Forum menu
You couldn’t make this up. Starmer was too spineless to stand behind one of labour’s most popular policies in fear that the establishment would turn against him, and now the tories have gone and nicked (part of) it.
On the podcast "oh god what now" super centrist 'comedian/writer' Matt Forde was absolutely gushing with Starmer's invisible non-political approach to everything.
They even distorted recent polls to reflect badly on Corbyn rather than good for Starmer. (They didn't even acknowledge the 2 year poll recently)
Forde endorsed Starmer's approach of supporting the government during the pandemic with no nuance at all.
And yet not one of the panelists could see wrong in Starmer bereft having ideas that the electorate could get excited about. Even though they acknowledged the cost of living crisis!
In the meantime the Tories are building theoretical Nuclear Power Stations.
Who is Matt Forde and how much does he care if Labour or the Tories win the next general election?
Stupendous car crash involvling Yvette Cooper on the BBC this morning. After questioning Sunak's judgement and the inherent unfairness in his wife not paying millions in taxes, she was then asked whether labour would remove non-dom status. The answer? 'We're conducting a review'. Clueless.
she was then asked whether labour would remove non-dom status. The answer? ‘We’re conducting a review’. Clueless.
There is only one man who can decide policy on the issue, if he hasn't decided what it is, or hasn't told Yvette Cooper, it isn't necessarily her fault.
The current Labour leader is known for a strong reluctance to commit himself to anything, preferring instead to simply attacking the Tories, I can't imagine why he would have a clear unambiguous position on this particular issue.
attacking the Tories
Well, at least this thread has stopped being a series of complaints that he's not attacking the Tories.
On non-doms... there will always be good reasons for non-dom status to exist, but it needs rules that stop it being abused by people who are resident here. The rules have been tightened up before, and they will need to be again... and if Reeves is ever Chancellor of the Exchequer (unlikely I'll admit) then you'd hope she would be more likely to do so than the current person in that post (for bleeding obvious reasons). Would the changes need to be carefully thought through (with the help of, say, a review) rather based on a knee jerk reaction to news events? You'd hope so.
For what it's worth, despite not voting Labour when he was leader, I'd really like to see Miliband in Reeves' role soon, and in Sunak's current role after an election. Bring that on.
Well, at least this thread has stopped being a series of complaints that he’s not attacking the Tories.
I am glad that you approve. I know how important it is to you that political threads stick closely to the criteria which you decide is appropriate.
Of course Starmer attacks the Tories, the whole crux of his strategy appears to be that he would do exactly the same as the Tories only better.
Edit : Which presumably helps to explain why the very latest opinion poll, covering the period of the Tory Chancellor's green card/non-dom wife fiasco, only gives Labour a 4% lead over the Tories, well short of what would be needed to form a Labour majority government in a GE.
I know how important it is to you that political threads stick closely to the criteria which you decide is appropriate.
🥱
I've never said that. I don't think that.
FFS just say the words, 'Yes, we will remove non-dom status and other tax loopholes if we win the next election'. How hard is it?
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513475789634875392?s=20&t=DnZGj4zymUkFjMqsJxNmog
How hard is it?
He needs to check with the big donors whether it would be acceptable or not.
Quite hard, otherwise it would have been done by now. For every HMRC bod trying to write clever loop hole free rules there are 50 in KPMG etc pulling them apart.
Quite hard
No it's not hard at all. He can say now that he intends to remove non-dom status and declare his intention to clamp down on other loopholes, then he's got two years to figure out the policy details. No one would expect a full policy now, just a simple expression of intent. But he can't even do that.
He needs to check with the big donors whether it would be acceptable or not.
Probably even more important to him is what would the Daily Mail say.
And let's be fair the Daily Mail would take a very dim view if the Labour Party took a hostile stance towards non-doms.
After all the Daily Mail owner himself, despite being British, owning a stately home in Britian, and even being a Freeman of the City of London, is a non-dom. On account that his father once lived in France.
That's patriotism Daily Mail style for you. And piss-taking Tory style.
The Viscount Rothermere absolutely should not be able to claim non-dom status. I mean, if you’re in the House of Lords you should be paying your taxes here. There’s a case for a visiting worker to be able to claim that kind of status though. The regulations need tightening up to stop abuse by people who live here. A soundbite “do away with non-dom status completely” would still have to be caveated with “after a full review of the tax laws around people in the UK but not permanently resident here”. It’s not simple. People do expect politicians to make things seem simpler than they really are though. And then they complain when the reality of implementation doesn’t match the simplicity of the solution as it was presented to them.
