The Labour Government

Don Karleone said:
There are plenty of ways to fund it, they're choosing not to.





cool.gif
Click to expand...
They have chosen not to, because it was clear as day that they haven’t had chance to look at where they can fund it from. It was specifically left out of the manifesto with Starmer stating that he wanted to reverse it but didn’t know how to fund it.

As for the political gain, they’ve brought this to see how weak the leadership is by using an emotive subject to test them, just like you are using it to attack the centre of the party.

What’s your thoughts on Rayner and many of the left of the party voting to retain it, are they cunts as well or are they toeing the party line and allowing the party to bring a proper policy to the country that will eradicate the shitshow that we see now.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
They have chosen not to, because it was clear as day that they haven’t had chance to look at where they can fund it from. It was specifically left out of the manifesto with Starmer stating that he wanted to reverse it but didn’t know how to fund it.

As for the political gain, they’ve brought this to see how weak the leadership is by using an emotive subject to test them, just like you are using it to attack the centre of the party.

What’s your thoughts on Rayner and many of the left of the party voting to retain it, are they cunts as well or are they toeing the party line and allowing the party to bring a proper policy to the country that will eradicate the shitshow that we see now.
Click to expand...

Go away with all this "they can't fund it" bollocks. Plenty of money for other stuff but not for something that will make an actual difference.

If you voted against the amendment or abstained without a valid reason, you're a ****. That's my thoughts.
 
Don Karleone said:
Go away with all this "they can't fund it" bollocks. Plenty of money for other stuff but not for something that will make an actual difference.

If you voted against the amendment or abstained without a valid reason, you're a ****. That's my thoughts.
Click to expand...

So they should just click there fingers and say yes to 3.4 billion a year just like that when they’ve only been in power a few weeks ?

Soon as there’s a whiff of a tax rise the same Karleone anger will be shown all over the country.
 
Seven out of a maj of 181 is a fly on a cows arse and inconsequential. My guess is the cancellation of the Bibby Stockholm contract renewal and other steps taken and to come will be saving money to be put to use and this 7 could be made to look damn stupid for a performative knee jerk reaction like this - 18 days in FFS

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour suspends seven rebel MPs over two-child benefit cap

The government comfortably won the vote despite growing pressure from some of its own MPs to scrap the policy.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Don Karleone said:
Go away with all this "they can't fund it" bollocks. Plenty of money for other stuff but not for something that will make an actual difference.

If you voted against the amendment or abstained without a valid reason, you're a ****. That's my thoughts.
Click to expand...
So, that’s most of them on the left of the party.

Personally, I’m with you, this needs to be sorted, and quickly. What they can’t do is be beholden to those who want to bring them down at the first turn.

This will come, but in a far better way of protecting those that need it.
 
TinFoilHat said:
Interestingly they might give teachers a bigger pay rise than 5.5% as part of reformation of schools and education curriculum policy.

They are looking for incentives to retain teachers as well as encourage new people into the role.
Click to expand...
Well, this is a bad policy, isn't it? 'Incentives' are for the rich and greedy.

Humble plebs should be grateful for whatever pittance they are offered, and doff their caps in gratitude.

I always find it funny that such fundamental concepts as supply and demand, which every Tory should understand, are somehow not supposed to apply to the public sector. Maybe they think public sector workers go to work for the crack, have all inherited a house and don't need to eat or pay utility bills.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
So they should just click there fingers and say yes to 3.4 billion a year just like that when they’ve only been in power a few weeks ?

Soon as there’s a whiff of a tax rise the same Karleone anger will be shown all over the country.
Click to expand...


They had no trouble saying yes to £3bn a year for Ukraine for as long as it takes. Fiscal rules go out of the window when it comes to war, apparently. It can be funded, they're choosing not to.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Fiscal competence. If he had lost the vote, what Reeves had been put in place on the messaging if fiscal competence would have been undermined.

It needs to go, but they need to find a credible way to "fund it".
Click to expand...
He was never going to lose the vote so we can disregard that bit and that fiscal competence defence doesn't really stack up. It costs the equivalent of the recent annual pledge to Ukraine, where fiscal justification is not even remotely part of the debate.
 
Don Karleone said:
They had no trouble saying yes to £3bn a year for Ukraine for as long as it takes. Fiscal rules go out of the window when it comes to war, apparently. It can be funded, they're choosing not to.
Click to expand...
I have always said that if there was a war tomorrow, they would find the money for that. Chamberlain didn't get an estimate before declaring war in '39.

The main problems are 1. The country is deeply in debt. Labour remembers Truss and doesn't want to scare the markets. 2. People have been promised no increases in the main taxes and will be jolly cross if that promise is broken. (I do expect some 'non-main' taxes to rise BTW but I suspect they want to go gently at this point.)
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
So, that’s most of them on the left of the party.

Personally, I’m with you, this needs to be sorted, and quickly. What they can’t do is be beholden to those who want to bring them down at the first turn.

This will come, but in a far better way of protecting those that need it.
Click to expand...


Most of the left of the party was a massive disappointment anyway. We were told for months that they couldn't do anything if they were not in power. Well now they have that power and they're doing nothing. This policy now has Labour's name all over it.
 
Postman Pep said:
He was never going to lose the vote so we can disregard that bit and that fiscal competence defence doesn't really stack up. It costs the equivalent of the recent annual pledge to Ukraine, where fiscal justification is not even remotely part of the debate.
Click to expand...

All very good points mate. I was only acting as translator not that I believe it.

I would pick Zarah Sultana to lead the new Rebel Alliance btw.

Any chance there's any other Co-operative MPs who might be tempted to defect?
 
Don Karleone said:
They had no trouble saying yes to £3bn a year for Ukraine for as long as it takes. Fiscal rules go out of the window when it comes to war, apparently. It can be funded, they're choosing not to.
Click to expand...

Surely got to give them more than a few weeks right ?
They’re already no doubt planning huge funding for schools, teachers, NHS and other welfare programs.
For now the benifit cap stays in place but that’s not to say it will be the same in a year or two.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Surely got to give them more than a few weeks right ?
They’re already no doubt planning huge funding for schools, teachers, NHS and other welfare programs.
For now the benefit cap stays in place but that’s not to say it will be the same in a year or two.
Click to expand...
Why should kids have to live in poverty for another two years?

It's going to have a serious detrimental effect on their life chances in the future.
 
BrianW said:
I have always said that if there was a war tomorrow, they would find the money for that. Chamberlain didn't get an estimate before declaring war in '39.

The main problems are 1. The country is deeply in debt. Labour remembers Truss and doesn't want to scare the markets. 2. People have been promised no increases in the main taxes and will be jolly cross if that promise is broken. (I do expect some 'non-main' taxes to rise BTW but I suspect they want to go gently at this point.)
Click to expand...


I keep repeating myself but the money is there, this is a choice they've made. I'd like some of it to go to the less off in society and those who are repeatedly forgotten.
 
BrianW said:
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.
Click to expand...
I meant evidence was indicating that it was acting as a deterrent, despite us not sending anyone to Rwanda.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Surely got to give them more than a few weeks right ?
They’re already no doubt planning huge funding for schools, teachers, NHS and other welfare programs.
For now the benifit cap stays in place but that’s not to say it will be the same in a year or two.
Click to expand...


They've literally just suspended MP's who voted to take kids out of poverty. They have actual power now. They could make a difference NOW. They chose not to.
 
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