Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
JagLover said:
Thoughtful article on why Starmer will struggle to create clear dividing lines with the Conservatives that are popular with voters.
The BoE under McDonnell's and his heirs' and successors' control, nice thought.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
Tony427 said:
he just got a sub from meThe Surveyor said:
Boris announced a £3.5b cladding replacement fund on 10th Feb. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56013464
Not enough, the costs are estimated to £15bn and the fund doesn't cover all safety issues, only cladding, it's just window dressing.PiesAreGreat said:
OK got to play devils advocate here (nothing personal), you have my sympathy for the cladding issue although I think it is indicative of the way the property market is run in the UK. Ultimately, someone will have to pay, and as a taxpayer that has had to pay when anything went wrong or shoddy materials were used in my past houses, I don't want to pay and will vote against any party that decides the magic taxpayer money tree should pay, this is something that I think should not be forced onto the taxpayers shoulders):
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.
1) It's very hard to compare the cladding situation with having to pay to fix something on a house that you own, but the best analogy I can come up with is if the builders came back to you twenty years after completion (and you'd had full surveys done saying there were no shoddy materials) and said the government now insists they do a safety survey on your house and they've also changed the rules around what types of bricks they could use. So to pass the survey they are going to forcibly re-build your external walls, and charge you £60K for the service. But, they'll only do the whole estate once everyone can pony up the dough, and until they do, you can't re-mortgage or sell your house.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
Oh, and in the meantime, whilst you're waiting, the builder will put a special watchman in to keep an eye on these dangerous bricks, and charge you £500 per month for it. And your building insurance has gone up to £2000 per year.
Would you genuinely be ok with the government telling you this is your problem to sort? Or offering "help" in the form of an unavoidable loan that knocks a third off your property value?
2) Developer is long gone, the block is 20 years old and to be honest we're all perfectly content with it's safety, but as the government introduced the EWS1 process we have been forced to start on costly upgrades that no one here truly believes are required. We've even had the block catch fire with no particularly ill effects already.
3) Again, why should a leaseholder be forced to lose a huge chunk of their property value just because the government has introduced retrospective changes and assessments, and forced them to upgrade their properties, or because someone else built it incorrectly and the inspector still signed it off? The government aren't even forcing the decelopers that are still solvent to fix their previous messes. People are being charged to fix build errors by the same construction company that made the errors in the first place and have no legal recourse to claim from them. This is one way the government could help, but won't.
4) The construction industry has done (and will continue) to do very well out of huge public subsidy. A long term levy to recoup the costs is the only sensible way to avoid mass bankruptcy and blocks remaining un-remediated and unsaleable.
5) Thanks to the mortgage industry asking for EWS1 on so many flats, including under 18m, it's a substantial chunk of the market that's impacted. Certainly almost anything over 18m is unsalesable unless it has passed an EWS1 (and very few pass).
My friend has a new build shared ownership that was completed in Dec 2020 and she's already received notification from the developers that they're setting up a waking watch contract as they can't be sure they won't need to put one in. This on a building that passed it's safety certificate and hasn't even fully sold yet.
I don't think many people realise the scale of the problem, the effects of just throwing all of the victims under the bus will be felt by those up and down the housing ladder for a very long time.
As a final point, there are solutions other than costly works which are in the gift of the government to allow, for example, sprinkler systems could mitigate almost any fire safety risk. but there's not much money in fitting those compared with carrying out major overhauls so they aren't being put forward as a solution.
Blue Oval84 said:
The Surveyor said:
Boris announced a £3.5b cladding replacement fund on 10th Feb. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56013464
Not enough, the costs are estimated to £15bn and the fund doesn't covell safety issues, only cladding, it's just window dressing.Beyond that, what legal responsibility does the government shoulder for use of dangerous cladding? If it's a private project, or a council project, the liability rests elsewhere surely.
Do landlords and proprietors not have responsibility and do they and their contractors not carry insurance covering liability including failure to meet statutory requirements through breach of contract or dereliction of duty? Sure it's generous of the taxpayer to chip in (not "the government" when it comes to cash) but how is it a legal requirement?
