carpetmonster Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 3 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said: Sunak giving him a really easy ride at PMQs. ‘Mental images nobody wants’ thread for this pish IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 6 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said: Sunak giving him a really easy ride at PMQs. Two Tories having a friendly chat basically 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 9 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said: Sunak giving him a really easy ride at PMQs. Sunak serving out his notice with the absoloute minimum of effort. I kind of respect it tbf to him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 Having a go at peaceful protesters as well ....how very Tory of him 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 3 hours ago, Granny Danger said: I’ve greenied your naivety/fantasy thinking. I kept dribbling my kestrel super down my chin as my tounge was firmly in cheek. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 1 hour ago, Pocketman said: Guess which way Kate voted? I suppose she doesn't specifically refer to the "two-child" benefit cap above and therefore that is one of the caps she supports. Another Labour MP (perhaps one of the Scottish ones) opposed to the cap tweeted that she remain opposed, the "struggle continues" but voted in favour of it to ensure "party unity". Could do with @Jedi2 to come back on here to help us simpletons make sense of what seems to be duplicitous behaviour by many Labour MPs, ruled by party first/self-interests. She's playing 4d chess on an alternative plain in the multiverse. These new crop of lab lap dogs are smarter than you give them credit for and not just boots in power suits who's necks yoy couldn't redden wi a blowtorch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 6 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: I kept dribbling my kestrel super down my chin as my tounge was firmly in cheek. ^^^ reported to RSPB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 14 hours ago, dirty dingus said: Loads of Labour supporters saying Starmer is being sensible and Labour need to see how much dough is in the kitty before scrapping the 2 child benefit cap. Right Keith roll up the sleeves and go after all the companies that dodge tax, all the politicians that feathered their nests during covid, scrap trident, scrap the lords and they'd be more than enough to put food in innocent children's bellies. Didn't realise Helen Lovejoy posted on here tbh. I'd rather a government ignored such emotive, single impact group pish and instead focused on the societal level drivers of poverty: such as rent controls and ending no-fault evictions, as a first step towards ending landlordism. I don't expect the Labour government to do that either, but the idea that ending the two child benefit cap is the best approach to tackling poverty is questionable to say the least. Edited July 24 by vikingTON 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Steele Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 On 18/07/2024 at 10:47, I Clavdivs said: Before the GE election Anas Sarwar was talking big about "putting pressure" on Sir Keir,if Labour were elected ,to drop the Tories two child Cap on benefits.Since the election we've heard heehaw from Anas on thus subject but lots from new Viceroy Murray saying naw...just naw . Anyone surprised ? . About as surprised as the Branch Office taking the Scottish electorate for idiots. Again. Of the 37 Scottish Labour MPs, 36 voted with the government. One – Katrina Murray – did not vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plumpy Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 I can't see what the big issue with this benefit cap, is it a good thing that people who can't afford to bring more kids into their families have them anyway making the family even poorer even if you include the removal of the cap. This isn't even one of those small benefits that have little cost, it's estimated to be £3.4 billion per year, 3% of the total budget for working age benefits. If it does get removed will there be an alternative restraint of expanding families ? The government or tax/ benefit system didn't put these children into poverty, their parents did, the responsibility must be on them to provide adequately for their children. -11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 We're all in it together Pt. 236 Quote King to receive extra £45m of public money as crown estate income soars 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 3 minutes ago, Plumpy said: I can't see what the big issue with this benefit cap, is it a good thing that people who can't afford to bring more kids into their families have them anyway making the family even poorer even if you include the removal of the cap. This isn't even one of those small benefits that have little cost, it's estimated to be £3.4 billion per year, 3% of the total budget for working age benefits. If it does get removed will there be an alternative restraint of expanding families ? The government or tax/ benefit system didn't put these children into poverty, their parents did, the responsibility must be on them to provide adequately for their children. Fvk me, do you live on Walton's Mountain. Do circumstances never change in your world, do people never die, get divorced, become ill, become unemployed? Also, whilst I'm at it, how does any of your logic work. If I have a problem with you, do I get to take it out on your kids? Yours aDONis 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 The suspensions are not really