Do you want to discuss boring politics? (161 Viewers)

[PVA]

Starmer has now suspended MP’s that voted against the party they just won an election on the back of just 5 minutes ago

Fixed

It's really not difficult. Or apparently it is.

 

---

[Grendel]

The interesting thing about Reeves on Sunday when asked said that the government was introducing breakfast clubs as a way of helping poverty removal by getting people on benefits into work.

 

[Ian1779]

Fixed

It's really not difficult. Or apparently it is.

 

[clint van damme]

Fixed

It's really not difficult. Or apparently it is.

.
You're defending Starmers decision not to use his first few weeks in office to lift thousands of children out of poverty.
It's really not difficult, or apparently it is

 

[PVA]

.
You're defending Starmers decision not to use his first few weeks in office to lift thousands of children out of poverty.
It's really not difficult, or apparently it is

I'm not. I've said I want the cap lifted.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I.

It’s not a manifesto commitment -

I do see the point. This is the manifesto they all campaigned on and got elected on after all. Others have demonstrated their misgivings without going so far.

 

[shmmeee]

That’s the bit in my reply you hung on to. Nice one

That’s the bit I want to reply to yeah. The idea that it’s related to vote share or whatever is silly.

Electorally the two child limit is a popular policy sadly. You’re confusing your wishes with the electorate.

 

[Grendel]

I'm not. I've said I want the cap lifted.

He said "you are defending Starmer"

 

[Grendel]

Doesn't it cost £3billion to do this?

No money for UK children but

UK will give Ukraine £3bn a year ‘for as long as it takes’, says Starmer

Prime minister holds first official bilateral talks with Volodymyr Zelenskiy at Nato summit in Washington

www.theguardian.com

 

[PVA]

I do see the point. This is the manifesto they all campaigned on and got elected on after all. Others have demonstrated their misgivings without going so far.

Hallelujah. Someone else gets it!

 

[Ian1779]

I.

I do see the point. This is the manifesto they all campaigned on and got elected on after all. Others have demonstrated their misgivings without going so far.

So post election and prior to Kings Speech he couldn’t possibly have added scrapping the policy in?

 

[chiefdave]

So I totally agree. But surely party loyalty is essential at this stage? Id like to see it introduced in the next few months, before the suspended mps come back.

What happened to "country first, party second"?

The most ridiculous part is he's already making noises about removing the cap, and other Labour MPs under pressure from their constituents have clearly been told to issue the same response, that removal of the cap is being considered as part of their first budget. This would have passed without a second glance but for some reason he's gone nuclear and now is going to look pretty fucking stupid if he removes the cap while he's still got his own MPs suspended for wanting the cap removed.

Didn't Blair have a 50(ish) strong rebellion and string of resignations just after being elected? Don't remember him handing out suspensions to everyone who didn't tow the party line or being damaged in any way by the vote.

 

[shmmeee]

What happened to "country first, party second"?

The most ridiculous part is he's already making noises about removing the cap, and other Labour MPs under pressure from their constituents have clearly been told to issue the same response, that removal of the cap is being considered as part of their first budget. This would have passed without a second glance but for some reason he's gone nuclear and now is going to look pretty fucking stupid if he removes the cap while he's still got his own MPs suspended for wanting the cap removed.

Didn't Blair have a 50(ish) strong rebellion and string of resignations just after being elected? Don't remember him handing out suspensions to everyone who didn't tow the party line or being damaged in any way by the vote.

The response has generally been “give us a minute to figure out how to pay for it and we’ll drop it” from day one. The SNP and the Left know this and are using it as a wedge, Starmer is acting ridiculously and using this as some kind of loyalty marker.

 

[chiefdave]

This vote has zero impact on child poverty.

I love how its being pushed that both the vote had zero impact and was essentially meaningless but also it was such a crucial thing that Starmer had absolutely no other option than suspending MPs

 

[shmmeee]

I love how its being pushed that both the vote had zero impact and was essentially meaningless but also it was such a crucial thing that Starmer had absolutely no other option than suspending MPs

I mean this is true. The importance is the first Kings Speech of the govt being voted against. If you don’t support the platform for govt you got elected on then why you’re in the party is a fair question. And the vote would have had zero impact. It was a nuisance amendment designed to do what it did and cause a split, no policy would ever have changed.