Whatever the legal position may be, it was reported that in May 2020 the government announced it would fully fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding by councils and housing associations. The money was reported to be coming from the affordable homes programme. Did this change when the full costs were better known? Has Starmer said anything relevant (not that he can do anything)?
eliot said:
Tony427 said:
he just got a sub from meSeveral times over the last few days gov't I've heard on the news how gov't will be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions, amid the clamour to get back to something closer to normal.
This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
turbobloke said:
Several times over the last few days gov't I've heard on the news how gov't will be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions, amid the clamour to get back to something closer to normal.
This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
What would you have him say?This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
Nothing to say on the Boris thread so reduced to dining off crumbs
turbobloke said:
£4bn should just about cover London.
Beyond that, what legal responsibility does the government shoulder for use of dangerous cladding? If it's a private project, or a council project, the liability rests elsewhere surely.
Do landlords and proprietors not have responsibility and do they and their contractors not carry insurance covering liability including failure to meet statutory requirements through breach of contract or dereliction of duty? Sure it's generous of the taxpayer to chip in (not "the government" when it comes to cash) but how is it a legal requirement?
TLDR - Ooops, that's very long, basically there's loads they can do to force the guilty parties to pay, but they won't, and there's things they could do to mitigate the impact of their own policies but they're turning a blind eye.Beyond that, what legal responsibility does the government shoulder for use of dangerous cladding? If it's a private project, or a council project, the liability rests elsewhere surely.
Do landlords and proprietors not have responsibility and do they and their contractors not carry insurance covering liability including failure to meet statutory requirements through breach of contract or dereliction of duty? Sure it's generous of the taxpayer to chip in (not "the government" when it comes to cash) but how is it a legal requirement?
It's quite a complex picture, but a few thoughts on how the government could do more without even needing to spend cash-
1) They created the EWS1 assessment but they aren't insisting that it's use is limited to blocks >18m. As soon as the form became available mortgage lenders started asking for it on blocks <18m. There aren't enough assessors, so now people living in perfectly safe blocks <18m can't sell or re-mortgage whilst they await a certificate that may never come (some freeholders are digging their heels in and refusing to arrange the test) - government have the power to legilslate to make this better.
Further, the EWS1 only lasts five years, so who the hell will ever buy a flat again once it's common knowledge that every 5 years someone comes around with the power to order millions of pounds worth of work to bring the flat up to the latest fire safety specs?
2) In many cases, blocks passed all of the requisite rules at the time of construciton, but are now being subject to a modern day risk assessment and are failing, so what was once deemed safe is now in need of ruinously expensive remidiation. The analogy being that it's like living in a house built in the 80's and then someone coming around and insisting you bring it up to modern building regs. This doesn't happen, and would be ruinious to many people if it did (just a small example, my opening windows are too low to the floor for modern regs, so I 'd need to add courses of brick to bring them to modern standards) - The government could very easily legisltate to say that if it was "safe" in 2000, then it's safe today, and not allow mortgage lenders to insist on an EWS1.
3) Where problems are found, the NFCC has created a monster in the form of Waking Watch. Residents are being charged £££ per month to have a man in hi-viz sat in a portakabin watching films on his phone. What works on paper has been proven not to work in practice. Some blocks have spent £100K+ on new fire alarms in order to get rid of their waking watch, only to then be told that NFCC thinks they should be left in at a reduced capacity as "evacuation managers". This scandal could easily be fixed by acknowledging that WW doesn't really work in practice and the costs massively outweight the benefits.
4) Where developers have been found to cock up and have built something totally non-compliant even with the regs that prevailed at the time, there is often no way for residents to force them to pay to fix it because they are out of time. Government could step in here and "restart the clock" on action being taken so that it commenced when the problems were discovered, not when the block was sold. I know of one block who is being asked to pay the original developer to fix build defects that they made during construction!
5) The leaseholders don't own the blocks, freeholders do, government has said many, many times that freeholders "should do the right thing" and pay for remidation themselves, but they won't actually force them to do so.
So, there's a couple of ways in which government, through their own actions, or deliberate inaction, have made the situation worse and they shoulder some of the blame. Most of the things I've suggested above wouldn't even cost taxpayers a penny to improve.
That's before we get onto the fact that ordinary people at the bottom of the property ladder don't really have £50-100K lying around (and remember, no loans for blocks over 18m and even if there were, they only cover cladding, nothing else) so how the hell are the blocks ever going to get fixed? This means huge swathes of the property market are frozen indefinitely.
