Discussion
Tuna said:
blueg33 said:
No - his policy was the Local Authorities pay for it and that is exactly who we build it for............
You do know his policy was the Local Authorities pay for it with magic beans? Do you work for magic beans?However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
blueg33 said:
Swinson was a lightweight and although I liked her policies broadly she was never going to win, so this isn't a surprise.
Whats interesting for me is the amount of tory remainers who must have still voted tory. Obviously Corbyn was never going to be close to getting those voters, but the fact that the Lib Dems didnt convert many of them says much. Especially as Tory economic policies are not very believable.
So many Labour Brexiters must have switched to Tory to "get Brexit Done" - otherwise known as "f
k up our international trade position" 
Whats interesting for me is the amount of tory remainers who must have still voted tory. Obviously Corbyn was never going to be close to getting those voters, but the fact that the Lib Dems didnt convert many of them says much. Especially as Tory economic policies are not very believable.
So many Labour Brexiters must have switched to Tory to "get Brexit Done" - otherwise known as "f
k up our international trade position" 
That's probably me. Voted remain in the referendum, was gutted when we voted leave, but quickly moved on and accepted the result. Voted Tory on the basis they had a clear position on Brexit (which respected the referendum result), their broadly centrist policies, and the fact that in no circumstances did I want Corbyn, McDonnell or any of the other Labour bunch in no. 10. And especially not another minority/coalition government which would be as effective as a weak fart in a force 10 gale.Swinson was a very disappointing leader, she could have offered so much more. Accepted the referendum but campaigned for closer ties/custom union/etc etc. Still wouldn't have won but would have attracted far more votes and been a credible voting option over Tory/Labour.
kev1974 said:
apparently the lib dem constitution says that the leader must be a sitting MP, if that's correct then their talent pool to draw from is 11 people. I'm not sure who the full 11 winners and therefore leadership contenders are (other than the completely useless example of Sarah Olney in my seat of Richmond Park) but not aware of any particularly well known and well liked ones. Think it will be hard for them to come back from this, it's possible that Jo Swinson has not just killed their 2019 election but killed them forever. As a parliamentary party anyway, it's possible that this will knock them back to being just a local governent party I suppose.
Would have been mildly amusing if they'd returned no MP's Edited by kev1974 on Friday 13th December 09:47
blueg33 said:
Obviously LA's get their money from the public purse, I'm not stupid. I said it would be good for my business, not necessarily for me personally in terms of tax take.
However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
Genuine question, do you think the rent would have stayed at £140/wk under Corbyn or would it have been reduced to more 'affordable' levels?However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
I understand that commercial case/need from your side, but do you think Corbyn etc could see that through the dogma?
Lotobear said:
chris watton said:
You must have listened to the same R4 programme I did early this morning. The new narrative is that this GE had nothing at all to do with Brexit, and all to do with Corbyn, according to all at the Beeb. So funny..
I noticed that too...there were at lot of faces looking like smarked arses at the BBC this morning, the mood was palpably gloomy and the presenters seemed unable to countenance any suggestion that the result might just have been about BrexitI heard that line being pushed again this morning on local radio. Election was absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, all to do with Corbyn. There you have it the so-called educated telling us, the so-called uneducated, again.
Dicks! Labour turning blue is about one thing only yesterday, Brexit!
The Lib-Dums slightly increased their vote here (the Greens stood aside).
Why? Because they wanted to stop what? Corbyn? Of course not, they wanted to stop Brexit. End of. Every piece of their crap through our door (and their was lots of it! And the canvassers. And the phone calls. Not one mention of Corbyn. Everything, everything was 'Stop Brexit'.
They think we're thick. No. Look in the mirror you wallies.
Blown up in their arrogant undemocratic faces! The People's Vote has spoken.
dandarez said:
Labour turning blue is about one thing only yesterday, Brexit!
I don't think that's true. Brexit was the major policy issue of the campaign, rightly so. But there has been no shortage of negativity about Corbyn among the electorate, with number of Labour MP's subsequently saying that Corbyn was toxic on the doorstep.The Corbynista's are trying to work this line that the result was only about brexit, so that they can keep control of the Labour party leadership. I'd like to see at least some of the blame for the big defeat pinned onto Corbyn and Corbynism, so that Labour can move onto a leader with a broader, more centre-left/centrist appeal.
ben5575 said:
blueg33 said:
Obviously LA's get their money from the public purse, I'm not stupid. I said it would be good for my business, not necessarily for me personally in terms of tax take.
However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
Genuine question, do you think the rent would have stayed at £140/wk under Corbyn or would it have been reduced to more 'affordable' levels?However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
I understand that commercial case/need from your side, but do you think Corbyn etc could see that through the dogma?
The housing problem is massive in social housing so really landlords are in the driving seat which isn't great. The vast majority of families on housing benefit are in private rented, paying more than social or affordable rented levels. Its a supply issue IMO
blueg33 said:
The rents would stay at similar levels, probably gone up as UC and housing benefits would have been more generous.
The housing problem is massive in social housing so really landlords are in the driving seat which isn't great. The vast majority of families on housing benefit are in private rented, paying more than social or affordable rented levels. Its a supply issue IMO
I agree re supply etc. The housing problem is massive in social housing so really landlords are in the driving seat which isn't great. The vast majority of families on housing benefit are in private rented, paying more than social or affordable rented levels. Its a supply issue IMO
I was concerned over talk of rent caps and how Labour were proposing to deal with private landlords in general and in turn the possible implication to social rental levels. Still, a non issue now!
blueg33 said:
Obviously LA's get their money from the public purse, I'm not stupid. I said it would be good for my business, not necessarily for me personally in terms of tax take.
However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
Hey, I agree with the social principle. The issue is that in order to deliver what he promised, he'd quite likely have to force suppliers such as yourself to do it for next to no profit (for the public good), and/or wreck the housing and land market in order to make it work economically. The side effect of giving you some business in the short term would quite possibly to make house building unprofitable for a decade or more. However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
Labour weren't making a choice on where the money would go, they were committing to deliver the public good regardless of the economic consequences.
Tuna said:
blueg33 said:
Obviously LA's get their money from the public purse, I'm not stupid. I said it would be good for my business, not necessarily for me personally in terms of tax take.
However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
Hey, I agree with the social principle. The issue is that in order to deliver what he promised, he'd quite likely have to force suppliers such as yourself to do it for next to no profit (for the public good), and/or wreck the housing and land market in order to make it work economically. The side effect of giving you some business in the short term would quite possibly to make house building unprofitable for a decade or more. However, here is a thought - is it better than LA's spend circa £140 per week putting 1000's of families in B&B accommodation or £140 per week putting them in newly built council owned houses on council owned land?
The expenditure is already there, its how the money is used and reported that's the problem
Labour weren't making a choice on where the money would go, they were committing to deliver the public good regardless of the economic consequences.
Strangely in the 30 plus years I have been in development, its always done best under a labour government, whether market housing, social housing, commercial or state infrastructure like hospitals
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff