General Election 2024

[Mr_Danger]

Yeah but wait until he gets his feet properly under the table, then he’ll really be able to start Lib’n it up!

[deathrey]

40 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

Well that's something. 

 

FFS and it begins....

[SuperBacon]

33 minutes ago, Mr_Danger said:

Lib’n it up!

Sta Rule? 

I'm sorry. 

[westlondonmist]

While I'm not sure they should be suspended I think rebelling a few weeks after coming to power is a bit fucking weird. Try and show a bit of unity as a party, for once in your life.

While I do think the cap should be changed I do think we should give Labour some amount of time before judging as PM and I don't even like the guy. A law that would cost an estimated 3bn has to be costed and money from elsewhere or tax rises. 

[hallicks]

1 hour ago, westlondonmist said:

While I'm not sure they should be suspended I think rebelling a few weeks after coming to power is a bit fucking weird. Try and show a bit of unity as a party, for once in your life.

While I do think the cap should be changed I do think we should give Labour some amount of time before judging as PM and I don't even like the guy. A law that would cost an estimated 3bn has to be costed and money from elsewhere or tax rises. 

From Phil BC, written a few days before the vote. 

“After all, for a measly £1.7bn parents with larger families will have more money to spend. That's money flowing into local economies keeping businesses afloat. You know, those multiplier effects the chancellor would have learned about when her tutors covered Keynes. It also takes stress off hard-pressed parents, making them more productive and happier at work, and less likely having to access mental health support from local GPs. It means kids grow up in a less stressed environment, allowing them to get on better at school and along with their friends. That also means lightening the caseload of overstretched social service departments. The spend is repaid in medium and long-term savings to public services, which on paper conforms entirely to the iron hard fiscal framework the government are signed up to.”

Edited July 24 by hallicks
Poached eggs

[Carbomb]

2 hours ago, westlondonmist said:

While I'm not sure they should be suspended I think rebelling a few weeks after coming to power is a bit fucking weird. Try and show a bit of unity as a party, for once in your life.

Don't see why they should. Starmer's lot are reaping what they've sown. If they'd shown the same unity with those MPs when they were in charge of Labour, they might have been able to persuade them to vote against their consciences. 

There's never been any attempt by the PLP to heal the rifts it's created repeatedly and ceaselessly with the left of the party, not even an acknowledgement that it's pulled some absolute fuckery, and they clearly haven't learned from some of the election results that there are consequences to treating people the way they have those like Faeza Shaheen, so why should those fucked over by it slavishly march in lockstep? 

The PLP needs to know it's not going to have everything its own way.

[d-d-d-dAz]

34 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Don't see why they should. Starmer's lot are reaping what they've sown. If they'd shown the same unity with those MPs when they were in charge of Labour, they might have been able to persuade them to vote against their consciences. 

There's never been any attempt by the PLP to heal the rifts it's created repeatedly and ceaselessly with the left of the party, not even an acknowledgement that it's pulled some absolute fuckery, and they clearly haven't learned from some of the election results that there are consequences to treating people the way they have those like Faeza Shaheen, so why should those fucked over by it slavishly march in lockstep? 

The PLP needs to know it's not going to have everything its own way.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of this, it's ultimately 7 MP's that Starmer would probably be happy to see leave the party anyway.

This week has been nothing but a huge win for him, the potential rebellion of 30 or 40 MP's dwindled to 7 who Starmer probably thinks are Corbynist cranks anyway and his majority is so strong he doesn't need them.

[Devon Malcolm]

1 minute ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

This week has been nothing but a huge win for him

And a huge loss for those many families out there who voted for his party, hoping they would scrap an awful policy that is devastating mid-to-large sized families all over the country.

[FLips]

7 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

And a huge loss for those many families out there who voted for his party, hoping they would scrap an awful policy that is devastating mid-to-large sized families all over the country.

He was clear throughout the campaign he wasn’t scrapping this though so if people voted for them hoping they’d just change their mind then more fool them. It should be scrapped, but it was made very clear multiple times it wouldn’t be.

[Devon Malcolm]

Just now, FLips said:

He was clear throughout the campaign he wasn’t scrapping this though so if people voted for them hoping they’d just change their mind then more fool them. It should be scrapped, but it was made very clear multiple times it wouldn’t be.

But this flies in the face of all those who pleaded with us to vote Labour because "you can't change anything when you're not in power" and that they were likely to change their mind if they got in. Haven't changed their minds on shit.

[FLips]

6 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

But this flies in the face of all those who pleaded with us to vote Labour because "you can't change anything when you're not in power" and that they were likely to change their mind if they got in. Haven't changed their minds on shit.

Unless it was Labour candidates saying they’d change their mind why would you base a vote off members of the public saying they’d change their mind on declared manifesto policies? What do the public know?

I wouldn’t expect them to change their minds, and I’d rather not having another political leadership constantly in-fighting and going back on their word, even if in this case it would be for the better. It’s no shock that they immediately put the boot to the 7 who rebelled this close to the King’s Speech. It’s strong leadership even if you don’t agree with the reasoning.

[stumobir]

3 hours ago, westlondonmist said:

 Try and show a bit of unity as a party, for once in your life.

“Put country before party” - Keir Starmer, 2024

[d-d-d-dAz]

15 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

And a huge loss for those many families out there who voted for his party, hoping they would scrap an awful policy that is devastating mid-to-large sized families all over the country.

Sure, but that wasn't the point I was making. 

It's not about the policy, it's about the optics from Labour's perspective. They're trying to avoid the idea that they campaign one way and govern another, and the minute they gain office they start lobbing the cash about. 

As disapointing as it might be, from a purely political perspective this week couldn't really have gone any better for ol' Keir.

It's interesting that they seem to be contemplating above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers though. It suggests that their focus grouping, Labour loves a focus group, has told them that the country as a whole aren't overwhelmingly in favour of cutting the two child cap, but are starting to get behind public sector workers. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

I find it hilarious that of all people Suella Braverman was saying it should be scrapped on Monday considering she voted for it. But the facts are its going to cost about £3b to fund, the economy is already in the shit and it won't change over night unfortunately. How can they scrap it without finding away of closing that gap? 

[Devon Malcolm]