Labour needs to find its moral compass or it’s in deep trouble
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2024
- The row over the two-child poverty cap has revealed just how shallow the moral leadership of the new Labour government really is. If it carries on in this way the next five years are going to be agonising.
#uk #money #child #poverty #pension #economics #politics
ABOUT RICHARD MURPHY
Richard Murphy is Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School. He is director of Tax Research LLP and the author of the Funding the Future blog. His best known book is ‘The Joy of Tax’.
This video was edited by Thomas Murphy.
DONATE TO KEEP THIS CHANNEL ADVERT FREE
ko-fi.com/taxr...
RICHARD MURPHY ON TWITTER
Follow Richard on his Twitter: RichardJMurphy or on his blog: www.taxresearch...
HIT SUBSCRIBE & GET NOTIFICATIONS
Subscribe and get notified of new videos released.
INTRODUCTION: • Welcome to my channel ...
PLAYLISTS:
Accountancy: • Accounting
Economics: • Economics
Tax: • Tax
Taxing Wealth Report: • Taxing Wealth Report 2024
Green New Deal: • Green New Deal
Money: • Money
Questions from subscribers: • Questions
Miscellaneous: • Miscellaneous
#richardmurphy #richardjmurphy #economy #economics #accountancy #accounting #tax #uktax #ukeconomy #greennewdeal
This is what happens when you sign a Faustian deal with Murdoch
Why spend 3 billion on child poverty now when we can pay 13 billion ten years from now dealing with the outcomes of it. Fiscal responsibility in action!
"The state of poverty influences productivity in at least two different ways. On the one hand, financial constraints dampen physical and cognitive performance through nutritional deficiencies low educational quality, and poor health conditions, which in turn affect productivity." Source: National Library of Medicine. (The breakfast club could work which is a labour policy but, much more is needed.)
"Poverty and crime have a complex and often contentious relationship. Though it is increasingly accepted that poverty does not cause crime, there is still much evidence linking the two. The cost of being unable to afford necessities, combined with the lack of opportunity for social and economic advancement, creates a breeding ground for criminal activity." source: insidetime. (incomes need to be a real living wage).
Then we just won't pay the 13 billion.
Gotta fill the six new Prisons somehow.
@@detritiv0re144 That's not a choice. The costs are spread across a spectrum of institutions, including healthcare, justice system, police, prisons - and social and economic impacts - lower productivity, violence, drug abuse, repeating generational cycles, etc. It seems today that most of our social problems, like violence and abuse are the result of CHILDREN who have been unloved, neglected, mistreated, disrespected and abused. The abuser of children gets attacked in prison because it's full of people who were abused as children
That's not fiscal responsibility. Lifting children out of poverty creates money in the form of revenue. The lowest income group spend all their money. This creates jobs as demand increases the productivity of goods and services. The biggest flaw in labours plan is the notion that wealth creation from growing the economy is going to happen on its own. It's nothing more than trickle down economics and that just doesn't work. The rich either save money or invest it in things like property, that doesn't create any demand in goods and services.
The Poor always suffer for the profligacy of the "Elites"
-elites-
ruling class
Wankers*
This is the Keir Starmer I have been warning about for 4½years, and been called a Tory for doing so. Well, we can see who the "Tories" are now!
Exactly! You keep children in poverty you can do the same to the sick and disabled. You can then ignore problems elsewhere in schools, councils health and social care with the same excuses. They have no answers and no significant new policies
Labour have child poverty reduction on their manifesto, so you can’t say they will keep children in poverty
Labour has adopted the tories fiscal rules which have been so sucessful over the las14 years.this is because they they are frightened to death of upsetting the tory media and people like rachel reeves has been brain washed by the bankers she has worked with.have no lessons been learned by the financialt crash. We do not want to encourage the bankers to gamble with our financial system that caused the crash.l believe that she may be considering using pfi mark2 to finance some of her pet projects,this has been a massive financial burden for the nhs and should be avoided at all costs.perhaps the people who have benefited over the last 14 years and can most afford it should be asked to coff up more but torylabour have decided not to take that blidenly obvious path to rebuilding our broken infrastructure.
@@JohnPark-xf2gq Labour chose to have strict fiscal rules because allowed them to attack Conservatives following Truss unfunded spending.
Labour wouldn’t have won using a high tax high spend platform….Corbyn tried, we know how that went.
