The long term unemployed need to get on the biked and get to work. Not whinge about how difficult it all is while staying on benefits.
Those who claim benefits while never having paid into the system are another group and care little for.
People who have lost a job or need to change their circumstances with a short period I'm unemployment I can live with.
OK. Of course there are some welfare scroungers. But it's not one of the bigger problems we face, is it?
I note the '4 pints' comment - which is great but I think it might be best if I go and sink a few so we can relate better. Won't take me long. Never does.
PS: Skimming some of your other posts I am surprised and delighted to find that we DO agree on one or two things -
- Discourage living 'off' property. - Cross party solution needed for social care.
They're going to find themselves suffering the same electoral arithmetic as the Jews...
Exactly.
Still brave of Wes Streeting to speak out on this - his constituency in north east London used to have one of the largest Jewish communities in the UK but has changed rapidly in recent years and his core Labour vote is very similar to Roger Godsiff's. And he is also a gay man. Jess Phillips has also spoken out - but most of the other Labour Birmingham MPs have been sitting on the fence.
First Labour threw the Jewish community under the bus - next the gays? It certainly worked as an electoral strategy in Peterborough!
Some minorities have as you say less voting strength than others.
They're going to find themselves suffering the same electoral arithmetic as the Jews...
Exactly.
Still brave of Wes Streeting to speak out on this - his constituency used to have one of the largest Jewish communities in the UK but has changed rapidly in recent years and his core Labour vote is very similar to Roger Godsiff's. And he is also a gay man.
First Labour threw the Jewish community under the bus - next the gays? It certainly worked as an electoral strategy in Peterborough!
Some minorities have as you say less voting strength than others.
To be blunt Corbyn Labour could survive losing the gays to the LDs or Greens or even some to the Boris Tories, it could not survive losing the Muslim vote as Peterborough proved.
The long term unemployed need to get on the biked and get to work. Not whinge about how difficult it all is while staying on benefits.
Those who claim benefits while never having paid into the system are another group and care little for.
People who have lost a job or need to change their circumstances with a short period I'm unemployment I can live with.
OK. Of course there are welfare scroungers. But it's not one of the bigger problems we face, is it?
I note the '4 pints' comment - which is great but I think it might be best if I go and sink a few so we can relate better. Won't take me long.
PS: Skimming some of your other posts I am surprised and delighted to find we DO agree on one or two things -
- Discourage living 'off' property. - Cross party solution needed to social care.
These two took the eye. SYL.
Yes tbh, unemployment benefits aren't a huge priority. Increasing home ownership, improving education and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to succeed (or fail) would be my priorities.
Now I’m convinced there’s a Boris story coming. And it won’t be from 35 years ago when he was a student.
Wouldn't it be quicker to count the MPs who have not dabbled? A certain T May perhaps, anyone else?
I would be pretty confident most students in the 80s and 90s tried at least one drug, given nearly all MPs are graduates why is this an issue? Unless they are for strict punishments for possession I am surprised anyone is remotely interested.
In 2001 I believe Ann Widdecombe, Hague and IDS were the only shadow Cabinet Ministers who were firm they had not taken drugs
Now I’m convinced there’s a Boris story coming. And it won’t be from 35 years ago when he was a student.
Wouldn't it be quicker to count the MPs who have not dabbled? A certain T May perhaps, anyone else?
I would be pretty confident most students in the 80s and 90s tried at least one drug, given nearly all MPs are graduates why is this an issue? Unless they are for strict punishments for possession I am surprised anyone is remotely interested.
In 2001 I believe Ann Widdecombe, Hague and IDS were the only shadow Cabinet Ministers who were firm they had not taken drugs
Unemployment Benefit is taxable or at least it was in the 90s. The weekly/monthly rate was not enough to pay tax on when claiming, but had a hidden effect once you started work again. People who started/returned to work having had no taxable income for that part tax year (eg. students and school leavers) effectively got a small tax break for the rest of the tax year.
Yes, I remember that. It was great when it happened to you.
“A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone if it is to keep its edge. That's why I read so much" Jon Snow.
I am given to understand that Jon Snow knows nothing...
