I got real surprised when i checked YouGov's polling for the 2-child cap and saw that, for both conservative voters AND labour voters, the 2-child cap was more popular than hated really made me recheck where i thought i was compared to the average person in this country, that was quite a shock
I have never understood why we don't have enough money to do this things that would benefit millions of people on low incomes, but that argument never applies to having a wealth tax on those with over 10 milion pounds , which by all accounts would raise billions
The most recent YouGov polls say the majority of Labour voters want to keep it and they support Starmer's decision, and so do a majority of the electorate. Starmer is not going to throw votes away
There is always money for tax breaks to shareholders and millionaires.Yet there is no money for hungry children. As for benefit fraud, tax avoidance costs £1.2bn most years and there is19 billion in unclaimed benefits each year.
Why does "fiscal discipline" only ever impact on the poorest in society? The Labour Party have been tentatively thinking they might make some gains in Scotland in the next General Election. This has killed it stone dead.
Most people in Scotland support the policy when asked by polls. It's a disgusting policy and starmer is a coward but the fact is there isn't a huge variance in the opinion of Scots and rUK on this.
@@buzzlopavich I don't doubt what you're saying about polls, but the people Labour need to switch their votes in Scotland are the folk who will be upset by this. This is a despicable policy, and people who think it's okay should be educated about it, not be kow-towed to.
@@Old_Scot I completely agree with you mate. It's beyond despicable and the first thing I ask people who now support it is whether or not they supported it when Keir did not. What I don't agree with you is whether or not this going to hurt them in Scotland, I don't think it will as SNP voters aren't as liberal as sometimes imagined when you poll them on specific issues.
@@buzzlopavich Labour's main hope in Scotland has been a repeat of 2017, when 500K indy supporters stayed at home because Sturgeon ran a campaign that said "A vote for the SNP ISN'T a vote for independence". The Labour vote didn't go up, but the SNP vote collapsed. There was a chance of that happening again. However, to get people to change actively from SNP to Labour (who have been nicknamed "Red Tories" in Scotland for a decade, also "twa cheeks o the same erse") it's likely to be more politically engaged people you're trying to attract. This week, even Scottish Labour are trying to distance themselves from Starmer. The Scottish Govt brought in a Child payment of £25pw for low income families. Try selling Starmer to people who care about child poverty in Scotland! BTW, I'm speaking as one very pissed-off indy supporter, not as an SNP supporter!
@@Old_Scot I am also a Scot so I'm aware of how this issue has been used by the SNP - but you note that the SNP never attacks the policy via it's proper name - the two child limit, but instead via the rape clause. As for red tories etc - that's really just online stuff and next to no one I know who isn't a signed up SNP supporter or a left of labour socialist uses it - neither are going to switch to Labour.
There’s an estimated £8-9 billion surplus in the benefits bill every year in unclaimed benefits, so it is possible to at least offset the worst of this policy. Lots of the cliched ‘hard working families’ are profoundly affected by this cap, because they rely on UC to subsidise their childcare costs. Ignoring these people is to possibly lose significant numbers of votes. And the policy is counter productive - the strain of poverty created here likely felt by other hard pushed public services & charities. Perhaps the Rowntree Foundation could look into this aspect.
Your analysis is trivial. You are not seeing the bigger picture of the evolution of the Labour Party into the electoral embodiment of the social policeman of the social impact of more than a decade of austerity and extreme economic liberalism. They abandoned the carrot, and adopted the stick. The policies of the New Labour era 1997 - 2010 such as Sure Start and Tax Credits were financial incentives targeted at single parent families to encourage them into work, or training for work. However, since 2010 the Labour Party have converged with the "strivers versus skivers" narrative of draconian social welfare. You've forgotten that much of the Labour Party along with the Liberal Democrats were quite happy to walk through the aisles with the Tories and vote for stringent welfare policies. They have since harvested public indignation and anger directed at non-compliant marginalised groups in order to drive them into low paid insecure work, or debt and homelessness, or crime with all the consequences that would have from family breakdown to the social cleansing of those unable to compete in the labour market for whatever reason into social ghettos. It is not a departure from the past, it is only now that they have the temerity to make a public announcement of what has been a long standing commitment to a really vicious form of social policing. I don't think it is a departure from the past, it is an evolution from softer social policing to much harder and much nastier social policing in an age of multiple crises.
You don't have 2bn to spend on children? On children going hungry in this country? What does it cost to not feed them, have you considered that? Hungry children don't learn as well as fed children, they get more ill, their development is stunted. So I ask you again, what does it cost to NOT feed them?
Exactly. It's a moral imperative, but it's also a long term social imperative as well. The sanctimonious arseholes on here agreeing with the policy have no idea who has to work to earn the money that will keep them in their old age.
Contrast and compare. A young mother on a council estate with three children having ended a violent relationship. Boris Johnson with nine children from three different mothers,rings a friend for a £800,000 loan and makes sure the lender gets the top job at the BBC.
The problem with the price of government borrowing is perception: if the tories say they're going to raise inheritance tax nobody believes them because that would impact their core voter demographic, never mind most of their members. When labour says they need to be fiscally disciplined and not open the magic money box, nobody believes them. Result - labour have to be 10 x as disciplined as the tories do. Drastically unfair, but that's the gilt market for you.
“Fiscal Responsibility,” means holding the people who make us poor to account, crushing the biggest financial crimes with sentences comparable to criminal sentencing, windfall taxes on the energy companies and banks, who have been profiting from British crises, forcing chain supermarkets to link their prices to inflation, rather than only putting them up only when inflation rises. There are countless potential policies that don’t hurt Britain where it’s most vulnerable. We need to encourage population growth, desperately. It’s become the key metric by which a country’s economic future stands or falls and the clock is ticking. And it’s a chance to cement 10 years of power with large families relying on Labour support, which might buy them another 10 years, by which time they have produced a generation of Labour voters!
