The Labour Government

TinFoilHat said:
Fucking sad day when a President and a Presidential nominee tell their country how trade unions have raised their standard of living. Yet the leader of the party creates by the unions in the UK can't bare to talk about them for fear of being vilified by the Daily Heil
Click to expand...
Just talking to them
 
Don Karleone said:
I'm a carer for my missus and we haven't even been mentioned by the new Government apart from the fact that we need to "get back to work". I'm still thinking about others not getting what they need.
Click to expand...
I would have told the **** to fuck off. I salute your patience.

Talking of cunts I see Kendall and Milburn are teaming up .... you have every right to be concerned.




 
Lowtower said:
Quite cynical way of thinking, especially when it comes to the subject of child poverty. The rhetoric for a long while has been that anyone voting against anything is a "faction" or a "protest" which is a quite ridiculous way of thinking.

As for the Manifesto and standing by it, the party whip has been used far too much as time has gone by, to the point where it can be seen as sometimes having actual MPs there is pointless, I would expect any MP that I voted for to question things if it didn't sit straight (child poverty is up there of course) and any amendment should be looked at, and if it is deemed to be beneficial for the area they represent vote for it, not just toe the line.

Too many of our MPs are career politicians seeing Westminster as a way to future gains, shoehorned in to constituencies where they have zero concept of what really goes on nor really care, its a mess, and its not getting better, we need to seriously look at the selection process for MPs.
Click to expand...

If this was a year into the government's tenure, then it could be viewed as cynical. I agree that not every vote against is a protest/faction vote however, I believe this instance was. The government had only been in for 18 days, the SNP and the Labour MPs knew exactly what they were doing, they're not the moral crusaders in this story. For me, they are opportunistic bastards for using child poverty to score political points.

On the use of Whips and MP voting, this is just how Westminster works. It's why an MPs voting record is not an indication of what their actual views are (with the exception being conscience votes, but these are few and far between). Some amendments should be looked at, others are pure fantasy and should not be given the time of day. This amendment didn't sit straight at all; it was brought 5 days out from the vote and there was no detail to it, it was a fantasy amendment by the SNP with the only purpose being to bloody the nose of the new government, and the Labour MPs who voted for it knew this.

I'm not Starmer's biggest fan (I probably sit in the middle between the Blairites and the Corbanistas) but he doesn't have a magic wand (or billions of pounds in surplus) so I'll cut him some slack this early on considering he has 14 years of Tory fuckery to fix across the whole system. I'm sure there's going to be many things that he'll frustrate me on.

One could argue your last paragraph is cynical, albeit a statement I mostly agree with.
 
liveandletdive said:
Ah, the old child poverty sound bites, do you really think that by scrapping the 2 child benefit cap it will eradicate child poverty?
Click to expand...
No, but it's the single biggest thing we can do to reduce it. Child poverty throughout the 60s and 70s was hovering between 11% and 15%, and it skyrocketed the last time the Tories were in power to a peak of almost 30%. Now after 14 years of Tories, it's back up to 30% again (46% in families with three or more children).

It's the biggest thing you can invest in, because without it, nothing else will work. What's the point of investing in education, if a good chunk of the kids aren't turning up? We currently have record levels of non-attendance at school (150% higher than pre-covid), record levels of mental health problems amongst school kids, and let's be honest, we're likely to see record levels of physical health problems related to growing up in poverty. These kids are not going to do well, meaning they have no prospects later on, and they'll at best end up doing shit jobs and the cycle continues for their kids, and at worse, end up drawn to crime and other nefarious activities. Obviously you need to fund all of these things too, but if starts with giving kids a decent start in life no matter how poor their parents are.

But no, we don't have enough money to fund it, they say, as they collect the biggest tax bill in history and hand it out to various private companies that have monopolized assets that used to be owned by the state.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.