Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
Blue Oval84 said:
In fairness, the Labour party vocally support the concept that the government shouldn't throw leaseholders under the cladding bus but I don't think have done enough to point out that-
1) It's not just cladding, there are lots of other fire safety risks that we're being obliged to pay to fix, but Jenrick just keeps talking about money for cladding
2) The funding they've put up is not enough by half
3) There's no support beyond cladding loans (that will add £600 per year to service charges and consequently massively dent property values) for blocks under 18m even though some of them are still lethally dangerous (see Worcester Park fire). Even the loans they're offering are only for cladding, so many blocks still won't be remediated
4) Australia have already proven how it can be done, the taxpayer stumps up the cash and then re-coups it from developers over 30 years with a levy - why not do it here? Perhaps due to the huge proporition of their donations that come from the developers?
5) Even if you don't own a flat and are thinking this doesn't affect you, wait until you want to move and your whole chain collapses because the flat at the bottom turns out to be un-mortgageable.
What seems staggering to be is that 40% of the victims of this scandal voted Tory, it's unlikely any of us will again. We're not stupid and can see right through their soundbites and we know who they're looking out for (and it's not us).
If the builders of your flat had used the right materials in the first place your flat would have cost you more to buy, why should the taxpayer (me) pick up the bill when you are the only one to benefit? Now for social housing the argument is different as the taxpayer owns the asset.1) It's not just cladding, there are lots of other fire safety risks that we're being obliged to pay to fix, but Jenrick just keeps talking about money for cladding
2) The funding they've put up is not enough by half
3) There's no support beyond cladding loans (that will add £600 per year to service charges and consequently massively dent property values) for blocks under 18m even though some of them are still lethally dangerous (see Worcester Park fire). Even the loans they're offering are only for cladding, so many blocks still won't be remediated
4) Australia have already proven how it can be done, the taxpayer stumps up the cash and then re-coups it from developers over 30 years with a levy - why not do it here? Perhaps due to the huge proporition of their donations that come from the developers?
5) Even if you don't own a flat and are thinking this doesn't affect you, wait until you want to move and your whole chain collapses because the flat at the bottom turns out to be un-mortgageable.
What seems staggering to be is that 40% of the victims of this scandal voted Tory, it's unlikely any of us will again. We're not stupid and can see right through their soundbites and we know who they're looking out for (and it's not us).
British Recovery Bond . . . .
He does know that the "excess savings" are not in biscuit tins under the bed but are in bank accounts where the money is being used by those banks (in return for paying interest) probably to fund just the sort of work he is proposing to use it on . . . . . or does he?
Anyway what are "excess savings" - anything in excess of what the labour party think you should have? your pension fund? or being pistonheads - your flash car savings pot?
He does know that the "excess savings" are not in biscuit tins under the bed but are in bank accounts where the money is being used by those banks (in return for paying interest) probably to fund just the sort of work he is proposing to use it on . . . . . or does he?
Anyway what are "excess savings" - anything in excess of what the labour party think you should have? your pension fund? or being pistonheads - your flash car savings pot?
IJWS15 said:
British Recovery Bond . . . .
He does know that the "excess savings" are not in biscuit tins under the bed but are in bank accounts where the money is being used by those banks (in return for paying interest) probably to fund just the sort of work he is proposing to use it on . . . . . or does he?
Anyway what are "excess savings" - anything in excess of what the labour party think you should have? your pension fund? or being pistonheads - your flash car savings pot?
So far he's been absolutely sHe does know that the "excess savings" are not in biscuit tins under the bed but are in bank accounts where the money is being used by those banks (in return for paying interest) probably to fund just the sort of work he is proposing to use it on . . . . . or does he?
Anyway what are "excess savings" - anything in excess of what the labour party think you should have? your pension fund? or being pistonheads - your flash car savings pot?
te. His "recovery bond" is laughable spin. Spin is all it is.
The Government is borrowing money. At very very low interest rates.
That is the best value way for taxpayers to fund the recovery.
Not to pay those with (relatively) large amounts of assets additional interest to entice them to invest in a recovery bond spin exercise
It is a transfer from UK taxpayers to UK savers. And laughable.
What a fool.
Ntv said:
<edit for brevity>
His "recovery bond" is laughable spin. Spin is all it is.
The Government is borrowing money. At very very low interest rates.
That is the best value way for taxpayers to fund the recovery.
Quite. And yet I've just heard Bridget Phillipson on the radio asserting that this was how it would all be paid for: those lucky enough to have a cash surplus would lend it to the government at higher rates than the government can get in the bond markets.........genius.His "recovery bond" is laughable spin. Spin is all it is.
The Government is borrowing money. At very very low interest rates.
That is the best value way for taxpayers to fund the recovery.
When it was pointed out to her that this would reward wealthy citizens at the expense of everyone else, she seemed not to get it at all.
