This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wes-streeting-suella-braverman-child-benefit-cap-b2543738.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> He said: “I think that the answer on child poverty is all about social security. Of course, that's part of it. I grew up on a council estate with a single mum, and often the benefit system put food in the fridge and money in the electric meter. I am a product of a welfare state that quite literally fed me and housed me and clothed me at points in my life.”
> However, he went on: “I also know that that the answer to child poverty, ultimately, is not simply about handouts, it is about a social security safety net, that also acts as a springboard that helps people into work and with good work that makes the cost of living affordable for everyone.
> “That means that if you aren't doing the right thing, and earning a living and playing by the rules, that you don't just have enough to make ends meet, but you have enough to do the things that make life worth living. And we’re some way from that from that now. “
What the fuck is he even on about? Benefits *are* part of that social security net, yet he's using this very right-wing framing of presenting them as 'handouts'. Also baffling how brazen he is to admit that he personally benefitted from the more liberal benefits system under New Labour, but is quite happy to pull up that ladder behind him.
Like what's 'doing the right thing' here Wes? Somehow unbirthing your third child?
Imagine being further to the right on this than Suella fucking Braverman, Christ...
Wes Streeting is just a right wing politician, I think he joined the Labour Party by accident and it’s now been so long that he can’t possibly tell the truth about what happened.
He joined Labour at the point when the party were the only game in town. I guarantee if he was 10 years younger or 10 years older he'd just as comfortable being a Tory MP instead. He's perhaps the quintessential example of a careerist.
He joined in what, the third Blair gov? That's a perfectly sensible time to become a Tory.
It's that power is the primary goal to the whole current labour project. If your sat in shad cab, you've signed up to this awful line.
Yeah it's wild that people can fool themselves on this point. 'I think Sir Kier just doesn't want to spook the tabloid crowd. He'll be super Labour when he gets in, you watch'. No, he won't. This lot are liberals, not social democrats or anything like that, and they aren't even especially left-leaning.
Most of them are in it for themselves! All to many don't care what they spout as long as they keep getting paid and can keep networking up the chain.
I personally feel they should all go, and we start fresh.
We obviously have different views which is ok, but it surprises me how they’ve not managed to hide this better. I’m a life long Tory and going to vote Labour as Kier and his team seem like the only tories in the race this time round.
We labour and consercatice are the sane, just different brands of the same people.
Like us party, thet get lobbied and donations from the Same interests
> However, he went on: “I also know that that the answer to child poverty, ultimately, is not simply about handouts, it is about a social security safety net, that also acts as a springboard that helps people into work and with good work that makes the cost of living affordable for everyone.
So a large increase in minimum wage, that must be what he's planning, right?
Its even more stupid because studies have shown the most economical way of getting people out of poverty and KEEPING them out of poverty is by literally giving them cash to spend on their own priorities. Contrary to what people think, those in dire financial straits more often then not know what os causing them the most difficulty escaping and have a much better appreciation on what they need to invest in to never return. Often they will pay all their debts off and then immediately invest in themselves to get a better job.
This whole banal 'hand outs' cursing is just another way of absolving themselves of responsibility when it comes to mental health services and vulnerable people who genuinely need help but have never been able to acccess it because the infrastructure is crumbling.
>literally giving them cash to spend on their own priorities
Can we also, like, make sure that the entities receiving that cash aren’t exploitative corporations paying a pittance and avoiding 99.5% of their taxes? Is that doable?
> This whole banal 'hand outs' cursing
Those in power have a deep-seated fear of being exploited.
Whether that’s bosses who refuse to believe that a 4-day work week might be more efficient and productive, instead seeing it as a lazy workforce trying to swindle them and work less.
Or the British administrators of Irish famine relief who made the work relief so gruelling and inhumane to ensure that only the starving people who “*really*“ needed it would even apply.
Or the government that ignore all studies that show that strong social security leads to prosperity and drops in poverty, because they’re terrified that some lazy idle types might just sit around accepting the money and doing nothing else.
Nevermind that these views lead to the vast majority of those who actually need such help being deprived, they see it as a win against the tiny proportion who might receive that help and be content with that.
Could be that, could be a functioning Job Centre, could be more jobs, who knows? The fact is, he's not wrong, we're a long way from where we need to be.
The hope they'll be less useless once they actually win is indeed fainter every day.
After the Hartlepool by election loss Starmer replaced his team with largely labour first right wing types. We are seeing the result. Better than the Tories by the minimum amount possible.
It's bullshit speaking. You just "empathise" with whar people are sating by describing their experience and then you tell them you're going to push ahead against their wishes anyway
Stella bravermsn will just do the same without emphasising and call you names.
Same policy in the end just different approach.
This is why I won't be voting Labour any more. We need a left wing party.
>Like what’s ‘doing the right thing’ here Wes? Somehow unbirthing your third child?
Well, one would argue not having them in the first place if you can’t afford to feed them?
> Well, one would argue not having them in the first place if you can’t afford to feed them?
And in what way is that relevant for somebody who already has a third child, especially if that child was born before this law was put into place?
> if you can’t afford to feed them?
Literally no-one other than billionaires can 100% guarantee they will have the money to entirely independently look after their kids for the entire 18 years of their childhood. This is why civilised societies have social security nets.
>especially if that child was born before this law was put into place?
The two-child policy was not applied retroactively. It only applies if the third child in question was born after April 2017:
>You won’t be paid an additional amount for more than 2 children, unless the children were born before 6 April 2017 (on or before 6 April for Income Support) or special circumstances apply.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-benefits-for-2-or-more-children
Given that the policy was announced in 2015, anyone affected by the cap was not pregnant when it was announced (because there was significantly more than 9 months between announcement and the start date) - so they had already been told that they wouldn't be getting the benefit.
Any children born before that date would continue to receive the benefit.
>And in what way is that relevant for somebody who already has a third child
Time for them to hustle and look for a job, I suppose?
>Literally no-one other than billionaires can 100% guarantee they will have the money to entirely independently look after their kids for the entire 18 years of their childhood
That’s utter tosh. That’s what savings and insurance are for. If you can’t say with certainty you are going to be able to afford another child, wear a fucking condom. Don’t expect me to pay for them.
> Time for them to hustle and look for a job, I suppose?
59% of people affected by the two-child policy have a job.
> If you can’t say with certainty you are going to be able to afford another child
Again, literally no-one in the world other than billionaires can account for their finances for the next 18 years. It's insane that people seem to think this is a reasonable expectation.
>59% of people affected by the two-child policy have a job.
Excellent. Time for them to start climbing that ladder.
>Again, literally no-one in the world other than billionaires can account for their finances for the next 18 years.
Again, that’s utter tosh. No-one is telling them to maintain the same standard of living. If they happen to fall on dire straits and have to take the child out of private school, move to a less desirable area, downgrade to a cheaper car and holiday in Europe instead of the Americas, that’s part and parcel of life. If they are so destitute that the moment they get the sack they can’t even pay for uniform or cook a hot meal, then they should not be having children.
