Labour party, first 100 days in office.

[L.A.T.1961]

22 hours ago, Setton said:

So what's the change in policy?

"We can't lift it without finding the money from somewhere."

"We'll consider lifting it." 

Do you think consideration wouldn't include "can we find the money for it"?

Sir Keir has faced a backlash from across his party over the issue.

You will have to ask the Labour party as its a number of them who disagree with Starmers original thoughts.

They would like an immediate change he initially pushed back and talked of funding problems, there was talk of an alteration to the kings speech forcing the issue.

This seems to have changed minds irrespective of funding. 

Back benchers already driving policy.😉

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

This seems to have changed minds irrespective of funding

And you base that assessment on...?

What, exactly? Somebody saying they'll consider it?

I'll ask again, do you think "considering it" doesn't involve considering the funding of it?

The right wing must be absolutely ****ting themselves at Labour's potential for success to have to make up such flimsy complaints.

Edited July 23 by Setton

[L.A.T.1961]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

And you base that assessment on...?

What, exactly? Somebody saying they'll consider it?

I'll ask again, do you think "considering it" doesn't involve considering the funding of it?

The considering part seems to have disappeared and finding funding. 

Somebody thinks sending the message and removing the cap is more important than paying for it.

It is ideology over pragmatism.

We shall see more of this as the Labour backbenchers flex their muscles.  

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

The considering part seems to have disappeared and finding funding. 

Again, based on what? The quote that started this conversation specifically said they will consider it.

Do you have a more up to date quote of a relevant minister saying they will do it, rather than considering?

Quote

Somebody thinks sending the message and removing the cap is more important than paying for it.

It is ideology over pragmatism.

We shall see more of this as the Labour backbenchers flex their muscles.  

Will we though?

Because you've provided no evidence we're even seeing it here.

I'm sure you and the usual suspects in this thread will see issues everywhere but that's more a reflection of the right wing panic that Labour is making a success of things than a reflection of reality.

[L.A.T.1961]

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Again, based on what? The quote that started this conversation specifically said they will consider it.

Do you have a more up to date quote of a relevant minister saying they will do it, rather than considering?

Will we though?

Because you've provided no evidence we're even seeing it here.

I'm sure you and the usual suspects in this thread will see issues everywhere but that's more a reflection of the right wing panic that Labour is making a success of things than a reflection of reality.

Go back and read the BBC article.

"Both the county's largest union, Unison and the shop workers' union Usdaw are backing an amendment to "end the punitive features" of the benefit system, including specifically the benefits cap and the two-child limit.

Sir Keir told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg the policy would not change under a Labour government.

Although he did not give a reason during the interview, members of his shadow cabinet said it was because this would constitute an unfunded spending commitment."

Is that clear enough, no change in policy under a Labour gov. 

New position, we will consider it.

U turn.  

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Go back and read the BBC article.

"Both the county's largest union, Unison and the shop workers' union Usdaw are backing an amendment to "end the punitive features" of the benefit system, including specifically the benefits cap and the two-child limit.

Sir Keir told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg the policy would not change under a Labour government.

Although he did not give a reason during the interview, members of his shadow cabinet said it was because this would constitute an unfunded spending commitment."

Is that clear enough, no change in policy under a Labour gov. 

New position, we will consider it.

U turn.  

Go back and read your own post.

Quote

On Sunday, chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC she could not pledge to scrap the cap, which was first introduced by the Conservatives in 2015, without saying where the £3bn annual cost “is going to come from”.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson told Sky News on Monday morning that the government would “consider [lifting the cap] as one of a number of levers in terms of how we make sure we lift children out of poverty”. Hours later, Starmer backed Phillipson during a press conference at Farnborough international airshow, saying: “What the education secretary said this morning, I agree with …

So the statements you have are.

1. We won't commit to lifting it as it's an unfunded commitment.

2. We can't commit to it without finding the funding.

3. We will consider lifting it.

There is nothing inconsistent in those statements. Unless you make the rather desperate assumption that "consideration" doesn't include cost.

Which was my very first point, and my last, and one you've still totally failed to address.

So if you're just going to keep making the same unfounded claims and totally ignoring my response, there's not much point carrying on is there? Enjoy your panicky right wing echo chamber. It's irrelevant for five years anyway.

[L.A.T.1961]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Go back and read your own post.

So the statements you have are.

1. We won't commit to lifting it as it's an unfunded commitment.

2. We can't commit to it without finding the funding.

3. We will consider lifting it.

There is nothing inconsistent in those statements. Unless you make the rather desperate assumption that "consideration" doesn't include cost.

