That Starmer fella...

Why does it seem reasonable, exactly?

You can rationalise it as “People should be more responsible when planning their families” but the ultimate impact is children growing up in poverty. Do children deserve to grow up in poverty for any reason, let alone so we can punish their parents for their lack of foresight?

People should be more responsible when planning their families

Yes, this, essentially. It probably doesn't really stand up to scrutiny

punish their parents for their lack of foresight?

Let them eat children...

It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Effectively the two child limit is saying that children should be punished for the actions of their parents. Because that’s who is suffering here: kids. Innocent kids, who did nothing except be born into poor families that stepped over an arbitrary limit set by a government that hates poor people and that hates children. And it’s not just the third child who suffers, but the first and second children too.

And the fun thing? It doesn’t even save much money!

Abolishing the cap would cost £1.3bn a year but would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 would be in less deep poverty.

It’s mostly sadism from a cunt government who knows they can can get away with this shit because the press lap it up, and it can easily be sold to people as “reasonable policy”.

You are Jonathan Swift AICMFP

Sir Kid Starver still trending on Twitter two days later and the R4 news leading this morning with the outcry from his back benches and shadow cabinet as they all view what he said as a commitment to retain the policy. Defend it if you want but that is fumbled Comms at best

Interesting interview with Tom Baldwin on News Agents about Starmer.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But it reminded me of listening to a lecture years ago where the academic made the point that you have a tricky circularity to benefits to help children.

If you want money to go towards kids, then helping their parents has the biggest impact.

sold to people as “reasonable policy”.

Well it taps into a natural feeling of fairness.

To use a personal anecdote; I know somone with 4 kids by an absolute waste who's been in and out of jail the whole time. One of their school friends was moaning a bit (not massively) about how they have to spunk a fortune on things like nursery for their two kids and their mortgage, work, etc. whereas the friend with 4 kids gets whatever for free. They weren't so tone deaf or heartless that they thought it was wrong or should be redressed. But it was that sense of one person "doing the right thing" to sub someone else's shit decisions.

I think that's why it's important to make sure the discussion always goes back to the impact on children. It's much easier to make comparative judgements on other adults. Whereas if the topic can always be brought back to focus on the outcome for children people can relate.

Abolishing the cap would cost £1.3bn a year but would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 would be in less deep poverty.

This sounds perfectly reasonable

Sir Kid Starver still trending on Twitter two days later

I wouldn't put any weight on this. What you have as trending on your twitter is pretty personalised. I haven't seen that trending at all in the past few days.

Susanna Reid quoted the phrase on GMB too.

I always thought trending was the same for everyone and trending for you was tailored to the individual but might be wrong

My general trending gets filled with football on a Saturday and I don't follow anything football related, same with love island etc.

outcry from his back benches and shadow cabinet

Who are the shad cab members who've spoken out against this? I've been looking and nothing.

They used the textbook "they have spoken to us off the record"

After the recent briefing against Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner it's hardly surprising.

Maybe I'm naive but I wouldn't think the BBC would make up off the record positions where as I wouldn't be surprised with print media but maybe that's just me not realising my bias

This claims the front bench are all happy now although mentions yesterday they reported some of the front bench were unhappy
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/keir-starmer-wins-shadow-cabinet-131454160.html

No, you're biases are well founded.

wafc

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/22/labour-considers-stance-on-green-issues-after-ulez-linked-uxbridge-lost

The silence on this thread is deafening after Thursday, him shifting further to the right and pro pollution stance, not least causing a new very public rift in the party at the moment where Labour needs to be strong and consistent.

Imagine making Khan out to be some kind of radical. Guy’s the most milquetoast of centrists and that’s too much for Starmer.

ULEZ is central govt policy, and - even tho it is a good policy - labour can’t help but try to disown it by pinning it on their own mayor. These people are fucking idiots.

Starmer should be pinning ULEZ in Grant Shapps, from his time as Transport Secretary.

Starmer should be telling anyone who listens ULEZ is the absolute bare minimum if we’re serious about even beginning to attempt to address climate change.

Indeed