EDIT: completely forgot that Labour’s reforms meant he lost his seat. Ah, what a shame for him.
So it is a completely new problem which Labour now need to wrestle with?
Yeah let's have a review.... along with the one about the House of Lords. That's another a new problem that has suddenly sprung up and needs to be sorted out. One day.
Edit for your edit : So the House of Lords is sorted..... it's had its reform? I can't wait to see Labour's non-dom "reforms".
Btw this is the commitment that Keir Starmer makes on his website:
Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
A soundbite “do away with non-dom status completely” would still have to be caveated with
My point here is that Starmer hasn't got a clue about communication with the voters. Even after all he must have learnt from Johnson, and the fact that people don't seem to know what he stands for, he still can't express a simple, understandable message on a simple issue.
He's been handed another massive open goal on traditionally toxic terrain for the tories. All he has to say is 'yes we will do something about this!' and the listening voters would enthusiastically agree and perhaps conclude that he's on their side. But instead he says 'we'll conduct a review to examine all the issues and we'll tell you later what we decide to do'. It's pathetic.
thestabiliser
Free Member
Quite hard, otherwise it would have been done by now. For every HMRC bod trying to write clever loop hole free rules there are 50 in KPMG etc pulling them apart.
If they removed Non-Dom status then all it does is push those with earnings outside the UK to not bring them into the UK, so just offshoring their shares and assets, i believe this was the main reason behind the whole 30/60/90k annual payment for Non-Domicile status, so the UK could get some funding out of it.
You could withdraw Non-Dom status next year easily, just remove the law, but it won't bring any more money into the UK, not when there's several other routes to avoiding paying anything, as you say, the big 4 accountancy firms spend a lot of time and effort creating schemes to benefit customers, whilst also assisting the UK tax department in writing their tax laws!
So it is a completely new problem which Labour now need to wrestle with?
No.
My point here is that Starmer hasn’t got a clue about communication with the voters.
Agreed. And that’s nothing new, it has always been true of him, in my opinion.
FFS just say the words, ‘Yes, we will remove non-dom status and other tax loopholes if we win the next election’. How hard is it?
Ex- Lawyer talks like a lawyer shocker
So the House of Lords is sorted
No, it isn't. And historically that's as much Labour's fault as it is the fault of any other party.
Jesus. So instead of promising to get rid of non-doms he’s taking the opportunity to call for eco-protesters to be locked up. Priorities!
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1513576855869218817?s=21&t=q6lYZHPs_PRh1G4R70ZjJw
Why would he promise to do something without knowing the full facts, same with the protest thing, not sure of what the whole just stop oil protest breadth is, but it’s certainly not aimed at getting public backing unfortunately
Pfft! Bloody wishy-washy, liberal hand-wringer! They should all be thrown down disused coal mines! Bloody crusties! 😉
We need those coal mines, going by how much Starmer is hated i can see Kinnock making a comeback ;o)
going by how much Starmer is hated
Who hates Starmer? Daz seems to be regularly surprised by Starmer's complete ineptitude and appears to still expect better from him.
Nothing Starmer says or does surprises me anymore, but as I have said more than once : if the Labour Party has a problem it isn't Starmer.
Otherwise just replacing Starmer would solve the problem, and no one truly believes it would - because they quite simply can't think of anyone to replace him with.
And people say that Sky News is fair and unbalanced… look at how they describe the aims of the protestors…
They are demanding that the government commits not to boost UK energy security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine via new oil and gas extraction.
…no, they want us (the world) to stop depending on oil… there are other forms of energy, especially in the UK. We (the UK) are a net exporter of oil. We need to use less, sell less, extract less.
Oh, and I agree with you 100% on this one Dazh. You can see the political positioning to try and head off the Tories and the papers so they can’t put Labour in an “enemy of the motorist, ally of the climate change radicals”, but it’s cowardly and weak… and I think will look so to a great many of the people he needs to win over to Labour, not just its existing support.
Who hates Starmer?
Me. Quite frankly I f****** despise him, possibly even more so that Johnson. Johnson doesn’t really try to hide the fact that he’s playing a game, Starmer on the other hand pretends things will be different if he is in power. They won’t be. They could even be worse. I’ve never come across a more cynical, wilfully dishonest and cowardly politician as Starmer. He has the worst traits of Johnson minus the personality and ambition.
but it’s cowardly and weak… and I think will look so to a great many of the people he needs to win over to Labour, not just its existing support.
Which is the flaw really. He needs to keep the existing support on side and not just charm anyone who thinks Rothermere and others who dodge any link with the country are patriotic instead of challenging the hypocrites.
That he is reliably hardline when it appeals to the press barons but soft as a marshmallow when it comes to anything which will impact their taxdodging is unfortunately rather telling.
If you have such a low opinion of Starmer Daz why do you still appear constantly shocked and surprised by the latest example of his ineptitude? Or is it all fake?
I agree that Starmer is "worse" than Johnson because Johnson at least doesn't claim to be anything other than a Tory. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Starmer is anymore honest than Johnson - a man who is without doubt a habitual liar.
But then I also don't have as much of a problem with Johnson as many on stw filled with utter hatred seem to have.
And the reason for that is twofold. Firstly I would much rather Johnson remains Tory leader as all the likely contenders for the job would, imo, make significantly worse Prime Ministers with regards to the interests of ordinary working people. They would follow a far more rigid thatcherite pro-austerity Daily Mail approved agenda.
And secondly because in politics I intensely dislike certain ideologies but individuals really don't bother me that much. Individuals are mostly the product of their environment, I find it hard to hate someone because they are a product of a certain upbringing or environment. Besides, hatred against others is a pretty pointless and useless emotion.
Anyway back on topic.......if you think Starmer is the problem you haven't understood the problem imo. Starmer is the symptom, not the cause.
You like Johnson because he helped make Brexit happen, and don’t care what additional damage he does to the UK and the lives of people living here because he gave you that. He is wrecking lives all over these islands, but hey, he gave the EU and the chattering middle classes a bloody nose, so he has a free pass to pop away at the ordinary Brit, shift the tax burden further onto the workers, asset strip the country, and undermine and sell off our institutions. Good old Boris.
Anyway, back on topic… Starmer is the problem in that he is too dull to win over the electorate when an election finally occurs. But it’s not only him that is the problem… the Labour Party is happy to let the wrong leader take them into an election because of some sense of fairness… the “let them have an election before replacing them” line holds the party back… they need to adapt faster, and move lacklustre leaders on rather than follow them into yet another election defeat.
You like Johnson
Sorry who likes Johnson? Your rant is amusing but not overly informative as to its target. Have you been taking lessons from binners?
No I don't like Johnson. Saying I don't hate him isn't the same as saying that I like him.
Is that really that hard to figure out?
Who likes Johnson? Anyone who wants him to stay PM, and prefers him to having a Labour PM, who they think would be “worse”.
why do you still appear constantly shocked and surprised
I’m not really surprised, just continually disgusted. Every time I think he’s reached a new low he goes and does something else to lower the bar. It’s like he’s deliberately trolling the people like me who just want a labour leader to stand up for working people. The worst thing is he does all this safe in the knowledge that most of us will still vote labour.
Starmer is the symptom, not the cause.
Not sure why you think I only think starmer is the problem when pretty much everything I go on about is focused on our f**** political and economic system.
I do have a special dislike for labour MPs though. I struggle to understand how anyone can spend years campaigning for working people (as most do) only to throw all those good intentions away as soon as they’re in a position to do something about it.
Okay… “prefer” rather than “like” then. Not unusual to not “like” any of the options, and to “prefer” one them… most people are probably in that situation… but how you look at all the possibilities and consider Johnson someone who should be PM, well 🤷🏻♂️ 🏴🇬🇧🇪🇺🙈
If Johnson resigns he won't be replaced by a Labour PM, he will be replaced by another Tory PM. IMO all the possible contenders would be worse than Johnson.
Although I would be very interested in hearing why you appear to think they would be better Kelvin.
Perhaps you can start off by explaining why you think Liz Truss would make a better PM?
Okay… “prefer” rather than “like” then
Nope still not anymore useful. I mean both you and binners are clear candidates for the pro Johnson camp given your frothing hatred of anything vaguely left of centre but I suspect that isnt what you mean.
Every time I think he’s reached a new low he goes and does something else to lower the bar.
And the PLP is perfectly happy with him, there's not even a hint of a leadership challenge.
But you still think he's the problem?
why you think Liz Truss would make a better PM?
She won’t be PM. But there are at least 50 Conservative MPs I’d rather see as PM, and more than 200 Labour ones, and a smattering of MPs from other parties as well. I’d rather any random person from my street was PM rather than Johnson… he is ruining lives and wrecking the UK.
