binners
Full Member
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
Cheers, fingers crossed it doesnt get too watered down.
My lad, his partner and 2 kids moved into another rental yesterday and it's the first time I've seen it in the flash.
Jeez, £1350 a month? Doesnt get you much down here. 🙁
(Yeah, 80% of MP's and landlords happening to be Tory in the last admission was never going to end well for renters.)
Oh for gods sake give it a rest. If Starmer got rid of it tomorrow then the usual suspects on here would dig around for another stick to beat him with
In the grand scheme of things, with what’s been announced in 40 new bills today…
I don't know of a single Labour MP who wants to retain the 2 child limit. But I also think welfare spending will be the single biggest area of potential rebellion for the PLP. The only real argument is when. I'd imagine the leadership sense that the Budget is the right place to do it, and will try to placate MPs by telling them that it's a fiscal policy and should be decided then, and also wait for the anti-poverty strategy review. Either way the party whips will have a hard time persuading MPs to vote for anything that even whiffs of retaining it.
The only real question is whether it will happen at the pace that the leadership want or that they're forced to by the PLP. Personally I think they're knocking at an open door.
But I also think welfare spending will be the single biggest area of potential rebellion for the PLP
Quite possibly. I have no doubt at all that the child benefit cap will be scrapped in time, if for no other reason than because of the intense pressure on Labour to do so.
That intense pressure will be expressed in many ways including of course across social media. What won't pressurise Labour to scrap the cap will be those who say "for goodness sake shut up they are better than the Tories"
If only there was a way for the government to borrow the money to pay for scrapping the cap straight away rather than waiting for the economy to be fully fired up and roaring?
I have no doubt at all that the child benefit cap will be scrapped in time, if for no other reason than because of the intense pressure in Labour to do so.
It'll happen.
I don’t know of a single Labour MP who wants to retain the 2 child limit.
Our (now) MP said explicitly at candidate hustings that he's against it, and predicted that it would be the source of the most anguish within the party in the first year if Labour win. Even if the leadership wanted to keep it beyond next year (and I don't believe they do) the pressure will build both inside the parliamentary party and the Labour movement as whole, and they'll have to let it go.
Anyway, so far Labour's first few weeks in office have been exactly as they said it would be. No real surprises. Good or bad.
Here's to even better stuff ahead... [ insert an emoji of two beer glasses being knocked together ]
I'm probably going to get shot if my bosses read this as it's sort of insider info, but one of the main tasks for the Gov right now is the (C)SR.
At the moment our relations team is frantic, pulling data together for their bosses in the various depts (DSIT, DHSC, DESNZ, etc.) to justify the budgets that they need to deliver the promises and commitments already made and/or identified issues from their (counts) 12 days in office.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/when-run-next-spending-review
Some stuff will be funded, some stuff not, some funded but not at the level asked for, it's a massive task. The 2-child cap is 'only' a few billion but there's hundreds of 'only a few million/billion' asks being made right now.
It's not performative cruelty or any of the bullshine that the armchair politicians claim it is. It's the way the process goes, and it's the way proper grown ups handle being put in charge of the purse strings. DHSC will I'm sure be balancing the asks of their dept by engaging with their partners and this will be on their list somewhere, probably near the top.
Now, you can argue (as Rone does from time to time) that we shouldn't worry about the cost per se, if it's needed we can do it. That's a 'jury's out' issue for me, IANAEconomist. But even if they were to look at increasing the spending beyond what the borrowing rules say they should, they still need to decide what to spend on in a proper way.
The level of discussion from some is so naive.and just smacks of finding reasons to criticise because.
In other, somewhat unbelievable news, Laura Trott kept her seat? Dear god! Who was she standing against? The Tory party has retained its intellectual big guns then? She'll probably end up as shadow chancellor. If she can put her shoes on the right feet properly in the morning
https://Twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1813543409443041617
The 2-child cap is ‘only’ a few billion but there’s hundreds of ‘only a few million/billion’ asks being made right now.
That's the argument which is always made and it is a fair one.
Politics, and the political choices, is all about priorities and not much else.
