Labour’s economic plan is not a plan it’s a the dregs of right-wing fail from the off
Rone speak, Rone myth?
Oh in also pressing resignation news Wales first minister has also resigned.
how it is spent is a whole other thing.
Poor people can't be trusted to spend the money the right way, so lets leave them in poverty?
FFS the centrist have gone full tory headbangers within a week.
Thanks again for your carefully considered and elequently worded opinion. I’ll make a note.
Maybe you could just post a shity picture from the 70's, I am sure that will cheer up all those hungry children.
Poor people can’t be Trusted to spend the money the right way, so lets leave them in poverty?
Nope, i was talking from personal experience, growing up with a father who gambled and drank the income away, until my mum left him when i was 3, i also know several families like that where i am, more money will not 'lift' the children out of poverty, so the numbers stated are not really more than a shock value, with little correlation to removing children from 'poverty'.
I think in all fairness Argee has never claimed to be on the left
I think in all fairness Argee has never claimed to be on the left
I don't tend to box myself into one way of thinking, i tend to base most of my decisions and arguments on evidence to hand, hence why i'm not a fan of correlation being misunderstood for causation.
Article IV:
It is understood that:
1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1682727.stm
The ICC panel didn't specifically consider the question of the PNA's lack of jurisdiction over Israeli citizens. If it doesn't have jurisdiction over them in the first place, how can it transfer jurisdiction to the ICC?
I think it's an arguable legal point. I don't entirely see why it's the UK that has to put the time and effort into arguing it, though...
lammy should withdraw it immediatly
Given that nothing involving our foreign relationships happens in a vacuum, I suspect that the UK are just the country that has lodged the Amicus, I'd imagine there's quite a few others waiting on the outcome. It would probs cause some diplomatic upset that a govt with just 10 days under it's belt could well do without if he did that. I think you're right though, it'll probs have no bearing on the judgement, and Lammy will support the court when/if it seeks the arrest of Netanyahu as he has said he will do.
Nope, i was talking from personal experience...more money will not ‘lift’ the children out of poverty, so the numbers stated are not really more than a shock value, with little correlation to removing children from ‘poverty’.
I'm sorry you went through that as a kid.
One of the advantages of having 4 different jurisdictions in this country is that it creates laboratories for experiments on how different policies will affect highly similar people. We have just had such an experiment in giving more money to parents of poor children in Scotland with the Scottish Child Payment.
There was broadly positive evidence supporting some of the short-term outcomes: reduced money-related stress, increased child-related spend, children able to participate in social and educational opportunities and reduced pressure on household finances, with less clear evidence for an improved position of main carers within households.
https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/why-arent-more-people-talking-about-the-scottish-child-payment/
There is substantial evidence that generous child benefits are an effective way to reduce child poverty and improve children’s well-being and opportunities. For example, research on a previous UK expansion in financial support for families, the introduction of the child tax credit in the early 2000s, found that the money was spent on the children – on fresh fruit and vegetables and on children’s clothes, toys and activities. Meanwhile spending on alcohol and tobacco actually fell...
binnersFull Member
To (no doubt completely pointlessly) try to counter the relentless miserabalism and bottomless pessimism of the usual suspects on here:UK ready to build ‘closer, more mature’ trade links with the EU
The “closer, more mature trade links” has been debunked as a total fluff piece that so7nds good yet is an utterly meaningless headline by an EU trade negotiator (was on Twitter last night) the uk has what it has and will not get any more unless single market is joined.
I see a few of the forum regulars have been interviewed 🙂
We ask you: what are you already furious with the new government for not fixing?
Labour are now focusing on what really counts...... winning the next general election.
"Labour has already begun preparing for its 2029 election campaign"
Labour will presumably be concentrating on carrying the ming vase for the next 5 years. With the predicted 45% share of the vote actually ending up being 34% the ming vase nearly slipped out of their hands and smashed last general election...... can't afford for that to happen.
Wow!! Imagine that? Wanting to serve more than one term? Mental! It’s almost like they’re a political party, or something?
