Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Honest question, what is the Canary if it isn't a heavily Momentum orientated 'news' website?

kingstongraham

feelgoodlost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Same thing isn't it?

And the activists in my constituency were the ones who are retweeting it etc.

Well no, not really.... and from what I can see, the article has been challenged by both sides. It's a bullshit story being called out as such by most level headed folk.

Even if the Canary doesn't count as Labour activists, Labour activists retweeting it counts as "Labour activists circulating" the story, doesn't it?

This has now evolved (because it was BS) into either her not speaking being a U-turn, or the mere fact that they thought they might be able to invite her to speak means there is a cosy relationship between the BBC and the Tories.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

feelgoodlost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Same thing isn't it?

And the activists in my constituency were the ones who are retweeting it etc.

Well no, not really.... and from what I can see, the article has been challenged by both sides. It's a bullshit story being called out as such by most level headed folk.

Even if the Canary doesn't count as Labour activists, Labour activists retweeting it counts as "Labour activists circulating" the story, doesn't it?

This has now evolved (because it was BS) into either her not speaking being a U-turn, or the mere fact that they thought they might be able to invite her to speak means there is a cosy relationship between the BBC and the Tories.

the classic build a strawman and then knock it down

bendertherobot

Emma Coad, who should probably keep her head down, doesn't believe Prince Harry can fly a helicopter.

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

Emma Coad, who should probably keep her head down, doesn't believe Prince Harry can fly a helicopter.

"He just sits there going 'vroom vroom'."

rjsterry

She claimed she was just trying to start a debate about public funding and the royal family. If that's her level of debate, she might find herself out of her depth at the HoC.

Apparently she also pitched into the Duchess of Cambridge spending £150 on a jumper. I imagine her constituents are thrilled at having such an intellectual colossus to represent them.

rick_chasey

Paucity of talent.

john80

It might be a fitting use of proof to film Harry flying an apache to Emma Coad's house and firing a rocket at it. Obviously we would have to first check no one is home. This could be put on national TV for our enjoyment and would prove the theory beyond doubt. Sorry forgot that there would be a long line of conspiracy theorists on the internet claiming the helicopter was remote controlled.

rick_chasey

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... e-70s.html

The Tories have a new line of attack on Labour – that they would take us back to the 1970s.
....
It wasn’t until 1988 that the top income tax rate was cut from 60%. If John McDonnell keeps his word, the top tax rate under a Corbyn premiership will be lower than it was for most of Thatcher’s.

Worthwhile read that.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/10/the-lesson-of-the-70s.html

The Tories have a new line of attack on Labour – that they would take us back to the 1970s.
....
It wasn’t until 1988 that the top income tax rate was cut from 60%. If John McDonnell keeps his word, the top tax rate under a Corbyn premiership will be lower than it was for most of Thatcher’s.

Worthwhile read that.

really not convinced by that. At the very least they fail to mention annual growth
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kin ... wth-annual

Contrary to snowflake thinking growth rates are a matter of fact not personal opinion

rick_chasey

On the Tories; they’d get an absolute dicktonne of votes if they sorted out housing for under 35s; and not just tinkering with demand

Seriously. That and look at why wage growth for under 35s is so weak.

Do that and it’d be permanent landslides.

All Corbyn is good at is noticing that.

Tories can’t even do that.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

On the Tories; they’d get an absolute dicktonne of votes if they sorted out housing for under 35s; and not just tinkering with demand

How?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On the Tories; they’d get an absolute dicktonne of votes if they sorted out housing for under 35s; and not just tinkering with demand

How?

Anything that significantly increases the supply; anything, bluntly, that means more houses are built.

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On the Tories; they’d get an absolute dicktonne of votes if they sorted out housing for under 35s; and not just tinkering with demand

How?

Anything that significantly increases the supply; anything, bluntly, that means more houses are built.

Agreed, I continue to be amazed how they either can't work this out or continue not doing anything about it.

tangled_metal

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On the Tories; they’d get an absolute dicktonne of votes if they sorted out housing for under 35s; and not just tinkering with demand

How?

Anything that significantly increases the supply; anything, bluntly, that means more houses are built.

Like what?

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On the Tories; they’d get an absolute dicktonne of votes if they sorted out housing for under 35s; and not just tinkering with demand

How?

Anything that significantly increases the supply; anything, bluntly, that means more houses are built.

Like what?

Two things: a fundamental overhaul of the planning system so that it doesn't take years to get permission to build things. Secondly, make it easier for local authorities to build housing. A couple have set up arm's length development companies as a way around the restrictions on borrowing for house building.

Lookyhere

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On the Tories; they’d get an absolute dicktonne of votes if they sorted out housing for under 35s; and not just tinkering with demand

How?

Anything that significantly increases the supply; anything, bluntly, that means more houses are built.

Like what?

Two things: a fundamental overhaul of the planning system so that it doesn't take years to get permission to build things. Secondly, make it easier for local authorities to build housing. A couple have set up arm's length development companies as a way around the restrictions on borrowing for house building.

How many houses would you need to build to make property affordable again? and how would that affect the countries economy and our reliance on consumer credit.

Unless we start building affordable long term secure rented social housing, we will never solve the housing crisis.

tangled_metal

Relaxing planning system worries me when it's mentioned by Tories. At the risk of sounding Leftie will it give money to the wealthy property development companies and their shareholders? Cut corners with the regulations so houses get built to substandard designs, in flood plains without sufficient considerations for environment or planning matters like emergency service access. I'm not saying that'll happen but it could if they get the relaxation of the rules wrong.

rick_chasey

There's sh!tloads of studies and work that looks at what the gov't ought to do; Tory policy makers just need to do a bit of reading.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Relaxing planning system worries me when it's mentioned by Tories. At the risk of sounding Leftie will it give money to the wealthy property development companies and their shareholders? Cut corners with the regulations so houses get built to substandard designs, in flood plains without sufficient considerations for environment or planning matters like emergency service access. I'm not saying that'll happen but it could if they get the relaxation of the rules wrong.

I didn't say relaxing the planning rules; it needs a fundamental rethink. My working experience of the system in Greater London is that there is ironically very little obvious planning in the forward-looking sense of the word (strategic policy documents take years to draft, consult on and be adopted, and so are out of date before they're published), and an obsession with preservation of anything built before 1900. I could rant on for hours but it would bore everyone (even more than usual).

tangled_metal

Yes, but once again at the risk of sounding Leftie, any overhaul of the planning system under the Tories risks having the net effect of relaxing the planning regulations.

If you say the strategic policy documents take so long to complete due to consulting period, etc Then how do you propose getting that forward planning that's needed any quicker? Cutting corners or just not consulting everyone? Serious question. I do reckon our planning system isn't fit for purpose but unlike you I can't see an easy solution.

Of course the rules and regulations are changing every so often. We were looking into extensions to the house and it's interesting to note the issues caused by change. Next house built up to the dividing line between properties without issues but this house now can't have the same without their agreement I believe. They built their extension before the rule change about blocking light. IIRC you can't build so you block an imaginary 45°angle from your neighbour's windows. Their extension is well into that arc that it really blocks out the light.

Fortunately we're not going to buy that house so not an issue. I just use it to point out how the rules on even a small part of the planning regulations and laws has grown instead of being designed. It would be very interesting to see what the wit of those in power can come up with if they started with a blank page when they design a new planning system.

rick_chasey

The stats are ludicrous.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... lls-report

all areas of London have a house price to earnings ratio of more than 10:1; the average across England is 7:16

London has 8.7 million people! That's before you count all the commuters! That's bigger than entire countries.

pblakeney

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Yes, but once again at the risk of sounding Leftie, any overhaul of the planning system under the Tories risks having the net effect of relaxing the planning regulations.

If you say the strategic policy documents take so long to complete due to consulting period, etc Then how do you propose getting that forward planning that's needed any quicker? Cutting corners or just not consulting everyone? Serious question. I do reckon our planning system isn't fit for purpose but unlike you I can't see an easy solution.

Of course the rules and regulations are changing every so often. We were looking into extensions to the house and it's interesting to note the issues caused by change. Next house built up to the dividing line between properties without issues but this house now can't have the same without their agreement I believe. They built their extension before the rule change about blocking light. IIRC you can't build so you block an imaginary 45°angle from your neighbour's windows. Their extension is well into that arc that it really blocks out the light.

Fortunately we're not going to buy that house so not an issue. I just use it to point out how the rules on even a small part of the planning regulations and laws has grown instead of being designed. It would be very interesting to see what the wit of those in power can come up with if they started with a blank page when they design a new planning system.

Sorry, not making myself very clear. I agree that full-scale redesign of the planning system would be difficult and costly, and will therefore probably not happen. I think you've hit the nail on the head with your second paragraph: it's a reactive rather than proactive approach.

Anyway, TM's big conference speech will apparently include a major new council house building initiative, which is a step in the right direction (assuming it comes to anything).

rick_chasey

This: https://twitter.com/GavinHJackson/statu ... 0759507968

That's why Tories are seen as out of touch, and Corbyn is, even if his cure will kill the patient.

Half of them just have a myopia to what is going on. It's quite basic.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Anyway, TM's big conference speech will apparently include a major new council house building initiative, which is a step in the right direction (assuming it comes to anything).

It did - maybe she's been listening to Rick?

Let's see what comes of it.

rick_chasey

I'd like to see someone here argue that the current housing situation in the UK is working well, particularly for the under 35.

It better be a sh!tload of builds, because that's what's needed.

What's odd is even a Lib Demmer would go after supply side reforms first, over state building, but anyway.

It's bad enough that currently anything that works even a bit is better than nothing.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd like to see someone here argue that the current housing situation in the UK is working well, particularly for the under 35.

It better be a sh!tload of builds, because that's what's needed.

What's odd is even a Lib Demmer would go after supply side reforms first, over state building, but anyway.

It's bad enough that currently anything that works even a bit is better than nothing.

You should also consider how to reduce demand, which is the other part of the underlying issue. Although there is another thread that may cover that...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd like to see someone here argue that the current housing situation in the UK is working well, particularly for the under 35.

It better be a sh!tload of builds, because that's what's needed.

What's odd is even a Lib Demmer would go after supply side reforms first, over state building, but anyway.

It's bad enough that currently anything that works even a bit is better than nothing.

You should also consider how to reduce demand, which is the other part of the underlying issue. Although there is another thread that may cover that...

So why are the spending money revamping Help to Buy?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd like to see someone here argue that the current housing situation in the UK is working well, particularly for the under 35.

It better be a sh!tload of builds, because that's what's needed.

What's odd is even a Lib Demmer would go after supply side reforms first, over state building, but anyway.

It's bad enough that currently anything that works even a bit is better than nothing.

You should also consider how to reduce demand, which is the other part of the underlying issue. Although there is another thread that may cover that...

So why are the spending money revamping Help to Buy?

I don' think they should.