|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jul 22, 2024 21:18:19 GMT
I have to say it's quite the mind fuck seeing the Duopoly swap sides. We no longer have Rayner and Starmer telling us how bad the 2 child benefit cap is and the amount of kids in poverty while the tories do nothing. Now we have Suella taking up the opposition role where she tells us how bad the cap is while labour do nothing. Got to love the Duopoly. They're very good at acting out their roles. Just a shame neither of them fight for the working man when in power. At least they always have the other cheek to blame for that though. When labour do scrap it, how will you respond?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 22, 2024 22:45:33 GMT
I have to say it's quite the mind fuck seeing the Duopoly swap sides. We no longer have Rayner and Starmer telling us how bad the 2 child benefit cap is and the amount of kids in poverty while the tories do nothing. Now we have Suella taking up the opposition role where she tells us how bad the cap is while labour do nothing. Got to love the Duopoly. They're very good at acting out their roles. Just a shame neither of them fight for the working man when in power. At least they always have the other cheek to blame for that though. When labour do scrap it, how will you respond? "Well done. Now don't use it as an excuse to raise taxes on the poorest while inequality is rife." I'm surprised they didn't scrap it last week ahead of the kings speech but I do believe it is due. I think the 2 child benefit cap will be lifted today, just have a hunch. Surely post election labour can see they've got little buy in from the public. Reversing the cap could see them garner alot of support. Just feel they need to do something big today which wasn't on the manifesto. Or maybe I'm just being hopelessly optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2024 23:33:59 GMT
hence i believe uk law should apply uk wide not separate countries. but im happy to have a mayor of north scotland, mid wales etc like england do. to have some sort of region governance I think devolution creates division instead of enhancing unity Unity means 83.5% of MPs from England imposing the law on the other countries. That's a dictatorship. However if each country was to get a fair share of representatives and an equal vote then I fully support your suggestion. 25% of the MPs from each country to vote on things affecting whole of UK. Then a mayor for the different regions to handle more devolved stuff too. There are 56 million people in England. Should the 1.9 million people in NI have the same amount of say as 56 million others? How is that democracy?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 0:26:04 GMT
Unity means 83.5% of MPs from England imposing the law on the other countries. That's a dictatorship. However if each country was to get a fair share of representatives and an equal vote then I fully support your suggestion. 25% of the MPs from each country to vote on things affecting whole of UK. Then a mayor for the different regions to handle more devolved stuff too. There are 56 million people in England. Should the 1.9 million people in NI have the same amount of say as 56 million others? How is that democracy? It isn't and I'm probably being slightly pedantic. But the poster doesn't believe in devolved parliments for Wales/Ni/Scotland. So if England want more of a say on our devolved laws that's fine. Give us equal say on England's bar the stuff devolved to mayor's. It's also not democratic to base number of MPs solely off population either in my opinion. Scotland and Northern Ireland cover over 50x the land of London. But London pretty much has the same amount of MPs as Scotland and NI added together. London also gets (or at least used to) the highest public spending per person. Despite being the most densely populated which should make it the cheapest really. Much cheaper to cover public transport, roads, sewage, gas, healthcare, education, warer and electric for a 100 people in a 1 mile radius than it is to cover for 100 people spread across 50 miles which all need to be connected.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 1:52:56 GMT
When labour do scrap it, how will you respond? "Well done. Now don't use it as an excuse to raise taxes on the poorest while inequality is rife." I'm surprised they didn't scrap it last week ahead of the kings speech but I do believe it is due. I think the 2 child benefit cap will be lifted today, just have a hunch. Surely post election labour can see they've got little buy in from the public. Reversing the cap could see them garner alot of support. Just feel they need to do something big today which wasn't on the manifesto. Or maybe I'm just being hopelessly optimistic. The 2 child benefit cap could not have been scrapped either ahead of or in the Kings Speech it requires a Fiscal Event to do so as I previously pointed out to you. The next Fiscal Event is the Autumn Statement. I thought you understood that when I pointed this out to you when you originally made the post above and have now repeated. We have seen the negative impact of an unplanned Fiscal Event when Liz Truss became PM very briefly and announced unfunded Tax Cuts and how the Markets reacted. If Rachel Reeves had also broke precedent and somehow announced £16Bn of unfunded Benefits having said all