In other news they’re devolving more power out of Westminster and Whitehall and having more decision-making made locally, fulfilling election promises.
The bastards!
Labour to invite England’s ‘devolution deserts’ to take on more power
“Labour has already begun preparing for its 2029 election campaign”
Good. No complacency. The next election will be even harder, and could see the Reclaim gang and the Tories working together.
Ah, so too soon to take action on child poverty, but fine taking that time to start a 5 year election campaign.
Great to see what your priorities are.
Labour are now focusing on what really counts…… winning the next general election.
Christ, imagine not having the policy to change people's lives that they will vote for you on that basis
How's BUPA's Lord Darzi getting on with the NHS review? I mean it's not as if Labour have had years to figure out what's wrong.
Pragmatism at its finest.
In other news they’re devolving more power out of Westminster and Whitehall and having more decision-making made locally, fulfilling election promises.
Devolution for all, hurrah!…….but no money for stuff.
Christ, imagine not having the policy to change people’s lives that they will vote for you on that basis
Never mind about policies, it's winning that counts.
It’s almost like they’re a political party, or something?
When you say "or something" are you thinking perhaps of a football team which you back because they are your team and that's all that matters?
You have made the football analogy before with regards to winning or losing a game. And it's a fair one because for some people that's all that matters.
So yeah, It’s almost like they’re a political party. But maybe more like a sports team which we all love
That Gaurdian article is focused on their political strategists, it doesnt in anyway suggest the party is day to day obsessing about winning the next election.
Labour are now focusing on what really counts…… winning the next general election.
Bloody right too. It's going to take more than one term to sort out the shitshow the Tories left.
That Gaurdian article is focused on their political strategists, it doesnt in anyway suggest the party is day to day obsessing about winning the next election.
The Guardian article is self explanatory, it says that Labour has already begun preparing for its 2029 election campaign.
The reference to "day to day obsessing about winning the next election" is one which you have made and no one else, as far as I am aware, has.
You posted this
Never mind about policies, it’s winning that counts.
Labour are now focusing on what really counts…… winning the next general election.
Suggesting Labour are 'focusing on the next election' which is not what the article actually says is happening. Just a few within labour, who are political strategists.
It’s going to take more than one term to sort out the shitshow the Tories left.
Who's arguing that Labour only need to be in government for one term?
I missed that one.
Ah, so too soon to take action on child poverty, but fine taking that time to start a 5 year election campaign.
Suggesting Labour are ‘focusing on the next election’ which is not what the article actually says is happening.
It is exactly what the article says: "Labour has already begun preparing for its 2029 election campaign."
Are you suggesting that they are doing it in an unfocused way? I didn't get that impression from reading the article.
I think what you are trying to do is deny something which I have not said. You appear to be suggesting that I claimed Labour were focusing on winning the next general election and not on anything else.
What I am saying though is that for some people winning is more important than policy........"you can't do anything without winning blah blah blah"
Well you have won, now ****ing get on with it.
I've not kept up with the thread so sorry if I'm repeating others comments but isn't Labour preparing in the background for the next election a good thing?
It's exactly what Reform and the Tories** are doing as well?
I don't want a reform or Tory party in 2029 so surely this is the prudent thing for Labour to do.
** The act of choosing a new leader and the direction that leader will take them is ultimately in preparation to fight the next GE.
Mocking child poverty argee, what a nice well balanced individual you are!
What I saying though is that for some people winning is more important than policy
Ok,so the article was not all that relevant then?
I've not spent enough time in this thread to know who it is you're referring to. I can recall posts along the lines of "they have to win first" are you able to highlight any of those posts?
Well you have won, now **** get on with it.
Do you mean "Labour" and not "you"?
but isn’t Labour preparing in the background for the next election a good thing?
I said on this very thread (before July 4th) that the issue wasn't who would win the general election, it was certain that Labour would win, but who would win in 2029. Because it all depended on the Labour government's record and that Reform UK were likely to be a serious threat. If I can be arsed I might look for it later.
By 2029 Labour need to have delivered something substantial. Saying "we need another 5 years because of the Tories" is unlikely to be a vote winner, especially when support for Labour is not currently that high to start with.