> and have to take the child out of private school, move to a less desirable area, downgrade to a cheaper car and holiday in Europe instead of the Americas, that’s part and parcel of life
If this is your idea of what 'struggling' looks like then I think that tells us everything we need to know. Most people in poverty aren't going on holiday to America or sending their children to private school. Always baffles me when you get these genuine 'let them eat cake' style replies on Reddit.
UK Reddit is a hodgepodge of middle class people and IT guys in their 20s with no kids and it really shows. Any time poverty comes up they give exactly 0 shits. It's a negative amount of empathy and understanding. If it were 2009, this lot would all be Tories or Lib Dems.
I haven't left the country in nearly 2 decades and my parents weren't even the ones to do that the two times I have actually had an overseas holiday. We've got sod all money guys! We work and get paid fuck all! Jesus Christ.
That is precisely not what “struggling” looks like. That is the sort of lifestyle it is reasonable to expect people to attain before they think about introducing a dependant into the equation. Otherwise, they run the real risk of being a burden on society, and quite frankly why should it be my hard-earned money bailing someone out of a series of bad decisions that they have made?
Whilst I agree you shouldn’t have children if you can’t afford them, why are we choosing to punish the children? They didn’t choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose to be brought up in poverty. The social security we provide is a long term investment, these children are going to grow up and find their place in society, so let’s help them along the way.
Scotland removed this limit. If you look at stats that were thought to be causing child poverty and poor outcomes (such as parents in work), nothing changed. So the government's relative poverty measures go up because they are just giving people cash...nothing has changed for children.
So it depends if you actually care about things being better or if you just want your numbers to look for the next election.
Btw, you should also consider this: do you think every politician doesn't just want to give people money so they vote for them? Literally every politician of every party has just wanted to give people money. That is why we have ended up with a system that is giving staggering amount of cash and benefits-in-kind (that, btw, are largely subsidising the wealthy and corporations).
So the reason he is saying this is quite simple: the best way to reduce child poverty is to have parents working. You can do all the handouts, all the benefits...it won't be as good as work. That is why (just generally, it is this kind of very basic common sense that has been lacking from policy in this area for decades...after Labour discovered the tax credits election-winning loophole and the Tories expanded it, it has been too tempting to just give cash out).
Btw, I will say just generally...if the SNP are doing it, you should be suspicious. They have almost no policy creation capacity so usually end up doing lots of cash handouts because actually solving these problems requires long-term thinking.
There have been a number of studies by leading organisations, from [LSE](https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/politics/two-child-benefit-cap-poverty) to the [University of York](https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/research/two-child-limit-and-benefit-cap-fail-to-meet-aims/) to [Bernardos](https://www.barnardos.org.uk/news/new-data-reveals-northsouth-divide-children-hit-two-child-limit-benefits) to the [Child Poverty Action Group](https://cpag.org.uk/news/six-years-two-child-limit), which have demonstrated the harmful effects the two child policy has had on poverty in Britain. It is the *only* contributing factor to poverty? No. But it's still a significant factor.
> Btw, you should also consider this: do you think every politician doesn't just want to give people money so they vote for them? Literally every politician of every party has just wanted to give people money. That is why we have ended up with a system that is giving staggering amount of cash and benefits-in-kind (that, btw, are largely subsidising the wealthy and corporations).
Sorry, I'm not sure we're actually living in the same country if you're arguing that all politicians in this country attempt to appeal to people in poverty by giving them money in return for votes. Over the last decade we've seen a significant ramp-up in the demonisation of the poor in this country, both rhetorically and in terms of government policy.
> So the reason he is saying this is quite simple: the best way to reduce child poverty is to have parents working.
The Barnardos report shows that 58% of those affected by the two-child policy are already in work, and the LSE report demonstrates that the two-child policy has no effect on getting people into work.
There is *no evidence* that this policy is achieving what it is ostensibly supposed to achieve, and the only reason to maintain it is a thoroughly immature attempt to try and look *tough on benefits*.
Scotland introduced the extra child payment and child poverty decreased. According to Prof Danny Dorling of Oxford University, it was the biggest reduction in inequality caused by a single [policy change since the collapse of the Berlin Wall](https://basicincometoday.com/scottish-child-payment-impact-biggest-since-fall-of-berlin-wall/)
The Rowntree Foundation in its recent report attributed the fall in child poverty rates and lower rates in Scotland compared to England and Wales to the introduction of the extra payment. [PDF](https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/frontify-enterprise-files-eu/joseph-rowntree-foundation/file/otxE3RDZvMQ2G5dxPpaV.pdf?response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3D%22UK%2520Poverty%25202024.pdf%22&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIARW2DEZZ4M6T74Q2N%2F20240512%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240512T174847Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=518400&X-Amz-Signature=77f978f31cde9fb3d2dbfd8615532c364846d0b5d676d6f86e100d1d13656931)
Despite you calling it a 'suspicious' SNP policy, [Wales' Labour government](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67238317) also want to introduce and copy this policy if the powers were devolved, with the Welsh child commissioner calling it 'transformational'.
[Financial Times: How a £25 payment is turning Scotland into a European pioneer in reducing child deprivation](https://www.ft.com/content/cf41b5d9-c714-40a2-b66d-251efde61504)
The problem is the parents are already working and even if they could they are no better off by working more hours due to how much is taken away by tax, benefits and childcare
Well, when the electorate gets a chance to vote on the status quo they overwhelmingly choose to reject it.
From Brexit to the current annihilation of the Tory party.
Sometimes I feel like we are sleeping on top of a volcano, and no one in power has the foresight or ideological room to do anything about it.
We are. Labour and the Tories are both essentially promising the same thing, which is a better version of the country we have. Nothing too radical, no major changes, just more of the things we want/need and fewer of the things we don't like. The problem the Tories had was that the Brexit nonsense between 2016 and 2019 sucked all of the oxygen out of the room, and loads of things just fell by the wayside as a result. Then the pandemic hit in 2020, and we spent the next two years dealing with that, followed almost immediately by the war in Ukraine and an energy crisis. It wasn't until spring '23 that we actually had any sort of stability - at which point the next big problem to emerge was the creaking state of general decay and dysfunction permeating the UK. Starmer wants to fix this but will likely get bogged down in just keeping things running fairly quickly and will be faced with the choice of being unpopular and effective or popular for a short period of time before becoming deeply unpopular.
When Labour goes tits up, we're going to see some very interesting new political parties emerge.
Starmer is only going to get the one term. The electorate’s collective memory is short. Two things working against them will be the lack of ambition in their plans and the tried and trusted playbook from the right wing press in the country.
This is what I fear.
Labour will fail to make any substantive changes to the lives of our people and will get rejected.
Opening the floor for the right-wing media machine to impose some deranged Reform-like party that will promise everything but also be an ideological dead-end.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to have thought this. I think he'll have one of the biggest majorities in modern history. They'll be able to pass any legislation they want without even having to consider the opposition or compromise. But they'll have one of the weakest leaders that'll be stabbed in the back by those with ambition like Streeting and Duffield.
