Next Leader of the Opposition

[MiniFox]

I do wonder what they all mean, in practice, when they talk about "encouraging aspiration".

Is this anything more than code for "we should be Tories-lite": low tax for everyone, including the super-rich, with the inevitable decline in public services?

If so, why would people with those values vote for a Tory-lite Labour when they could vote for the real thing? They had that Tory-lite opportunity with the Lib Dems in 2015, and didn't exactly go for that, did they?! 

 

Whatever you think of them, Labour had policies to promote house-building, expand/improve apprenticeships, maintain education spending, prioritise small businesses, boost real pay, cut the cost of living and redirect tax towards those with seriously high incomes/wealth (£150k income, £2m house etc.). If those policies weren't "aspirational" enough, what would be? If people are seriously aspiring to a £150k income and a £2m house, I'm afraid most of those aspirations will be dashed.

 

Labour will need to do some serious research into the reasons for their defeat, but I suspect that the problem was more that they failed to make their case properly over the last 5 years - particularly on the economy. This meant that many people believed the lie that "Labour can't be trusted with the economy", particularly at a time of fragile recovery. This then left them wide open to the Tory smear tactic alleging that an alliance of "untrustworthy Labour" and "SNP extremists" would massively over-spend and ruin the economy.

 

A quick stat for you (source: ONS): 

- Net increase in deficit under Major 90-96: £226.7 bn 

- Net increase in deficit under Labour 97-07: £180.8 bn

So, prior to the global financial crash, the Tories "over-spent" by more in 7 years than Labour did in 11 years! And that's without taking account of some of the useful spending on schools and hospitals that went on under Labour. Yet the "irresponsible Labour over-spending" message was successful for the Tories. Labour simply lost the political argument, staying quiet and/or indulging in gimmick initiatives.

 

Here's an important bit of analysis: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/election-2015-who-voted-for-whom-labour-conservatives-turnout

So, compared to 2010, there was a large swing to the Tories among those groups with the highest turnout, like the elderly and higher-income groups. Meanwhile, turnout fell to very low levels among the young and lower-income groups....precisely the groups that switched most to Labour..... That's a pretty deadly combination!

 

It's interesting to look at seats where Labour did well and those where it did badly:

- Seats won from Tories (or unexpectedly from Lib Dems): Enfield, Ealing, Brentford, Ilford, Bermondsey, Hornsey, Wirral, Chester, Lancaster, Dewsbury, Wolverhampton

- Seats lost to Tories/marginals not taken: Leeds, Bolton, Rhyl, Southampton, Corby, Plymouth x 2, Derby, Telford, Nuneaton, Thurrock, Gower

Labour took seats in London, heavily Asian areas and the more leafy marginals. They failed badly in less "leafy", mainly white marginals - areas where people were more likely to feel fearful of the impact on their lives of a Labour government that would supposedly spend irresponsibly in alliance with Scottish extremists, sinking the economy and their livelihoods. 

On the working class tories trend on twitter yesterday, being aspirational was the biggest argument for them, but why is that? Possibly, because Labour aimed to raise taxes for the rich, however, for the most part being if you're a working class tory, I would suspect you're not particularly wealthy and not in the top tax bracket either, which is why I wonder what they really mean by aspirational.

 

If you have a low chance of earning that type of money (£150k income and £2m house/mansion) whether that be in your career you've chosen or your business, why on earth would people vote for a party on the basis that their aspirational and the party you're voting for is aspirational too based on the fact it is nicer to the rich? 

 

In politics, the word aspiration comes across as a way to justify certain decisions that go in favour of the rich, "You might be there someday so you should support this decision."

 

EDIT: I'm not saying you can't reach high amounts of income, whether you're working class or middle class, but I'm saying why vote for a party on the premise that you might be something or that you want to be something. 

[Webbo]

On the working class tories trend on twitter yesterday, being aspirational was the biggest argument for them, but why is that? Possibly, because Labour aimed to raise taxes for the rich, however, for the most part being if you're a working class tory, I would suspect you're not particularly wealthy and not in the top tax bracket either, which is why I wonder what they really mean by aspirational.

 

If you have a low chance of earning that type of money (£150k income and £2m house/mansion) whether that be in your career you've chosen or your business, why on earth would people vote for a party on the basis that their aspirational and the party you're voting for is aspirational too based on the fact it is nicer to the rich? 

 

In politics, the word aspiration comes across as a way to justify certain decisions that go in favour of the rich, "You might be there someday so you should support this decision."

So if it doesn't affect you you shouldn't be against something?

 

Being anti rich, hostile to businesses and profits destroys jobs. Punishing somebody for being successful and rewarding failure isn't fair and will ruin the economy. You may think that opinions like mine are selfish but they improve the living standards of the whole country.

