|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 20:23:11 GMT
Aged like milk
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 23, 2024 21:16:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Jul 23, 2024 21:47:45 GMT
I agree with Keir here. Lets change it to get the career claimants back into work.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 23, 2024 22:01:15 GMT
A step in the right direction. I'll judge them on the results. How about these sick cunts who cheered on lockdown after lockdown (while laughing at you) focus on the collateral damage of their catastrophic decisions to lock society up in the name of a largely non fatal virus? Destroying children's education, businesses and livelihoods in the process.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 22:11:00 GMT
A step in the right direction. I'll judge them on the results. How about these sick cunts who cheered on lockdown after lockdown (while laughing at you) focus on the collateral damage of their catastrophic decisions to lock society up in the name of a largely non fatal virus? Destroying children's education, businesses and livelihoods in the process. I have no qualms with an outside investigation into covid and criminal charges being brought onto those who knowingly mislead if found guilty. I'd support it.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 23, 2024 22:17:12 GMT
How about these sick cunts who cheered on lockdown after lockdown (while laughing at you) focus on the collateral damage of their catastrophic decisions to lock society up in the name of a largely non fatal virus? Destroying children's education, businesses and livelihoods in the process. I have no qualms with an outside investigation into covid and criminal charges being brought onto those who knowingly mislead if found guilty. I'd support it. The investigation into lockdowns will never happen mate while these current clowns on both sides are in parliament. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas. They will continue to divert that one towards the "we locked down too late" bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 23, 2024 22:33:55 GMT
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 Ā£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 Ā£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 See to be honest with you, the Liz Truss budget is the epitome of the problems with the UK right now. The fact that one individual, not elected by the public, has the ability to announce a budget, implement absolutely none of it, resign a few weeks later and suddenly that's austerity v2 all wrapped up in a box with a nice bow around it for another 5 years. It's just far too convenient. The last 16 years is a revolving cycle of the same bullshit. Sudden "once in a lifetime event" and now we all "feel the pinch" and those at the top come out with a bigger share of the pot and the rest of us just accept being worse off. And between labour "crashing the economy", us all needing to help bring down the deficit, brexit, covid, ukraine... we're now scraping the barrel even lower. Some random woman noone votes for gets to be PM for the day, come up with some shit ideas, and boom another 5 years of austerity. No real explanation bar Liz Truss announces a shit budget which makes markets crash and there we are "oh dear how terrible. Well guess that's 5 more years of austerity and child poverty. Bloody Liz Truss crashed the economy chaps". I know you're a finance/economics guy and you're interpretation of the budget and the consequences of it are far more educated than mine and you can likely provide very constructive and valid reasoning for it. But taking all that away. Surely you can see just how daft it is. Like that's all it takes.... and we just accept it. And given how past "once in a lifetime" events have went, you sort of enter it with pessimism from the start. Like after a decade of austerity in the 2010s the debt of the country has ballooned and all the public services have got worse. What did it achieve? We made sacrafices and got worse off. And then you look at the billionaires who come out of every disaster smelling of roses and better off than ever before. And here we are with Liz Truss budget suddenly the new wealth transfer excuse where ultimately all that's going to happen is worse public services, worse off financially and somehow the billionaires once again not suffering in the slightest but reaping the rewards.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2024 0:07:36 GMT
No they were voted in under the Labour ManifestoĀ 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. Are you denying that many people simply donāt just vote for someone because of the party that they represent? Thus, when the MP uses that to get in and then sods off to do their own thing, itās a little ridiculous. Having them resign and run as an independent/member of another party doesnāt seem that hard of a fix.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 24, 2024 1:20:45 GMT
