megan kenyon @meganekenyon NEW: Your Party announces name options to be voted on by members this weekend with decision to be announced by Jeremy Corbyn on Sunday afternoon. They are: Your Party, Our Party, Popular Alliance, and For The Many.
Note Sultana’s preference - The Left Party - has not made the cut
I suggest the Rebel Alliance.
In political terms, she would be a poor bet if the party were called that. I'd definitely Luke to Leia.
Tl;dr - welfare not out of control. But large rises in spending on pensioners and disabled have hidden falls in spending on working age people.
And scrapping the triple lock alone doesn't save much on pensions. To do that, you'd need to actually reduce the value of the state pension.
Average earnings growth is currently running about 1% ahead of inflation, so if the lock were to be abolished immediately, we’d save 1% of (i.e. avoid extra costs of) total state pension costs in the first year, probably growing every year thereafter. How is that not a significant amount?
UK state pension costs £138 billion, so 1% is just over a billion. So we're back at the issue that the political cost of changing it is never going to be balanced by the short term cash saving. So it's not going to be in the interest of any government to touch it, even though it's obvious that it can't go on forever.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age welfare benefits are now larger than pensions and are projected to be substantially larger at the end of the cycle. Labour are raising taxes on working people to pay the lazy and feckless and working people are fed up.
Working age benefits are available to people in work. Presumably those workers are lazy and fecklless
The corollary of "I'm paid a shedload of money because I'm worth it" is "They're paid a pittance because they are lazy and feckless." We are in one of those bits of history where the rich (let's face it, most of us here, in the grand scheme of things) have lost the common sense to keep that bit quiet.
Which is ironic given how many senior people in corporate and government roles are paid a shedload despite being lazy and feckless on pb for large parts of the working day.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age welfare benefits are now larger than pensions and are projected to be substantially larger at the end of the cycle. Labour are raising taxes on working people to pay the lazy and feckless and working people are fed up.
Working age benefits are available to people in work. Presumably those workers are lazy and fecklless
The corollary of "I'm paid a shedload of money because I'm worth it" is "They're paid a pittance because they are lazy and feckless." We are in one of those bits of history where the rich (let's face it, most of us here, in the grand scheme of things) have lost the common sense to keep that bit quiet.
Which is ironic given how many senior people in corporate and government roles are paid a shedload despite being lazy and feckless on pb for large parts of the working day.
FTFY
I wouldn't know, I haven't been on PB enough to judge for the last couple of months.
megan kenyon @meganekenyon NEW: Your Party announces name options to be voted on by members this weekend with decision to be announced by Jeremy Corbyn on Sunday afternoon. They are: Your Party, Our Party, Popular Alliance, and For The Many.
Note Sultana’s preference - The Left Party - has not made the cut
megan kenyon @meganekenyon NEW: Your Party announces name options to be voted on by members this weekend with decision to be announced by Jeremy Corbyn on Sunday afternoon. They are: Your Party, Our Party, Popular Alliance, and For The Many.
Note Sultana’s preference - The Left Party - has not made the cut
I suggest the Rebel Alliance.
Too fissiparous to be called Alliance.
The Rebel MC? “Mouvement Corbyniste”. Tough like a ninja stinging like a bee.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
Asylum seeker taxis heavily restricted. In terms of value for money:
"And on Friday, one subcontractor told the BBC his firm would do up to 15 drop-offs daily from a hotel in south east London to a doctors surgery around two miles away. These journeys alone would cost the Home Office £1,000 a day, he said."
A 2 mile taxi trip in SE London shouldn't be more than £15 and should average less. How is up to 15 of those (so typically less?) costing £1000 a day without corruption involved? Perhaps it is 15 round trips but that should still be less than half £1000.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
Here's the problem, though.
I'm sure there are households with an expensive number of children, due either to fecklessness or a deliberately excessive amount of fecking.
There are also households with three or more children who were affordable at the time, but then something unfortunate happened.
Is it really right to harm the second category because you want to discourage the first? Is it really right to harm the children in the first category (who had no say in the matter) because you want to discourage parental irresponsibility? Really?
And no, it's not fair. There is a robust strand of right wing thinking that accepts that life isn't fair. But if you are a UK taxpayer in 2025, most of that unfairness has rolled in your favour, so better to be grateful.
