You are ware this is the only way to actually get anything done, right?
Yes, you can't make desperately needed changes to the benefits system if you're in opposition.
but instead chose to use it to get rid of a few leftie MPs who he doesn’t like.
I doubt what they did will survive even 24hours of news cycle given what else is going on, so what did they achieve exactly?
I’m really struggling with your die hard “Labour til I die” approach here, come what may… You’ve witnessed the party become a centre-right party under Starmer, a “Tory-Lite”
Erm... no I haven't. If anyone uses the word 'Tory-light', it just guarentees that I switch off and ignore everything after that point as its clearly patent bollocks. This present incarnation of the Labour Party under Starmer is a pretty accurate representation of my centrist (booooo, hisss bastards!) viewpoint on the world, which is why I'm an active Labour party member.
How would you have felt if Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019
Yeah, like that was ever likely to happen? That's like asking me what I'd do once I set foot on the surface of the moon. Magic Grandad was an electoral liability in 2017, by 2019 he was a walking recruiting shop for the Tories. He may as well have walked around waving a huge VOTE TORY banner
but instead chose to use it to get rid of a few leftie MPs who he doesn’t like.
They got rid of themselves.
I don’t think anyone does, but it still needs to be in the department’s budget, and they’re arguing that 1. the exercise to see what does and doesn’t get into the dept’s spending budget is happening, now, and 2 the right place/time to announce this sort of stuff is the budget, once you’ve got a handle on all the spending commitments.
True perhaps, Nick, but this goes straight to the heart of the idea the books must be balanced somehow and that there's a limited amount of money in the government's "bank account".
People can no longer deny that vast amount of currency can be magicked out of the air when there's a crisis — well, hasn't anyone checked the state of the country recently? Calling it an "omnicrisis" would be being kind.
They got rid of themselves
No Starmer got rid of them in a fit of ideological purity, all they did was register their unease with the way the party was kicking the issue into the long grass.
is a pretty accurate representation of my centrist (booooo, hisss bastards!) viewpoingt
You do realise where the term centrist comes from don't you? If you are in the centre you are by definition closer to the Tories. So you might not like the term Tory-lite but it is more accurate than the term "cranks" which you use to describe politicians which you don't agree with.
Yeah, like that was ever likely to happen?
What, because of the first-past-the-post voting system?
It would have been perfectly possible for Labour to have won a general election under Corbyn, he almost managed it with one hand tied behind his back battling the Tories, the right-wing press, and the right-wing of his party, he robbed the Tories of their majority.
Are you seriously suggesting that with an extra push it could not have been done?
The second general election was obviously a disaster with the Brexit Party not standing in Tory winnable seats and the right-wing had upped their game accusing him of being a racist and stabbing him in the back daily. But he still managed to get only 2% less than Starmer did this month and on a higher turnout, half a million votes more than Starmer was his worse result.
I do agree with you binners that Labour stood a very poor chance of winning a general election under Corbyn, but that is only because the right-wingers were never ever going to allow Corbyn to become PM.
On the other hand if everyone, including you, had united behind the then Labour leader then I think it highly feasible that Labour would have won, and in fact likely.
A fit of ideological purity?
I don't think its the labour leadership presently being guilty of that, more so the not-so-magnificent seven.
They voted against a manifesto pledge, 2 weeks into a new government, going against a 3 line whip, after being told (as if they needed to be) what would happen if they did so
Any MP doing that in any party would have the whip withdrawn. They knew that and did it anyway
Therefore they got what they knew they were going to get, but then thats exactly what they were looking for anyway - to posture to their supporters in the common room. Down with this sort of thing etc, etc...
I doubt anyone will miss them. Its not like any of them were running the risk of bothering the front bench. Keir just helped them with their aim of even further irrlevence and was no doubt delighted to see the back of them. They can sit next to Grandad and grumble bitterly together and maybe discuss the situation in Venezuela
I get that, but there has to be some sort of accountability for the day to spending of the depts, there can't be just chaos and funding stuff 'just' becasue it's a bad headline, or even that it seems vital. How many of us were abreast of the absolute shit-show the prisons were for example until they started letting prisoners out early?
the idea the books must be balanced somehow and that there’s a limited amount of money in the government’s “bank account”.