You're right
Sir Kier Stalin isn’t interested in moral choices, his interest is power.
There's always money for elites but no money for the rest
-elites-
ruling class
Robin hood in reverse.
Proof we live under a Uniparty.
No change Starmer will soon become no chance Starmer.
Quite right, this is a moral issue. Starmer and Reeves want people to believe that "fiscal responsibility" is the greatest virtue. Moral responsibility, as shown by the 7 suspended MPs, counts for nothing in their eyes.
“The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing.” - Harold Wilson
@@JackMellor498 Nothing it is then.
That’s old Labour and a logical and understandable ideological position. However, since Mr Blair I would even argue they’re morally worse than the conservatives.
Labour's moral compass is probably where they left it. I would look there first.
Wanna bet Blair nicked it and took it to a pawn shop?
That would be in 1994 when they murdered John Smith.
Labour doesn’t have a moral compass and people should really research exactly just who their leaders actually are.
Excellent as ever Richard. Labour are obscene.
Well said that man! 👏👏👏👏👏
Grifters all sleep well at night. They have the wealth for a really nice home, a really nice bed, nice food and healthcare. They don't have to work their body and mind until they break. And most importantly, they are not held back by the one thing they don't have: a conscience.
And they don't seem to recognise that they so easily can find them in the same position as others who they are unwilling to help.they all seem to hate the so called nanny state until circumstances drive them into needing that help.ln the USA you see people in great poverty stating that they hate socialism or anything that would help them.
@@JohnPark-xf2gqI hate socialism all thanks to discrimination.
Well said.
this is why the uk is the most miserable country in the world even in china or russia they wouldnt let kids suffer in dire poverty because its seen as helping people what a sad horrible soceity we live in where children starve and they force the sick to work
North Korea is an example of a country where the poor starve while the elite live in luxury. This country under the tories have certainly been catching up with north Korea.
@@JohnPark-xf2gq its worse i think at least in north korea their honest and i dont think its as bad as what the news says i think theyve been outted as liars about things and it suits a narrative so you end up hating north koreans for no good reason except the news told you to and thats the thing right there and i know how they do that buy a copy of the textbook of psychiatry and read the bit on behaviour modification very interesting and it works all of the time and too well all of the time but they frame places like north korea as a despotic regime where all that they say happens but its probably not the case in reality but people in uk are more miserable then they are in north korea and what does that tell you
in uk theres no community anymore they criminalised it in the name of public order once they criminalised that as far as they could get away with they come up with the genius of anti social behaviour and that has just given it a blanket cover all law that is designed to criminalise community i remeber when i was a kid up until maybe the end of the 90s when people used to sit out front and talk and hang out with ya nieghbours dont see that anymore now everyones in fear of each other and thats how they get people once we were unitied now its just fear of each and fear of what we might do and thats been done on purpose
you go to maerica and go them rough places and tell you something if not for the easy access to automatic weapons them places that are crazy would be quiet if not for access to guns and even their they still have a community and people still talk and to be fair most gun vioilence in america the vast majority of it is domestics but i digress but thats the problem in uk theres no community anymore because they criminalised everything that the englsih do as a community
Sadly so true!
@@JohnPark-xf2gqIn North Korea everyone has free healthcare, has a roof over their head and no beggars on the streets. Their standard of living is poor generally because of crippling sanctions put on them by the West.
Veery well put. Starmer has no conscience and Labour is unreconisable.
Politicians don't have a moral compass, they have an 'electability' compass. Let's not forget that Starmer is a fully paid up member of the establishment and the secret state, funny handshakes and all. He is a senior lawyer, a KC, for goodness sake!
Child poverty really matters. It is criminal that they are penalised in our society.
I've been reading the brainwashed Britain comments everywhere online and its a depressing lack of thinking critically and basic empathy
Brainwashing has always been a very effective strategy for the puppet goverments of the super rich.the brain washed do not even realise they have been brain washed.you may be one of there number.
It is clear what Labour think. They made it clear they were not going to do this at start of the parliament. If enough people had voted for SNP, Green or LD you could have this policy. It is a democracy.
I predict a one term government.
@@therealrobertbirchallno chance last time a newly elected UK government lost in the next election was 50 years ago . And they have a majority of 172 as well .
