Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 12:29 pm Jez has popped up to criticise Starmer on benefits. That's this Jez.

Labour manifesto ‘would keep £7bn of planned Tory welfare cuts’
Analysis by Resolution Foundation shows Jeremy Corbyn’s party would go ahead with most of George Osborne’s planned benefits reductions

Sure, the policy was much better in 2019, but the fact remains, he was happy to pull this shit in order to get votes off rich students and their parents.

I've not checked, but according to Phil Moorhouse, the two child limit was in Labour's 2017 manifesto.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:49 am The investment and Labour market stuff are pretty different to the Tories.

But I take her point about current spending. Trouble is taxes have already been whacked up already, and nobody has much appetite to take them higher. There aren't as many rich as people think, and not like there's a "peace dividend" or anything heading down the track- the opposite. So you're scrabbling around for things like VAT on private schools and pass through income (both worthy) but only about £2bn a year in total. Think the mansion tax is still on, though it'll probably be some way over the £2m it was proposed to be in 2015, wisely I think. That might be another £1bn or so.

I take your point when it comes to Danielle she's very much influenced by American poliitcs and will often compare Labour with the Democrats.

The dismissive tree hugger quote was actually a smart observation. Even farmers are dabbling in becoming non tree hugging greenies and building services workers certainly are. With improved technology and economic viability this trend is only going one way.

Not sure this is "mocking", but it's not a great argument. Of course other choices are available, like spending this money to help keep families from falling into the abyss and costing you lots of money. If you insist on raising the exact amount in tax, then that's easy enough too. Changes to inheritance tax and capital gains tax that barely anyone will notice will do that. Though in fairness they might be planning to do some of this anyway.

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 1:04 pm Tackling child poverty with universal perks like free school meals is a better way to go than trying to convince voters to give more money to benefit claimants to have 3+ kids. Good luck with that.

The trouble with that is that the poorest get the free school meals anyway, and are still destitute. There's not really any alternative to concentrating benefits on the poorest, unless you're prepared to spend prohibitive amounts on universals.

Most people agree with Lee but all he’s got is explaining that he would have won if Starmer had made different moves

It's very selfish of those kids being born, now you think of it.

Some rebels thought of approaching somebody who would have said no. Quite the story here.

I think this sort of stuff is too harsh.

Sure, the £28bn a year commitment was watered down, but not too much. The austerity proposed is with current spending- that's not what Osborne-Hammond did, they did investment too. And there are proposals to soften Brexit, even if they don't make much all that much economic difference. And we can't just undo Brexit now, that's out of our hands.

It's not in the Government's gift to "just undo Brexit" or whatever.

On another forum someone said we're going to get Cameronnism 2.0.

This stuff is frustrating, because sure, Starmer is projecting himself like that. But there are other commitments that anybody political enough to be on a politics forum knows where they can be looked up. The labour market stuff is there, the investment is there.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 8:25 pm This stuff is frustrating, because sure, Starmer is projecting himself like that. But there are other commitments that anybody political enough to be on a politics forum knows where they can be looked up. The labour market stuff is there, the investment is there.

This is going to sound embarrasing but what were they again?

No fair point. Antonia Bance is a good source on the Labour market stuff- lots on the TUC speech.

On investment, was thinking of the £28bn stuff (clarified by Reeves, most of it's still there).

Actually, it's not that easy to find is it!

It's no wonder people think Labour aren't offering anything.

I have mixed feelings about this

Millions make sacrifices by delaying or not having children to pay their way in life will go up the wall if Labour’s spending priority is giving handouts to who they see as feckless mothers and Boris Johnson type no marks who expect the rest of us to pick up the tab. Labour not on our side while we tighten our belts and face cuts. Fuck the Tories for batting Labour this poison chalice but don’t go there until you get in office and fix it under the desk.

How do they abolish it in power after this? Don’t think that’s very easy.

Don’t abolish it but raise the existing two benefits for people with a third child and call it the nursery enterprise allowance or something. On the day of a terrorist attack.

Another worry if Labour picks up this poison chalice is it gives a green light for the press to resume its old favourite the war on a scroungers. Tories then introduce further vile stuff for Labour to oppose.

In the meantime ‘Labour calls time on Boris Britain,’ Johnson’s culture of walking away, taking no responsibility and expecting everyone else to pickup the tab.

It's that classic dilemma:

Make policy for 15% of your activists, or for 40% of the electorate.