Jul 2023
6:01pm, 16 Jul 2023
20,536 posts
|
Chrisull
"Abolishing the two-child limit would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 children would be in less deep poverty a a cost of just 1.3bn." = Child Poverty Action Group Lest we forget the Stonehenge tunnel, which is totally opposed by archaeologists and historians which will wreck some of the most important historical landscapes (read up about Buckler's mead) in the country will cost 1.7bn. Labour should pledge to abolish that scheme, that would fund it already. Where I am, in SE cornwall, the Tories have over 50% of the vote, and Labour are 2nd, narrowly ahead of the Lib Dems, in a former Lib Dem constituency that has NEVER been Labour. There is a fair degree of "Never Labour" military types that make me think, Labour might not be able to win the constituency, although the demographic (Liskeard/Callington poverty) is the kind of ground Labour should find support in (but doesn't Liskeard routinely returns Tory councillors). So my vote to the greens will make fuck all difference. PR might persuade me to lend my vote to Labour. Simples. Also I read in mid-Bedfordshire (the Dorries constituency, widely considered to be unwinnable for Labour, because again voters will go Lib Dem, but not Labour - it has NEVER been Labour), Labour are making a massive push. WHY? Splitting the vote again. So I have twins going to university, and they both require deposits for student accommodation before their maintenance loan kicks in. As we've already supported our eldest and with his last accommodation, this was financially looking beyond the pale, til we remembered Gordon Brown's child trust fund, which should cover each of the twin's deposits. A Labour govt - a chancellor widely considered to the right could pledge and promise that, why can't Starmer do something similar now? It wouldn't scare the horses, pledging to take action on child poverty after 13 years of Tory neglect is a vote-winner. Further on Laura K he's pledged to do away with planning laws, making it easier to build houses (just as Dominic Cummings) did ignoring the real number 1 problem in building houses which is shortage of material/labour as most in the building industry agree (and not destroying green spaces - and as I've begun to argue in the Environment thread, perhaps habitat loss is a greater worry than climate change as some environmentalists are now arguing). If we want an end to turgid two party politics, it has to start somewhere. |
Jul 2023
8:55am, 17 Jul 2023
47,280 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
While it's probably not the worst of the Conservative government's failures, I don't like this idea at all bbc.co.uk Trying to cut university courses that don't lead to "good" jobs? I find myself telling kids increasingly nowadays, "Study what you like at uni, it's got nothing to do with what job or success you will have!" (excepting vocational subjects for jobs like doctor, vet etc.) Uni should be about learning to learn, broadening your horizons etc. Especially in the era of AI etc.  G
|
Jul 2023
9:07am, 17 Jul 2023
15,129 posts
|
jda
There's no doubt there are shit university degree courses and for quite a lot of people it's a huge waste of money (even accounting for the fact that they may not pay the loan back). The chances of the govt doing anything constructive to improve this situation is however slim to none. |
Jul 2023
9:30am, 17 Jul 2023
21,548 posts
|
larkim
Courses leading to jobs has been a running theme through education policy in the last 10-15 years, maybe even beyond that. Colleges and schools are measured on "progression" (i.e. what happens post the students' learning) pretty actively, and then Universities market themselves on what percentage of students get jobs post degree etc. Whilst I agree about uni being a lot more than the course itself (it was so important to me), I'd reckon most uni courses already highlight what they lead onto pretty well. But Uni has also become an expectation for a lot of young people when there are really good alternatives that will get them earning earlier too - higher apprenticeships etc. |
|
Jul 2023
10:57am, 17 Jul 2023
20,540 posts
|
Chrisull
Guardian journo Chaminda Jayanetti the on two child benefit cap refusal to change: "Labour committing to keep (as opposed to even just not committing to scrap) the two-child limit is very much in line with their reported decision to just piss off their own base and call it a "strategy" Advisers will see the (wholly justified) backlash and get high on it These are not serious people." twitter.com In case you think, this is exaggerated, here's Luke Akehurst on Twitter (one of the NEC), backing the fact that all 62 expelled members have failed in their appeals: twitter.com Another 95 to go (one of these will be Neal Lawson of Compass). |
Jul 2023
11:05am, 17 Jul 2023
30,594 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
A brief political truth is that if you want progressive policies enacted from Labour you are going to have to vote for a moderate. How many progressive policies did Michael Foot enact as PM? Zero, because he lost by a landslide. How many did Corbyn enact? Zero, because he was defeated twice, once by a historic landslide which ushered in Johnson, Truss, and Brexit. Good job, Britain. Miliband? Zero. Red Tory, centrist warmongers Blair and Brown? Erm, quite a lot actually, because they won three elections by historic margins. The character and objectives of a govt led by silver spoon Goldman Sachs billionaire Sunak will be entirely different to one led by working class, mortgage holder, erm, human rights lawyer Keir Starmer and if anyone thinks they are “basically no different” then that’s just a statement of pure prejudice and there’s no point in any further discussion. If you want progressive Labour policies, elect a moderate. It’s a simple equation. |
Jul 2023
11:09am, 17 Jul 2023
2,994 posts
|
paulcook
I know one (former?) Labour party member who doesn't (no exaggeration here either) have a single good word to say about Luke Akehurst, so I tend to understand all that.
|
|
Jul 2023
11:14am, 17 Jul 2023
20,541 posts
|
Chrisull
I backed Blair/Brown because they promoted: a) Minimum wage b) Signing up to the social chapter c) Cut NHS waiting lists d) Cut class sizes Name me specific promises that Starmer is making. The right-to-roam one is one I'm on board with. The Forde report made so very serious criticisms about both sides of the party with regards to anti-semitism, islamophobia, misogyny. However, the right of the party has chosen to ignore the criticisms that apply to them. Truth is Labour will win the next election by default (unless they make Corbyn leader again). Things like refusing to remove the 2 child benefit cap run way to the right of Blair/Brown. |
|
Jul 2023
11:24am, 17 Jul 2023
2,995 posts
|
paulcook
Truth is Labour will win the next election by default (unless they make Corbyn leader again). Interesting juxtaposition, given an intriguing question I saw insinuated rather than directly posted elsewhere at the weekend. Yes, they, Starmer, will win a landslide at the next election. But would Starmer win either the identically run leadership contest if done again today, or a new one if started today. I suppose the shaping of the party per NEC is perhaps done so to make both more likely anyway. Yes, perfect is the enemy of good, but neither do I see any problems in lots of people wanting a different Labour party than the one currently presented. |
Jul 2023
11:33am, 17 Jul 2023
15,240 posts
|
mrs shanksi
Exactly JB
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
