The 'Defence' budget is actually the 'Offence' budget. It is almost limitless whenever the UK, as the US' pet poodle, is willing to splash when summoned.
@@peterreid right less than a week and he's already putting the wheels in motion. Galloway warned it would be within six months yet its only taken Starmer 6 days to show his intentions.
Labour: there's no money to lift 1.6 million kids out of poverty, but when the water companies go bankrupt in 6 months time you can BET we'll just shake the magic money tree and bung them 20 billion pounds
The Tories refused to feed kids during lockdown until pressured by Marcus Rashford so Boris had the money the whole time but simply refused to feed them. That's a kid starver.
It doesn't matter we will foot the bill after they've stripped the company bare. Socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor is the system we keep allowing to continue.
@@mysterymaverick1982 nationalising these companies, particularly water, wouldn't cost much if anything. Each water company needs a licence to operate, every one of them has broken their licence agreements. Remove the licence and they can't operate legally. As an essential for life the government could take over the infrastructure in order to continue the operations required. The companies themselves have enough annual turnover to run them so running costs wouldn't be a problem. Investing in infrastructure would give the country an asset thereby not so much a cost as a transfer of money into a physical asset. Money being an asset anyway. And government don't need to borrow as it can create money. When that money is used to improve physical assets it doesn't cause inflation as some will claim.
That money would be spent on my grandchildren so it's not a case of children or old people suffering. Most grandparents support their families if they can.
Re-distribute the wealth in UK as there's plenty of it but in fewer and fewer hands, and then stop this fascistic nonsense of punishing poor people for having "too many children"
Uk and France are going to default on debt soon. Watch Labour full their pockets fast whilst they can. Signing deals with cousin Barry watch. Bcos any time soon we will default on debt hence tories ran whilst they could. Made policy to ensure they lose so they can save us later. 😢
Yet, if it were a policy that provided corporate welfare, they would have no problem justifying it. Austerity impoverishes nations and just doesn’t work. If anything, social spending needs to increase - this generally provides an economic stimulus as most of the money goes back into the economy.
Macquarie Group, which owns Southern Water, is worth nearly a trillion dollars. Instead of compensating these crooks, we should fine them billions for breach of contract and endangering life, then use that money to fund renationalisation.
There is a way for the 2 child cap to be removed AND disabled people to be properly supported without living in constant fear and stress...... Companies paying employees properly..... So rather than a person in work having to claim UC (which is something in the region of 38% of the welfare budget), the company has to apply for a "wage top up"... There's a system in place that could be used to deliver it, the one used for SSP and SMP. Businesses would have to justify each claim they made, (like a UC claimant already has to do). There are so many cries of "it's not fair to the tax payer" when it comes to child poverty or disability benefits..... The unfairness comes from businesses who's profit is reliant on their employees being kept reliant on (in work) benefits, yet year on year pay huge bonuses to execs on top of the ginormous salaries and dividends.
@@unknownunknown2576no, the company would have to justify why they need to apply for a wage top up for the employee, not the employees data or circumstances. Delivering it through the system used for SSP and SMP would make sure it reached the employee and they could track it.
When it comes to the two child benefits cap, there's something you might be forgetting. At the top of the twisted conservative ten commandments is, and has always been, thou shall not allow the children of the poor to compete on a level playing field with the children of the rich. This is conservative pathology 101. People in general are the enemy. People in general are competitors and rivals. And what's the best way to win a race, cripple the rival horses before they even leave the stalls.
It breaks their hearts! As they go home to their nice houses with no worries about paying their heating bill and putting food on the table; in their climate disastrous cars and their career goals
I'm a pensioner and believe me it's a struggle on the state pension , the lowest in western Europe . Of course the two child benefit cap should be axed but the pension triple lock should be maintained, this country can afford both, please don't try and pit us oldies against youngsters.
It's critical for children because poor nutrition at a young age can cause irreversible damage. Yes it's important for pensioners too but it's critical for young children
I thought the message here was given quite clearly, pensions should be protected, but so too should children. I didn't hear anyone argue it should be either or, rather that to ignore one but not the other makes it clear the choice is political, not financial.
I'm a pensioner and not wallowing in money. I get fed up hearing how well off pensioners are well some are, but more are not. This country is swimming in money but it's distributed to suit the politicians, not the country nor it's people. Of course children need to be looked after, but lift wages, lift pensions, which I think are the lowest in Europe. Give people a decent amount of money to live on. After all the politicians are lining their pockets. Spending money on defense is futile, if there's a war it will be nuclear and that will be the end, so why waste money! Get the rich to pay their taxes, big corporations too. Labour is no better than the last government 😡
I'm astonished by the widespreadness of support for lifting the cap. When I was a kid, I remember everyone criticising families for having more kids to claim more benefits! What a change.
@@joaniesimpson2016 Both things are true. The rich certainly are the problem but there's also no need to have more than 2 kids. With the current contraceptive options there's no need.
@createyouremotion-cw3qw well, when you consider we are underpopulated in the earning and tax paying age group, trying to reduce the population isn't maybe a good thing.
I’m in Bristol central and voted for Carla. Thanghams response was very dishonest! Her contention was that they couldn’t vote for a ceasefire until certain conditions, which could only be achieved via a ceasefire, were in place. They basically said “We can’t call for a ceasefire until there is a ceasefire in place, which we refuse to call for!!!!” WTAF???!!! Glad she’s gone if that’s her defence! Looking forward to more progressive and honest politics over the next 5 years!
How about axe the cruel dwp attempt to get rid of PIP plunging millions of disabled people into further poverty by hundreds of pounds a month. Labour are quiet on the subject of using a catalogue or a one off Grant or requiring receipts for everything. It's quite frankly terrifying
Exactly. My partner's PIP was stopped after 6 years and we were told she was never entitled to it, despite having congenital dislocation of the hip, congenital heart disease etc. The DWP are a disgrace.