Asylum seeker taxis heavily restricted. In terms of value for money:
"And on Friday, one subcontractor told the BBC his firm would do up to 15 drop-offs daily from a hotel in south east London to a doctors surgery around two miles away. These journeys alone would cost the Home Office £1,000 a day, he said."
A 2 mile taxi trip in SE London shouldn't be more than £15 and should average less. How is up to 15 of those (so typically less?) costing £1000 a day without corruption involved? Perhaps it is 15 round trips but that should still be less than half £1000.
Well waiting time, and no doubt many do an additional leg to Harrods for essentials whilst they have the cab.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
Here's the problem, though.
I'm sure there are households with an expensive number of children, due either to fecklessness or a deliberately excessive amount of fecking.
There are also households with three or more children who were affordable at the time, but then something unfortunate happened.
Is it really right to harm the second category because you want to discourage the first? Is it really right to harm the children in the first category (who had no say in the matter) because you want to discourage parental irresponsibility? Really?
And no, it's not fair. There is a robust strand of right wing thinking that accepts that life isn't fair. But if you are a UK taxpayer in 2025, most of that unfairness has rolled in your favour, so better to be grateful.
My post was talking about why people felt as they do, not what should be done about it.
It is a difficult question, with no fully satisfactory answer. I would opt for a sliding scale along the lines of 100% first child, 80% second, 60% third, 40% fourth, 20% fifth.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
Asylum seeker taxis heavily restricted. In terms of value for money:
"And on Friday, one subcontractor told the BBC his firm would do up to 15 drop-offs daily from a hotel in south east London to a doctors surgery around two miles away. These journeys alone would cost the Home Office £1,000 a day, he said."
A 2 mile taxi trip in SE London shouldn't be more than £15 and should average less. How is up to 15 of those (so typically less?) costing £1000 a day without corruption involved? Perhaps it is 15 round trips but that should still be less than half £1000.
No buses in south east London? Or the ability to walk?
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
You think the parents are going to spend all the extra cash on their kids?
I missed this poll a couple of days ago but assume it got picked up here:
Very very different to others, the biggest yawning gulf being between the Green number here and in other polls.
As both Reform and Green are lower I assume it’s under-sampling (or others are over-sampling) angry anti-status quo voters. It has the Tories within stretching distance of catching up with Reform.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
interesting but I suspect the avantages politically are that it's the beginning of drawing a line between Labour who help the needy and the Tories who do what they've always done. This type of policy is big picture stuff. Getting people to feel well disposed to the brand again and as you suggest relatively cheaply.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
You think the parents are going to spend all the extra cash on their kids?
Some won't, some will. I don't know the ratio- do you?
Asylum seeker taxis heavily restricted. In terms of value for money:
"And on Friday, one subcontractor told the BBC his firm would do up to 15 drop-offs daily from a hotel in south east London to a doctors surgery around two miles away. These journeys alone would cost the Home Office £1,000 a day, he said."
A 2 mile taxi trip in SE London shouldn't be more than £15 and should average less. How is up to 15 of those (so typically less?) costing £1000 a day without corruption involved? Perhaps it is 15 round trips but that should still be less than half £1000.
No buses in south east London? Or the ability to walk?
I'm no Foxy but would guess those seeking medical attention might be unwell. Whether it might be cheaper to bring a doctor to the hotel is another question.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
You think the parents are going to spend all the extra cash on their kids?
I think you should make a little list, like Peter Lilley. Bung in those scroungers who got NHS IVF treatment while you’re at it.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
I am not saying the opposition is fully from the view I'm suggesting but I definitely think that is far more common than those who obsess over lazy single mothers (although that crowd will be louder and more active on social media, phone-ins, or as journalists).
As for what to do about it, I don't have a strong view either way, it is complicated and some kind of compromise feels best.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
You think the parents are going to spend all the extra cash on their kids?
On topic:
"Have they no refuge or resource?" cried Scrooge.
"Are there no Prisons?" said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. "Are there no workhouses?"
The bell struck Twelve.
Scrooge looked about him for the Ghost, and saw it not. As the last stroke ceased to vibrate he remembered the prediction of old Jacob Marley, and lifting up his eyes, beheld a solemn phantom, draped and hooded, corning, like a mist along the ground, towards him.
Tl;dr - welfare not out of control. But large rises in spending on pensioners and disabled have hidden falls in spending on working age people.
And scrapping the triple lock alone doesn't save much on pensions. To do that, you'd need to actually reduce the value of the state pension.