I know this thread's about Sir Keir, but my word, he's surrounded by some seriously hopeless colleagues. And before anyone says it, yes, so is Boris.
turbobloke said:
PiesAreGreat said:
if I were given the choice of Johnson (again), would you not vote Starmer?
...
No, because it's not just about what Johnson has or hasn't done. Boris remains the least worst choice. Starmer is still joined at the hip to Momentum and the Unions, he hasn't actually done anything substantive to show he isn't still supporting the loony left policies he supported so faithfully as Corbyn's EU spokesmuppet, as wannabe leader of the Labour Party he promised Union bosses that the Party would remain as a radical left outfit. Loony losers led by a grey-red puppet......
Edited by PiesAreGreat on Thursday 18th February 21:59
PiesAreGreat said:
turbobloke said:
PiesAreGreat said:
if I were given the choice of Johnson (again), would you not vote Starmer?
...
No, because it's not just about what Johnson has or hasn't done. Boris remains the least worst choice. Starmer is still joined at the hip to Momentum and the Unions, he hasn't actually done anything substantive to show he isn't still supporting the loony left policies he supported so faithfully as Corbyn's EU spokesmuppet, as wannabe leader of the Labour Party he promised Union bosses that the Party would remain as a radical left outfit. Loony losers led by a grey-red puppet......
gooner1 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
turbobloke said:
PiesAreGreat said:
if I were given the choice of Johnson (again), would you not vote Starmer?
...
No, because it's not just about what Johnson has or hasn't done. Boris remains the least worst choice. Starmer is still joined at the hip to Momentum and the Unions, he hasn't actually done anything substantive to show he isn't still supporting the loony left policies he supported so faithfully as Corbyn's EU spokesmuppet, as wannabe leader of the Labour Party he promised Union bosses that the Party would remain as a radical left outfit. Loony losers led by a grey-red puppet......
As mentioned repeatedly, for me it's a case of choosing the least worst option at any election. I'm not a Conservative Party member and don't have any blue rosettes either. The current and recent versions of the Labour party are so appallingly bad that the choice has been easy, and lampooning loony left Labour is everything to do with Labour rather than having 'support' for anything else. Least worst is hardly a recommendation, and it's not support.
As also mentioned previously I could see myself voting for a John Smith type Labour Party depending on the nature of the alternative(s) since as above it's not about a Party in isolation as far as I'm concerned.
Starmer has as yet done nothing to show he's dissociating Labour from the daft cobble of far Left policies (with failed bribes to go) he supported as a faithful Shadow Cabinet Corbynite. Crayons would be rather vexed if he did.
Blue Oval84 said:
amusingduck said:
2xChevrons said:
It's also really telling that after talking about his rather ludicrous national bonds idea he completely fluffed the (very obvious) question from the floor about what he would actually spend the money on. Not even one easy, popular feel-good fiscal multiplier like removing all the dodgy cladding from every building in the land, a new council house programme (Spirit of '45, and all that), reopening closed railway lines or a scheme to eliminate road potholes by 2030. Not even any populist red meat cross for the tabloids like a little Union Jack made by unemployed ex-servicemen for every schoolchild.
With the exception of cladding, aren't those Traditional Labour style ideas? As opposed to the current approach which I guess I'd call Islington Labour?There doesn't appear to be much on offer for the Traditional Labour types, based on what little I know. I'm supposed to be one - I'd happily vote Labour if they appealed, but the Conservatives appear to align much more closely with my values and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.
1) It's not just cladding, there are lots of other fire safety risks that we're being obliged to pay to fix, but Jenrick just keeps talking about money for cladding
2) The funding they've put up is not enough by half
3) There's no support beyond cladding loans (that will add £600 per year to service charges and consequently massively dent property values) for blocks under 18m even though some of them are still lethally dangerous (see Worcester Park fire). Even the loans they're offering are only for cladding, so many blocks still won't be remediated
4) Australia have already proven how it can be done, the taxpayer stumps up the cash and then re-coups it from developers over 30 years with a levy - why not do it here? Perhaps due to the huge proporition of their donations that come from the developers?
5) Even if you don't own a flat and are thinking this doesn't affect you, wait until you want to move and your whole chain collapses because the flat at the bottom turns out to be un-mortgageable.
What seems staggering to be is that 40% of the victims of this scandal voted Tory, it's unlikely any of us will again. We're not stupid and can see right through their soundbites and we know who they're looking out for (and it's not us).
1. As with all property, some builders are a bit rubbish/cut corners, if my house suffers subsidence do I get it fixed via a taxpayer funded hand out, no! if I have insurance they will pay (after excesses etc), if I don't, I will have to foot the bill.
2. So you want it all sorted for no cost to you? The first port of call should be the developer, then the manufacturer etc, etc
3. Anything like this should be via loans to the property owner that cannot be "avoided" via bankruptcy, also affecting Property values? why would someone pay the same price when the asset has a defect?