The only substantial differences between the Tories, Labour, the LibDems, the Greens, etc etc is priorities. They all have different priorities.
Thanks putting risking getting shot and putting STW first btw, that's a proper priority:-)
Thanks putting risking getting shot and putting STW first btw, that’s a proper priority:-)
It's the STW way, his career is purely secondary to the cause! 😀
Best insight ever. Thanks for taking the risk posting that.
Plus one, really appreciated the insight and honesty.
That’s a ‘jury’s out’ issue for me, IANAEconomist.
Me too. The advocates present Modern Monetary Theory as if it is established fact, when as far as I am aware it is not.
We’ve seen the implications of a sterling crisis two years ago, the last thing we want is another avoidable one.
Also can people stop giving Liz Truss links, and keeping her in the conversation, it’s what she wants.
advocates present Modern Monetary Theory as if it is established fact
No economic theory is a fact, whether its Keynesianism, Chicago macroeconomic theory or any derivative of either. The proponents of each will put forward their views with certain caveats/assumptions that make it work. When it doesn't in practice, they'll say it's because certain of the assumptions weren't put in place by the governments trying to run it.
Also can people stop giving Liz Truss links, and keeping her in the conversation, it’s what she wants.
Oh come on. Her lack of self-awareness is absolutely hilarious in a salad-based way. She’s actually so mental and delusional that she still thinks people care what she thinks, yet every time she posts something, she just opens herself to an absolute deluge of very, very funny abuse, all of which will just go ‘whoosh’ straight over her head
She’s like one of those Japanese soldiers who didn’t know the Second World War was over until the 1980’s. Just sit back and enjoy her making an arse of herself 😀
Politics, and the political choices, is all about priorities and not much else.
This. All I'm really saying is that's there's a process by which spending decisions get made, and that is in full swing right now. In a grown up government, I hope at least, 'shouts loudest' and 'what will look best on the front pages' won't be the highest weighted scoring points. No matter how obvious it looks to the outsider, there's hundred's of other 'no brainers' as well and unless we really can find the door into the magic money orchard, some of the no brainers won't get funded.
I want 'strong and stable' governments making sensible evidence based decisions. If that upsets some cyclists because they aren't moving as fast as they'd like, tough.
Me too. The advocates present Modern Monetary Theory as if it is established fact, when as far as I am aware it is not
It's factual. It's backed up by a massive body of evidence. And more to the point there is know other description of its type that shows how government spending actually works.
It's not a economic theory in the literal sense of word more of a set of descriptions that show how money flows.
What is categorically not fact that a country that issues its own currency needs to borrow it from the private sector.
I mean what do you think is not factual about it?
No economic theory is a fact, whether its Keynesianism,
True but MMT is not exactly that way around.
It sets out to explain how spending works not necessarily politically advocate for it.
It really shouldn't be difficult to understand - the government spent 330bn from nothing during the pandemic.
That's fact - it's on parliamentary record and MMT just explains how it's done.
All we're ever saying is the spending is not constrained by lack of money.
All we’re ever saying is the spending is not constrained by lack of money.
It’s a political sleight of hand that is hidden behind the arguments around MMT … that the government can increase spending as much as it wants with no regards to what is happening economically or with tax levels or the process for controlling that money (it absolutely can) does not mean that the effects will be wholly positive no matter how much they choose to spend and how and when they chose to spend it (that is far from a given). What is happening in the economy, and the balancing of spending, lending and tax revenues over time is all still key to the work of a government and the central bank and the decisions they have to make, MMT does not change that, it just helps explain how it all works.
Holy heck, the King's speech, where to start? What a.... I give them one term, if that.
Clip of the new 'business secretary' posted above, a man who has literally zero experience in business - Zero!
Jonathon Reynolds:
- worked for the council, trained as a solicitor, then just a Labour / Union functionary of various shades.
I'm, nostalgic about a lot of things in the 1970s but not the Big-Brother socialist government, but here we appear to be going again.
In amongst the rail (& bus? is this 1960s czechoslovakia?) privatisation, tax on private schools, there's another Race Equality Act. How many does that make now? As I understand it Labour claim this is necessary because people are paid differently based on their State racial classification. Really? I've been working 4 decades and that's a new one on me. Does this ring true?
