General British politics discussion thread

partyguinness

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is because it is a political gift that keeps on giving to politicians.

Any house owner likes the idea that their biggest asset keeps on increasing in value, so any politician that tried to reverse that would find it most unpopular. However, it is now getting to the point that only the top 30% of earners can afford to buy their first home, instead of the top 70%. Also private rents have risen to higher than a mortgage would be on the same or equivalent property.

It will require a new model to combat that and the current batch of politicians have not worked out how that can be done and are sticking with the current model by shared ownership and first time buyers grants.

Making houses more affordable for first-time buyers pushes up prices. What is needed is more houses built - preferably at lower cost to the buyer.

Of course it turned a lot of Baby Boomers into landlords. The same Baby Boomer generation are now bitching and moaning that their children cannot afford a house and still living at home...but of course it's the children's fault...:rolleyes:

I even had my own father in law who exercised the right to buy in the 1980 passing remarks about the crazy priice we paid for our house.

"Yeah pops. It's a bitch. I have a £200k mortgage because of the house prices while you sit on a mortgage free £250k house that was given to you for £10k." Cheeky fcker

He hasnt got a clue.

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

I never post in the Politics forum, but reading some of the posts around here is astonishing.

The people of Huddersfield are 'lazy, 'entitled', 'racist'. Owen Jones on the TV talking about class consciousness and Jeremy Corbyn. Absolute nonsense that has no relevancy.

The real disconnect these days is between what well-educated and relatively financially comfortable people think the Labour Party should look like, and what it represents to entire communities who always voted Labour. Shouting and screaming at these people won't make them come back into the tent.

The Labour Party and moderate socialism in general has always been about jobs, a sense of place, recognising the power of a collective over an individual. Then need to get back to that pronto. Not having an elite at the top of the party calling their former voters racists for voting Tory. 'It's about the economy, stupid".

Lots of self-reflection needed.

I think the likes of Owen are called "Champagne Socialists". But yes, you have the leadership by that I mean the elected MPs etc that are fundamentally at odds with its own tradtional roots. Labour are going to have to sit back and wait for the ball to break kindly and be ready for it.

Sam Russell

The British political system has two large parties - Labour and Tory. Both are split into two camps as neither would achieve power on their own.

Tories are split between the 'One Nation' and the 'Free Marketeers'. BJ has purged most of the first group, and has yet to pay any political price for doing so.

Labour is split between the left wing socialists and the traditional Labour Union supporters, again neither set could gain power on their own. The Labour Unions have lost most of their support due to the anti-Union legislation brought in by successive Tory Governments and the disappearance of industrial manufacturing, but their is still a sizeable rump of them. These supporters are in favour of social policies but are politically conservative - they do not like immigration, and are in favour of the Monarchy and like minded ideas. The Socialists are more cerebral in their approach which goes over the heads of the others who do not trust them. That split is costing them power.

If Scotland votes to leave the UK then Labour looks like having a bleak decade or two. If Wales voted to leave the UK, then Labour as it is currently constituted is dead.

partyguinness

The only surprising aspect is that people are surprised by the result.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

The British political system has two large parties - Labour and Tory. Both are split into two camps as neither would achieve power on their own.

Tories are split between the 'One Nation' and the 'Free Marketeers'. BJ has purged most of the first group, and has yet to pay any political price for doing so.

Labour is split between the left wing socialists and the traditional Labour Union supporters, again neither set could gain power on their own. The Labour Unions have lost most of their support due to the anti-Union legislation brought in by successive Tory Governments and the disappearance of industrial manufacturing, but their is still a sizeable rump of them. These supporters are in favour of social policies but are politically conservative - they do not like immigration, and are in favour of the Monarchy and like minded ideas. The Socialists are more cerebral in their approach which goes over the heads of the others who do not trust them. That split is costing them power.

If Scotland votes to leave the UK then Labour looks like having a bleak decade or two. If Wales voted to leave the UK, then Labour as it is currently constituted is dead.

Nice synopsis. Might be time for the rank and file in Labour to do a Kinnock on it, and root out the radicals from the party. It might be a two-for-one job and get rid of the smug, middle-class sorts who call the people of Huddersfield lazy, entitled, and racist for finding the Labour Party so lacking in ideas and solutions that resonate with former working-class communities that they end up voting for Boris Johnson.



