UK General Election 2024: The Results & Aftermath

[ainsworth74]

Fundementally, Starmer seems to be following the fundemental principles of Osbournomics, and is skirting very close to the infantile 'public finances are like a household budget' fallacy that has granted us one of the slowest recoveries of any developed economy since 2008.

I guess we'll see when they actually produce a Budget, I have my concerns that they won't be bold enough but I also am quite confident that whatever Labour do end up doing will still be better than the alternative.

Didn't more people vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2017, than for Kier Starmer in 2024?

Yep, they did. But in our system it's seats that count and Corbyn got spanked in 2019 even though he won more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Starmer in 2024. I agree it's bonkers that that's our electoral system and that parties that win 33.7% of the popular vote can get 411 seats whilst another party wins 14.3% and gets five or even another party that gets 12.2% and wins 72 seats. But that's the system we have and Labour did an excellent job of winning an election under that system. To win that broadly requires reaching beyond your comfort zone and convincing a lot of people that you're a safe pair of hands. Something that Corbyn failed to do.

What's the point of winning a huge number of votes in a small number of seats if it means you lose the election? 2019 was a bad election to lose considering what the Tories then wrought on the country. The only positive is that it made sure that Ukraine got the support that it required in 2022 and onwards. But domestically it was a catastrophe.

How exactly is that the fault of the children?

It isn't. But then lots of things happen to lots of people that aren't their fault and are still horrible. I've had things happen to me as a child and an adult that weren't my fault (as well as somethings that were ). That's a fact of life. In a perfect world this wouldn't be the case but we don't live in that world and we live even further away from it after the last fourteen years of Tory misrule.

To be clear, again, I think the two-child limit needs to be scrapped. But it only makes sense as part of of a wider package of tackling child poverty and poverty in general*. It also only makes sense as part of a wider review of tax and spend considering the catastrophic situation in which we find ourselves. If, after the Budget, there are still no tangible steps to do something about child poverty then it's time to start kicking up a fuss. But the King's Speech, two and a bit weeks after the election, is not the moment.


*By way of example: Let's take a couple with three children (all born after April 2017) living in a three bedroom private rented property in Birmingham. Right now their Universal Credit would be made up of (all figures monthly) a Standard Allowance £617.60, two child elements worth £575.84 and lets assume that they qualify for the maximum amount of local housing allowance (help with rent) in Birmingham for a three bedroom private property of £822.37. Their total Universal Credit would be £2,016.17 per month. If we removed the two-child cap they'd immediately be £287.92 (the value of a child element) better off per month wouldn't they? No, they wouldn't. Because that family was already hit by the benefit cap meaning that their UC payment was already reduced to £1,577.17 per month. Lifting the two-child cap does nothing for this family.

As I said the Benefit Cap is also something that needs looking into but lets not pretend that that just removing the two-child cap is some panacea for fixing child poverty. It isn't. Many families that have more than two children would feel no benefit whatsoever from lifting the cap. Plenty would, of course they would, particularly those families that are exempt from the cap due to disability or by being in work. But it's a complex issue that deserves more attention than just a random bit of politicking on an ammendment to the Kings Speech.

I am sure he still agrees with what he said. But you can't do it until you have something else to put in place and you can't just do it as a knee jerk reaction. So it's not a case of "if," but "when". And when is not yet.

Exactly, this is quite literally week three after the election. I am fairly confident that they will do something about this problem. I don't see that declining to do something two and a half weeks after the election and before the budget is a serious issue and a sign of how terrible Starmer is going to be.

 

[edwin_m]

Fundementally, Starmer seems to be following the fundemental principles of Osbournomics, and is skirting very close to the infantile 'public finances are like a household budget' fallacy that has granted us one of the slowest recoveries of any developed economy since 2008.

Fallacy or not, it's still a bad idea to borrow money to pay for day-to-day expenses as a government as well as a household, unless it's clearly temporary with an exit strategy. To fund this they would need to raise tax rates, make cuts elsewhere or grow the economy and the tax base. The last is what they are aiming to do but it takes time.

And incidentally there's no "u" in "Osborne".

 

[nw1]

The vote on the Kings Speech is considered a confidence vote. I suspect that whether it's normal to lose the whip on an amendment comes down to whether the amendment is regarded as a wrecking amendment or not. Short answer is that it isn't particularly surprising, and doesn't mean that the party ate evil control freaks.

I'm not saying, or I hope, even hinting that they might be control freaks, let alone evil.

Silly typo-based joke: actually, though, perhaps they did figuratively "eat" some control freaks, at least in South West Norfolk.

Being serious again: to be honest I missed that the vote was on the King's Speech as a whole. That certainly gives a different perspective on things.

 

[bleeder4]

Personally, I think the two child cap should remain. Both nationally and globally we have a real problem with over-population of the planet. There are just too many of us and we're putting such a drain on the planet's resources. Plus I personally think two children is enough for anyone. By all means, have more if you have the resources to give that child the life they deserve and you have the living space to support it, but not if you're living in a tiny little flat and are entirely dependant on state handouts in order to give that third child a decent stab at life.

 

[Sorcerer]

Personally, I think the two child cap should remain. Both nationally and globally we have a real problem with over-population of the planet. There are just too many of us and we're putting such a drain on the planet's resources.

There is already another thread partially relating to the world population, but in short your statement is untrue. The planet has enough resources for 10 billion people assuming no advancements are made, and it is projected that there will then begin a decline at around the end of the century. But in the case of the UK, as is the case with many other developed nations, birth rates are declining. Even so, I question whether a two-child benefit cap will have a positive effect even though I don't really have a dog in the fight since I'm childless and do not plan on changing that (arguably making me part of the declining birth rate problem).

 

[birchesgreen]

Personally, I think the two child cap should remain. Both nationally and globally we have a real problem with over-population of the planet. There are just too many of us and we're putting such a drain on the planet's resources. Plus I personally think two children is enough for anyone. By all means, have more if you have the resources to give that child the life they deserve and you have the living space to support it, but not if you're living in a tiny little flat and are entirely dependant on state handouts in order to give that third child a decent stab at life.

The problem with this is, the children themselves who suffer. While their parents made a choice, the child does not. I suspect the cap will be lifted, or amended at least, soon.

 

[JamesT]

Being serious again: to be honest I missed that the vote was on the King's Speech as a whole. That certainly gives a different perspective on things.

Strictly, the vote was on an amendment to the King's Speech. https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/88308/Pdf has the text.
But the overall effect is it's a vote against the King's Speech as drafted by the Government.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do rebels always lose the whip though? Only seems to happen in selected cases.

A rebel will likely lose the whip if they vote against anything in the King's Speech. That is the government's core agenda.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2024 ==

Personally, I think the two child cap should remain. Both nationally and globally we have a real problem with over-population of the planet. There are just too many of us and we're putting such a drain on the planet's resources. Plus I personally think two children is enough for anyone. By all means, have more if you have the resources to give that child the life they deserve and you have the living space to support it, but not if you're living in a tiny little flat and are entirely dependant on state handouts in order to give that third child a decent stab at life.

Aside from the fact that degrowth is the preserve of the nihilist, this policy actively puts children into poverty. Many third children will be born anyway and society will have to live with the consequences of their deprived upbringing - and those of their siblings, too.

 

[Senex]

The problem with this is, the children themselves who suffer. While their parents made a choice, the child does not. I suspect the cap will be lifted, or amended at least, soon.

But why should society through the taxpayers pick up the bill for a choice made by two people? Or if we accept that it is the responsibility of society to ensure that all children are properly looked after, then doesn't society have a right to say how many children people can have? After all, it's more than two generations now since there's been effective birth control available and abortion legislation in force.

(There was an interview on a BBC4 news programme some time in the last couple of days - I think PM but am no longer sure - where they interviewed the usual single parent, this time with five children, totally expecting that she should be supported because these things happen, don't they? Is such an attitude really acceptable?

 

[AlterEgo]

But why should society through the taxpayers pick up the bill for a choice made by two people?

Because the choice is to have a child, which is a person who will need to be supported and nourished.

Or if we accept that it is the responsibility of society to ensure that all children are properly looked after, then doesn't society have a right to say how many children people can have?

I don't think it is society's job to tell women how many children they decide to give birth to.

After all, it's more than two generations now since there's been effective birth control available and abortion legislation in force.

"Just get an abortion if you're pregnant then" is a grim way to frame government policy.

A lot of our problems at the moment stem from austerity and people having grown up in poverty, and seeing a Labour government take action which will immiserate the lives of children is depressing.

 

[takno]

But why should society through the taxpayers pick up the bill for a choice made by two people? Or if we accept that it is the responsibility of society to ensure that all children are properly looked after, then doesn't society have a right to say how many children people can have? After all, it's more than two generations now since there's been effective birth control available and abortion legislation in force.

(There was an interview on a BBC4 news programme some time in the last couple of days - I think PM but am no longer sure - where they interviewed the usual single parent, this time with five children, totally expecting that she should be supported because these things happen, don't they? Is such an attitude really acceptable?