What next? I've noticed taller people tend to end up getting promoted to senior positions. Can we have a Helping The Shorties Into Better Positions So There Is An Equal Height Range Across Pay Grades Act?
All this is going to need Big-state policing and micromanaging, and what we all want is an expanded public sector and the bigger tax take that requires.
Twins (even identical) are often observed to grow up with widely differing life outcomes, even though they look the same, same age, same family, almost the same DNA. Can we have an Identical Twin Equality Act as clearly something is going very wrong for those guys.
Its going to be a long five years.
Lots of words there grimep and I was hoping for perhaps an intelligent critique from a right-wing conservative perspective but you seemed to have missed the opportunity to do that.
What the **** are you on about? I am sure there is something highly amusing buried in your comments about people's height but could you really not manage to make a serious point...... was it really too much to expect?
I’m, nostalgic about a lot of things in the 1970s
Kipper ties, the Black and White Minstrels, the Grunwick Strike...?
I’m, nostalgic about a lot of things in the 1970s
White dog poo? Opel Fruits? Jim’ll’Fix it? Hot pants? Jumpers for goalposts? Wasn’t it…?
Its going to be a long five years.
Let’s hope so, eh? The last 14 have felt like a ****ing eternity!
Chris Philp, the idiots idiot, is presently on Channel 4 news slagging off Labours economic plans,particularly the OBR oversight
He was then reminded that he was one of the most vocal champions of the Lettuces mini-budget, famously without OBR oversight, and that went so spectacularly well that he’s in no position to be criticising anyone
Clown!
Oh for gods sake give it a rest. If Starmer got rid of it tomorrow then the usual suspects on here would dig around for another stick to beat him with
Look it's fine. You have your position, which is that the child benefit cap isn't sufficiently important to deal with right now.
Look it’s fine. You have your position, which is that the child benefit cap isn’t sufficiently important to deal with right now.
Never read him say that's his position, for some reason if you don't disagree with the government then it's your opinion as well?
Chris Philp, the idiots idiot
You're picking low hanging fruit there. Even the Daily Mail thinks he's a idiot.
The minister for bungling is what they called him:
https://www.****/news/article-13353453/Minister-bungling-Chris-Philp.html
But but it is not the first time he has been publicly pilloried for an apparent lack of knowledge.
I don’t know of a single Labour MP who wants to retain the 2 child limit.
I can tell you at least 2. Starmer and Reeves - otherwise it would be gone
Never read him say that’s his position, for some reason if you don’t disagree with the government then it’s your opinion as well?
I don't think the issue here is that binners isn't disagreeing with the government, it's the fact that he got in a right strop because people have dared to criticise Labour for not scrapping the child benefit cap.
If have read everything that binners has written, as you apparently claim to have done, then you must have noticed.
If binners agrees with the criticism concerning the Tory benefit cap being kept then his outbursts make even less sense.
don’t know of a single Labour MP who wants to retain the 2 child limit.
I can tell you at least 2. Starmer and Reeves – otherwise it would be gone
LOL! Brilliant !
All I’m really saying is that’s there’s a process by which spending decisions get made, and that is in full swing right now. In a grown up government, I hope at least, ‘shouts loudest’ and ‘what will look best on the front pages’ won’t be the highest weighted scoring points
Yes - so why is this cheap simple to do policy which will have immdiate positive effects and which is being called for widely not making the cut?
The lack of action on this says a huge amount about how this government will be and sets the tone. Ending child poverty and hunger is not a labour priority. Clearly
"and what we all want is an expanded public sector and the bigger tax take that requires."
Can't believe you've finally posted something I vaguely agree with! 😛
(notwithstanding the perennial STW debate over the financial part of that statement)
@grimep Was that you on Jeremy Vine spouting rubbish from abroad? You are Charlie Mullins AICMFP! (You can send it to the Trussel organisation).
Its going to be a long five years
Not if you stop posting soon.