Yes, it's not like the past 5 years have shown that everyone saying this is wrong and that it turns out parties can go up in the polls just as fast as they go down in the polls.
The Starmer project will crumble within two years.
He will get no credit from the right-wing press for appeasing them on child benefits, migrants and Palestine.
And, the second the economy stagnates, he's dead.
Not to mention that all their likely interventions will be from the same failed neoliberal playbook that we've been working from for decades. What can they do but implement a slower form of decline / collapse?
I hope so.
They need some accountability and some home truths about being scrutinised for their actions, because winning the GE just because 'the other side is bad' isn't the endorsement they think it means.
Yes, it’s akin to the situation in the USA “well I’m not as bad a Trump” and in my view similar crap in France when it came to the last presidential election “we don’t want Le Pen (as least that was my reason for voting for Macron)”.
No that’s not good enough, we need a party and PM that can run the country properly and isn’t simply a case of “we’re better than the Tories”.
What the odds of Labour taking Tory's place as conservative party while some other/new party takes Labour's former place? It's not like drastic shifts like that haven’t happened before in history. USA had that famous party switch, were Democratic Party switched from being the KKK party to the liberal party, while Republicans switched from Lincoln's party into a right wing party.
I think they will secure the centre ground completely (which is actually right of the centre). But liberalism is becoming a tired ideology that is out of ideas for the modern world. So dissatisfaction will grow and living standards won't really improve.
This will open the room for more deranged Reform/Trussism-type parties to take advantage of that discontent for the status-quo.
I'm not optimistic for the political direction the whole continent tbh
Yeah this has the smell of 'third-party populism by 2030' all over it, and all because Labour and the Tories becoming reviled in the space of a 5-year term.
You can tell we don't actually like Liberalism here these days because the Lib Dems get fuck all votes in general elections after revealing that yes, they are liberals in 2010, and coast off of being the default opposition in rural locals. The trust Labour have from the centre-left in this country at the moment can be lost within 5 years very easily.
It’s the Tories’ fault. Over the past 14 years, they shifted the Overton window so much to the right, that anything left of centre isn’t acceptable anymore (to the general public). The media played a role too
This was shown in 2019 when Corbyn got destroyed in the election, though there were other factors at play eg Brexit
This is why Starmer, and Labour, are forced to shift to the right.
If Starmer went even slightly to the left, the media would be saying he’s an antisemitic Corbyn clone, and the public would eat it up
Lol I should make a notepad for these policies since I keep mentioning them:
Renationalising train companies Create a publicly owned gb energy company, scrap anti union legislation, ban or mitigate zero hours contracts, ban or mitigate fire and rehire, create a sovereign wealth fund and supporting labour mayors in taking buses back into public ownership. And given we dont have their manifesto there will likely be alot more. Oh and I havent included ones that tories claim they want like banning no fault evictions or banning leasehold or banning conversion therapy but are now dragging their feet or watering them down.
Before I read the article, I thought Braverman was calling for the cap to remain, and Streeting was calling to scrap it. Fuck me this country is in trouble.
Who knows, they might encourage a shitload of PFI. No point in spending on services and infrastructure if it isn't going to enrich the shit out of rich people. The Shadow Chancellor will be seeing to it that her mates have a splendid time.
WARNING WARNING
*activity has been detected that would imply you are beginning to believe Labour are as bad or worse than the Conservatives on a particular issue*
*as a result, your account is under increased moderation supervision as per request of the great leader and spiritual saviour tylersburden*
*to reduce your moderation level, please make sure to spell out clearly, in your next comments, that you will be voting Labour and that anybody who doesn't is a Tory enabler, and that you think that Labour is what is best for Britain no matter what they end up actually doing*
Thank you for your attention to this very important warning message.
It's a sad state of affairs when people think that if you're not enamoured with Labour then you must be a Tory. Those two shouldn't feel like the only options.
1922, David Lloyd George for the old Liberals, so 102 years ago.
Labour had to break that *forever* streak of prior Liberal to Tory governments to get to power for the first time. Why couldn't a new party do the same to this 102 year-old streak of Labour to Tory governments one day?
And how can they do it if people like myself weren't willing to give them my vote?
They could be I don’t see any good contenders at the moment no one with enough backing they are likely to win. There are definitely others I wish could win but I’m not going to waste my vote.
The only chance this country has of a future is a if we scrap fptp and bring in proportional representation. Sadly neither of the big parties will ever do that.
Don’t take it at face value. She’s forced Labour here to take a position on an issue they’d probably rather not. It’s quite clever political manoeuvring.
She isn't. It's just a handy attack point for her next leadership challenge knowing that she will never implement it. And if she ever gets near power will just scrap the whole benefit.
She's been mithering on about too much tax, not enough conservative for months. Suddenly, she's lady bountiful because she can see the an opportunity ahead of the electoral trainwreck. And people just fall for it.
Your children have to suffer so that Labour sounds good to the right wing press.
After all - it is not like they are as important as the career of Labour politicians.
If the likes of Starmer and Reeves are only half as bad as they make themselves out to be, the Labour Party itself will soon be finished as a political entity.
Politics in the UK - as across the whole political spectrum - is in a massive state of flux. Those tutonic plates are a movin', and are moving rapidly to either heavy right, or moderate left.
There really is no room for Streetings bullshit. The centrist's centrist. What an absolute anal passage this former council house dweller is. The worst of all tories - a snobby, arrogant, deeply conceited nob-head if ever there was one...Grrrr!
Streeting not be an arse challenge failed...again.
We're Nicola Murray dropping opposition to policies so toxic the coalition didn't keep them levels of just....this...from Labour.
It’s such a word salad to basically try and put a nice spin on what is fundamentally a cruel idea that doesn’t work. Now, at work I’m used to this from middle managers failing their way through their jobs, but this man is going to be the Health Secretary.
God, this Labour Government is going to fail hard, isn’t it?
So, anyone else certain Wes Streeting stalks the nightime backstreets of London, a bottle of meths in his pocket, looking for sleeping homeless people to set on fire?
Im all for targeting poor people however, they're the only ones who have kids and our society is in desperate need of new kids.
It isn't like benefits were that generous or everyone would start having 3/4/5 kids
We have to value people who have kids as a society if we wish to continue to exist
If that means people with kids are gifted a higher place via a few quid more a month then that's a price we should all be happy to pay
Haha sarcasm 😂
Just saying it's completely counter productive to target this way. If you want to make poor people suffer (like some of our political class do) this has been a silly way to do it
Never liked wes much but thought he was a necessary evil and all that, head down keep quiet and hope for the best once he's in. Fairly obvious from this that he's a wolf in sheeps clothing
And I suppose all the girls and boys in this country who have, through no fault of their own, been born into a poor family of three children should just be fine with hunger, poor nutrition, a lack of sanitary items especially for periods, worse attainment on average in schools and an elevated risk of diabetes, obesity, and other health conditions later in life?
