But every time a progressive moment occurs that’s the right wing defence - we are skint.

 

Yes agreed. The subtext is always "You plebs don't know anything about the world of money, leave it to the people who do" (ie the ultra rich who have been scamming the rest of society, plunging some of them into horrendous living conditions whilst they enjoy high dividends, property wealth and a record breaking luxury goods market.

Remember when George Osborne was telling us how skint we were? How did that turn out?

 

Keir Starmer, the man who when faced with an open goal, thinks he's playing rugby.

 

Ditching the 2 Child Policy (or as I call it, the Catholic Tax) is such a no-brainer, a policy that should win plaudits for Labour from both the economic left-wingers and from socially conservative pro-family voters (and those who are both). Such an easy win, yet one Starmer refuses to grasp.

 

He's not allowed to ditch the 2 child policy. I'm not allowed to say too much (but research for yourself if you're that curious) but it was decided decades ago as one of the many methods of reducing birth-rates.

 

If Starmer goes around supporting or encouraging large families of the British in any way he will get Liz Truss/Jeremy Corbyn treatment and removed from power asap along with onslaught of hostile media coverage. It's that serious an issue. There's nothing he's allowed to do except pretend to support the policy.

 

Also, as for the topic of being "skint", yeah, that's all a complete lie the things they teach about economics. There is an infinite amount of money. The most elite people in the world can digitally alter the balance of their own bank accounts on a computer to whatever they want, whenever they want. So they have infinite money. The mainstream media aren't allowed to report on this (with access to infinite money this is easy to achieve), politicians aren't allowed to talk about this (again easily achieved when you have access to infinite money), universities aren't allowed to teach this in their business/economics/politics courses, but you can find proof this happens if you do research.

Edited July 18, 20231 yr by Eric_Blob

He's not allowed to ditch the 2 child policy. I'm not allowed to say too much (but research for yourself if you're that curious) but it was decided decades ago as one of the many methods of reducing birth-rates.

 

If Starmer goes around supporting or encouraging large families of British in any way he will get Liz Truss/Jeremy Corbyn treatment and removed from power asap along with onslaught of hostile media coverage. It's that serious an issue. There's nothing he's allowed to do except pretend to support the policy.

 

...What?

 

It has had little effect on fertility but a huge effect on children being pushed into poverty.

He's not allowed to ditch the 2 child policy. I'm not allowed to say too much (but research for yourself if you're that curious) but it was decided decades ago as one of the many methods of reducing birth-rates.

 

If Starmer goes around supporting or encouraging large families of British in any way he will get Liz Truss/Jeremy Corbyn treatment and removed from power asap along with onslaught of hostile media coverage. It's that serious an issue. There's nothing he's allowed to do except pretend to support the policy.

 

excuse me? It was dreamt up by the Cameron/Osborne government but only introduced 5 years ago, it's certainly not some age-old tradition with shadowy institutional support the way your language implies here.

...What?

 

It has had little effect on fertility but a huge effect on children being pushed into poverty.

 

There are a dozen+ policies which are mandatory in all Western countries (regardless of which political party is in power at any given time) which have a little effect on fertility, combined they have a very big impact on birth rates.

Where did you get your info from? Telegram??

There are a dozen+ policies which are mandatory in all Western countries (regardless of which political party is in power at any given time) which have a little effect on fertility, combined they have a very big impact on birth rates.

? Just from personal experience I know Spain (a Western country, last time I checked) has a government-supported scheme for large families (with 3+ children) that reduces the cost of transport, taxes, bills, education and food, etc. It's a widely publicised program over there and precisely the opposite of the UK's policy.

I thought that the right wingers wanted larger families (presumably of the "correct" kind, mind) as it enforces patriarchal, heteronormative societies, reduces the immigration needed and is the natural product of their resistance to abortion. Certainly that is the idea being floated by the likes of rising Christian Nationalist star Miriam Cates (although likely to lose her seat next year) is going on about.

Here's a piece grounded in reality defending Keir Starmer. Scrapping the two-child policy is indeed the right thing to do. It wouldn't cost very much and the policy hasn't achieved what it was meant to achieve (whether the aim was a good one or not is a separate issue). However, it is popular with the public (including Labour supporters).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...lection-britain

But every time a progressive moment occurs that’s the right wing defence - we are skint. It’s just a way of stopping progress. We’re the Brits not skint in 1945 too and yet we’re able to create the NHS? It’s funny how we are always skint when it comes to providing public good but when it comes to wars there’s plenty of the pie left to fund them.