through the Election Campaign that's exactly what it wouldn’t do, goodness knows how the Markets would have reacted On a point of correction your post Dave replied, UK doesn't have a Duopoly Democratic System but a 2 1/2 Party System like Germany, Australia, Austria, Canada and Ireland for instance as other examples. As recently as 2010 the Conservative Party required LibDems to form a Government. If you look back on this very thread before Conservatives completely imploded the speculation was about whether Labour could possibly achieve an overall Majority or if it would require SNP (prior to their implosion) or LibDems to form a Government. The latter was my preferred choice if you care to look back. Of course there is no impediment in voting for any Political Party outside of Labour and Conservative and if they achieve a critical mass even under FPTP they will achieve Electoral success.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 2:00:13 GMT
There are 56 million people in England. Should the 1.9 million people in NI have the same amount of say as 56 million others? How is that democracy? It isn't and I'm probably being slightly pedantic. But the poster doesn't believe in devolved parliments for Wales/Ni/Scotland. So if England want more of a say on our devolved laws that's fine. Give us equal say on England's bar the stuff devolved to mayor's. It's also not democratic to base number of MPs solely off population either in my opinion. Scotland and Northern Ireland cover over 50x the land of London. But London pretty much has the same amount of MPs as Scotland and NI added together. London also gets (or at least used to) the highest public spending per person. Despite being the most densely populated which should make it the cheapest really. Much cheaper to cover public transport, roads, sewage, gas, healthcare, education, warer and electric for a 100 people in a 1 mile radius than it is to cover for 100 people spread across 50 miles which all need to be connected. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/financialyearending2023
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 11:12:30 GMT
It isn't and I'm probably being slightly pedantic. But the poster doesn't believe in devolved parliments for Wales/Ni/Scotland. So if England want more of a say on our devolved laws that's fine. Give us equal say on England's bar the stuff devolved to mayor's. It's also not democratic to base number of MPs solely off population either in my opinion. Scotland and Northern Ireland cover over 50x the land of London. But London pretty much has the same amount of MPs as Scotland and NI added together. London also gets (or at least used to) the highest public spending per person. Despite being the most densely populated which should make it the cheapest really. Much cheaper to cover public transport, roads, sewage, gas, healthcare, education, warer and electric for a 100 people in a 1 mile radius than it is to cover for 100 people spread across 50 miles which all need to be connected. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/financialyearending2023Is the net fiscal surplus meant to be a justification for the most densely populated region to get the most funding per person? Of course London is going to have a fiscal surplus. Doesn't mean it's a justification. Higher wages and living costs to begin with are going to result in increased tax revenue and vat receipts. Plus London is very much run like a profit centre which misleads alot of these figures too (never made the hugely inflated wages and living costs which also contribute. Most of the big companies have their HQ in London and as a result profit attribution going to HQ misleads figures even though alot of the economic activity generating the profits occurs outside of London. Same goes for accounting being centralised which again results in revenues being booked in London while regional offices are run like cost centres. Then there is the fact it's also home to many service jobs which again tend to have higher profits and wages. In my opinion it is important to interpret these figures with an understanding of the different underlying factors. Wage inflation, the headquarters effect, and the concentration of high-profit industries in London all contribute to the surplus. We don't have to be so London/South East centric. We need to take into account these different factors and how they contribute to regional fiscal contributions and actually address regional inequalities. In my own company we have similar offices with centralised services which charge back costs to the regional offices and thus show significant more profits but it's not reflective of the bigger picture. And back to my original point. Population density also needs to be taken into account when it comes to any form of funding.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 11:35:08 GMT
A step in the right direction. I'll judge them on the results.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 12:36:33 GMT
