Do you want to discuss boring politics? (23 Viewers)

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I think there’s got to be something that can equalise private and social rent history, take it into account for credit worthiness, and provide a foot onto home ownership for those people that doesn’t bankrupt councils or inflate house prices massively or benefit quick Buck landlords.
I feel like the sell off should have been limited to 50% of a property. Council retains the land/property as well as a decent amount of control over repairs/tenants etc. Renter can obtain equity and then have a vested interest to keep the house/area maintained.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
As far as I can remember Whitefriars qualified for a one-off government grant?
Seems odd that a council wouldn't qualify for a grant but a private association does.

Almost like it's policy to make it easier for private investors to make money at the expense of those in need of housing and its communities
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Just watching C4 news and it looks like the SNP is handing the RAAC issue as clumsily as the Tories. Not looking good for the SNP at the next GE given all their other issues as well which begs the question. Who will benefit from the demise of the SNP?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
‘Council homes sold under Right To Buy tend to end up in the hands of private landlords, with an estimated 40 per cent of all those sold under the scheme now rented out for profit.’ - I hope they mean indirectly ie subsequently sold on. I would make any social housing sold on under such schemes ‘unrentable’ for X years and/or have some sort of payback to gov/local authority if sold within certain period
I remember years ago watching a documentary about the local council in Walthamstow, stuck in my memory because I'd not long before that moved from there. In that area they said 8 of 10 RTB properties were with private landlords and there had only been enough new social housing built to replace 1 in 10

As if that wasn't bad enough the council were now having to rent those form RTB properties off private landlords but the rent was higher than the maximum they could claim per property in funding so they were having to subsidise it from other parts of the council budget
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I think it had something to do with reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, on paper at least?
Maybe, but still ideological. Money is still going out of government funds and ending up in private hands with split interests rather than a body whose sole concern is providing social housing.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
One can only hope that the media suddenly noticing the utter disasterous consequences of austerity and the government as household mantra that enables it means that Labour will need to change approach. You can't keep saying "it's terrible that schools are collapsing but we can't say we'll do anything about it".
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
“Tory policies to deal with a Tory crisis” is a great line.

I honestly think she thinks anyone talking about growth or hope is a fringe loon and everyone wants nothing. Everyone I know of every political stripe thinks everything is fucked and change is needed.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
“Tory policies to deal with a Tory crisis” is a great line.

I honestly think she thinks anyone talking about growth or hope is a fringe loon and everyone wants nothing. Everyone I know of every political stripe thinks everything is fucked and change is needed.
Well this is the consequence of being ashamed of progressivism and going after Daily Mail votes.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Everyone I know of every political stripe thinks everything is fucked and change is needed.
It's what I do find slightly bizarre that they're following a supposedly Blair path but... he did offer hope and change!

I still cling to the hope a manifesto might be a bit better - it has to offer an alternative otherwise you're voting for notTory, and that's not sustainable.
 

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
It's what I do find slightly bizarre that they're following a supposedly Blair path but... he did offer hope and change!

I still cling to the hope a manifesto might be a bit better - it has to offer an alternative otherwise you're voting for notTory, and that's not sustainable.

Its not even voting for "notTory".....it would be voting "Torylite"

Fucking joke of an "opposition".
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
It's what I do find slightly bizarre that they're following a supposedly Blair path but... he did offer hope and change!

I still cling to the hope a manifesto might be a bit better - it has to offer an alternative otherwise you're voting for notTory, and that's not sustainable.

Yeah you just want to see something. Thing is I’m not sure I’d buy hope even if Starmer and Reeves were selling it. What’s the big event that’s going to mean now we can look forwards? Or is it just “lol elected now everything’s fine really” which won’t go down well.

They need something though. The political antenna of the Labour advisors is fucking shocking. I genuinely worry they’re in a bubble still fighting ghosts and haven’t actually looked up and seen the real world recently.
 

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
He's a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Doesn't have a point of view
Knows not where he's going to
Isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere man please listen
You don't know what you're missing
Nowhere man, the world is at your command
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
“Tory policies to deal with a Tory crisis” is a great line.

I honestly think she thinks anyone talking about growth or hope is a fringe loon and everyone wants nothing. Everyone I know of every political stripe thinks everything is fucked and change is needed.

