The Labour Government

[bluenova]

What do you have? You said "Labour have let it be known, even in the last few days, that they plan to get rid of it". The taskforce stuff is bollocks as well btw.

The post 'posted' when I pasted the YouGov link a little prematurely - the full one is above.

 

[inbetween]

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.

I can guarantee that a single parent with 3 kids is not working full time. If you gave that person money then will they then use it pay for childcare so that they can work more hours and improve their situation? That should be the goal surely? What is however stopping them from taking the money and not bothering to work more hours?

The main point of supplementary benefits like this is to enable people to be productive. I know people with great jobs who gave up working full time because of the costs of childcare. This makes people less productive and I can only assume that it will be even worse for those with lower incomes as childcare costs are the same for everyone. Remove or at least help with childcare costs and for families work suddenly pays far more.

I know there are lots of situations as you mention with disabilities etc but that's where the system needs smashing apart. We need a system that helps people to work and helps people to have kids and get along. We don't need a system that can't be arsed with problems so it just chucks out money.

 

[bluenova]

I can guarantee that a single parent with 3 kids is not working full time. If you gave that person money then will they then use it pay for childcare so that they can work more hours and improve their situation? That should be the goal surely?

The main point of supplementary benefits like this is to enable people to be productive. I know people with great jobs who gave up working full time because of the costs of childcare. This makes people less productive and I can only assume that it will be even worse for those with lower incomes as childcare costs are the same for everyone.

I know there are lots of situations as you mention with disabilities etc but that's where the system needs smashing apart. We need a system that helps people to work and helps people to have kids and get along. We don't need a system that can't be arsed with problems so it just chucks out literal money.

I agree that help with childcare is just one aspect of a holistic welfare state. As you say, single parents with three young kinds aren't likely to be working full time - but then even part time, they'll be in the same situation. It's likely to cost more to put the three kids in childcare for an hour than any average job pays. So, it's not always the goal.

If you listen to what Labour say, they've also spoken about getting people into work. It's in their name, and they've spent 100 years arguing for a safety net, but one which encourages work. But just help with childcare won't work. If it did, the Tories would have abandoned the benefits system long ago, put the money into childcare, and would now be reaping the benefits of this perfect workforce. Realistically that's not how the world works.

Still, the issue that was being discussed was the two child benefit cap, not the whole benefits system. That policy doesn't save a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of things, isn't likely to affect many people's decisions (as very few people 'plan' for a life on benefits), and yet it has a huge negative effect on children's lives.

 

[Don Karleone]

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.

Apologies, I missed the second part of your post. So, we know the money is there and they want to get rid of it. What is the point of a Labour majority if they don't scrap policies they supposedly disagree with? What you're saying is we're in for more of the same with a bit more competency.

If you're happy with that, all power to you. I'm not.

 

[bluenova]

Apologies, I missed the second part of your post. So, we know the money is there and they want to get rid of it. What is the point of a Labour majority if they don't scrap policies they supposedly disagree with? What you're saying is we're in for more of the same with a bit more competency.

If you're happy with that, all power to you. I'm not.

I don't think we're in for more of the same, which is why I'm not as unhappy as you are.

It's a bit like that old joke about asking for directions, and being told, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here..."

We're 3 weeks out from the election, after 14 years of Tory destruction. When you look at the policies around the environment, or house building, or the pivot to prevention in the NHS, they're not 1 year, 2 year, or even 5 year projects. The real benefits of what Labour needs to do, need at least two terms in power, and likely more. Dropping the 2-child cap is something I expect will happen relatively early, but doing it now, just feeds into the narrative that Labour would say they're not going to overspend in power, but will do just that as soon as they have their hands on our taxes.

I'm genuinely depressed at those YouGov findings, and I suspect you weren't expecting to have called two thirds of the country "heartless knobheads" when you made the comment. But that's where we are. If we're back here at the next election, and Labour haven't done anything to address child poverty, then I'll agree with you, but right now, I don't believe that's likely.

