Do you want to discuss boring politics? (31 Viewers)

[fernandopartridge]

I've read Hayward's tweet (he is the epitome of centrist crank), he as usual exposes the centre of Labour politics to be about a broad church (as long as the opinions are all sensible like theirs).

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

If suspending the rebels was solely because of the indignity of voting against the Kings Speech - why did Liz Kendall (the work and pensions secretary) start talking about affordability? It is either Labour's intention to lift the cap or it isn't, the 'affordability' [sic] of it is neither here nor there.

 

[clint van damme]

You can post stupid gifs all you want, it's factually correct.
Saying he'll do it in Autumn or in the New Year means he's content to carry on with George Osbournes policy.

 

[PVA]

You can post stupid gifs all you want, it's factually correct.
Saying he'll do it in Autumn or in the New Year means he's content to carry on with George Osbournes policy.

Yes intending to stop that thing shows he's really intent on carrying on with that thing.

Christ if you lot are this bad 5 minutes into this government you're going to be absolutely ruined in 5 years time.

 

[clint van damme]

Yes intending to stop that thing shows he's really intent on carrying on with that thing.

Christ if you lot are this bad 5 minutes into this government you're going to be absolutely ruined in 5 years time.

More nonsense. I praised them the other day for the way they're conducting themselves but when they fuck up I'll say so.
I don't expect them to turn things round overnight but this could be sorted fairly quickly and relatively cheaply.
You're the one performing mental gymnastics to defend them.

 

[Ian1779]

#centristdads4ever

 

[PVA]

More nonsense. I praised them the other day for the way they're conducting themselves but when they fuck up I'll say so.
I don't expect them to turn things round overnight but this could be sorted fairly quickly and relatively cheaply.
You're the one performing mental gymnastics to defend them.

I'm not performing any mental gymnastics.

I'm stating very obvious facts about what happened with this amendment that some people seemingly cannot grasp and instead start spouting that anyone against it wants to see children in poverty. Such utter, utter horseshit.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I'm not performing any mental gymnastics.

I'm stating very obvious facts about what happened with this amendment that some people seemingly cannot grasp and instead start spouting that anyone against it wants to see children in poverty. Such utter, utter horseshit.

Why has the work and pensions secretary implied that it is subject to 'affordability'

 

[clint van damme]

I'm not performing any mental gymnastics.

I'm stating very obvious facts about what happened with this amendment that some people seemingly cannot grasp and instead start spouting that anyone against it wants to see children in poverty. Such utter, utter horseshit.

So what do they want?
The amendment is irrelevant really, all its done is shone a light on the fact that there's an opportunity to help some of those who have suffered most under austerity and Starmer refuses to take it.

 

[Ian1779]

I'm not performing any mental gymnastics.

I'm stating very obvious facts about what happened with this amendment that some people seemingly cannot grasp and instead start spouting that anyone against it wants to see children in poverty. Such utter, utter horseshit.

Perhaps you can help me with something.

If I work in a school and there is a bank of evidence to say that a system or process is not fit for purpose and causing kids unnecessary harm, should I a) do something about it now, or b) conduct a spurious review for several months even though the evidence is clear before I do something about ?

 

[shmmeee]

Perhaps you can help me with something.

If I work in a school and there is a bank of evidence to say that a system or process is not fit for purpose and causing kids unnecessary harm, should I a) do something about it now, or b) conduct a spurious review for several months even though the evidence is clear before I do something about ?

Do you have a reputation with your employers for doing things half baked and costing the company lots of money for little impact?

 

[SeaSeeEffCee]

 

[skybluetony176]

It was a pretty stupid thing to get suspended for. On the most basic level they’ve just voted against the platform they ran on, it was confrontational for the sake of confrontation.

Not saying Starmer shouldn’t be more outwardly committed to scrapping the 2 child cap because he should have been, should have been one of the things that they done on day one if you ask me but the fact is they didn’t get elected on that ticket. Starmer clearly wants to paint a picture of how much of a mess the Tories left us in, they’ve outed the true waste of the Rwanda scheme and Streeting was lifting the lid on what a complete lie the 30 new hospital plan was and how they never had the funding and were never really interested in finding it. Starmer is walking a tightrope he himself set out in lifting the lid on Tory incompetence and may have overplayed his hand on the cap in my opinion. He could have lifted it and said in the interim at least it will be paid for by scrapping Rwanda, scrapping Bibby Stockholm and tackling other waste of money Tory follies. Seems to me Starmer could have avoided this situation and played the Tories can’t be trusted with the economy card far more effectively while simultaneously looking like the good guy.

