The Labour Government

Scottyboi said:
I personally believed it would be something that would be announced in their first budget, so maybe you're right they want to do it then. Not holding out any hope for it though.
Click to expand...

They've hinted so many times that they're going to drop it early in the Parliament, that I'd be stunned if it doesn't go in the first or second budgets.

I suspect they're quite happy to be able to have a show of strength early, making the point about not spending money. It'll probably make it easier to spend later too, if this makes an impression, as they can file this under "tough decisions".

I like John McDonnell, but it's just showmanship, as he knows full well the reasons why they're holding off making the change. By not doing it now, Labour will hope they have a better chance of staying in power for more than 5 years, and that's going to make a much bigger difference.
 
inbetween said:
It's always the same people though. I'll give it a few weeks until the socialists are doing what they did everyday in the Tory thread and just start repeating endless shite. All because their gang has been marginalised out.

The only thing they can't do this time around is call their fellow electorate thick twats for voting Labour because they probably did so themselves....
Click to expand...

I voted for the newly elected liberal democrat MP.
 
inbetween said:
It's always the same people though. I'll give it a few weeks until the socialists are doing what they did everyday in the Tory thread and just start repeating endless shite. All because their gang has been marginalised out.

The only thing they can't do this time around is call their fellow electorate thick twats for voting Labour because they probably did so themselves....
Click to expand...

Thick Twa..... hold on!
 
Don Karleone said:
Give me a crumb of evidence that they actually care then. Anything.
Click to expand...

So every single Labour MP just doesn’t care about kids staving ? But you do, you’re different to each and everyone one of them?

Labour in its history have bought in policies and welfare programs to help the poorest in our society (you really want me to send you links on these?)
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
I've never understood the benefits cap, for kids. Surely a country that has to import worker's from abroad should have a long term goal encouraging the population to have kids. If that includes child benefit for every child, and even lower income tax if a parent/parents are working, so be it.
Click to expand...
If you're are at a point where you're on benefits then you're also probably at a point in your life where having more kids is a bad choice.

The benefit system is a safety net, it does not exist to encourage people to have more kids to double their payouts..
 
inbetween said:
If you're are at a point where you're on benefits then you're also probably at a point in your life where having more kids is a bad choice.

The benefit system is a safety net, it does not exist to encourage people to have more kids to double their payouts..
Click to expand...
You just completely ignored my point about lower income tax for working parents. And child benefit is universal, not only for those on benefits.

Your post comes across like a daily mail benefit scroungers headline.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
So every single Labour MP just doesn’t care about kids staving ? But you do, you’re different to each and everyone one of them?

Labour in its history have bought in policies and welfare programs to help the poorest in our society (you really want me to send you links on these?)
Click to expand...

Not every Labour MP, no. There were at least 7 who voted to try and take kids out of poverty. I'm different to those who didn't though, thankfully.


No, I wanted you to give me evidence that this current Labour government give a shit. I should've been more clear, my apologies.
 
inbetween said:
If you're are at a point where you're on benefits then you're also probably at a point in your life where having more kids is a bad choice.

The benefit system is a safety net, it does not exist to encourage people to have more kids to double their payouts..
Click to expand...

I worked for years at an advice agency, and met thousands of people who had claimed benefits. The scenario you're describing isn't common at all.

That's a tabloid's version of the benefit system - when the reality is that most people don't want to claim. Most people don't want to have lost a job, separate from a partner, have to look after a sick relative, or one of the myriad of other reasons why most people actually claim benefits. The world is full of people who mostly want to get on, and have a good life that doesn't involve that kind of hardship. Most people didn't plan to claim benefits, but when circumstances change, they have to, and we shouldn't be punishing kids for that.
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
And child benefit is universal, not only for those on benefits.
Click to expand...
It is to a degree but is clawed back if you earn over a certain amount:

For tax years up to and including the year ended 5 April 2024, child benefit is effectively withdrawn at a rate of 1% for each £100 earned over £50,000 a year by the partner with the higher adjusted net income. Therefore, the benefit is fully withdrawn where income of the higher-income partner reaches £60,000 a year.

From https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-nic/income-tax/high-income-child-benefit-charge
 
Don Karleone said:
Not every Labour MP, no. There were at least 7 who voted to try and take kids out of poverty. I'm different to those who didn't though, thankfully.


No, I wanted you to give me evidence that this current Labour government give a shit. I should've been more clear, my apologies.
Click to expand...

It's a policy that sadly is supported by twice as many people as oppose it. Even amongst Labour voters, a lot more want to keep it.

Just about everyone on the Labour front bench will have said they're against it at some point. They've argued that they want to get rid of it once the money is there, and they've just won an election on the back of promising not to be "reckless" with money.