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 Ā£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 Ā£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 See to be honest with you, the Liz Truss budget is the epitome of the problems with the UK right now. The fact that one individual, not elected by the public, has the ability to announce a budget, implement absolutely none of it, resign a few weeks later and suddenly that's austerity v2 all wrapped up in a box with a nice bow around it for another 5 years. It's just far too convenient. The last 16 years is a revolving cycle of the same bullshit. Sudden "once in a lifetime event" and now we all "feel the pinch" and those at the top come out with a bigger share of the pot and the rest of us just accept being worse off. And between labour "crashing the economy", us all needing to help bring down the deficit, brexit, covid, ukraine... we're now scraping the barrel even lower. Some random woman noone votes for gets to be PM for the day, come up with some shit ideas, and boom another 5 years of austerity. No real explanation bar Liz Truss announces a shit budget which makes markets crash and there we are "oh dear how terrible. Well guess that's 5 more years of austerity and child poverty. Bloody Liz Truss crashed the economy chaps". I know you're a finance/economics guy and you're interpretation of the budget and the consequences of it are far more educated than mine and you can likely provide very constructive and valid reasoning for it. But taking all that away. Surely you can see just how daft it is. Like that's all it takes.... and we just accept it. And given how past "once in a lifetime" events have went, you sort of enter it with pessimism from the start. Like after a decade of austerity in the 2010s the debt of the country has ballooned and all the public services have got worse. What did it achieve? We made sacrafices and got worse off. And then you look at the billionaires who come out of every disaster smelling of roses and better off than ever before. And here we are with Liz Truss budget suddenly the new wealth transfer excuse where ultimately all that's going to happen is worse public services, worse off financially and somehow the billionaires once again not suffering in the slightest but reaping the rewards. I get your frustration mate, I share it, but I'll be honest at this point in my life I'm only marginally affected if at all by successive Fuck Ups. You could throw a dart at the board and decide where to start but the financial crash 2007/8 is as good as any. The Banks were deemed "to big to fail" and perhaps they were. Eye-watering amounts were lent or guaranteed and eventually it "only" cost the Taxpayer about Ā£25Bn because RBS was a Basket Case. This and the Austerity that followed were Political Choices by successive Labour/Conservative Governments. At this point interest rates were close to zero and instead of trying to stimulate the Economy after a recession the Conservatives/LibDems decided belt tightening was the way to go rather than Capital Investment and Industry and consumers followed the leader leading to a period of stagnation and regression in Productivity because of lack of Investment by Industry. The next Conservative Government got its knickers in a twist about Brexit and Industry kept stuchm about Investing, still at historically low rates, until a clear direction evolved which takes us up to January 2020 before industry understood the full horrors Brexit was going to unleash but at least they had certainty. Covid then visited and just when that was petering out Russia also visited, Ukraine. So you had a complete Bingo Card. During Covid when BoE was happily printing Ā£400Bn to pay for it interest rates remained low and only began to increase at end of 2021 when doubts emerged about how quickly the Economy could rebound. Early 2022 Putin decided he'd like to have Ukraine but still interest rates remained relatively low but inflation began to spiral. Bozo who had "Partied Hard" during Covid and made more Babies finally departed. Enter Liz Truss who had previously gained expertise in pork but sadly not the Economy believed the Bullshit she had been fed from Tufton St and thought it was a good idea to give Ā£46Bn to people that already had more than enough. It wasn't and the Markets reacted badly and Government 10 year Gilt yields went from about 2% to above 5% although now recovered to about 4.2% So here we are. Government National Debt is about Ā£2.7Trn or about 100% of GDP Government Annual Spending is about Ā£1.2Trn Historically UK Government spends more than it receives in Taxes last year about Ā£120Bn The "Fiscal Rules" say a Government must end up with less Debt than it began with. The annual amount to service UK debt is about Ā£110Bn at current 4.2% Gilt Yield. Now some of that Debt will be at longer term and lower yield but you can estimate what savings could be made if Lizzy didn't have a Brainfart and pre 2020 Gilt Yields are Dreamland. The cost of Debt Service is more than the Education Budget The above figures represent the Status Quo To change the equation Government has a Political Chice(s) It can Borrow to invest in Infrastructure Projects and as long as the Taxes