Having said that I still think these six MP’s have been dicks given it was the platform that they were elected on and if they really want to be suspended for show they could have picked a far better opportunity, I don’t think this has had the cut through they thought it would have, it’s very much coming across as corbynites being petty for show. In conclusion they’re all dicks.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Perhaps you can help me with something.

If I work in a school and there is a bank of evidence to say that a system or process is not fit for purpose and causing kids unnecessary harm, should I a) do something about it now, or b) conduct a spurious review for several months even though the evidence is clear before I do something about ?

Bit unfair to say spurious. It might be but we shouldn’t assume it will be
That was the way of placating most labour mps who then didn’t vote against.
I think it’s fair to look at everything in the round but once you have you have to act

 

[fernandopartridge]

Do you have a reputation with your employers for doing things half baked and costing the company lots of money for little impact?

Nation state as company analogy now

 

[shmmeee]

Nation state as company analogy now

I didn’t start it!

 

[PVA]

Why has the work and pensions secretary implied that it is subject to 'affordability'

That's been their line on everything all along, that's nothing new (whether you agree with it or not).

 

[PVA]

Ahh the golden days of Corbyn's rallies and all the incredible changes that led to in thia country. Good times.

Oh wait.

 

[PVA]

Having said that I still think these six MP’s have been dicks given it was the platform that they were elected on and if they really want to be suspended for show they could have picked a far better opportunity, I don’t think this has had the cut through they thought it would have, it’s very much coming across as corbynites being petty for show. In conclusion they’re all dicks.

Quite.

I'm sure it's just a total coincidence that the only 7 rebels are Corbynite cranks.

I'm sure it's just another total coincidence they are the only 7 people in the entire Labour Party with a conscience.

I'm sure every single other member of the party just wants to push more kids into poverty.

Honestly lads.

 

[MalcSB]

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.

At least we know that energy bills will be reducing soon.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Quite.

I'm sure it's just a total coincidence that the only 7 rebels are Corbynite cranks.

I'm sure it's just another total coincidence they are the only 7 people in the entire Labour Party with a conscience.

I'm sure every single other member of the party just wants to push more kids into poverty.

Honestly lads.

You do realise that people hold left wing beliefs agnostic of Corbyn

 

[torchomatic]

You do realise that people hold left wing beliefs agnostic of Corbyn

Me.

 

[PVA]

You do realise that people hold left wing beliefs agnostic of Corbyn

Well yeah, that's the point.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

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.

Could genuinely see this Labour government being in for one term. They’ll be challenged on the right by Reform and on the left by the Greens. Without the full details, Reform alone cost the Tories around 80 seats.

 

[torchomatic]

Could genuinely see this Labour government being in for one term. They’ll be challenged on the right by Reform and on the left by the Greens. Without the full details, Reform alone cost the Tories around 80 seats.

Nah. Farage won't stick it out. Something else will come along, he'll leave Reform, and all the bigots will follow him.

 

[Ian1779]

Bit unfair to say spurious. It might be but we shouldn’t assume it will be
That was the way of placating most labour mps who then didn’t vote against.
I think it’s fair to look at everything in the round but once you have you have to act

The evidence is already clear and out in the public domain. It does not need a further 6 month ‘enquiry’

 

[Boicey]

Quite.

I'm sure it's just a total coincidence that the only 7 rebels are Corbynite cranks.

I'm sure it's just another total coincidence they are the only 7 people in the entire Labour Party with a conscience.

I'm sure every single other member of the party just wants to push more kids into poverty.

Honestly lads.

Some weird straw man nonsense there fella.
In the end MP's had an amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap in front of them, to help reduce child poverty.
Do you in good conscience vote against that?
I think you might be confused who the lunatics are.

 

[PVA]

Some weird straw man nonsense there fella.
In the end MP's had an amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap in front of them, to help reduce child poverty.
Do you in good conscience vote against that?
I think you might be confused who the lunatics are.

The amendment was never, ever going to pass. Not in a million years. It was simply not a vote to to lift the cap.

It was purely a tool used, successfully I should add, by the SNP to cause division.

Voting against it was not going to reduce child poverty, they knew that. But they got what they wanted which was to give Starmer a bloody nose.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The evidence is already clear and out in the public domain. It does not need a further 6 month ‘enquiry’

It would help
It’s not a silver bullet

 

[CCFCSteve]

It would help
It’s not a silver bullet

Exactly. I doubt anyone wants to see any child living in poverty, however, child poverty and benefits relating to it is a far more complex issue than this one policy. I don’t know for example whether the cost incurred in removing the cap would help more kids in need than say using that money in a different way ie extra direct support for the poorest in society (those in material deprivation/destitution) and/or increasing UC for those that need it most

Plenty of wider issues, some of which have been mentioned already like child care, birth rates, housing etc etc which go way beyond the cap.

 

[shmmeee]

Exactly. I doubt anyone wants to see any child living in poverty, however, child poverty and benefits relating to it is a far more complex issue than this one policy. I don’t know for example whether the cost incurred in removing the cap would help more kids in need than say using that money in a different way ie extra direct support for the poorest in society (those in material deprivation/destitution) and/or increasing UC for those that need it most

Plenty of wider issues, some of which have been mentioned already like child care, birth rates, housing etc etc which go way beyond the cap.

People like to say this. But in reality solving poverty generally is as simple as giving people money so they aren’t in poverty. That’s what we did in the 2000s to massively reduce child poverty and pensioner poverty.

 

[CCFCSteve]

People like to say this. But in reality solving poverty generally is as simple as giving people money so they aren’t in poverty. That’s what we did in the 2000s to massively reduce child poverty and pensioner poverty.

My point is if the reason/argument for removing the cap is to help kids living in poverty there’s probably far more efficient and effective ways of doing that

Removing the cap benefits 1.6m kids, 330k of which are said to be in living in poverty because of it. This costs 3.5bn per year (17bn over Parliament). I’m saying I’d personally rather have all that money directly spent on the 1m kids that live in destitution

 

[shmmeee]

Could genuinely see this Labour government being in for one term. They’ll be challenged on the right by Reform and on the left by the Greens. Without the full details, Reform alone cost the Tories around 80 seats.

Cant see it TBH. Reform and Greens maxed out last election. Greens are already tearing themselves apart and being accused of supporting genocide. Reform will last as long as Farage can be arsed which I doubt will be more than a year or two.

Of course if they don’t deliver anything they were elected on then like the Tories in 2019 they’ll get booted out. Which is why worrying about the optics of shit like this in the first month is moron shit. Get on with delivering, the only people that will remember you using the left as an example will be the left.

 

[shmmeee]

My point is if the reason/argument for removing the cap is to help kids living in poverty there’s probably far more efficient and effective ways of doing that

Removing the cap benefits 1.6m kids, 330k of which are said to be in living in poverty because of it. This costs 3.5bn per year (17bn over Parliament). I’m saying I’d personally rather have all that money directly spent on the 1m kids that live in destitution

Yeah I think that’s the badly given message from the govt.

Just seems a bit weird to me that they’ve got the ground running on some stuff but on this seem to just today be finding out we have a child poverty problem. I’m always skeptical of “action groups” and “task forces” and “inquiries” TBH. They must have known they’d be attacked from the left from this one day one, why not have a plan ready to go?

 

[skybluetony176]

My point is if the reason/argument for removing the cap is to help kids living in poverty there’s probably far more efficient and effective ways of doing that

Removing the cap benefits 1.6m kids, 330k of which are said to be in living in poverty because of it. This costs 3.5bn per year (17bn over Parliament). I’m saying I’d personally rather have all that money directly spent on the 1m kids that live in destitution

Cancelling Bibby Stockholm and Rwanda is apparently going to save £7B over 10 years so there’s a good chunk. Starmers missed a trick if you ask me to not reallocate those savings to scrapping the cap and then making a fuss about how cancelling Tory follies allows us to look after our own.