I can see a couple of items from the King's Speech which may (or may not) have some relevance to the 2 child cap argument.
"Stability will be the cornerstone of my Government’s economic policy and every decision will be consistent with its fiscal rules. It will legislate to ensure that all significant tax and spending changes are subject to an independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility".
"A bill will be introduced to raise standards in education and promote children’s wellbeing".
so why is this cheap simple to do policy which will have immdiate positive effects and which is being called for widely not making the cut?
There hasn't been a cut yet. The cut is the SR.
Eh? Ending the two child benefit cap is not in the kings speech.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou
I didn’t think the policy would last long (I don’t think anybody did) but by the sounds of it I doubt it’ll last the week.
Seems like Starmer is looking for a way to ditch it with as little fuss as possible
Keir Starmer aims to avoid backbench rebellion with child poverty taskforce
Edit: this in response to tj
From the man who couldn't compromise his principles enough to vote for any party. 🙄
Are 'likes' broken?
Edit: are emojis broken too?
Edit: and page indexing? Every time I edit it dumps me back on the previous page. Wtf?
I fthink thats all about kicking it to the long grass..Imo Starmer and Reeves stance on this is deliberate to signal that they are going to continue being tough on benefit cliamants.
It’s far more likely they get the commission they’ve just set up to come back and report in double quick time with a recommendation to abolish it, then they say “well that’s what the commission I set up has recommended so that’s what we’ll do”. Thus they step back without any backbench rebellions or loss of face and every bodies happy
Want to have our normal wager on this one Uncle Jezza? Always happy to relieve you of pastry 😀
Seems like Starmer is looking for a way to ditch it with as little fuss as possible
That's not what the link you provide as evidence says. It says that Starmer is trying to avoid a rebellion by creating a child poverty taskforce.
It reminds of a scene from that film which you love so much binners, the Life of Brian
Stop talking and get on with it.
Ok binners.
The bet is the two child cap limit is still in place in 6 months? Ill even give it a year if you want.
I would like an apple pie i think. I can taste it already
You’re on. Can you get the pies from the place you got them the last time I won please? Or was it the time before that? They were lovely 😀
Eh? Ending the two child benefit cap is not in the kings speech.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou
Nor's anything about the funding for the programmes that we (my work) are working on. Wouldn't be appropriate to say what they are but they are comparatively a fraction of the cost and even more of a no brainer, eg: related to national security and resilience. The 2 child cap is a choice in comparison, no matter how desirable and morally essential.
The funding decisions are 'on hold' while the various Depts discuss their needs and plans with Treasury and decide what can be afforded. That's how it works. Just because it wasn't in the KS doesn't mean it is not in consideration. If that was the benchmark, you'd be horrified at some of the stuff 'that isn't going to get done'.
There's a child poverty taskforce, which will i'm as certain as I can be that will have this under strong consideration. From #10
A new child poverty unit in the Cabinet Office will report into the taskforce, bringing together expert officials from across government, as well as external experts. In the immediate term, the taskforce is expected to consider how we can use levers related to household income as well as employment, housing, children’s health, childcare and education to improve children’s experiences and chances at life.
The KS is a piece of pageantry but is little more than an advertising leaflet. We are miles away from the small print of the contracts. Could they have announced it - undoubtedly. Should they have - probably. Because they didn't does it mean it won't happen. Absolutely not.
The bet is the two child cap limit is still in place in 6 months? Ill even give it a year if you want.
Well that's a bet that you will undoubtedly lose.
The idea that Starmer can ignore for very long the almost universal criticism of the child benefit cap, only the Tories and his faithful MPs support it, really isn't feasible.
Criticism which binners ironically castigates people for expressing.
Opposition in parliament to the child benefit cap includes the LibDems, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, Greens, independent MPs, Reform UK, and of course a lot of Labour rebels. Plus Labour heavyweights such as Gordon Brown.
It cannot possibly survive as long as the pressure is maintained.
What’s the bet then? Still in place in six months? Odds on. Still in place a year from now? Might be worth betting against, but I wouldn’t. Still in place at the end of next year? Evens or worse, I’d take the bet against that one.