If anyone was serious about "lifting people out of benefits" they would raise the minimum wage, The problem with this announcement was NOT that Starmer didn't spin it properly, It's that it's a horrible, evil policy. The Tories brought that in in 2017 and promptly lost their majority in GE2017. The reason we're in this mess is because of what the Tories have been doing in the past 13 years, why don't Labour point that out?
it's also because people supported the idiotic and suicidal lockdown restrictions that led to the rise in inflation. people keep forgetting this and no one in labour opposed it. every MP who supported this insane moment of economic self-harm is responsible for the direct and indirect consequences of it - whether that be the cost of living crisis, poor literacy amongst children or less public spending.
@@unknown-nw2dp Lots of countries had lockdowns, though. It's just that there's no-one in the upper echelons of either of the two UK parties who actually knows how ordinary people live, or who is willing to listen to us. We have a "political class" leading most parties - they all went to the same universities, had the same training, have rarely held down normal jobs, and it's just chance which actual party they end up in.
It’s the one thing that people are bound to pay out for, as they cannot afford to, “take their business elsewhere.” Pubs, restaurants, supermarkets, etc, etc, simply have to pay their staff. They have no alternatives. Early in honeymoon period is the perfect time to introduce a policy that will be popular with just about everyone but a minority of mid-level business owners and chain store lobbyists who shouldn’t be getting private access to policy makers anyway. Dismantling the current lobby system is another thing that should go hand in hand with this. Yes, charities, concerned citizens and issues-based collective groups should have a mechanism by which to make representations to parliament. But, aren’t we ALL heartily SICK of, “think tanks,” which are nothing more than Masonic Lodges of rich people, looking to buy people like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Richi Sunack, for their private ownership collections? We need BRUTAL laws, swiftly enforced, against private businesses seeking advantage through illegal lobbying! They are DESTROYING Britain. Our water companies are NOT, “privatised,” as there is NO COMPETITION! Why bother to stop raw sewage getting into British water when no competitors are able to offer to do a better job, you only drink imported water and you barely visit Britain anyway, living in a none-dom country? Same with the rail networks. Lots of little fiefdoms that don’t compete, but just OWN their patches! It’s oligarchy, Russian style, and it’s leading us down a Yeltsin style toilet!
Even well off families plan only to have 2 children because they know the financial demands, in this modern age, to provide their offspring with support to increase their employment opportunities.
As my old man used to say- whoever wins we’ll still have to get up and go to work on Monday morning. Expect little and you won’t be disappointed- this is what the post-war socialist dream has been reduced to. So be it- they will be better than the Tories- which quite frankly wouldn’t be too hard. That’s about it.
Population timebomb!? The UK's population has increased by an average of 0.7% per year over the past decade or so. I really don't understand why some people insist on spouting nonesense.
The press not caring about inheritance tax disappearing just means that many people working in the press (in particular editors of certain Conservative Party supporting papers) stand to benefit from the policy.
Isn't it interesting there's no money for regular families so it only has to be set for two children, but yet If MPs are outside of London they can claim the cost of rent on a home either in London or their constituency. As part of this rental budget, they can claim an extra £5,500 per child under 18, up to THREE children. One rule for... well, you know that story by now, but tough decisions though, right Keir?
I live in Ireland and i feel angry that these people can joke about children in poverty. No shame on them, the country, and Starmer. What is the point of labour if it is to refuse an easy policy win, that actually helps people, children. Shame.
Narrowing the discussion of child poverty to the concerns of overseas investors in government debt yields. WTF? The oozing wealth and privilege of such a talking point is vomit inducing. If I was poor and living in the UK I'd be considering violent revolution. How they put up with this kind of treatment is difficult to understand.
As a lifelong Labour voter, I'm now convinced they have always been. First Past The Post ensures a little over 40% minority of the popular vote will return a Conservative Government . Labour know this and have never taken any steps to introduce PR. Labour are about maintaining the status quo, keeping the seat warm for the next Tory government.
Hi Poland here,a few weeks ago the Polish parliament voted to increase child benefit from £100 pound a month for every child,to £160 pounds from January 2024.
Tax the super wealthy and close tax loop holes to pay for what? These taxes would indeed generated a sizeable revenue stream but it is finite, so some departments are not going to get every thing they want. Lifting the 2 child cap is a laudable goal but cutting the cost of living will also help lift a lot of people out of the poverty trap. It could be argued that an increase in the defence budget may speed up the ending of the Ukraine war which may in turn bring down food prices. I think it is far more nuanced than most people think and sometimes its about getting the best bang for your buck rather than doing whatever is popular.
If you are serious about child poverty - then first off Labour must MUST win the next general election. This minor point was ignored by Keir's predecessor, who without doubt put millions of children into poverty by supporting Mr Osborne and co... Thus item one... Win by convincing public of economic competence. Item two - use Government power to fix problem. It may 'have bad optics' now. But later let's fix it. Huh? I back canny Keir. However he plays the fix. Win now.
How do you want Brits to have more babies we need to get out of demographic decline if we don’t support having children- you need to incentivise giving birth with benefits and housing
There were so many deaths of innocent people when they last tried to get 'tough on benefits' around 2008, and I think it only made voters think that the Conservatives were right, moving the Overton window rightwards, and making the Tories more electable, and making the Tories even more savage towards those of us with disabilities. It breaks my heart that Labour refuse to learn their lesson.
Actual life expectancy has been reducing since 2018 because of austerity, and none of them gives a f**k. They're still pretending it's going up because they want to raise the pension age.
How clueless can this discussion be? Its not about just being cruel! Its an investment to the future and security of the country. The welfare state is an investment in the people of the country, not charity!
Glad there are people who think like you out there. It's very easy for people who are comfortable financially to speak about this topic theoretically rather than consider the real impact on kids and families.
The public also support the reintroduction of the death penalty. I wonder if Labour will be looking at that as well. The problem with giving people what they like - when what they like involves someone else getting it in the neck - is usually not very good for anyone.
He will accentuate Britain's top heavy demography, immigration will have to make up a plummeting work force , all to save tuppence and gratify poor haters!.
Kier Starmer was wondering how to avoid picking up nicknames like "Kid Starver". Plenty advice in this video me thinks. Although, the general public is already aware that politicians virtue signal hard prior to de-prioritising poverty. Not all advice is good advice.
Utterly gross policy. Labour could raise CGT and easily get enough money to fund this, it's a relatively small increase in spending with a massive impact aimed squarely at those who need it the most. What make it more gross is Starmers insistence that this is "bravery", when in reality it's cowardice masquerading as bravery.