There are still limits to the amount of spending that any [westernised mixed] economy can absorb without; risking inflation - increases of which are felt by the least well off, increasing taxes to remove excess money from the economy, - that massively popular route that the public really enjoy and politically is almost never noticed by anyone ever especially when enacted by Labour, or increased borrowing (which now post 2022 has its own set of outcomes, c.f. Kwarteng et al)
No Starmer got rid of them in a fit of ideological purity, all they did was register their unease
I see the opposite... They got themselves suspended in thier own fit of ideological purity.
Now if they had abstained to prove the point, and were subsequently suspended.. Then that would be on Starmer.
What's the phrase? **** about and find out... They are now in the finding out stage.
A fit of ideological purity?
I don’t think its the labour leadership presently being guilty of that
So what the hell do you think this is?
Rachel Reeves: Labour’s fiscal rules ‘non-negotiable’
https://www.cityam.com/rachel-reeves-labours-fiscal-rules-non-negotiable/
Child welfare is being sacrificed due to a rigid and unbending ideological commitment to fiscal prudence
There are still limits to the amount of spending that any [westernised mixed] economy can absorb without; risking inflation – increases of which are felt by the least well off, increasing taxes to remove excess money from the economy, – that massively
You're are totally correct.
MMT is very clear about inflation risk. Taxation is the mechanism by which it is controlled. (Remove money)
We are not talking about the same sort inflation that we have seen since COVID either. (supply side.)
Realistically there are huge gaps in the UK for spending. We would be a long way from inflation if it can be resourced adequately.
That is the real limit.
Magic Grandad was an electoral liability in 2017, by 2019 he was a walking recruiting shop for the Tories. He may as well have walked around waving a huge VOTE TORY banner
Corbyns policies were more aligned to the Nordic/scandinavin model which I believe would have had immense benefits to the nation, it’s a shame the press and the centrist/right leaning members of his own party stitched him right up.
Child welfare is being sacrificed due to a rigid and unbending ideological commitment to fiscal prudence
Well exactly - are people blinded by what is actually going on here?
Made-up fiscal rules that have no body of evidence behind them - is the very definition of ideological purity.
Reeves has it back to front - she believes it's fiscally prudent to balance the books but it's actually fiscally irresponsible.
(Looking at you Osborne and Clinton.)
It's definitely not ideologically pure to want to help support children in this way. It's pragmatic; it will help grow the economy and be the start of something to affect material conditions.
There is no argument. Starmer and co are showing total lack of pragmatism.
When the authority of a party sits above these possible societal benefits you know it's a bad play.
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1810301698226667880?t=RuQmNUI6YUytgxCJ0fbtJQ&s=19
Corbyns policies were more aligned to the Nordic/scandinavin model which I believe would have had immense benefits to the nation
The nation didn't think so. In the worst choice ever offered to the British elctorate they chose, by some considerable margin, an oversexed honey monster
it’s a shame the press and the centrist/right leaning members of his own party stitched him right up.
Complete nonsense. He lost because he was Jeremy Corbyn, a man who should never been anywhere near the leadership of the labour party. Simple as that. I do know how you lot love a consiracy theory though
Corbyn is anti EU and anti nuclear deterrent.. Those two points alone, without even starting at looking at any of his other policies made him a liability and a write off in my book.
Yeah, like that was ever likely to happen? That’s like asking me what I’d do once I set foot on the surface of the moon. Magic Grandad was an electoral liability in 2017, by 2019 he was a walking recruiting shop for the Tories. He may as well have walked around waving a huge VOTE TORY banner
So you were happy that the Tories won in 17 and 19 then…? And the subsequent shitshow that ensued…
Cos again, I distinctly remember differently!
I’m glad you’re glad that you think you’ve “won” binners… Again though, this isn’t a football match! It’s not City vs United… Starmer might be eminently more palatable than a hard right wing Tory Govt right now, but his still right of centre politics and policies, not to mention his utter disdain for democracy, aided by the built in undemocratic FPTP system, is just fast tracking the hard right swing that the UK is going to experience at the next election…
And FWIW, no I’m not advocating for a hard left wing govt… I am advocating for the Labour Party going back to being the broad church that it once was and encouraging debate and even dissent within the ranks, especially given their huge majority, rather than doubling down and forcing everyone to become a yes man so soon… A Labour Party without actual left wing voices has no hope of truly representing the masses it claims to want to serve…
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1816134420530647306?t=clLkwqgZZSObZzcdv6YJhg&s=19
Dunt flipping his flop.