 

Who are these scary people in ‘the markets’ we owe money to? Why don’t they get dragged to the Supreme Court and held to account?

 

The current economic policy by the BoE is designed to prevent us to stop borrowing money to curb inflation. We're forecast to borrow something ridiculous as it is like £130bn for the current financial year, borrowing more unfunded money, is going to increase the pain mortage owners are feeling now for a longer period than 2-5 years as it is as the swaps rate increases from the markets. Sure, you can fund these policies through tax rises, but that won't go down well with anyone in the current economic climate & I can't see it being an election winner by Labour. I also think tax rises would reduce inflation quicker, but the Tories are seemingly going to hope inflation goes down with the current policy and then off a tax cut to voters at the next GE is my best guess.

 

Not saying I agree with austerity, but saying we will spend our way out of trouble is just walking straight in to the Tory trap and longer economic pain for us all.

The current economic policy by the BoE is designed to prevent us to stop borrowing money to curb inflation. We're forecast to borrow something ridiculous as it is like £130bn for the current financial year, borrowing more unfunded money, is going to increase the pain mortage owners are feeling now for a longer period than 2-5 years as it is as the swaps rate increases from the markets. Sure, you can fund these policies through tax rises, but that won't go down well with anyone in the current economic climate & I can't see it being an election winner by Labour. I also think tax rises would reduce inflation quicker, but the Tories are seemingly going to hope inflation goes down with the current policy and then off a tax cut to voters at the next GE is my best guess.

 

Not saying I agree with austerity, but saying we will spend our way out of trouble is just walking straight in to the Tory trap and longer economic pain for us all.

 

Yes, but while the above may be applicable to some parts of the government budget, this is specifically about a policy that is harmful to the long-term productivity of the UK - policies that eliminate child poverty end up by design easing on lots of systems further down the line, and is effectively a pittance in terms of value.

 

It's a popular policy to keep the limit (as polled), but also on this the public are wrong, sold as they have been over years and years stereotypes about benefits street, and it's ground zero for where Labour should be leading and changing public opinion, which I've always said they should be doing lots of, and my principle problem with Starmer's Labour is that they do none of.

 

they wouldn't even need to poke the bear too much if they framed it skillfully from the perspective of providing for families who need the help but of course they're not going to do that.

Yes, but while the above may be applicable to some parts of the government budget, this is specifically about a policy that is harmful to the long-term productivity of the UK - policies that eliminate child poverty end up by design easing on lots of systems further down the line, and is effectively a pittance in terms of value.

 

It's a popular policy to keep the limit (as polled), but also on this the public are wrong, sold as they have been over years and years stereotypes about benefits street, and it's ground zero for where Labour should be leading and changing public opinion, which I've always said they should be doing lots of, and my principle problem with Starmer's Labour is that they do none of.

 

they wouldn't even need to poke the bear too much if they framed it skillfully from the perspective of providing for families who need the help but of course they're not going to do that.

 

I get that argument too and for the record I am against the policy, but going against public opinion and the Tories using the "Labour spending what they can't afford" is an easy narrative. It's not sexy, but Starmer seems to be going for the safety first strategy, caution but on steriods.

Here's a piece grounded in reality defending Keir Starmer. Scrapping the two-child policy is indeed the right thing to do. It wouldn't cost very much and the policy hasn't achieved what it was meant to achieve (whether the aim was a good one or not is a separate issue). However, it is popular with the public (including Labour supporters).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...lection-britain

 

A great article as ever!

Frankly I'm so tired of hearing the stale take that ‘there is no money’ - a dictum developed by Cameron and Osborne (and accepted by the largely right wing media client journalists) to give them sufficient cover for their cruel and damaging cuts/ideology. When they claimed that drastic cuts needed to be made the UK's debt-to-GDP was 60% (it's now over 100%) but after WWII we were at 270%. I know that isn't what people are suggesting and it's that a prospective Government has to look economically competent, but it just isn't in any way true and I reject it totally. The cost of borrowing has gone up, true, however the massive increases last autumn were because Truss and Kwarteng frightened investors by not getting a proper OBR forecast and just slamming >£40 billion tax cuts on a Friday morning before going for a boozy lunch with some bankers and enjoying the 'beakend' at Chequers.. so yeah that panicked everyone, tanked the pound and caused inflation and interest rate rises that we have now to be so much worse than they would have been. That doesn't preclude ANY spending commitment being made in the future, particularly on a no-brainer one like removing the two child benefits cap!!