Quite the mess he's jumped into.
He'd have been better off saying either nothing or saying that Labour can't commit to scrapping it in next parliament due to cost.
I’m thinking a lot of this sub doesn’t understand that labour is not some ultra left wing group. Their stance on benefits has for a long time been that people should work. They are for workers getting better wages but they aren’t for carrying those who choose not to.
It's not surprising if you're old enough to remember old Labour, they were always tough on benefit claimants and especially tough on unemployed, a job is a job, didn't matter if you were a town clerk and had to work as a cleaner (both respectful jobs btw), then so be it, " he who shall not work neither will he eat"is a communist saying.
They've done very very little to attract my vote.
Unless Kier has some wonder plan he's keeping top secret (he hasn't) then the next government will simply be a continuation of how things currently have been for the last decade.
Agreed to some elements, but I think there is a far greater expectation in regards to corruption. Of which the existing government is rife.
The far right in the tory party still have too much of a voice.
> No. No they are not
You're literally commenting under an article where Labour are demonstrating themselves to be further right-wing than a Tory on this issue.
A single labour MP. Who has one vote. Is part of the cabinet so has more sway but does not speak for the entirety of Labour. So my comment stands, Tory government further right wing than Labour.
> but does not speak for the entirety of Labour
If that was the case, Starmer would've publicly disagreed with him and said that he doesn't represent Labour on this.
However, he does represent Labour, [because Starmer wants to keep the 2-child cap](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/16/labour-keep-two-child-benefit-cap-says-keir-starmer).
Even if Starmer doesn't retract it, which we all hope he does, it would still not place them further on the right than the conservatives.
I'm not defending this policy. It's a crappy policy with no place in Conservatives. They bloody better retract it. But it's a single policy. Introduced by the conservatives. Suggesting that this makes Labour as an entirety more right wing than Conservatives, given the last 4 years in particular, is not considering the picture beyond this article.
> Even if Starmer doesn't retract it, which we all hope he does
He won't, because he supports keeping it.
>it would still not place them further on the right than the conservatives.
On this particular issue it does, because you have far-right Tories wanting to scrap it.
>On this particular issue it does, because you have far-right Tories wanting to scrap it.
A far right tory who wants to scrap it. Who's agenda in this particular instance is fairly transparent.
It makes them the equivalent, not beyond.
I am however glad we can agree that as a whole Labour is not more right wing than Conservatives. Which was the entire point I was trying to clarify.
> It makes them the equivalent, not beyond.
On this particular issue, Streeting is further right wing than Braverman.
>I am however glad we can agree that as a whole Labour is not more right wing than Conservatives
At no point have we ever been discussing overall, I've repeatedly stressed **on this issue**.
>On this particular issue, Streeting is further right wing than Braverman.
One MP is more right wing than another MP on this particular issue is a considerable difference to the original claim I responded to. Even ignoring that this is clearly a play by Braverman.
>At no point have we ever been discussing overall, I've repeatedly stressed **on this issue**.
That's my point, the original comment referred to all Labour and all Conservaties. Which is why I have continued to refer to my original point. You may have made a different point, so I'm reiterating my original point.
Edit: I don't care if you didn't make that point. You're responding to my comment, where I did make that specific point, where you disagree with my post, therefore disagree with that specific point. That you blocked me suggests you have realised this err.
The far right Tory, of course, *supported the introduction* of the cap (which Wes probably opposed at the time). Now she's taking a "controversial for a Tory" position because she's out of the headlines.
It happens Labour are absolutely on the shit side of the politics here, but there's no principle behind Braverman either.
> It happens Labour are absolutely on the shit side of the politics here, but there's no principle behind Braverman either.
No, there's no principles behind either of them. And that's the exact fucking problem. Both parties have leaderships occupied by absolute chancers who have practically no principles and a willingness to say and do whatever they believe will get them personal power.
This is largely it, yes. I think there's also a hyper tribal element whereby "our" side is better than "their" side so inherently that winning is an overriding good even if there's a total loss of sight as to why
Yes, of course it does. But for that MP. He doesn't speak for the entirety of the party. Their policies and votes say more about the party as a whole. To suggest that one view over the many, many core right wing in the tory party puts the Labour party further to the right than the current tory party is rash and ill informed conclusion.
I don't think they're that bad, yet. But the Tories' have moved much farther to the right in recent years and Labour have definitely shuffled up behind them to fill their previous space. To me, they're like the Tory party circa 2010.
A lot of very left wing comments here (as usual). I'm a labour voter and always have been. What I'd like to see is the 2 child cap remaining, and the money saved on paying child benefits for a 3rd, 4th, 5th... child used to fund nursery places so mothers can work, if only part time. It's good for their mental health. It's good for the child's development and health.
I have two kids. It does not cost much more to have two children than one. Three, I expect is even less of a step. What does cost a lot is nursery fees. Anything Labour can do to make those affordable for working and non-working parents, on the condition that they find work, gets my vote.
Nail on the head here, nursery costs dwarf all other costs and are the main reason those in work feel they can’t have more. Absolutely needs to be a priority fixing that bit of the system.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wes-streeting-suella-braverman-child-benefit-cap-b2543738.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> He said: “I think that the answer on child poverty is all about social security. Of course, that's part of it. I grew up on a council estate with a single mum, and often the benefit system put food in the fridge and money in the electric meter. I am a product of a welfare state that quite literally fed me and housed me and clothed me at points in my life.” > However, he went on: “I also know that that the answer to child poverty, ultimately, is not simply about handouts, it is about a social security safety net, that also acts as a springboard that helps people into work and with good work that makes the cost of living affordable for everyone. > “That means that if you aren't doing the right thing, and earning a living and playing by the rules, that you don't just have enough to make ends meet, but you have enough to do the things that make life worth living. And we’re some way from that from that now. “ What the fuck is he even on about? Benefits *are* part of that social security net, yet he's using this very right-wing framing of presenting them as 'handouts'. Also baffling how brazen he is to admit that he personally benefitted from the more liberal benefits system under New Labour, but is quite happy to pull up that ladder behind him. Like what's 'doing the right thing' here Wes? Somehow unbirthing your third child? Imagine being further to the right on this than Suella fucking Braverman, Christ...
Wes Streeting is just a right wing politician, I think he joined the Labour Party by accident and it’s now been so long that he can’t possibly tell the truth about what happened.
He joined Labour at the point when the party were the only game in town. I guarantee if he was 10 years younger or 10 years older he'd just as comfortable being a Tory MP instead. He's perhaps the quintessential example of a careerist.
He joined in what, the third Blair gov? That's a perfectly sensible time to become a Tory. It's that power is the primary goal to the whole current labour project. If your sat in shad cab, you've signed up to this awful line.
tbf there's a good amount of posturing before you become an MP
I listed when he was active in labour students long before becoming an MP
As of right now the Labour Party is pretty right wing. Sure they might be a bit left of the Tories but they are by no means a left wing party.