We're picking up the tab for a choice made by mad Liz and Kwasi Kwarteng, and it's a much bigger bill than it would be if they'd had a an extra child.

 

[The Ham]

But why should society through the taxpayers pick up the bill for a choice made by two people? Or if we accept that it is the responsibility of society to ensure that all children are properly looked after, then doesn't society have a right to say how many children people can have? After all, it's more than two generations now since there's been effective birth control available and abortion legislation in force.

(There was an interview on a BBC4 news programme some time in the last couple of days - I think PM but am no longer sure - where they interviewed the usual single parent, this time with five children, totally expecting that she should be supported because these things happen, don't they? Is such an attitude really acceptable?

Generally children are the next generation of tax payers. Yes there's issues with generational benefit claimants, however the majority of people claiming benefits are working - and there's an argument that the reason that they need to is because businesses aren't paying their way and so government (arguably) is lining the pockets of the very wealthy by not taxing them appropriately and/or not ensuring that they pay their staff appropriately.

The press can fairly easily find a single parent with 6 children and say "ah, see, we should keep the two child cap", it's much harder (but probably more representative of the population as a whole) to find a family where an extra (say) £100 a week would result in those children getting a better chance at life and ending up with a better life than they would have had. For example, because they were able to concentrate at school (as they were adequately fed), so got a few grades higher in their qualifications, so got a better job, so were able to pay more taxes than the extra their family ever claimed in benefits, with their two siblings don't similarly well and so the tax payer is significantly better off.

Part of the issue is high housing costs, my parents' house of it raised in line with inflation should be worth about £100,000 it's probably worth about £300,000, that's a significant extra cost to householders find.

This also impacts on the cost of running the country as staff need more money, housing benefits cost more, etc.

However, there's not really a way you could create significant reductions in house prices without tanking the economy.

However that's also true if it was the case that businesses need to be taxed or regulated more.

The other issue with limiting the number of children, currently (assuming net zero immigration) by 2100 the population of the UK would shrink from 67 million to 45 million and a fat higher percentage of them will be over 65.

With immigration at current rates the population would reach 88 million in 2100, however the ratio of those of working age to those of retirement age would be 1.7 to 1 (compared with 3 to 1 currently)

Therefore, things which are first glance could be sensible aren't straightforward (for example we should be doing things to encourage people having children as if we discourage people from having children that 1.7 to 1 ratio could be much lower, as the amount of tax we need to provide for pensioners is quite high).

Whilst 2100 is probably too far off for many to care about, even by 2050 the ratio reaches 2.7 to 1.

To put that in perspective, let's say every working aged tax payer currently pays an average of £4,000 in taxes for the state pension, that change in ratio from 3 to 2.7 means that the taxes paid needs to increase to £4,445 (an extra 11%).

Reduce the birth rate (or immigration) and that ratio will fall further (or the same ratio is reached sooner), meaning more taxes from the working aged population to pay for those of pension age.

 

[PGAT]

On the right (combined Tory and Reform) it goes from 17% for 18-24 to 31% for 40-49 and all the way up to 61% for those over 70. To be blunt, several of those currently over 70 won't be voting next time, but many currently aged 13-18 (and maybe even a few aged 11-13 if those aged 16 can vote) will be.

Interesting you say that

One in six Tory voters likely to die before the next election

Demographic trends could add 29 seats to Labour’s total, highlighting the scale of the challenge facing the Conservatives in appealing to younger voters

www.thetimes.com

One in six Conservative voters are likely to die before the next election, according to analysis that highlights the party’s challenge in appealing to younger people as it prepares to choose a new leader.

Labour’s much younger voter base means that only 1 in 19 people who voted for the party this month are likely to die before getting a chance to vote in 2029, in a demographic swing that could add dozens of seats to Sir Keir Starmer’s majority.

If nothing else changed, this swing means Labour would gain 29 seats and the Tories would lose 34

 

[ainsworth74]

But why should society through the taxpayers pick up the bill for a choice made by two people? Or if we accept that it is the responsibility of society to ensure that all children are properly looked after, then doesn't society have a right to say how many children people can have?

What about the working family that could afford three or more children but then someone gets made redundant and the family finds themselves reliant on Universal Credit? Should they have made different choices and not had more than two children in case they needed to rely on Universal Credit in the future? Should large families only be the preserve of the independently wealthy?

 

[Thirteen]

Zarah Sultana was doing the rounds on both GMB and The News Agents after losing the whip, she didn't come across well at all!

 

[AlterEgo]

Zarah Sultana was doing the rounds on both GMB and The News Agents after losing the whip, she didn't come across well at all!

She rarely does, to be fair.

