The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Rugeley Villa]

I heard him reference the two child cap saying it played a big part in child poverty but obviously there’s only so much you can realistically do. 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

This is the conclusion you come to after 2 weeks in government, spectacular

 

I take it you do not mind then that they are not reversing a very unpopular Conservative policy then

Hence the comment. You wouldnt expect a labour government to keep that

[Demitri_C]

15 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Yes, yes. That's it. They've not raised the 2 child cap so they're as bad as The Conservative party. 

See my comment above and answer that. Some of you will never criticise the labour party on anything. 

Thia is dreadful that they are not reversing this

Edited July 18 by Demitri_C

[sidcow]

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

See my comment above and answer that. Some of you will never criticise the labour party on anything. 

Thia is dreadful that they are not reversing this

There is no money to do so.  They can't just do a Truss and make loads of unfunded promises.    I'm sure it's something they'll get around to at some point but they had to pick what to deliver in the first couple of years and this was never one of those things.

[Davkaus]

9 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I take it you do not mind then that they are not reversing a very unpopular Conservative policy then

Hence the comment. You wouldnt expect a labour government to keep that

I think this specific policy is bollocks, and I'd like them to bin it.

I don't think it makes them "as bad as the conservatives" though, for two reasons:

1. It's a single policy out of dozens or hundreds, at worst they're as bad as the Conservatives on this one policy

2. The tories deliberately scrapped it in 2017 while pissing money up the wall on all kinds of bollocks. Restoring it and rediscovering the money in 2024 is slightly more challenging a proposition.

The UK government spend annually was about £1,200bn in the 22-23 FY, it's estimated that scrapping the cap would cost about 3bn per year. I'd like to think there's somewhere to find that money, and I also think it's more worthy of the investment than, e.g., Great British Energy, but it would be 3bn a year, every year, and if they dropped that in after the GE I'm bloody certain we'd be hearing people screaming from the hilltops about unfunded spending.

They've announced this "taskforce" for child poverty, and I'd like to imagine that sooner or later it'll lead to scrapping this cap, but we shall see.

Edited July 18 by Davkaus

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

 They can't just do a Truss and make loads of unfunded promises.    

Liz's legal team will be in touch, she did a bang up job and she's fed up of everyone slandering her  

[Demitri_C]

20 minutes ago, sidcow said:

There is no money to do so.  They can't just do a Truss and make loads of unfunded promises.    I'm sure it's something they'll get around to at some point but they had to pick what to deliver in the first couple of years and this was never one of those things.

Is that the excuses we are going to make though for poor decisions? There is no money? Im sorry but i can't accept that for those who are suffering the most. 

19 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think this specific policy is bollocks, and I'd like them to bin it.

I don't think it makes them "as bad as the conservatives" though, for two reasons:

1. It's a single policy out of dozens or hundreds, at worst they're as bad as the Conservatives on this one policy

2. The tories deliberately scrapped it in 2017 while pissing money up the wall on all kinds of bollocks. Restoring it and rediscovering the money in 2024 is slightly more challenging a proposition.

The UK government spend annually was about £1,200bn in the 22-23 FY, it's estimated that scrapping the cap would cost about 3bn per year. I'd like to think there's somewhere to find that money, and I also think it's more worthy of the investment than, e.g., Great British Energy, but it would be 3bn a year, every year, and if they dropped that in after the GE I'm bloody certain we'd be hearing people screaming from the hilltops about unfunded spending.

They've announced this "taskforce" for child poverty, and I'd like to imagine that sooner or later it'll lead to scrapping this cap, but we shall see.

Fair enough i respect your argument why but for the start is when you should see some positive changes. This is a deeply unpopular tory policty and not veey "labour" if he really wanted to show us that they will be different he would start by saying i planned to abolish this  by this date. But to simply say you are keeping it is poor and very tory

Assigning a "task force" to me just seems like we know the problem but we will make out we are doing something to please people. Needs to go into more details what they intend to do if anything at all.