Lisa Nandy has said as much in a couple of interviews I've heard with her. Just because it's not in the manifesto or KS doesn't mean it's off the table.
I am hopeful.
Edited.
The funding decisions are ‘on hold’ while the various Depts discuss their needs and plans with Treasury and decide what can be afforded. That’s how it works.
So how come other funding commitments were made ahead of SR?
Always happy to relieve you of pastry 😀
So how do these wagers work, do you meet up for pie in person (er...) or are they postal pies?
I for one, need to know! 😀
No "child poverty taskforce" is needed. The experts have told him over and over again. All that is a a device to kick it off into the long grass. SOP for governments when you don't want to do something - set up a task force or similar. Yes look to the long term and produce an overall solution but ending the cap could be done right now and would lift children out of poverty and hunger and would not stop an better solution later Why do children in our rich country have to go hungry? Its disgraceful and every day this continues is another day children are being damaged. Every day this continues is a day too many
I think this is deliberate to signal to the tory press that he is going to be tough on benefits scroungers and that he is prepared to "be strong" ie pick an unneeded fight with folk over it
Ernie - your faith is touching. With a huge majority Starmer can simply ignore the pressure - indeed I believe he wants it to make his " look how tough I am" stance work
Will will see but IMO this is a major blunder
So how do these wagers work
Greggs deliver.
Are ‘likes’ broken?
Edit: are emojis broken too?
Edit: and page indexing?
Yes, yes, yes.
Every time I edit it dumps me back on the previous page. Wtf?
Or it just feels that way? It’s just the same few posters on each page making the same points.
actually I'll stick my neck out further with two examples as they are both public domain. NQTP and RETSI. Google them. Where is the commitment in the KS to fund these going forward? By your logic that means we won't??
So how come other funding commitments were made ahead of SR?
Good question. As I said,
Could they have announced it – undoubtedly. Should they have – probably. Because they didn’t does it mean it won’t happen. Absolutely not.
IDK why some things are deemed such no brainers that they put them on the must do list before the SR, and as above should this have been in that category? Feel free to continue to argue the politics and optics, that's fair game. Maybe TJ's signalling suggestions? Maybe not? I'm merely pointing out that the SR process is far from over, it's only beginning.
So how do these wagers work, do you meet up for pie in person (er…) or are they postal pies?
I for one, need to know! 😀
Been a variety. Pies by post, paypal in exchange for a greggs receipt.
Been a variety. Pies by post, paypal in exchange for a greggs receipt.
Just how make bets have there been to work out these systems?
It's like some underground gastronomic Fight Club. 😀
Ok - lets move the conversatiuon on - just picked up this one
Keir Starmer has drafted into government two leftwing critics of his stance on benefits and green investment, as the prime minister faces pressure to drop Labour’s cautious approach to reviving the economy.
Statham has also criticised Starmer’s economic caution, and argued as recently as last month that his failure to prioritise scrapping the two-child limit on benefits would ensure Labour was making a “plan for substantial increases in child poverty” over the next five years.
He might actually be quite good at this technocratic stuff - and not surrounding himself with folk who only say yes
Just needs to ditch Streeting and Cooper now.
Edit: at Poops
Don't talk about it
🙂
No “child poverty taskforce” is needed. The experts have told him over and over again.
What do you think the experts are saying about RETSI?
Don’t talk about it
Cutting the two child benefit cap?
Fo. TJ's graun article appears positive. No one wants this.
Del
Full Member
Don’t talk about it
It might also mean that tj and binners are one and the same person. I've never seen them both in the same room together.
Ahhh! 😀
What do you think the experts are saying about RETSI?
I have no idea as I have no idea what that acronym is
TJ’s graun article appears positive.
It is. Two of many, many welcome appointments. If you look at them all as a whole, and compare to the last decade… all I can say is… thank **** that period’s behind us!
google it.
Ernie – your faith is touching. With a huge majority Starmer can simply ignore the pressure – indeed I believe he wants it to make his ” look how tough I am” stance work
Well I obviously give Starmer more credit than you do. Starmer and his advisors are no fools they know that the "huge majority" is built on sand ....34% of 60% of voters.
