That Starmer fella...

see the post directly above yours, put more eloquently then I ever could

Standard SNP operating procedure. Deflecting from their shit corrupt party and leadership. It's core to their very being and goes hand-in-hand with their brand of petty cake-and-eat-it nationalism.

You don't need to understand the intricacies of parliamentary procedure to understand this basic rule:
SNP amendment = political move to gain/maintain power

I'm amazed so many people fall for it every time.

The only reason that Starmer and Reeves have now announced they are thinking about lifting the cap is because of a growing rebellion in the ranks.

I don't think you can make that statement. I've heard pundits repeating mutterings about this ever since Starmer & Co. have been using the phrase "no plans" in relation to 2Cap. That phrase alone tells you that from the get-go they've tried to keep the option open without risking the 60% of voters who support it.

To me it sounds like a neat way to generate findings in favour of reducing it to be followed by "no we didn't have plans but this review has shown x, y, z, and on the basis of that we will....."

(like everyone else I'm opposed to the cap and think they need to lift it. If in 2yrs time it's still here I'll happily say I'm a mug)

I don't know which post you mean. Your own? And the second part of your sentence is you being funny?

Absolutely no need for the whip to be removed for 6 months, and it wasn't something that they were aware would happen according to Zarah Sultana (or at least she wasn't).

As someone who hasn't really followed it in that much detail I would assume (but no idea if it is true) that voting against the king's speech would result in some kind of disciplinary action but I don't know whether it is commonly voted against or what happens if it is.

didn't under Blair (boke)

I meant the post directly above yours?

https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17465392/

Give up trying to embed gif...

Enjoying the grown ups arguing like children and blaming the big boy who ran away.

'Starmer has a dangerously authoritarian streak' vs 'there was absolutely no way for rebels to know they'd have the whip suspended'

Pick one.

The only reason that Starmer and Reeves have now announced they are thinking about lifting the cap is because of a growing rebellion in the ranks.

They've been deliberately vague on it for ages with lots of informed people suggesting they expect it to be lifted at some point.

Ah I couldn't see that comment.

Isn't this conflating two things though?

1. Was it smart for the rebels to do this
   
2. Was it smart for starmer to react like this.
   
   

Possible the answer to both is "no", but they aren't the same question

neither were things i posted though were they?

What I said was I think there's an authoritarian streak/vibe/whatever and that Zarah Sultana said she wasn't informed beforehand that the whip would be suspended.

One is a thought i had, the other is something someone else said. These are different things and both can be true.

@andyp the idea that Tru Labour will ever reverse the 2Ben cap is patent nonsense. No way will there ever be the fiscal headroom in Reeve's head.

It'll be reversed inside of a year.

Possible the answer to both is "no", but they aren't the same question

Also the possible answer to both is "yes".

One group gets to show their down for the cause. The other gets to swing the ban-hammer.

Sounds more like a win-win to me.

A small wager might be in order.. £50 to a favourite charidee?

I'm in.

Roll on July 24th, 2025.

^^ Lot's of people advocating for the hope and pray strategy here.

Another strategy is to work behind the scenes and to try and quietly push the government into action.

Yet another strategy is to rebel, or threaten to rebel.

I'm guessing most effective for forcing action is some combination of the last two.

feel you on this, just such non issue stuff that a strong party, a strong leader, would glaze over or exert control over in a more savvy manner.

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1816094045887697006

aspana begum speaking out highlights the position they're coming at mps with this sort of stuff, weaponising support for her driving anti domestic abuse policy as whip leverage? smacks more of a party worried of keeping the wheels on than a party in control.

starmers surrounded himself with weird people, with weird ideas, and weird sensibilities. it'll be a long 5 years for a party on fag paper marginals.

I would have thought that a party of the left would be committed to ending child poverty as an immediate priority. Why do Starmer and Reeves propose a review
of child poverty? Surely this should have been done in opposition?
Again, I feel this is down to the Labour hierarchy accepting the Tories' fiscal rules. Starmer and Reeves seem to be pinning all their hopes on economic growth which in effect means that difficult decisions can be deferred because wealth just may trickle downwards. Meanwhile, rising inequality affects us all.
Money is a dynamic process the more the wealthy have the less those at the bottom possess.

My (very limited) understanding is they want to remove ALL poverty and want to work out the best process to achieve as close to this as possible. If you can lift entire families out of poverty you've achieved the same thing without just (explicitly saying JUST here) removing a single benefit cap.

Not saying it will work or that I'm advocating any position but that's my understanding of the labour position.

You can't do a proper review without all the numbers and the civil service giving you all the data interpretations. That's basic government in this country that only the government has all the info/data.

Voting for the SNP motion feels like Showboating to me. What have they achieved by doing this?

Other than greatly reducing any influnce they might of had on the decision. To rebel so early on feels like a waste to me.

Is Denis on here?

https://x.com/denismacshane/status/1816359783261163651?s=46

Rebelling early gives you an immediate talking point when you'd otherwise be irrelevant.

Doing it now allows you to be brought back in, which both gives a second talking point down the line, as well as more time back in the party before the next election. That way you get max use of the party machine for your re-election.

You're not going to get coverage for just sitting on the sidelines watching the government initiate a general poverty review.

Only Politicos like us are going to notice, this Parliamentary stuff dosen't have any cut through to Jo Voter.

You think they're going to be let back in?See Diane Abbott. Who was only let back in as a damage limitation exercise durning a General Election campaign.

They are now out of the PLP with no influnce and in some sections seen as an ememy not a friend. Any ability to quitely organise a lobbying campagn to pressure ministers when this comes up in a Welfare Bill, or fiscal statement of some sort, now gone. Not a smart move IMP