 

[PVA]

I mean this is true. The importance is the first Kings Speech of the govt being voted against. If you don’t support the platform for govt you got elected on then why you’re in the party is a fair question. And the vote would have had zero impact. It was a nuisance amendment designed to do what it did and cause a split, no policy would ever have changed.

Exactly this.

And saying this doesn't mean I want kids in poverty. It's a fucking absurd leap to make.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Here you go, I’ve sourced you a username picture to honour the good work you’ve done on behalf of Sir Keir.

View attachment 37085

Tricky wank

 

[chiefdave]

Tricky wank

not for some people on here

 

[Nick]

Of course - I’ll do it straight after Keir apologises to the MP’s he’s booted out for having the temerity to suggest that children shouldn’t be in poverty.

Remember kids, it’s important for you to go hungry for another 6 months so that I can assert my authority.

At what point should people stop having multiple kids if they can't afford them?

I'd much rather Ukraine money goes to them but should be a cap on people firing more than 2 kids out if they can't provide for them.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Government Spending is created out of taxation or borrowing. Printing more money leads to inflation.

No it isn't. It is always spent first. The government doesn't borrow it sells bonds to investors - it creates the money to sell it.

 

[wingy]

At what point should people stop having multiple kids if they can't afford them?

I'd much rather Ukraine money goes to them but should be a cap on people firing more than 2 kids out if they can't provide for them.

Hate to say it, doesn't that imply a racial basis that should be considered here?

 

[Nick]

Hate to say it, doesn't that imply a racial basis that should be considered here?

Doesn't matter who, if somebody wants to fire out 5 kids but can't afford to feed / house them then they should really learn about contraceptives.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I mean this is true. The importance is the first Kings Speech of the govt being voted against. If you don’t support the platform for govt you got elected on then why you’re in the party is a fair question. And the vote would have had zero impact. It was a nuisance amendment designed to do what it did and cause a split, no policy would ever have changed.

Lets face it, at the very least somebody's going to table a private members' bill at some stage to allow a bit of arguing about aren't they, so keep your powder dry for the opportunity!

 

[clint van damme]

Doesn't matter who, if somebody wants to fire out 5 kids but can't afford to feed them then they should really learn about contraceptives.

Problem is our whole society is structured around continued population growth, at some point it will surely need to change?

 

[skybluetony176]

At what point should people stop having multiple kids if they can't afford them?

I'd much rather Ukraine money goes to them but should be a cap on people firing more than 2 kids out if they can't provide for them.

Bit of a blinkered view. For starters about 40% of the people claiming UC are working so that begs the question why are wages so shit people need to claim UC in the first place. If we distributed wealth better fewer families would be on UC in the first place. Secondly what makes you think that people with 1 or 2 kids can afford them? We’ve just been through a period of hyperinflation which followed an even longer period of wage stagnation and regression in real terms. Thirdly there’s the perspective of encouraging people to have more children to counter the reliance on immigration to make up the gap in available workers, skilled and unskilled. We have a massively declining birth rate in the UK, in part because people are only having the children that they can afford, or at least afford at that moment in time. We should be encouraging larger families, especially if you’re anti immigration. Paying UC to encourage people to have more than 2 children should seen as an investment in the UK. That’s not the mentality that’s been drummed into us though, “our” mentality is to go straight to scroungers, a drain on resources.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

Bit of a blinkered view. For starters about 40% of the people claiming UC are working so that begs the question why are wages so shit people need to claim UC in the first place. If we distributed wealth better less families would be on UC in the first place. Secondly what makes you think that people with 1 or 2 kids can afford them? We’ve just been through a period of hyperinflation which followed an even longer period of wage stagnation and regression in real terms. Thirdly there’s the perspective of encouraging people to have more children to counter the reliance on immigration to make up the gap in available workers, skilled and unskilled. We have a massively declining birth rate in the UK, in part because people are only having the children that they can afford, or at least afford at that moment in time. We should be encouraging larger families, especially if you’re anti immigration. Paying UC to encourage people to have more than 2 children should seen as an investment in the UK. That’s not the mentality that’s been drummed into us though, “our mentality is to go straight to scroungers, a drain on resources.

Any comments on the football today Tony

 

[Nick]

Bit of a blinkered view. For starters about 40% of the people claiming UC are working so that begs the question why are wages so shit people need to claim UC in the first place. If we distributed wealth better fewer families would be on UC in the first place. Secondly what makes you think that people with 1 or 2 kids can afford them? We’ve just been through a period of hyperinflation which followed an even longer period of wage stagnation and regression in real terms. Thirdly there’s the perspective of encouraging people to have more children to counter the reliance on immigration to make up the gap in available workers, skilled and unskilled. We have a massively declining birth rate in the UK, in part because people are only having the children that they can afford, or at least afford at that moment in time. We should be encouraging larger families, especially if you’re anti immigration. Paying UC to encourage people to have more than 2 children should seen as an investment in the UK. That’s not the mentality that’s been drummed into us though, “our” mentality is to go straight to scroungers, a drain on resources.

I didn't say anything about working or not, I said:

At what point should people stop having multiple kids if they can't afford them?

Are you just here for some sort of propaganda bot because you're boring and don't even read what's said.

My mentality is don't fire kids out if you can't afford them, the mentality of "Its ok, I will just keep having kids because other people will pay for them to be housed and fed" is wrong.

I'm not talking about the short term situations (if people lose their jobs and need help between jobs, illness etc).

Yeah, I can't stand scroungers whether they are British or coming from elsewhere to do the same. I've said multiple times I'd happily ship them all off to Rwanda regardless of what passport they have and just leave us with grafters

 

[shmmeee]

Doesn't matter who, if somebody wants to fire out 5 kids but can't afford to feed / house them then they should really learn about contraceptives.

And if they have three and lose their job, what? Suck one back up for a bit?

Pushing kids into poverty as some punishment for their parents moral failings just costs more in crime and healthcare and everything else later on. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[PVA]

 

[skybluetony176]

I didn't say anything about working or not, I said:



Are you just here for some sort of propaganda bot because you're boring and don't even read what's said.

My mentality is don't fire kids out if you can't afford them, the mentality of "Its ok, I will just keep having kids because other people will pay for them to be housed and fed" is wrong.

I'm not talking about the short term situations (if people lose their jobs and need help between jobs, illness etc).

Yeah, I can't stand scroungers whether they are British or coming from elsewhere to do the same. I've said multiple times I'd happily ship them all off to Rwanda regardless of what passport they have and just leave us with grafters

Yeah, I never said you did. I was just laying out the facts. Fact is there’s no shortage of hard working parents out there having to claim UC because their wages have been suppressed, their mortgage/rent, energy bills, weekly shop etc etc have taken a real hit on top off that. 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago they probably could afford 1,2 or 3 kids, through no fault of their own their circumstances have changed and they now need help. People like you are quick to label them scroungers as if they’re all sat on their arses , not holding down jobs just “firing” kid’s out for the benefits. You have a very blinkered view based on bullshit not reality.

 

[clint van damme]

Never heard of him before but a quick look at his X feed tells me he's the epitome of a centrist wank.

 

[PVA]

Never heard of him before but a quick look at his X feed tells me he's the epitome of a centrist wank.

Never heard of him either, he just explains it all very succinctly so thought it was worth posting.

Plenty of leftist cranks have been posted in here before to back up various arguments.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Never heard of him before but a quick look at his X feed tells me he's the epitome of a centrist wank.

You shock me

 

[clint van damme]

Never heard of him either, he just explains it all very succinctly so thought it was worth posting.

Plenty of leftist cranks have been posted in here before to back up various arguments.

He explains nothing, Starmer has it within his power to set the wheels in motion to lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty and hes choosing not to.
You support choice.

 

[PVA]