 

[birchesgreen]

She is quite currant though.

 

[Bald Rick]

She is quite currant though.

I wondered who would be raisin that.

 

[nw1]

Generally children are the next generation of tax payers. Yes there's issues with generational benefit claimants, however the majority of people claiming benefits are working - and there's an argument that the reason that they need to is because businesses aren't paying their way and so government (arguably) is lining the pockets of the very wealthy by not taxing them appropriately and/or not ensuring that they pay their staff appropriately.

The press can fairly easily find a single parent with 6 children and say "ah, see, we should keep the two child cap", it's much harder (but probably more representative of the population as a whole) to find a family where an extra (say) £100 a week would result in those children getting a better chance at life and ending up with a better life than they would have had. For example, because they were able to concentrate at school (as they were adequately fed), so got a few grades higher in their qualifications, so got a better job, so were able to pay more taxes than the extra their family ever claimed in benefits, with their two siblings don't similarly well and so the tax payer is significantly better off.

Part of the issue is high housing costs, my parents' house of it raised in line with inflation should be worth about £100,000 it's probably worth about £300,000, that's a significant extra cost to householders find.

This also impacts on the cost of running the country as staff need more money, housing benefits cost more, etc.

However, there's not really a way you could create significant reductions in house prices without tanking the economy.

However that's also true if it was the case that businesses need to be taxed or regulated more.

The other issue with limiting the number of children, currently (assuming net zero immigration) by 2100 the population of the UK would shrink from 67 million to 45 million and a fat higher percentage of them will be over 65.

With immigration at current rates the population would reach 88 million in 2100, however the ratio of those of working age to those of retirement age would be 1.7 to 1 (compared with 3 to 1 currently)

Therefore, things which are first glance could be sensible aren't straightforward (for example we should be doing things to encourage people having children as if we discourage people from having children that 1.7 to 1 ratio could be much lower, as the amount of tax we need to provide for pensioners is quite high).

Whilst 2100 is probably too far off for many to care about, even by 2050 the ratio reaches 2.7 to 1.

To put that in perspective, let's say every working aged tax payer currently pays an average of £4,000 in taxes for the state pension, that change in ratio from 3 to 2.7 means that the taxes paid needs to increase to £4,445 (an extra 11%).

Reduce the birth rate (or immigration) and that ratio will fall further (or the same ratio is reached sooner), meaning more taxes from the working aged population to pay for those of pension age.

I guess there are different ways of solving the problem.

Encouraging more immigration of working-age people (as an alternative to encouraging people to have more children) would also improve that ratio. Yet in the 2020s immigration seems to be seen as universally Bad - and not just in the UK - a sharp contrast to the more enlightened times of the late 20th century and very early 21st.

Having children does of course come with massive, life-changing responsibility - so you really don't want to be encouraging people to have children who do not really want to.

 

[Yew]

Encouraging more immigration of working-age people (as an alternative to encouraging people to have more children) would also improve that ratio. Yet in the 2020s immigration seems to be seen as universally Bad - and not just in the UK - a sharp contrast to the more enlightened times of the late 20th century and very early 21st.

Unfortunately, immigrants have been a convenient scapegoat for the consequences of deindustrialisation and neoliberal economics.

 

[birchesgreen]

So, Tugendhat wants to leave the ECHR, so much more being the less-extreme more sensible option in the Tory leadership election.

They might as well choose Braverman, just as nuts but at least more entertaining.

 

[nw1]

So, Tugendhat wants to leave the ECHR, so much more being the less-extreme more sensible option in the Tory leadership election.

They might as well choose Braverman, just as nuts but at least more entertaining.

Surprised. I'm guessing it's not something he really believes, but is just saying that as he believes it will get votes.

Even still, it says a lot about the current state of the Conservative Party if he believes he has to say reactionary nonsense like that.

What's Stride's position on the matter, and other similar matters?

 

[takno]

Surprised. I'm guessing it's not something he really believes, but is just saying that as he believes it will get votes.

Even still, it says a lot about the current state of the Conservative Party if he believes he has to say reactionary nonsense like that.

What's Stride's position on the matter, and other similar matters?

Up until now Stride's position on everything has always been whatever he was told to say immediately before appearing in the press. It's unclear whether he has or is capable of developing any positions of his own at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But why should society through the taxpayers pick up the bill for a choice made by two people?

Most people in receipt of Universal Credit are in work.

The biggest cost element of Universal Credit is the housing element.

The housing element of Universal Credit costs so much because successive governments have failed to construct sufficient social housing, and so people are forced into the private rented sector. Many of these privately rented properties, ironically, used to be social housing before they were sold off under right-to-buy.

