The Labour Government

[bluenova]

You can only hope someone had warned them this is how parliament works. They don’t get to choose what is voted on, only how they vote.

They voted to keep it. It’s what having a majority allows you to do, decide on policy.

You and @Brewster's millions are not stupid. You both know what was in the Labour manifesto, and the thousand and one times they've said it will only contain policies they can fund through immediate savings.

How many hundreds of interviews have ministers done saying that there are things they'd "like to do" but not until they can identify how to fund them. Expecting that to change, when we've not even had the first budget, and just because of some performative politics from the SNP, is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[metalblue]

You and @Brewster's millions are not stupid. You both know what was in the Labour manifesto, and the thousand and one times they've said it will only contain policies they can fund through immediate savings.

How many hundreds of interviews have ministers done saying that there are things they'd "like to do" but not until they can identify how to fund them. Expecting that to change, when we've not even had the first budget, and just because of some performative politics from the SNP, is disingenuous to say the least.

Ok so to summarise they said they would keep the 2 child cap or didn’t say they would remove it (for whatever valid reasons). They voted to keep the 2 child cap.

But apparently it’s not Labour policy how exactly?

 

[Vic]

So if the new non-fascist Tory party puts forward an amendment to bring back Sure Start, and Labour votes against, that means that closing the Sure Start programme in 2011 was a Labour policy not a Tory/LibDem policy?

 

[metalblue]

So if the new non-fascist Tory party puts forward an amendment to bring back Sure Start, and Labour votes against, that means that closing the Sure Start programme in 2011 was a Labour policy not a Tory/LibDem policy?

It would mean keeping them closed is Labour’s policy at that point in time.

Having a stonking majority and being in power allows you to undo all the bad things you said the previous government did. Of course they can’t wave a magic wand and undo everything (and I’ve been clear to say their reasoning is irrelevant to the point) but to pretend this isn’t current Labour policy is sticking the proverbial head in the sand and coming across as far too invested in the minutiae.

This does not mean it will still be Labour policy next year. It’s called being the government.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

You and @Brewster's millions are not stupid. You both know what was in the Labour manifesto, and the thousand and one times they've said it will only contain policies they can fund through immediate savings.

How many hundreds of interviews have ministers done saying that there are things they'd "like to do" but not until they can identify how to fund them. Expecting that to change, when we've not even had the first budget, and just because of some performative politics from the SNP, is disingenuous to say the least.

You’ll be going around in circles, mate. Those, both on the left and right of the political spectrum have been hurt by Labour taking the centre ground. So anything, absolutely anything that they can throw at them is a way to get the tantrums in.

On the actual subject, I’d personally like to see a total reform of the way these benefits are paid. I’d look to scrap child benefit in favour of a more structured overall system where those who need it are able to afford at least a minimal level of funding to be able to have a decent existence.

Child benefit for everybody is a bit of a farce in this modern day.

 

[bluenova]

It would mean keeping them closed is Labour’s policy at that point in time.

Having a stonking majority and being in power allows you to undo all the bad things you said the previous government did. Of course they can’t wave a magic wand and undo everything (and I’ve been clear to say their reasoning is irrelevant to the point) but to pretend this isn’t current Labour policy is sticking the proverbial head in the sand and coming across as far too invested in the minutiae.

This does not mean it will still be Labour policy next year. It’s called being the government.

It's semantic nonsense.

 

[BrianW]

I was pretty clear from the Labour Manifesto (and what they said) that their priority was not to increase tax and only make progress as and when it could be 'afforded'.

While there is always some dishonesty about what a sovereign state with its own fiat currency can 'afford', I am scarcely surprised that they are being restrained at this early stage when the new ministers have barely settled their arses onto their office chairs.

We did not elect a radical left government. The last chap who went to the country with that prospectus got smashed by that lying fucker Johnson. But that's how 'democracy' works.

 

[metalblue]

It's semantic nonsense.

I guess we’re in the realms of insults now. Standard playbook when the argument is lost and you unable to make any case for why this is not current Labour policy.

Think we’re done here.

 

[metalblue]

I was pretty clear from the Labour Manifesto (and what they said) that their priority was not to increase tax and only make progress as and when it could be 'afforded'.

While there is always some dishonesty about what a sovereign state with its own fiat currency can 'afford', I am scarcely surprised that they are being restrained at this early stage when the new ministers have barely settled their arses onto their office chairs.

We did not elect a radical left government. The last chap who went to the country with that prospectus got smashed by that lying fucker Johnson. But that's how 'democracy' works.

So it’s Labour policy. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever and I’ve no idea why some people are so hung up on trying to prove it isn’t. If you voted for them, they are doing what they said they would do. Nobody can have issue with that - we accept as voters no government will entirely satisfy what we want and it’s ok to disagree with them even if you voted for them.

I can understand why Starmer would be annoyed that some voted against a manifesto they stood on. I guess part of that is driven by a tendency in our politics to “don’t listen to what I say, but listen to what I don’t say”.

 

[Vienna_70]

I think it’s pathetic that Labour has withdrawn the whip from those MPs, who voted against the government.

It’s the sort of thing I’d expect from the Tories, but I was surprised that Labour would take such actions.

It seems rather petty to me.