@@martinread6593 don't expect anything from them at allid rather a Labour gov than Tory bit I'm under no illusions that they won't still pull awful crap on us Note the total lack of voting age to 16 in the kings speech..... Good start that
@@martinread6593 Sir Stephen Timms relevant minister. His quote put disabled people at the heart of government blah blah Oh really, how many have you spoken to? I've no doubt it's none.
Frankly its both ethically and financially speaking better to empower and protect childrens welfare. An investment in children, will return on those investments, kids will achieve better grades, have fewer health issues and long term ones. Meaning they have a better chance of maturing into productive citizens. Boomers that have had a lifetime of benefitting from high social and health standards, that in recent years thrown to the wall at the cost of younger generations, from welfare to cost of living to faltering education institutions. Picking on poor people is chump change. You want well funded services? Tax those over of say 3million a year to billions incomes and raise literal billions in tax to invest in all our futures but specifically childrens welfare, simple. Just people have been conned into thinking a wealth tax would affect them when the ones that need taxing make you all look poor even if you are well off, many of those that would be affected already pay less tax than you and they make many millions more.
Far from abandoning the two child cap labour is quite open about introducing it in Scotland where at present it does not exist and no doubt would be happy to use a section 35 to do so
UC needs to be increased for all on benefits, the cost of living crisis is still here in the uk, food prices are higher then they've ever been! Its the same story for bills! The only way to help people is give them more and bring in lower price caps for energy.
How about if you can’t afford kids, don’t have them? It’s not others responsibility to pay for your poor planning. I get this dosent apply to everyone as some people had a large amount of kids while having economic stability but a large amount of people don’t fall into this category. Frankly I think the idea that others should pay for your kids is disgusting
@@WinstonMelbourne-vt2vt A one off tax bill wont cover costs when its each year. Its not popular but brining stability to uk markets is needed. It will allow for greater investment for future, so a tax on the banks or LSE is not really a option.
Seeing the rise in children living in poverty in line with this vile policy! 3bn for war in Ukraine yet we can’t afford to pay basic family allowance, a benefit that our parents & grandparents depended on. So putting this generation in even further poverty compared to their parents along with tuition fees & unafordable housing! What on earth are we doing to future generations??
Why is it the Government's responsibility to pay for your extra kids! If you can't feed them, don't breed them. I am a single parent, a pensioner, and I get just a £100 / month child allowance. My son's mother gives me £10 /month (She is on Benny too). I pay my way, I contributed to the system for 45 years! I get NO BENEFITS! I see a lady with 3 kids asking for an extra £200 / month. Get a frigging Job, and where is the father?
uk birth rates are already lower thwn they need to be. if you want to rely on less or no immigration then you need around 2-2.4 births per woman. just to sustain a population at its current level. the uk has been well below 2 (currently 1.49 2020 and 1.55 in 2021) for a long time. if you scrap the 2 child limit it will raise this rate. it wont fix the issue but it will help. if you dont fix the economy, and raise birth rates. then the uk will continue on a downward trend for years to come.
Our current generation of pensioners aren't the destitute poor of the past. They are/will be the baby boomers, one of the wealthiest generations in recent history. Time to give future generations a chance.
Lets wait to see how much money Starmer has promised Zelensky's American proxy war. New Labour is a corporate party they will defend the private sector at every turn, just think of Wes Streeting wanting to use more private sector health care companies when there isn't any extra capacity as they use NHS staff.
Why haven’t you got Zack Polanski on to defend this accusation? She was NOT liked as a constituency MP. Same for Jon Ashworth. Time to get political people on to do this rather than 2 commentators saying the same thing maybe.
I do like Keir Starmer and what his party have done with appointing a science expert as science minister and owner of Timpson as prison minister. 10:15 Closer alignment to EU Letting wind farms on land. All good things but they should remove 2 child benefit cap it's not a policy majority like it would look good for labour to remove and ethically children should not be in poverty. I don't understand why Labour can't do it I get they need to recover economy but there's plenty of wealth in the country. Or if they genuinely can't why not give a rough estimate of when they aim to remove policy at least assure public that at some point the cap will be removed. They could introduce free school meals for starters and ensure children in low income households don't need to pay a school uniform while in poverty. Labour need to fix this fast the tories always got support from the media when they messed up Labour won't the media want them out and any chance they get. We can't afford another tory government Labour need to accept this is not just necessary for ethical reasons but for their political survival.
The benefit system is broke ,whats the point working when people on benefits get an easy life? Instead of giving cash payments why not not hand vouchers to make sure its being spent on the right things ie food ,rent and other basic utilities.not phones , drinking and other luxuries that working familys cant even afford .its the people abusing the system thats the issue
I wonder about the 400 odd Labour MPs. I know Starmers a very establishment, almost right wing leader. I get that, he's no socialist. But out of those rank and file Labour back benchers, how many harbour 'secret' left wing beliefs? How many want to see wealth taxed more, how many want to see more industry taken into the nations ownership? I don't know.
If you are not Vegan, don't use a car and limite waste to a minimum, you should not be wasting your time being annoyed/frustrated with new oil exploration. Once you tick all the relevant boxes in your lifestyle, I'll listen. Until then, go vegan, don't use fossil fuels everyday and cut waste NOW!
The emissions and environmental impact of factory farming is never talked about, so most people have no idea of the sheer scale of environmental damage and cruelty by agribusiness. They also don't much like changing their habits either... it's extremely frustrating 😢
Having children is a personal choice for you to make with your financial circumstances. It’s not the states responsibility to pay for you or your kids. Should be like Nordics. You pay an insurance on top of your very high income tax levels, to claim unemployment or sick pay(it’s paid for by this insurance), you need to pay in for a year and it’s time limited, it’s not endless like the UK. It’s a very fair system and drives everyone to work, being long term unemployed is not a thing in Nordics.
It’s one of those policies were it encourages some people to not take responsibility for their actions. So despite the positive idea at face value it’s open to being abused and can actually encourage people to have more children that they can’t look after.