Requires self-reflection. Which is almost impossible in today's world.

OMM 0000

I quite like Boris Johnson.

I have a feeling that must make me weird.

partyguinness

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I quite like Boris Johnson.

I have a feeling that must make me weird.

I suppose it depends on what you like about him.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not having an elite at the top of the party calling their former voters racists for voting Tory.

Is there a link for this, please? Not doubting you, would be interested to see the quotes.

PommieBast

partyguinness wrote: »

I think what happened to Labour is that they have been caught between two bar stools and now have a severe identity crisis. The Party itself is absolutely Remain but the majority of its core vote base is pro-Brexit. That is a problem and a real idenity crisis. All the Tories have to do is sit back and pick up the crumbs.

From memory most Labour voters are actually remain. It is Labour constituencies that are mostly Leave.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice synopsis. Might be time for the rank and file in Labour to do a Kinnock on it, and root out the radicals from the party. It might be a two-for-one job and get rid of the smug, middle-class sorts who call the people of Huddersfield lazy, entitled, and racist for finding the Labour Party so lacking in ideas and solutions that resonate with former working-class communities that they end up voting for Boris Johnson.



Requires self-reflection. Which is almost impossible in today's world.

Purging the Labour party of the Left Wing Socialists would reduce the party to an unelectable rump.

If Labour had backed Scottish independence in 2014, they would have carried the vote, but lost 40 Labour MPs at Westminster, but the lost 39 of them anyway. Being in favour of an independent Scotland, they would overtake the SNP and govern Scotland.

As it is, they have lost Scotland to the SNP and the Red Wall to the Tories. Is there anyway back for them? Not for a decade.

landofthetree

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I quite like Boris Johnson.

I have a feeling that must make me weird.

The Tories do some good stuff IMO.

They are great at capital projects. Labour are as well to be fair.

Crossrail,Manchester light rail extension,light Rail in Nottingham,HS2 etc
Plus loads more in the planning.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/eight-light-rail-schemes-that-could-enter-dft-competition-12-02-2019/

We cant even get Metro North going.

partyguinness

PommieBast wrote: »

From memory most Labour voters are actually remain. It is Labour constituencies that are mostly Leave.

That may well be correct.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the Labour vote outside of London.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

These days, with the modern materialism and everyone having a stable accommodation either rented (privately or council) or owned, simply "upping sticks" and moving is not an easy prospect

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, a certain Elizabeth Warren from the United States presented a set of data to show that this problem was most acute in dual-income households. The "perfect storm" of pushing both halves of a married couple into work by removing their married couple's allowances, then encouraging home-ownership on the back of high-value, mortgages based on multiples of the two incomes repayable over 20, then 25, then 30 years, and set against the unicornism of rising property values has contributed to this mental and social inertia.

The sad thing about it is that it is, in fact, incredibly easy to up sticks and leave, if you're not so psychologically locked into the idea that migration is a Bad Thing.

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Throughout history, people have often moved to where the work was, mostly because they had little or nothing where they were living, so moving was not such a big deal.
These days, with the modern materialism and everyone having a stable accommodation either rented (privately or council) or owned, simply "upping sticks" and moving is not an easy prospect, upping sticks is easy if you're a camper or migrant.


Trying to entice people to move to the jobs is something that no one really does for unskilled workers. Migrants come in for nothing.

Most of the people I was thinking of when I wrote that were late teens to mid 20s living in the parents house so no house or kids to worry bout

10000maniacs

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That result in Hartlepool wasn’t good. I mean even a close race between labour and the conservative candidate would have something for the labour leadership to hang their hats on, but it wasn’t even close. So the issue that some voters said they couldn’t vote for labour last time out because of Corbyn has spread to his successor. Unless the labour leadership get control of the party and aren’t controlled by a vocal progressive wing they’ll be like labour decades ago. Unelectable. I remember hearing that wing after the election and it was like they were in their own alternate reality over what had just happened. It seemed to be external forces that were the blame and they were beyond reproach. It’s like the progressive wing of the democrats in the US. There’s a bang on entitlement to lead of them at times. There’s also a lack of understanding that social media likes and retweets don’t count for votes in ballot boxes and hopefully never will.

Hartlepool is not really a shocker when you analyse it.
The big problem for labour is they are split down the middle on Brexit lines, while the Tories are not. Hartlepool voted 67% for Brexit.
The big issue was immigration in Hartlepool and the city became Brexit’s poster boy in the north-east. UKIP were the second biggest party in Hartlepool in 2015.

pixelburp

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I quite like Boris Johnson.

I have a feeling that must make me weird.

Weird no; but it does beg the question if you accept - or care - that his entire public persona is a facade, precision-engineered to charm and get the result you speak of. The ruffled hair, blathering Latin, and air of "affable toff" is superficial and served its purpose to ram him into the corridors of power. I've said it before but Have I got News for You of all things stands accused of giving him that platform; the producers believing they were having a laugh at the silly posh spoofer. Turns out he was playing them.

partyguinness

pixelburp wrote: »

Weird no; but it does beg the question if you accept - or care - that his entire public persona is a facade, precision-engineered to charm and get the result you speak of. The ruffled hair, blathering Latin, and air of "affable toff" is superficial and served its purpose to ram him into the corridors of power. I've said it before but Have I got News for You of all things stands accused of giving him that platform; the producers believing they were having a laugh at the silly posh spoofer. Turns out he was playing them.

He is an unbelievable spoofer completely devoid of any moral compass or ideology.

A large swath of the British love buying into that nonsense. They also love fawning over Royalty.

Let's not forget he "agonised" over whether to go Brexit or Remain- that tells you eveything right there. He wanted to see which way the wind was blowing because he didnt give a crap and the decision was based purely on what was good for Boris.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, a certain Elizabeth Warren from the United States presented a set of data to show that this problem was most acute in dual-income households. The "perfect storm" of pushing both halves of a married couple into work by removing their married couple's allowances, then encouraging home-ownership on the back of high-value, mortgages based on multiples of the two incomes repayable over 20, then 25, then 30 years, and set against the unicornism of rising property values has contributed to this mental and social inertia.

The sad thing about it is that it is, in fact, incredibly easy to up sticks and leave, if you're not so psychologically locked into the idea that migration is a Bad Thing.

Many years ago, I was driving a hire car in London and I was listening to a Radio 4 documentary talking about the development of Milton Keynes Garden City in 1967. Every house had to have enough room for a yacht - not because every home would have one. No, but every home owner would need a hobby - and the space required for a useful hobby would be enough to house a yacht.

Why? Because by the year 2000, the amount of free leisure time enjoyed by most home owners meant they would have enough free time that they would need a hobby to keep themselves busy. You know, like old vintage cars that need constant fettling and polishing, or perhaps a motor home for those trips to the lake district or Cornwall.

What ever happened to all this leisure time? In 1967, most women looked after their kids full time, but now they work full time out of necessity to pay the mortgage and the child care. Is that progress?

OMM 0000

pixelburp wrote: »

Weird no; but it does beg the question if you accept - or care - that his entire public persona is a facade, precision-engineered to charm and get the result you speak of. The ruffled hair, blathering Latin, and air of "affable toff" is superficial and served its purpose to ram him into the corridors of power. I've said it before but Have I got News for You of all things stands accused of giving him that platform; the producers believing they were having a laugh at the silly posh spoofer. Turns out he was playing them.

Oh I know he's an absolute slippery ****.

But all politicians are.

At least his brand of sleaze is kind of entertaining.

10000maniacs

partyguinness wrote: »

He is an unbelievable spoofer completely devoid of any moral compass or ideology.

A large swath of the British love buying into that nonsense. They also love fawning over Royalty.

Let's not forget he "agonised" over whether to go Brexit or Remain- that tells you eveything right there. He wanted to see which way the wind was blowing because he didnt give a crap and the decision was based purely on what was good for Boris.

Nothing to do with Johnson whatsoever. These "shock" results are all about Brexit and immigration.

partyguinness

10000maniacs wrote: »

These results have nothing to do with Johnson. These "shock" results are all about Brexit and immigration.

Agreed but I was replying to a direct post about Johnson.

partyguinness

Sam Russell wrote: »

Many years ago, I was driving a hire car in London and I was listening to a Radio 4 documentary talking about the development of Milton Keynes Garden City in 1967. Every house had to have enough room for a yacht - not because every home would have one. No, but every home owner would need a hobby - and the space required for a useful hobby would be enough to house a yacht.

