24 Jul
9:12am, 24 Jul 2024
24,452 posts
|
3M
In fairness, the Labour majority seems to be large enough to do things like withdrawing the whip to be a purely symbolic act, and a way of reminding the party rank and file they have no real individual power except what is allowed them by the few a the top. Bit sad though - removing that cap sooner rather than later in the parliament's life would have been a good way to set the tone for the future. |
24 Jul
9:14am, 24 Jul 2024
25,281 posts
|
larkim
It's definitely an early warning of a commitment to discipline in the party. It will have undone some of the potential goodwill earned earlier in the week with messaging about the limit being on their minds in the context of affordability though. On the one hand, I am strongly in favour of robust party discipline. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable with this specific issue being the one where the first shots are fired. That said, this was politically the intention of the SNP in tabling the amendment so it was intended to put Labour into a difficult position. |
24 Jul
9:18am, 24 Jul 2024
22,013 posts
|
Chrisull
I think Labour were never going to remove the cap at the SNP's behest. SNP with only 9 seats at Westminster need to do something to keep in the public eye at Westminster, and I expect more attempts from SNP, Lib Dems and Greens to peel off the Labour left will follow. It was very heavy-handed, a suspended sentence kind of thing (do it again and you'll get a suspension) would be appropriate, voting against the King' speech though was likely to provoke a reaction of some sort. 42 Labour mps abstrained/missed the vote which probably would have been a more sensible rebellion, given the government said they'd look at it in the Autumn as part of child poverty. If they refuse then, then that would be the time to oppose it. |
24 Jul
9:30am, 24 Jul 2024
45,402 posts
|
SPR
Has the party officially said that it will be considered as part of the review? As jda pointed out they clarified later (and we accept clarifications when it's what we want to hear). The MPs are being suspended due to it being a long held position. In fairness I can see that given the public support the cap, and then stating it is unaffordable, a review saying they need to do it could help with presentation. Given all the child poverty charities say it needs to go, I struggle to see how a child poverty review can come to a different answer? |
|
24 Jul
9:47am, 24 Jul 2024
45,403 posts
|
SPR
I see the Flynn for the SNP has made the point about the conclusion of the taskforce. "Can the prime minister outline how many children will remain in poverty whilst this taskforce undertakes the work which will ultimately lead to the same conclusion which we are proposing - to scrap the two-child benefit cap?" bbc.co.uk |
24 Jul
9:56am, 24 Jul 2024
156 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
HappyG(rrr) wrote: How do we feel about Starmer removing whip from the 7 Labour MPs who voted for the SNP and others' amendment calling to remove the 2 child benefit cap? Draconian, or firm leadership? Go Kamala! G The subject of 2CBC was talked about before the election and it wasn't in the Labour manifesto though acknowledged "a difficult decision to exclude it". The labour rebels less than a month ago were being asked to be elected on the platform of a party manifesto they signed up to (or they wouldn't be parliamentary candidates I presume). I completely get that its a broad church and everyone would write the manifesto slightly differently but there is a collective responsibility aspect, especially so soon after the election. The electorate made them MPs presumably wanting them to deliver on the manifesto and not something else. Influencing change by the party is better done within the party machine and not by a very public dissent so soon. Removing 2CB would cost 3.5bn annually. The other side of the equation to ability to pay for this against the spending commitments and promises to tax made in the manifesto are equally in play. I'm sorry but I'm completely with Starmer on this. Imagine if they had won the vote. "Elect Labour, get something else". |
|
24 Jul
11:30am, 24 Jul 2024
25,283 posts
|
larkim
The quote below is the key stuff from the manifesto on benefits and child poverty. So they have plenty of space to ditch the cap, but then as @Yakima Canutt says its the other side of the equation that becomes problematic - where to find the money. Labour is committed to reviewing Universal Credit so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty. We want to end mass dependence on emergency food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society. The LDs, SNP etc must not give Labour a free ride, so I can't criticise them for normal political games, but the MPs that rebelled must have either said locally that they were committed to another £2.5-£3.5bn of spending (or spending cuts) otherwise they are (too soon) acting outside of their elected mandate (one could argue!). I don't quite understand the maths that has been bandied around though; figures of £2.5bn to £3.5bn to remove the cap, but the cap only impacting 250,000 children in poverty. If that's the case, then £10,000 per year benefit, but my understanding is that the benefit is only "worth" close to £3,500 per year. |
24 Jul
11:39am, 24 Jul 2024
28,634 posts
|
richmac
HappyG(rrr) wrote: How do we feel about Starmer removing whip from the 7 Labour MPs who voted for the SNP and others' amendment calling to remove the 2 child benefit cap? Draconian, or firm leadership? Go Kamala! G If you're barely 3 weeks into the job & you tell your boss to f&ck off I think you should expect a sanction |
|
24 Jul
11:40am, 24 Jul 2024
24,455 posts
|
3M
Plus there would be savings from not checking only the first two children are already registered? (Got to be easier to do it as a "Automatically register child with birth registration" rather than an extra check on number of children already in the family.) Ditto a link to sort of the mean testing/household income tests?.
|
|
24 Jul
11:56am, 24 Jul 2024
45,405 posts
|
SPR
We don't treat politics like a normal work place and also when Tories vote for things we think are wrong, we aren't quick to shout about collective responsibility and say they should use their conscience. Those on the payroll should vote with the government, others should have more latitude. In reality this has happened because the majority is so big it really makes no difference or than signals around being tough etc. |
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