I haven't got a telly (well I do but I never switch it on any more) so I have never seen a full episode, but two of my last three bosses and most of my friends were fans, so it was politic to keep up. It's not difficult, given that so much is on YouTube and synopses and reviews are so widely available. I know enough to bullshit thru a conversation, which (if you squint hard enough) is effectively my job description...
80% of new houses are bought by landlords. How is that helping under 45s? The ones that are affordable are hugely overpriced because of help to buy (aka help to increase builders profits), have tiny rooms and often onerous leases, even on houses.
"Do you have a source for the 80% figure?
Agree with the rest through, HtB is an unnecessary distortion and planners need to pay much more attention to exactly what is being built."
Remember it from last year, had a quick google but hard to find (too many buy to let adverts....), the report below is out of date but shows 61% in London in 2013. House prices have gone up by around a third, more in London, since then making it harder for workers so it could be in line with 80% recently.
To be clear then, you don’t have any recent evidence which supports your claim and any evidence which is tangentially related (and which you perform a heroic and evidence-free assertion with) related only to London. Where the new build sale to foreigners market has collapsed.
Is this a debate thread or am I providing evidence to a court?
Now I’m convinced there’s a Boris story coming. And it won’t be from 35 years ago when he was a student.
Wouldn't it be quicker to count the MPs who have not dabbled? A certain T May perhaps, anyone else?
I would be pretty confident most students in the 80s and 90s tried at least one drug, given nearly all MPs are graduates why is this an issue? Unless they are for strict punishments for possession I am surprised anyone is remotely interested.
In 2001 I believe Ann Widdecombe, Hague and IDS were the only shadow Cabinet Ministers who were firm they had not taken drugs
I suspect drug taking was uncommon in those with political aspirations born before about 1945. The baby boomer generation were the initiators. Very few of Thatcher's cabinet would have dabbled.
The *only* housing policy that going to win us back votes from the under 40s, is to build more of them. A *lot* more of them. Anything else is tinkering around the edges.
No it's not, there is enough housing for the existing population, the issue is that the older generation decided to screw the next one by buying all the property. Forcing them to sell by any means necessary will do the same job and put us on the right side of the argument for once. It will put us on the front foot, rather than chasing after Corbyn who will propose to expropriate property and it will be extremely popular with the young renting from the scumlords.
If there was enough housing for everyone, but it all belonged to landlords, the natural laws of supply and demand would make renting really cheap, and thus being a landlord would be an unattractive proposition.
If you want to do the landlords over, by far and away the best option is to build lots more houses, you don't have to have many more houses than people wanting them to have a dramatic downward effect on the price of houses. (You also don't have to build many fewer than there is demand for it to have an astonishing upwards effect). Its all in the economics 101, inelastic demand curves...
No 1 worse than dementia tax x 100 for any chance of a labour win No 2 Why does that make any difference No 3 How much tax would higher IHT raise in comparision with the cost of social care No 4 615,000 children go to private education. So how much will absorbing them into state education cost
No 5 Please explain how confiscating share value from nationalising the national grid and other grossly expensive nationalisation will not result in the collapse of most everyone's pension funds and the loss of billions of investment from private industry
With respect socialist dogma lacking thought of the consequences
1. Yes, it might be good policy but bad politics. Like TM's 'dementia tax'.
2. Makes a difference because it will be well funded and directed to the regions. That so many places have been neglected was, so we are told, the biggest driver of the discontent that gave us Brexit. Right - so let's stop talking about it and DO something to address the problem.
3. Not nearly enough. We could only partly fund this way. Perhaps combine with the dementia tax. Need a cross party agreement, otherwise nothing serious will ever be done.
4. The education budget would have to rise by approx 5%.
With respect, I do think things through. I do not spout dogma. Please refrain from repeating such a slur!
EDIT:
Just seen your number 5 question for me. It's a zinger! Will require time to answer properly. Give me a second.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed so it didn't go up my nose. In fact, it may have been icing sugar." - Boris, 2005
That's an interesting story by Boris. It was even more interesting when Woody Allen included a similar scene in one of his films. Does Boris also have an anecdote about when he went into a shop and ordered four candles?
Interestingly translating the recent YouGov poll figures on a Boris led Tory Party v Labour and the LDs into Electoral Calculus it shows the changing nature of the Tory coalition.
A Boris led Tory Party would gain Ashfield, Barrow, Battersea, Bishop Auckland, Bolsover, Canterbury, Derby North, Don Valley, Kensington, Lincoln, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, Stoke on Trent Central and North, Wakefield, Wolverhampton North East and South West from Labour but would lose Cheltenham, Devon North, Hazel Grove, Lewes, Richmond Park, St Albans, St Ives, Wells and Winchester to the LDs.
So a Boris led Tories does disproportionally better in C2 areas than AB areas and indeed a Boris led Tories would only lead the LDs by 1%, 28% to 27% with ABC1s but would lead Labour by 5%, 29% to 24% with C2DEs.
Just heard that my MP -Chloe Smith - has declared support for Boris Johnson. I have sent her the following Tweet - 'Surprised to hear of your support for such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Your Norfolk colleague - L Truss - aka 'the Tory Trollop' has also backed him - but expected better of you'.
Just heard that my MP -Chloe Smith - has declared support for Boris Johnson. I have sent her the following Tweet - 'Surprised to hear of your support for such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Your Norfolk colleague - L Truss - aka 'the Tory Trollop' has also backed him - but expected better of you'.
Just heard that my MP -Chloe Smith - has declared support for Boris Johnson. I have sent her the following Tweet - 'Surprised to hear of your support for such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Your Norfolk colleague - L Truss - aka 'the Tory Trollop' has also backed him - but expected better of you'.
I am no fan of landlordism but scum is completely the wrong word for the majority of them, I accept it is sadly fine for a significant minority. Deluded that they are providing a service to the economy rather than leeching off it would be accurate for most.
Private renting has reversed the flow of wealth that is healthy for the economy. Previously older generations spent and he younger ones benefited by them buying services etc... Now the younger generations spend 30-40% of their net income on rent which invariably goes to one of the scumbags in the older generation. It's not economically viable and is one of the reasons we're facing a long period of low growth.
Completely agree with all of that. Most landlords are not scum however as they do not realise what you have written. They are deluded not deliberately malign.
If they are scum by design or incedent is no matter, they are still scum. My experience of them is all extremely negative, it's just that I'm one of the few lucky ones that was able to buy and not look back.
I have rented twice - in both cases the landlords and/or their agent tried to screw us over the deposit and deductions for repairs.
Video evidence of condition when you move in is very helpful as is a willingness to debate the fairness of charges.
One of my favourites was only for a small amount but the sheer cheek made me smile.
The landlord asked for an additional amount for cleaning at end as they noted we had a pet dog with us plus they claimed he had damaged the carpets in hall.
Video evidence proved damage claim incorrect and then I pointed out we had paid UP FRONT an additional charge to cover additional cleaning for the dog and I thought it was a bit much that they wanted to charge for same thing twice.
One of the more expensive claims was that we had damaged a shower stall.
They wanted something like 800 because one of the sliders at top of door was missing and they couldn't source a new one......
I pointed out that the shower cubicle had been there since the house was new and no, I was not going to fund a completely new luxury shower for them.
I then gave them a few internet links showing where they could get this part.
Now I’m convinced there’s a Boris story coming. And it won’t be from 35 years ago when he was a student.
Everybody knows Boris has masses of skeletons but he has enough charisma like Bill Clinton or Trump or Berlusconi he can brush it off.
Unless it is shown Boris has committed a serious crime nothing will stop him now
I think that everyone knows his wife didn’t trust him to keep his pants up, but I’m not sure that many people know many of the other, more serious, stories that are already out there.
They are about to get that education. How many members know of his alleged involvement in a contract beating, of one mistress forced to have an abortion and another he tried to gag in court from speaking out about their child?
Also, I think that while most people are okay with students doing silly things, they don’t extend that same ambivalence to the same things done in your forties. He has also denied taking drugs in the past, and I still reckon there’s a big story coming up.
There’s lots of people he’s crossed over the years who don’t want him to become leader of the Conservative party.
Just heard that my MP -Chloe Smith - has declared support for Boris Johnson. I have sent her the following Tweet - 'Surprised to hear of your support for such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Your Norfolk colleague - L Truss - aka 'the Tory Trollop' has also backed him - but expected better of you'.
