Do you want to discuss boring politics? (76 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
.
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.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Doesn't it cost £3billion to do this?
No money for UK children but
www.theguardian.com
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
Hallelujah. Someone else gets it!
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
So post election and prior to Kings Speech he couldn’t possibly have added scrapping the policy in?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
Exactly this.
And saying this doesn't mean I want kids in poverty. It's a fucking absurd leap to make.
Tricky wank
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
not for some people on here
Nick
Administrator
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Hate to say it, doesn't that imply a racial basis that should be considered here?
Nick
Administrator
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.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
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
Well-Known Member
Problem is our whole society is structured around continued population growth, at some point it will surely need to change?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Any comments on the football today Tony
Nick
Administrator
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
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.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
Last edited:
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
You shock me