 

[Eccles Blue]

I always give new players a season to settle in and they don’t have to clear up 14 years of selfish, lying Tory messes.
So I’ll give Labour more than three weeks to get to grips with the waste and the rest of the black holes that the money pot has allegedly gone into with strange contracts to the Tory’s cronies etc before I make quick judgments on them.

After maybe 6 to 12 months I’ll be more judgemental.:-)

With Long-Bailey I feel differently for other reasons but that’s another kettle of fish as we say. :-)

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Its owner is Bibby Line Group HQ in dipperland. The MD is Jebb Kitchen and yes he is a Tory Party donor. Where it is moored is owned by a family with Tory links and a history of donations who also gave a lot to UKIP

Family firm hosting controversial migrant barge donated £70,000 to UKIP

A family firm that is hosting the UK Government’s controversial migrant barge has been revealed to be a major UKIP donor.

www.thenational.scot

That was a joke, but not even remotely surprised to find out it's true.

 

[ROCKET80]

This was all just political theater.

Theatrics by the SNP for bringing an amendment that they knew was never going to get voted through, but can land an early blow on the new PM.

Theatrics from the rebels by voting against it. They knew it wouldn't pass, they knew the reasons for it (as they have done throughout the whole election campaign) and they knew the punishment for doing it. They did it anyway as it scored a 'moral victory' over the centre/left and the Corbynites send a message to Starmer.

Theatrics from Starmer, trying to show a sign of strength by suspending the rebels, and sending a message about any future rebellions.

You're naive to think this had anything to actually do with scrapping the two-child benefit limit.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It's genuinely akin to the Nazis hiding their gold and stealing what they can, I am not saying the Tories are Nazis but the principle of just stealing everything before you get caught out.

Who signed this shit off?

The most corrupt government in my lifetime. But they won't be punished, because we have a system when barely any legal recourse when it comes to shit people do in office.

I disagreed with everything Margaret Thatcher stood for, but at least she stood for something. This is a good interview about how the UK's whole system is built around this 'good chaps' doctrine that assume that all politicians are basically a bunch of good chaps who'll do right by the country:



He identifies Gordon Brown, Theresa May and John Major as the few former prime ministers who have not attempted to profit off their position after leaving office. Blair and Cameron have clearly used their position to profit and Truss is obviously looking to do so, but nobody seems that interested. He said there's nothing legally in place to stop Johnson from being kicked out and then having a meeting with Putin the next day. And in fact, he had a meeting with Maduro in Venezuela at the request of some hedge fund. So this is an ex-UK PM within a year of leaving office having a meeting with a leader that the UK considers illegitimate. In a familiar line, he broke the rules, but there's nothing they can do to actually enforce them. It all just runs on the good will of demonstrably corrupt individuals. And it's particularly an issue when a party has been in charge for that long, because the corrupt people are attracted to power. The longer a party is in power, the more likely it is to become filled with grifters who are only interested in their own gain. We'll likely see the same with Labour if they have over a decade in power.

 

[mexico1970]

The most corrupt government in my lifetime. But they won't be punished, because we have a system when barely any legal recourse when it comes to shit people do in office.

I disagreed with everything Margaret Thatcher stood for, but at least she stood for something. This is a good interview about how the UK's whole system is built around this 'good chaps' doctrine that assume that all politicians are basically a bunch of good chaps who'll do right by the country:



He identifies Gordon Brown, Theresa May and John Major as the few former prime ministers who have not attempted to profit off their position after leaving office. Blair and Cameron have clearly used their position to profit and Truss is obviously looking to do so, but nobody seems that interested. He said there's nothing legally in place to stop Johnson from being kicked out and then having a meeting with Putin the next day. And in fact, he had a meeting with Maduro in Venezuela at the request of some hedge fund. So this is an ex-UK PM within a year of leaving office having a meeting with a leader that the UK considers illegitimate. In a familiar line, he broke the rules, but there's nothing they can do to actually enforce them. It all just runs on the good will of demonstrably corrupt individuals. And it's particularly an issue when a party has been in charge for that long, because the corrupt people are attracted to power. The longer a party is in power, the more likely it is to become filled with grifters who are only interested in their own gain. We'll likely see the same with Labour if they have over a decade in power.

Very good fair balanced post mate.