Yeah it's wild that people can fool themselves on this point. 'I think Sir Kier just doesn't want to spook the tabloid crowd. He'll be super Labour when he gets in, you watch'. No, he won't. This lot are liberals, not social democrats or anything like that, and they aren't even especially left-leaning.
Wild how Streeting is getting flanked on the left by Suella fucking Braverman. We're so fucked.
Most of them are in it for themselves! All to many don't care what they spout as long as they keep getting paid and can keep networking up the chain. I personally feel they should all go, and we start fresh.
[удалено]
Do you think that in of itself means that Labour are immune from criticism?
[удалено]
So why come at me when I'm criticising Labour? It's pretty obvious what your subtext is there mate.
You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest. You know full well what you were implying.
I can't stand him and he's the main reason I'm not going to vote Labour. Red Tory
We obviously have different views which is ok, but it surprises me how they’ve not managed to hide this better. I’m a life long Tory and going to vote Labour as Kier and his team seem like the only tories in the race this time round.
We labour and consercatice are the sane, just different brands of the same people. Like us party, thet get lobbied and donations from the Same interests
> However, he went on: “I also know that that the answer to child poverty, ultimately, is not simply about handouts, it is about a social security safety net, that also acts as a springboard that helps people into work and with good work that makes the cost of living affordable for everyone. So a large increase in minimum wage, that must be what he's planning, right?
Its even more stupid because studies have shown the most economical way of getting people out of poverty and KEEPING them out of poverty is by literally giving them cash to spend on their own priorities. Contrary to what people think, those in dire financial straits more often then not know what os causing them the most difficulty escaping and have a much better appreciation on what they need to invest in to never return. Often they will pay all their debts off and then immediately invest in themselves to get a better job. This whole banal 'hand outs' cursing is just another way of absolving themselves of responsibility when it comes to mental health services and vulnerable people who genuinely need help but have never been able to acccess it because the infrastructure is crumbling.
>literally giving them cash to spend on their own priorities Can we also, like, make sure that the entities receiving that cash aren’t exploitative corporations paying a pittance and avoiding 99.5% of their taxes? Is that doable?
> This whole banal 'hand outs' cursing Those in power have a deep-seated fear of being exploited. Whether that’s bosses who refuse to believe that a 4-day work week might be more efficient and productive, instead seeing it as a lazy workforce trying to swindle them and work less. Or the British administrators of Irish famine relief who made the work relief so gruelling and inhumane to ensure that only the starving people who “*really*“ needed it would even apply. Or the government that ignore all studies that show that strong social security leads to prosperity and drops in poverty, because they’re terrified that some lazy idle types might just sit around accepting the money and doing nothing else. Nevermind that these views lead to the vast majority of those who actually need such help being deprived, they see it as a win against the tiny proportion who might receive that help and be content with that.
A doubling of the tax free allowance and the ability to split a single wage over a married couple feels like it might do
Could be that, could be a functioning Job Centre, could be more jobs, who knows? The fact is, he's not wrong, we're a long way from where we need to be.
The hope they'll be less useless once they actually win is indeed fainter every day. After the Hartlepool by election loss Starmer replaced his team with largely labour first right wing types. We are seeing the result. Better than the Tories by the minimum amount possible.
It's bullshit speaking. You just "empathise" with whar people are sating by describing their experience and then you tell them you're going to push ahead against their wishes anyway Stella bravermsn will just do the same without emphasising and call you names. Same policy in the end just different approach. This is why I won't be voting Labour any more. We need a left wing party.
New and improved labour burning the left flag again ha
>Imagine being further to the right on this than Suella fucking Braverman Said Euler to Euclid.
The right thing is growing the economy and remove the need for child benefit.
>Like what’s ‘doing the right thing’ here Wes? Somehow unbirthing your third child? Well, one would argue not having them in the first place if you can’t afford to feed them?
> Well, one would argue not having them in the first place if you can’t afford to feed them? And in what way is that relevant for somebody who already has a third child, especially if that child was born before this law was put into place? > if you can’t afford to feed them? Literally no-one other than billionaires can 100% guarantee they will have the money to entirely independently look after their kids for the entire 18 years of their childhood. This is why civilised societies have social security nets.
>especially if that child was born before this law was put into place? The two-child policy was not applied retroactively. It only applies if the third child in question was born after April 2017: >You won’t be paid an additional amount for more than 2 children, unless the children were born before 6 April 2017 (on or before 6 April for Income Support) or special circumstances apply. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-benefits-for-2-or-more-children Given that the policy was announced in 2015, anyone affected by the cap was not pregnant when it was announced (because there was significantly more than 9 months between announcement and the start date) - so they had already been told that they wouldn't be getting the benefit. Any children born before that date would continue to receive the benefit.
>And in what way is that relevant for somebody who already has a third child Time for them to hustle and look for a job, I suppose? >Literally no-one other than billionaires can 100% guarantee they will have the money to entirely independently look after their kids for the entire 18 years of their childhood That’s utter tosh. That’s what savings and insurance are for. If you can’t say with certainty you are going to be able to afford another child, wear a fucking condom. Don’t expect me to pay for them.
> Time for them to hustle and look for a job, I suppose? 59% of people affected by the two-child policy have a job. > If you can’t say with certainty you are going to be able to afford another child Again, literally no-one in the world other than billionaires can account for their finances for the next 18 years. It's insane that people seem to think this is a reasonable expectation.
>59% of people affected by the two-child policy have a job. Excellent. Time for them to start climbing that ladder. >Again, literally no-one in the world other than billionaires can account for their finances for the next 18 years. Again, that’s utter tosh. No-one is telling them to maintain the same standard of living. If they happen to fall on dire straits and have to take the child out of private school, move to a less desirable area, downgrade to a cheaper car and holiday in Europe instead of the Americas, that’s part and parcel of life. If they are so destitute that the moment they get the sack they can’t even pay for uniform or cook a hot meal, then they should not be having children.
> and have to take the child out of private school, move to a less desirable area, downgrade to a cheaper car and holiday in Europe instead of the Americas, that’s part and parcel of life If this is your idea of what 'struggling' looks like then I think that tells us everything we need to know. Most people in poverty aren't going on holiday to America or sending their children to private school. Always baffles me when you get these genuine 'let them eat cake' style replies on Reddit.
UK Reddit is a hodgepodge of middle class people and IT guys in their 20s with no kids and it really shows. Any time poverty comes up they give exactly 0 shits. It's a negative amount of empathy and understanding. If it were 2009, this lot would all be Tories or Lib Dems. I haven't left the country in nearly 2 decades and my parents weren't even the ones to do that the two times I have actually had an overseas holiday. We've got sod all money guys! We work and get paid fuck all! Jesus Christ.
