UK Election!

No, they’ve said it isn’t happening yet because it isn’t funded and they need to wait until there’s money to do it. What’s the process for deciding if there’s money to do it?

It’s total rubbish. The government doesn’t save money.  It issues via consolidated fund at the BoE – the government’s current account.

They don’t need to wait for anything. The state is self-financing. You know money has to originate from the the only place it legally can.

Do you think in the GFC or COVID they waited for money to appear or just instructed the BoE as they do day in day out to issue the money needed?

For anyone who wants the details here is the most comprehensive paper for the entire process of government financing and spending process.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683

We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund. The Bank of England then debits the Consolidated Fund’s account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank; a practice mandated in law. 

No “child poverty taskforce” is needed. 

Well it clearly is, the benefit cap is only a small part of it.  Guessing the task forces early advice would be to remove the cap! but then work on the many other things that need addressing g in relation to child poverty.

So get Taskforce started next week, insist on them coming up with high level assessment within another week, start work on removing cap in week 3.

Await cries of “you can’t do things that fast” – you can if you want to.

Is needed to remove the two child limit.

Yes look at the overall picture but why leave children in hunger and poverty longer than needed?

Starmer and Reeves have already been told by experts that removing the two child cap is an essential step.  They know this.  they have refused to do it.

@poopscoop https://www.piesbypost.co.uk/

Rone, we know, you have mentioned it before and I referred to increased borrowing in one of my earlier posts. But even then, if they did decide that to fund more stuff they were going to create more money, there’d still need to be a process to decide how much more and what that was funding – unless we’re now proposing endless more money to do everything.

And TJ, like I said IDK why this wasn’t a manifesto or KS commitment and already ringfenced as other stuff is. But ‘because the experts say it’s essential’ isn’t the answer; other experts are also saying other stuff is equally essential, some could argue more so, and that doesn’t yet have firm funding commitments either. I’ve given some specific examples from my own area, to illustrate.

There’s a process – it’s called a SR – where all ‘the experts’ provide their expert advice about their area of expertise, to detail what they need to spend and why it is essential to spend it. This goes into the various departments, who prioritise their own asks and provide that to treasury, who then decide what to give where on the basis of having the full picture of everything that experts say is essential.

Then the Gov prioritises and announces, including – who knows –  deciding that in order to do more stuff they need to conjure up some more money.

THAT. IS. WHAT. WILL. HAPPEN

So you agree that its a political choice not to take this one simple and cheap policy to reduce child poverty?

This SR process is only needed for some issues but not for others?  There is no logic to that at all particularly when the expert view is already public knowledge for the two child benefit cap

So we are getting down to the nub now.  for some weird reason Starmer and Reeves have made a political choice that reducing child poverty is not a priority.

So you agree that its a political choice not to take this one simple and cheap policy to reduce child poverty?

Not exactly. It’s a decision it isn’t in their ringfenced manifesto or KS commitments; it may well be funded in the SR or poss even earlier on the back of the Poverty task force work. There has not been a decision to NOT fund it, only not fund it YET while reviews are taking place. You say that’s to kick it down the road and hope it goes away, or that labour figures have given strong messages that it isn’t going to be funded, or whatever, I disagree with you – and I don’t think either of us will convince the other until a final decision is made.

This SR process is only needed for some issues but not for others?  There is no logic to that at all particularly when the expert view is already public knowledge for the two child benefit cap

Correct – they can as above choose to ringfence some (in their mind) essentials, and why this wasn’t one of them IDK. That’s a fair criticism

So we are getting down to the nub now.  for some weird reason Starmer and Reeves have made a political choice that reducing child poverty is not a priority.

As above answers. Not their #1 cast iron ring-fenced priority. I can’t answer or defend their minds on this. All I can (continue to) do is refute that because it’s not in the KS that means it isn’t happening. If that’s the benchmark some ‘way more important and yet way cheaper’ stuff also isn’t. But thankfully that’s not the benchmark and not the process.

OK, I’m out on this, I can’t be any clearer and the o/s questions you keep asking about what SKS and RR really think, I don’t have answers to.

So you agree that its a political choice

Of course it is a political choice, what else could it be?

And obviously it isn’t the highest issue on the list of priorities. I don’t know the thinking behind that but Starmer capitulated under pressure from Rachel Reeves.

I suspect that Reeve’s motivation when she was Shadow Chancellor was to appear to be like a Tory Chancellor backing tough fiscal policies so not to scare Tory voters.

One of Labour’s main tactics when in opposition was, apart from doing very little and sitting back and watching the Tories repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot, to do everything possible to placate Tory voters.

Edit: To be fair on reflection it was actually quite a powerful and convincing argument…….“Labour are so committed to fiscal prudence that we won’t even scrap the child benefit cap until the economy is in a better shape. Yes that’s right, a Labour government, won’t put child poverty at the top of their priority list….. how much like the Tories are we? Please vote for us”

Statham has also criticised Starmer’s economic caution

I loved The Transporter but all the same I trust Starmer on the economy more

I remain hopeful that Starmer wants to scrap the cap (hey a natty three word slogan) but it clearly isn’t something that is so important to him above all else.

We knew what we were getting so no real surprises.

Talking of struggling with larger families… good to see free breakfasts for primary school kids in the King’s Speech. It’s what they said they’d do… and of course the pressure will be on to do more in future (Hello Sadiq Khan!)…. but the “Children’s Wellbeing Bill” looks like a good start.

King’s Speech 2024: What’s in it for schools?

Priorities, dear boy, priorities.

Obviously we’d all like the two child limit to have been announced. Apart from the benefit to those affected, it’s a quick and popular easy win for a couple of days good headlines.

But, to use jonv’s example, if the immediate choice is starting to lift 1.5 million kids out of poverty, or making sure the power grid stays operational, failure of which moves the entire population of 65 million back about 150 years, then those are the tough and unpopular calls I’d expect a competent government to make.

 if the immediate choice is starting to lift 1.5 million kids out of poverty, or making sure the power grid stays operational, failure of which moves the entire population of 65 million back about 150 years, then those are the tough and unpopular calls I’d expect a competent government to make.

You realise you can do both of those things at the same time don’t you?

I think some people view the UK as some poor third world country, not one of the richest nations on earth and a G7 member

Jonv – to be clear I didn’t ask about process at all as its clearly irrelevant.

some policies are in the kings speech and fully funded.  Ending the two child cap is not.  Thats a political decision not a process based one.

I asked those who refuse to criticise  labour to justify this.  thats all.  You seem to agree it cannot be justified

The taskforce is clearly an exercise in can kicking IMO

I asked those who refuse to criticise  labour to justify this.

And the potential justification has been provided several times, they are new in government, they are potentially reviewing this with the actual departments involved, the taskforce will be assisting in this as well, so in a few weeks/months if there’s still no movement, then there will criticism.

You realise you can do both of those things at the same time don’t you?

Yes. You do realise that was just an example? And that there’s hundreds, thousands of other items that also need prioritising and which the experts are all saying are essential?

Even the no brainers are actually ‘brainers’. Is it essential this is done all at once or can we phase it in? What risk are we at if we stage the development, do we need a multi-year commitment or could we agree to a year and review? It’s not catalogue shopping, that’s the huge amount of work ongoing now developing outline business cases and refining options, etc. And negotiating and convincing and refining again.

Take the 2CBC – ‘everyone’s’ convinced that it needs lifting. But to what? No cap at all? What about a 3CBC, does that resolve most of the issues for less money? What about no cap but each child >2 gets a benefit but at a lower level for each increase in N? What would each option cost and what problem would it solve?

If only there was some sort of systematic approach to gathering the information and reviewing them all together and making sensible choices about what to fund and to what level.

Jonv – to be clear I didn’t ask about process at all as its clearly irrelevant.

It’s not. You were saying that because it’s not in the KS then it isn’t going to be funded. I’m pointing out the process to justify calling that as false – because it’s not in the KS all you can read is that no decision has been made yet.

You seem to agree it cannot be justified

No, I’m saying I’m surprised it wasn’t and IMHO it is a mistake. But i don’t know the minds of SKS and RR and what they would argue is the justification, so i can’t say whether it is justified or not beyond the hundreds of words i already wrote.

Aregee – thats not a justification.  some policies are going ahead fully funded and costed.  this one is not.  why?

To say it might be done later is not a justification for not doing it now.

And the potential justification has been provided several times, they are new in government

LOL how the hell is that a “justification”…… we’ve just be elected to government so we can’t do stuff!

The only “justification” that has been provided is that it is not a very high priority issue. TJ doesn’t appear to be accepting that, I don’t know why. Perhaps he has a misplaced belief that Starmer’s Labour Party has higher moral standards than the Tories?