The public strongly approve the two child limit. However there are so many ways to increase the amount received by those who need it, that Labour can both keep the policy and get round it at the same time.
Perhaps in the past, but we are now in demographic crisis. We are facing a population timebomb. There aren’t enough young people sustain the future. Who do you think will look after all the childless people when they are old?
Although in recent years they’ve tried not to release figures, 8-9 billion a year of the benefits budget goes unclaimed. So it is quite possible for a government to address this issue, which would cost a fraction of that surplus.
The 'public' in Scotland strongly disapprove of this heinous policy. Which is why the so called 'Scottish government' in Holyrood, the real Scottish government sits in Westmonster, give families with more than 2 children a top up of £25 a week for every child in every family. The 'public' in Scotland are disgusted with the 2 child policy and Labour are going to lose their last Scottish Westminster MP in the next election because of Sir Kid Starver Starmer. One more step on the road to the end of the British occupation of Scotland. I feel sorry for the families in England who will go without because of Starver. Bur every cloud has a silver lining and if Starver's behavior hastens the end of the UK then at leat some good will come of his tenure as Labour leader. Well done Starver. 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴
Because he doesn't want to tax those who work to provide for their kids to give it to people who don't? How is that opposed to the "working" class? The problem labour has had for years is that they don't support people who actually work. They just give handouts to those who don't at the expense of workers.
@@leeeeee286 "The problem labour has had for years is that they don't support people who actually work. " Most people who claim benefits are in work. But thanks for repeating tory propaganda.
This is a hugely disappointing conversation. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of children impoverished because of this. And you say it’s about fiscal discipline as if there is no choice. Have you learned nothing about the past 13 years of austerity?! Tax wealth and fund public services and welfare. It’s not rocket science. Please focus on those affected by this disgusting policy and stop acting as Starmer’s ventriloquist
Jeremy's not prettier than Rachel. But hey, I like his hairdo. Digressing to reality .. The tories, regardless of personalities, cannot "do" energy, because they must appease torykippers /erg / crg / zrg / xrg / loonyrg. For instance, onshore wind is still banned at this point (mid-July) like it has been for almost a decade. Energy is the last hope that brex$hitted Blighty has to escape becoming a failed state. Moral: there is a difference between the 2 parties.
No need for unfunded spending. Just tax those who can afford it. If you want to tax me more personally, you could lower the threshold of the higher rate of tax (I currently only pay the basic rate), whilst ensuring that the basic rate threshold continues to rise with inflation. There are plenty of taxes on income/gains that are below the 32%/42%/47% rates (combined NI and Income Tax - eg. Dividends) that could be raised to match normal PAYE earnings ordinary workers pay.
I worked in the Inland Revenue in the 1980s. The staff union told the Labour Party they didn't need to raise the tax rate, they just had to let them Revenue collect the taxes that were due. That's still the case. If they invested the money in tax collection that they do in "benefit fraud", they would be awash with money.
People shouldn't be supported for having children they cannot afford; support can happen in many other ways to help them learn and grow (subsidising children's public transport, school meals, community activities and sport). I think it's fair to continue supporting the children currently covered (it's not their fault they were born into underprivileged families), but more should be done to stop people choosing to have (more) kids they cannot support. You can sell a car or cat when it exceeds your budget, you can't do the same with kids, but people seem to give purchasing a car far more thought.. Parents should absolutely be expected to cover the full cost of keeping and feeding their kids though, and when having more they should be considering their own funds, not what they may get from the government. Having children isn't a right, and not everyone's situation will accommodate adding children.
Circumstances change. Say for example you plan to have another child and end up with twins. Say things are affordable and then there is change in personal circumstances. Declining birthrates are a long term major issue for the developed world, we should encourage people to to have more kids. This policy is stupid.
Our low birth rates will cost us all more than uncapped child benefits. 10 years from now our government will be spending a fortune on trying to get people to have more kids.
Punishing kids for things out of their control, nice politics there. Also, all the evidence (in case you're interested in that, though it seems you're far more ideologically motivated) suggests that the benefit cap is completely ineffective as a disincentive to have more kids, so even accepting your argument on principle, in reality it solves nothing
In a country with such demographic challenges what is effectively a policy designed to limit and discourage childbirth just seems insane... Turkeys voting for Christmas in my opinion...
Starmer's stance on conservative policies reminds me of the end of 'Animal Farm'. When the animals looked through the window of the farm house they looked and could not see the difference between the humans and the pigs.
But the parents can afford to drink smoke buy pounds worth of lottery tickets the hand outs they get does not go towards keeping their children it helps fund the parents life style
@@italianstallion9170 Lots of questions. Who is going to supply the tax money for your state pension then? Or the state pension of your children or your grandchildren? Who will be there to wipe your backside in the poorly run and understaffed care home you may end up in? Where do the new employees in all areas of work come from? We can't nick all of them from abroad. China is about to experience a population crisis like you wouldn't believe, with some estimates running as high as half a billion deaths - because they won't have the new people needed to run any part of the place due to their one child policy. How do you assess if a child is 'affordable'? What if you have twins? What if your employment or relationship situation changes? What if you become ill? Somehow I don't think you've thought this through.....
@@PortilloMoment i have 3 private pensions and a property so i'll be ok, working till 70 anyway. i don't have children and won't have grand children. the country ran ok on 2.4 children before 2010, don't see why it shouldn't in 2050.
@@adriftinaboat3452 How so? Elaborate please (not flame; curiosity/ignorance). My (unfortunate) experience of Brit barristers ( a concept that doesn't exist in the developed world where attorneys do all the work of solicitors and barristers in half the time) is that they come in at 10am, go home at 3.30pm and take an hour's lunch, and bill 3000 GBP for a 5-and-half hour day.
@@jonb5493 I once knew a barrister who charged £500 an hour, and that was about 20 years ago. Very expert in her field and her clients usually thought it was worth the money - of which they had plenty anyway. Starmer was actually a very able lawyer but is a rather poor politician.
he needs to get tough no excuses if he wins he cannot hid behind the 'we are only in opposition' moniker, he'll then find out out hard it is to make tough decisions like the Tories had to.