'Hard left.' FFS
Helping families = hard left.
Centrism - may as well just say a Tory that doesn't want to pay for private health.
2 things cost labourr the 2017 election. The labour / tory pact in Scotland which granted the tories 10 extra MPs and the continual briefing against Corbyn from the labour rightwingers
And yes this is undeniable - its even in thje labour parties report on the infighting that they were doing this. a large faction of the labour party preferred to let the tories win than have Corbyn as PM
To deny this is to attempt to rewrite history
A Labour Party without actual left wing voices has no hope of truly representing the masses it claims to want to serve
Check who is actually in government now, both MPs, outside appointments and advisors. It’s a very broad church. A tiny handful of bank benchers have never disguised their desire not to get involved, and jumped at the first opportunity to signal that they’re not happy with the immediate plan laid out at the election. Most back benchers want the government to get on with their first few months of work, and will be willing to contribute to what happens in future.
So you were happy that the Tories won
I for one was not... But it's nice to know the level of intelligence we are dealing with... As in 'anyone who isn't far left is automatically tory-light or even further right... It just undermines your position if you see things in such binary terms.
So you were happy that the Tories won in 17 and 19 then…? And the subsequent shitshow that ensued…
Eh? I'm saying that someone as usless and electorally repellent as Corbyn should never have been anywhere near the labour leadership. With more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747 he was an absolute liability and a gift to the Tory party from day one. The last two Tory governments and Brexit are all on him. The stupid old goat! The fact he didn't go after one electoral loss was ridiculous and a testement not just to his limitless vanity, but the cult-like behaviour of his supporters
I am advocating for the Labour Party going back to being the broad church that it once was and encouraging debate and even dissent within the ranks.
Theyre not a debating society or a parish councel meeting in Hackney. They're a government! The last lot were fond of a make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back of a fag packet aproach to policy and look where thats got us
The 7 who were booted out last night effectively booted themselves out. Like I said though, their 6th form level posturing seems to have won them the approval of exactly the group they were seeking to impress. It just proves to me that they're just a bunch of juevenile placard-wavers who have little interest in the proper grown up business of actually doing stuff and changing things. Its all about getting likes on Twitter.
Corbynism in a nutshell. Well now they can join their hero in irrelevence. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
And FWIW, no I’m not advocating for a hard left wing govt… I am advocating for the Labour Party going back to being the broad church that it once was
Surely what binners is saying is that under Corbyn's leadership the Labour party did lean to the far left which is why Labour lost and it's taken so long to recover. Most of us are filthy centrists.
Complete nonsense. He lost because he was Jeremy Corbyn
So this man is such an electoral liability that just a couple of weeks ago he easily defeated in a general election a candidate handpicked by Starmer?
I agree that Corbyn was a crap leader of a party heaving with right-wingers determined to maintain the status quo at any cost. But he is precisely the sort of person who his constituents want to represent them in parliament, they certainly appear to rate him higher than the Labour Party. Or at least Starmer's chosen one.
The last two Tory governments and Brexit are all on him. The stupid old goat!
so nothing to do with Murrays labour / tory pact in ~Scotland that granted the tories 10 extra seats?
Nothing to do with the blatant briefing against Corbyn from withing the labour party?
From the forde report:
The Whatsapp messages we have
seen reveal a real antipathy towards
LOTO by Labour HQ staff after Jeremy
Corbyn won the Party leadership: and,
according to the evidence we received,
that feeling was mutual.
It was of course also true that some opponents of
Jeremy Corbyn saw the issue of antisemitism as a
means of attacking him. Thus, rather than confront the
paramount need to deal with the profoundly serious issue
of antisemitism in the Party, both factions treated it as a
factional weapon.
Etc etc etc
you must remember the daily anti corbyn briefings in the tory press from members of the labour party
Like I said though, their 6th form level posturing.......they’re just a bunch of juevenile placard-wavers who have little interest in the proper grown up business
Thanks for reminding me. I had almost forgotten.
come up North for a ride!
Nah, I feel comfortable surrounded by lefties in London. Besides I consider anything north of Marble Arch to be "North". So Islington North in North London is proper foreign territory to me.
Edit : And whilst we are on the subject of lefties in London it might be worth remembering that Starmer's vote went from 36k in 2919 (before he was Labour leader) to 18k a couple of weeks ago.
It seems as if the good people of Holborn and St Pancras are not very impressed with their once leftie MP turning into a centrist.