Essentially it's a crisis with a number of underlying causes (which will, fortunately, feed it's way through to people who live in freehold houses thanks to the paralysis that's now gripping the starter homes market), and government should step in during a crisis.
I rarely hear people saying things like "the government shouldn't spend public money on the Thames Flood Barrier, if people living in London don't want to be flooded they should all chip in and buy a barrier themselves, and if they can't afford it then just let it flood" - quite simply because that would be a ridiculous suggestion and we're all better off as a collective for not having flooded London. Just like we'll be better off as a collective if literally thousands of households aren't made bankrupt through absolutely no fault of their own, and circa 15% of the UK property market isn't left completely unsaleable.
Sorry for the rant, but it's a hot topic for me at the moment
turbobloke said:
Several times over the last few days gov't I've heard on the news how gov't will be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions, amid the clamour to get back to something closer to normal.
This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
According to Sky he’s supporting what the gov say in contrast to the teaching unions This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
eliot said:
turbobloke said:
Several times over the last few days gov't I've heard on the news how gov't will be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions, amid the clamour to get back to something closer to normal.
This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
According to Sky he’s supporting what the gov say in contrast to the teaching unions This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
As to Starmer, listening to him on radio news he came across as though 'careful and cautious' was his idea, and something profound, rather than parroting HMG.
It's easy to forget that away from politics the politicians are just ordinary people like us.
They dress down have lazy days where they don't shave and stuff
Keir Starmer demonstrates this perfectly
Here he is about to set off for work:
Here he is casually dressed relaxing in the pub after a hard days work
I feel that Labours cabinet demonstrate this particularly well
Here for example is Labours Deputy Leader Angela Rayner showing off some wild clothing ideas.
Here she is with a friend in her biker chic look
They dress down have lazy days where they don't shave and stuff
Keir Starmer demonstrates this perfectly
Here he is about to set off for work:
Here he is casually dressed relaxing in the pub after a hard days work
I feel that Labours cabinet demonstrate this particularly well
Here for example is Labours Deputy Leader Angela Rayner showing off some wild clothing ideas.
Here she is with a friend in her biker chic look
turbobloke said:
eliot said:
turbobloke said:
Several times over the last few days gov't I've heard on the news how gov't will be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions, amid the clamour to get back to something closer to normal.
This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
According to Sky he’s supporting what the gov say in contrast to the teaching unions This morning Starmer was on radio news saying he wants the government to be careful and cautious in relaxing restrictions.
Awesome.
As to Starmer, listening to him on radio news he came across as though 'careful and cautious' was his idea, and something profound, rather than parroting HMG.
All week on radio 4/5 they've been interviewing them and when asked what stage they'd be happy for things to unlock none of them could or would say when the r rate drops below a certain number or if we get the itu numbers down to a certain number but they don't seem to have a 'safe' number they just don't really want to unlock.
anonymoususer said:
It's easy to forget that away from politics the politicians are just ordinary people like us.
They dress down have lazy days where they don't shave and stuff
Keir Starmer demonstrates this perfectly
Here he is about to set off for work:
Here he is casually dressed relaxing in the pub after a hard days work
I feel that Labours cabinet demonstrate this particularly well
Here for example is Labours Deputy Leader Angela Rayner showing off some wild clothing ideas.
Here she is with a friend in her biker chic look
They dress down have lazy days where they don't shave and stuff
Keir Starmer demonstrates this perfectly
Here he is about to set off for work:
Here he is casually dressed relaxing in the pub after a hard days work
I feel that Labours cabinet demonstrate this particularly well
Here for example is Labours Deputy Leader Angela Rayner showing off some wild clothing ideas.
Here she is with a friend in her biker chic look
anonymoususer said:
It's easy to forget that away from politics the politicians are just ordinary people like us.
They dress down have lazy days where they don't shave and stuff
Keir Starmer demonstrates this perfectly
Here he is about to set off for work:
Here he is casually dressed relaxing in the pub after a hard days work
I feel that Labours cabinet demonstrate this particularly well
Here for example is Labours Deputy Leader Angela Rayner showing off some wild clothing ideas.