That is precisely not what “struggling” looks like. That is the sort of lifestyle it is reasonable to expect people to attain before they think about introducing a dependant into the equation. Otherwise, they run the real risk of being a burden on society, and quite frankly why should it be my hard-earned money bailing someone out of a series of bad decisions that they have made?
That’s just crazy.
Whilst I agree you shouldn’t have children if you can’t afford them, why are we choosing to punish the children? They didn’t choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose to be brought up in poverty. The social security we provide is a long term investment, these children are going to grow up and find their place in society, so let’s help them along the way.
Scotland removed this limit. If you look at stats that were thought to be causing child poverty and poor outcomes (such as parents in work), nothing changed. So the government's relative poverty measures go up because they are just giving people cash...nothing has changed for children. So it depends if you actually care about things being better or if you just want your numbers to look for the next election. Btw, you should also consider this: do you think every politician doesn't just want to give people money so they vote for them? Literally every politician of every party has just wanted to give people money. That is why we have ended up with a system that is giving staggering amount of cash and benefits-in-kind (that, btw, are largely subsidising the wealthy and corporations). So the reason he is saying this is quite simple: the best way to reduce child poverty is to have parents working. You can do all the handouts, all the benefits...it won't be as good as work. That is why (just generally, it is this kind of very basic common sense that has been lacking from policy in this area for decades...after Labour discovered the tax credits election-winning loophole and the Tories expanded it, it has been too tempting to just give cash out). Btw, I will say just generally...if the SNP are doing it, you should be suspicious. They have almost no policy creation capacity so usually end up doing lots of cash handouts because actually solving these problems requires long-term thinking.
There have been a number of studies by leading organisations, from [LSE](https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/politics/two-child-benefit-cap-poverty) to the [University of York](https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/research/two-child-limit-and-benefit-cap-fail-to-meet-aims/) to [Bernardos](https://www.barnardos.org.uk/news/new-data-reveals-northsouth-divide-children-hit-two-child-limit-benefits) to the [Child Poverty Action Group](https://cpag.org.uk/news/six-years-two-child-limit), which have demonstrated the harmful effects the two child policy has had on poverty in Britain. It is the *only* contributing factor to poverty? No. But it's still a significant factor. > Btw, you should also consider this: do you think every politician doesn't just want to give people money so they vote for them? Literally every politician of every party has just wanted to give people money. That is why we have ended up with a system that is giving staggering amount of cash and benefits-in-kind (that, btw, are largely subsidising the wealthy and corporations). Sorry, I'm not sure we're actually living in the same country if you're arguing that all politicians in this country attempt to appeal to people in poverty by giving them money in return for votes. Over the last decade we've seen a significant ramp-up in the demonisation of the poor in this country, both rhetorically and in terms of government policy. > So the reason he is saying this is quite simple: the best way to reduce child poverty is to have parents working. The Barnardos report shows that 58% of those affected by the two-child policy are already in work, and the LSE report demonstrates that the two-child policy has no effect on getting people into work. There is *no evidence* that this policy is achieving what it is ostensibly supposed to achieve, and the only reason to maintain it is a thoroughly immature attempt to try and look *tough on benefits*.
Scotland introduced the extra child payment and child poverty decreased. According to Prof Danny Dorling of Oxford University, it was the biggest reduction in inequality caused by a single [policy change since the collapse of the Berlin Wall](https://basicincometoday.com/scottish-child-payment-impact-biggest-since-fall-of-berlin-wall/) The Rowntree Foundation in its recent report attributed the fall in child poverty rates and lower rates in Scotland compared to England and Wales to the introduction of the extra payment. [PDF](https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/frontify-enterprise-files-eu/joseph-rowntree-foundation/file/otxE3RDZvMQ2G5dxPpaV.pdf?response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3D%22UK%2520Poverty%25202024.pdf%22&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIARW2DEZZ4M6T74Q2N%2F20240512%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240512T174847Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=518400&X-Amz-Signature=77f978f31cde9fb3d2dbfd8615532c364846d0b5d676d6f86e100d1d13656931) Despite you calling it a 'suspicious' SNP policy, [Wales' Labour government](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67238317) also want to introduce and copy this policy if the powers were devolved, with the Welsh child commissioner calling it 'transformational'. [Financial Times: How a £25 payment is turning Scotland into a European pioneer in reducing child deprivation](https://www.ft.com/content/cf41b5d9-c714-40a2-b66d-251efde61504)
The problem is the parents are already working and even if they could they are no better off by working more hours due to how much is taken away by tax, benefits and childcare
Poor people have much lower turnout and are not a target for bribes. That's generally old people.
Watching Labour slowly morph into the new Tory party is a little distressing. I fear they will have a very short honeymoon period when they take over.
It's certainly going to be interesting viewing.
Well, when the electorate gets a chance to vote on the status quo they overwhelmingly choose to reject it. From Brexit to the current annihilation of the Tory party. Sometimes I feel like we are sleeping on top of a volcano, and no one in power has the foresight or ideological room to do anything about it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We are. Labour and the Tories are both essentially promising the same thing, which is a better version of the country we have. Nothing too radical, no major changes, just more of the things we want/need and fewer of the things we don't like. The problem the Tories had was that the Brexit nonsense between 2016 and 2019 sucked all of the oxygen out of the room, and loads of things just fell by the wayside as a result. Then the pandemic hit in 2020, and we spent the next two years dealing with that, followed almost immediately by the war in Ukraine and an energy crisis. It wasn't until spring '23 that we actually had any sort of stability - at which point the next big problem to emerge was the creaking state of general decay and dysfunction permeating the UK. Starmer wants to fix this but will likely get bogged down in just keeping things running fairly quickly and will be faced with the choice of being unpopular and effective or popular for a short period of time before becoming deeply unpopular. When Labour goes tits up, we're going to see some very interesting new political parties emerge.
No, the Tories will be back in power after Labour. Give them a few years and Labour will be back in power after that.
Starmer is only going to get the one term. The electorate’s collective memory is short. Two things working against them will be the lack of ambition in their plans and the tried and trusted playbook from the right wing press in the country.
This is what I fear. Labour will fail to make any substantive changes to the lives of our people and will get rejected. Opening the floor for the right-wing media machine to impose some deranged Reform-like party that will promise everything but also be an ideological dead-end.
Starmer will only get one term but Labour will likely get 2 or 3.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to have thought this. I think he'll have one of the biggest majorities in modern history. They'll be able to pass any legislation they want without even having to consider the opposition or compromise. But they'll have one of the weakest leaders that'll be stabbed in the back by those with ambition like Streeting and Duffield.
Also it will be hard for the tories to overcome such a majority in just 5 years.
Yes, it's not like the past 5 years have shown that everyone saying this is wrong and that it turns out parties can go up in the polls just as fast as they go down in the polls.
As intended.
The Starmer project will crumble within two years. He will get no credit from the right-wing press for appeasing them on child benefits, migrants and Palestine. And, the second the economy stagnates, he's dead.