Tbf to Keir Starmer he needs to get tough and not just dish out all these benefits to people just because they want to have more kids than they can afford, he needs to give more incentives to people to find jobs and those whom already work. it's they only was to get economy going and return to growth then he can start thinking about doling out free, unearned money.
Increasing the birthrate would lead to economic growth in the long term; conversely a two child cap is short sighted, classist, and tant amount to national self harm... I do not understand Britain anymore...
Economic illiteracy governments can print as much money as they need. We need more people to work and pay taxes we are facing a real shortage of workers' birth rates are declining. It's been proven so many times that government spending on the less well of stimulates the economy. Why not tax the rich instead of starving children.
For the love of God... Look. It's very VERY simple. Labour are trying to win three by elections off the Tories this week, and they're trying to overturn a HUGE Tory majority which is almost predominantly based on people voting on socially conservative values. Labour are essentially trying to sneak into a stable full of VERY easily scared horse, all of whom are going to run straight back to the Tories if they think Labour are going to start telling them that their messed up tory values are messed up. Softly softly, catch the monkey, to use another saying. Sadly, there's a LOT of people on the progressive, Left-wing side who don't seem to think any of this is important, and that Labour is somehow going to win if they simply explain that voters with socially conservative values are wrong in a LOUDER and SLOWER way..which is essentially what did for Corbyn. Nobody likes being told they're wrong, basically, and least of all Tories who've spent their entire lives getting everything their own way due to an accident of birth and therefore think that's an indicator of how right they must be.
Everyone turns into a political expert when it comes to defending things that they know are wrong, but it's coming from a leader they support. What you are saying is essentially another way of saying "the polls don't like it, so we don't do it". That's fine - but don't tell us that this is bravery when in reality it's actually cowardice - and cowardice that puts the weight of balancing the budget on the backs of children. I am not on the labour left - Corbyn was a malign force and I'm glad he's gone - I voted for Nandy, before that I voted for Smith, and before that I voted for Liz Kendall. When Labour get's into office it has two choices - make itself out to be a complete and utter liar by reversing the policy anyway (likely) further destroying the publics confidence in democracy, or continuing to punish poor children because of the mistakes made by bankers before they where born.
So because Tories don’t like to be told they are wrong we don’t tell them? Is that your policy? You criticise a LOT of people on the left whilst simultaneously saying nobody likes to be told they are wrong. Lol So it’s ok to tell lefties they are wrong but not Tories cos they don’t like it??? The mental gymnastics is amazing.
@@buzzlopavich Where did I say it was brave? It's politically expedient. That's all. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride to get what you want, and what we want, and what this country NEEDS, is a break from the bloody Tories of at LEAST a decade, hopefully more. If that means we have to play up to the light blue Tories of Uxbridge et al, so they hold their nose and vote for us or the Lib Dems, or even just stay home, then so bloody be it. I'd rather that than one more DAY of Conservative rule.
I got real surprised when i checked YouGov's polling for the 2-child cap and saw that, for both conservative voters AND labour voters, the 2-child cap was more popular than hated
really made me recheck where i thought i was compared to the average person in this country, that was quite a shock
You can't always trust polls.
I have never understood why we don't have enough money to do this things that would benefit millions of people on low incomes, but that argument never applies to having a wealth tax on those with over 10 milion pounds , which by all accounts would raise billions
The most recent YouGov polls say the majority of Labour voters want to keep it and they support Starmer's decision,
and so do a majority of the electorate.
Starmer is not going to throw votes away
It's not that's there isn't any money available, it's simply a matter of political choice!
There is always money for tax breaks to shareholders and millionaires.Yet there is no money for hungry children. As for benefit fraud, tax avoidance costs £1.2bn most years
and there is19 billion in unclaimed benefits each year.
Why does "fiscal discipline" only ever impact on the poorest in society? The Labour Party have been tentatively thinking they might make some gains in Scotland in the next General Election. This has killed it stone dead.
Most people in Scotland support the policy when asked by polls. It's a disgusting policy and starmer is a coward but the fact is there isn't a huge variance in the opinion of Scots and rUK on this.
@@buzzlopavich I don't doubt what you're saying about polls, but the people Labour need to switch their votes in Scotland are the folk who will be upset by this. This is a despicable policy, and people who think it's okay should be educated about it, not be kow-towed to.
@@Old_Scot I completely agree with you mate. It's beyond despicable and the first thing I ask people who now support it is whether or not they supported it when Keir did not. What I don't agree with you is whether or not this going to hurt them in Scotland, I don't think it will as SNP voters aren't as liberal as sometimes imagined when you poll them on specific issues.
@@buzzlopavich Labour's main hope in Scotland has been a repeat of 2017, when 500K indy supporters stayed at home because Sturgeon ran a campaign that said "A vote for the SNP ISN'T a vote for independence". The Labour vote didn't go up, but the SNP vote collapsed. There was a chance of that happening again. However, to get people to change actively from SNP to Labour (who have been nicknamed "Red Tories" in Scotland for a decade, also "twa cheeks o the same erse") it's likely to be more politically engaged people you're trying to attract. This week, even Scottish Labour are trying to distance themselves from Starmer. The Scottish Govt brought in a Child payment of £25pw for low income families. Try selling Starmer to people who care about child poverty in Scotland! BTW, I'm speaking as one very pissed-off indy supporter, not as an SNP supporter!
@@Old_Scot I am also a Scot so I'm aware of how this issue has been used by the SNP - but you note that the SNP never attacks the policy via it's proper name - the two child limit, but instead via the rape clause. As for red tories etc - that's really just online stuff and next to no one I know who isn't a signed up SNP supporter or a left of labour socialist uses it - neither are going to switch to Labour.
So what's the point of the Labour Party if it doesn't make things better for the majority and panders to the the rich and king maker Rupert Murdoch?
This was in Corbyns 2017 manifesto.
@@californiadreamin8423 Was it? Link please.
@@Nemo59646 Contact Corbyn. He’ll confirm it if you can cope with his evasion.
There’s an estimated £8-9 billion surplus in the benefits bill every year in unclaimed benefits, so it is possible to at least offset the worst of this policy.