You didn't really tweet that did you?
Search on twitter doesn't find anything like that.
You are treating a business as an investment. Renting property was always a risky business only in the 1990's did it become an investment...
And unfairly, we've become the party of wealthy landlords and labour the party of private renters, despite Labour overseeing the huge rise in private renting. Either way we need to smash the private rental sector to smithereens and put the private landlords into the streets if we have to.
Why? Letting property is an activity that takes place between consenting adults.
The *only* housing policy that going to win us back votes from the under 40s, is to build more of them. A *lot* more of them. Anything else is tinkering around the edges.
No it's not, there is enough housing for the existing population, the issue is that the older generation decided to screw the next one by buying all the property. Forcing them to sell by any means necessary will do the same job and put us on the right side of the argument for once. It will put us on the front foot, rather than chasing after Corbyn who will propose to expropriate property and it will be extremely popular with the young renting from the scumlords.
If there was enough housing for everyone, but it all belonged to landlords, the natural laws of supply and demand would make renting really cheap, and thus being a landlord would be an unattractive proposition.
If you want to do the landlords over, by far and away the best option is to build lots more houses, you don't have to have many more houses than people wanting them to have a dramatic downward effect on the price of houses. (You also don't have to build many fewer than there is demand for it to have an astonishing upwards effect). Its all in the economics 101, inelastic demand curves...
Too late for this thread but it's remarkable how much property in the UK has a rental value almost identical to what the Local Housing Allowance pays for such a property...
Sorry, I accidentally deleted my response to you. Thick fingers.
As below:
1. Yes, it might be good policy but bad politics. Like TM's 'dementia tax'.
2. Makes a difference because it will be well funded and directed to the regions. That so many places have been neglected was, so we are told, the biggest driver of the discontent that gave us Brexit. Right - so let's stop talking about it and DO something to address the problem.
3. Not nearly enough. We could only partly fund this way. Perhaps combine with the dementia tax. Need a cross party agreement, otherwise nothing serious will ever be done.
4. The education budget would have to rise by approx 5%.
With respect, I do think things through. I do not spout dogma. Please refrain from repeating such a slur!
Your number 5 question for me is a zinger. Will require time to answer properly. Give me a second.
Just heard that my MP -Chloe Smith - has declared support for Boris Johnson. I have sent her the following Tweet - 'Surprised to hear of your support for such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Your Norfolk colleague - L Truss - aka 'the Tory Trollop' has also backed him - but expected better of you'.
You didn't really tweet that did you?
Search on twitter doesn't find anything like that.
Direct message. Probably binned immediately by said MP.
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families. 2. We've just managed to get rid out state ownership of banks, it didn't go well. 3. You've just pushed more people into tax planning, causing a reduction in actual tax take. 4. Who pays for all of the additional pupils who's parents now decide that can't or won't send their kids to private school?
As always with the left, policies that sounds good but will wreck the economy (and in this case the education sector).
Only a moronic cretin would think any of that crap is aspirational and going to help anyone. Commies really are as thick as they make out.
Comments
I note the '4 pints' comment - which is great but I think it might be best if I go and sink a few so we can relate better. Won't take me long. Never does.
PS: Skimming some of your other posts I am surprised and delighted to find that we DO agree on one or two things -
- Discourage living 'off' property.
- Cross party solution needed for social care.
These two took the eye. SYL.
Still brave of Wes Streeting to speak out on this - his constituency in north east London used to have one of the largest Jewish communities in the UK but has changed rapidly in recent years and his core Labour vote is very similar to Roger Godsiff's. And he is also a gay man. Jess Phillips has also spoken out - but most of the other Labour Birmingham MPs have been sitting on the fence.
First Labour threw the Jewish community under the bus - next the gays? It certainly worked as an electoral strategy in Peterborough!
Some minorities have as you say less voting strength than others.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1137318450718760960
Everybody knows Boris has masses of skeletons but he has enough charisma like Bill Clinton or Trump or Berlusconi he can brush it off.
Unless it is shown Boris has committed a serious crime nothing will stop him now
I haven't got a telly (well I do but I never switch it on any more) so I have never seen a full episode, but two of my last three bosses and most of my friends were fans, so it was politic to keep up. It's not difficult, given that so much is on YouTube and synopses and reviews are so widely available. I know enough to bullshit thru a conversation, which (if you squint hard enough) is effectively my job description...
