coprolite Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 33 minutes ago, virginton said: No it doesn't: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/ This is because the UK in the 1990s and 2000s was not actually an idyllic existence for single parent households or households with many children. Those groups were always relatively poorer than the median income of the population after housing costs - and would remain so under pretty much any sane redistribution model. For some people in that position it is unfortunate - for others it is poor planning. A change over a couple if years isn't the same as a change over a couple of decades is it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 The argument over the 2 child cap isn't about economics, it's a political decision. Equally, if they agree to remove the cap (and they will) that will be a political decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 hour ago, Cheese said: There's anywhere between 500,000 and 1 million properties sitting empty in the UK at any one time. Including around 250,000 long term empty properties. So it's less of a supply/demand thing and more of a landlord thing. It’s exactly a supply and demand thing. There are areas where you can buy houses for incredibly low prices, but no-one buys them because there is no demand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Just went by Downing Street. Starmer not in apparently. I asked if he was at IKEA and they just laughed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 I'm not sure why anyone would put something like this on Twitter the day after they voted against a measure to help reduce child poverty. The optics are dreadful. We all get the fact that there are a number of reasons why child poverty exists but you've flat out voted against taking the first step in terms of removing something you have direct responsibility for. Never mind, chuck another £45m at the binfire that is the Royal Family ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 I get that a government has to make tough decisions but the reality is that Labour's actions are miles away from their words. The number of MPs saying they want the cap abolished (during the campaign) yet do the exact opposite when it comes to the vote. They are mealy-mouthed cowards. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Shyt the bed, now we're getting hung up on merits of measurement and whether relative poverty exactly maps onto actual poverty! To a certain extent that's just semantics, we are the 6th largest economy in the world, but we're near the bottom of comparable countries in terms of child poverty. This policy is simply cruel, lifting it won't cure 'poverty' but it will alleviate it for a couple of hundred thousand kids. Labour previously abhorred it, but have now decided that it's not really a priority (for reasons known only to themselves) and that those poor-kids it would have helped, need to 'suck it up'. Labour have the levers, they even have the leeway (see Ukraine example). They have chosen not to. KNVTS! Yours, aDONis 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 22 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: I get that a government has to make tough decisions but the reality is that Labour's actions are miles away from their words. The number of MPs saying they want the cap abolished (during the campaign) yet do the exact opposite when it comes to the vote. They are mealy-mouthed cowards. Starmer did say during the campaign that they couldn't afford to lift the cap. It wasn't in the manifesto. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 34 minutes ago, HTG said: I'm not sure why anyone would put something like this on Twitter the day after they voted against a measure to help reduce child poverty. The optics are dreadful. We all get the fact that there are a number of reasons why child poverty exists but you've flat out voted against taking the first step in terms of removing something you have direct responsibility for. Never mind, chuck another £45m at the binfire that is the Royal Family ... I detested her because of things I saw her say and do as a councillor, and I don't imagine that's going to get any better now she's an MP. Drug dealers have more integrity than Sullivan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 7 minutes ago, scottsdad said: Starmer did say during the campaign that they couldn't afford to lift the cap. It wasn't in the manifesto. I'm talking about individual MPs who said they would. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 52 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Just went by Downing Street. Starmer not in apparently. I asked if he was at IKEA and they just laughed. Title of this thread gets on my wick. Ikea only rhymes with Keir and beer if you're a slack-jawed Sassenach that can't speak English properly. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Is there anything they haven't u-turned on yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 19 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Is there anything they haven't u-turned on yet? Sending the immigrants home? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 On 24/07/2024 at 13:46, Lukovic said: Judging from your way of thinking, I can imagine some children are accidents. Very underrated post if it was deliberate! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 53 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Is there anything they haven't u-turned on yet? Bombing kids in Palestine. Although, in his defence, he does sometimes put on a 'sad' face. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, Leith Green said: Sending the immigrants home? They're sending them home - just not via Rwanda. Edited July 25 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 5 hours ago, aDONisSheep said: Shyt the bed, now we're getting hung up on merits of measurement and whether relative poverty exactly maps onto actual poverty! No we aren't. Absolute and relative poverty do not exactly map. It's also not semantics, there will always be a proportion of people in relative poverty, there is no reason why we should have people in absolute poverty. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieThomas Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 On 02/07/2018 at 09:11, JamieThomas said: Corbyn is a sound enough punter, he'd be a good Prime Minister for England. Know a few Labourites from back home though (campaigners, an ex councillor) and it seemed to me that literally all they actually cared about was getting back in power, with zero mention of what they'd actually do with it. Guess we found out what they'd do with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picklish Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) 15 hours ago, virginton said: It is an either/or because the UK (and Scotland too) are not shitting money to deal with the myriad social and economic problems that they face. Pretending that the bottom line either does not matter (see the Truss/Kwarteng budget) or deflecting it away with talk about Trident/defence spending is not serious. Politics is about making choices about where resources should be allocated and where political capital should be spent too. This also applies to measures to combat poverty that have a direct impact on the bottom line of government finances: the most impactful and fair measures should take priority. Galloping rates of rent/housing costs are a far more signficant driving force of poverty (and high benefit costs too) than lifting the two child cap. The bottom line/shitting money - you are treating the economy like household finances. The 'bottom line' isn't a real macro economic measure. It's you failing to understand how a national economy works. Your Truss/Kwarteng point is both neither about 'the bottom line' nor is related to the issue. It's a very clear example of a straw man. You've merely randomly picked an event about economics and made a false comparison. But if you believe in 'the bottom line' then it logically follows that you should also believe in 'taking from one expenditure to give to another'. So you talk about resource allocation, but argue against altering defence expenditure. It's incoherent, your point makes no sense. Either it's about balancing the books or it isn't. Which is it? Finally, you get into whataboutery. Are there other measure to reduce poverty? Yes. Is this one? Also yes. Saying that 'my way of reducing poverty is better than yours' isn't a useful contribution. It's a failure to engage with the proposal. Ultimately, your typically issue, evident through most of your contributions, is that you decide an issue in your mind, and then defend it without looking at the bigger picture, or believing that it may be wrong. This is called anchoring bias. Edited July 25 by picklish 1 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.