Here she is with a friend in her biker chic look
Starmer reminds me of that Richard Ayoade geezer in the HSBC advert except that when Starmer opens his wardrobe there is just a line of identical blue suits instead of the brown corduroy jackets They dress down have lazy days where they don't shave and stuff
Keir Starmer demonstrates this perfectly
Here he is about to set off for work:
Here he is casually dressed relaxing in the pub after a hard days work
I feel that Labours cabinet demonstrate this particularly well
Here for example is Labours Deputy Leader Angela Rayner showing off some wild clothing ideas.
Here she is with a friend in her biker chic look
egor110 said:
Trouble for starmer and the scientists who all warn about being careful and cautious , not one of them can put a number on anything .
All week on radio 4/5 they've been interviewing them and when asked what stage they'd be happy for things to unlock none of them could or would say when the r rate drops below a certain number or if we get the itu numbers down to a certain number but they don't seem to have a 'safe' number they just don't really want to unlock.
That’s the trouble with Starmer or even labour, they’re not offering any kind of alternative to anything. All week on radio 4/5 they've been interviewing them and when asked what stage they'd be happy for things to unlock none of them could or would say when the r rate drops below a certain number or if we get the itu numbers down to a certain number but they don't seem to have a 'safe' number they just don't really want to unlock.
The conservatives are dominating the middle and right and they’ve even taken loads of the older former working class voters who are now relatively well off home owners and have good pensions. The state is now involved massively in the economy and the whole relationship between government spending and the parties has been altered completely. Traditional older labour voters are well off now and are interested in things like inheritance and wealth tax not social justice.
The only hope Starmer (or labour) have of being relevant ever again is to
A) win back older former working class (red wall) type voters. They seem to be attempting to do this by appearing more patriotic and I’d expect much more policies aimed at these affluent older voters in traditional (former) labour areas. They need to focus on things like patriotism and aspiration more and less on the social issues and be less judgy and patronising towards people, because that’s not going to win votes.
And
B) actually offer an alternative that is different to what the Conservatives are doing. This won’t really be in spending as nobody can outspend rishi now. So maybe they have to look at offering changes that people might buy into like changes in the House of Lords or reducing MPs or making some other actual meaningful democratic change.
Labour are basically knackered as the Conservatives have out new laboured them and spent more than they ever could plus many of their core voters have become Conservatives as they’ve got older and wealthy. Plus they’re still fighting over the party and what Starmerism is and what they should be concentrating on.
I can’t see Starmer managing to do any of these things now. There’s been massive changes in demographics post brexit and the party supporter lines have all changed.labour seems to be trying to win the last war whilst the Conservatives are recognising the new battleground and hoovering up their support.
This is during a pandemic that the public doesn’t appear to think the Conservatives have actually managed that well or think that Boris is a good leader.
They should be miles ahead in this environment. Them polling in the 30% area whilst the Conservatives are over 40% shows just how badly they’re doing.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 21st February 12:45
egor110 said:
The thing is right here today the conservative plan is to offer every adult the vaccine by July to reopen the country.
What better solution is there ?
There isn't.What better solution is there ?
But as you see above when Labour differ from the Conservatives they're seen as opposing for oppositions sakes and when they agree with them they're trying to take credit for Conservatives ideas.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:egor110 said:
The thing is right here today the conservative plan is to offer every adult the vaccine by July to reopen the country.
What better solution is there ?
There isn't.What better solution is there ?
But as you see above when Labour differ from the Conservatives they're seen as opposing for oppositions sakes and when they agree with them they're trying to take credit for Conservatives ideas.
Apart from which he's still joined at the hip with Union barons on one side and Momentum loony leftists on the other.
Fortunately, these days he can't look forward to doing a Kinnock. Not taking millions of eur/gbp out of he pockets of taxpayers may become his landmark political achievement.
turbobloke said:
Sounds about right. Starmer is clueless and brings that ^ on himself.
Apart from which he's still joined at the hip with Union barons on one side and Momentum loony leftists on the other.
Fortunately, these days he can't look forward to doing a Kinnock. Not taking millions of eur/gbp out of he pockets of taxpayers may become his landmark political achievement.
Have you been banned from the Boris thread?Apart from which he's still joined at the hip with Union barons on one side and Momentum loony leftists on the other.
Fortunately, these days he can't look forward to doing a Kinnock. Not taking millions of eur/gbp out of he pockets of taxpayers may become his landmark political achievement.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff