The Labour Government

[TinFoilHat]

 

[Postman Pep]

I think this is a good thing in some ways, as going forwards, if you can't afford to have more than two children, you shouldn't expect others to pay for them instead.

But if you lose your job or they move the goal posts after you have them then it's really a different issue.

Not really the point. There are numerous Labour MPs have been vociferous in their objection to the cap. Rayner called it heinous in opposition as an example.

There was even a Labour MP who tabled an identical amendment (that wasn't selected) who didn't vote for what she apparently felt strongly about.

 

[BayernMan]

I'm more arsed about punishing kids that had no say in that decision, to be honest.

Kids should have to take responsibility for being born from poor parents.

 

[BayernMan]

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Fair play to him

If this isn't a temporary thing It's time to form a new party and take some other Labour MPs with them.

 

[Postman Pep]

View attachment 126184

Purges and starvation policies... the cap fits

 

[MCFC Wirral]

Starmer’s honeymoon period already over as he ensures children remain in poverty and punishes every MP who dared to step out of line.

Anyone who expected real change with a Labour vote must be disappointed.

 

[mexico1970]

I see they are sticking with the bedroom tax too :)

 

[BrianW]

Evidence suggests that the scheme was starting to work. But in no way can I defend the amount of money that this has cost.

If you offered me £10 million a day to return to work, I'd be in the office like a shot, so it would work. However, it would not be cost-effective. And I'd jack it in after 3 days as it would be enough to satisfy my greediest instincts and then some.

As we had to accept an equal number of people from Rwanda, it was only ever, at best, a very expensive swap policy for immigrants. And Rwanda was sending us its 'complex cases'. Maybe a tad costly for the NHS and so on? A good example of 'performative policies' intended to appeal to a certain class of voter, a class unlikely to read the small print in the contract. It was neither practicable nor pragmatic. Nor was it intended to be. It was all about stirring emotions, which the modern right seems to think is a good alternative to sensible government.

 

[metalblue]

Well go back thirty years and it wasn’t education paid for by the consumer, it was seen as an essential part of the state education service to have a fully functioning society. It’s also not a luxury only available to people based on their personal wealth (well, their families wealth). The attainment is based on academic merit of the individual.

Personally I’d rather go back to scrapping university fees or at the very least make changes to the interest paid on student loans. My sons lucky in that I’m in the position where I can pay off his fees for him up front, plenty aren’t though.

You’d pay his fees off after tax?!?!! Are you actually insane?