The Labour Government

[meltonblue]

Apologies, my mistake. I had always thought student debt was repaid before tax (it’s calculated on pre tax but taken after tax) - hence if you paid their debt you’d be paying more as you’re paying + whatever your tax rate is. That’s very wrong IMHO and should be changed. Why? Because when it’s taken after tax it ends up being an increased tax rate so you have two people earning the same who pay different rates of tax based on their education path. As a principle tax should always be fair.

Overall the student debt is getting out of control and going to get worse. You can see why the government have no interest in saving universities with cash injections and why Sunak wanted to make sure students were on “worthwhile” courses - not for the interests of the students but this mountain of debt that exists and won’t ever be paid off in full and is getting much larger. When you consider a large chunk of the maintenance loan goes to private landlords (and often needs topping up by parents) the government needs to somehow get across rents in this sector. My second daughter just qualified as a midwife and she says her debt is about £76k… how is a midwife ever paying that off when they chuck the interest on top. I appreciate she has particular circumstances that meant her debt is likely higher than usual but it’s bonkers numbers. Will be a similar story for teachers and other public sector workers even if the numbers are a “mere” £40-50k + interest.

I wouldn’t personally pay the government back under any circumstances, this a beast of their own making, I’d rather put the £76k in to an appreciating asset such as a house for them if it was laying around spare.

Like I said in a different post, I’m making the decision year on year, we have a plan for after uni depending what he decides to do and whatever life happens to throw :)

Completely agree with your sentiment there.

 

[bluenova]

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.

'Semantic nonsense' is an insult? That's almost meta - semantic nonsense about semantic nonsense ;)

I'll take it that calling my argument 'absurd' in your very first reply, was you following the "standard playbook when the argument is lost"?

 

[Brewster's millions]

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.

I didn’t expect the government’s approach and its policy to change at all, nor I believe did @metalblue, and you’re being disingenuous to suggest as such.

I fully expected the vote to retain the child benefit cap, because that is the government policy, as outlined in the Labour Party manifesto. The only oddity is people pretending that it isn’t.

 

[BrianW]

My guess is that this policy will be revisited, once it is reasonable to claim that the country can 'afford' it.

Let's not kid ourselves. Tactics come into politics as much as in football. What's more, scrapping this policy does not have overwhelming public support, in fact, many strongly object to 'paying for other people's kids' - as they see it.

Morals don't come into it, and 'fairness' is an abstract. Let's be positive and put it this way. Labour is trying to benefit the whole country. It's a long-term project and they have only so much room for manoeuvre. They want a second term, and ideally a third and at this point they are being ultra-cautious. They have a hostile press and a load of bigots to manage. They don't want to give them ammunition at this stage as they are already picking holes in everything Labour do.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

With all the noise, I didn’t even realise this amendment that they voted on wasn’t actually to lift the two-child benefit cap at all.

It was an amendment to alter the King’s Speech to add a line about lifting the two-child benefit cap.

So of no actual practical value other than to signal confidence in the government’s priorities as outlined in the speech.

If people are going to fall on their sword you’d think it would be over an actual policy position rather than something not being mentioned in a symbolic speech with no actual legislative power.

Weird some would vote no confidence in what is effectively the canonising of their own manifesto.

 

[meltonblue]

I didn’t expect the government’s approach and its policy to change at all, nor I believe did @metalblue, and you’re being disingenuous to suggest as such.

I fully expected the vote to retain the child benefit cap, because that is the government policy, as outlined in the Labour Party manifesto. The only oddity is people pretending that it isn’t.

It’s not outlined in the Labour Party manifesto though. Did you mean you expected the vote to retain the child benefit as the manifesto didn’t mention scrapping it?

 

[bluethrunthru]

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.

first vote - small revolt so you lay down a marker on Party discipline

 

[bluebc]

Is there a more dislikable M.P than this tit at the minute ?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Is there a more dislikable M.P than this tit at the minute ? View attachment 126258

Yes.

 

[inbetween]

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.

I think my point on smashing the system apart is because you're subscribing to changing an already broken Tory system, IE, universal credit.

I seriously doubt that Labour will keep this system so in the meantime they're not going to put energy into tweaking it and then make all of the fiscal changes required to fund it, plus it would take months to actually implement anyway. They have been in power for just 3 weeks so it's ridiculous to pass any judgement right now.

This is all despite the rattling of the serial protesters who could of waited but couldn't wait to land a blow on their own leader just 3 weeks after he won them their seats. Let's face it they will probably end up as independents eventually given the brutality Starmer has shown so far towards dissenters.