Is the net fiscal surplus meant to be a justification for the most densely populated region to get the most funding per person? Of course London is going to have a fiscal surplus. Doesn't mean it's a justification. Higher wages and living costs to begin with are going to result in increased tax revenue and vat receipts. Plus London is very much run like a profit centre which misleads alot of these figures too (never made the hugely inflated wages and living costs which also contribute. Most of the big companies have their HQ in London and as a result profit attribution going to HQ misleads figures even though alot of the economic activity generating the profits occurs outside of London. Same goes for accounting being centralised which again results in revenues being booked in London while regional offices are run like cost centres. Then there is the fact it's also home to many service jobs which again tend to have higher profits and wages. In my opinion it is important to interpret these figures with an understanding of the different underlying factors. Wage inflation, the headquarters effect, and the concentration of high-profit industries in London all contribute to the surplus. We don't have to be so London/South East centric. We need to take into account these different factors and how they contribute to regional fiscal contributions and actually address regional inequalities. In my own company we have similar offices with centralised services which charge back costs to the regional offices and thus show significant more profits but it's not reflective of the bigger picture. And back to my original point. Population density also needs to be taken into account when it comes to any form of funding. You know very well that I have criticised the Barnett Formula several times because it Is based on population not need. It needs to be reformed The link I posted without comment was in response to your assertion " London also gets (or at least used to) the highest public spending per person" This is simply not true and never has been. I disagree that that MP representation should be changed from population size, if it was you would have a form of Gerrymandering The ONS estimates the Company Tax Revenues by Region irrespective of where the HQ may be located so this does not favour London www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/methodologies/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinancesmethodologyguide#:~:text=UK%20Income%20Tax%20revenues%20from,is%20generated%20(workplace%20basis). I do agree with your final paragraph which is the basis of my objection to Barnett Formula. It's self evident for instance it's much more expensive per head to provide good transport in a rural area like Scotland and NI than in a high density area like London The Barnett Formula was temporary when introduced almost 50 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 23, 2024 12:45:30 GMT
A step in the right direction. I'll judge them on the results. Oh I really hope so and I hope she puts as many of the corrupt fuckers behind bars as is possible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2024 12:47:15 GMT
There are 56 million people in England. Should the 1.9 million people in NI have the same amount of say as 56 million others? How is that democracy? It isn't and I'm probably being slightly pedantic. But the poster doesn't believe in devolved parliments for Wales/Ni/Scotland. So if England want more of a say on our devolved laws that's fine. Give us equal say on England's bar the stuff devolved to mayor's. It's also not democratic to base number of MPs solely off population either in my opinion. Scotland and Northern Ireland cover over 50x the land of London. But London pretty much has the same amount of MPs as Scotland and NI added together. London also gets (or at least used to) the highest public spending per person. Despite being the most densely populated which should make it the cheapest really. Much cheaper to cover public transport, roads, sewage, gas, healthcare, education, warer and electric for a 100 people in a 1 mile radius than it is to cover for 100 people spread across 50 miles which all need to be connected. I’m confused as to what land mass has to do with the price of bacon to be honest Gawa. Surely, the most democratic way of doing anything is to have everyone’s vote equal 1? If there are more people in an area, that area should have more MPs and if people in London all flock to fill up the land mass in Scotland, I’d expect them to have more MPs shortly after. Personally, I don’t know why England should tether itself to the rest of the UK anyways. Just set up free travel and solid trade agreements, split and let each country make their own money, defend their own borders and decide what else to spend tax revenue on.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 23, 2024 13:12:20 GMT
A step in the right direction. I'll judge them on the results. I don't just want the money back.. I want the fuckers jailed.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 13:32:09 GMT