 

Let's leave aside for one minute how cruel and unfair it is - if you're rich like Boris Johnson (8* + and counting children) or Jacob Rees-Mogg (6 children) then feel free to breed as much as you want, however for those who are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis- and remember this cut largely affects in-work families it must be stated- then no matter how much love and support you could offer your potential new children you wouldn't be able to have any more once you've had 2. That's it, sorry guys. But let's look at how economically illiterate this policy is: the UK birth rate is in continual decline, we've dropped to below 1.6 for the first time on record (2.1 is required for a stable population)- not quite as low as South Korea (0.78) but heading that way. I mean I remember when there was a sitcom on UKTV called 2 point 4 children, and that was only a few decades ago! If we don't address this soon the ageing of our population will overwhelm the shrinking workforce and suck demand out of the economy, leading us into permanent decline. To not prioritise helping poverty stricken children is one thing but to ignore the obvious economic implications of such a damaging policy is IMO just as wrong even if the impacts on fertility aren't actually that marked.

 

Finally, I'd just like to bring up a Tony Benn quote re: Sir Keir.

 

I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if

you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there. The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the

spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks.

 

Starmer is a weatherCOCK (emphasis on COCK), not a leader. It doesn't matter if the public don't have the same view, your job as leader is to stick to what you think is the correct course of action and persuade the public. It's not as easy as going to a focus group and being led by them but it's a far more principled and admirable quality. I'm now hearing that Starmer is considering 'potentially scrapping the two child benefit cap' so just waiting for his outriders to tell me how brilliant he is for deciding this and that it's absolutely the right thing to do and he was even more brilliant for suggesting on Sunday that he was ruling it out and thus has formed another embarrassing U-turn (after pissing off most of the Labour support base).

 

I'll wait..

 

 

 

*that we know of.

You raise some interesting points DB, true the 2015 rhetotic was idelogical driven, but with our GDP as high as it is now, we truly are skint. Borrowing for the government is going to be high for a long time. Without some tax rises somewhere we're simply not going to be able to do that much without being economically stupid no matter who is in charge of Government. Who truly knows where inflation will go, seeing as we have a large population of the country whom are unaffacted by the current economic tactic. But I can't see the interest rate going back to anything like it was for over a generation.

 

I get the point about birth rate, but there are lots of factors for this, it's not a direct link as the decline has been happening for some time. Society has changed, so we have more women having careers, going to university and choosing to start a family later in life for one. The cost of childcare too of course is a factor, but we've seen a societal shift over the last 15-20 years.

Starmer looking very glittery today. Kinda suits him.

 

(a protester rushed him on stage, dumped a lot of glitter and was dragged off while screaming something about a 'people's democracy', decent enough cause, isn't made to look good in this instance tbf)

 

@1711766703510524018

 

Labour Conference so far very un-foot-shooty for once I have to admit, the policies they are announcing are not enough to fix the problems but it's all looking very government-in-waiting stuff to the median voter.

Starmer looking very glittery today. Kinda suits him.

 

(a protester rushed him on stage, dumped a lot of glitter and was dragged off while screaming something about a 'people's democracy', decent enough cause, isn't made to look good in this instance tbf)

 

@1711766703510524018

 

Labour Conference so far very un-foot-shooty for once I have to admit, the policies they are announcing are not enough to fix the problems but it's all looking very government-in-waiting stuff to the median voter.

 

They are doing quite well and Starmer is coming across very much a "sensible" option to vote for which should work quite well. They are framing everything in a way that suggests they need 2 terms to do what they envision and are providing sensible options to improve people's lives without overextending themselves. This should help to keep their lead in the polls and maybe provide a small boost.

@1711738276309069851

 

 

I found it pretty uninspiring and dull tbh, they aren't going to be able to do anything radical and therefore little fundamentally will actually change. But yeah, whatever - if it means we are rid of the Tories for a decade (hopefully more) I'm IN.

At least no horrific culture war diatribes in his speech. Unlike Sunak and Braverman.