Mocking child poverty argee, what a nice well balanced individual you are!
argee is an agitator, nothing else.
By 2029 Labour need to have delivered something substantial. Saying “we need another 5 years because of the Tories” is unlikely to be a vote winner, especially when support for Labour is not currently that high to start with.
I agree, there have to be demonstrable improvements by then but I don't think for one second we will be close to having everything "fixed". As long as Labour can show competence, stability and *some* quantifiably good results by then (the NHS/ social care?) a lot of the public would be inclined to give them a second term I hope.
All early days though.
see a few of the forum regulars have been interviewed 🙂
Always good to score a few points, and nevermind that the topic is child poverty. If it doesn't affect you personally then it's not something to worry about, eh?
fine taking that time to start a 5 year election campaign.
Yeah, sod planning things out over many years - I reckon we should go back to the Tory approach of developing policy in the back of the ministerial car on your way to the presser to announce it.
argee is an agitator, nothing else.
Definitely, slating a government in power for a week about how they've not solved world hunger yet, or why we haven't fixed the middle east either ?
Honestly, it's as if you think the UK is some kind of socialist majority, and everything is a total failure unless it's done exactly how you guys would like it!
Not fixing world hunger would be a little bit different if you were in control of the distribution of food. The two child limit is pretty grotesque on the face of it and I suspect costs us more in downstream interventions than it saves.
Not fixing world hunger would be a little bit different if you were in control of the distribution of food. The two child limit is pretty grotesque on the face of it and I suspect costs us more in downstream interventions than it saves.
And nobody in government has stated it will not be removed, it's just being used as yet another tool to beat Labour, sorry, Starmer with in his first weeks as PM, and it's asking a question that everyone knows the answer too, the reason it's not been changed yet is that it's not been reviewed yet, it's not rocket science.
Always good to score a few points, and nevermind that the topic is child poverty. If it doesn’t affect you personally then it’s not something to worry about, eh?
The vile thing is Labour could fix that with very little effort, time and money. It would also show willing on the difference between a conservative and progressive economic path for folk like me.
And actually reverse Tory policy at the same time.
Centrists don't appear to give a toss about progressive policy but they will be celebrating when interest rates come down I'm sure.
The thing is the argument that Labour can't fix stuff in 10 days is clearly obvious but they've had years to at least get the announcement/plans of something game-changing ready.
Doesn't matter it's all going to come home to roost if they carry on this economically inept.
Definitely, slating a government in power for a week about how they’ve not solved world hunger yet, or why we haven’t fixed the middle east either ?
Don't need to exaggerate - we are asking for much more humble things.
What are Labour waiting for - the cap has been in place since 2017? So that would allow a good amount time to know it's a shit Tory policy that wants booting out of the door.
As a bare minimum.
What are Labour waiting for
I believe that the correct response to that question is...... for things to get better (despite the fact the economy is, relatively speaking, not that bad) in the meantime blame the Tories.
Whatever you do don't blame Starmer!
We’ll see what comes out of the kings speech tomorrow, I hope it has more to show than merely a “steady hand” on the tiller and includes a few immediately actionable policies.
I agree, there have to be demonstrable improvements by then but I don’t think for one second we will be close to having everything “fixed”
Yes, and fixed means different things to different people. If they set some actual measurable and meanigful targets and then for example meet most of them by 50% with next term to complete it may be enough to demonstrate that are actually improving things (along with the fact they have actually improved things which would be good)
At one point yesterday I wondered if we even had a government in charge due to them just quietly getting on with stuff, huge amounts of work to do but a few weeks in the quietness is quite eerie without the weekly controversy being headline news until the next one rolled into play.
I think it was Jay Rayner who said that’s it’s nice to be able to flick on radio 4 in the morning without the sense of foreboding , thinking “oh god, what have they done now?”
The kings speech should be interesting today, to see just what’s included. It’s 35 separate bills apparently, so it’s obvious that this has all been worked out well in advance and ready to go.