received from the activity exceeds the cost of borrowing. Happy Days. There is a problem however because of Austerity UK was ill prepared for an Epidemic and millions more are economically inactive than before Covid so it needs to reduce the 8M people who are waiting for Hospital Appointments so they can get back to work and build the infrastructure needed and pay taxes. This is slightly simplistic, but only slightly. It is but one of a number of measures Government need to do to increase productivity to produce more in less time so more taxes can be raised to spend on Public Services I'm quite confident Labour have ambition to raise people out of poverty, they did it during the last term. The annual cost of removing the 2 Child Benefit Cap is about Ā£3.2Bn or Ā£16Bn over the life of the Parliament. I'd be surprised, as I said to you a few weeks ago, if Labour don't find some way to do it in the Autumn Statement
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 24, 2024 8:15:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 24, 2024 8:16:51 GMT
Wasn't gonna take long till Starmageddon imploded š
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 24, 2024 8:31:54 GMT
Wasn't gonna take long till Starmageddon imploded š I'd say he's a worried man this morning, his majority is down to only 283
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 24, 2024 8:53:49 GMT
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. Are you denying that many people simply donāt just vote for someone because of the party that they represent? Thus, when the MP uses that to get in and then sods off to do their own thing, itās a little ridiculous. Having them resign and run as an independent/member of another party doesnāt seem that hard of a fix. You are elected to be a member of parliament and a representative for your constituency. You are accountable to the people who put their trust in you and elected you, but you are also accountable to those who didn't vote for you too because your job is to represent the constituency not the people who voted labour (of which only 1 in 5 people voted). There are plenty of polls and campaigns in the build up to this election based on "stop the tories" and the number one reason in most polls why people voted labour was to "stop the tories". But if you wish to be pedantic. Kier Starmer was elected as Labour party leader members on 10 pledges by members of the Labour party. He has u turned on nearly ever single one of those pledges. Are you suggesting he should be resigning as leader for not fulfilling the mandate on which he was elected? His U turns have been known for many months and I've never seen you call for him to resign for not following the mandate on which he was made leader? Zarah Sultana rebelled against the labour whip on drugs, nuclear energy, gaza, health and social care, coronavirus and many other things. She was voted in as an individual with that record and that history of putting constituents first. Starmer defied the whip to vote against the expansion of heathrow because he was putting his constituents first. You never called for him to resign then either. And nobody on here called for the many tory rebels against Boris and against brexit to resign either... Why is voting against a cruel policy which puts children in poverty a resignable offense? If Labour eventually U turn and do abolish it should that trigger an election in your eyes because it wasn't on their manifesto and it's not what the people voted for?
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Jul 24, 2024 8:58:52 GMT
Wasn't gonna take long till Starmageddon imploded š I'd say he's a worried man this morning, his majority is down to only 283 he might be , like i said before the election ,the main opposition will be the liebour party .
this is just the beginning , the thin end of the wedge , diane shabbott and some other big left winger with covid were absent otherwise 2 more would've been suspended
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 24, 2024 9:11:55 GMT
I'd say he's a worried man this morning, his majority is down to only 283 he might be , like i said before the election ,the main opposition will be the liebour party .
this is just the beginning , the thin end of the wedge , diane shabbott and some other big left winger with covid were absent otherwise 2 more would've been suspended
It could be a Cunning Plan Blackadder a few more suspensions and Labour could become the Official Opposition the Conservatives were routed so badly
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 24, 2024 9:17:03 GMT
its all well and good people wanting this policy but they did say before the election it was a policy they wanted to implement but could not until the books had been looked at.
The SNP knew full well what they are doing and those 7 labour MPs should have put party unity first. Labour can do what they want with such a large majority but at the same time rome was not built in a day and certainly for the first 6 months they dont need stories like thistaking focus of the job in hand. so as ruthless as it sounds starmer has done the right thing.