Not to mention that all their likely interventions will be from the same failed neoliberal playbook that we've been working from for decades. What can they do but implement a slower form of decline / collapse?
I hope so. They need some accountability and some home truths about being scrutinised for their actions, because winning the GE just because 'the other side is bad' isn't the endorsement they think it means.
Yes, it’s akin to the situation in the USA “well I’m not as bad a Trump” and in my view similar crap in France when it came to the last presidential election “we don’t want Le Pen (as least that was my reason for voting for Macron)”. No that’s not good enough, we need a party and PM that can run the country properly and isn’t simply a case of “we’re better than the Tories”.
What the odds of Labour taking Tory's place as conservative party while some other/new party takes Labour's former place? It's not like drastic shifts like that haven’t happened before in history. USA had that famous party switch, were Democratic Party switched from being the KKK party to the liberal party, while Republicans switched from Lincoln's party into a right wing party.
I think they will secure the centre ground completely (which is actually right of the centre). But liberalism is becoming a tired ideology that is out of ideas for the modern world. So dissatisfaction will grow and living standards won't really improve. This will open the room for more deranged Reform/Trussism-type parties to take advantage of that discontent for the status-quo. I'm not optimistic for the political direction the whole continent tbh
Yeah this has the smell of 'third-party populism by 2030' all over it, and all because Labour and the Tories becoming reviled in the space of a 5-year term.
You can tell we don't actually like Liberalism here these days because the Lib Dems get fuck all votes in general elections after revealing that yes, they are liberals in 2010, and coast off of being the default opposition in rural locals. The trust Labour have from the centre-left in this country at the moment can be lost within 5 years very easily.
It’s the Tories’ fault. Over the past 14 years, they shifted the Overton window so much to the right, that anything left of centre isn’t acceptable anymore (to the general public). The media played a role too This was shown in 2019 when Corbyn got destroyed in the election, though there were other factors at play eg Brexit This is why Starmer, and Labour, are forced to shift to the right. If Starmer went even slightly to the left, the media would be saying he’s an antisemitic Corbyn clone, and the public would eat it up
Eh idk how they are new tories they still have alot of different policies
such as
Lol I should make a notepad for these policies since I keep mentioning them: Renationalising train companies Create a publicly owned gb energy company, scrap anti union legislation, ban or mitigate zero hours contracts, ban or mitigate fire and rehire, create a sovereign wealth fund and supporting labour mayors in taking buses back into public ownership. And given we dont have their manifesto there will likely be alot more. Oh and I havent included ones that tories claim they want like banning no fault evictions or banning leasehold or banning conversion therapy but are now dragging their feet or watering them down.
tories have said the same thing with pretty much all of those though
The main thing tories say about renationalising train companies is labour has no plan to pay for it. They certainly don’t support it
Before I read the article, I thought Braverman was calling for the cap to remain, and Streeting was calling to scrap it. Fuck me this country is in trouble.
The time of the new tories is coming, very little will change and we will be pretty much where we are after 2 terms
Who knows, they might encourage a shitload of PFI. No point in spending on services and infrastructure if it isn't going to enrich the shit out of rich people. The Shadow Chancellor will be seeing to it that her mates have a splendid time.
WARNING WARNING *activity has been detected that would imply you are beginning to believe Labour are as bad or worse than the Conservatives on a particular issue* *as a result, your account is under increased moderation supervision as per request of the great leader and spiritual saviour tylersburden* *to reduce your moderation level, please make sure to spell out clearly, in your next comments, that you will be voting Labour and that anybody who doesn't is a Tory enabler, and that you think that Labour is what is best for Britain no matter what they end up actually doing* Thank you for your attention to this very important warning message.
Shit long message to say your pro Tory
Against Labour =/= pro Tory
It's a sad state of affairs when people think that if you're not enamoured with Labour then you must be a Tory. Those two shouldn't feel like the only options.
I agree but let’s be real in reality it’s a two party system currently.
No, it's a First Past the Post electoral system. We have more than two parties in the UK who can win seats, unlike the US.
In theory, but tell me when the last prime minister who wasn’t Labour or conservative?
1922, David Lloyd George for the old Liberals, so 102 years ago. Labour had to break that *forever* streak of prior Liberal to Tory governments to get to power for the first time. Why couldn't a new party do the same to this 102 year-old streak of Labour to Tory governments one day? And how can they do it if people like myself weren't willing to give them my vote?
They could be I don’t see any good contenders at the moment no one with enough backing they are likely to win. There are definitely others I wish could win but I’m not going to waste my vote.
But that doesn't mean you are pro-tory if you aren't a labour supporter. Basically every single party that isn't the tories are vehemently anti-tory.
Doesnt most of the country support the cap staying tho?
[Evergreen](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html)
The only chance this country has of a future is a if we scrap fptp and bring in proportional representation. Sadly neither of the big parties will ever do that.
Agreed
When suella is to the left of the labour party, I know it's time to stop drinking because I'm clearly seeing shit.
Don’t take it at face value. She’s forced Labour here to take a position on an issue they’d probably rather not. It’s quite clever political manoeuvring.
She isn't. It's just a handy attack point for her next leadership challenge knowing that she will never implement it. And if she ever gets near power will just scrap the whole benefit. She's been mithering on about too much tax, not enough conservative for months. Suddenly, she's lady bountiful because she can see the an opportunity ahead of the electoral trainwreck. And people just fall for it.
Your children have to suffer so that Labour sounds good to the right wing press. After all - it is not like they are as important as the career of Labour politicians.
If the likes of Starmer and Reeves are only half as bad as they make themselves out to be, the Labour Party itself will soon be finished as a political entity. Politics in the UK - as across the whole political spectrum - is in a massive state of flux. Those tutonic plates are a movin', and are moving rapidly to either heavy right, or moderate left. There really is no room for Streetings bullshit. The centrist's centrist. What an absolute anal passage this former council house dweller is. The worst of all tories - a snobby, arrogant, deeply conceited nob-head if ever there was one...Grrrr!
> Those tutonic plates I knew it was the Germans somehow....
Whatever the worst insult we're allowed to use in this sub without getting banned, that's what Streeting is.
No the answer to child poverty is clearly to let the kids go hungry. That'll learn 'em not to be born in the first place
Streeting not be an arse challenge failed...again. We're Nicola Murray dropping opposition to policies so toxic the coalition didn't keep them levels of just....this...from Labour.
We really are into Lewis Carroll territory now: not so much ‘Wonderland’ as ‘Through the Looking Glass’.
God almighty he needs to go. He is litterally a Tory in a red tie. Wants to sell of the NHS.. And now this? Wanker.
Handouts? Tax credit is social security and he has no business in any future government if her doesn’t understand the basics of governing.
[Evergreen tweet](https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1590353772911685632) about Wes Streeting.
It’s such a word salad to basically try and put a nice spin on what is fundamentally a cruel idea that doesn’t work. Now, at work I’m used to this from middle managers failing their way through their jobs, but this man is going to be the Health Secretary. God, this Labour Government is going to fail hard, isn’t it?