It’ll certainly be a change from what we’ve been used to as it would signal the intent to actually DO something, rather than announce 40 new hospitals, for example, then do absolutely nothing about it
The two child limit is pretty grotesque on the face of it and I suspect costs us more in downstream interventions than it saves.
I'm naturally inclined to believe the downstream costs are greater too. It certainly seems like something that will have been analysed at some point if anyone has a well referenced analysis to hand?
Ditching the limit just seems like an obvious on brainer on multiple fronts.
It’s going to be interesting/deeply worrying to see how many incidents like this come out over the next few months.
The entire prison system was flagged up as being on the verge of collapse and the government did absolutely nothing whatsoever about it, despite it being a **** up entirely of their own making. I don’t suppose we should be surprised or shocked any more, but the complete dereliction of their responsibilities really is quite something
You can only imagine what other disasters are gaffer taped together waiting to fall apart
https://Twitter.com/13sarahmurphy/status/1813466046809935991?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
King's Speech today:
Perhaps tackle literacy standards (unless there is a plan to make people work through their lunches)?
Perhaps they've read a lot of ebay and facebook marketplace listings for mountain bikes with hydrolick breaks?
Anyway... bringing the railways back into public ownership seems like a good idea, no?
Anyway… bringing the railways back into public ownership seems like a good idea, no?
In theory yes, in practice wait and see - will they run better, be cheaper for passengers, workers rewarded fairly etc,.
Yep, I imagine it will have an impact, but probs less than the plan to allow local authorities to re-regulate the buses.
But I'd also imagine that not doing exactly what the cause dejour that the hitters want resolving immediately means that this govt of [checks calendar] 12 days have failed miserably and is in fact no better than the 14 years of previous Tory administration.
12 days have failed miserably and is in fact no better than the 14 years of previous Tory administration.
Are you ever going to stop churning out this bollocks?
There is nothing unrealistic about having an expectation of the new Labour government being significantly better than the previous Tory government.
Despite your apparently extraordinarily low expectations from a Labour government.
Let's see what the King's speech includes and let's judge it on that basis.
^^that raises the tricky question .
Is a competent conservative government actually better than an incompetent one?
But I’d also imagine that not doing exactly what the cause dejour that the hitters want resolving immediately means that this govt of [checks calendar] 12 days have failed miserably and is in fact no better than the 14 years of previous Tory administration.
We want them to lift the 2 child cap, it isn't an unreasonable desire, why do you oppose it?
It’s going to be interesting/deeply worrying to see how many incidents like this come out over the next few months.
The entire prison system was flagged up as being on the verge of collapse and the government did absolutely nothing whatsoever about it, despite it being a **** up entirely of their own making. I don’t suppose we should be surprised or shocked any more, but the complete dereliction of their responsibilities really is quite something
I was reading that too. I'm beginning to think that it was the reason that Mr Sunak called an early election. He didn't have a political solution, and if he didn't do something then he'd be in breach of his legal responsibilities.
We want them to lift the 2 child cap, it isn’t an unreasonable desire, why do you oppose it?
Absolutely nobody has said they oppose it, because I doubt any reasonable person would. The point we're making is that they've been in government for 12 whole days and they can't just wave a magic wand, and cram everything into the first Kings speech. I think its quite refreshing that we now have a government that is only planning to put in to practice what it can realistically deliver, rather than promise the moon on a stick (40 new hospitals anyone? £350 million a week for the NHS?) and then not deliver any of it
I'm sure this will be addressed in good time, as will many other issues, but as the article posted above illustrates, certain parts of the public sector are literally 5 minutes away from completely collapsing. Some things are just going to have to wait. We've had 14 years of total dereliction. It won't be rectified overnight
We want them to lift the 2 child cap
We all do. It's unlikely to be in the first Budget or first King's speech. I'd personally be delighted if it was, but expect both to pretty much reflect exactly what was being said during the election campaign only a few weeks ago. If it's still in place in its current form at the end of next year I'd be very surprised.
There is nothing unrealistic about having an expectation of the new Labour government being significantly better than the previous Tory government.
