To like Keir Starmer?

[Emmanuelll]

Unlike Tony Blair, he comes from a working class background - his siblings would still call themselves working class.

As a very bright lawyer, he could have sought a path which made him rich quickly but instead chose human rights which isn’t an easy route to take and he’s defended ‘the little guy’ against corporations. He’s also anti-death penalty.

Ok, he’s a Sir, and I’ve heard people (perhaps not unreasonably) question why the leader of the Labour Party would have a title like that. But he earned it through work for the criminal justice system.

On the face of it, it seems as though he deserves a chance.

I would much rather have him as PM than a former Bullingdon club member who used to burn money in front of homeless people for the fun of it.

I've been really impressed from what I've seen in his first few days, I think he seems very logical, sensible and well considered....which you would think would be a baseline requirement for a PM but it's been lacking for a fair while now. Excited to see what the future brings and feeling optimistic!

Which part? That financial markets view different kinds of borrowing differently; that investment generally drives productivity gains, or that borrowing to fund tax cuts was not warmly welcomed by the markets?

I'm quietly hoping they ring fence the education budget at current "real" levels in the spending review and prevent Treasury clawback of per-pupil funding as the school population declines. It wouldn't cover all needs or reverse all funding cuts but it would be an excellent start from existing money.

I was sceptical previously that this would happen but there are early signs of very different thinking; I think the spending review has the potential to be quite interesting.

As for going about it all wrong, it's day 6. I'm prepared to give them a bit of slack that they haven't quite finished the job yet.

I think if Keir Starmer wants to make real impact he needs to tackle the falling birth rate head on.

Give even more benefits you mean? From where should that money come from? Which budget would you cut to provide more benefits to people who want to have more kids?

The NHS? Defence? Teaching?

Going by R4 a lot seems to be riding on growth eg defence spending at 2.5% which is really ‘iron clad’ if it’s depending on that

Maybe it’ll happen I guess we’ll see

It's utterly ridiculous that there has been this constant rhetoric about people having too many children and now there's a problem because they aren't having enough.

@HowIrresponsible 'even' more benefits? Evidently benefits aren't that generous - no matter how much they get cut people like you still say they are too much. It makes no sense.

You want kids you pay for them, I'm sorry!

Why should the taxpayer?

So, by your thinking only rich people should have children? Or only people who can do it without state support? In which case, only people who can afford their own healthcare and not need the NHS?

If population is falling and it's causing problems then that little strategy clearly isn't working is it? Because the Tories introduced the 2 child cap and a benefits cap over a decade ago. And here we are with people saying there is a problem with falling birth rates.

I have a suggestion - we know and need richer people to ideally aim for 3 children. They have some money and can do a lot of the heavy lifting at home. That is exactly what we have been discussing - healthy pregnancy, early years education, talking to kids etc up to age 5 is really important and then supporting them educationally throughout primary, and ideally some support, especially mentoring/mental health into the teenage years.

So the obvious answer is not “benefits” but incentivise richer people to get tax cuts progressively, depending on how many children they have. So child 3 gets even more of a tax cut.

A two tier society then?

We also need better laws to make sure that men who father children and leave cannot get out of their financial obligations, full stop. Time and time again women are left behind to pick up the pieces.

Well I certainly agree with that one. At the moment, the CMS doesn’t check to see if the NRP is telling the truth about their circumstances, they just take it at face value.

Rachel Reeves has said that it would be an aim to remove the two child benefit cap but probably not in the next few years.

@Emmanuelll - why would do that be a two tier society? At the moment, they cut all child related stuff for higher earners. Both child benefit, childcare etc etc, and personal allowance. When those are the people who can probably give a child the best start in life.
So we educate women to a high level, then let them work, pay a lot of tax and tell them that it is not financially worthwhile to have kids? It makes zero sense for society as a whole to do that.

In the 60s in France they essentially incentivised loads of poor people to have multiple children by paying increasing amounts per child. That led to social problems and is well documented.
We need to start seeing this from the point of view of the child being born. Who is going to be given the best life chances and in which families, and those people should be incentivised to have kids. What we are doing right now is the exact opposite.

https://www.ft.com/content/f0d2a5a7-e5ef-4044-8380-ff690b609a5a

My point is you cannot talk about immigration and Farage without addressing the elephant in the room, which is low fertility rates. And I think we have to talk about it very urgently and as a feminist issue because the right wingers will try and control women’s bodies and restrict the rights of women.

So I think all women should be encouraged to have children, especially highly educated and successful women.

How is it that we accept that richer higher earning men have more children than others, but richer higher earning women do not? As the research shows educational attainment of a child is directly linked to the level of education of the mother. We need more equal policies at work for women, but we also really need taxation incentives for high flying women. What we have at the moment is the opposite.

And of course all children living in poverty should be fully supported by the state. But I do not think the state should incentivise those children to be born by promising benefits, free housing etc. None of that is stable enough for those children. It is not fair on them and their life chances and what may look like an easy fix is not. That is why they are right to not lift the 2 child benefit cap, but they are right to introduce more FSM, breakfast clubs - anything to help those children rise above what they were born into.

Or maybe there is a growing number of people who just don't isn't children for.lotd of reasons that I've been hearing like men are just shit won't do their fair share why saddle myself with that type of life, what type of world are we bringing children into what with climate change, struggles of living cos your taxed endlessly.to pay for other people, the cost of having kids, or just don't want them.

There lots more but those are the ones I keep hearing. Cost isn't the single important factor anymore it's mostly the quality of men tbh. As women we now have better opportunities to earn money, we can live great lives independently why would u compromise it to end up with someone who just adds.stress to your life. These are the conversations I hear more now and I don't blame them one bit for thinking that way

Yes, it's true that falling birth rates are not something unique to the Uk.

Whilst I can understand the points you are making, if only middle class and above people are incentivised to have more children, who will be doing the working class jobs with an aging population?

Or maybe we need to syaty habit seriously conversations about when people should choose if continuing to exist vs quality of life in old age. Who would say they want to still be alive if it meant they were literally home bound in pain, never leave their home for years unless it's trip to hospital. I know I don't but there is no suitable alternative.

I'm not sure that having more and more children is the answer. What happens when those children are pensioners, do you just encourage the younger adults to have more children? It would be never ending because with advances in medicine people will just carry on living longer.

Where will the houses be built to accommodate the growing population, the food needed, hospitals, schools etc, not to mention the damage to wildlife habitats.

Plus it’s not great for consumption rates, resources and environmental factors

In 2018 Sir David Attenborough spoke out about our unsustainable population growth (world growth) and the urgent need to address it.

YADNBU. I totally agree, he's a sensible grown up who is a bit dull but very smart. Complete opposite to the last lot.

And yet the falling birth rates are considered a problem?

I don’t vote for him, but he is so bland and boring there’s literally nothing to like or dislike 😂