Clearly it's a cruel policy, it's also nonsense that the Government can't afford to get rid of it, but that's where we are right now. Labour have let it be known, even in the last few days, that they plan to get rid of it. The people voting tonight, know that their votes make fuck all difference, beyond telling people that they care the most. The reality is that it will go, but this is a policy that has been in place for 7 years, and a few more months won't make a huge difference, if the result is that voters believe Labour are being doing it "responsibly", and are able to keep the Tories out of power for at least another term.
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
You just completely ignored my point about lower income tax for working parents. And child benefit is universal, not only for those on benefits.

Your post comes across like a daily mail benefit scroungers headline.
Click to expand...
People on lower incomes already pay very little tax so tax isn't going to change much.

If you give people cash then the result is always inflation. This also defacto subsidises low wages because you're only on a low income if you're paid poorly or can't do many hours. Companies don't need to pay people more if the state is paying them instead.
bluenova said:
I worked for years at an advice agency, and met thousands of people who had claimed benefits. The scenario you're describing isn't common at all.

That's a tabloid's version of the benefit system - when the reality is that most people don't want to claim. Most people don't want to have lost a job, separate from a partner, have to look after a sick relative, or one of the myriad of other reasons why most people actually claim benefits. The world is full of people who mostly want to get on, and have a good life that doesn't involve that kind of hardship. Most people didn't plan to claim benefits, but when circumstances change, they have to, and we shouldn't be punishing kids for that.
Click to expand...
I actually don't think that giving people money is the right idea at all. The most critical issue facing working families right now is the cost of childcare so why not help them with that directly instead?

We need to be creative and not just view everything in terms of money in pockets, if so then we may as well subscribe to the next cost of living crisis because that's what will happen.
 
west didsblue said:
If you’ve got that cash to spare you’d be better off giving it him to use as a deposit on a house or to invest which would likely yield a bigger amount than the extra salary deductions apportioned to the loan. 83% of students don’t pay off their full student loan anyway, so it’s a bit pointless wasting your money like that.
Click to expand...

That’s expected to significantly increase with the current cohort though. We’ve got a plan for the future depending on how he does after Uni. It was more a choice where to put the money myself and I’m making that decision year on year.
 
inbetween said:
I actually don't think that giving people money is the right idea at all. The most critical issue facing working families right now is the cost of childcare so why not help them with that directly instead?

We need to be creative and not just view everything in terms of money in pockets, if so then we may as well subscribe to the next cost of living crisis because that's what will happen.
Click to expand...

People who have disabilities, are ill, or have lost their job, or are caring for a sick relative, or whose partner has left, or died, need money, not just help with childcare.

A single parent with three young kids, whose earning potential is minimum wage, or even just under median earnings, is going to need a hell of a childcare package to make work pay. Even the Tories would have said it makes sense for that parent to be at home with the kids, even if means the state are paying benefits.
 
bluenova said:
It's a policy that sadly is supported by twice as many people as oppose it. Even amongst Labour voters, a lot more want to keep it.

Just about everyone on the Labour front bench will have said they're against it at some point. They've argued that they want to get rid of it once the money is there, and they've just won an election on the back of promising not to be "reckless" with money.

Clearly it's a cruel policy, it's also nonsense that the Government can't afford to get rid of it, but that's where we are right now. Labour have let it be known, even in the last few days, that they plan to get rid of it. The people voting tonight, know that their votes make fuck all difference, beyond telling people that they care the most. The reality is that it will go, but this is a policy that has been in place for 7 years, and a few more months won't make a huge difference, if the result is that voters believe Labour are being doing it "responsibly", and are able to keep the Tories out of power for at least another term.
Click to expand...


It's a policy that's supported by heartless knobheads. This Labour government has the funds and majority to scrap it, they chose not to. That puts them into the same category for me.

You say the policy will go but I've seen no evidence of that and a few more months can make a huge difference. Where is the "change" promised by Labour? Thoughts and feelings aren't going to cut it now, they have genuine power.
 
Don Karleone said:
It's a policy that's supported by heartless knobheads. This Labour government has the funds and majority to scrap it, they chose not to. That puts them into the same category for me.

You say the policy will go but I've seen no evidence of that and a few more months can make a huge difference. Where is the "change" promised by Labour? Thoughts and feelings aren't going to cut it now, they have genuine power.
Click to expand...

Heartless knobheads maybe, but it's a significant majority of the country, which is why Labour have to be careful.



As for "evidence", it sound like you need Rachel Reeves to come to your door and tell you personally that it'll go. There are quotes from loads of Labour ministers, saying it's something that they would want to get rid of as soon as they can show the money is there. We know it's there, but we know that Labour didn't bankrupt the country and that austerity wasn't needed in 2010. But the majority of voters don't think that way, and Labour need to convince them that they're the party for the next 10-15 years, not just 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top