 

Im sorry but they deserve criticism for this one

Edited July 18 by Demitri_C

[Chindie]

Great British Energy is a bit of a Trojan horse of a policy anyway. It's an investment fund with a narrow, potentially 'good', appetite, but it's being sold like they're setting up a new nationalised utility company.

[Davkaus]

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Im sorry but they deserve criticism for this one

If this is where you'd started you'd have had no disagreement from me  

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

They've announced this "taskforce" for child poverty, and I'd like to imagine that sooner or later it'll lead to scrapping this cap, but we shall see.

It’s not an area I know much about, but that doesn’t seem to stop lots of people on the internet, so isn’t it an example of a complex problem being narrowed down to to a simple “solution”?  I mean people are in relative poverty for more reasons than the absence of benefits for more than 2 kids, surely?  What about “because wages are low” or “housing and energy costs are too high” or “inflation” or “fuel costs” or “public transport costs”? It’s kind of a sticking plaster rather than a solution. Sure, we don’t live in an ideal world where no one needs benefits and more child benefit would clearly help people with more than 2 kids and therefore help the kids, which ought to be high up on the agenda, but there must be other ways to help people that are more sustainable than handing out 3 billion quid a year?

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

It’s not an area I know much about, but that doesn’t seem to stop lots of people on the internet, so isn’t it an example of a complex problem being narrowed down to to a simple “solution”?  I mean people are in relative poverty for more reasons than the absence of benefits for more than 2 kids, surely?  What about “because wages are low” or “housing and energy costs are too high” or “inflation” or “fuel costs” or “public transport costs”? It’s kind of a sticking plaster rather than a solution. Sure, we don’t live in an ideal world where no one needs benefits and more child benefit would clearly help people with more than 2 kids and therefore help the kids, which ought to be high up on the agenda, but there must be other ways to help people that are more sustainable than handing out 3 billion quid a year?

There must be all kinds of better long-term solutions - others to add to your list are better wrap-around care, more available childcare that doesn't require topping up, and that's just off the top of my head a couple of options to make it easier for parents to get back to work

One of the things going for the child benefit cap is it's a very fast win - it's estimated to lift 300,000 kids out of poverty within weeks, so potentially a short-term sticking plaster solution while sorting out *waves hands* all of this **** mess.

I also think whatever other improvements you make there may still be something to be said for removing this cap on the safety net for larger families though. You can improve wages and improve the economy, but sometimes a family is just going to be down on their luck, lose their high paying job, and need more support. It also does act as a small financial incentive to support people thinking about having kids who are on the cusp of being able to afford them, and despite some people's rhetoric about "well don't bloody have kids if you can't afford them", with our aging demographics, we should probably be actively encouraging more people to have more kids, and at a younger age, even if that means some financial support from the taxpayer.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

It also does act as a small financial incentive to support people thinking about having kids who are on the cusp of being able to afford them

Your whole post is fair comment. This bit though? Surely if you’ve got 2 already and are a bit stretched financially, perhaps (unless you have triplets first time), sell one of the existing kids for science or chimney sweeping work to pay for a new one?

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

There must be all kinds of better long-term solutions - others to add to your list are better wrap-around care, more available childcare that doesn't require topping up, and that's just off the top of my head a couple of options to make it easier for parents to get back to work

One of the things going for the child benefit cap is it's a very fast win - it's estimated to lift 300,000 kids out of poverty within weeks, so potentially a short-term sticking plaster solution while sorting out *waves hands* all of this **** mess.

I also think whatever other improvements you make there may still be something to be said for removing this cap on the safety net for larger families though. You can improve wages and improve the economy, but sometimes a family is just going to be down on their luck, lose their high paying job, and need more support. It also does act as a small financial incentive to support people thinking about having kids who are on the cusp of being able to afford them, and despite some people's rhetoric about "well don't bloody have kids if you can't afford them", with our aging demographics, we should probably be actively encouraging more people to have more kids, and at a younger age, even if that means some financial support from the taxpayer.

If we are to work out whether we can afford to have kids, I’d expect the answer to be ‘no’ for about 90% of the population.

