessment of the impacts, such as where to find the reported £3.6. billion a year to pay for this change?
How about an easy one, tax CEO pay?
or
Why do you state Starmer, rather than the government
Mostly I guess because the buck stops with the Prime Minister. When the previous government was in power it was common to refer to Rishi Sunak when discussing government policies.
It is assumed in British politics that the leaders of the two main parties have the final say on their party's policies.
Personally I would much prefer less power being concentrated in the hands of one person but that appears to be a minority point of view.
Not a minority of one though Ernie, and I would note that the better times I remember for this country have always had strong teams in government.
The remaining Tories were very poor, no strength across the team (for all sorts of clear reasons)
Personally I would much prefer less power being concentrated in the hands of one person but that appears to be a minority point of view.
You'll be happy to hear that Starmer has said that we're going to see a return of 'proper cabinet government' under him after years of power being hoarded by a centralised cabal around the PM, and also intends to devolve more power to the regions then, surely?
You’ll be happy to hear that Starmer has said that.....
Yup, definitely. And I'll be ecstatic if it turns out to be true. What's not to like?
So binners - how do you justify keeping the tory 2 child benefit cap? 🙂
I will also bet no new powers for Scotland - in fact I expect a clawback particularly over the NHS
how do you justify keeping the tory 2 child benefit cap?
I hope/reckoning that'll be history very soon, already a lot of rumbling from the back benches. It should have been history before the GE frankly. It's objectively wrong.
Oh stop bloody whining FFS!!! They've only been in power a week and you're expecting them to undo 14 years of deriliction 😉
[img] 
[/img]
https://twitter.com/KimJohnsonMP/status/1811075411247239451
It will put pressure on Labour MPs to rebel and vote with the LibDems, SNP, and Greens, especially those in marginal seats.
With such a huge Labour majority they might feel that it is safe to do so and that it will earn them brownie points with their constituents.
Binners - this is a very simple one to alter. Now they have announced all sorts of stuff but this very simple and cheap step seems beyond them. Why do you think that is?
It would not take any significant parliamentary time, it would be uncontroversial, the cost is minimal.
the two child benefit cap with the rape clause is indefensible and you know it 🙂
I am also very disappointed with a load of other stuff but I accept that many of those issues are not cheap simple and straightforward to sort out but ending the 2 child benefit cap is not in that category
I celebrated this and praised Starmer for assuring that even far-right Israeli prime ministers are not above international law:
So it is only fair to point out that Starmer now appears to have backtracked:
https://www.newarab.com/news/uk-gov-will-not-drop-challenge-icc-israeli-arrest-warrants
The original announcement that the new Labour government were dropping the previous Tory government's opposition to an arrest warrant was widely reported by the mainstream media, but the backtracking and the reality that Labour will maintain the Tory government policy doesn't appear to be.
Presumably it's all because the Tories have left the country in such a mess that Starmer, the human rights lawyer, can't afford to allow the international prosecution of an alleged war criminal?
Wow, the new arab, that sounds like a fact based internet site, they even use the word 'alleged' in their first sentence before going off on a tangent ?
Hmmm.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1922784/nhs-waiting-times-economy-back-to-work
When the last government mooted this, it was Evil Tories this and Tory Scum that. But when Labour do it, its ok for some reason
It's only a 2 child benefit cap. Let's stop whining about it yeah ;
Labour have had years to prep. Stop putting the Centrist rim brakes on.
How much has Labour provided for this since being in power, can you be more prescriptive so that the rest of us can understand where you believe these funds are to provide nearly £4 billion extra per year, every year?
What is it with Centrists that they can't understand about the way government's spending operates?
It's a political choice - not a financial one.
It comes from the same place - every time
This excuse making for Labour is getting so ridiculous.
Granted they've only been in power for 30 seconds or so but they can hit the ground running and if they don't do something within the first 100 days that affects actual material conditions then society is going to suffer.
(And I'm not talking about all this ridiculous vapid technocracy that some of you confuse with improving living standards.)
No way is Starmer getting an easy ride on this sort of thing.
What is it with Centrists that they can’t understand about the way government’s spending operates?
We’re all dangerous idealogical fanatics! I thought you’d established this some time ago, no?
I find it amusing that you can forgive anything the labour party do.
Yes they have done some good stuff already and hit the ground running - i am quite impressed. Junior doctors pay being a good example.
I cannot fathom why this one they are so dead set against. A much easier issue than junior doctors pay. Why do they want to continue this piece of performative cruelty. ?
Why do they want to continue this piece of performative cruelty. ?
I'm sure he'll refer to you as comrade and post a pithy meme in due course.
Wow, the new arab, that sounds like a fact based internet site
It is. You are unhappy because they used the term "alleged"? That's really weird - of all the things to criticise!
I used the term "it now appears", because it hasn't been confirmed yet. Generally governments give out heavy hints about expected course of action.
But anyway what's your position on the issue argee - do you believe that international arrest warrants for alleged war criminals is a good idea?
I'm guessing that it all depends on what Starmer decides, i.e. if he backs the issuing of the arrest warrant you'll back it, if he opposes it you will too. Am I right, do you let Starmer do your thinking for you?
There you go argee, the Jerusalem Post, it sounds more reliable than a dodgy news provider with the word Arab in it, does it not?
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-810436
The United Kingdom’s newly elected Labour government has not yet taken a position regarding whether it would continue to oppose the legal proceedings against Israel at the International Criminal Court
So a week ago we were all celebrating how great the new Labour government was for wanting, unlike the Tories, to hold war criminals to account but it turns out that the celebratory mood was a bit premature.
It looks like this is just one more issue where Labour's policy might be identical to the last Tory government's
Good photoshop effort. Now bring it out on every thread until we're all sick of it then keep going.
It is assumed in British politics that the leaders of the two main parties have the final say on their party’s policies.
That assumption is doing a whole **** load of lifting.
So a week ago we were all celebrating how great the new Labour government was for wanting, unlike the Tories, to hold war criminals to account but it turns out that the celebratory mood was a bit premature.
It looks like this is just one more issue where Labour’s policy might be identical to the last Tory government’s
Lammy, whilst in Israel on government business basically says 'no comment' in as many words, rather than being committal shocker.
Why not wait until the actual confirmation of a yay or nay, instead of the rumour mills, like the courts, it's always good to condemn someone on actual evidence, rather than conjecture.
But anyway what’s your position on the issue argee – do you believe that international arrest warrants for alleged war criminals is a good idea?
I’m guessing that it all depends on what Starmer decides, i.e. if he backs the issuing of the arrest warrant you’ll back it, if he opposes it you will too. Am I right, do you let Starmer do your thinking for you?
I believe in the ICC and their output, they are a force for good, but my opinion on the matter has no weight, unlike a country making a decision, that will be slightly more complex and come with potential pitfalls from the many intricacies of politics on the world stage.
Why not wait until the actual confirmation of a yay or nay, instead of the rumour mills, like the courts, it’s always good to condemn someone on actual evidence, rather than conjecture.
You have just criticised the New Arab news site for using the term "alleged”! Make your mind up!
I used the terms "it now appears" and "might". I haven't condemned anything. I poured praise on the new government for its apparent determination to uphold international law. I am now saying that this appears to have been premature because apparently no decision has been made.
Despite the fact that Lammy made it very clear what Labour's position is/was
David Lammy has reiterated that Labour would seek to implement an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu if one was issued by the international criminal court.
That ^^ couldn't be clearer
It is assumed in British politics that the leaders of the two main parties have the final say on their party’s policies.
That assumption is doing a whole **** load of lifting
Are you seriously questioning the claim that the leaders of the Labour and Tory parties have the final say on their party's policies? Blimey
We all know who really runs this country, no matter which party is allegedly ‘in power’
When the last government mooted this, it was Evil Tories this and Tory Scum that. But when Labour do it, its ok for some reason
before : “People are swinging the lead and pretending to be ill when they’re not! Stress? Depression? Don’t make me laugh.”
after : “If we measure how many and how soon people receive the care they need to be able to return to work, and have rewards for that, we can improve outcomes.”
On Lammy, he’s walking a difficult line… and doing so well as far as I can see. There are those that think that Israel should not exist as a state of course, and they will never be happy with diplomacy towards them, even if it is with the aim of stopping the killings and establishing a free Palestinian state. Calling for a ceasefire will never be enough for these people, they want Israel gone.
LOLz
I ruddy well should be!
On Lammy, he’s walking a difficult line…
You what? We are talking about complying with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for people accused of war crimes, where is the "difficult line" that he is being asked to walk?
Plenty of world leaders, including Macron, have said that their countries will comply with an ICC's arrest warrant, why can't the new Labour government make the same public announcement?
Before the general election Lammy said that Labour would drop the Tory government's opposition to the arrest warrant, is it really too much to expect a different stance from Labour?
It is simply a rule of law issue.
More pips required on TJ's epaulettes; no, that's not code for anything - unless you really want it to be...
They’ve only been in power a week and you’re expecting them to undo 14 years of deriliction
Yep, in corporate bullshit bingo dealing with the two child cap would be in the low hanging fruit category. You just do that stuff straight away and then get to the more difficult stuff, i.e. social care, housing, productivity
I see this thread is still a complete shit-show.
Dunno there's been some interesting contributions. Although not all obviously.
I see this thread is still a complete shit-show.
I see the stw-meta comments are still insightful and contribute much wisdom to the discussion.
You what? We are talking about complying with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for people accused of war crimes, where is the “difficult line” that he is being asked to walk?
The Law.
Under the '93 Oslo accords Palestine doesn't have jurisdiction over Israeli citizens, there's a legal argument on-going about whether then Palestine can transfer that right to the ICC.
Lammy cannot say either way becasue he hasn't been given legal advice on it. You'll note that the gov't has said in the past; Labour would seek to implement an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu if one was issued by the international criminal court.
