That Starmer fella...

Wes Streeting should be the first for the chop. Utter cunt

Literal kid starver

Just in case anyone else hasn't bothered reading the story, this was a King's Speech debate - it wasn't about changing the law, it wasn't about anything that would've made a difference to people's lives. It was the government saying 'this is what we will do in this Parliament' and an opposition party with 9 MPs saying 'we'd do this instead'.

Labour is now a party of government, and no government would tolerate its own MPs voting for another parties policies over its own. That goes double for a King's Speech debate on the policy intent those MPs were elected on. King's Speech votes are de facto confidence motions.

These MPs chose to stand on our manifesto. They then voted to destabilise it. It's a very clear fuck around/find out situation.

here he is

💃

1 Attachment

Child poverty diminishes us all. Why accept the Tories' fiscal rules? These rules are developed in the Treasury and Bank of England as a self imposed discipline that the markets will accept as boosting confidence or whatever that is as a means of limiting expenditure on social spending. The Tories worked out a long time ago that if you want to make people wealthier - give them money! A pity Labour can't bring itself to follow the Tories logic and improve the lives of those struggling. A good way to do this is to end the benefits cap on family. Hats off to the SNP for recognising this and exploiting a fault line in Labour's stance. Party politics be damned - do the right thing.

Would you like to explain to me the legislative mechanism through which this cap would've been lifted had the amendment passed?

here he is

Like clockwork.

taps sign

1 Attachment

i'd imagine it's the same legislative method as the other things they were in the house voting on in the kings speech, otherwise, why put anything in it at all?

kids going hungry but i'm sure they'll feel fuller eating some real politik handwringing

If you were better informed you'd be more capable of disagreeing with me on the substance, instead of attacking me personally.

i'd imagine it's the same legislative method as the other things they were in the house voting on in the kings speech, otherwise, why put anything in it at all?

This is what the SNP is relying on - people who aren't familiar with parliamentary process assuming that if the amendment passed, the cap would be removed. That's not how it works. If the amendment passed, it would amount to parliament saying they have no confidence in the government and their ability to pass their manifesto as set out in the King's / Queens speech. Most likely outcome based on precedent: government collapses and we go back to the country for another election.

This was a bit of SNP mischief making. McDonnell et al decided to go along with it - with predictable consequences.

Like most on the left, it’s mainly about the performative action rather than engaging with the realities of the issue.

McDonnell, Long-Bailey et al knowingly walked into the trap set by the SNP because being rebels matters more to them than actually influencing policy change.

kids going hungry but i'm sure they'll feel
fuller eating some real politik handwringing

nail. head

describing your repeated actions isn't an attack of your personality, sound like jon ashworth

maybe just don't keep the fucking cap in the first place then eh? ffs it's not complicated

ouch

yummy, feel fuller already!

The cap will go, and relatively soon, but how its removal is paid for needs to be worked out first.

It is kind of dumb if you want the cap to be lifted to take this amendment. If the rebels turn it into a sticking point it's harder, not easier, for Starmer to then adopt this as a policy later (something he'd said he is considering - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/22/two-child-benefit-cap-education-secretary-bridget-phillipson-poverty)

McDonnell, Long-Bailey et al knowingly walked into the trap set by the SNP because being rebels matters more to them than actually influencing policy change.

Regardless of their intentions, I doubt McDonnell 'walked into a trap'. He's a very seasoned politician, regardless of what one might think of his politics.

Sure, the left were using the vote t0 have a dig at the leadership - but it's also one of the only ways they can express their position in a party which has stifled internal democracy. Chris Mason reports that Blair had a bigger rebellion to his first Kings Speech (for which no whips were removed).

Anyway, the whole thing gave McDonnell the opportunity to whip out this cracker "I don't like voting for other parties' amendments, but I'm following Keir Starmer's example as he said put country before party"

The irony of the whole thing is despite the whole changed party/anti-left narrative, the leadership are enforcing discipline like the very best/worst 20th century communist parties.

he's said a lot of things tbh, doesn't mean shit

describing your repeated actions isn't an attack of your personality, sound like jon ashworth

I disagree with you on many things, but I do my best not to attack you personally, and instead try to describe what I think and why I think it. Sometimes I don't even do that because I know it can be upsetting, and I don't want to upset anyone. I just like talking politics.

If this is going to become a thread where it's more about playing the man than the ball, I'm happy to respond in kind, but I don't think you'd like it very much.

Country before party. but only when it suits the party.

have been concerned for a while about Starmer's authoritarian streak and this just adds to that tbh.

I don’t recall much hand wringing when Corbyn’s allies were purging MPs they didn’t like.