I think Starmer wants to present Labour as more competent than the Tories but still fundamentally conservative. Which is why when in opposition he tried to present himself as the real true conservative and claimed that the Tories could no longer claim to be conservatives.

Personally I am convinced that Labour will scrap the cap no later than the next budget. Basically for two reasons, firstly opposition is too great and Labour now have to look over their shoulders at the threat from the LibDems, Greens, independents, etc.

And secondly because the ploy of blaming the Tories for retaining the cap as the result of the state of the economy, as Cameron and Clegg successfully blamed the previous Labour government for austerity, doesn’t seem to be working.

You were saying that because it’s not in the KS then it isn’t going to be funded.

Errmmm – I did not.  The decision not to lift the two child cap immediately has been made.  Thats a statement of fact.  I do not believe it will be lifted within a year if at all.  Multiple statements from Starmer and the rest have said – its not included in the kings speech because its not been funded

Anyway we are only fractionally apart on this in reality.  🙂  You accept its a mistake.

You can’t say there is no justification. You can only say you disagree with it.

They could say they aren’t funding anything that has ‘Two’ in the title….and therefore the 2CBC is excluded. It’s a shit justification that you can argue against but it’s still ‘justified.’

(OK, to be pedantic you can say that isn’t a justification, it’s a reason – their justification will have some ‘reasonable’ basis even if IDK what it is and on the face of it disagree)

 this one is not.  why?

Reeves and Starmer have said that they’d rather have a situation where folks can earn sufficient money in wages so that they’re not so reliant on benefits to top them up, and that would be their plan, so that the number of children on the benefit becomes less of an issue As a plan it has its flaws, but you can see the thinking at least. That it may not withstand pressure to reverse the decision is probably what they’re looking at now. As I’ve said, I don’t think you’d be able to find any Labour MP (Reeves and Starmer included) who think that the 2 child cap is ‘a good thing’

Personally I am convinced that Labour will scrap the cap no later than the next budget. Basically for two reasons,

And thirdly, that they all want to do it.

But i don’t know the minds of SKS and RR and what they would argue is the justification

Why not, don’t you follow the news/current affairs?

Starmer and Reeves have made it crystal clear what their justification for retaining the cap is. They have said scrapping it is unaffordable due to the state of the economy that the Tories have left them.

Even though the economy has often been in a worse place than it is now and a cap on child benefit did not exist.

Priorities dear boy, priorities.

And thirdly, that they all want to do it.

No they don’t “all want to do it”. As TJ has already pointed out if they did it would have been in the King’s speech.

They are keeping the cap because they want to keep it, no one is holding a gun to Starmer’s head.

They will scrap it just as soon as they want to. How long it will take before they want to will probably depend on how much pressure they are under

they’d rather have a situation where folks can earn sufficient money in wages so that they’re not so reliant on benefits to top them up

Also, child focused services are currently a ######## wreck. A LOT of money needs to go into schools and child health (outside the NHS) and other services ASAP. The poor quality of these services affect those families struggling financially (and also children without families supporting them at all) far more than everyone else. Any extra money going to these services, and the state directly helping the children who need help most, is seen by many who deal day to day with child welfare as a priority even above the level of benefits that larger families receive.

seen by many who deal day to day with child welfare as a priority even above the level of benefits that larger families receive.

And yet organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group and Action for Children are very strongly calling for the cap to be scrapped immediately.

Apparently nothing would have a more dramatic impact on reducing child poverty than scrapping the cap.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/campaigners-demand-labour-scrap-cruel-two-child-benefit-cap-as-thousands-more-affected_uk_668fa447e4b0fb74416705eb

“The PM came to office pledging a bold, ambitious child poverty-reduction plan and there’s no way to deliver on that promise without scrapping the two-child limit, and fast.”

“Child poverty puts enormous pressure on public services and makes it much more difficult for those children to fulfil their potential. Ultimately, the cost of the two-child limit is far greater than the money it saves”.

I think some people view the UK as some poor third world country, not one of the richest nations on earth and a G7 member

Yet it’s been governed in the manner of the former, not the latter for the last 14 years, particularly the last 8, hence the level of the problems that now need urgently addressing.

If you look at how post-Brexit Britain is viewed by the rest of the world, the phrase Banana Republic comes up a lot

Speaking of which, today the huge mission starts to try and undo some of the Brexit damage and rebuild the shattered relationships with our nearest neighbours and largest trading partners after 8 years of flag-shagging, foot-shooting insanity.

