news & politics:discussion

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok...but Starmer has a lot of enemies now within the labour movement, which is fine if want to win over a section of the electorate, but if people just see labour infighting and bickering all the time then they won't be voting for them. It's kind of similar to what happened with Kinnock in the 80s.

enemies, for doing the decent thing in throwing out the anti-semite.

give your head a wobble!

 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by eFestivals

[steviewevie]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

enemies, for doing the decent thing in throwing out the anti-semite.

give your head a wobble!

 

 

yes, enemies because many don't see corbyn as an antisemite. I'm not defending anyone here, Corbyn or Starmer, but I am saying that Starmer maybe triggered an unnecessary fight with the left that he might not win when he kicked Corbyn out.

[steviewevie]

50 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Yea but the Labour vote has held up ish despite losing a load of votes amongst the youth, the byelections demonstrate that the red wall voters remain turned off labour, so one can infer that the vote has held up because of some decent support from the kind of middle aged liberals (centrist dads if you will) that Starmer appears to appeal to.

The distribution of these around the country means that target seats in the next GE won’t be winning back the likes of leigh and durham, but instead will probs be in the shires in the south.

A point to the above posters who say that the country is right wing. Even in the 2019 election, the right wing didn’t win a majority of votes. Polling on issues demonstrates that the country is economically left and basically just against globalisation & immigration. They are also against interventionism overseas. Put it together and you have the antithesis of Blairism. And it’s precisely because of the Blair years. It didn’t work anywhere it was tried. Look at Biden now, well to the left of Obama on the economy, very anti interventionist, tough on immigration. If he had tried to replicate Obama’s policy platform he would have lost.

There are also a lot of people who will vote labour whether the leader is Blair, Corbyn or Starmer...people like me.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes, enemies because many don't see corbyn as an antisemite. I'm not defending anyone here, Corbyn or Starmer, but I am saying that Starmer maybe triggered an unnecessary fight with the left that he might not win when he kicked Corbyn out.

it was corbyn who triggered the unnecessary fight by refusing to accept that he'd done wrong and by doing the exact thing he was warned not to do.and people like you cant see cobyn did wrong, and insist on making starmer your enemy for cobyn's wrong.

[steviewevie]

Just now, eFestivals said:

it was corbyn who triggered the unnecessary fight by refusing to accept that he'd done wrong and by doing the exact thing he was warned not to do.and people like you cant see cobyn did wrong, and insist on making starmer your enemy for cobyn's wrong.

I really wish you'd fuck off with your people like you bullshit. For a start I am not a defender of Corbyn at all which is why I'm always arguing with mattiloy, I think he was a fairly weak leader in the end, especially when it came to accusations of antisemitism. And you're right, he made it very hard for Starmer with his reaction to that report, but surely Starmer could have found another way, just stated that Corbyn is wrong and that he is leader now and it's going to be different etc...I mean Corbyn is just a backbencher now, and is probably heading towards retirement soon...but now you get all this anti-starmer thing all over social media, hilariously calling him Sir keith, a lot of people really fucking hate him, and there's a lot of it, and it got so much worse after Corbyn was booted out. Starmer ain't ever winning over that lot, and if labour is ever going to stand a chance with fptp it has to some how unify both wings of the labour movement...no idea who could do that...maybe Burnham, I don't know.

[steviewevie]

 

[mattiloy]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

A good move. And a crafty move politically. Throws the unions a bone ahead of key conference votes whilst also keeping the wound of the NI rise open and putting labour on the side of the workers. Polls will tell if the message lands with Joe Public in the coming weeks..

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I really wish you'd fuck off with your people like you bullshit. For a start I am not a defender of Corbyn at all which is why I'm always arguing with mattiloy, I think he was a fairly weak leader in the end, especially when it came to accusations of antisemitism. And you're right, he made it very hard for Starmer with his reaction to that report, but surely Starmer could have found another way, just stated that Corbyn is wrong and that he is leader now and it's going to be different etc...I mean Corbyn is just a backbencher now, and is probably heading towards retirement soon...but now you get all this anti-starmer thing all over social media, hilariously calling him Sir keith, a lot of people really fucking hate him, and there's a lot of it, and it got so much worse after Corbyn was booted out. Starmer ain't ever winning over that lot, and if labour is ever going to stand a chance with fptp it has to some how unify both wings of the labour movement...no idea who could do that...maybe Burnham, I don't know.

people like you are blaming starmer for corbyn's wrong, its no big and it only shows you've learned nothing from the corbyn disaster.

[steviewevie]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

people like you are blaming starmer for corbyn's wrong, its no big and it only shows you've learned nothing from the corbyn disaster.

I'm just saying the punishment for corbyn was maybe not the right one, for politcal reasons. But, who knows, if Corbyn had stayed maybe it would have been worse for Starmer.

Maybe Starmer will find a way for Corbyn to be allowed back in at conference.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm just saying the punishment for corbyn was maybe not the right one, for politcal reasons. But, who knows, if Corbyn had stayed maybe it would have been worse for Starmer.

Maybe Starmer will find a way for Corbyn to be allowed back in at conference.

if corby is in the party, the party is less electable, corbyn scores very low with joe public
Maybe the members will want to punish starmer and the party

[eFestivals]

52 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

A good move. And a crafty move politically. Throws the unions a bone ahead of key conference votes whilst also keeping the wound of the NI rise open and putting labour on the side of the workers. Polls will tell if the message lands with Joe Public in the coming weeks..

if the message lands with joe public, the tories having offered a better minimum wage will have landed with joe public

[mattiloy]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if the message lands with joe public, the tories having offered a better minimum wage will have landed with joe public

They may well have offered it but as yet the minimum wage stands at £8.91.