4. So Oz is saying they will pay for it by a levy on the firm!!! so effectively taxing future buyers? that can't be right, so someone completely remote and definitely innocent (a future buyer) has to pay a higher price for a home, so a developer can cover the cost of a bad decision to a previous generation of buyers? and so the cost doesn't hit the buyers of that defect, but the generation after! That seems grossly unfair compared to the owner pays it on their own!
5. I assume that soon all affected buildings will be known, so the owner and their selling agents will know they have to price the cladding in. Also, there is always another buyer. The solution is not for the taxpayer to take another hit.
Of course they will vote Tory; until they are sick of the Tories, then will switch to Labour and when they are sick of them, they will vote Tory again. We live in a two party state. That is why in every election we have to pick the "least bad" candidate, although unless you are in a marginal seat you are wasting your time voting. If you are in a safe seat there are loads of people that will only vote one way and are terrified of the "other lot" getting in, even though there is very little difference between them.
In regard of your comment of developer contributions, why do you think property values are so high in the UK always going up since the late 90s?, and no matter what happens easy credit is always the answer to any problem in the market? rather than prices are in a bubble and too high, let them adjust downwards? no every housing problem is always caused by too little credit supply!
You are right about National bonds, the rate had better be good as they have been forcing down the secure gilt yield for over a decade by printing money, rates aren't low due to market forces, they are low as the market is bring forced... It will take a lot to make me invest, lets face it, they will be a rubbish rate, you will be locked in and inflation will be allowed to run riot.
Edited by PiesAreGreat on Thursday 18th February 22:25
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
gooner1 said:
Dyed. Ffs.
Cheers 
, it has been a long day today.. Or are you trying to pretend you joined for the first time in December?
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
gooner1 said:
Dyed. Ffs.
Cheers , it has been a long day today.. Or are you trying to pretend you joined for the first time in December?
Do you have multiple user names, so expect everyone to do the same?
Was I agreeing with myself or arguing with myself? I am intrigued? or did I say something that you just don't agree with, so you are going on the attack?
Edited by PiesAreGreat on Thursday 18th February 23:12
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
gooner1 said:
Dyed. Ffs.
Cheers , it has been a long day today.. Or are you trying to pretend you joined for the first time in December?
Do you have multiple user names, so expect everyone to do the same?
Was I agreeing with myself or arguing with myself? I am intrigued? or did I say something that you just don't agree with, so you are going on the attack?
Edited by PiesAreGreat on Thursday 18th February 23:12
If you start going to a new pub, you don’t generally go in an start picking fights like you know the locals.
anonymoususer said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
gooner1 said:
Dyed. Ffs.
Cheers , it has been a long day today.. Or are you trying to pretend you joined for the first time in December?
Do you have multiple user names, so expect everyone to do the same?
Was I agreeing with myself or arguing with myself? I am intrigued? or did I say something that you just don't agree with, so you are going on the attack?
Edited by PiesAreGreat on Thursday 18th February 23:12
If you start going to a new pub, you don’t generally go in an start picking fights like you know the locals.
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
gooner1 said:
Dyed. Ffs.
Cheers , it has been a long day today.. Or are you trying to pretend you joined for the first time in December?
Do you have multiple user names, so expect everyone to do the same?
Was I agreeing with myself or arguing with myself? I am intrigued? or did I say something that you just don't agree with, so you are going on the attack?
Edited by PiesAreGreat on Thursday 18th February 23:12
If you start going to a new pub, you don’t generally go in an start picking fights like you know the locals.
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
loafer123 said:
PiesAreGreat said:
gooner1 said:
Dyed. Ffs.
Cheers , it has been a long day today.. Or are you trying to pretend you joined for the first time in December?
Do you have multiple user names, so expect everyone to do the same?
Was I agreeing with myself or arguing with myself? I am intrigued? or did I say something that you just don't agree with, so you are going on the attack?
Edited by PiesAreGreat on Thursday 18th February 23:12
If you start going to a new pub, you don’t generally go in an start picking fights like you know the locals.
It's f
king tiresome the same old one upmanship crap that infests these threadsmy quotes bigger than your quote nyernyer
Thoughtful article on why Starmer will struggle to create clear dividing lines with the Conservatives that are popular with voters.
Kirkup said:
The economic case may be sound, but the political implications of quantitative easing are huge. Cheap money inflates asset prices, including housing, benefitting older property-owners and screwing asset-poor youngsters. It helps pump up equity prices — because money has to go somewhere — and arms private equity with barrels of “dry powder” to spend buying up companies and transforming the corporate landscape.
A Labour Party that wanted to offer a real economic alternative, a true fork in the road, would challenge that policy framework, look again at BoE independence and the role of QE
https://unherd.com/2021/02/whats-the-point-of-starmers-labour/A Labour Party that wanted to offer a real economic alternative, a true fork in the road, would challenge that policy framework, look again at BoE independence and the role of QE
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff