Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

New Labour government - legislative agenda

Chz said:
This is how it's been for over a century. Find me an MP who didn't lose the whip for voting against their own government's finance bill. There are rules and conventions in Parliament. MPs are free to break them, but there will be consequences for it. Compare it to the Maastricht vote.

Or just what do you think it means to vote against your own government on a confidence bill?
Click to expand...

I think it means a principled stand, in a majority of 180-odd, that Starmer could easily have ignored instead of building into a bigger issue.

What do you think about a PM acting as Starmer did? A necessary action designed to protect a fragile majority? Or a continued attack on the Left because he hates the Left with a vengeance?
 
I think Starmer is a starched shirt who'll stick to Parliament's silly rules, and if it lets him punish the sort of people who'd dare stand against him then so much the better. And they are silly, as redsquirrel says, but that's the way political parties have played this game for generations.

I just think if you really want to change the two child law, there are better ways of doing it. Taking a stand on the King's Speech is great for your ego, not so effective at getting anything done.
 
here we have two perfect examples of:

1. That which was not true until now becoming a well known convention at convenience and

2. those who flout convention are driven by ego/grandstanding etc


at no point does this savvy savvy stuff ever acknowledge the realities of the situation. Just lobby lines. Pulling off to erskine may
 
The39thStep said:
Got to admire the process over principles type poster.

"What inspired you to support the Labour Party, was it tackling inequalities? No, it was their adherence to process that really got me hooked. "
Click to expand...
They've little intention of tackling inequalities, as we've already seen in the subject we're discussing. T'would be a poor reason to support them.

My only argument is that any UK Prime Minster from the entirety of history would have done exactly the same thing and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because we don't like it. And Starmer most certainly hasn't advertised himself as being different. Quite the opposite.
 
Chz said:
I think Starmer is a starched shirt who'll stick to Parliament's silly rules, and if it lets him punish the sort of people who'd dare stand against him then so much the better. And they are silly, as redsquirrel says, but that's the way political parties have played this game for generations.

I just think if you really want to change the two child law, there are better ways of doing it. Taking a stand on the King's Speech is great for your ego, not so effective at getting anything done.
Click to expand...
He's not following parliamentary rules but imposing greater use of the lp's own rules
 
Chz said:
They've little intention of tackling inequalities, as we've already seen in the subject we're discussing. T'would be a poor reason to support them.

My only argument is that any UK Prime Minster from the entirety of history would have done exactly the same thing and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because we don't like it. And Starmer most certainly hasn't advertised himself as being different. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
For little read no
 
Chz said:
They've little intention of tackling inequalities, as we've already seen in the subject we're discussing. T'would be a poor reason to support them.

My only argument is that any UK Prime Minster from the entirety of history would have done exactly the same thing and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because we don't like it. And Starmer most certainly hasn't advertised himself as being different. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Didn't you also have another argument that there are better ways to change the two child law ?
 
The39thStep said:
Didn't you also have another argument that there are better ways to change the two child law ?
Click to expand...
Than guaranteeing you get suspended for making a public point? Yeah, I imagine there are. But not being a politician or MP myself, I couldn't detail such things. I really, really hope they do can the cap - it's a major reason why I couldn't vote Labour and live with myself - but if it happens it's not going to be because a half dozen MPs were showboating over it.
 
wtfftw said:
They could "lift the two child benefit cap" but it would make no material difference as the actual benefit cap is in place.

eg. Greater London. single parent, private rent.

UC housing component is capped at LHA amount - my postcode 2 beds is £1545pm
single adult over 25. £393.45
child element x1 £287.92
= £2226
The benefit cap (not the 2 child limit cap) if you’re a single parent and your children live with you is £2,110.25 in greater london. Benefit cap

Ig if you have lower rent you might not cap out before your third child?


ETA: Just tried a Newcastle LHA amount. you could have three children and not reach the main benefit cap.
Click to expand...

The benefit cap is brutal. The cap is lower outside of Greater London, despite the fact that some London boroughs have lower average rents than parts of Sussex.

A single person without kids, living in a one bed flat in the Brighton LHA area (which extends a long way beyond Brighton itself) would be benefit capped:

£917.50 rent + £393.45 standard allowance = £1,310.95. Benefit cap for a single adult is £1,229.42. When you factor in how hard it is to find somewhere to rent that is at or below the LHA rate, it's no wonder that a lot of people have to use food banks.
 
planetgeli said:
B) It is not the way 'the system has always worked'. Suspension was not inevitable. Blair never suspended the 47 MPs who did a similar thing in a similar situation in 1997. This is a completely intolerant approach from Starmer. Even people who followed the Whip are appalled.
Click to expand...
Imo, it's a warning to any Labour MP who might think about defying the whip in future. Pour encourager les autres and all that.
 
There's no pretty way to copy and paste this to make it easy for non Xitter users to read though I'll try my best





For clarity, here's an exchange after PMQs between lobby journalists and the PM's spokesman and Press Secretary on the two child UC limit debate, and the seven Labour MPs losing the whip.

Journalist: Is the return of the whip to the seven rebels conditional on voting consistently with the government for the next six months?

PM's spokesman: The chief whip is responsible for matters of party discipline.

Journalist: Was it solely the chief whip's decision to suspend them?

PM's spokesman: The chief whip is responsible for these matters.

Journalist: What was the thinking behind six months as the suspension period?