Is the net fiscal surplus meant to be a justification for the most densely populated region to get the most funding per person? Of course London is going to have a fiscal surplus. Doesn't mean it's a justification. Higher wages and living costs to begin with are going to result in increased tax revenue and vat receipts. Plus London is very much run like a profit centre which misleads alot of these figures too (never made the hugely inflated wages and living costs which also contribute. Most of the big companies have their HQ in London and as a result profit attribution going to HQ misleads figures even though alot of the economic activity generating the profits occurs outside of London. Same goes for accounting being centralised which again results in revenues being booked in London while regional offices are run like cost centres. Then there is the fact it's also home to many service jobs which again tend to have higher profits and wages. In my opinion it is important to interpret these figures with an understanding of the different underlying factors. Wage inflation, the headquarters effect, and the concentration of high-profit industries in London all contribute to the surplus. We don't have to be so London/South East centric. We need to take into account these different factors and how they contribute to regional fiscal contributions and actually address regional inequalities. In my own company we have similar offices with centralised services which charge back costs to the regional offices and thus show significant more profits but it's not reflective of the bigger picture. And back to my original point. Population density also needs to be taken into account when it comes to any form of funding. You know very well that I have criticised the Barnett Formula several times because it Is based on population not need. It needs to be reformed The link I posted without comment was in response to your assertion " London also gets (or at least used to) the highest public spending per person" This is simply not true and never has been. I disagree that that MP representation should be changed from population size, if it was you would have a form of Gerrymandering The ONS estimates the Company Tax Revenues by Region irrespective of where the HQ may be located so this does not favour London www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/methodologies/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinancesmethodologyguide#:~:text=UK%20Income%20Tax%20revenues%20from,is%20generated%20(workplace%20basis). I do agree with your final paragraph which is the basis of my objection to Barnett Formula. It's self evident for instance it's much more expensive per head to provide good transport links in London versus a more rural area like Scotland and NI. The Barnett Formula was temporary when introduced almost 50 years ago. Of course I know you've criticised the Barnett formula many times - we both agree on the criticisms of it. Maybe I've misinterpreted what you meant by your post but you simply provided a link to a load of data. Even looking at the data from your link it shows the total expenditure per person to be higher in London than everywhere else. Unless I'm misreading it of course. But I'm pretty sure I also said in my post that when I made that reference it was based on 2019 rather than recent data. But again looking at what you sent, London does seem to be highest as per attachment. I think MP representation needs to be based on much more than just population count. Ian Blackfords constituency was 12,000 square Kilometres. For contrast Corbyns Islington North is around 7 square kilometres. Maybe if Corbyn had as large an area to cover he wouldn't have the same reputation as this great recognisable constituency MP who is well known and recognised within the community (which he very much is btw ). Anyway the MP bit isn't the main focus for me. It's more highlighting that funding shouldn't solely be based of numbers but instead needs. Areas with high population density shouldn't need as much per person compared to less dense areas. I don't think it's more expensive per head to provide good transport links in London compared to the rest of the UK. London already has the best transport in the UK and no other city is anywhere near comparable. Just look at how expensive HS2 was for 140 miles of rail. For any region to have comparable public transport to what London already has it would cost significantly more. I know many people living in London who don't have a car and haven't had one for years. In nearly every other area of the UK a car is essential for most families. If you live in a rural area you will struggle to find work if you depend on public transport. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 13:36:02 GMT
A step in the right direction. I'll judge them on the results. I don't just want the money back.. I want the fuckers jailed. I agree but I think that's unrealistic given the state of the prisons at present. They'd all be considered "non violent" offenders and wouldn't be a priority. I do agree though but unfortunately we've seen it many times before with Bernie Ecclestone and co. They're above the law and just pay a silly fine which is pennys to them and then continue to commit the same crimes likely getting away with much more than what they get caught out for. There's no deterrent. And they'll never be considered "violent offenders" either because people with that money don't need to use violence and if they do they can pay a fall man to do that part of the work for them.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 13:46:51 GMT
I don't think it's more expensive per head to provide good transport links in London compared to the rest of the UK. London already has the best transport in the UK and no other city is anywhere near comparable. You are 100% correct I fucked up my wording, now edited 👍
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 13:56:20 GMT