@@Sg1973Meh That 172 majority is not as strong as it looks at first glance. The Labour Party ignored their voter base to target seats where they came second and adjusted their stance accordingly. Yes they got more seats but the majorities in the seats of sitting Labour MPs were slashed with some such as Jess Phillips and Wes Streeting only just holding on. That could make things difficult for Labour at the next GE, especially if life doesn’t improve for a lot of people.
LD the same party who promised to limit student loans?, then when they got a bit of power with Cameron that flew out of the window. And now our graduates leave with 60g debt at 7% interest. You can promise anything when you don't have a hope in he'll of winning...
How can a man of Starmer’s age need to find a moral compass? I don’t think this works.
Morally corrupt: Within (New) Labour circles compassion is a dirty word.
Not only is there a below replacement level birthrate in the UK of 1.57 children per woman(replacement level is 2.1 children per woman)but in addition over 600,000 of the best and brightest of the young(under 50)people in the UK are leaving each year to find better pay,working conditions and living conditions. very soon and even sooner especially given the vitriol being spouted against immigrants the vast majority of the UK population will be made up of the over 65s and the barely numerate and barely literate
You should be chancellor Professor. We would be in a much better place if you were.
100%
You're working on the assumption that Mr Kid Starver had a moral compass in the first place.
No matter how bad the economy (usually messed up by the government) it never effects the wealthy does it? They still get big wages and dont have to go without!!
Tories from 2010 - 2021 cut £37 billion from social security benefits.
Tories have wasted £37 billion on failed Test and Trace programme over two years.
Tories wasted £15 billion setting up Universal Credit.
Tories have spent billions of Pounds on foreign wars.
We have a birth rate crisis emerging as less children are being born in this country in real terms. This will create future problems within the economy eventually as you effectively have a shrinking workforce to generate future gdp which is why the 2 cap is so short sighted. Labour is obsessed with creating economic growth which would generate more than enough money to remove this cap so there position makes no sense and is ideologically driven to appease the right.
2 child cap is not the reason for falling birth rate.
Removing the cap would make no difference to economic growth
Making childcare affordable like Canada would make a difference
I haven’t said that 2 child cap is the definitive reason for falling birth rates but it is a related issue. There are many reasons for falling birth rate such as childcare costs as you’ve highlighted. Having a 2 cap limit doesn’t help this issue though it makes it worse. By growing economy as they are committed to labour could easily afford to remove this and lift thousands of kids out of poverty which surely as a progressive society we should generally want to see happen.
Keir Starmer's Dad was a tool maker. That's 100% correct - Keir is the biggest tool going
Sir Kid Starver, happily starving kids here and in Gaza!
There so much poverty now its crazy to think we are supposed to be a rich country, people are just scraping by or even worse sinking
Outstanding!! Than you!!
Moral compass? Politicians? Cannot compute!! AI tried its best.
Well said Richard
Starmer dictatorship.
But but but Starmer can commit to increase spending on weapons and war as he did at the NATO shindig without costing analysis 😢 The truth is this was an obvious trap for the MPs who have moral integrity and they took the bait and gave Starmer the excuse that he so keenly wanted to ditch, you are right it was a show of how authoritarian Starmer and his clique are.
His friends of isreal will be very pleased with him.
Labour breakfast clubs are a sticking plaster for The Benefit Cap.
I was picked on for having free school dinners,cash for children is best.
Oh dear! What a gravely disappointing lacklustre start to Mr. Starmer's term of office?
If they haven't found their moral compass by now, they never will. Put another way, labour don't make policy and neither did the tory govt. Policy originates from NGOs (see Blair), corporats and at the level of the UN and is implemented at regional, national and local levels by govt. They do not make policy, they implement it.
I love the majority of your videos, please keep them coming.
News flash, It's not labour.
The problem with this video is that formally those constituents voted for that person to be their MP, not for a "Labour MP". The inability to differentiate, and so identify that it is the party system that is the root cause of a lot of our difficulties with the electoral system, is problematic.
@@Scubadooper Correct
@@stephfoxwell4620 thanks
Time to subvert the system and decentralise candidate selection
There is no money to help poor children. Unlimited funds for exporting weapons though.
Most labour mps don't know what a compass is and don't have morals.
So why do you think Labour is lying about this?
Pensioners have been targeted now!