It’ll be very much just a change of mood music at this point, but it’s a start

European security is at the forefront of my government’s foreign and defence priorities.

We will only be able to secure our borders, drive economic growth and defend our democracies if we work together.

It’s time to reset our relationship with Europe.

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 18, 2024

I think some people view the UK as some poor third world country, not one of the richest nations on earth and a G7 member

Yet it’s been governed in the manner of the former,

Absolutely! That is EXACTLY my point!

Yet you’re prioritising a relatively minor issue,which effects  a relatively small amount of people (345,000 families) over preventing some pretty critical parts of this countries infrastructure from collapsing completely.

And if you look at something like the prison service, the court system, the care sector, or children’s mental health services then it’s not hyperbole to use phrases like ‘complete collapse’. We’re already there.

Which do you think should take priority? Well… you and the usual suspects have already answered that

We all knew that reality would dictate some brutal choices and that there simply isn’t the time or bandwidth to fix it all immediately, no matter what your intentions.

A bit more patience is required that we’re not living in a utopia within 2 weeks. They’re dealing with the aftermath of 14 years of state-sponsored vandalism to the very heart of our public services and welfare system. Not to mention the near destruction of this countries international reputation (with subsequent investment decisions), which the work on repairing start today

Seems pretty obvious to me that the two child benefit cap will not be abolished until it’s politically advantageous for Starmer and Reeves to get rid of it. It’s a simple political choice, and obviously there’s no reason they can’t get rid of it tomorrow if they wanted. As far as Starmer and Reeves are concerned, child poverty is a price worth paying to stop right wing critics from claiming that Labour are the party of benefits scroungers and layabouts.

Which do you think should take priority? Well… you and the usual suspects have already answered that

Well you and the usual centrist suspects don’t think that child poverty should be very high on the list of priorities… what a surprise!

And I agree……I don’t think anyone needed to ask the question

Take the 2CBC – ‘everyone’s’ convinced that it needs lifting. But to what? No cap at all? What about a 3CBC, does that resolve most of the issues for less money? What about no cap but each child >2 gets a benefit but at a lower level for each increase in N? What would each option cost and what problem would it solve?

You know what it was like before it existed, that.  Done, next item please.

Ok chaps – this has now been done totally to death.  I made my point

How about this?  I tried yesterday – I find this really interesting

Keir Starmer has drafted into government two leftwing critics of his stance on benefits and green investment, as the prime minister faces pressure to drop Labour’s cautious approach to reviving the economy.

Statham has also criticised Starmer’s economic caution, and argued as recently as last month that his failure to prioritise scrapping the two-child limit on benefits would ensure Labour was making a “plan for substantial increases in child poverty” over the next five years.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/17/keir-starmer-appoints-two-influential-leftwing-critics-to-government

He might actually be quite good at this technocratic stuff – and not surrounding himself with folk who only say yes

Just needs to ditch Streeting and Cooper now. 🙂

This almost feels to me like Starmer is pushing leftish against the right wingers in his cabinet – there have been a  few appointments like this

So, to summarise:

Everyone who doesn’t agree with my particular set of priorities and my own personal solutions to those issues is a heartless Tory bastard who positively revels in seeing kids starve!

Does that pretty much cover it?

Pretty much.

We all knew that reality would dictate some brutal choices and that there simply isn’t the time or bandwidth to fix it all immediately, no matter what your intentions.

Sorry binners but that’s total bollocks. They could get rid of it tomorrow. It doesn’t require any real effort or legislation, it just needs a decision and some civil servants in the treasury to reinstate the payment mechanisms which were in place before it was abolished. At the very least they could announce their intention to get rid of it in the next budget. It’s got nothing to do with practicalities of implementation or other priorities, and everything to do with political expediency. And that’s the generous interpretation, the less generous one is that they don’t believe it’s necessary and it’s not their job to protect children from poverty.

Does that pretty much cover it?

Nailed it, also noting that they continually state how Starmer got less votes than Corbyn, so by virtue it means more of the UK population are not to the left and of that thinking ?

Aren’t we all Tories now, for voting Labour (or LibDem)… or something?

So many welcome bills announced yesterday, with so much in them… all of them according to “the plan” that the actual Tories said didn’t exist (despite being published and announced for all to read or listen to before we got to cast our votes).