Labour is not very popular and Starmer's personal popularity even less so. This isn't like Labour and Tony Blair in 1997 when both enjoyed far greater popularity, even if the majorities are similar.
Starmer and his advisors full well know that depending on how they perform in parliament over the next five years the LibDems, Nationalists, Greens, independents, and Reform UK, all have significant chances of increasing their support in the 2029 general election. Taking the wind out of their sails and not providing them with open goals is going to be hard to resist.
And as for your claim that this is a deliberate signal to the tory press that he is going to be tough on benefits scroungers I think you are wrong, it's about money and nothing else imo. Both Nigel Farage and Suella Braverman are opposed to the cap so it is hardly even a right-wing cause a celebre. It's just a daft policy to save money with no thought for the long-term economic and social costs.
google it.
I did Not much help. I speak english not acronym and I do not see the relevance anyway. We are talking about the 2 child benefit cap which numerous labour spokebods have said is staying. Thats not " we will see" but " we will not be removing the cap"
Its clearly settled policy that the cap will stay and the commission is just a device to kick it off to the long grass.
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/polls/general-election
That's the first opinion poll I have seen since the general election, and they are predicting a Tory wipe-out again!
Every single opinion poll got the details completely wrong but also every single opinion poll got the overall result correct - a Labour landslide.
I am not sure how much value they still have..
I do not see the relevance anyway
It's a vital piece of (DSIT) work that needs funding. I could argue it's more important than the 2CBC; if our timing and nav infrastructure fails, the country falls over in no time at all, power grids fail, etc. YMMV. My point is it wasn't in the KS, so by your benchmark isn't happening, and that is just not correct.
numerous labour spokebods have said is staying / Its clearly settled policy that the cap will stay and the commission is just a device to kick it off to the long grass.
No, they've said it isn't happening yet because it isn't funded and they need to wait until there's money to do it. What's the process for deciding if there's money to do it? CLUE: I've mentioned it a few times already. [and correction, I said DHSC, and I think it's a DWP owned thing that they'll have on their SR list somewhere]
You can argue it should have already been a commitment and I'd find it hard to disagree, other than there are dozens or hundreds of others that are equally or more so no brainers. You can argue because it's not in the KS that means it isn't happening, I'm telling you you're wrong.
That's not me guaranteeing it will happen..... the SR may decide it can't be afforded, there are more pressing demands, that there's a better way of doing it or whatever. Or they might cave to pressure and commit to do it before the SR. IDK. Ask me after the SR.
It’s a vital piece of (DSIT) work that needs funding. I could argue it’s more important than the 2CBC; if our timing and nav infrastructure fails, the country falls over in no time at all, power grids fail, etc. YMMV. My point is it wasn’t in the KS, so by your benchmark isn’t happening, and that is just not correct.
Errmmm - again in English? 🙂 Only joking dude
No, they’ve said it isn’t happening yet because it isn’t funded and they need to wait until there’s money to do it. What’s the process for deciding if there’s money to do it?
But they have found the money for other bigger spending commitments and also the denials have been much stronger than you say. Its a weird hill to die on for labour to insist on keeping some of our most vulnerable folk in poverty for months or years longer
As I say, I don't know why some things are committed before, and others not.
the denials have been much stronger than you say.
At the risk of being a STW meme, cite please.
But they have found the money for other bigger spending commitments
Priorities, dear boy, priorities.
To paraphase Macmillan
No, they’ve said it isn’t happening yet because it isn’t funded and they need to wait until there’s money to do it. What’s the process for deciding if there’s money to do it?
It's total rubbish. The government doesn't save money. It issues via consolidated fund at the BoE - the government's current account.
They don't need to wait for anything. The state is self-financing. You know money has to originate from the the only place it legally can.
Do you think in the GFC or COVID they waited for money to appear or just instructed the BoE as they do day in day out to issue the money needed?
For anyone who wants the details here is the most comprehensive paper for the entire process of government financing and spending process.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683
We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund. The Bank of England then debits the Consolidated Fund's account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank; a practice mandated in law.