Press Secretary: The Prime Minister's words from the chamber are clear. No one should be in any doubt about this government's commitment to tackling child poverty, and that's why we've already set to work on developing an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty. On the two-child limit, we've been very clear on our position and why we did not commit to removing it both during the campaign and since. Given the economic situation we've inherited, we are very clear that we are not going to make promises that we can't keep. Voting against the Party's position on the King's Speech is a serious matter.

Me for @BylineTimes: Was this seen as a confidence vote?

Press Secretary: It's the King's Speech. It's the programme for government. It's putting into practice what we stood for in our manifesto, which all Labour MPs stood on just three weeks ago.

Journalist: Your manifesto had £2.5 billion spare cash. Why don't you put that money towards lifting the two-child benefit cap?

PM's spokesman: The Chancellor has spoken about the situation facing the public finances being even worse than he thought. That's why she's commissioned the Treasury to do a full audit on the state of public finances. The government has made clear it will not make unfunded promises that it can't keep. This doesn't mean that we can't take action on child poverty. We're determined to take action and reduce child poverty. That's why we're rolling out programmes such as mandatory free breakfast clubs in primary schools, additional nurseries to help parents with their childcare costs, and delivering a new deal for working people to turn the minimum wage into a real living wage.

Me for @BylineTimes: Is the bedroom tax part of the scope of the child poverty commission?

PM's spokesman: The manifesto committed to reviewing Universal Credit to make work pay and tackle poverty, recognising the very challenging state of the economy and public finances. Further details will be set out by the Work and Pensions Secretary.
Click to expand...
 
I ran more benefits scenarios earlier. a 38 hour week on minimum wage makes you £400 better off than someone on UC (outside London - £200 inside). Very interested and concerned to see what a review into universal credit is going to suggest for making work pay.
 
wtfftw said:
I ran more benefits scenarios earlier. a 38 hour week on minimum wage makes you £400 better off than someone on UC (outside London - £200 inside). Very interested and concerned to see what a review into universal credit is going to suggest for making work pay.
Click to expand...

After 6 months of thorough investigating and consultation at an extravagant cost, the raising of the minimum wage by 50p will be lauded long and strong in the "Benefits of Starmer" thread once somebody starts it.

The cutting in benefits in real terms, and consequent rise in poverty, not so much.
 
wtfftw said:
I ran more benefits scenarios earlier. a 38 hour week on minimum wage makes you £400 better off than someone on UC (outside London - £200 inside). Very interested and concerned to see what a review into universal credit is going to suggest for making work pay.
Click to expand...

A single person living in my part of the SE and renting a one bed property would be £186.95pw pcm better off working f/t on NMW. They'd still be entitled to some UC towards their rent (LHA £920 pcm)

A single person with 2 children renting a two-bed property would be £273.91pw better off working f/t on NMW. The housing costs element of their UC would be £1200 a month. They'd get most of their childcare costs covered by UC too.

If your example is renting, you can't be certain of what the difference would be unless you know what the relevant LHA rate would be.
 
LakieLady said:
A single person living in my part of the SE and renting a one bed property would be £186.95pw pcm better off working f/t on NMW. They'd still be entitled to some UC towards their rent (LHA £920 pcm)

A single person with 2 children renting a two-bed property would be £273.91pw better off working f/t on NMW. The housing costs element of their UC would be £1200 a month. They'd get most of their childcare costs covered by UC too.

If your example is renting, you can't be certain of what the difference would be unless you know what the relevant LHA rate would be.
Click to expand...
yeah. Basically it's shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz
Elpenor said:
What about the Labour voters who elected this government
Click to expand...
Or all the Labour MPs who all see reducing child poverty as an absolute priority and all keep telling us about how much they want to remove the cap but just aren't able to?

"of course we all want to reduce child poverty but, as the government, in control of all levers of the economy, with a huge majority and the ability to literally write the laws of the country we are, unfortunately, completely powerless to do anything until the public finances, which again we have full control over, allow it".
 
Elpenor said:
What about the Labour voters who elected this government
Click to expand...
I'm betting the leadership looks at the low vote share they got and think they need to Tory harder. They don't seem to have any appreciation for the people who don't have any option for a more socialist party because where could they go? They'll go on chasing the polls until the populace is finally convinced this is a cruel policy.
 
Elpenor said:
What about the Labour voters who elected this government
Click to expand...

A) Excuse me if I'm wrong but doesn't that poll suggest 50% of Labour voters were wankers?

B) Fuck yougov and all opinion polls

C) The Labour Party gained about 20% of the total electorate for their 'landslide'. Maybe the 40% who stayed away need listening to?
 
Chz said:
I'm betting the leadership looks at the low vote share they got and think they need to Tory harder. They don't seem to have any appreciation for the people who don't have any option for a more socialist party because where could they go? They'll go on chasing the polls until the populace is finally convinced this is a cruel policy.
Click to expand...
The Labour party is not on the socialist spectrum
 
planetgeli said:
A) Excuse me if I'm wrong but doesn't that poll suggest 50% of Labour voters were wankers?

B) Fuck yougov and all opinion polls

C) The Labour Party gained about 20% of the total electorate for their 'landslide'. Maybe the 40% who stayed away need listening to?
Click to expand...
With regard to A probably more than 50% considering some of the Labour cheerleaders on these boards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fez909
Positives about the next Labour government
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
7K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
Fez909
  • Poll
"The last Conservative government"
Replies
12
Views
427
Kaka Tim
Kaka Tim
Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
1K
LakieLady
LakieLady
hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
903
Fedayn
Fedayn
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
218
Humberto
Humberto
Back
Top Bottom