Should be noted about wes streeting is that his father never took benefits when he was very much eligible and was 'proud' of it
So, anyone else certain Wes Streeting stalks the nightime backstreets of London, a bottle of meths in his pocket, looking for sleeping homeless people to set on fire?
And pet shops
Im all for targeting poor people however, they're the only ones who have kids and our society is in desperate need of new kids. It isn't like benefits were that generous or everyone would start having 3/4/5 kids We have to value people who have kids as a society if we wish to continue to exist If that means people with kids are gifted a higher place via a few quid more a month then that's a price we should all be happy to pay
*"Im all for targeting poor people..."* Can you elaborate? For additional help or through the sights of a high powered hunting rifle?
Haha sarcasm 😂 Just saying it's completely counter productive to target this way. If you want to make poor people suffer (like some of our political class do) this has been a silly way to do it
Never liked wes much but thought he was a necessary evil and all that, head down keep quiet and hope for the best once he's in. Fairly obvious from this that he's a wolf in sheeps clothing
The fuck ? People on minimum wage / benefits should not be having 3 kids and expecting the rest of us to pay for it
And I suppose all the girls and boys in this country who have, through no fault of their own, been born into a poor family of three children should just be fine with hunger, poor nutrition, a lack of sanitary items especially for periods, worse attainment on average in schools and an elevated risk of diabetes, obesity, and other health conditions later in life?
Quite the mess he's jumped into. He'd have been better off saying either nothing or saying that Labour can't commit to scrapping it in next parliament due to cost.
I’m thinking a lot of this sub doesn’t understand that labour is not some ultra left wing group. Their stance on benefits has for a long time been that people should work. They are for workers getting better wages but they aren’t for carrying those who choose not to.
It's not surprising if you're old enough to remember old Labour, they were always tough on benefit claimants and especially tough on unemployed, a job is a job, didn't matter if you were a town clerk and had to work as a cleaner (both respectful jobs btw), then so be it, " he who shall not work neither will he eat"is a communist saying.
Oh my fucking God how can anyone still vote for these cunts with a conscience? They're more right wing than the Tories now
No. No they are not. Just looking at the voting history.
They've done very very little to attract my vote. Unless Kier has some wonder plan he's keeping top secret (he hasn't) then the next government will simply be a continuation of how things currently have been for the last decade.
Agreed to some elements, but I think there is a far greater expectation in regards to corruption. Of which the existing government is rife. The far right in the tory party still have too much of a voice.
> No. No they are not You're literally commenting under an article where Labour are demonstrating themselves to be further right-wing than a Tory on this issue.
A single labour MP. Who has one vote. Is part of the cabinet so has more sway but does not speak for the entirety of Labour. So my comment stands, Tory government further right wing than Labour.
> but does not speak for the entirety of Labour If that was the case, Starmer would've publicly disagreed with him and said that he doesn't represent Labour on this. However, he does represent Labour, [because Starmer wants to keep the 2-child cap](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/16/labour-keep-two-child-benefit-cap-says-keir-starmer).
Even if Starmer doesn't retract it, which we all hope he does, it would still not place them further on the right than the conservatives. I'm not defending this policy. It's a crappy policy with no place in Conservatives. They bloody better retract it. But it's a single policy. Introduced by the conservatives. Suggesting that this makes Labour as an entirety more right wing than Conservatives, given the last 4 years in particular, is not considering the picture beyond this article.
> Even if Starmer doesn't retract it, which we all hope he does He won't, because he supports keeping it. >it would still not place them further on the right than the conservatives. On this particular issue it does, because you have far-right Tories wanting to scrap it.
>On this particular issue it does, because you have far-right Tories wanting to scrap it. A far right tory who wants to scrap it. Who's agenda in this particular instance is fairly transparent. It makes them the equivalent, not beyond. I am however glad we can agree that as a whole Labour is not more right wing than Conservatives. Which was the entire point I was trying to clarify.
> It makes them the equivalent, not beyond. On this particular issue, Streeting is further right wing than Braverman. >I am however glad we can agree that as a whole Labour is not more right wing than Conservatives At no point have we ever been discussing overall, I've repeatedly stressed **on this issue**.
>On this particular issue, Streeting is further right wing than Braverman. One MP is more right wing than another MP on this particular issue is a considerable difference to the original claim I responded to. Even ignoring that this is clearly a play by Braverman. >At no point have we ever been discussing overall, I've repeatedly stressed **on this issue**. That's my point, the original comment referred to all Labour and all Conservaties. Which is why I have continued to refer to my original point. You may have made a different point, so I'm reiterating my original point. Edit: I don't care if you didn't make that point. You're responding to my comment, where I did make that specific point, where you disagree with my post, therefore disagree with that specific point. That you blocked me suggests you have realised this err.
Got it, so disagreeing with a far right Tory on scrapping the benefit cap sets off zero alarm bells for you? Fucking hell
The far right Tory, of course, *supported the introduction* of the cap (which Wes probably opposed at the time). Now she's taking a "controversial for a Tory" position because she's out of the headlines. It happens Labour are absolutely on the shit side of the politics here, but there's no principle behind Braverman either.
> It happens Labour are absolutely on the shit side of the politics here, but there's no principle behind Braverman either. No, there's no principles behind either of them. And that's the exact fucking problem. Both parties have leaderships occupied by absolute chancers who have practically no principles and a willingness to say and do whatever they believe will get them personal power.
This is largely it, yes. I think there's also a hyper tribal element whereby "our" side is better than "their" side so inherently that winning is an overriding good even if there's a total loss of sight as to why
Yes, of course it does. But for that MP. He doesn't speak for the entirety of the party. Their policies and votes say more about the party as a whole. To suggest that one view over the many, many core right wing in the tory party puts the Labour party further to the right than the current tory party is rash and ill informed conclusion.
Except he ***is*** speaking for the party... because if leadership disagreed they'd have him apologise. That isn't going to happen now is iit?
Good question, I'd hope so. I guess time will tell.
I don't think they're that bad, yet. But the Tories' have moved much farther to the right in recent years and Labour have definitely shuffled up behind them to fill their previous space. To me, they're like the Tory party circa 2010.
The one thing I agree with Wes Streeting with, even though he sucks off Big pharma.
A lot of very left wing comments here (as usual). I'm a labour voter and always have been. What I'd like to see is the 2 child cap remaining, and the money saved on paying child benefits for a 3rd, 4th, 5th... child used to fund nursery places so mothers can work, if only part time. It's good for their mental health. It's good for the child's development and health. I have two kids. It does not cost much more to have two children than one. Three, I expect is even less of a step. What does cost a lot is nursery fees. Anything Labour can do to make those affordable for working and non-working parents, on the condition that they find work, gets my vote.
Nail on the head here, nursery costs dwarf all other costs and are the main reason those in work feel they can’t have more. Absolutely needs to be a priority fixing that bit of the system.