I must have missed the bit about the Tories plans to renationalise the railways, build millions of homes, invest in renewables and devolve power to the regions.
why do you oppose it?
I haven't said that I do, have I? I think it would probably be a good move. However I can also see that Labour would also want to at least try to move the economic situation for those folks for whom a extra benefit makes the difference by putting money (excuse the jargon) into their front pocket, rather than their back. i.e. It would be better (for everyone) if they were paid a reasonable living wage rather than have to need to have it topped up by benefits.
The MP's panel is on Five Live at the moment. My new Labour MP James Frith (who is a thoroughly decent bloke) is on being lucid and thoughtful. To say this is a massive improvement on the previous mekon-headed cockwomble, James Daly (who's only apparent contribution to his constituency for 5 years was... erm.... who knows? Harassing Angela Rayner?) is the understaement of the year.
https://Twitter.com/MichaelTakeMP/status/1813470319102886088
In terms of the Kings Speech - I thought that was the propsed Legislative agenda for the parliament? If the 2 child benefit cap is enacted under policy (IE allowed under existing legislation but not required) then the gobvernment can "just" change the policy without it ever being in a Kings Speech, as it's within their authority as the elected government?
Even so, I imagine there's a fair bit of DWP/HMRC logistics to sort out around delivering such a change, thus they may be waiting until they have a clear idea of exactly how long it will take form anouncment to delivery to affect peoples entitlement/benefits.
It would be better (for everyone) if they were paid a reasonable living wage rather than have to need to have it topped up by benefits
Totally agree on that but it doesn't happen. I mean who's going to uplift a wage in competition with these interest rates and general cost of living?
It's not a feature of our economic model.
Currently.
Even so, I imagine there’s a fair bit of DWP/HMRC logistics to sort out around delivering such a change, thus they may be waiting until they have a clear idea of exactly how long it will take form anouncment to delivery to affect peoples entitlement/benefits.
Well yeah especially given the mess of the truly under resourced HMRC but they've had a while to at least be planning for this.
Like me, you’re probably thinking ‘what does Mrs Self-awareness think about all this’, while taking a break from peddling conspiracy theories in Milwaukee?
https://Twitter.com/trussliz/status/1813532558791176615?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
Like me, you’re probably thinking ‘what does Mrs Self-awareness think about all this
Nope. I couldn't give a flying **** what that mental has been thinks about anything.
I'm assuming someone else wrote that for her.
No way she could have written the longer words without eating her crayon
Stalinist housing targets indeed
The things about the two child benefit cap thaqt non of you labour apologists will face is this:
It would be simple to do
It would cost very little
It would take minimal parliamentary time and effort
It would create an immediate positive effect on a million plus children
Its a lot easier and less controversial than much of the stuff they have announced
So why will labour not do it? None of the excuses given by the labour right on here stand up. ~why are you defending this piece of tory cruel austerity?
Fro0m the guardian live blog. the guardian that is generally uncritcall of labour under Starmer
Keir Starmer says:
"For too long children have been left behind, and no decisive action has been taken to address the root causes of poverty. This is completely unacceptable – no child should be left hungry, cold or have their future held back.
That’s why we’re prioritising work an ambitious child poverty strategy and my ministers will leave no stone unturned to give every child the very best start at life."
Presumably all the organisations Kendall consulted this morning told her the government should abolish the two-child benefit cap, because in the sector there is almost universal agreement that this is one of the single biggest measures that would make a difference to child poverty. The tasforce is certain to hear this message too.
Although ministers are still refusing to commit now to getting rid of the two-child benefit, because they cannot say yet how they would fund this, it is hard to imagine the government refusing to budge on this for another year given how strongly many Labour MPs feel about this.
James Daly (who’s only apparent contribution to his constituency for 5 years was… erm…. who knows?
Saved Bury FC with his bare hands and took a pile of levelling up cash £20 million to improve Bury market? Winky eye emoji.
Let's hope James Frith can entice more money and build a pile of houses on the green spaces in his constituency.
Maybe if he keeps close to Angela he'll be able to achieve these goals? Clasped prayer hands emoji.