Question for you: Would you rather see Starmer as PM than your lovely Johnson fellow? Yes. No.
your frothing hatred of anything vaguely left of centre but I suspect that isnt what you mean
Plenty of instances of Binners going off on one… but I have no hatred of fellow left of centre voters, supporters or even politicians at all. There are some who go all the way around the circle and end up holding hands with the far right (George Galloway, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey etc) who I’ll admit to really, really disliking though.
But there are at least 50 Conservative MPs I’d rather see as PM
There are not 50 contenders. I would possibly prefer Ken Clark as PM but I haven't thought about it because there is zero possiblity that he will be the next PM.
than your lovely Johnson fellow
Grow up.
Would you prefer Johnson or Starmer as PM?
Do you really think that Johnson is the best Tory MP to be running the country right now?
The answer to those questions will tell you if you “prefer” Johnson to the current alternatives.
But you still think he’s the problem?
Actually to be more to the point no I don’t think Starmer is the problem. As I’ve said before (on other threads so you may have missed it) I think the core problem is the nature of representative democracy. It gives MPs disproportionate power and status, and for some, wealth.
People who go into politics for altruistic reasons struggle to cope with it, and those with selfish intentions prosper. For all sorts of reasons that affects the Labour Party more than the tories. Until labour figures out a way of handling power and being comfortable with their principles it won’t improve. The two things should be complimentary rather than in conflict.
People who go into politics for altruistic reasons struggle to cope with it, and those with selfish intentions prosper.
Sort of like most areas of life then really. Having MP on your CV puts you in a VERY good position for next job or even other jobs and activities whilst being an MP. Can see why it draws so many ****ers.
The biggest problem with UK democracy is that there is one MP for a party so people vote for the party and don't care how much of a ****er the MP is. Voters should have an option of people to vote for regardless of party, and they may vote for people who are actually decent people who want to make a positive change.
I do have a special dislike for labour MPs though. I struggle to understand how anyone can spend years campaigning for working people (as most do) only to throw all those good intentions away as soon as they’re in a position to do something about it.
For sure.
Wes Streeting was hosting LBC and posing questions about how we have got here - politically.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1513475969813729280?t=y__Eh5h_mv5slz-14YO7ZA&s=19
Christ. I can't even believe he said the above with a serious a look on his face.
The dumb liberal idiot is the answer to his own question because centrists do not offer anything useful to society; housing, solutions to poverty, to energy, to the economy, to war (other than more war.)
Nothing.
They just want to move the right further to the right and destroy the left. (Look at Le Pen as a product of that currently.)
And all the blue-tick commentators still think being in the 'centre' solves problems and is the key to success.
When a centrist leader demonstrates any practical economic solutions to the mess we're in - I will recognise it, until then this is why we have two shockingly bad leaders in Johnson and Starmer.
There seems to be a lot of attacking Labour MPs going on here. Mostly it seems for the effects of having a Conservative government.
There seems to be a lot of attacking Labour MPs going on here. Mostly it seems for the effects of having a Conservative government
There's no way you can look at the effects of a Conservative government without the wider effects of neoliberal governments.
Let's call a spade a spade.
And don't forget previous Labour MPs attacking Labour leaders.
When a centrist leader demonstrates any practical economic solutions to the mess we’re in
What would you like to see in the way of policies that you think would pass the electorate sniff test?
What would you like to see in the way of policies that you think would pass the electorate sniff test?
Lol. If Starmer was 20pts ahead you might have a point.
I'm presuming that Starmer will eventually come up with something that he think might pass the test?
Given he's more likely to power than me do you think it better he answers that?
If the Tories can sell a whole load of bullshit to the electorate and get elected I'm guessing that plenty of redistributive policies might sail currently?
This flacid idea that you can't sell strong policies and ideas to the electorate is so tepid and pathetic that we may as just roll over and die now.
Instead let's keep letting the establishment kick us in the nuts with a continuation of everything that's a downer.
With Brexit *slightly* to one side and cost of living crisis is now an absolute open net for a progressive government.
What are Liberals offering us?
S'ok to be cynical, but I'm actually asking...What 2 policies do you think would have the biggest impact? just 2 ideas that you think would 1. get us someway out the issue we're approaching, and 2. that a weary electorate could or would vote for.
Reeves has announced policies that pretty much amount to a tax relief of about £175bn and have things like increasing tax take on unearned income, relief for small businesses, taxing heavily big tech corporates and so on.
I don't come into this thread often as it's so corrosively, depressingly toxic, but...
Who likes Johnson? Anyone who wants him to stay PM, and prefers him to having a Labour PM, who they think would be “worse”.
... This, and...
There seems to be a lot of attacking Labour MPs going on here. Mostly it seems for the effects of having a Conservative government.
... This.
Reeves has announced policies that pretty much amount to a tax relief of about £175bn and have things like increasing tax take on unearned income, relief for small businesses, taxing heavily big tech corporates and so on.
The government has all the spending power it needs in the first place.
Here's the thing - you've framed something as tinkering at the edges.
How does that fix poverty and lack of housing? Inflation/energy/green etc.
You tell me how those policies fix anything because all you've done is presume that the lack of money is the issue - rather than the lack of political will.
Taxes don't pay for spending. Why would I endorse that? It's counter-intuitive and does nothing on a macro-economic level to rebalance an economy. (A separate debate about taxes used for controlling democracy and enacting policy is fine.)
As an aside I run a small business can you point me in direction of that announcement? (It's not rates is it?)
I don’t come into this thread often as it’s so corrosively, depressingly toxic, but…
This is just shutting down debate.
I absolutely don't need to have a go at my fellow STers but MPs are fair game.
Any reflection of Labour MPs not being very good has always been part of the discussion as far as I can tell.
This is just shutting down debate.
Oh, you're all more than welcome to crack on sniping at the one person with a realistic hope of unseating the Tories, I'm just telling you I can't **** stand it.
1. get us someway out the issue we’re approaching, and 2. that a weary electorate could or would vote for.
1. Bring back tax credits (or something like them) to ensure a level of benefits which matches the cost of living.
2. Massively hike taxes on unearned income and in particular rental incomes.
3. Cap energy prices
4. Cap private housing rents
You tell me how those policies fix anything
I don't think they will make everything better, but it's better than what the Tories are offering, and I'm just outlining what Labour are saying, don't confuse saying what they are with uncritical support for them. So back to you; What are the policies you'd like to see that you think would get past the electorate?
The questions' not a trap by the way, I'm not going to "A'ha but..." I'm genuinely interested in what you think we should do.
Very centrist policies there Dazh. Number 3 there (very old Ed Miliband) could have very negative consequences, unless paired with a mandate to fully (or at least further) divest from fossil fuels. Number 4 would have to be handled locally, but as you’re repeatedly keen on devolving powers to local levels, so that makes perfect sense. And I agree. Agree with one and two as well… I’d like to see them go much further with a braver reform of income and wealth, but I think you’ve picked a level there that is absolutely “sellable” to a broad swath of the population, not just those who want more radical left leaning policies, so you’ve answered the question put to you well. Next question is… will a Starmer manifesto for the next election look anything like that (the first two anyway)? Who knows… I’m not so quick to assume that it won’t as others are. Labour policy is already for a more progressive taxation system, and increased benefits than what the government is doing, and the manifesto isn’t even written yet.
Oh, you’re all more than welcome to crack on sniping at the one person with a realistic hope of unseating the Tories, I’m just telling you I can’t **** stand it.
Whereas I can't stand it that he's so frigging useless.
2. Massively hike taxes on unearned income and in particular rental incomes.
I think that's genuinely a Labour policy City Wire article, the first I googled
Morning comrades! How's the revolution progressing?
I take it that you're all typing this on your non-branded, solar-powered device with one hand, with the other super-glued to a railing outside an oil refinery, that you arrived at by horse and cart?
Back in the real world (sorry about that comrades), there's a good article by Polly Toynbee (boooo hisssss... traitor) in this mornings Guardian (boooo hisssss... Blairite scum) about labours policies. All seem pretty positive and reasonable and things that people might actually vote for. Imagine that?
Labour has shelves of winning policies. Now the party must get people to listen
Whereas I can’t stand it that he’s so frigging useless.
Let's hope Johnson stays in, then, right?
You can piss and moan about him all you want, but the reality is this - there is no-one else on the horizon. It's Starmer, or it's more Johnson.
Easy choice for me: Starmer as PM over Johnson, in a heartbeat. I still don’t see him connecting with voters in language and terms that emotionally engage them though, and that is needed in modern politics, isn’t it.
Anyway, back to this going after oil protesters to stand up for “motorists” line that the Labour front bench are out on the radio and TV pushing … sounding increasing weird. Linking it to cost of living is one thing… but it’s a very depressing angle to take, given how it’s a too slow a shift away from oil and gas that is partly to blame for putting us in our current position.
Oh, you’re all more than welcome to crack on sniping at the one person with a realistic hope of unseating the Tories, I’m just telling you I can’t **** stand
I don't see how my comments will affect Starmer's chances.
Polly Toynbee (boooo hisssss… traitor) in this mornings Guardian (boooo hisssss…
You said it.
One of the cheerleaders of anti-Corbynism with sod all answers herself.
I think that’s genuinely a Labour policy
It says they're going to remove tax breaks and get those with the broadest shoulders to pay 'a bit more tax'. That's all very well but it won't cut through with voters. They need to simplify it. Bring in a 50% tax on all rental income operated by a scheme similar to PAYE for landlords. I'd also suggest hiking stamp duty on second properties and lowering it on first properties. We need to destroy the private rental market, it's one of the single greatest regressive economic forces in this country.
You can piss and moan about him all you want, but the reality is this – there is no-one else on the horizon. It’s Starmer, or it’s more Johnson
Perhaps ask yourself why Starmer is not doing the very best he could for the Labour party and the chances of actually winning then, and putting stuff in place that would make a difference.
Otherwise I reserve the right to be bothered by his uselessness.
We need to destroy the private rental market
So that's all the people currently renting privately who'll fear losing the roof over their heads and all the buy-to-let homeowners who'll fear their entire income disappearing, not voting for you then. That's quite a constituency you've lost.
That’s all very well but it won’t cut through with voters.
Spot on there Daz. The public aren’t hearing that the taxation and benefit systems would be more progressive under Labour, even though they are saying it. Partly because key people (including the leader) don’t cut through, and partly because it has become an accepted meme among left of centre voices (I don’t just mean here, I include satirical comedy shows etc) that Labour are offering nothing different to the Conservatives, whether that is true or not. Depressing. Johnson is so damn lucky to enjoy such divided opposition. I really hope is luck runs out come an election though.
Perhaps ask yourself why Starmer is not doing the very best he could for the Labour party and the chances of actually winning then.
It's irrelevant though isn't it? That's your choice in the system we have. Starmer or more Johnstone. Whether you think Starmer's doing the square sum of **** all, or whether he's working day and night, it still comes down to a choice between those two.
Perhaps ask yourself why Starmer is not doing the very best he could for the Labour party and the chances of actually winning then.
The ONLY metric that matters right now is - is he better than Johnson? **** yeah.
I take it that you’re all typing this on your non-branded, solar-powered device with one hand, with the other super-glued to a railing outside an oil refinery, that you arrived at by horse and cart?
And the joke is the original technology will have been developed by the state for the market to package.
Ignorance in the face of humour is astonishing.
'The state' developed the horse and cart?
The ONLY metric that matters right now is – is he better than Johnson? **** yeah.
Better in what way?
With Johnson we got what we expected.
This is not just debate between leaders it's a debate of ideology. Until we change it and dramatically improve the lives of millions you will be stuck with poverty, crime, housing issues
So again, what are just the first two policies you’d like to see that you think would pass a sniff test of the electorate then?
The biggest problem is that improvement will come from complicated detailed changes that engage with our real situation in the world, not simple vague unknowable promises… but that is what connects with voters. How’s your northern town? Levelled up yet? Is Brexit done in NI? At the ports? In your local SMEs? Do the opposition need to sound similarly promising but vague to get into office? If that is the aim, I don’t think Starmer is the person to sell it. I do think he could improve the country if he can sneak through though.
With Johnson we got what we expected.
You can keep him, I want to get rid of him.
So that’s all the people currently renting privately who’ll fear losing the roof over their heads
You think all those people will be out on the street? Many of them will be able to buy a property for the first time, especially when house prices come down as a result. The remainder will still be able to rent in a much more balanced market with lower rents. You'd hope this would also be combined with a renewed push on social housing to further increase affordable housing.
Rent caps are the norm across the world, even in some of the most market driven economies. The rental market needs regulation and taxation changes, not “destroying”. More social housing, with low rents, is key.
With Johnson we got what we expected.
Ah - we should stick with our lying, self-obsessed, corrupt PM because the LOTO isn't QUITE to our tastes, I understand. Glad I popped in, suddenly everything makes a lot more sense.
Well summarised.
You’d hope this would also be combined with a renewed push on social housing
I think you'd have to more than hope. I think if you did this the other way around, ie start building the social housing and reserve some of it for private renters first, you get the traction you're looking for, because otherwise you're just "hoping" the market will do what you want.
You think all those people will be out on the street?
I genuinely think if you stood and said in public "we want to kill off private renting" that would be the end of your party. I think if you said "here's some policies that will mean private renting is legitimately not going to be your only choice" you probably won't have them running away screaming 🙂