Tony Towner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Messages
- 38,494
- Reaction score
- 24,841
2 weeks after an election you shouldn't have stood for them if you can't vote with / not against them on a policy that they were very clear about beforehand.
Keir Starmer at it again..
- Thread starter darlowolf64
- Start date
The Saturday Boy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 7,609
- Reaction score
- 1,833
Even if the policy is wrong?
Dire Wolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
- Messages
- 6,486
- Reaction score
- 4,644
Absolutely right, MPs should forego all principles in the interests of power. After all, that's what we are used to these days isn't it...
Tony Towner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Messages
- 38,494
- Reaction score
- 24,841
Yes, if you aren't happy stand as an independent. They were very transparent about it a year ago. I think it's wrong, but I didn't voluntarily stand for a party where that was the policy
Templeton Peck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,120
- Reaction score
- 2,835
That's certainly...a take.
Dire Wolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
- Messages
- 6,486
- Reaction score
- 4,644
So you don't believe in people within the same party having different beliefs? Weird, that doesn't really sound very democratic. Part of the Labour movement is about trying to enact democratic change from within the Labour Party, and having principled people within the party is EXACTLY what this iteration of the Labour Party needs.
Tony Towner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Messages
- 38,494
- Reaction score
- 24,841
See the amended post. Don't like it, find another home. Ridiculous to be voting for an amendment this early in a Parliament against the manifesto that the party you ran for was clear on. It's disingenuous
Templeton Peck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,120
- Reaction score
- 2,835
Labour has always been a broad church. Apparently.
Tony Towner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Messages
- 38,494
- Reaction score
- 24,841
An adult response
Paddingtonwolf
Flaming Galah
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 78,213
- Reaction score
- 8,419
I am shocked to see Long-Bailey and McDonnell front and centre of this rebellion
pavlosmacwolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,332
- Reaction score
- 576
They haven't said never, they have said they need to find the money first. A stated pre election policy, So why not abstain as others did.
Mind you after the HS2 news tonight, where they find the money.............
Mind you after the HS2 news tonight, where they find the money.............
Paddingtonwolf
Flaming Galah
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 78,213
- Reaction score
- 8,419
All seven are Corbynites. So this has become an unnecessary show of muscle by both sides. And over a policy that really should be changed when the money is available too. Not sure what the solution is, but it doesn't look good. For instance - Dire makes the Labour is a broad church point, and he is absolutely right to deride that in the face of the action taken by the party leadership here. But equally, the rebels are trying to throw their weight about in a way that works in opposition but is not a great idea in power. Now that is their right, and moral stances should not be discouraged, but the overall bad look of it is a significant issue, that would have been a known consequence.
Oh, and cheers Hoyle for picking that amendment. Way to go, mate.
Oh, and cheers Hoyle for picking that amendment. Way to go, mate.
The Saturday Boy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 7,609
- Reaction score
- 1,833
They could choose to find the money if they wanted…
The IFS estimates it would cost around £3.4 billion. The soon to be released pay review body recommendations for education and NHS staff will cost the government around £10 billion with the Treasury having budgeted for a 3% rise, not the 5.5% widely reported. There was no specific manifesto commitment on this beyond “we won’t spend what we can’t afford”.
The government has set out clearly that they can’t afford £3.4 billion to alleviate child poverty, it would be consistent therefore not to accept the recommendation of the pay review bodies unless they make a choice to do so.
In 2023, total government spending was £1200 billion. Removing the two child cap would cost around 0.002% of total government spending. It is a pittance in the great scheme of things. It would have been a relatively easy choice to make.
Tredman
Salted Caramel Edition
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 25,307
- Reaction score
- 11,466
It’ll happen soon enough I think, it’s the best way to solve the massive numbers of children living in poverty.
Got to admit, although I don’t want children to be disadvantaged, paying for people to look after sometimes incredibly large families does smell a little.
Got to admit, although I don’t want children to be disadvantaged, paying for people to look after sometimes incredibly large families does smell a little.
Tredman
Salted Caramel Edition
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 25,307
- Reaction score
- 11,466
There is no child number cap on child benefit, the cap is on all other benefits AFAIK.
Plus they've only just raised it to 60k it was 50 for years.
Del Woppio
Virgin geek fuckwad
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 25,822
- Reaction score
- 12,232
Is it too optimistic of me to think that they're preparing the ground for tax reset, with a higher high income tax rate, CGT/income tax equalisation, higher stamp duty on £2m+ properties, closing loopholes on the Googles/Amazons?
Get it all through while you've got a massive majority and 4 years 10 months before the next election, ride out the abuse and then point to rescued public services in 2 years time.