Which was my very first point, and my last, and one you've still totally failed to address.

So if you're just going to keep making the same unfounded claims and totally ignoring my response, there's not much point carrying on is there? Enjoy your panicky right wing echo chamber. It's irrelevant for five years anyway.

The statements I have posted include Sir Keir told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg the policy would not change under a Labour government.

Would not change. 

Any other position is different.

[Setton]

7 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

The statements I have posted include Sir Keir told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg the policy would not change under a Labour government.

Would not change. 

Any other position is different.

..... because it would constitute an unfunded commitment.

If that reason is no longer true i.e. they finf the funds for it, then they might change it.

That's entirely logically consistent.

And they still haven't said it will change unless they can find the funds. So no change in policy.

What are you annoyed at here? That the government might be able to do more than they originally thought to relieve child poverty, without costing the taxpayer and extra penny?

Seems a rather weird and callous thing to complain about. Strange I didn't hear you complaining when the Tories made bigger tax cuts than they originally thought possible. Is that a U turn too?

Tomorrow's Daily Express headline:

Labour able to deliver more than they  originally expected! Right wing voters furious at government for being too good!

Edited July 23 by Setton

[Setton]

@L.A.T.1961 Oh look. Not only has Labour not changed policy on the child benefit cap, they've suspended MPs who voted for scrapping it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c978m6z3egno

 

[Setton]

1 minute ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

There were issues with 19 Labour MP's in total. 

Oh no! That only leaves them with a majority of 67 😮

They only defeated the amendment by 260 votes! They must be terrified!

[pellinore]

19 minutes ago, Setton said:

Oh no! That only leaves them with a majority of 67 😮

They only defeated the amendment by 260 votes! They must be terrified!

13 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Yeah, its the timing that is worrying. 1 would be an utter disaster just 2.5 weeks after the election, but 19. A whopping 19 MP's is earth shattering disaster within days of election.

Coupled with low voter turnout, the rise of Reform and suddenly... well the first past the post is working hard to cover the Lie.bour blushes, but still a disastrous time since election.

The Labour Govts overall majority is 172 seats. That's plenty enough to start overturning the Tories disastrous policies. To be fair, they have started well- they are going to investigate the corruption of the Covid VIP lanes, and they have kicked the Rwanda Plan into touch (plenty of corruption there, if they only look into who are the hotel landlords).

And the big one is they are trying to ameliorate some of the damage Brexit has done (the OBR is not budging on damage of 4%, which makes claims of growth of 0.3% or 0.7% look ridiculous).

And Reform won't be going anywhere- they are a Party of opposition not govt., and when Farage discovers his performance as an MP is going to be scrutinised as well as his finances pre-and post-election as an MP, he'll probably resign.

 

Edited July 23 by pellinore

[OpenMindedSceptic]

Labour in opposition said the Tories were terrible for the way they handled the WASPI Pension scandal but just yesterday have started making moves to kick this problem into the long grass.

Sniping in opposition is easy but leadership is tough but Labour make it extremely easy.

[Setton]

39 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Labour in opposition said the Tories were terrible for the way they handled the WASPI Pension scandal but just yesterday have started making moves to kick this problem into the long grass.

A source, a source, my kingdom for a source!

Quote

Sniping in opposition is easy but leadership is tough but Labour make it extremely easy.

Glad you've come round. Labour really go make leadership look easy don't they?

[pellinore]

19 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Go back and read the BBC article.

"Both the county's largest union, Unison and the shop workers' union Usdaw are backing an amendment to "end the punitive features" of the benefit system, including specifically the benefits cap and the two-child limit.

Sir Keir told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg the policy would not change under a Labour government.

Although he did not give a reason during the interview, members of his shadow cabinet said it was because this would constitute an unfunded spending commitment."

Is that clear enough, no change in policy under a Labour gov. 

New position, we will consider it.

U turn.  

You probably know this already, but there is a lot of confusion about the "two child benefit cap". It doesn't really refer to child benefit. Child benefit is paid to every child, regardless as to how many there are in family. It is £25.60 for the first child, £16.95 for each subsequent child. For high earners on £60k a year it is gradually clawed back until it has all been taken back for people on £80k per year.

The two-child limit applies to UC, whether people are employed or not. It says you can't get an increase in UC for more children other than the first two.

I only mention this as some people think child benefits stop after the first 2 children in a family receive it.

[pellinore]

31 minutes ago, Setton said:

Glad you've come round. Labour really go make leadership look easy don't they?