a surprise. The first Labour King's/Queens speech in 14 years, the expectation is that nobody votes against them. Abstain, sure. But to vote against your own governing party gets the whip withdrawn. Politically, I think this issue is more nuanced. There are a lot of people, including a lot of left wingers, who agree with the cap. They go along with the notion that if you are living on benefits, the state should not support you having loads of kids when working people limit their families according to their budgets. But as @aDONisSheep points out, that isn't always the case. Not everyone starts off in that place. That said, I saw on the BBC news a couple with 5 kids who have never worked, complaining about it. The reason they can't work, they say, is childcare. The cap will be withdrawn this parliament, I'm sure of that. At some point it'll be done as a big announcement. But the SNP have duped these MP's into changing the story of the King's Speech into this. You have to say well played on that score. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 Let's see what sir kiddie starver said 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 12 minutes ago, aDONisSheep said: Fvk me, do you live on Walton's Mountain. Do circumstances never change in your world, do people never die, get divorced, become ill, become unemployed? A: Responsible adults should consider those potential changes of circumstance, before consciously choosing to have a third child on top of the two they already have. Quote Also, whilst I'm at it, how does any of your logic work. If I have a problem with you, do I get to take it out on your kids? Emotive pish. The case has to be made for why a government (any government) with limited resources to tackle poverty should direct them specifically to large families at the expense of other groups in society: such as single parent households with fewer children; the disabled and long term sick; pensioners; and the large number of working age individuals in poverty. Every policy involves those trade-offs and a rational government identifies the most effective and fairest ones to enact. That's got nothing to do with retribution. Edited July 24 by vikingTON -8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDuffman Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 Our new fat bint representing Cumbernauld abstained. Not even got the spine to vote against it. Just as bad as voting for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukovic Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 7 minutes ago, virginton said: A: Responsible adults should consider those potential changes of circumstance, before consciously choosing to have a third child on top of the two they already have. Judging from your way of thinking, I can imagine some children are accidents. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford prefect Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 That's extremely short sighted. We need more people having families to deal with supporting an ageing population. We're wedded to a capitalist system so that means we have to support people in lower income groups to have families. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 25 minutes ago, virginton said: A: Responsible adults should consider those potential changes of circumstance, before consciously choosing to have a third child on top of the two they already have. Mystic Meg stuff that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, virginton said: Emotive pish. The case has to be made for why a government (any government) with limited resources to tackle poverty should direct them specifically to large families at the expense of other groups in society: such as single parent households with fewer children; the disabled and long term sick; pensioners; and the large number of working age individuals in poverty. Every policy involves those trade-offs and a rational government identifies the most effective and fairest ones to enact. That's got nothing to do with retribution. I absolutely agree, but as you describe it, it's a policy decision, but that policy decision has a direct impact on those that have no voice and have absolutely no input into their situation (children of poor families). It feels like you're pretending that the government finances are the same as household finances, they aren't. The government has lots of levers (and resources are not so limited, that we "can't" make these decisions). It's that we choose not to. For example, we (the UK) have just committed to £3.6bn p.a. of military funding for Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'. (I don't think this is a bad thing). But the fact is, we don't have to do that, it's outside of our NATO commitments. For less money, we could alleviate the curse of poverty for hundreds of thousands of children. We choose not to. Just the same as we choose not to impose wealth taxes, or balance out capital gains tax rates, to get more money into the system from the top. Ultimately, it all leads back to the fact that the people who suffer most, are the poorest in our society. In the real world, there are more children going to bed hungry (which leads to all sorts of longer term issues), than there would otherwise be, because we (the UK Gov) have decided that they can wait for pink austerity to deliver some jam tomorrow, rather than pulling the other levers available to help them. Yours, gooooo Labour! Your thrifty-ness means I will get that bigger fvk-off telly sooner, and that's more important, than some piss-poor childs welfare! aDONis Edited July 24 by aDONisSheep 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.