The children are in poverty because they have already been born. The birth rates show no correlation with the cap being passed. Please dont listen to the people that tell you people are popping out children to get benefits. We should not be punish out future workforce. The benefits are an investment in out future.
@@JasonAtlasI grew up with people that did that so don’t tell me they don’t. 😂 every time a bit of policy is put in place wether you are rich or poor some people will use it to their advantage wether it be tax breaks or benefits. I’m not sure how can you be so naive. It’s also not a blanket statement some do, some don’t.
Firstly the 2 child cap is very reasonable and fair. The tyranny to expect men to pay for a policy that proactively encourage their absence is highly unfair. The destruction of the family unit the issues that go along with children from fatherless homes. Your not doing the family any good by encouraging the outcome of dysfunctional family units putting women in housing and men on the streets with no family connections just women with babies its really a horrid scene the inhumanity thats encouraged is actuality
I think there is an inherent problem where mothers are just pumping out cash babies for benefits. No baby already born should go unfed. Maybe an amendment should be made where any baby born after a certain date will not receive benefits for that child. As important as our amazing social benefits system is in place as vital safety net for so many deserving people. There are always some that look to exploit that system and choose to bring a child into a life of poverty for their own self gains. It’s dysfunctional. It’s not right.
Could a 4 or 5 child benefit cap work? It would make it easier to budget without punishing a large amount of families and lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty.
It’s not cruel it’s fair. UK mentality. Everything is my right and nothing is my responsibility. This is the polar opposite of the Nordic countries, where people are far more aware of these things and unlike the UK you don’t get a free ride for life, you have to work until your 67 or older to get a pension. The UK is an easy touch.
At the very real risk of sounding like a Tory, really, this is the priority in broken Britain? I of course feel for the kids, I grew up below the poverty line in a Jamaican household. But seriously, why should the taxpayer have to pay more towards this personal and unnecessary decision made to have more than two kids?
@@DecMurphyIt isn’t valuing the fortunes of the rich. I’m a millennial woman- I cannot afford to have kids. So guess what, I won’t until I am certain I can provide for the kid and give them AT MINIMUM the basics of what they need. That is only fair to the child being brought into the world against their will. I WILL NOT go ahead and have not one, two but three or more kids knowing each time the ability to provide for them is just going to get worse. It is irresponsible. I don’t want these kids to suffer but really, we have an NHS that doesn’t work, cost of living is out of control, water companies are pumping sewage into our rivers and we are already seeing the effects of climate change. In my eyes, this takes priority AND will help increase the quality of life of people everywhere, including those kids.
@@imjstar I'm not thinking about it individualistically, it's a collective societal choice, not an individual one. We can either chose as a society to be reactionary and spiteful and blame the poor for making bad choices, or we can choose to create a society in which there is no poverty. You're falling into the former way of thinking. We need to redistribute wealth so everyone has enough and can have however many kids they want, rather than trying to police people's personal life choices like we're in some kind of totalitarian state.
@@DecMurphy If they want kids they can create their own wealth first. We have riddiculous cases where people complain they have 3 kids sleeping in one bedroom. Why have three kids if you only have one bedroom??
I wouldn't agree with it but it might be in the realm of discussion if the Policy was just that payments were reduced by an amount for each additional child beyond 2 but not to cut them completely.
We the British people sre facing s demography crisis sith too few people being born to old people living longer, meaning we need to be having more children
It is very unfair for people with no or only 2 kids to have to pay for families with excessive a kid count . children are not suffering and losing their life chances because if this cap. the burden large families place on the welfare system is enormous and welfare should be cut not increased
I don't see why me as a humble carpenter has to work longer hours if I'd decided to have more kids, but if you're on the dole you can have as many as you want, 🖕.
That’s what’s been happening for 20+ years now. As a consequence we have a shrinking population base. So we need inward migration. Which people also hate. 🤷🏻♂️ Pick your poison…
@@tituscrow49512 totally different things. Falling birth rates are due to a number of factors of reasons, mostly around culture change and women not wanting kids etc. Immigration is another far bigger problem. If you take in 600,000 economic migrants that consumes all the houses built in 1 year, plus those economic migrants would need circa 5,000 extra doctors and at least 10 extra schools. So don’t cry about expensive housing or no GPs.
Natural multiple births could have been catered form. The idea was great, the bill was badly written since existing children should never have been penalised or multiple births producing the extras. @@garyboyle695
@@tituscrow49512.4 children was the norm, it worked. The difference now is too many cannot earn enough to have the support system of home and sufficient income that 2.4 children need and thus choose 1 or none
Have loads of kids, everybody else will pay for them. Don’t bother toilet train them , schools will do that and they’ll feed them too. Finally it’s ok to neglect them you be quids in with extra benefits 👍
Your good at seeing the reactions but do you see the actions that set these in motion or resistance? I very much doubt that. Add something constructive not a poxy observation
This is a good demonstration that right wing is just a synonym for sociopaths. Blame the victims, care about no one but yourself. There's more than enough money in this economy to pay for more than two children, it's just being stolen by the rich, and we need to take it back.
Even if there was a grain of truth in your argument, do you really think the children should suffer because their parents made choices you disagree with?
What about investing in training instead? So that people with hoardes of kids can get into the workplace and support their children. Why is it everyone else's job to look after other people's kids?
In Italy there is no child benefit even for one child. How spoilt, entitled and pampered the British are compared to other countries. In Italy if you want a child it’s your responsibility end of story. It is not considered part of the duty of government to interfere in people’s lives and treat them like babies. Honestly why should taxpayers pay for this?
this country doesn't need more benefits, it needs a wealth tax to fix our public services. People get more than enough freebies here, not working is too easy
They should not be in a position where they cannot afford to keep the children. Maybe addressing the massive inequality and poor wages?do you want to see kids going hungry and ragged so the rich can keep getting richer?
Oil in the north sea is 80% exported and the price of the oil is still based on global oil prices. UK drilling more makes no difference to price of oil
not sure how it is cruel ..we have an over population problem an we cant support the people we do have so untill that changes i dont see the issue..we need to slow breading down not support incressing it
It's cruel because the state allows mps to commit fraud, no action, claim, claim claim themselves no actions . Everyday folks going through difficulties, they don't care . Fuel prices very expensive compared to.the rest of the world , food prices, rent, housing .....
The UK doesn't have an overpopulation problem. In fact as mentioned the UK has an aging population. Youre also missing a key effect that poverty has on human behaviour, poverty makes people more likely to have more children.
@@simoncox9689 you'd rather kids suffer from malnutrition, cold and poor ability to learn due to these than help them survive, improve themselves and be able to support themselves in the future. Great way of solving a problem that doesn't exist - over crowding that is. Cruelty is not assisting those most in need. We have an aging population which will mean a reduced population. That is already having an impact here although other countries such as Canada and Australia are already offering supplements to increase immigration. The production of too much bread is not the problem. Nor for that matter is too much breeding. Pre 1950 most families in the uk had approximately 8+ children, current levels are 1.8 children average according to ONS. Therefore cutting breeding wouldn't solve your propaganda fueled theory of too many children per family.
@@goitcoreThe birth rate for British citizens has constantly fallen for the last decade, wonder who's having the children ? If you can't afford 3 don't have them, no govt should have to support them. The same govt that wants to strip the disabled , pensioners and the unemployed of benefits, and force many into work, these are the people on way less then £12000 per year, still trying to pay bills. To have a child is a choice, to become disabled or grow old is not.
Maybe they had them while they could afford them but now it's more difficult because their business got buggered or the jobs went away/ paid less in the last few years or decade while everything got more expensive.
LABOUR HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE TOO LONG NOW....... COME ON NM FANS, LETS TELL THE NATION HOW BAD THEY HAVE BEEN FOR SO LONG...... WE WANT JC OR TORIES..... WE WANT CONTENT AND VIEWS!!
Seeing the rise in children living in poverty in line with this vile policy! 3bn for war in Ukraine yet we can’t afford to pay basic family allowance, a benefit that our parents & grandparents depended on. So putting this generation in even further poverty compared to their parents along with tuition fees & unafordable housing! What on earth are we doing to future generations??
3:22 pensioners can vote....children cant. thats a political choice
Pensioners actually support their families in most cases.
@@scottessery100 pensioners have paid into the system their entire life.
@@user-bp6uv3wo2b sweeping generalisation and it's not necessarily true either not ALL pensioners will have a lifetime of paid taxes
@@joannakatsuno7096 most are pretty much supporting themselves to be honest I'm sure some are in that position but I'd suggest it's a minority
The 'Defence' budget is actually the 'Offence' budget. It is almost limitless whenever the UK, as the US' pet poodle, is willing to splash when summoned.
Becoming clear that the big fight for Labour will be in how long people will accept blaming the previous government for their lack of action !!
less than week in power - unbelievable
Tories we’re still doing that in the election campaign
The previous government was labours fault, they'd have been power in 2019 if they'd actually backed corbyn
Yeah but they've looked at the books they are in a terrible state because of the Tories and there's no money for anything apart from Ukr and IS.
@@peterreid right less than a week and he's already putting the wheels in motion. Galloway warned it would be within six months yet its only taken Starmer 6 days to show his intentions.
Labour: there's no money to lift 1.6 million kids out of poverty, but when the water companies go bankrupt in 6 months time you can BET we'll just shake the magic money tree and bung them 20 billion pounds
Whats more there is a real money tree, its just Neo-Liberal politicians of all colours work for the corporate sector not the people that elect them.
Kid Starver - living up to his name alright
Meh, children don't vote.
It's up to their parents to pull them out of poverty.
The Tories refused to feed kids during lockdown until pressured by Marcus Rashford so Boris had the money the whole time but simply refused to feed them. That's a kid starver.
I want to know the salarys these water CEOs are getting. UK is broken.
These figures are available in company accounts, these are available via the Companies House website.
That and the mps with shares...
It doesn't matter we will foot the bill after they've stripped the company bare. Socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor is the system we keep allowing to continue.
@@mysterymaverick1982 nationalising these companies, particularly water, wouldn't cost much if anything. Each water company needs a licence to operate, every one of them has broken their licence agreements. Remove the licence and they can't operate legally. As an essential for life the government could take over the infrastructure in order to continue the operations required. The companies themselves have enough annual turnover to run them so running costs wouldn't be a problem.
Investing in infrastructure would give the country an asset thereby not so much a cost as a transfer of money into a physical asset. Money being an asset anyway.
And government don't need to borrow as it can create money. When that money is used to improve physical assets it doesn't cause inflation as some will claim.
@@kevbrown2532 100 percent you need to speculate to accumulate. In addition we will end up footing the bills for the bailouts anyway.
What I want to know is why is George Osborne still free?
Yes. He nicked £50000 of my pension as a waspi
That money would be spent on my grandchildren so it's not a case of children or old people suffering. Most grandparents support their families if they can.
Re-distribute the wealth in UK as there's plenty of it but in fewer and fewer hands, and then stop this fascistic nonsense of punishing poor people for having "too many children"
They pumping money into ukriane ..sucking it out of uk
Ironically, if we had more children, we'd have more taxpayers to fund the system. 😮
@@MongooseTacticool Right particularly as we have an aging population.
And less need for immigrant workers. @@MongooseTacticool
Uk and France are going to default on debt soon. Watch Labour full their pockets fast whilst they can. Signing deals with cousin Barry watch.
Bcos any time soon we will default on debt hence tories ran whilst they could. Made policy to ensure they lose so they can save us later. 😢
Yet, if it were a policy that provided corporate welfare, they would have no problem justifying it. Austerity impoverishes nations and just doesn’t work. If anything, social spending needs to increase - this generally provides an economic stimulus as most of the money goes back into the economy.
Labour's modest proposal: Send the poor children to Ukraine's front lines.