The primary beneficiary of the housing benefit largesse is, in actual fact, the already-wealthy landlord who is getting the taxpayer to pay for their buy-to-let mortgage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2024 ==

Zarah Sultana was doing the rounds on both GMB and The News Agents after losing the whip, she didn't come across well at all!

She rarely does, same with Burgon. The 7 "rebels" are not exactly the sharpest tools in the drawer.

I still think Starmer going nuclear makes him weak though. All parties have a small gaggle of backbenchers who rebel all the time, they're only important if you make them important. Corbyn rebelled against Tony Blair 428 times, Dennis Skinner not far behind, and Tony Blair just shrugged and let them get on with it.

 

[SuspectUsual]

So, Tugendhat wants to leave the ECHR, so much more being the less-extreme more sensible option in the Tory leadership election.

They might as well choose Braverman, just as nuts but at least more entertaining.

The Tom Tugendhat who a year ago was telling anyone who’d listen that leaving the ECHR would endanger the Windsor framework and the Good Friday agreement?

Those are his principles, and if you don’t like them he has others, to paraphrase

Amazing what the prospect of power over a small and declining number of right wing MPs does to people

And the other problem he’ll have is that by deserting the so-called centre ground and lurching to the right, he’ll never be far enough to the right for the people who were there before him

 

[GRALISTAIR]

She is quite currant though.

I wondered who would be raisin that.

Brilliant.

 

[Thirteen]

She rarely does, same with Burgon. The 7 "rebels" are not exactly the sharpest tools in the drawer.

I still think Starmer going nuclear makes him weak though. All parties have a small gaggle of backbenchers who rebel all the time, they're only important if you make them important. Corbyn rebelled against Tony Blair 428 times, Dennis Skinner not far behind, and Tony Blair just shrugged and let them get on with it.

It's a very different time from when Corbyn and Skinner were backbenchers. Social media didn't exist for one.

I have friends who occasionally retweet Sultana's posts and I just find her so unlikable. It's like someone who's into student politics.

 

[Busaholic]

I still think Starmer going nuclear makes him weak though. All parties have a small gaggle of backbenchers who rebel all the time, they're only important if you make them important. Corbyn rebelled against Tony Blair 428 times, Dennis Skinner not far behind, and Tony Blair just shrugged and let them get on with it.

Weaker still when apparently everything the leadership does has to first go through Sue Gray, Pat McFadden, et al. What's Starmer scared of with that massive majority? In any case an MP's main duty is to his/her constituents, and they have been voted for on an individual and not party basis. That's how Parliamentary democracy is supposed to work although it becomes weaker decade by decade. Obviously if an MP representing a particular party scarcely ever votes for their party or regularly insults their colleagues then that party needs to take measures, but to adopt the nuclear option so soon might be construed as snubbing the electors who put that MP in Westminster.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's a very different time from when Corbyn and Skinner were backbenchers. Social media didn't exist for one.

I don't think it is a great deal different. Starmer's got a majority of 155 or so, if the usual handful of Dave Sparts want to rebel on anything and everything then he's got the headroom to let them just get on with it.

"Oh, Richard Burgon's rebelled again" isn't news.

"Oh, Richard Burgon's actually gone and been thrown out of the Labour Party for voting in favour of giving more money to poor families" is news, and has been gleefully pounced upon as such. It's certainly not the hill I'd have chosen to die on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2024 ==

Obviously if an MP representing a particular party scarcely ever votes for their party or regularly insults their colleagues then that party needs to take measures, but to adopt the nuclear option so soon might be construed as snubbing the electors who put that MP in Westminster.

I'd agree. And given Labour's struggles in some communities, it's a very risky strategy too. Wes Streeting only just won his seat, scraping in by 500 votes, and Jonathan Ashworth lost his seat.

 

[Thirteen]

I don't think it is a great deal different. Starmer's got a majority of 155 or so, if the usual handful of Dave Sparts want to rebel on anything and everything then he's got the headroom to let them just get on with it.

"Oh, Richard Burgon's rebelled again" isn't news.

"Oh, Richard Burgon's actually gone and been thrown out of the Labour Party for voting in favour of giving more money to poor families" is news, and has been gleefully pounced upon as such. It's certainly not the hill I'd have chosen to die on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2024 ==


I'd agree. And given Labour's struggles in some communities, it's a very risky strategy too. Wes Streeting only just won his seat, scraping in by 500 votes, and Jonathan Ashworth lost his seat.

I think sending out Zarah Sultana rather than say Rebecca Long-Bailey to the media rounds might have backfired on those 7.