Quibbling over the pounds and pence of the minimum wage isn’t that important or new, Labour already said they’d offer a tenner/hour last year. The difference between 9 quid whatever and 10 quid /hour is not that salient without getting asking people to get their calculators out so its not about the number.

Its just altogether, reiterating commitment to increasing minimum wage + the strengthening of workers rights signalling a direction of travel. Its a good thing and well timed.

If he comes up with good policy for housing and skills, beyond just ’we will build X thousand houses and subsidise X many apprenticeships’ which again, lacks salience, lacks ambition to address underlying issues - its systemic change is needed rather than treating symptoms.

Say something like, a new renters charter of rights, making landlords pay council tax instead of renters, taxing land bankers, and a fund for lifelong education. Now where have I seen these kinds of policies before?

[Ozanne]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

Good to see some more policy offerings coming from Labour, we’ll get more of this as we head to Conference. 

[fraybentos1]

35 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

making landlords pay council tax instead of renters

about 3 seconds of thought to this policy would tell you the landlords would just pass this on to tenants via increased rents.. duh

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

They may well have offered it but as yet the minimum wage stands at £8.91.

Quibbling over the pounds and pence of the minimum wage isn’t that important or new, Labour already said they’d offer a tenner/hour last year. The difference between 9 quid whatever and 10 quid /hour is not that salient without getting asking people to get their calculators out so its not about the number.

if its about the offer the tories were there first!

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

making landlords pay council tax instead of renters,

and they'll just pass it on to the renters!

same as they did the rates

[mattiloy]

18 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

about 3 seconds of thought to this policy would tell you the landlords would just pass this on to tenants via increased rents.. duh

 

Yeah and about 6 seconds will tell you that if they are charged the same as individuals, they’d have to pay it on vacant properties, so there would be more onus on them to fill the property, that makes the market for renters more competitive, landlords’ offer has to be better, downward pressure on rents, upwards pressure on quality.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

 

Yeah and about 6 seconds will tell you that if they are charged the same as individuals, they’d have to pay it on vacant properties, so there would be more onus on them to fill the property, that makes the market for renters more competitive, landlords’ offer has to be better, downward pressure on rents, upwards pressure on quality.

problems you never hear: this house would be rented out if it wasn't for that pesky council tax.

[mattiloy]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

problems you never hear: this house would be rented out if it wasn't for that pesky council tax.

Yes, thats the problem. The demand for rental properties is inelastic and that has lead to inflated prices and poor quality accommodation and insecure contracts.

If you make landlords pay council tax it will reduce yields on average.

I guess you are suggesting that such is the demand for properties that landlords never need to have a vacant property, this is maybe true of some areas, others not so much, rental properties do lie vacant. But consider rent collection- even where a property is filled there is a risk the tenant isnt able to pay rent (recent rates suggest around 5% of rents go uncollected each month). In that instance the landlord would still have to pay council tax.

It would affect yields. Marginally? Maybe. Its the right kind of policy anyway and enough policies in that vein, trying to fix the failed rental market, and you should start to see a proper impact.

[steviewevie]

We just love immigration these days.

 

[TalkShow Bob]

2 hours ago, mattiloy said:

 

Yeah and about 6 seconds will tell you that if they are charged the same as individuals, they’d have to pay it on vacant properties, so there would be more onus on them to fill the property, that makes the market for renters more competitive, landlords’ offer has to be better, downward pressure on rents, upwards pressure on quality.

Them having to pay it on vacant properties is good news for councils, especially in heavy student or second home areas. However I've never paid higher council tax than rent - if a landlord isn't filling a house to collect the rent I can't see the council tax bill on top of that pushing them to fill it.

[squirrelarmy]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and they'll just pass it on to the renters!

same as they did the rates

I rent. If the landlord pays the C.Tax but includes it as part of the rent then fair enough but you have to know that before the contract is signed. It’s not costing me more as a renter as that money is still going to the council but indirectly via the landlord. The main thing is ensuring that the property owner is liable for an unpaid c.tax bill and not the tenant. 
 

I’ve lived in places, mainly shared houses in my younger days where all bills were included. It was nice and hassle free. 

[mattiloy]

1 hour ago, TalkShow Bob said:

Them having to pay it on vacant properties is good news for councils, especially in heavy student or second home areas. However I've never paid higher council tax than rent - if a landlord isn't filling a house to collect the rent I can't see the council tax bill on top of that pushing them to fill it.

Most people with buy to let portfolios have hefty loans against the properties too so the cost of holding a vacant property or an unpaid rent is more than just council tax. I’m not saying it’ll bring about the ruin of landlords the land over. But a bunch of properties with a marginally profitable yield would become unprofitable. At which point its better to put your cash in other investments, sell the properties.

[steviewevie]

Bit of an oxymoron...but sexy socialist!

[maelzoid]

6 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

about 3 seconds of thought to this policy would tell you the landlords would just pass this on to tenants via increased rents.. duh

I don’t think so. Landlords will always charge the maximum the market will allow. If their expenses go up, they can’t simply up the rent and expect their tenants to magic more money out of thin air. A huge number of renters don’t have any disposable income to eat into and that acts as a lower limit on what they can pay.