Lots of the cliched ‘hard working families’ are profoundly affected by this cap, because they rely on UC to subsidise their childcare costs. Ignoring these people is to possibly lose significant numbers of votes. And the policy is counter productive - the strain of poverty created here likely felt by other hard pushed public services & charities. Perhaps the Rowntree Foundation could look into this aspect.
Your analysis is trivial. You are not seeing the bigger picture of the evolution of the Labour Party into the electoral embodiment of the social policeman of the social impact of more than a decade of austerity and extreme economic liberalism. They abandoned the carrot, and adopted the stick. The policies of the New Labour era 1997 - 2010 such as Sure Start and Tax Credits were financial incentives targeted at single parent families to encourage them into work, or training for work. However, since 2010 the Labour Party have converged with the "strivers versus skivers" narrative of draconian social welfare. You've forgotten that much of the Labour Party along with the Liberal Democrats were quite happy to walk through the aisles with the Tories and vote for stringent welfare policies. They have since harvested public indignation and anger directed at non-compliant marginalised groups in order to drive them into low paid insecure work, or debt and homelessness, or crime with all the consequences that would have from family breakdown to the social cleansing of those unable to compete in the labour market for whatever reason into social ghettos. It is not a departure from the past, it is only now that they have the temerity to make a public announcement of what has been a long standing commitment to a really vicious form of social policing. I don't think it is a departure from the past, it is an evolution from softer social policing to much harder and much nastier social policing in an age of multiple crises.
You don't have 2bn to spend on children? On children going hungry in this country?
What does it cost to not feed them, have you considered that? Hungry children don't learn as well as fed children, they get more ill, their development is stunted.
So I ask you again, what does it cost to NOT feed them?
The political thinking will be that this will be 'someone else's problem'. Short termism is just one of the fatal flaws in how our politics works.
Exactly. It's a moral imperative, but it's also a long term social imperative as well. The sanctimonious arseholes on here agreeing with the policy have no idea who has to work to earn the money that will keep them in their old age.
Some would argue, meh just don’t have kids you can’t afford. 🤷♂️
@@dixongecko8018 right. So go back in time and not have kids which go hungry. I'll put that on the suggestions list.
Starmer simply wants to appeal to Tory voters. Why he doesn't just join the Tory party I don't know.
Don't ask Labour ... ASK the Cons ... their the ones in power!!!
And Starmer supports most of their policies
Starmer says prepare for austerity.
Contrast and compare.
A young mother on a council estate with three children having ended a violent relationship.
Boris Johnson with nine children from three different mothers,rings a friend for a £800,000 loan and makes sure the lender gets the top job at the BBC.
One thing is pretty certain…..the Tories will not change their spots.
@@californiadreamin8423 Indeed! Labour has changed their spots to match the Conservative Party.
@@Nemo59646 Don’t be silly.
@@californiadreamin8423 I voted for Starmer and his 10 pledges. What happened to those pledges?
@@Nemo59646 I voted for him too, and Blair. You’ll get no answers on here mate, just snide comments. Solidarity.
The problem with the price of government borrowing is perception: if the tories say they're going to raise inheritance tax nobody believes them because that would impact their core voter demographic, never mind most of their members. When labour says they need to be fiscally disciplined and not open the magic money box, nobody believes them. Result - labour have to be 10 x as disciplined as the tories do. Drastically unfair, but that's the gilt market for you.
“Fiscal Responsibility,” means holding the people who make us poor to account, crushing the biggest financial crimes with sentences comparable to criminal sentencing, windfall taxes on the energy companies and banks, who have been profiting from British crises, forcing chain supermarkets to link their prices to inflation, rather than only putting them up only when inflation rises. There are countless potential policies that don’t hurt Britain where it’s most vulnerable. We need to encourage population growth, desperately. It’s become the key metric by which a country’s economic future stands or falls and the clock is ticking. And it’s a chance to cement 10 years of power with large families relying on Labour support, which might buy them another 10 years, by which time they have produced a generation of Labour voters!
If anyone was serious about "lifting people out of benefits" they would raise the minimum wage, The problem with this announcement was NOT that Starmer didn't spin it properly, It's that it's a horrible, evil policy. The Tories brought that in in 2017 and promptly lost their majority in GE2017. The reason we're in this mess is because of what the Tories have been doing in the past 13 years, why don't Labour point that out?
Preach
it's also because people supported the idiotic and suicidal lockdown restrictions that led to the rise in inflation. people keep forgetting this and no one in labour opposed it. every MP who supported this insane moment of economic self-harm is responsible for the direct and indirect consequences of it - whether that be the cost of living crisis, poor literacy amongst children or less public spending.
@@unknown-nw2dp Lots of countries had lockdowns, though. It's just that there's no-one in the upper echelons of either of the two UK parties who actually knows how ordinary people live, or who is willing to listen to us. We have a "political class" leading most parties - they all went to the same universities, had the same training, have rarely held down normal jobs, and it's just chance which actual party they end up in.
Labour do point this out, almost exclusively lol
It’s the one thing that people are bound to pay out for, as they cannot afford to, “take their business elsewhere.” Pubs, restaurants, supermarkets, etc, etc, simply have to pay their staff. They have no alternatives. Early in honeymoon period is the perfect time to introduce a policy that will be popular with just about everyone but a minority of mid-level business owners and chain store lobbyists who shouldn’t be getting private access to policy makers anyway.
Dismantling the current lobby system is another thing that should go hand in hand with this. Yes, charities, concerned citizens and issues-based collective groups should have a mechanism by which to make representations to parliament. But, aren’t we ALL heartily SICK of, “think tanks,” which are nothing more than Masonic Lodges of rich people, looking to buy people like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Richi Sunack, for their private ownership collections?
We need BRUTAL laws, swiftly enforced, against private businesses seeking advantage through illegal lobbying! They are DESTROYING Britain. Our water companies are NOT, “privatised,” as there is NO COMPETITION! Why bother to stop raw sewage getting into British water when no competitors are able to offer to do a better job, you only drink imported water and you barely visit Britain anyway, living in a none-dom country? Same with the rail networks. Lots of little fiefdoms that don’t compete, but just OWN their patches! It’s oligarchy, Russian style, and it’s leading us down a Yeltsin style toilet!
I hope the Starmer sycophants at the New Statesman point out that Starmer said it would be changed and called the policy heinous in the recent past
Governments and opposition parties cater to voters, unfortunately many of those impacted won't bother to vote.
This was in Corbyns manifesto in 2017.
@@californiadreamin8423 yes and Starmer has backtracked yet again
@@keithparker1346. Has he really …..says a Corbyn knuckle dragger.
@@californiadreamin8423wtf are you spewing? This has nothing to do with Corbyn and everything to do with untrustworthy Starmer
Even well off families plan only to have 2 children because they know the financial demands, in this modern age, to provide their offspring with support to increase their employment opportunities.
As my old man used to say- whoever wins we’ll still have to get up and go to work on Monday morning.
Expect little and you won’t be disappointed- this is what the post-war socialist dream has been reduced to. So be it- they will be better than the Tories- which quite frankly wouldn’t be too hard. That’s about it.
I doubt if this version of Labour will be better than the Tories. No real difference
We are facing a population timebomb. We need to do all we can to encourage people to have more children.
That's what I was thinking. Starmer should extend it to 3 or 4 kids, it won't cost that much surely.
vinay739 Four children are to many.
@@csharpe5787 3 😁 then
@vinay7397 Labour are rehashing the same financial rhetoric that gave us 10 years of Austerity.
Population timebomb!? The UK's population has increased by an average of 0.7% per year over the past decade or so. I really don't understand why some people insist on spouting nonesense.
The press not caring about inheritance tax disappearing just means that many people working in the press (in particular editors of certain Conservative Party supporting papers) stand to benefit from the policy.
Isn't it interesting there's no money for regular families so it only has to be set for two children, but yet If MPs are outside of London they can claim the cost of rent on a home either in London or their constituency. As part of this rental budget, they can claim an extra £5,500 per child under 18, up to THREE children. One rule for... well, you know that story by now, but tough decisions though, right Keir?
I live in Ireland and i feel angry that these people can joke about children in poverty. No shame on them, the country, and Starmer. What is the point of labour if it is to refuse an easy policy win, that actually helps people, children. Shame.
Excellent point I agree 100%
Just ensure that everyone is adequately paid.
Narrowing the discussion of child poverty to the concerns of overseas investors in government debt yields. WTF? The oozing wealth and privilege of such a talking point is vomit inducing. If I was poor and living in the UK I'd be considering violent revolution. How they put up with this kind of treatment is difficult to understand.
The Labour Party has become an impediment to change.
As a lifelong Labour voter, I'm now convinced they have always been. First Past The Post ensures a little over 40% minority of the popular vote will return a Conservative Government . Labour know this and have never taken any steps to introduce PR. Labour are about maintaining the status quo, keeping the seat warm for the next Tory government.
2 drivel posts.
@@californiadreamin8423 keep dreaming sunshine.
@@matthewotooleisI see the Corbynite floaters are still around lol. Remember how everyone was a ‘melt’ when the Dopey One was in charge 😂😂😂
@@MishMash22 nah I voted for Starmer, and Blair. Maybe it’s my fault. 🤷🏻♂️Like a good child of Thatcher- I will take individual responsibility. Lol
Sir Kid Starver
It's a slogan that he will be reminded of for the next decade at least.
It’s typical Comintern drizzle.
Tory Cruelty is the point.
Hi Poland here,a few weeks ago the Polish parliament voted to increase child benefit from £100 pound a month for every child,to £160 pounds from January 2024.
Good for you!
It's been known for years that is UK governments would just collect the taxes that are due, they wouldn't have to raise taxes.
Indeed.
Surely if there's a policy to lift 250,000 children out of poverty we should come up with the funds somewhere either by extra tax or borrowing ?
Starmer's next move will be to form a coalition with the Conservative Party.
Don’t talk soft.
Shades of blue
Tax the super wealthy and close tax loop holes to pay for what? These taxes would indeed generated a sizeable revenue stream but it is finite, so some departments are not going to get every thing they want. Lifting the 2 child cap is a laudable goal but cutting the cost of living will also help lift a lot of people out of the poverty trap. It could be argued that an increase in the defence budget may speed up the ending of the Ukraine war which may in turn bring down food prices. I think it is far more nuanced than most people think and sometimes its about getting the best bang for your buck rather than doing whatever is popular.
I hope the Labour Party can muster something that does not smell Tory..
Hope and soap
I used to be a Labour party member....now I can't even vote for them.
'Why Keir Starmer won’t reverse the child benefit cap' you have of course asked Starmer, right?
Starmer has given an answer-try and keep up
How many of those impacted vote?... that's your answer. Older demographic get a better deal because they VOTE>
What you call the state pension a good deal after a lifetime contributing to the economy paying tax and producing profits for their employers?
The last election wasn’t a rejection of a benefits nirvana, it was a pro brexit vote.
Having children is a choice. Being poor often isn't.
And do you imagine no-one family falls into misfortune AFTER they have children?
Not for everybody birth control does has failed thousands of ppl.
Couldnt they find anyone to sit on this panel who had a moral compass?
Like you perhaps ?
It would appear not.
Because he's a Tory
They should change their name from Labour to ToryLite
Drivel.
The i newspaper is owned by DMG Media, the same group that owns The Daily Mail.
It’s not even a newspaper anymore is it?
If you are serious about child poverty - then first off Labour must MUST win the next general election. This minor point was ignored by Keir's predecessor, who without doubt put millions of children into poverty by supporting Mr Osborne and co... Thus item one... Win by convincing public of economic competence.
Item two - use Government power to fix problem. It may 'have bad optics' now. But later let's fix it. Huh? I back canny Keir. However he plays the fix. Win now.
So you are just relying on wishful thinking
How do you want Brits to have more babies we need to get out of demographic decline if we don’t support having children- you need to incentivise giving birth with benefits and housing
There were so many deaths of innocent people when they last tried to get 'tough on benefits' around 2008, and I think it only made voters think that the Conservatives were right, moving the Overton window rightwards, and making the Tories more electable, and making the Tories even more savage towards those of us with disabilities. It breaks my heart that Labour refuse to learn their lesson.