No “child poverty taskforce” is needed.
Well it clearly is, the benefit cap is only a small part of it. Guessing the task forces early advice would be to remove the cap! but then work on the many other things that need addressing g in relation to child poverty.
So get Taskforce started next week, insist on them coming up with high level assessment within another week, start work on removing cap in week 3.
Await cries of "you can't do things that fast" - you can if you want to.
Is needed to remove the two child limit.
Yes look at the overall picture but why leave children in hunger and poverty longer than needed?
Starmer and Reeves have already been told by experts that removing the two child cap is an essential step. They know this. they have refused to do it.
Rone, we know, you have mentioned it before and I referred to increased borrowing in one of my earlier posts. But even then, if they did decide that to fund more stuff they were going to create more money, there'd still need to be a process to decide how much more and what that was funding - unless we're now proposing endless more money to do everything.
And TJ, like I said IDK why this wasn't a manifesto or KS commitment and already ringfenced as other stuff is. But 'because the experts say it's essential' isn't the answer; other experts are also saying other stuff is equally essential, some could argue more so, and that doesn't yet have firm funding commitments either. I've given some specific examples from my own area, to illustrate.
There's a process - it's called a SR - where all 'the experts' provide their expert advice about their area of expertise, to detail what they need to spend and why it is essential to spend it. This goes into the various departments, who prioritise their own asks and provide that to treasury, who then decide what to give where on the basis of having the full picture of everything that experts say is essential.
Then the Gov prioritises and announces, including - who knows - deciding that in order to do more stuff they need to conjure up some more money.
THAT. IS. WHAT. WILL. HAPPEN
So you agree that its a political choice not to take this one simple and cheap policy to reduce child poverty?
This SR process is only needed for some issues but not for others? There is no logic to that at all particularly when the expert view is already public knowledge for the two child benefit cap
So we are getting down to the nub now. for some weird reason Starmer and Reeves have made a political choice that reducing child poverty is not a priority.
So you agree that its a political choice not to take this one simple and cheap policy to reduce child poverty?
Not exactly. It's a decision it isn't in their ringfenced manifesto or KS commitments; it may well be funded in the SR or poss even earlier on the back of the Poverty task force work. There has not been a decision to NOT fund it, only not fund it YET while reviews are taking place. You say that's to kick it down the road and hope it goes away, or that labour figures have given strong messages that it isn't going to be funded, or whatever, I disagree with you - and I don't think either of us will convince the other until a final decision is made.
This SR process is only needed for some issues but not for others? There is no logic to that at all particularly when the expert view is already public knowledge for the two child benefit cap
Correct - they can as above choose to ringfence some (in their mind) essentials, and why this wasn't one of them IDK. That's a fair criticism
So we are getting down to the nub now. for some weird reason Starmer and Reeves have made a political choice that reducing child poverty is not a priority.
As above answers. Not their #1 cast iron ring-fenced priority. I can't answer or defend their minds on this. All I can (continue to) do is refute that because it's not in the KS that means it isn't happening. If that's the benchmark some 'way more important and yet way cheaper' stuff also isn't. But thankfully that's not the benchmark and not the process.
OK, I'm out on this, I can't be any clearer and the o/s questions you keep asking about what SKS and RR really think, I don't have answers to.
So you agree that its a political choice
Of course it is a political choice, what else could it be?
And obviously it isn't the highest issue on the list of priorities. I don't know the thinking behind that but Starmer capitulated under pressure from Rachel Reeves.
I suspect that Reeve's motivation when she was Shadow Chancellor was to appear to be like a Tory Chancellor backing tough fiscal policies so not to scare Tory voters.
One of Labour's main tactics when in opposition was, apart from doing very little and sitting back and watching the Tories repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot, to do everything possible to placate Tory voters.
Edit: To be fair on reflection it was actually quite a powerful and convincing argument......."Labour are so committed to fiscal prudence that we won't even scrap the child benefit cap until the economy is in a better shape. Yes that's right, a Labour government, won't put child poverty at the top of their priority list..... how much like the Tories are we? Please vote for us"
