Reform Policies
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
First day in charge for deforms ex tory 'newark' chancellor and a u-turn...
Back to the 2 child benefit cap - a tory policy!
Couldn't afford to scrap it as promised apparently, but garbage said they could...
No wonder he admits deform isn't ready to govern!
Back to the 2 child benefit cap - a tory policy!
Couldn't afford to scrap it as promised apparently, but garbage said they could...
No wonder he admits deform isn't ready to govern!
It's not election week you know.
I'm not sure what Starmer's policy is, and he's been our PM for a year and a half.
Although Starmer plans to send our troops into Ukraine, which would be utterly insane - we'd then be at war against Russia for a place that's of no interest to us.
So anyone other than Starmer is probably preferable on this issue.
As I said the interpretation can be wrong sometimes...
But it's better to have a system that gets it wrong sometimes rather than not have a system of equality at all.
Did I say that didn't happen?
The problem with all systems and especially governments is that we get a pendulum effect...
And small swings get exaggerated for political purpose, whilst actual big swings in policies cause more harm and stagnation due to the 5 year change cycle!
It took decades to get a fairer society overall when it comes to equality and rights, and if these things are axed it will take decades to get them back...
My hunch is that deform see that there is a possibility that the subject of the EU will come up again in the not too distant future.
And they are enacting policies that would make it more difficult to rejoin a fairer society!
Although I dont agree with your reaction you do have a point. Almost every single advert features black families, or at best mixed race. It must be a UK thing because there is a couple of adverts that have only white people in them I noticed it because it looked so weird and totally stood out I then noticed that it was a foreign made advert with English dubbing.
Is there any UK advert that features a whole white cast. Yeh yeh yeh adverts need to represent the population but from looking at the adverts anyone would be forgiven to thinking this is a 100% black country.
I would not like to be a white advert actor right now as the only work I would get are ones where the man is being made to look stupid or pathetic like in an advert for a cold remedy.
I wonder if the black community feels used or exploited in some way by these adverts.
Every week is election week for Nige.
You must be tied up in knots over Trumpf then
That was pure spin, making troops available for training purposes is what were doing already, just a change of base.
Honest Bob has already u turned on the 2 child benefit cap.
There was a load of fuss a while back about how "white" the London Marathon was.
Jim Davidson said he thought they didn't have time to do it as they were all too busy making telly adverts.
Jim Davidson said he thought they didn't have time to do it as they were all too busy making telly adverts.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
- Reaction score
- 677
- Country
Ok hold that thought, lets see what 'our leader for the people says'
UPDATE: And, speaking to reporters in South Wales, Starmer said:
On this whole two-child cap row, my view is simple and I’m not apologising for it.
If you can’t afford more children, don’t have them. Why should people who either chose not to have kids, or budgeted responsibly for the ones they do have, be forced to subsidise people who didn’t? That isn’t compassion it’s transferring responsibility from the individual to the taxpayer (Labours Magic Money tree philosophy again, we can't have increased welfare without increasing debt or taxes ffs and taxes are money taken from the working people!!!)
Keir Starmer keeps saying that not paying more benefits will “push children into poverty”. Thats emotive, but it’s also deeply misleading. Honeslty... since when has a child controlled the poverty level of a household ever? Poverty exists at the household level, not as some isolated condition that only affects one child while everyone else in the house is magically fine, again i refer you to his 'i didn't know Peter was a liar' etc, does he really think the general public are this fckin thick?
A family is either struggling financially or it isn’t. Calling it “child poverty” doesn’t change the mechanics. And pretending that an extra payment linked to a third or fourth child will somehow lift that child out of poverty independently of the rest of the household is fantasy economics, its bullshit a Religious evangalist would peddle!
Honeslty im going to start my own Party this is ****in me off... Let’s be honest about how this works in reality.
The scenario in most families would be, any extra money that goes into the household pot, doesn’t get ring-fenced around one child like a protective bubble. At best, it’s shared. At worst, it’s absorbed into the same poor financial decision-making that created the problem in the first place, we know other places it could be spent but i dont want to denigrate the few who may spend it wisely on the whole family. There is no miracle outcome where irresponsibility is corrected by just handing over more cash.
What Starmer is really saying is this: we should reward having more children regardless of whether you can afford them, because otherwise it looks bad politically because i care about britain. (translated to "i do care who they vote for.")
And when he claims that opposing the removal of the cap shows “a total disregard for the lives of young people”, that’s just emotional blackmail. You can care about children and believe that adults should be accountable for the consequences of their choices. Those two positions are not mutually exclusive only in modern politics are we told they are.
If Starmer genuinely believes the lines he’s pedalling here, it’s not compassion it’s either wilful dishonesty or a complete refusal to acknowledge reality.
Honestly tell me i am wrong here, and yes i do know many families well the above applies to. (my only other possible suggestion would be untradable food credits from healthy sources only, or childrens department clothe stores etc, but in a strictly limited targeted way.)
So yes Reform are right to make this correction imho, i disagreed with removing this cap, see previous posts from me, and i support any party wanting this.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,419
- Reaction score
- 6,089
- Country
Its never sat very well with me for tax payers to pay others to have more children.
The cap on child benefit was reasonable.
The cap on child benefit was reasonable.
If people drink more beer as a result of a tax cut, then tax revenues might actually increase. Is Bob an economic genius?
OK, so as most people can't afford kids without child benefit, what are you going to do about economic growth and finding the people to work in jobs that are needed for an ageing population?
Not to mention not having enough young people to be paying the money for the pensions of the wrinkles?
And don't come out with that 'they've already earned it'/'paid in all their lives' false argument, because it's always been the case that the younger generations pay for the older generations...
So if your argument was to hold, then you'll just have to accept more migrants
Oh and by the way, child benefit has been historically there to provide women with independent money to help look after the kids...
Take it away or limit it and it's another backward step!
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,419
- Reaction score
- 6,089
- Country
not true, see:
Equal Pay Act 1970,
Sex Discrimination Act 1975,
Race Relations Act 1976,
Disability Discrimination Act 1995,
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003,
Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
As far as I know, they no longer exist, as they are all consolidated into the Equality Act.
But I haven't actually checked yet!
Similar threads