Actual life expectancy has been reducing since 2018 because of austerity, and none of them gives a f**k. They're still pretending it's going up because they want to raise the pension age.
How clueless can this discussion be? Its not about just being cruel! Its an investment to the future and security of the country. The welfare state is an investment in the people of the country, not charity!
Glad there are people who think like you out there. It's very easy for people who are comfortable financially to speak about this topic theoretically rather than consider the real impact on kids and families.
Starmer will be a huge regret.
So we know the policy is a social disaster. What are they going to do about it .
Tumbleweed ! What is the point of Labour.
The public support keeping the policy?! Speaks volumes on the state of the civility of this country. 😢
The public also support the reintroduction of the death penalty. I wonder if Labour will be looking at that as well.
The problem with giving people what they like - when what they like involves someone else getting it in the neck - is usually not very good for anyone.
He won't change it because he's a Tory, it really is that simple.
He will accentuate Britain's top heavy demography, immigration will have to make up a plummeting work force , all to save tuppence and gratify poor haters!.
Gross and cruel.
Kier Starmer was wondering how to avoid picking up nicknames like "Kid Starver". Plenty advice in this video me thinks.
Although, the general public is already aware that politicians virtue signal hard prior to de-prioritising poverty. Not all advice is good advice.
Sir Kid Starver...
Utterly gross policy. Labour could raise CGT and easily get enough money to fund this, it's a relatively small increase in spending with a massive impact aimed squarely at those who need it the most. What make it more gross is Starmers insistence that this is "bravery", when in reality it's cowardice masquerading as bravery.
I won’t vote for labour that wants to protect a FPPP, 2 party system where labour gets led by Keir Starmer types who say we have to be tory lite
The public strongly approve the two child limit. However there are so many ways to increase the amount received by those who need it, that Labour can both keep the policy and get round it at the same time.
Perhaps in the past, but we are now in demographic crisis. We are facing a population timebomb. There aren’t enough young people sustain the future.
Who do you think will look after all the childless people when they are old?
Although in recent years they’ve tried not to release figures, 8-9 billion a year of the benefits budget goes unclaimed. So it is quite possible for a government to address this issue, which would cost a fraction of that surplus.
The 'public' in Scotland strongly disapprove of this heinous policy. Which is why the so called 'Scottish government' in Holyrood, the real Scottish government sits in Westmonster, give families with more than 2 children a top up of £25 a week for every child in every family. The 'public' in Scotland are disgusted with the 2 child policy and Labour are going to lose their last Scottish Westminster MP in the next election because of Sir Kid Starver Starmer. One more step on the road to the end of the British occupation of Scotland. I feel sorry for the families in England who will go without because of Starver. Bur every cloud has a silver lining and if Starver's behavior hastens the end of the UK then at leat some good will come of his tenure as Labour leader. Well done Starver. 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴
Never, ever trust anything by Starmer because he is liar. All his pledges broken, and now he starts back flipping on policy.
Starmer is a traitor to the working class.
Because he doesn't want to tax those who work to provide for their kids to give it to people who don't? How is that opposed to the "working" class?
The problem labour has had for years is that they don't support people who actually work. They just give handouts to those who don't at the expense of workers.
@@leeeeee286 "The problem labour has had for years is that they don't support people who actually work. " Most people who claim benefits are in work. But thanks for repeating tory propaganda.
@@archvaldor That's true, 20% of state pension recipients are millionaires. Also funded by workers. Is Labour planning to cut that?
This is a hugely disappointing conversation. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of children impoverished because of this. And you say it’s about fiscal discipline as if there is no choice. Have you learned nothing about the past 13 years of austerity?! Tax wealth and fund public services and welfare. It’s not rocket science. Please focus on those affected by this disgusting policy and stop acting as Starmer’s ventriloquist
Media covering media coverage. Good luck with that.
I can’t see the difference between the 2 main parties. Rachel Reeves and Jeremy Hunt look the same!
Jeremy's not prettier than Rachel. But hey, I like his hairdo. Digressing to reality ..
The tories, regardless of personalities, cannot "do" energy, because they must appease torykippers /erg / crg / zrg / xrg / loonyrg. For instance, onshore wind is still banned at this point (mid-July) like it has been for almost a decade. Energy is the last hope that brex$hitted Blighty has to escape becoming a failed state.
Moral: there is a difference between the 2 parties.
Rachel Reeves was in the Shadow Cabinet in 2015, talking tough on benefits. It didn't do them any good then either.
No need for unfunded spending. Just tax those who can afford it. If you want to tax me more personally, you could lower the threshold of the higher rate of tax (I currently only pay the basic rate), whilst ensuring that the basic rate threshold continues to rise with inflation. There are plenty of taxes on income/gains that are below the 32%/42%/47% rates (combined NI and Income Tax - eg. Dividends) that could be raised to match normal PAYE earnings ordinary workers pay.
I worked in the Inland Revenue in the 1980s. The staff union told the Labour Party they didn't need to raise the tax rate, they just had to let them Revenue collect the taxes that were due. That's still the case. If they invested the money in tax collection that they do in "benefit fraud", they would be awash with money.
People shouldn't be supported for having children they cannot afford; support can happen in many other ways to help them learn and grow (subsidising children's public transport, school meals, community activities and sport). I think it's fair to continue supporting the children currently covered (it's not their fault they were born into underprivileged families), but more should be done to stop people choosing to have (more) kids they cannot support. You can sell a car or cat when it exceeds your budget, you can't do the same with kids, but people seem to give purchasing a car far more thought..
Parents should absolutely be expected to cover the full cost of keeping and feeding their kids though, and when having more they should be considering their own funds, not what they may get from the government. Having children isn't a right, and not everyone's situation will accommodate adding children.
Circumstances change. Say for example you plan to have another child and end up with twins. Say things are affordable and then there is change in personal circumstances.
Declining birthrates are a long term major issue for the developed world, we should encourage people to to have more kids.
This policy is stupid.
Our low birth rates will cost us all more than uncapped child benefits. 10 years from now our government will be spending a fortune on trying to get people to have more kids.
