Sam Russell wrote: » That is because it is a political gift that keeps on giving to politicians. Any house owner likes the idea that their biggest asset keeps on increasing in value, so any politician that tried to reverse that would find it most unpopular. However, it is now getting to the point that only the top 30% of earners can afford to buy their first home, instead of the top 70%. Also private rents have risen to higher than a mortgage would be on the same or equivalent property. It will require a new model to combat that and the current batch of politicians have not worked out how that can be done and are sticking with the current model by shared ownership and first time buyers grants. Making houses more affordable for first-time buyers pushes up prices. What is needed is more houses built - preferably at lower cost to the buyer.
Deleted User wrote: » I never post in the Politics forum, but reading some of the posts around here is astonishing. The people of Huddersfield are 'lazy, 'entitled', 'racist'. Owen Jones on the TV talking about class consciousness and Jeremy Corbyn. Absolute nonsense that has no relevancy. The real disconnect these days is between what well-educated and relatively financially comfortable people think the Labour Party should look like, and what it represents to entire communities who always voted Labour. Shouting and screaming at these people won't make them come back into the tent. The Labour Party and moderate socialism in general has always been about jobs, a sense of place, recognising the power of a collective over an individual. Then need to get back to that pronto. Not having an elite at the top of the party calling their former voters racists for voting Tory. 'It's about the economy, stupid". Lots of self-reflection needed.
Sam Russell wrote: » The British political system has two large parties - Labour and Tory. Both are split into two camps as neither would achieve power on their own. Tories are split between the 'One Nation' and the 'Free Marketeers'. BJ has purged most of the first group, and has yet to pay any political price for doing so. Labour is split between the left wing socialists and the traditional Labour Union supporters, again neither set could gain power on their own. The Labour Unions have lost most of their support due to the anti-Union legislation brought in by successive Tory Governments and the disappearance of industrial manufacturing, but their is still a sizeable rump of them. These supporters are in favour of social policies but are politically conservative - they do not like immigration, and are in favour of the Monarchy and like minded ideas. The Socialists are more cerebral in their approach which goes over the heads of the others who do not trust them. That split is costing them power. If Scotland votes to leave the UK then Labour looks like having a bleak decade or two. If Wales voted to leave the UK, then Labour as it is currently constituted is dead.
OMM 0000 wrote: » I quite like Boris Johnson. I have a feeling that must make me weird.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Not having an elite at the top of the party calling their former voters racists for voting Tory.
partyguinness wrote: » I think what happened to Labour is that they have been caught between two bar stools and now have a severe identity crisis. The Party itself is absolutely Remain but the majority of its core vote base is pro-Brexit. That is a problem and a real idenity crisis. All the Tories have to do is sit back and pick up the crumbs.
Deleted User wrote: » Nice synopsis. Might be time for the rank and file in Labour to do a Kinnock on it, and root out the radicals from the party. It might be a two-for-one job and get rid of the smug, middle-class sorts who call the people of Huddersfield lazy, entitled, and racist for finding the Labour Party so lacking in ideas and solutions that resonate with former working-class communities that they end up voting for Boris Johnson. Requires self-reflection. Which is almost impossible in today's world.
PommieBast wrote: » From memory most Labour voters are actually remain. It is Labour constituencies that are mostly Leave.
Deleted User wrote: » These days, with the modern materialism and everyone having a stable accommodation either rented (privately or council) or owned, simply "upping sticks" and moving is not an easy prospect
[Deleted User] wrote: » Throughout history, people have often moved to where the work was, mostly because they had little or nothing where they were living, so moving was not such a big deal. These days, with the modern materialism and everyone having a stable accommodation either rented (privately or council) or owned, simply "upping sticks" and moving is not an easy prospect, upping sticks is easy if you're a camper or migrant. Trying to entice people to move to the jobs is something that no one really does for unskilled workers. Migrants come in for nothing.
Itssoeasy wrote: » That result in Hartlepool wasn’t good. I mean even a close race between labour and the conservative candidate would have something for the labour leadership to hang their hats on, but it wasn’t even close. So the issue that some voters said they couldn’t vote for labour last time out because of Corbyn has spread to his successor. Unless the labour leadership get control of the party and aren’t controlled by a vocal progressive wing they’ll be like labour decades ago. Unelectable. I remember hearing that wing after the election and it was like they were in their own alternate reality over what had just happened. It seemed to be external forces that were the blame and they were beyond reproach. It’s like the progressive wing of the democrats in the US. There’s a bang on entitlement to lead of them at times. There’s also a lack of understanding that social media likes and retweets don’t count for votes in ballot boxes and hopefully never will.
pixelburp wrote: » Weird no; but it does beg the question if you accept - or care - that his entire public persona is a facade, precision-engineered to charm and get the result you speak of. The ruffled hair, blathering Latin, and air of "affable toff" is superficial and served its purpose to ram him into the corridors of power. I've said it before but Have I got News for You of all things stands accused of giving him that platform; the producers believing they were having a laugh at the silly posh spoofer. Turns out he was playing them.
CelticRambler wrote: » A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, a certain Elizabeth Warren from the United States presented a set of data to show that this problem was most acute in dual-income households. The "perfect storm" of pushing both halves of a married couple into work by removing their married couple's allowances, then encouraging home-ownership on the back of high-value, mortgages based on multiples of the two incomes repayable over 20, then 25, then 30 years, and set against the unicornism of rising property values has contributed to this mental and social inertia. The sad thing about it is that it is, in fact, incredibly easy to up sticks and leave, if you're not so psychologically locked into the idea that migration is a Bad Thing.
partyguinness wrote: » He is an unbelievable spoofer completely devoid of any moral compass or ideology. A large swath of the British love buying into that nonsense. They also love fawning over Royalty. Let's not forget he "agonised" over whether to go Brexit or Remain- that tells you eveything right there. He wanted to see which way the wind was blowing because he didnt give a crap and the decision was based purely on what was good for Boris.
10000maniacs wrote: » These results have nothing to do with Johnson. These "shock" results are all about Brexit and immigration.
Sam Russell wrote: » Many years ago, I was driving a hire car in London and I was listening to a Radio 4 documentary talking about the development of Milton Keynes Garden City in 1967. Every house had to have enough room for a yacht - not because every home would have one. No, but every home owner would need a hobby - and the space required for a useful hobby would be enough to house a yacht. Why? Because by the year 2000, the amount of free leisure time enjoyed by most home owners meant they would have enough free time that they would need a hobby to keep themselves busy. You know, like old vintage cars that need constant fettling and polishing, or perhaps a motor home for those trips to the lake district or Cornwall. What ever happened to all this leisure time? In 1967, most women looked after their kids full time, but now they work full time out of necessity to pay the mortgage and the child care. Is that progress?
10000maniacs wrote: » The big problem for labour is they are split down the middle on Brexit lines, while the Tories are not. Hartlepool voted 67% for Brexit.
PommieBast wrote: » The Conservatives are also split but their Remainer vote doesn't really have anywhere to go. It certainly is not Labour. Where I am from the LibDems may well clean up if they modelled themselves after the German FDP rather than being a me-too to the Green Party, but that won't happen.
10000maniacs wrote: » The Conservatives were never split down the middle, and neither was Hartlepool. But Labour was and still is. Like it or hate it, they need to tackle immigration to get back on track.
partyguinness wrote: » Wasn't it John Maynard Keynes who expected 'us' to be down to a 4 day week by now as tecnology advanced?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d96cd5eb793ec44f833dd8d0bb2a52ac.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)