You can't find somthing you have had surgically removed and destroyed
Great video,
60% of labour voters recently said they support the cap. Which is horrid. But it also means they need to do it quietly... by drawing all this attention to it you're going to make it take longer. The top people have said before they don't support it.. it'll go. I wish it would go now but I'm gonna live in reality. I don't think they should have suspended the MP as that will just draw even more attention but here we are...
Richard, your analysis is insightful. However, I'm concerned about the potential inequities in taxing pensions. How can we balance the need for revenue with the desire to reward those who have consistently contributed to society? It's a complex issue, but finding solutions that promote both fairness and economic sustainability is crucial.
While eradicating child poverty is a moral imperative, the current child benefit system incentivises irresponsible behaviour. We need to consider those families who responsibly choose to have fewer children based on their financial capabilities. Why should they bear the burden for those who have more children than they can afford? If we lift the benefits cap, what would prevent families from having more children than they could afford?
There is a middle way….3 child cap? 4 child cap?
Why has obrien failed to bring this up?
Seconding others: spending on the well being of children always returns far more than invested, and also: it does not matter... if Labour cannot do this they are lost before they start.
Remember though that capital gains is basically a scam tax on inflation. You have to pay 20% of whatever inflation was in tax making it basically impossible to sell assets if you have owned them for any length of time.
Cannot agree with irresponsible government spending… food prices are up by 20 % for no good reason for these same poor people…due to the same government money printing that is being suggested 🤷♂️
Food prices are up because supermarkets have decided to double their profit margins since over last few yrs . It's profiteering not inflation
I'm sure Starmer and Reeves sleep very well, heartless.
When I was at school I had use of the school facilites. This was for people with physical and learning disablities (child poverty is a disablity). They took us to seaside for to amusment partk, filed parks castles, zoos and for playing games etc.
I think Schools should remain open during the holidays. You hire trusties to allow children to use the school facilities during summer holiday etc. School need more activies out side of the school terms. This will allow children to use their computer systems as well as sports facilities and meals like social clubs. This would also allow to give parents some respite over the long summer holidays.
Speaking of assaults on democracy, have you encountered the concept of "inverted totalitarianism"?
Apparently it's been a thing in political science since 2003
Starmer with his background! Caring for the people who need help?
Which isn't his background. The exact opposite in fact, particularly at the CPS and in N.Ireland.
@@tancdiscovery9432 I was being sarcastic.
Starmer. old English meaning: The Banality of Evil.
❤
How about taking some personal financial responsibility FFS
Wants to get rid, but can't afford it. Welcome to the world of government - how appealing opposition may look, from the other side of the dispatch box! I do wonder whether anyone ever gave previous generations such consideration of poverty. In the seventies, we had nothing (and I mean, nothing). We lived in a council house, but we grew our own veges and didn't really feel poor, but what does poverty actually mean, other than by reference to a statistic? I note your answer is to tax the wealthy (and who are they exactly). I served in the armed forces, so served my country and have worked for 40 years, saved hard and invested wisely. I now own my own home and have investments which would be considered a capital gain, if I sold, so am I your target - someone who's worked hard, all my life, taken investment risks and saved hard? That to me is immoral!
Richard, have you seen the Labour Files and the Forde report? do you think it's relevant to what you are discussing here?
You are someone who thinks money grows on trees. If you print more, then you are taking money from everyone who has money. You keep doing that and the rich ones will emigrate and then the tax burden falls on the low earners.
Unfortunately power trumps everything. I suspect that this is now personal for Starmer and he will want to retain power. This is why national leadership doesn't work.
As Richard says, there is a lot that Starmer could do that would be economically and socially sound and beneficial but he is reluctant to raise his head above the parapet set by the Tories. Over time I expect that he very cautiously will but if the likes of Dail Mail headlines constrains his policies then he will probably run out of time before much is done and he will have deservedly failed as many have before him.
The ‘virility test’ of which you talk is like the old teacher mantra of ‘don’t smile until Christmas’. As you pointed out, he has a lot of MPs who will not get any preferment and will start to show themselves. This is the ‘show of strength’ before the inevitable crumbling of ‘discipline’ within the party. I have written to my MP, one of the new intake, pointing this out. I have not had a response as yet and I do recognise that he may well not yet have an office. The moral compass is an important idea: without it, policy has no direction. This would appear to be the case with the introduction of ex-MPs taking ministerial roles, worse still, ones whose background was more than tainted by claiming that her sister’s back bedroom was her primary residence. This is not ‘the new start’ that was promised. How long before the first ‘sleaze’ becomes apparent and then is not dealt with appropriately?
It is not a 2 child benefit cap
There is no cap on child benefits
It’s a cap on universal credit
Many of those receiving universal credit are working people, it's still a cruel policy
@@firebyrd437 agreed
But so are loads of Tory policies
Labour can’t sort it all out overnight
A lot of assumptions in this video. Abolishing the two-child benefit cap with alleviate poverty for one. I don't think so, the poor are more astute than that he believes, a lot of the benefit class manage their benefits for their own use; smoking, drinking, drug taking, holIdays etc. Benefits are subsidising lifestyles now, more and more, and not alleviating the problems they were designed for. Best to abolish child benefits and remind people that their children are their own responsibility.
I know it's not left wing thinking but it's something worth thinking about. Responsibility not fecundity!
These erroneous statements are made, unchallenged, on a daily basis! When were you last invited to speak, Richard?
What ever happened to personal responsibility? If you want to breed like a rabbit, then do so, but make sure YOU can afford it! Don't expect any government (read taxpayers) to subsidise your family. The fact that they do it up to a limit of two is a bonus. Moral compass indeed. There are other ways to help children caught up in a poverty trap. The wholesale change of that limit is neither desirable nor necessary.
Sometimes, people are working when they have more than 2 children but then lose their job or become permanently sick. And some children are born through contraceptive failures. Have you also advocated that only the first 2 children of all families should only receive child benefit?
The gov should increase the payment of two child benefit rather than rewarding irresponsible behaviour. I don’t wish to pay for someone living in 4 bedroom house while I work and stay in a tiny two bedroom flat with kids and a huge mortgage. Two child benefit cap was not about savings but to do with discouraging families on dole having multiple kids.
The policy has had no effect on the birth rate. It has made children suffer.
Most of the families are actually working families in low paid jobs, families that have lost their jobs after having the children or families that, because of illness and extremely low sickness benefit, have fallen below the poverty line.
He doesn't have a moral compass
@@maureenharris3845 Please provide me with the source of this information. Having more children creates pressure on schools, NHS and public services.
@@helenheenan3447 it is irresponsible having more children per couple. Extra £80 per child doesn’t go too far with the current cost of living.
Labour doesn’t have a moral issue.. yes they have socialist fundamentalist element.. but they not lead by a socialist anymore.. they’re led by a welfare leader.. & the best way to lift a society.. is to increase economic issues & infrastructure.. including education.. & the moral choice is with parents & their choices.. we now have a government that accepts responsibility of lifting all in society.. majority of your advice is good.. but simply saying there is money..doesn’t make it correct.. 🤔🤔😎
It's a moral choice to decide children should be punished for the choices of their parents, whether those choices are real or just made up in your head.
You can claim you're not making a moral choice if you like, but your pseudo-economic justifications just don't cut it. One of the easiest things Starmer could do to stimulate growth would be to get rid of this cap. One of the easiest ways to fund that...and more...would be to hold wealthy asset owners to the same tax standards as working people.
@@shtarpark7938 morals lay with the parents..not the public .. or their society.. if that was the case..there would be no issues with famine or drought in the rest of the world..that leaves 5 million dead infants annually.. or even the 9 million that are disfigured & maimed annually.. 🙄🙄🤔
@@briankerrison8504 You'd have been better off saying nothing at all.
@@shtarpark7938 which is legislations..that has to be passed.. removing 2 child cap..doesn’t improve economic issues, which feeds society.. I’m not agreeing with keeping the 2 child cap.. I’m saying it’s not top of this nations issues.. & if society was moral or even kind.. there wouldn’t be children missing meals.. or living a chaotic lifestyle.. at this point in time.. there isn’t any room for socialist ideals.. it’s got to be welfare of society.. not individuals.. the cap was a Tory ideal as part of austerity measures in 2017.. austerity has ended for some..because no one has rebuilt or repaired Tory damage to public services.. which will take time..hence the cap remains.. the world is not perfect.. 🤔🤔
@@briankerrison8504 Everything you've been saying demonstrates that, for you at least, the question is a moral one, even if you can't admit it to yourself.
If you were less keen to judge parents, you might be open to other arguments regarding the economic situation and the benefits cap. As it is, you're using Tory arguments to justify a Tory policy because it happens to be one you find compatible with your moral view.