Why? Because by the year 2000, the amount of free leisure time enjoyed by most home owners meant they would have enough free time that they would need a hobby to keep themselves busy. You know, like old vintage cars that need constant fettling and polishing, or perhaps a motor home for those trips to the lake district or Cornwall.

What ever happened to all this leisure time? In 1967, most women looked after their kids full time, but now they work full time out of necessity to pay the mortgage and the child care. Is that progress?

Wasn't it John Maynard Keynes who expected 'us' to be down to a 4 day week by now as tecnology advanced?

hotmail.com

Clive Lewis, a Labour high profile person on the BBC. He just doesn't get it.

He said Labour are the only "progressive" party, which in effect means that the Tory voters are not progressive.

It's this self righteous language that just irritates the working class when they are constantly talked down to. In order to win elections, don't use language like "progressive". The Tory candidate who won the seat is the first female MP for the area! Isn't that "progressive"?

The Labour MPs need to get off Twitter.

PommieBast

10000maniacs wrote: »

The big problem for labour is they are split down the middle on Brexit lines, while the Tories are not. Hartlepool voted 67% for Brexit.

The Conservatives are also split but their Remainer vote doesn't really have anywhere to go. It certainly is not Labour. Where I am from the LibDems may well clean up if they modelled themselves after the German FDP rather than being a me-too to the Green Party, but that won't happen.

10000maniacs

PommieBast wrote: »

The Conservatives are also split but their Remainer vote doesn't really have anywhere to go. It certainly is not Labour. Where I am from the LibDems may well clean up if they modelled themselves after the German FDP rather than being a me-too to the Green Party, but that won't happen.

The Conservatives were never split down the middle, and neither was Hartlepool.
But Labour was and still is.
Like it or hate it, they need to tackle immigration to get back on track.

PommieBast

10000maniacs wrote: »

The Conservatives were never split down the middle, and neither was Hartlepool.
But Labour was and still is.
Like it or hate it, they need to tackle immigration to get back on track.

Maybe I should have mentioned where I was from. Last local elections the only reason the Conservatives were not wiped out in my hometown was because the other parties did not put up enough candidates.

Sam Russell

partyguinness wrote: »

Wasn't it John Maynard Keynes who expected 'us' to be down to a 4 day week by now as tecnology advanced?

He may well have, but he was pre Thatcher.

By the way, Milton Keynes has no connection with John Milton, the poet, nor with John Maynard Keynes, the economist. It was just the name of the village that was in the middle of the area chosen for the new garden city.

ancapailldorcha

10000maniacs wrote: »

The Conservatives were never split down the middle, and neither was Hartlepool.
But Labour was and still is.
Like it or hate it, they need to tackle immigration to get back on track.

The Conservatives aren't split down the middle but they are best by factions such as the One Nation Tories, the laissez-faire neoliberals and right wing cultural nationalists. There are two important points to note though. The first is that the right tend to be better at not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and the second is that Johnson can win elections. Internal warfare would damage the party and risk Labour taking power so this keeps the party together.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Many years ago, I was driving a hire car in London and I was listening to a Radio 4 documentary talking about the development of Milton Keynes Garden City in 1967. Every house had to have enough room for a yacht - not because every home would have one. No, but every home owner would need a hobby - and the space required for a useful hobby would be enough to house a yacht.

Why? Because by the year 2000, the amount of free leisure time enjoyed by most home owners meant they would have enough free time that they would need a hobby to keep themselves busy. You know, like old vintage cars that need constant fettling and polishing, or perhaps a motor home for those trips to the lake district or Cornwall.

What ever happened to all this leisure time? In 1967, most women looked after their kids full time, but now they work full time out of necessity to pay the mortgage and the child care. Is that progress?

I remember those promises as well, the idea was based on the fact that automation of most work would eliminate full time employment of 40 hours or so a week from the equation. People would only be expected to have part time jobs while retaining a decent standard of living, the robots were supposed to "give their worth" to the displaced workers.
Instead the elite took it all!

Such a pity that Corbyn didn't just stick to his beliefs and say "We had the referendum and we'll be leaving the EU."

The glorified Tories in Labour attacked him more than the actual Tories. Blue Labour got their man, Starmer, who has turned out to be the worst Labour leader in history.