What do you thing about all pensioners getting money from the government?
Punishing kids for things out of their control, nice politics there. Also, all the evidence (in case you're interested in that, though it seems you're far more ideologically motivated) suggests that the benefit cap is completely ineffective as a disincentive to have more kids, so even accepting your argument on principle, in reality it solves nothing
In a country with such demographic challenges what is effectively a policy designed to limit and discourage childbirth just seems insane... Turkeys voting for Christmas in my opinion...
Child Starver...
Blue or red Tories,thats now your choice England,well done!
what if i had triplets
Starmer's stance on conservative policies reminds me of the end of 'Animal Farm'. When the animals looked through the window of the farm house they looked and could not see the difference between the humans and the pigs.
This is more likely to make me vote for Labour not less likely 😂
It's more likely to make Labour voters vote for Labour too - the majority don't want it removed according to the polls.
But the parents can afford to drink smoke buy pounds worth of lottery tickets the hand outs they get does not go towards keeping their children it helps fund the parents life style
They should increase it to at least 3!
should reduce to 1 and stop people having children they cannot afford.
@@italianstallion9170 Lots of questions. Who is going to supply the tax money for your state pension then? Or the state pension of your children or your grandchildren? Who will be there to wipe your backside in the poorly run and understaffed care home you may end up in? Where do the new employees in all areas of work come from? We can't nick all of them from abroad.
China is about to experience a population crisis like you wouldn't believe, with some estimates running as high as half a billion deaths - because they won't have the new people needed to run any part of the place due to their one child policy.
How do you assess if a child is 'affordable'? What if you have twins? What if your employment or relationship situation changes? What if you become ill?
Somehow I don't think you've thought this through.....
@@PortilloMoment i have 3 private pensions and a property so i'll be ok, working till 70 anyway. i don't have children and won't have grand children. the country ran ok on 2.4 children before 2010, don't see why it shouldn't in 2050.
Sir K is a barrister. He's no accountant.
He was shite at that.
@@adriftinaboat3452 How so? Elaborate please (not flame; curiosity/ignorance). My (unfortunate) experience of Brit barristers ( a concept that doesn't exist in the developed world where attorneys do all the work of solicitors and barristers in half the time) is that they come in at 10am, go home at 3.30pm and take an hour's lunch, and bill 3000 GBP for a 5-and-half hour day.
@@jonb5493 I once knew a barrister who charged £500 an hour, and that was about 20 years ago. Very expert in her field and her clients usually thought it was worth the money - of which they had plenty anyway.
Starmer was actually a very able lawyer but is a rather poor politician.
It's similar to North Korea!
Poor people shouldn't have children. When we need low paid labour we should just bring in foreign poor peoples children to do it...makes sense.
I'm starting to like Nasi Starmer
he needs to get tough no excuses if he wins he cannot hid behind the 'we are only in opposition' moniker, he'll then find out out hard it is to make tough decisions like the Tories had to.
@@italianstallion9170The only tough choices Tories make is whether to own three houses or two.
Tbf to Keir Starmer he needs to get tough and not just dish out all these benefits to people just because they want to have more kids than they can afford, he needs to give more incentives to people to find jobs and those whom already work. it's they only was to get economy going and return to growth then he can start thinking about doling out free, unearned money.
The majority of the families affected have a parent in work!
Some people are so out of touch!
Increasing the birthrate would lead to economic growth in the long term; conversely a two child cap is short sighted, classist, and tant amount to national self harm... I do not understand Britain anymore...
Economic illiteracy governments can print as much money as they need. We need more people to work and pay taxes we are facing a real shortage of workers' birth rates are declining. It's been proven so many times that government spending on the less well of stimulates the economy. Why not tax the rich instead of starving children.
So children should be punished, just collateral damage?
For the love of God...
Look. It's very VERY simple.
Labour are trying to win three by elections off the Tories this week, and they're trying to overturn a HUGE Tory majority which is almost predominantly based on people voting on socially conservative values.
Labour are essentially trying to sneak into a stable full of VERY easily scared horse, all of whom are going to run straight back to the Tories if they think Labour are going to start telling them that their messed up tory values are messed up.
Softly softly, catch the monkey, to use another saying.
Sadly, there's a LOT of people on the progressive, Left-wing side who don't seem to think any of this is important, and that Labour is somehow going to win if they simply explain that voters with socially conservative values are wrong in a LOUDER and SLOWER way..which is essentially what did for Corbyn.
Nobody likes being told they're wrong, basically, and least of all Tories who've spent their entire lives getting everything their own way due to an accident of birth and therefore think that's an indicator of how right they must be.
Everyone turns into a political expert when it comes to defending things that they know are wrong, but it's coming from a leader they support. What you are saying is essentially another way of saying "the polls don't like it, so we don't do it". That's fine - but don't tell us that this is bravery when in reality it's actually cowardice - and cowardice that puts the weight of balancing the budget on the backs of children. I am not on the labour left - Corbyn was a malign force and I'm glad he's gone - I voted for Nandy, before that I voted for Smith, and before that I voted for Liz Kendall.
When Labour get's into office it has two choices - make itself out to be a complete and utter liar by reversing the policy anyway (likely) further destroying the publics confidence in democracy, or continuing to punish poor children because of the mistakes made by bankers before they where born.
So because Tories don’t like to be told they are wrong we don’t tell them? Is that your policy? You criticise a LOT of people on the left whilst simultaneously saying nobody likes to be told they are wrong. Lol So it’s ok to tell lefties they are wrong but not Tories cos they don’t like it??? The mental gymnastics is amazing.
@@buzzlopavich Where did I say it was brave?
It's politically expedient. That's all. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride to get what you want, and what we want, and what this country NEEDS, is a break from the bloody Tories of at LEAST a decade, hopefully more.
If that means we have to play up to the light blue Tories of Uxbridge et al, so they hold their nose and vote for us or the Lib Dems, or even just stay home, then so bloody be it.
I'd rather that than one more DAY of Conservative rule.
You completely ignore the fact that until a short while ago Starmer was very much against the cap
Most people in the UK are socially conservative. Both the main parties are led by globalists.
Sir Kid Starver
Sir Kid Starver