Who would have thought it?
I've heard a few people say that in the Labour manifesto it explicitly says they will remove the 2 child benefit cap when it can be funded.
I could have missed this. But I've not seen it. Anyone?
Or just made up?
you must remember the daily anti corbyn briefings in the tory press from members of the labour party
We even got that letter from that vile **** twerp Ian Austin telling us not to vote for Corbyn.
The anti-Corbyn selection box was one of the most shitty assortment of MPs to ever walk the earth.
Make Gapes, John Mann (my old MP) Ian Austin, Chris Lesley, Chuka Umunna
It's a who's who of deflated political right-wing farts that couldn't quite grow a pair enough to **** off to the Tory party.
Looks like theres another one gone...
Child welfare is being sacrificed
I mean, seriously? My (admittedly limited understanding on the matter) is that it's a budgetary issue that will be reviewed as part of a large slew of other important budgetary issues as part of the budgetary review before the next budget is announced.
The sensible, methodical tyrants! how very dare they!
'Sacrificed' is a bit of a wild and alarmist term to use, given that the review has not taken place and the consensus seems to be to scrap the 2 child cap.
Starmer said: “Did you just ignore Downing Street’s shoes-at-the-door policy? When I’ve just bought a new ****ing rug?”
Yeah I guess that sums up Starmer's bullying tactics quite well. Thanks for posting binners
‘Sacrificed’ is a bit of a wild and alarmist term to use
If you think that's a bit wild and alarmist what do you think of the term "social cleansing" to describe the two-child benefit cap then?
That's how a fellow centrist like yourself has described it, as well as heinous:
The two-child benefit cap is social cleansing. Starmer must end it
Btw all the LibDem MPs, which you say you support, voted against the cap.
I’ve heard a few people say that in the Labour manifesto it explicitly says they will remove the 2 child benefit cap when it can be funded.
I could have missed this. But I’ve not seen it. Anyone?
Or just made up?
I don't think it does say that. There is a section on Family Security which covers child poverty amongst other issues but without specifying detailed measures, much as I would expect from a manifesto, or ahem, a King's Speech.
Also a Child Poverty Unit has been set up at cabinet level.
Because Corbynites want to take over the means of production and lead us all from a deluded centrist path to a socialist garden of eden (full of money trees).
It seems satire and sarcasm is lost on some… 😀
Indeed ! I was very surprised that binners posted the link!
If you think that’s a bit wild and alarmist what do you think of the term “social cleansing” to describe the two-child benefit cap then?
Whataboutism.
Not sure anyone has the backing to sort this shitshow out, things that need to be done to address poverty, immigration, economy, NHS, Councils, Care, water, rail, education, war are significant. Trying to balance this with the markets expectations may not be possible. Not sure we it can be done. I have been aware of "Politics" from the late 1960s including the three day week, powercuts, the tricks that Thatcher and Blair turned are not available again. I don't have much hope as Starmer will only be able to achieve a very limited amount of change.
Also remember the line:
"I will always put country first, party second." May 2024.
This is the exact opposite.
You can't believe a word this **** says.
'sixth form crank' Zara Sultana was on The News Agents. I thought that it was a good episode.
The 7 rebels are ineffective and merely virtue signalling. what havwe they achieved apart from isolating themselves and making it less likely they have any influence? its pure posturing.
Binners is often OTT on this but on this one he is right.
Blimey, not only does the Guardian, loyal centrist broadsheet, denounce the two-child benefit cap using alarmist terms such as “the worst social security policy ever”, but it also suggests that Starmer is "profoundly wrong and undemocratic" in removing the Labour whip from the rebels......a double whammy from the Guardian!
The two-child cap, introduced by the Conservatives in 2017, restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in most households. It impoverishes children, punishes ethnic minorities and humiliates women who have been raped. Unfair and morally repugnant, it is “the worst social security policy ever”, say academic experts. Ministers know this. Yet it is a truth that must be acknowledged everywhere but in the lobby divisions.
If the events of Tuesday night were the Labour leadership’s attempt to set a precedent to avoid dissent, it would be profoundly wrong and undemocratic. In making Labour MPs feel nervous about taking a stand against unjust and immoral policies, it also makes bad decisions more likely.
There might be trouble ahead
As above, the 7 who were suspended were all in the Socialist Campaign Group, as is Diane Abbott who also stated she'd have voted with them but couldn't attend the vote.