Just to confirm this Uncle Jezza: you care about this subject so passionately that
*checks notes*
you didn’t vote at the general election?
So why will labour not do it? None of the excuses given by the labour right on here stand up. ~why are you defending this piece of tory cruel austerity?
The problem TJ is that you are not accepting the answer, I don't know why. The answer is that Labour believe, like the Tories, that scrapping it would be unaffordable.
There is no other reason so stop looking for one. It is obviously not because they want to be cruel. You dismiss the cost as small but the £1.3bn or £3.4bn, or whatever it is, is either money that they would rather spend elsewhere or tax revenue which they would rather not collect.
It's called fiscal prudence, the price which they believed they had to pay to win the general election and a point that they made a year ago
It would cost about £1.3bn but the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is said to have concluded it would be unaffordable due to the state of the economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/16/labour-keep-two-child-benefit-cap-says-keir-starmer
So there you have your answer - it is because it is unaffordable and the blame lies with the Tories.
It's basically exactly the same argument that David Cameron and Nick Clegg made for austerity - any other option is unaffordable and blame for that lies wholly with the previous government.
Missed the speech, what are the proposals regarding rental law for tenants, anyone know?
Cheers guys!
Missed the speech, what are the proposals regarding rental law for tenants, anyone know?
An end to section 21, no-fault evictions, some form of rent control and ‘increased rights for tenents’. I don’t know any more details than that, but I’m a private renter myself, so it’ll be interesting to see the exact proposals @poopscoop
The Tories clearly had no intention of doing anything other than makes things easier for landlords
Just to confirm this Uncle Jezza: you care about this subject so passionately that
*checks notes*
you didn’t vote at the general election?
To be fair binners if TJ (and a million more) had voted Labour at the general election, as you did, it would not made one iota of difference to whether the two child benefit cap was scrapped or not.
How are you suggesting that it might have?
Binners. In Scotland our government has taken steps to alleviate this.
So whats your defence for labour continuing Tory austerity with this policy?
So whats your defence for labour continuing Tory austerity with this policy?
Why would it be any different to Keir Starmer's and Rachel Reeve's defence? Which is that it is unaffordable due to the state of the economy.
It is the standard defence for austerity. In fact it's the only one isn't it?
Edit: For clarity this is the state of the UK economy:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/11/uk-economic-growth-may-2024.html
The broad-based recovery will be welcomed by the newly-elected Labour Party, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer undertakes his first week on the job.
It’s not in todays kings speech but it’s one of those things I can’t see still being in place in 6 months time
As has been stated many times by many people there isn’t a magic wand that Starmer can wave and undo 14 years of idealogical vandalism in 2 weeks
None of the excuses given by the labour right on here stand up. ~why are you defending this piece of tory cruel austerity?
Who has given excuses? Who has defended and what were these defences? I ask because I haven't seen any...
Although ministers are still refusing to commit now to getting rid of the two-child benefit, because they cannot say yet how they would fund this, it is hard to imagine the government refusing to budge on this for another year given how strongly many Labour MPs feel about this.
That's how I see it as well. The cap will either be removed, or replaced with a tapering off, next year. But not this year. I'd like it to be ASAP... but they'll want time in government... and signs of more improvement in the economy and/or government finances (boo hiss... they're pretending this stuff matters) before making any move.
Hopefully being saved for the budget
It's short-term pain for long-term gain TJ !
I think I heard that one from David Cameron and Nick Clegg too.
Hopefully being saved for the budget
If that's stays as March, and isn't somehow brought forward, the pressure will be on them then to act... I'm sure... but for now it'll just be "doing what we said we'd do at the election, hope to do more once finances (boo hiss… they’re pretending this stuff matters) improve". I suspect they'll be more tax raising measures in that though (boo hiss… they’re pretending this stuff matters), and such day to day spending increases will be resisted for a bit longer to see how those tax changes and clarity over government plans play out. I hope not of course, and they move sooner. But it's unlikely to happen a few weeks after an election where they said it wouldn't be happening immediately after an election win.