Average earnings growth is currently running about 1% ahead of inflation, so if the lock were to be abolished immediately, we’d save 1% of (i.e. avoid extra costs of) total state pension costs in the first year, probably growing every year thereafter. How is that not a significant amount?
According to the article, pensions linked to earnings growth is in legislation. So scrapping triple lock means we would fall back to that. So it's a comparison between triple lock and that single lock.
I agree that surprised me. Personally the obvious lock one should keep is vs. inflation.
Asylum seeker taxis heavily restricted. In terms of value for money:
"And on Friday, one subcontractor told the BBC his firm would do up to 15 drop-offs daily from a hotel in south east London to a doctors surgery around two miles away. These journeys alone would cost the Home Office £1,000 a day, he said."
A 2 mile taxi trip in SE London shouldn't be more than £15 and should average less. How is up to 15 of those (so typically less?) costing £1000 a day without corruption involved? Perhaps it is 15 round trips but that should still be less than half £1000.
No buses in south east London? Or the ability to walk?
I'm no Foxy but would guess those seeking medical attention might be unwell. Whether it might be cheaper to bring a doctor to the hotel is another question.
15 GP visits per day also suggests quite a big hotel! 1 visit per 100 days per person would get to 1500 people.
Regular reminder: The United States does not have a health care system; it has multiple systems. Among them are two that have some similarities to the British NHS: https://www.va.gov/health/ https://www.ihs.gov/
And a single person in the US can be covered by more than one system; for example, a poor older person might well be covered by both Medicaid and Medicare.
Not complicated enough? There are actually 52 Medicaid systems, one for each state, one for DC, and one for Puerto Rico.
I say this not to defend any of the systems, but to point out that criticisms of one do not necessarily apply to others.
(For the record: I am enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program, through Aetna.)
And a point missing by many PBers is that anyone covered by any single one of those schemes, or a private scheme will have a much better primary health care experience than in the UK. Primary care in the UK is barely above the school nurse in many cases.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
interesting but I suspect the avantages politically are that it's the beginning of drawing a line between Labour who help the needy and the Tories who do what they've always done. This type of policy is big picture stuff. Getting people to feel well disposed to the brand again and as you suggest relatively cheaply.
Labour’s spending too much time chasing the performative nastiness vote elsewhere to really get that help the needy brand back in the near term. People that way inclined have the Greens to park their vote for now. Or indeed the LDs.
A reminder of long standing Lib Dem policy on this issue:
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
You think the parents are going to spend all the extra cash on their kids?
On topic:
"Have they no refuge or resource?" cried Scrooge.
"Are there no Prisons?" said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. "Are there no workhouses?"
The bell struck Twelve.
Scrooge looked about him for the Ghost, and saw it not. As the last stroke ceased to vibrate he remembered the prediction of old Jacob Marley, and lifting up his eyes, beheld a solemn phantom, draped and hooded, corning, like a mist along the ground, towards him.
Sources close to the Spirit deny that he is planning to run for the Conservative leadership.
Tl;dr - welfare not out of control. But large rises in spending on pensioners and disabled have hidden falls in spending on working age people.
And scrapping the triple lock alone doesn't save much on pensions. To do that, you'd need to actually reduce the value of the state pension.
I'm not sure your summary is quite right. It looks as if spending on working-age people is roughly static but the proportion of that which goes on sickness and disability benefits has risen sharply. Whether that is a genuine rise or just category-labelling at the DWP is not clear.
And the common device of plotting against GDP is unhelpful to analysis because neither benefits nor pensions are linked to GDP.
Yes, I was a bit imprecise with language. And I think you're right that many of the disability payments would have been something else under old rules.
"real spending on non-pensioner non-health-related benefits has fallen by £1 billion in real terms since 2019-20 and fell even more dramatically in the six years before. Policies such as the benefit cap, the two-child limit, the ‘bedroom tax’ and a four-year freeze to most working-age non-health benefits meant that, between 2010-11 and 2024-25, working-age households receiving benefits lost an average of £1,500 of their annual income due to permanent changes to the social security system (in 2024-25 prices)."
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
You think the parents are going to spend all the extra cash on their kids?
On topic:
"Have they no refuge or resource?" cried Scrooge.
"Are there no Prisons?" said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. "Are there no workhouses?"
The bell struck Twelve.