It's amazing they just fell into this, the SNP are there to try and cause issues with Labour, as they have lost a lot of their base, they hoped to get some rebels into this, and they duly did, and for what, a vote that was never going to win, this early into a new government, and they're now on the outside looking in with even less influence on anything.
If you think that’s a bit wild and alarmist what do you think of the term “social cleansing” to describe the two-child benefit cap then?
That’s how a fellow centrist like yourself has described it
Well that's certainly an escalation of rhetoric... jeez... I don't think we have reached the 'Republic of the Union of Myanmar' levels of social cleansing just yet.
And people wonder why everyone else is bemused when absurd and exaggerated contrasts are made.
Centrist vs left
Not aimed at anyone but at everyone including me:
If there's is one place on the net where people are rightly pulled up for generalisations and reductive arguments it's on STW, so I find this whole you are left or centre a bit bizarre.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and suggest that a lot of people on here and in the country at large are both. How? My "swingometer" is definitely centerist on some policies but pick another one and I'm practically a communist. I am neither tied to a centrist ideology or a "far left"* one. I voted Corbyn and I voted Starmer, they aren't mutually exclusive.
On X, amongst other things(!) I've been called a loony lefty, wishy washy centrist and woke.
All the of the above names I wear with some pride.
Personally, I wouldn't like to be labelled as a Tory Lite as they are abhorrent to me and I have not, or ever will, vote for them.
Let's stop vilifying people based upon this arbitrary political spectrum as people are far more complex than that. How about we let people self identify politically, rather than telling them where they are on this arbitrary spectrum?
Another sermon, sorry! 🙂
* I don't use the term far left as a slur, quite the opposite.
what havwe they achieved
How about...... people are still talking about the two-child benefit cap and the Guardian currently has an editorial denouncing it the worst social security policy ever?
Not a bad achievement imo. Plus they couldn't have predicted that Starmer would react in such an extreme way.
Read the Guardian editorial for an explanation of how Starmer uses the nuclear option in a way no other leader, including Tony Blair, has used it
You really think that thats been achieved by rebelling and could not have been done by other avenues and what difference does it make? the Guardian had already denounced labours refusal to end the 2 child cap strongly on numerous occasions..
This bit of virtue signalling has achieved precisely nothing bar taking the 7 of them further away from being able to influence policy.
Let’s stop vilifying people based upon this arbitrary political spectrum as people are far more complex than that. How about we let people self identify politically, rather than telling them where they are on this arbitrary spectrum?
Absolutley... If ask me if we should have a police force and a judiciary, I'd say yes. That would make me authoritarian, and right wing.
If you ask me if we should have 'free' health care paid from general taxation, I'd say yes, and that would make me a left wing socialist.
So the net avearge of those two questions would make me a centrist?
Well, no, not really, ask me a thousand more political questions and you'll get a thousand different answers. And that's just one person.
It's the job of the government to reach a consensus with a very difficult balancing act on a multitude of very important issues.
At least with our fresh faced government they are actually doing things, as opposed to the outgoing lot who just wanted to 'stop the boats' and 'extract cash from the public for personal gain'.
'extract cash from the public for personal gain' is a bit too long to stick on a pedistal, and proably wouldn't win many votes.
You do realise where the term centrist comes from don’t you? If you are in the centre you are by definition closer to the Tories. So you might not like the term Tory-lite
So anyone to the right of Marx is aTory-lite? I've read some delusional arguments on here but that's right up there.
How can centrist be closer to the Tories? If anything it is closer to what labour now is. There is definitely a right and a far right but no real left. Therefore labour pretty much occupy a centre ground. Poopscoop makes a good point up there ^ I’ve been called a Commie and a Socialist but I’m just left leaning. No country could function for long at either end of the spectrum. It just leads to a crazy person being in charge. A socialist democracy based on conscious capitalism is the way forward. Vote for Funk!
This bit of virtue signalling has achieved precisely nothing bar taking the 7 of them further away from being able to influence policy.
I look forward to the labour budget in a few months where Reeves find the cash to ensure the cap is lifted and social care is made available to all that need it and rely on it
There is definitely a right and a far right but no real left. Therefore labour pretty much occupy a centre ground.