On the 2 child cap, would people have that open ended, more money for having 5, a bit more for having 7, then 8,9,10?

Or is the 2 child limit cruel but a 4 child limit fair?

Overall this new govt is currently planning to cut budgets. If we give money to Wayne and Waynetta for their third kid, who do we take it off?

We need to remember the money tree is selective and intermittent.

[Genie]

47 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Is that the excuses we are going to make though for poor decisions?

Like having more than 2 children when you can’t afford to feed the ones you already have

[Davkaus]

51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If we are to work out whether we can afford to have kids, I’d expect the answer to be ‘no’ for about 90% of the population.

On the 2 child cap, would people have that open ended, more money for having 5, a bit more for having 7, then 8,9,10?

Or is the 2 child limit cruel but a 4 child limit fair?

 

49 minutes ago, Genie said:

Like having more than 2 children when you can’t afford to feed the ones you already have

I've got the solution, at the earliest opportunity (ideally prior to conception, but no later than 16 weeks gestation), the mother must report to the DWP with her bank statements and proposed financial plans, and the assessor can sign off on it being a viable financial decision, and the state will insure them to cover additional benefits if unforeseen changes in circumstances result in hardship.

Should the proposal be deemed unsatisfactory, or the mother have already reproduced with profligacy, the DWP can dispense an agent to kick her in the stomach.

Oh hang on, wrong meeting, that's for the next Reform manifesto  

[bannedfromHandV]

Appreciate its missing the point but, as someone without children I have to question why anyone needs more than two kids and further still why the government should have to prop them up in that endeavour.

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

 

On the 2 child cap, would people have that open ended, more money for having 5, a bit more for having 7, then 8,9,10?

Or is the 2 child limit cruel but a 4 child limit fair?

 

This does deserve a more serious answer though, and my honest answer is I don't know

Perhaps a cap at a "come on, you're taking the piss" level is reasonable - it seems it should probably be at a level that's above 2 though, certainly as that's a birth rate below our level for replenishing the population, and I think if you have 5 kids when you can well afford it and and then your circumstances change, we should maybe help keep the kids fed and warm.

Did we have non-trivial amounts of families pumping out kid after kid before the cap of 2 was introduced, and did that stop? I mean, it's less than £900 per additional kid, I can't imagine people are having extra kids to make a profit on them.

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Appreciate its missing the point but, as someone without children I have to question why anyone needs more than two kids and further still why the government should have to prop them up in that endeavour.

Our current birth rate is 1.49 births per woman, and it's falling year on year and has been for a long time, which is leading to a bit of a crisis with the aging population and the pensions timebomb that's waiting for us.

We require 2.1 in order to maintain the steady population - the alternative of course is we tell these people who can't afford the luxury of kids to jog on, and we maintain the population with more immigration.

Plenty of people will have no kids, through choice or otherwise, plenty will only have 1. So we either need other people to be having more, or we address the population issues in other ways.

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Appreciate its missing the point but, as someone without children I have to question why anyone needs more than two kids and further still why the government should have to prop them up in that endeavour.

If we can’t import Malaysians to look after us when we’re old we kinda need to make our own carers.

Although I guess we can have a system where you’re level of care later in life is graded on whether you have provided children for the continuation of the state and whether you have objected to immigration.

A childless tory really would be needing to just look after themselves, which would be sweet when you think about it. 

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Our current birth rate is 1.49 births per woman, and it's falling year on year and has been for a long time, which is leading to a bit of a crisis with the aging population and the pensions timebomb that's waiting for us.

We require 2.1 in order to maintain the steady population - the alternative of course is we tell these people who can't afford the luxury of kids to jog on, and we maintain the population with more immigration.

Plenty of people will have no kids, through choice or otherwise, plenty will only have 1. So we either need other people to be having more, or we address the population issues in other ways.

Or to put it in a slightly more confrontational way "some people need to have more than two kids to cover the shortfall left by the selfish people who choose to have none"

Disclaimers - I know that some people cannot rather than choose not. I also don't have more than two kids, so am part of the problem rather than the solution.