Its a shame however we do not have a better way of causing bielections for defections, losing the whip etc the public by in large (with the odd exceptions) vote for their MP as a party as opposed to the individual.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 24, 2024 9:24:08 GMT
This is why I hate party politics. Starmer wants to abolish to 2 child cap as everyone knows, but only when he can say how it can be afforded. I want to go on holiday, buy a new car, buy a house, buy new shoes etc, but I will only do those things when I can afford to do so.
The SNP played politics, 7 Labour MPs fell for it. Starmer has punished them (harsh perhaps) but they are only suspended for 6 months and so in 6 months time when hopefully they will have found the money to abolish the policy, all will be fine.
But I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote except for ministers who should have to vote with the government position or resign.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 24, 2024 9:34:04 GMT
Are you denying that many people simply donāt just vote for someone because of the party that they represent? Thus, when the MP uses that to get in and then sods off to do their own thing, itās a little ridiculous. Having them resign and run as an independent/member of another party doesnāt seem that hard of a fix. You are elected to be a member of parliament and a representative for your constituency. You are accountable to the people who put their trust in you and elected you, but you are also accountable to those who didn't vote for you too because your job is to represent the constituency not the people who voted labour (of which only 1 in 5 people voted). There are plenty of polls and campaigns in the build up to this election based on "stop the tories" and the number one reason in most polls why people voted labour was to "stop the tories". But if you wish to be pedantic. Kier Starmer was elected as Labour party leader members on 10 pledges by members of the Labour party. He has u turned on nearly ever single one of those pledges. Are you suggesting he should be resigning as leader for not fulfilling the mandate on which he was elected? His U turns have been known for many months and I've never seen you call for him to resign for not following the mandate on which he was made leader? Zarah Sultana rebelled against the labour whip on drugs, nuclear energy, gaza, health and social care, coronavirus and many other things. She was voted in as an individual with that record and that history of putting constituents first. Starmer defied the whip to vote against the expansion of heathrow because he was putting his constituents first. You never called for him to resign then either. And nobody on here called for the many tory rebels against Boris and against brexit to resign either... Why is voting against a cruel policy which puts children in poverty a resignable offense? If Labour eventually U turn and do abolish it should that trigger an election in your eyes because it wasn't on their manifesto and it's not what the people voted for? Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill and the Joint Committee on the Fixed Term Parliaments set out the convention surrounding confidence votes in Government It said that defeats on an amendment to the King's Speech; or the second or third reading of the annual Finance Bill; or during the Supply and Estimates process, demonstrated an implicit lack of confidence. Now this convention may not be generally known to the Populi but it would be to all Parliamentarians and the anoraks that follow it. You simply can't have a Party Member implicitly voting no confidence in its own Party and remain in the Party and the 7 would have known it.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 24, 2024 9:42:47 GMT
This is why I hate party politics. Starmer wants to abolish to 2 child cap as everyone knows, but only when he can say how it can be afforded. I want to go on holiday, buy a new car, buy a house, buy new shoes etc, but I will only do those things when I can afford to do so. The SNP played politics, 7 Labour MPs fell for it. Starmer has punished them (harsh perhaps) but they are only suspended for 6 months and so in 6 months time when hopefully they will have found the money to abolish the policy, all will be fine. But I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote except for ministers who should have to vote with the government position or resign. It can be afforded. Itās a political choice not to do it immediately. The 300,000 kids below the poverty line just need to be patient and wait for the benefits of the trickle down effects of Starmerās economic growth strategy I guessā¦..
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 24, 2024 9:44:02 GMT
Wasn't gonna take long till Starmageddon imploded š Itās barely relevant in the grand scheme of thingsā¦ā¦.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 24, 2024 10:01:15 GMT
Wasn't gonna take long till Starmageddon imploded š Itās barely relevant in the grand scheme of thingsā¦ā¦. No you're right, it's just the start. If you're a fraud, you'll get found out sooner or later. We know he's willing to throw anyone under the bus if it means keeping himself at the helm. See Jeremy Corbyn for further info š
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 24, 2024 10:07:09 GMT
One noticeable thing about last nights vote is that Starmer, Lammy and Reeves didn't vote it down.