If you want to do the landlords over, by far and away the best option is to build lots more houses, you don't have to have many more houses than people wanting them to have a dramatic downward effect on the price of houses. (You also don't have to build many fewer than there is demand for it to have an astonishing upwards effect). Its all in the economics 101, inelastic demand curves...
2. Makes a difference because it will be well funded and directed to the regions. That so many places have been neglected was, so we are told, the biggest driver of the discontent that gave us Brexit. Right - so let's stop talking about it and DO something to address the problem.
3. Not nearly enough. We could only partly fund this way. Perhaps combine with the dementia tax. Need a cross party agreement, otherwise nothing serious will ever be done.
4. The education budget would have to rise by approx 5%.
With respect, I do think things through. I do not spout dogma. Please refrain from repeating such a slur!
EDIT:
Just seen your number 5 question for me. It's a zinger! Will require time to answer properly. Give me a second.
A Boris led Tory Party would gain Ashfield, Barrow, Battersea, Bishop Auckland, Bolsover, Canterbury, Derby North, Don Valley, Kensington, Lincoln, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, Stoke on Trent Central and North, Wakefield, Wolverhampton North East and South West from Labour but would lose Cheltenham, Devon North, Hazel Grove, Lewes, Richmond Park, St Albans, St Ives, Wells and Winchester to the LDs.
So a Boris led Tories does disproportionally better in C2 areas than AB areas and indeed a Boris led Tories would only lead the LDs by 1%, 28% to 27% with ABC1s but would lead Labour by 5%, 29% to 24% with C2DEs.
https://order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/LordBell_190529_VotingIntentions_w1.pdf
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=29&LAB=22&LIB=22&Brexit=13&Green=7&ChUK=1&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVChUK=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20&SCOTLAB=15&SCOTLIB=16&SCOTBrexit=5&SCOTGreen=8&SCOTChUK=1&SCOTUKIP=0&SCOTNAT=35&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
I have sent her the following Tweet - 'Surprised to hear of your support for such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Your Norfolk colleague - L Truss - aka 'the Tory Trollop' has also backed him - but expected better of you'.
Video evidence of condition when you move in is very helpful as is a willingness to debate the fairness of charges.
One of my favourites was only for a small amount but the sheer cheek made me smile.
The landlord asked for an additional amount for cleaning at end as they noted we had a pet dog with us plus they claimed he had damaged the carpets in hall.
Video evidence proved damage claim incorrect and then I pointed out we had paid UP FRONT an additional charge to cover additional cleaning for the dog and I thought it was a bit much that they wanted to charge for same thing twice.
One of the more expensive claims was that we had damaged a shower stall.
They wanted something like 800 because one of the sliders at top of door was missing and they couldn't source a new one......
I pointed out that the shower cubicle had been there since the house was new and no, I was not going to fund a completely new luxury shower for them.
I then gave them a few internet links showing where they could get this part.
We settled on 50 for that.
They are about to get that education. How many members know of his alleged involvement in a contract beating, of one mistress forced to have an abortion and another he tried to gag in court from speaking out about their child?
Also, I think that while most people are okay with students doing silly things, they don’t extend that same ambivalence to the same things done in your forties. He has also denied taking drugs in the past, and I still reckon there’s a big story coming up.
There’s lots of people he’s crossed over the years who don’t want him to become leader of the Conservative party.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/951223356254277633
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1137380070404890625?s=20
gone
As below:
1. Yes, it might be good policy but bad politics. Like TM's 'dementia tax'.
2. Makes a difference because it will be well funded and directed to the regions. That so many places have been neglected was, so we are told, the biggest driver of the discontent that gave us Brexit. Right - so let's stop talking about it and DO something to address the problem.
3. Not nearly enough. We could only partly fund this way. Perhaps combine with the dementia tax. Need a cross party agreement, otherwise nothing serious will ever be done.
4. The education budget would have to rise by approx 5%.
With respect, I do think things through. I do not spout dogma. Please refrain from repeating such a slur!
Your number 5 question for me is a zinger. Will require time to answer properly. Give me a second.