Macquarie Group, which owns Southern Water, is worth nearly a trillion dollars. Instead of compensating these crooks, we should fine them billions for breach of contract and endangering life, then use that money to fund renationalisation.
There is a way for the 2 child cap to be removed AND disabled people to be properly supported without living in constant fear and stress......
Companies paying employees properly..... So rather than a person in work having to claim UC (which is something in the region of 38% of the welfare budget), the company has to apply for a "wage top up"... There's a system in place that could be used to deliver it, the one used for SSP and SMP. Businesses would have to justify each claim they made, (like a UC claimant already has to do).
There are so many cries of "it's not fair to the tax payer" when it comes to child poverty or disability benefits..... The unfairness comes from businesses who's profit is reliant on their employees being kept reliant on (in work) benefits, yet year on year pay huge bonuses to execs on top of the ginormous salaries and dividends.
Data protection for employees gone then
@@unknownunknown2576no, the company would have to justify why they need to apply for a wage top up for the employee, not the employees data or circumstances. Delivering it through the system used for SSP and SMP would make sure it reached the employee and they could track it.
@@unknownunknown2576no you've purposely "misunderstood" what I've put.
It's nothing to do with the employee's data, but solely the company's.
When it comes to the two child benefits cap, there's something you might be forgetting. At the top of the twisted conservative ten commandments is, and has always been, thou shall not allow the children of the poor to compete on a level playing field with the children of the rich. This is conservative pathology 101. People in general are the enemy. People in general are competitors and rivals. And what's the best way to win a race, cripple the rival horses before they even leave the stalls.
Got money for Ukraine and Israel tho
The 'defence' budget is actually an 'offence' budget
It breaks their hearts! As they go home to their nice houses with no worries about paying their heating bill and putting food on the table; in their climate disastrous cars and their career goals
I'm a pensioner and believe me it's a struggle on the state pension , the lowest in western Europe . Of course the two child benefit cap should be axed but the pension triple lock should be maintained, this country can afford both, please don't try and pit us oldies against youngsters.
It's critical for children because poor nutrition at a young age can cause irreversible damage. Yes it's important for pensioners too but it's critical for young children
I thought the message here was given quite clearly, pensions should be protected, but so too should children. I didn't hear anyone argue it should be either or, rather that to ignore one but not the other makes it clear the choice is political, not financial.
I think Dalia was pretty clear that she was not pitting one group against another.
I'm a pensioner and not wallowing in money. I get fed up hearing how well off pensioners are well some are, but more are not. This country is swimming in money but it's distributed to suit the politicians, not the country nor it's people. Of course children need to be looked after, but lift wages, lift pensions, which I think are the lowest in Europe. Give people a decent amount of money to live on. After all the politicians are lining their pockets. Spending money on defense is futile, if there's a war it will be nuclear and that will be the end, so why waste money!
Get the rich to pay their taxes, big corporations too. Labour is no better than the last government 😡
@@katecurrie7499 This could all be done if we stop the w@r M0n9ering (sorry I have to write in code I'm being censored).
Great to see Dalia back!
The head if the water regulator is Chris Waters?😂😂
Seriously though, the boards of directors need to be sued.
I'm astonished by the widespreadness of support for lifting the cap. When I was a kid, I remember everyone criticising families for having more kids to claim more benefits! What a change.
Yeah, the same gaslighting existed then, too, to make the less well off believe that their the problem. Try looking up instead of down.
@@joaniesimpson2016 Both things are true. The rich certainly are the problem but there's also no need to have more than 2 kids. With the current contraceptive options there's no need.
@createyouremotion-cw3qw well, when you consider we are underpopulated in the earning and tax paying age group, trying to reduce the population isn't maybe a good thing.
I’m in Bristol central and voted for Carla. Thanghams response was very dishonest! Her contention was that they couldn’t vote for a ceasefire until certain conditions, which could only be achieved via a ceasefire, were in place. They basically said “We can’t call for a ceasefire until there is a ceasefire in place, which we refuse to call for!!!!” WTAF???!!! Glad she’s gone if that’s her defence! Looking forward to more progressive and honest politics over the next 5 years!
Thank you Dalia. Thank you Mike (Dr Bankole).
If only parents could figure out what keeps causing children...
Still can't believe that Thangam Debonnaire wasn't a correspondent on The Day Today
How about axe the cruel dwp attempt to get rid of PIP plunging millions of disabled people into further poverty by hundreds of pounds a month.
Labour are quiet on the subject of using a catalogue or a one off Grant or requiring receipts for everything.
It's quite frankly terrifying
Exactly. My partner's PIP was stopped after 6 years and we were told she was never entitled to it, despite having congenital dislocation of the hip, congenital heart disease etc. The DWP are a disgrace.
Isn't this Liz Kendal's area? Expect nothing from her.
@@martinread6593 don't expect anything from them at allid rather a Labour gov than Tory bit I'm under no illusions that they won't still pull awful crap on us
Note the total lack of voting age to 16 in the kings speech.....
Good start that
@@martinread6593 Sir Stephen Timms relevant minister.
His quote put disabled people at the heart of government blah blah
Oh really, how many have you spoken to?
I've no doubt it's none.
Are water companies profitable? Why not nationalize them then? The CEOs can get flushed, float down the river and out to sea.
Frankly its both ethically and financially speaking better to empower and protect childrens welfare. An investment in children, will return on those investments, kids will achieve better grades, have fewer health issues and long term ones. Meaning they have a better chance of maturing into productive citizens. Boomers that have had a lifetime of benefitting from high social and health standards, that in recent years thrown to the wall at the cost of younger generations, from welfare to cost of living to faltering education institutions.
Picking on poor people is chump change. You want well funded services? Tax those over of say 3million a year to billions incomes and raise literal billions in tax to invest in all our futures but specifically childrens welfare, simple. Just people have been conned into thinking a wealth tax would affect them when the ones that need taxing make you all look poor even if you are well off, many of those that would be affected already pay less tax than you and they make many millions more.
