Keir Starmer

The issue on which you take your 'principled stand' is irrelevant. Voting against your own party's King's Speech is one of the few 3-line whips that are considered confidence matters. They knew the consequences, and they did their performative gesture regardless.

Ironically, my gut feel is that the policy on the 2-child cap will have changed before they regain the whip (although personally, I'll be quite happy if they never do have it restored). Looking forward to seeing how stupid they look when that happens.

 

If people can't afford to have kids don't. When you have a child it's your responsibility. Why should dave down the road who's never had kids be paying towards someone's 5th child.

 

Woke up this morning feeling fine whoah, oh, oh , oh, Torylite...that's right.

 

You're wrong. The issue absolutely does matter and there was no constitutional rule which meant the whip had to be removed. You could argue that was performative of Starmer could you not?

This Labour party have needed reminding that vague promises of economic growth aren't an urgent enough fix to the child poverty epidemic in the UK.

The dissenters have put this policy front and centre of public discourse, which might well as you say speed up the cap's dissolution.

 

But is the child's fault that they shouldn't have been so irresponsible as to be born?

 

Those seven MPs campaigned on the policy they’ve just voted against. They expected no less than suspension. Starmer is showing more backbone than the five Tory ‘shysters’ we’ve had since 2010.

 

The very fact we have a "party line" or a whip to follow is a testament to how demented and twisted our political system is. MP's are there to represent their constituents and their interests, not act as a tally mark for the whims of the Party Leader. So when it suits, the MP's are expected to disregard their constituents feelings and wishes, abandoning their own beliefs and feelings on a matter and simply fall in line to the will of the Leader. That's not democracy, its akin to stacking the deck.

How can anyone think that this is acceptable, or even right?

 

Not disputing the other points, but its "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine". Calling it "the Ukraine" is using the Russian name for it during Soviet times and relegates the autonomy of the country.

 

Because you cannot guarantee that you can continue to afford a child for the 18 years or so after it is born. I've seen far too many people widowed, retired early through sickness or injury, or made redundant and unable to find equally paid employment while raising kids and I suspect that you have too.

Ultimately it punishes the child for events that are outside of the control of that child.

 

You seem to be suggesting a "free-for-all", rather than a programme for government. The winning party has to govern.

 

The Government will have an alternative strategy to address the issue. I suspect that strategy may be of more benefit to +2 families than scrapping the current system.

 

We can always find money to fund wars around the world can't we' if only we showed as much enthusiasm for saving lives as we do for taking lives.

 

If we don't, we'll need all these extra children for conscription in a few years time

 

If you want a big family fine but it's your decision and should be your responsibility to support.

 

The only mandate that any of these MPs hold is the Labour Manifesto they were happy to be elected behind. If they were unhappy about that, they could have taken a principled stand pre-election, resigned the whip and stood as an independent, which none of them did.

Voting to oppose that manifesto (as the King's Speech is the first process of bringing the manifesto policies into law) 3 weeks after the election is each of those MPs effectively turning around to their constituents and stating that they had no intention of supporting the manifesto under which they'd campaigned, which is about as disingenuous and undemocratic as it gets, in terms of how an MP is supposed to behave.

If you want to stand as a Labour candidate in any capacity, one of the first questions you'll be asked in interview is about your views on respecting the whip. Its one of the absolute fundamentals around how political parties operate, and voting against a new government's political agenda, on which it has just won a huge landslide, is about as stupid as it gets. Choosing to do so, in full understanding of the consequences to follow, is a performative gesture from those who don't want to support the party's policies, but who are happy to pick up an MP's salary for 5 years having been elected on the back of it.

 

Don't particularly like the labour party whatsoever but won't slate them as I do agree with them on this tbh

 

You could go though a 100 different scenarios but if a family who has chosen to have 4 or 5 kids when struggling with 2 are the kids going to see any of the benefit? Like I said if you want a big family fine but it's down to you to support.

 

And as we saw on the A61 on Sunday, life can change in an instant. If the surviving sibling now goes to a relative who already had 2 kids, should her new family financially suffer as a result of a horrific accident? (I know in this case there is a gofundme, but there isn't always and very few are as generous).

 

Just seen that Charlie boys getting a £45 million increase for renovations and a couple of helicopters at the taxpayers expense ' first things first eh' whats a few starving kids compared to renovations and a couple of choppers' he might have enough change to buy a new gold coach.

 

I think it’s all the lies about ‘country first, party second’ that annoy people & then claiming they can’t afford it but then they’re giving more money to Ukraine than what this would cost.

We’ve got a Labour Party cabinet that’s more to the right than any Labour Party in my lifetime so decisions like this shouldn’t be a surprise. Starmer, Streeting, Kendall, Cooper, Reeves could all switch across to the Tories & wouldn’t have to change their beliefs.