It's an incredible opportunity for some one with vision to come in and totally rebuild the country and reshape the way we do things to benefit the majority.
Unfortunately that visionary doesn't appear to be out there.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The political antenna of the Labour advisors is fucking shocking.
I think that's the main issue, they cling to Blairism without realising that Blairism was still progressive-lite, and designed to appeal to traditional Labour voters as well. There's also the obvious that each leader since... is not Blair. It's what Corbyn actually did right, ignoring them.

I mean, Milliband and Burnham have personalities when they're not being coached in government, or government in waiting, Brown looked ridiculous trying to be touchy feely, and apparently Starmer IRL is quick, witty, good company... and at least vaguely progressive.

But as soon as they come within a sniff of the leadership or a senior government post, they go all anodine and Stepford Labour Leader!

(Add Ed Balls to another who once out of government actually comes across as reasonably engaging!)
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I think that's the main issue, they cling to Blairism without realising that Blairism was still progressive-lite, and designed to appeal to traditional Labour voters as well. There's also the obvious that each leader since... is not Blair. It's what Corbyn actually did right, ignoring them.

I mean, Milliband and Burnham have personalities when they're not being coached in government, or government in waiting, Brown looked ridiculous trying to be touchy feely, and apparently Starmer IRL is quick, witty, good company... and at least vaguely progressive.

But as soon as they come within a sniff of the leadership or a senior government post, they go all anodine and Stepford Labour Leader!

(Add Ed Balls to another who once out of government actually comes across as reasonably engaging!)

Id argue media has a fair bit to do with that. The way some of these were treated in and out of office was night and day.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Id argue media has a fair bit to do with that. The way some of these were treated in and out of office was night and day.
But it's also what's allowed to rule and come across. They totally missed that the USP of Brown at that point was he wasn't Blair, he was a serious policy-driven politician with intellect who was going to grasp the problems the country had and take it forward. Instead they tried to make him smiley-happy people person, and not only did that look bonkers, but it also made him appear indecisive and dithering, which is never a good look (see, Johnson - see, Corbyn - both of who raised it up a notch or two from that anyway).

Burnham just came across as insincere and willing to bend to whatever the political tone of the day was, and looked grey as the others - is why Corbyn was able to come through and win. I'm pretty sure a Burnham as he conducts himself now would have been far more of a fight.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
But it's also what's allowed to rule and come across. They totally missed that the USP of Brown at that point was he wasn't Blair, he was a serious policy-driven politician with intellect who was going to grasp the problems the country had and take it forward. Instead they tried to make him smiley-happy people person, and not only did that look bonkers, but it also made him appear indecisive and dithering, which is never a good look (see, Johnson - see, Corbyn - both of who raised it up a notch or two from that anyway).

Burnham just came across as insincere and willing to bend to whatever the political tone of the day was, and looked grey as the others - is why Corbyn was able to come through and win. I'm pretty sure a Burnham as he conducts himself now would have been far more of a fight.

Its the fear in the eyes that people won’t like what they have to say. I reckon the first thing you get as LOTO is a bunch of pollsters telling you what people don’t like and to smooth it over and tone it down.

The most popular (and also divisive) figures have been the fringes cos they don’t care and know they’re seen as loons anyway so play to the base. But they’re also congruent. Centre ground politicians seem to feel they can’t just say what they think. The ones that do tend to do pretty well.

I think for a few reasons this affects left more than right. Not least among them being good old public school confidence. And of course the last century of electoral history in this country.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The most popular (and also divisive) figures have been the fringes cos they don’t care and know they’re seen as loons anyway so play to the base. But they’re also congruent. Centre ground politicians seem to feel they can’t just say what they think. The ones that do tend to do pretty well.
Yeah, probably why Milliband comes across better nowadays. Current way of doing things means he knows he'll never have another go at being leader (side note, craziness writ large there - Hague would have been a far more effective Tory leader later in his career than when he was actually doing the job), so he can come out with leftfield policies and relax into his witty quips a lot better, knowing he never needs to have the pressure as to whether he eats a bacon sandwich or not ever again!
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Yeah, probably why Milliband comes across better nowadays. Current way of doing things means he knows he'll never have another go at being leader (side note, craziness writ large there - Hague would have been a far more effective Tory leader later in his career than when he was actually doing the job), so he can come out with leftfield policies and relax into his witty quips a lot better, knowing he never needs to have the pressure as to whether he eats a bacon sandwich or not ever again!

Its mental really cos surely by definition the people who will get the majority saying what they think are the more moderate politicians.

This TED talk always comes to mind on a variety of topics, this one too:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top