Far from abandoning the two child cap labour is quite open about introducing it in Scotland where at present it does not exist and no doubt would be happy to use a section 35 to do so
Spot on.
Please do not qout Swela Bevermann!She is not a human but raptile.
Middle-age starts at 45... you're nowhere near!
Starmer stands with war criminals
UC needs to be increased for all on benefits, the cost of living crisis is still here in the uk, food prices are higher then they've ever been! Its the same story for bills! The only way to help people is give them more and bring in lower price caps for energy.
How about if you can’t afford kids, don’t have them? It’s not others responsibility to pay for your poor planning. I get this dosent apply to everyone as some people had a large amount of kids while having economic stability but a large amount of people don’t fall into this category. Frankly I think the idea that others should pay for your kids is disgusting
Warnings: please never mention the name of Braverman! That's simply vile and toxic.
It breaks their hearts! Humbug!
they can remove the child lock they could tax the energy companies which would bring in the money
they have already increased the windfall tax even further
@@jamesholt4449 I understood that however, this is about children putting on tax on them 1 or 2% or taking it from the banks or the stock markets
@@WinstonMelbourne-vt2vt A one off tax bill wont cover costs when its each year. Its not popular but brining stability to uk markets is needed. It will allow for greater investment for future, so a tax on the banks or LSE is not really a option.
Seeing the rise in children living in poverty in line with this vile policy!
3bn for war in Ukraine yet we can’t afford to pay basic family allowance, a benefit that our parents & grandparents depended on.
So putting this generation in even further poverty compared to their parents along with tuition fees & unafordable housing!
What on earth are we doing to future generations??
Why is it the Government's responsibility to pay for your extra kids! If you can't feed them, don't breed them. I am a single parent, a pensioner, and I get just a £100 / month child allowance. My son's mother gives me £10 /month (She is on Benny too). I pay my way, I contributed to the system for 45 years! I get NO BENEFITS! I see a lady with 3 kids asking for an extra £200 / month. Get a frigging Job, and where is the father?
Love you guys
"Even Suella Braverman ..." - say no more.
What a total and utter disaster we now have. Thought is was bad before? You just wait for what's coming!
we want tories back
@@peterreid Too late now. You voted Labour in. I warned you.
Hahahaha 😂
You're serious?
uk birth rates are already lower thwn they need to be. if you want to rely on less or no immigration then you need around 2-2.4 births per woman. just to sustain a population at its current level. the uk has been well below 2 (currently 1.49 2020 and 1.55 in 2021) for a long time. if you scrap the 2 child limit it will raise this rate. it wont fix the issue but it will help. if you dont fix the economy, and raise birth rates. then the uk will continue on a downward trend for years to come.
Yep, both my daughters have decided to be child free because life is hard enough for them financially 😢
Our current generation of pensioners aren't the destitute poor of the past. They are/will be the baby boomers, one of the wealthiest generations in recent history. Time to give future generations a chance.
It isn’t an either/or. Do not let them say - we cannot afford both thus pitting young against old. As Dalia says these are idealogical choices.
Lets wait to see how much money Starmer has promised Zelensky's American proxy war. New Labour is a corporate party they will defend the private sector at every turn, just think of Wes Streeting wanting to use more private sector health care companies when there isn't any extra capacity as they use NHS staff.
Proxy war? Russia has invaded a sovereign territory mate, Ukraine has every right to defend its borders and request aid from the West
Russia invaded Ukraine.
Are you confused as to what happened?
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed Thangam Debbonaire's necklace? Is that a reminder to herself? 🤔
How about get Facebook etc to pay the same level of taxes they pay in France
Why haven’t you got Zack Polanski on to defend this accusation? She was NOT liked as a constituency MP. Same for Jon Ashworth. Time to get political people on to do this rather than 2 commentators saying the same thing maybe.
I do like Keir Starmer and what his party have done with appointing a science expert as science minister and owner of Timpson as prison minister. 10:15
Closer alignment to EU
Letting wind farms on land.
All good things but they should remove 2 child benefit cap it's not a policy majority like it would look good for labour to remove and ethically children should not be in poverty.
I don't understand why Labour can't do it I get they need to recover economy but there's plenty of wealth in the country.
Or if they genuinely can't why not give a rough estimate of when they aim to remove policy at least assure public that at some point the cap will be removed.
They could introduce free school meals for starters and ensure children in low income households don't need to pay a school uniform while in poverty.
Labour need to fix this fast the tories always got support from the media when they messed up Labour won't the media want them out and any chance they get.
We can't afford another tory government Labour need to accept this is not just necessary for ethical reasons but for their political survival.
The benefit system is broke ,whats the point working when people on benefits get an easy life? Instead of giving cash payments why not not hand vouchers to make sure its being spent on the right things ie food ,rent and other basic utilities.not phones , drinking and other luxuries that working familys cant even afford .its the people abusing the system thats the issue
When the news is delivered by Doctors it attracts the best !!
I wonder about the 400 odd Labour MPs. I know Starmers a very establishment, almost right wing leader. I get that, he's no socialist. But out of those rank and file Labour back benchers, how many harbour 'secret' left wing beliefs?
How many want to see wealth taxed more, how many want to see more industry taken into the nations ownership?
I don't know.
NO to NATO, NO to W@R, NO to The New Tory Liebour Party. ✊🏻✊🏻✊🏻
Parents are responsible for the children they create not the government or anyone else
That Ofwat guy could barely keep a straight face
Child benefit goes to parents not children so cant guarantee its going to help children
Dr Mike...hell yeah! Congrats.
Everyone of you are 🔝 class
They don't give a honeymoon period in your country which is a good thing
Oh, they do! Or at least did in the past. Maybe we're all too cynical about politicians now?
If you are not Vegan, don't use a car and limite waste to a minimum, you should not be wasting your time being annoyed/frustrated with new oil exploration. Once you tick all the relevant boxes in your lifestyle, I'll listen. Until then, go vegan, don't use fossil fuels everyday and cut waste NOW!