It isn't and I'm probably being slightly pedantic. But the poster doesn't believe in devolved parliments for Wales/Ni/Scotland. So if England want more of a say on our devolved laws that's fine. Give us equal say on England's bar the stuff devolved to mayor's. It's also not democratic to base number of MPs solely off population either in my opinion. Scotland and Northern Ireland cover over 50x the land of London. But London pretty much has the same amount of MPs as Scotland and NI added together. London also gets (or at least used to) the highest public spending per person. Despite being the most densely populated which should make it the cheapest really. Much cheaper to cover public transport, roads, sewage, gas, healthcare, education, warer and electric for a 100 people in a 1 mile radius than it is to cover for 100 people spread across 50 miles which all need to be connected. I’m confused as to what land mass has to do with the price of bacon to be honest Gawa. Surely, the most democratic way of doing anything is to have everyone’s vote equal 1? If there are more people in an area, that area should have more MPs and if people in London all flock to fill up the land mass in Scotland, I’d expect them to have more MPs shortly after. Personally, I don’t know why England should tether itself to the rest of the UK anyways. Just set up free travel and solid trade agreements, split and let each country make their own money, defend their own borders and decide what else to spend tax revenue on. As I said. I was being slightly pedantic. Land mass of course is important though and should be considered when it comes to funding (and potentially MPs too). As you're focusing on the MP part I'll discuss that. Ian Blackfords constituency was nearly 2000x the size of Jeremy Corbyn's. How can Ian help people as effectively as Jeremy when Jeremy is probably no more than 20 minutes away from his constituents while Ian is hours away from many. There's alot more miles of roads with potholes, alot more miles of sewers which could be spilling, community events asked to support which could be >100 miles away. I simply just don't think everything should be based solely of number of people. It should be based of peoples needs which vary from region to region. And to be honest more devolved powers (with an effective funding model) is probably an answer to that. Please remember that when I began this conversation it was in response to someone being against devolution of powers rather than me out of nowhere saying we should have more MPs than London. London was being used as an example to show they have as much representation as Scotland/NI added together and that's why I feel we need more devolution. Scotland/NI/Wales have around 16% of the MPs. Without devolution it is a dictatorship of English MPs imposing laws on countries and regions they know little about compared to the actual elected representatives.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 23, 2024 14:27:58 GMT
A step in the right direction. I'll judge them on the results. The same Covid pandemic Labour fully supported. I know a bloke who became a multi millionaire through setting up a test facility. How much was fraud? How much was general wastage due to implied urgency. Who ever was in power would ensure their mates got contracts before unknowns. Good luck getting any of it back. A complete waste of money time and effort Alan Milburn likes this post
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 23, 2024 16:39:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jul 23, 2024 16:58:03 GMT
I can't be doing with MPs and Ministers sitting in the Chamber, not paying attention to what is going on in front of them, just glancing through their phones. I think its a really bad look, and a bad example to pupils at school. Either be there and listen, or stay away
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 23, 2024 17:09:37 GMT
I can't be doing with MPs and Ministers sitting in the Chamber, not paying attention to what is going on in front of them, just glancing through their phones. I think its a really bad look, and a bad example to pupils at school. Either be there and listen, or stay away Very good point. I've noticed that myself and think its a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 23, 2024 17:27:13 GMT
I can't be doing with MPs and Ministers sitting in the Chamber, not paying attention to what is going on in front of them, just glancing through their phones. I think its a really bad look, and a bad example to pupils at school. Either be there and listen, or stay away Very good point. I've noticed that myself and think its a disgrace. I fucking hate it at work, people tapping on laptops in meetings. Arrogant and ignorant in equal measure.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 17:28:48 GMT
Still a few good labour MPs left. Zarah being one of the best of the lot. Let's hope Tel Aviv Keith sees sense before he evolves into Sir Kid Starver
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 23, 2024 19:07:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 19:12:35 GMT
Still a few good labour MPs left. Zarah being one of the best of the lot. Let's hope Tel Aviv Keith sees sense before he evolves into Sir Kid Starver The Kings Speech is Labour's program for Government and it is presented to Parliament to debate and the Speaker may accept potential amendments The SNP 2 Child amendment has been chosen The Kings Speech is a Three Line Whip If any Labour MP votes with the opposition SNP amendment they will have the whip removed and be given 6 months to reflect on whether they are in the right Party, cross the floor or become Independent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2024 19:17:28 GMT
Still a few good labour MPs left. Zarah being one of the best of the lot. Let's hope Tel Aviv Keith sees sense before he evolves into Sir Kid Starver The Kings Speech is Labour's program for Government and it is presented to Parliament to debate and the Speaker may accept potential amendments The SNP 2 Child amendment has been chosen The Kings Speech is a Three Line Whip If any Labour MP votes with the opposition SNP amendment they will have the whip removed and be given 6 months to reflect on whether they are in the right Party, cross the floor or become Independent. If they want to move to a different party, they should have to face a bielection. It’s stupid that they can just jump on whatever horse is winning the race, then change colors at the podium.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 19:46:11 GMT
The Kings Speech is Labour's program for Government and it is presented to Parliament to debate and the Speaker may accept potential amendments The SNP 2 Child amendment has been chosen The Kings Speech is a Three Line Whip If any Labour MP votes with the opposition SNP amendment they will have the whip removed and be given 6 months to reflect on whether they are in the right Party, cross the floor or become Independent. If they want to move to a different party, they should have to face a bielection. It’s stupid that they can just jump on whatever horse is winning the race, then change colors at the podium. They're voted in to represent their constituents. I've lived in Coventry for a few years and Zarah would be betraying those who voted her in if she voted against the 2 child benefit cap. As Starmer has said for the last 4 years - Country 1st, Party 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 19:48:18 GMT
The Kings Speech is Labour's program for Government and it is presented to Parliament to debate and the Speaker may accept potential amendments The SNP 2 Child amendment has been chosen The Kings Speech is a Three Line Whip If any Labour MP votes with the opposition SNP amendment they will have the whip removed and be given 6 months to reflect on whether they are in the right Party, cross the floor or become Independent. If they want to move to a different party, they should have to face a bielection. It’s stupid that they can just jump on whatever horse is winning the race, then change colors at the podium. I agree but it is up to the honour of the MP individually to do that, some do some don't My point is that they stood on a Manifesto which got them elected two weeks ago and now they don't like that Manifesto It's like the Junior Clerk in a Company insisting that the CEO must change direction and if he/she doesn't they will sulk and refuse to follow the Company Rules
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 19:49:19 GMT
If they want to move to a different party, they should have to face a bielection. It’s stupid that they can just jump on whatever horse is winning the race, then change colors at the podium. They're voted in to represent their constituents. I've lived in Coventry for a few years and Zarah would be betraying those who voted her in if she voted against the 2 child benefit cap. As Starmer has said for the last 4 years - Country 1st, Party 2nd. No they were voted in under the Labour Manifesto
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 19:55:20 GMT
They're voted in to represent their constituents. I've lived in Coventry for a few years and Zarah would be betraying those who voted her in if she voted against the 2 child benefit cap. As Starmer has said for the last 4 years - Country 1st, Party 2nd. No they were voted in under the Labour Manifesto Was child poverty on the manifesto? Are you suggesting the majority of people in Coventry support the 2 child benefit cap? Country 1st. Party 2nd. In addition you also are elected to serve your constituency not the 20% of the population which voted Labour.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 20:19:09 GMT
No they were voted in under the Labour Manifesto Was child poverty on the manifesto? Are you suggesting the majority of people in Coventry support the 2 child benefit cap? Country 1st. Party 2nd. In addition you also are elected to serve your constituency not the 20% of the population which voted Labour. You are conflating two different things No the 2 Child Benefit Cap was not costed/contained in Labour Manifesto and it was quite clear anything uncosted wouldn't be actioned immediately but kept under review Of course the Majority of people in Coventry would support scrapping the 2 Child cap, I daresay they'd like a £1K Bonus at Christmas too what has that got to do with running a Country You are fundamentally misunderstanding what Country 1st Party 22nd actually means Liz Truss put Party First when she announced £46Bn of unfunded Tax Cuts which every Mortgage Holder is paying for as well as the Treasury having less money to spend on Public Services due to higher debt repayments Labour has said it won't do that In any case the Labour Majority has been reduced by 7 at least for 6 months
|
|