Scrooge looked about him for the Ghost, and saw it not. As the last stroke ceased to vibrate he remembered the prediction of old Jacob Marley, and lifting up his eyes, beheld a solemn phantom, draped and hooded, corning, like a mist along the ground, towards him.
Hmm. Parents get free healthcare and education for their kids, plus benefits for the first two (now all) children. It's not exactly Dickensian.
The idea there should be a limit on benefits is something in keeping with the laws of mathematics, not a moral outrage. Repeatedly hiking taxes on the private sector to pump directly into benefits (including pensions) is mathematically unsustainable. But it sure makes Labour's MPs feel good about themselves and decreases the chances of them trying to turf out the Chancellor and PM.
Asylum seeker taxis heavily restricted. In terms of value for money:
"And on Friday, one subcontractor told the BBC his firm would do up to 15 drop-offs daily from a hotel in south east London to a doctors surgery around two miles away. These journeys alone would cost the Home Office £1,000 a day, he said."
A 2 mile taxi trip in SE London shouldn't be more than £15 and should average less. How is up to 15 of those (so typically less?) costing £1000 a day without corruption involved? Perhaps it is 15 round trips but that should still be less than half £1000.
SEND taxis for kids in some parts of the country have similar issues.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
So why even mention the red or assign blame to it. Fabled or otherwise.
Yet the media and the tv news is full of stories of ‘deserving’ parents who claim their lives will be improved. So it’s not all one way traffic.
Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?
Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.
There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.
Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.
The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.
I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.
I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.
Take a chill pill
Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.
The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.
Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality
Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.
Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though
That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.
Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.
The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.
Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.
Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.
That you think my post was “kicking the red wall” is an illustration of the illusion at work. The red wall is a piece of political mythology cooked up by journalists to try to group together vastly different people and communities, because politicos love to categorise. It’s a selection of stereotypes disguised as psephology.
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
I think you misjudge this. The reason the two child cap was popular and removing it isn't is not because of the beneficiaries but because of those who aren't getting it. They have to decide how many children they can afford, and will have a close to hard limit as to what that number is dependent on their budget. For those that can only afford one or two, or in many cases decide none at all, of course it is galling to be required to pay tax to fund other people having more than you. That would still be the case even if the "single mothers" were all supremely hard working and angelic.
The misjudgement is that somehow the beneficiary or otherwise is the parent, not the child. What has the child done to deserve being ignored by the state? For what in the grander scheme of things is peanuts.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
I am not saying the opposition is fully from the view I'm suggesting but I definitely think that is far more common than those who obsess over lazy single mothers (although that crowd will be louder and more active on social media, phone-ins, or as journalists).
As for what to do about it, I don't have a strong view either way, it is complicated and some kind of compromise feels best.
There’s two sides to the debate lazy feckless single moms popping out kids versus the deserving poor on the breadline, as so beloved by the TV news and the likes of BBC and channel 4
Tl;dr - welfare not out of control. But large rises in spending on pensioners and disabled have hidden falls in spending on working age people.
And scrapping the triple lock alone doesn't save much on pensions. To do that, you'd need to actually reduce the value of the state pension.
Average earnings growth is currently running about 1% ahead of inflation, so if the lock were to be abolished immediately, we’d save 1% of (i.e. avoid extra costs of) total state pension costs in the first year, probably growing every year thereafter. How is that not a significant amount?
According to the article, pensions linked to earnings growth is in legislation. So scrapping triple lock means we would fall back to that. So it's a comparison between triple lock and that single lock.
I agree that surprised me. Personally the obvious lock one should keep is vs. inflation.
Isn't that the Statutory Minimum Guarantee, delivered through Pension Credit, rather than the full state pension itself, which prior to the lock was linked to inflation (CPI, I think)?
How the balance of cost falls between these two, I don't know
A very good Any Questions. The audience clearly are a long way from forgiving the Tories! Nonetheless a good panel. The Labour woman was very good indeed and the audience .clearly liked her
What was interesting though was what the panel thought of Kemi's personal comments about Rachel. They didn't like it at all. Neither did Daisy Cooper the Lib Dem. Quite life affirming that there are still nice people around and they aren't Tories!
Comments
It’s not remotely surprising that 60% of people don’t want money spent on third children, because they’ve been fed lazy stories by lazy journalists about lazy single mothers for decades.
Economic incompetence should appeal to fans of Brown's PFI splurging.
As Penelope Keith said so eloquently in my Favorite Parker Pen Ad.....