Oh my sweet summer child, Only if you try to shift the envleope/paradigm to suit youself...it's just noise from a very vocal minority, be that a shouty minority from the extreme left or the exreme right, it's the same BS.
cash to lift the cap – thats easy which is why it should have been done straight away
social care – thats a whole different ball game – huge sums of money needed and a load of staff
I doubt there's many on this forum who have the slightest idea regarding the state of social care in this country, or who need the benefit cap lifted so they can attempt to scrape an existence for their kids/family, certainly not Binners with his pathetic remarks.
I'm on various MS forums due to my spms and the utter and sheer despair over the past few years as to the issues folk face attempting to access the most basic cursory care would have folk on here shouting for tax the bankers, tax the super rich, tax the corporations, tax amazon etc....My aunt has MS and can't get the care she needs, my gran is 81 and can't get the care she needs, my mate is dying of a brain tumour and can't get the care he needs, my neighbour can't get the care she needs but thankfully her son makes a 300 mile trip every weekend to make sure she's washed, has been eating, is clean, has food in fridge etc, staying overnight on her couch and leaving early in morning to get back to his work, paid minimal ****ing wage in a warehouse, he's killing himself with the stress/workload.
Up and down the country there will be millions in similar situations so Starmer and Reeves had better get their finger out soon
At the current rate of my progression I'm going to need care that my mother can't manage sooner rather than later, not a ****ing chance I'm hanging around to get my arse wiped.
If Gnusmus is around I imagine he'd have something to say about it.
I look forward to the labour budget in a few months where Reeves find the cash to ensure the cap is lifted and social care is made available to all that need it and rely on it
So do I, and I expect that's exactly what will happen after due process/review.
Wecome to sensible politics... hopefully.
So anyone to the right of Marx is aTory-lite?
You think that is what I have said do you?
Right there is an example of why it is a struggle to have a sensible discussion on political threads
And the comment gets 3 "likes", not because it makes any sense or reflects anything that has been said but because it is seen as having a pop at someone.
There is nothing "delusional" about pointing out where the term centrist comes from.
Personally I prefer the term Labour right-wingers than the term Labour centrists but right-wingers seem to hate being called right-wing, despite the fact that they clearly are. You cannot have a left-wing if you do not have a right-wing.
It is about time right-wingers embraced their political stance and stopped hiding behind terms such as centrist and moderate. If I was embarrassed about being left-wing I would change my stance, not hide behind another term.
Personally I prefer the term Labour right-wingers than the term Labour centrists but right-wingers seem to hate being called right-wing, despite the fact that they clearly are. You cannot have a left-wing if you do not have a right-wing.
If you can have a left wing and a right wing in a party (which I fully accept) doesn't that imply a centre too? Though the centre of a particular party may be to the left or right of another party.
I posted this What political alignment is the British Public? a while ago and thought it was quite interesting see where people of different political persuasions thought they sat on a scale of far left to far right. It seems that most people of any age, social group, political alignment appear to consider themselves central or slightly left/right.
There is nothing “delusional” about pointing out where the term centrist comes from.
Define centrist then...
I'll go first, it means the avearge/middle point, construed from a lot of data.
The centrist point of water, at atmospheric pressure, at sea level is somewhere between Zero or 100 degrees C. So quite a wide range.
I'll call it 50 degrees c.
People really should not be using scientific terms, to make demonstrably false claims.
It seems that most people of any age, social group, political alignment appear to consider themselves central or slightly left/right.
You seem to be doing some interpretation using "slightly" and if you look at the other surveys you should see the obvious problem with letting people define it for themselves.
As we can see repeatedly with people here patting themselves on the back using "pragmatic", "sensible", "grown up", "moderate" it is mostly just variations on the tory/reform position of announcing themselves to be the silent majority. Most people will reflectively think of themselves as being the sensible types and so will go yeah I sit in the middle unless they look seriously at their position and go well actually I am pretty right wing.
When you look at the other survey placing Sunak and co on the same scale you might notice a problem. Anyone who defines the previous tory government as "left wing" is highly likely to be thinking of themselves as centrist and yet they might possibly not be.
Im wioth Ernie Its labour right wing who are right of centre. Reeves and cooper would both be right of centre
I’ll go first, it means the avearge/middle point, construed from a lot of data.
Middle point of what exactly?
Lets take an easy example.
Joe Manchin is often described as centrist/moderate but outside of the USA would be more accurately described as "thinks Thatcher is a bit of a commie".