The argument is 'can it?' The Labour position seems to be if the ICC has the right to seek to arrest Netanyahu, then the UK govt would support it, if it doesn't then the UK cannot.
Under the ’93 Oslo accords Palestine doesn’t have jurisdiction over Israeli citizens, there’s a legal argument on-going about whether then Palestine can transfer that right to the ICC.
Not according to most legal scholars. That is a blatant excuse put out by Israel. No one believes it hence all the countries that support the ICC and also the ICC itself taking action. There is no argument. There is Israel trying to escape culpability for its actions
Its absolutely nothing top do with Palestine having jurisdiction over Israeli citizens anyway - its about the jurisdiction of the ICC
its about the jurisdiction of the ICC
Of course, but it's a legal court it's entitled to hear legal arguments. Until it makes a decision either way it'd be a foolish Foreign Sec to wade in. Be consistent, if you want to criticise the Tories for seeking to break international agreements, you can't then criticise Labour for seeking to abide by them (or at least not make definitive statements until the arguments have been settled)
There is NO dispute. the arguement has been settled. Read the PDF.
There is NO dispute. the arguement has been settled. Read the PDF.
36. While this is the Panel’s view, the Panel is cognisant that the decision on the issuance
of warrants is for the honourable Judges of the Court.
The Judges on the ICC panel haven't made a decision, until they do, again it would be a foolish For Sec to act. I'd imagine that the decision will come either way in the next few weeks (as that was the deadline set for legal submissions) so we'll know in time, and I expect that Lammy will say that the UK supports the ICC - As he's already indicated he will.
Under the ’93 Oslo accords Palestine doesn’t have jurisdiction over Israeli citizens, there’s a legal argument on-going about whether then Palestine can transfer that right to the ICC.
Is what you said. ~This has been dismissed as a legal fiction. The ICC does have jurisdiction. Thats legally settled.
It hasn't. The .pdf is the panel appointed by the ICC's opinion, that the UK asked for. The argument will be settled when the judges on the ICC panel make their decision in a few weeks time.
Aye right. Find a single legal opinion of any merit that believes this oslo accord nonsense and its well established that the ICC has jurisdiction.
Its an arguement without merit as has been made clear. I think you will also find that its not actually been made to the ICC. No submission on it as its without merit.
Rayner saying we need growth to afford to lift kids out of poverty.
Tory speak and Tory myth.
Still waiting for them to turn left when in power as was promised.
Labour's economic plan is not a plan it's a the dregs of right-wing fail from the off.
M ore relevant than english wendy ball binners 🙂
To (no doubt completely pointlessly) try to counter the relentless miserabalism and bottomless pessimism of the usual suspects on here:
I think the figures on the BBC yesterday was that ending the cap would lift 1.5 million children out of poverty (I was a bit shocked that it has affected so many).
I think you will also find that its not actually been made to the ICC. No submission on it as its without merit.
Starmer take note!
I am fairly sure that with an unprecedented 5 independent MPs, all of them pro Palestine, an unprecedented 4 Green MPs, all of them strongly pro Palestine, and the largest number of LibDem MPs ever, a party which was widely backed by the Muslim Vote, Starmer has definitely taken note.
Especially when the Labour Party only managed a 34% of the vote in the second lowest turnout since WW2
A few punters on here might be deluding themselves that everything is just hunky dory with the Labour vote but I have no doubt that Starmer and his advisors are fully aware that there are some serious issues with it that need tackling. Hence all the pro Palestine noises recently in stark contrast with Starmer's previous pro Israeli noises.
Hot air. Having ruled out the 4 freedoms and rejoining the EU or even the CU and SM there is nothing left of any significance.
The EU have moved on and do not care one jot about the UK any more. They have other much more pressing issues to deal with. Senior EU politicians have made this clear. He might get a few kind words and some very minor fiddling around the edges but anything else is wishful thinking and attempted gaslighting. Reject the 4 freedoms? Enjoy life on the outside.
I think the figures on the BBC yesterday was that ending the cap would lift 1.5 million children out of poverty (I was a bit shocked that it has affected so many).
I don't think that, what i think is that this statement is just not true, it is a statement made against a minimum household income with set numbers of children, it has no correlation to lifting 1.5 children out of poverty, it just means payments will be made to households for those 1.5 million children, how it is spent is a whole other thing.
EU officials have made it clear that the review process will be about a review of the implementation of the agreement rather than a review of the treaty itself, in line with what the treaty text says. Maroš Šefčovič, the vice-president of the European Commission who oversees UK relations, has said that the TCA had not been used to its “full potential” but warned that the review “does not constitute a commitment to reopen the TCA or to renegotiate the supplementary agreements”. Another EU official was adamant that the process is “a review, not a revision, not a renewal or even amendment of any sort”. The EU has a clear position on what to expect from the review: not very much.
https://www.cer.eu/insights/what-approach-should-labour-take-2026-tca-review
Ah - I had missed that Nickc. I thought they had only said they were going to - not that they had. its still an arguement without any merit at all. lammy should withdraw it immediatly