Labour has the advantage of strong leadership. They have already identified the big issues, have started putting plans in place, and they are showing party discipline from the get-go by removing the whip from rebels.

The Tories were hamstrung by being pulled in different directions. I think they have now branched out into several parties.  

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Let's keep things civil and constructive please.

[pellinore]

I think we can all agree Starmer seems to have deal well with the first major test which has presented itself- dealing firmly and fairly with the protests against the Tory immigration policy.

[L.A.T.1961]

It looks like Starmer's whole hearted approval of ECHR oversite in the UK might be short lived?

LONDON — New U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed his Labour government will “never” leave the European Convention on Human Rights as he seeks a reset in relations with Europe.

https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-keir-starmer-never-leave-european-convention-human-rights-political-community-summit/

 

Starmer’s ‘housebuilding revolution’ could violate human rights.

Government will face a string of legal battles over its proposal to reduce compensation to landowners forced to hand over their assets under compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers.

But Tom Barton, a partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told The Telegraph that the Government risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law by changing compensation rules.

“The ECHR protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and respect for your right to a home, and capping compensation at ‘existing use value’ could be considered an infringement on this right.

Warnings over a ECHR breach come after leading lawyers told The Telegraph that Labour’s planned VAT raid on private schools was “likely illegal”.

So Starmer goes right to work breaking international law. 

Of course Labour have no concerns about "right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and respect for your right to a home" because these folks are probably considered rich by some arbitrary measure.

For example they own property or some other antisocial behavior.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/labour-housing-plans-violate-human-rights/

[Setton]

1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It looks like Starmer's whole hearted approval of ECHR oversite in the UK might be short lived?

LONDON — New U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed his Labour government will “never” leave the European Convention on Human Rights as he seeks a reset in relations with Europe.

https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-keir-starmer-never-leave-european-convention-human-rights-political-community-summit/

 

Starmer’s ‘housebuilding revolution’ could violate human rights.

Government will face a string of legal battles over its proposal to reduce compensation to landowners forced to hand over their assets under compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers.

But Tom Barton, a partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told The Telegraph that the Government risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law by changing compensation rules.

“The ECHR protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and respect for your right to a home, and capping compensation at ‘existing use value’ could be considered an infringement on this right.

Warnings over a ECHR breach come after leading lawyers told The Telegraph that Labour’s planned VAT raid on private schools was “likely illegal”.

So Starmer goes right to work breaking international law. 

Of course Labour have no concerns about "right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and respect for your right to a home" because these folks are probably considered rich by some arbitrary measure.

For example they own property or some other antisocial behavior.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/labour-housing-plans-violate-human-rights/

Or it's the Telegraph **** stirring. Seeing as the ECHR hasn't even heard the case, let alone ruled on it.

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It looks like Starmer's whole hearted approval of ECHR oversite in the UK might be short lived?

LONDON — New U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed his Labour government will “never” leave the European Convention on Human Rights as he seeks a reset in relations with Europe.

https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-keir-starmer-never-leave-european-convention-human-rights-political-community-summit/

Starmer’s ‘housebuilding revolution’ could violate human rights.

Government will face a string of legal battles over its proposal to reduce compensation to landowners forced to hand over their assets under compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers.

But Tom Barton, a partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told The Telegraph that the Government risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law by changing compensation rules.

“The ECHR protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and respect for your right to a home, and capping compensation at ‘existing use value’ could be considered an infringement on this right.

Warnings over a ECHR breach come after leading lawyers told The Telegraph that Labour’s planned VAT raid on private schools was “likely illegal”.

So Starmer goes right to work breaking international law. 

Of course Labour have no concerns about "right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and respect for your right to a home" because these folks are probably considered rich by some arbitrary measure.

For example they own property or some other antisocial behavior.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/labour-housing-plans-violate-human-rights/

Don't worry people, you don't need to buy homes, the state will own everything!

First up, despite no money, he plans to nationalise the railways. The only way that is happening is if he pays 1p per share. Everyone is going to get right royally shafted off him. He`ll be a one term PM, just watch.

[L.A.T.1961]

6 hours ago, Setton said:

Or it's the Telegraph **** stirring. Seeing as the ECHR hasn't even heard the case, let alone ruled on it.

If anybody is #### stirring it's the law firms and leading lawyers who informed the Telegraph, don't shoot the messenger. 

If Starmer stops the migrants these legal types will be in need of a new type of clientele. 😉

Edited August 10 by L.A.T.1961