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Parker+Pen+advert+with+penelope+keith#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:28707aea,vid:spTqlpekjmg,st:0
Asylum seeker taxis heavily restricted. In terms of value for money:
"And on Friday, one subcontractor told the BBC his firm would do up to 15 drop-offs daily from a hotel in south east London to a doctors surgery around two miles away. These journeys alone would cost the Home Office £1,000 a day, he said."
A 2 mile taxi trip in SE London shouldn't be more than £15 and should average less. How is up to 15 of those (so typically less?) costing £1000 a day without corruption involved? Perhaps it is 15 round trips but that should still be less than half £1000.
That's all that matters.
I'm sure there are households with an expensive number of children, due either to fecklessness or a deliberately excessive amount of fecking.
There are also households with three or more children who were affordable at the time, but then something unfortunate happened.
Is it really right to harm the second category because you want to discourage the first? Is it really right to harm the children in the first category (who had no say in the matter) because you want to discourage parental irresponsibility? Really?
And no, it's not fair. There is a robust strand of right wing thinking that accepts that life isn't fair. But if you are a UK taxpayer in 2025, most of that unfairness has rolled in your favour, so better to be grateful.
It is a difficult question, with no fully satisfactory answer. I would opt for a sliding scale along the lines of 100% first child, 80% second, 60% third, 40% fourth, 20% fifth.
And it also reflects decades old Malthusian thinking in an era when one of our biggest long term challenges is demographics. The primary reason we’re paying more tax these days is to fund health and social care for the elderly.
It’s one of the things that makes the thing quaintly old-school Tory, in an era where the new hard right is all into pro-natal policies. To counterbalance the extremely expensive ageing population at the other end of the spectrum you need more children.
I’d be interested to see the cross breaks. I very much doubt the opposition to the measure is coming from working age parents of 2 or fewer children (like me), which is what your post states as incontrovertible fact.
A loathsome star, with Trump in the sequel. Right...
Very very different to others, the biggest yawning gulf being between the Green number here and in other polls.
As both Reform and Green are lower I assume it’s under-sampling (or others are over-sampling) angry anti-status quo voters. It has the Tories within stretching distance of catching up with Reform.
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 28% (-2)
LAB: 20% (-1)
CON: 20% (+1)
LDM: 13% (=)
GRN: 10% (+1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @focaldataHQ, 18-21 Nov.
Changes w/ 8-17 Oct.
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1993599152085741800?s=46
LLG 43, RefCon 48
There is hope in the 5% who recognise the genius of A Muppet Christmas Carol.
As for what to do about it, I don't have a strong view either way, it is complicated and some kind of compromise feels best.
"Have they no refuge or resource?" cried Scrooge.
"Are there no Prisons?" said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. "Are there no workhouses?"
The bell struck Twelve.
Scrooge looked about him for the Ghost, and saw it not. As the last stroke ceased to vibrate he remembered the prediction of old Jacob Marley, and lifting up his eyes, beheld a solemn phantom, draped and hooded, corning, like a mist along the ground, towards him.
I agree that surprised me. Personally the obvious lock one should keep is vs. inflation.
NEW THREAD
A reminder of long standing Lib Dem policy on this issue:
https://www.libdems.org.uk/press/release/over-15-million-children-impacted-by-cruel-child-benefit-cap
"real spending on non-pensioner non-health-related benefits has fallen by £1 billion in real terms since 2019-20 and fell even more dramatically in the six years before. Policies such as the benefit cap, the two-child limit, the ‘bedroom tax’ and a four-year freeze to most working-age non-health benefits meant that, between 2010-11 and 2024-25, working-age households receiving benefits lost an average of £1,500 of their annual income due to permanent changes to the social security system (in 2024-25 prices)."
The idea there should be a limit on benefits is something in keeping with the laws of mathematics, not a moral outrage. Repeatedly hiking taxes on the private sector to pump directly into benefits (including pensions) is mathematically unsustainable. But it sure makes Labour's MPs feel good about themselves and decreases the chances of them trying to turf out the Chancellor and PM.
Yet the media and the tv news is full of stories of ‘deserving’ parents who claim their lives will be improved. So it’s not all one way traffic.
How the balance of cost falls between these two, I don't know
What was interesting though was what the panel thought of Kemi's personal comments about Rachel. They didn't like it at all. Neither did Daisy Cooper the Lib Dem. Quite life affirming that there are still nice people around and they aren't Tories!