The general usage, in the UK, is mostly the third way eg traditionally right wing economic policies and traditionally left wing social. Of course this in itself is complex eg Camerons austerity measures which break the left wing social but then a few changes such as gay marriage which support it.
You could also think of being a centrist as someone who's only vote labour when they swing to the right ie Blair but would happily vote tory when they swing towards one nation conservatism. But would never vote reform or for Corbyn.
I reckon there's a few people like that.
Genuine question here @ernielynch and it leads on from my earlier post I suppose.
It is about time right-wingers embraced their political stance and stopped hiding behind terms such as centrist and moderate. If I was embarrassed about being left-wing I would change my stance, not hide behind another term.
I just want to understand really, why is it important to you how people define themselves politically?
I'm not going to follow up with any sort of counter argument, I'm really just interested to know why this political metric is important to you and no doubt some others in here?
Cheers!
Meh 2 kid cap is ok by me. If you cant afford more then dont have more.
I doubt there’s many on this forum who have the slightest idea regarding the state of social care in this country,
I doubt there's many that are involved in the preparation of submissions to the various Gov Depts either. I've explained in as much detail as I can what is happening across Gov, and what the process is by which the new taskforce, DHSC, and DWP will develop their solution to child poverty, and in the end I have been beaten back by the sheer persistence of others repeating their 'it's not difficult', 'there's no limit to spending' etc. Expectations and opinions of what they think should happen, vs what is actually going to happen.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/spending-reviews
It's not a debate, it's just endless repetition of the same 'Yeh but I want' that doesn't make it any truer or any more likely to happen. Have fun with it, there is literally nothing I can add beyond what's already said; I've waited a day so I don't just post in anger but this is my last one on this subject.
As for being accused of a centrist flounce. Maybe I am a centrist, whatever that means. Is it a flounce? I see that as someone running away when they are losing the argument; maybe I'm doing that but as above I can't argue against your 'Yeh but I want' so when I can't add anything further no point hanging around. So I guess you win, not by being in any sense right, but just by persistence.
And the moan at the pub being wrecked - wasn't aimed at either side, there are posters on both sides of this argument that are guilty of hoying the furniture, who should all have a look at themselves.
Have fun.
Could it not just be as simple as people agreeing with his post?
Except in this case there is nothing to agree with. I didn't actually say that anyone to the right of Marx is Tory-lite, so what are they agreeing with? Nothing.
They were presumably liking the post because it was seen as having a dig at someone. It's basically primary school politics, never mind the 6th form.
If you cant afford more then dont have more.
I just lost my job and had to take one which pays considerably less.
What do I do with the third kid? Put them up for adoption and if so should it be first in, last out or should I ask them to reapply for their jobs?
dissonance
Full Member
If you cant afford more then dont have more.I just lost my job and had to take one which pays considerably less.
I was just about to post that as a theoretical scenario. Sorry to hear it's actually happened to you and your family mate.
I just want to understand really, why is it important to you how people define themselves politically?
Well it obviously isn't. I made it clear that personally I prefer to use the term right-wing but they seem to prefer the term centrist, so I tend to use that more these days.
I genuinely have no idea why people who are right-wing tend to prefer not to be called right-wing, it seems to be a common theme across political parties and throughout the world.
I think I see Ernie and thanks for taking the time to reply.
If you cant afford more then dont have more.
I like that, it is an honest declaration that you support the policy.
However it isn't relevant in the context to how it is being discussed here. The current Labour government fully accepts that there is no moral justification for the two-child benefit cap and have made it clear that they will scrap it just as soon as they feel it is affordable.
The issue is whether it is affordable to scrap it or not.
It was hypothetical thankfully. I thought the FILO and reapply for jobs was sufficient but perhaps I should have added more.
Ah, sorry, I got the wrong end of the stick!
I prefer to use the term right-wing but they seem to prefer the term centrist, so I tend to use that more these days.
Can you not see how that sort of language is part of the problem?
They? Who are they?
I'm certainly not 'right wing' by any standard definition of that term. I despised the conservative government for exacly that.
I voted labour despite philosophically being a lib dem.
Give Kier a chance FFS, it's not even been 3 weeks yet, before casting sweeping assumptions.
Joke edit.. if this was a conservative government, we'd be have cycled through at least 2 PM's by now.
@dissonance yes making sure that minimum wage work pays enough to live on is a priority for me too.
Unemployed people with more than 2 kids not so much.