The emissions and environmental impact of factory farming is never talked about, so most people have no idea of the sheer scale of environmental damage and cruelty by agribusiness. They also don't much like changing their habits either... it's extremely frustrating 😢
Good evening 🎉
Nationalise the Water companies now.
Why do you mostly if not only seem to cover events with Thames Water? You are aware that they're not the only water company right?
They mentioned the other ones too
The spending rules are just the same crap from advisors from Horton Street. They just have to add a few years to the repayments. Simple!
Having children is a personal choice for you to make with your financial circumstances.
It’s not the states responsibility to pay for you or your kids.
Should be like Nordics.
You pay an insurance on top of your very high income tax levels, to claim unemployment or sick pay(it’s paid for by this insurance), you need to pay in for a year and it’s time limited, it’s not endless like the UK.
It’s a very fair system and drives everyone to work, being long term unemployed is not a thing in Nordics.
Bristol sounds pretty fucking cool. I’ve never been, but maybe I will.
It’s a brilliant city. I’ve only visited once but the Banksy - style graffiti is brilliant and it gives off wonderful vibes.
It’s one of those policies were it encourages some people to not take responsibility for their actions. So despite the positive idea at face value it’s open to being abused and can actually encourage people to have more children that they can’t look after.
The children are in poverty because they have already been born.
The birth rates show no correlation with the cap being passed.
Please dont listen to the people that tell you people are popping out children to get benefits. We should not be punish out future workforce. The benefits are an investment in out future.
@@JasonAtlasI grew up with people that did that so don’t tell me they don’t. 😂 every time a bit of policy is put in place wether you are rich or poor some people will use it to their advantage wether it be tax breaks or benefits. I’m not sure how can you be so naive. It’s also not a blanket statement some do, some don’t.
Firstly the 2 child cap is very reasonable and fair. The tyranny to expect men to pay for a policy that proactively encourage their absence is highly unfair. The destruction of the family unit the issues that go along with children from fatherless homes. Your not doing the family any good by encouraging the outcome of dysfunctional family units putting women in housing and men on the streets with no family connections just women with babies its really a horrid scene the inhumanity thats encouraged is actuality
Under pressure, or meeting you with a view to a kill?
No billions to his mate, Zelensky, that's to be allocated to our children.
I think there is an inherent problem where mothers are just pumping out cash babies for benefits.
No baby already born should go unfed.
Maybe an amendment should be made where any baby born after a certain date will not receive benefits for that child. As important as our amazing social benefits system is in place as vital safety net for so many deserving people. There are always some that look to exploit that system and choose to bring a child into a life of poverty for their own self gains. It’s dysfunctional. It’s not right.
Could a 4 or 5 child benefit cap work? It would make it easier to budget without punishing a large amount of families and lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty.
This is why he is called: Sir Kid Starver
We can’t afford it , don’t people understand.
It’s not cruel it’s fair.
UK mentality.
Everything is my right and nothing is my responsibility.
This is the polar opposite of the Nordic countries, where people are far more aware of these things and unlike the UK you don’t get a free ride for life, you have to work until your 67 or older to get a pension.
The UK is an easy touch.
At the very real risk of sounding like a Tory, really, this is the priority in broken Britain? I of course feel for the kids, I grew up below the poverty line in a Jamaican household. But seriously, why should the taxpayer have to pay more towards this personal and unnecessary decision made to have more than two kids?
Yes, you do sound like a Tory, you value the fortunes of the rich over human life? You need to get your priorities sorted out.
@@DecMurphyThe rich have got nothing to do with it:
If people can't provide for children, but have more, then that is not caring for human life.
@@DecMurphyIt isn’t valuing the fortunes of the rich. I’m a millennial woman- I cannot afford to have kids. So guess what, I won’t until I am certain I can provide for the kid and give them AT MINIMUM the basics of what they need. That is only fair to the child being brought into the world against their will.
I WILL NOT go ahead and have not one, two but three or more kids knowing each time the ability to provide for them is just going to get worse. It is irresponsible.
I don’t want these kids to suffer but really, we have an NHS that doesn’t work, cost of living is out of control, water companies are pumping sewage into our rivers and we are already seeing the effects of climate change. In my eyes, this takes priority AND will help increase the quality of life of people everywhere, including those kids.
@@imjstar I'm not thinking about it individualistically, it's a collective societal choice, not an individual one. We can either chose as a society to be reactionary and spiteful and blame the poor for making bad choices, or we can choose to create a society in which there is no poverty. You're falling into the former way of thinking. We need to redistribute wealth so everyone has enough and can have however many kids they want, rather than trying to police people's personal life choices like we're in some kind of totalitarian state.
@@DecMurphy If they want kids they can create their own wealth first.
We have riddiculous cases where people complain they have 3 kids sleeping in one bedroom. Why have three kids if you only have one bedroom??
Why not use the £3 billion hes pledged to Zelensky .Just send him a billion instead .
Thats a one off compared to yearly
We, the British people, refuse to pay for people to have lots of kids.
I wouldn't agree with it but it might be in the realm of discussion if the Policy was just that payments were reduced by an amount for each additional child beyond 2 but not to cut them completely.
We the British people sre facing s demography crisis sith too few people being born to old people living longer, meaning we need to be having more children
It is very unfair for people with no or only 2 kids to have to pay for families with excessive a kid count .
children are not suffering and losing their life chances because if this cap.
the burden large families place on the welfare system is enormous and welfare should be cut not increased
I don't see why me as a humble carpenter has to work longer hours if I'd decided to have more kids, but if you're on the dole you can have as many as you want, 🖕.
Exactly
Can I just say the black guy has eyes like The Grinch from the Dr Seuss books 😂
If people cannot afford to have children stop expecting the tax payer to support your lifestyle choices.
How can someone predict loosing there job or partner. pushing them into poverty as they no longer have the income
@jamesholt4449 But that's not what has happened to the majority of people now is it?
£170 a month for two kids. Thats plenty to feed and clothe them.