Good olde self preservation right there. A conscious decision to not have their names listed against voting down the ammendment so they can't be called out for it in future.
While the rest of the party is all being whipped to vote it down. Convenient.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 24, 2024 10:24:09 GMT
This is why I hate party politics. Starmer wants to abolish to 2 child cap as everyone knows, but only when he can say how it can be afforded. I want to go on holiday, buy a new car, buy a house, buy new shoes etc, but I will only do those things when I can afford to do so. The SNP played politics, 7 Labour MPs fell for it. Starmer has punished them (harsh perhaps) but they are only suspended for 6 months and so in 6 months time when hopefully they will have found the money to abolish the policy, all will be fine. But I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote except for ministers who should have to vote with the government position or resign. if every vote was a free vote you wouldnt get alot done MP's have to vote as a party if that is the parties position and that is normally decided by manifesto at conferences etc. these knew the party line
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 24, 2024 12:12:31 GMT
It won't last but it would be lovely if PMQs was always conducted in such a positive, calm and personable manner. You might get fewer people turned off by politics that way.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 24, 2024 12:29:35 GMT
This is why I hate party politics. Starmer wants to abolish to 2 child cap as everyone knows, but only when he can say how it can be afforded. I want to go on holiday, buy a new car, buy a house, buy new shoes etc, but I will only do those things when I can afford to do so. The SNP played politics, 7 Labour MPs fell for it. Starmer has punished them (harsh perhaps) but they are only suspended for 6 months and so in 6 months time when hopefully they will have found the money to abolish the policy, all will be fine. But I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote except for ministers who should have to vote with the government position or resign. There is no cap on how many children you can claim child benefit for. The cap is on the total amount of benefit per eligible group.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 24, 2024 13:02:59 GMT
Great article from last year on Labour - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/16/labour-changes-little-power-social-forces-councillors-climateRight now, Labour is emphasising two contradictory ideas. With one voice, it tells us that we cannot go on like this; but it then changes register, and suggests that is exactly what we are going to have to do. The howling tension between the two brings to mind a celebrated quotation from the Welsh thinker and writer Raymond Williams: āTo be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.ā If Starmer and his team fail that test, they will only deserve all the noise and disruption that will thereby be let loose. So far, it has to be said, the signs are not good.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 24, 2024 13:14:48 GMT
Actually agree with Nigel here having watched all of PMQs
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 24, 2024 13:16:46 GMT
This is why I hate party politics. Starmer wants to abolish to 2 child cap as everyone knows, but only when he can say how it can be afforded. I want to go on holiday, buy a new car, buy a house, buy new shoes etc, but I will only do those things when I can afford to do so. The SNP played politics, 7 Labour MPs fell for it. Starmer has punished them (harsh perhaps) but they are only suspended for 6 months and so in 6 months time when hopefully they will have found the money to abolish the policy, all will be fine. But I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote except for ministers who should have to vote with the government position or resign. It can be afforded. Itās a political choice not to do it immediately. The 300,000 kids below the poverty line just need to be patient and wait for the benefits of the trickle down effects of Starmerās economic growth strategy I guessā¦.. Of course. We could afford almost anything. Everything is a political choice. What about the millions still in poverty after getting rid of the cap? Should we give them money regardless of cost?
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Jul 24, 2024 14:42:32 GMT
yes
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 24, 2024 14:44:03 GMT
Itās barely relevant in the grand scheme of thingsā¦ā¦. No you're right, it's just the start. If you're a fraud, you'll get found out sooner or later. We know he's willing to throw anyone under the bus if it means keeping himself at the helm. See Jeremy Corbyn for further info š
|
|