Why should tax payers pay. If u cant afford more than 2 then dont have them
So if you have triplets or quads? Besides, we aren't having enough kids to fund people's retirement.
That’s what’s been happening for 20+ years now. As a consequence we have a shrinking population base. So we need inward migration. Which people also hate. 🤷🏻♂️ Pick your poison…
@@tituscrow49512 totally different things.
Falling birth rates are due to a number of factors of reasons, mostly around culture change and women not wanting kids etc.
Immigration is another far bigger problem.
If you take in 600,000 economic migrants that consumes all the houses built in 1 year, plus those economic migrants would need circa 5,000 extra doctors and at least 10 extra schools.
So don’t cry about expensive housing or no GPs.
Natural multiple births could have been catered form. The idea was great, the bill was badly written since existing children should never have been penalised or multiple births producing the extras. @@garyboyle695
@@tituscrow49512.4 children was the norm, it worked. The difference now is too many cannot earn enough to have the support system of home and sufficient income that 2.4 children need and thus choose 1 or none
Have loads of kids, everybody else will pay for them. Don’t bother toilet train them , schools will do that and they’ll feed them too.
Finally it’s ok to neglect them you be quids in with extra benefits 👍
Your good at seeing the reactions but do you see the actions that set these in motion or resistance? I very much doubt that. Add something constructive not a poxy observation
This is a good demonstration that right wing is just a synonym for sociopaths. Blame the victims, care about no one but yourself. There's more than enough money in this economy to pay for more than two children, it's just being stolen by the rich, and we need to take it back.
Even if there was a grain of truth in your argument, do you really think the children should suffer because their parents made choices you disagree with?
Reform is over there little bro. ->
@@tituscrow4951so that makes you a hard left fascist then
🤠❤️💚
What about investing in training instead? So that people with hoardes of kids can get into the workplace and support their children. Why is it everyone else's job to look after other people's kids?
I don't think tax payers should pick up the bill for the consequences of other people's intimacy. Whoever did the intimacy should pick up the bill.
Can't afford to have children, then don't
No they are not
In Italy there is no child benefit even for one child. How spoilt, entitled and pampered the British are compared to other countries. In Italy if you want a child it’s your responsibility end of story. It is not considered part of the duty of government to interfere in people’s lives and treat them like babies. Honestly why should taxpayers pay for this?
@ Jon The feckless in the UK have advocated responsibility for most things to the authorities.
Imagine wanting to treat babies like babies 😰😰😰
You are just gorgeous
yeah Mike is nice
this country doesn't need more benefits, it needs a wealth tax to fix our public services. People get more than enough freebies here, not working is too easy
Its not the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for other peoples kids they cant afford to keep.
They should not be in a position where they cannot afford to keep the children. Maybe addressing the massive inequality and poor wages?do you want to see kids going hungry and ragged so the rich can keep getting richer?
Drill for oil. Let's get energy costs down and start encouraging growth for the country .
And when it accelerates climate disaster and everything closapes, then what?
Oil in the north sea is 80% exported and the price of the oil is still based on global oil prices. UK drilling more makes no difference to price of oil
@@jamesholt4449 You will need those children to look after you in your old age.
not sure how it is cruel ..we have an over population problem an we cant support the people we do have so untill that changes i dont see the issue..we need to slow breading down not support incressing it
It's cruel because the state allows mps to commit fraud, no action, claim, claim claim themselves no actions .
Everyday folks going through difficulties, they don't care .
Fuel prices very expensive compared to.the rest of the world , food prices, rent, housing .....
The UK doesn't have an overpopulation problem. In fact as mentioned the UK has an aging population. Youre also missing a key effect that poverty has on human behaviour, poverty makes people more likely to have more children.
@@simoncox9689 you'd rather kids suffer from malnutrition, cold and poor ability to learn due to these than help them survive, improve themselves and be able to support themselves in the future. Great way of solving a problem that doesn't exist - over crowding that is. Cruelty is not assisting those most in need.
We have an aging population which will mean a reduced population. That is already having an impact here although other countries such as Canada and Australia are already offering supplements to increase immigration.
The production of too much bread is not the problem. Nor for that matter is too much breeding. Pre 1950 most families in the uk had approximately 8+ children, current levels are 1.8 children average according to ONS. Therefore cutting breeding wouldn't solve your propaganda fueled theory of too many children per family.
@@goitcoreThe birth rate for British citizens has constantly fallen for the last decade, wonder who's having the children ? If you can't afford 3 don't have them, no govt should have to support them. The same govt that wants to strip the disabled , pensioners and the unemployed of benefits, and force many into work, these are the people on way less then £12000 per year, still trying to pay bills. To have a child is a choice, to become disabled or grow old is not.
The opposite is true
It is not cruel at all. If you cannot afford to have more than 2 children, don't have them.
Maybe they had them while they could afford them but now it's more difficult because their business got buggered or the jobs went away/ paid less in the last few years or decade while everything got more expensive.
So what if you can afford them but then you lose your job through no fault of your own?
How many have you got?
How many kids have you got?
You make the kids, you pay for them! Don’t expect me to.
How may times is Dalia Gabriel allowed to interject "you know"before we can say that's enough,you are wearing out the patience of your audience🤐
It should be changed to three children and no more than that!
Yeah cause we are having too many children in this country. 🤦🏻♂️
Why?
LABOUR HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE TOO LONG NOW....... COME ON NM FANS, LETS TELL THE NATION HOW BAD THEY HAVE BEEN FOR SO LONG...... WE WANT JC OR TORIES..... WE WANT CONTENT AND VIEWS!!
Stop SHOUTING
Would like to know how many children born to Muslim families ?
Seeing the rise in children living in poverty in line with this vile policy!
3bn for war in Ukraine yet we can’t afford to pay basic family allowance, a benefit that our parents & grandparents depended on.
So putting this generation in even further poverty compared to their parents along with tuition fees & unafordable housing!
What on earth are we doing to future generations??