[MiniFox]

So if it doesn't affect you you shouldn't be against something?

 

Being anti rich, hostile to businesses and profits destroys jobs. Punishing somebody for being successful and rewarding failure isn't fair and will ruin the economy. You may think that opinions like mine are selfish but they improve the living standards of the whole country.

Actually, I agree with you.

 

We shouldn't be anti rich, nor hostile to businesses, the point I was making is that people seemingly were saying they voted Tory because they were aspirational, implying they wanted to be in a position someday where they would benefit from lower taxation for the rich. I possible read them wrong though, maybe they were making the point you were making. 

 

Also, I wouldn't say you're selfish for having that opinion, it would be selfish of someone to want the rich to be taxed too high, just because it does not effect them.

[MooseBreath]

I don't think aspirational in a working class tory sense means wanting to earn £150k, more like earning an average to decent wage. Tax on average to decent wages has been reduced under the tories. People on £150k will actually be paying more tax this year than they were last. People see this along with the improvement in the economy and feel more confident in achieving modest aspiration under the tories than they do under labour, who they see as a party for those on benefits, public sector workers or behind-the-times liberals only.

[MiniFox]

I don't think aspirational in a working class tory sense means wanting to earn £150k, more like earning an average to decent wage. Tax on average to decent wages has been reduced under the tories. People on £150k will actually be paying more tax this year than they were last. People see this along with the improvement in the economy and feel more confident in achieving modest aspiration under the tories than they do under labour, who they see as a party for those on benefits, public sector workers or behind-the-times liberals only.

Possibly the case, although, regardless of social class everyone at some point has big aspirations, it seemed to me that's the sort of thing they meant on Twitter, but it can be read in a few ways I suppose.

[Grewks]

Tories are the proper 'Working man' party.

[Danno]

[digitalalba]

Immigration: Labour was 'squeamish' says Yvette Cooper

• bout talking about immigration"

Labour was "squeamish" about talking about immigration in the past, Yvette Cooper has said.

In an interview broadcast on BBC Newsnight, the party's leadership contender said immigration needed to be "controlled" and "managed".

She also said that "ideally" the Labour government should have had a financial surplus before the crisis of 2008.

Ms Cooper is one of four MPs who have announced they will stand for the Labour leadership.

Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Mary Creagh are also standing.

Candidates are required to gather the signatures of 35 MPs by 15 June to make it on to the ballot paper.

The winner will be announced on 12 September.

'Controlled and managed'

Speaking to Newsnight's chief correspondent Laura Kuenssberg, Ms Cooper said: "I think it's not so much about exactly what the detail of the policies are, it's about not being squeamish about talking about immigration.

"Because it's important for Britain, but it has to be controlled and managed so that the system is fair... we should talk about the way we control and manage it but also the way you can benefit from high skilled migration from students coming from Britain."

Ms Cooper also said people like Alan Milburn and John Hutton, who have called for the party to skip a generation when choosing a new leader, were "trapped in the past".

She said they were "fighting battles from 2004 and 2005... wanting to settle old scores from the Labour Party's history."

She also said that she made "no apology for having experience" when the job is so tough.

Asked if it was wrong for the party to have run up a deficit before the financial crash, Yvette Cooper admitted: "I'm saying that ideally you would have had it in surplus, so yes, we should have had it in surplus by that time.

"However, what was the consequence of that? The Tories want to say that either it caused the financial crisis which it clearly didn't, or they want to say that it made it harder to deal with the financial crisis which it also didn't."

they were so squeamish, they flew to India to encourage non whites to emigrate to England, admitted Peter Mandelson a few years back

[Guest Mee-9]

Liz Kendall was going out with the Comedian/Actor Greg Davies.

Imagine Mr Gilbert and her pictured outside a polling station/maths mobile next Election day waving to a crowd both sporting red rosettes.

[Daggers]

Abbot.

 

Always felt Lou Costello was the talented one in the partnership. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, it's been known to happen.

 

That said, I'd rather have the Marx Brothers.

[Guest MattP]

I do wonder what they all mean, in practice, when they talk about "encouraging aspiration".

Is this anything more than code for "we should be Tories-lite": low tax for everyone, including the super-rich, with the inevitable decline in public services?

If so, why would people with those values vote for a Tory-lite Labour when they could vote for the real thing? They had that Tory-lite opportunity with the Lib Dems in 2015, and didn't exactly go for that, did they?! 

 

Whatever you think of them, Labour had policies to promote house-building, expand/improve apprenticeships, maintain education spending, prioritise small businesses, boost real pay, cut the cost of living and redirect tax towards those with seriously high incomes/wealth (£150k income, £2m house etc.). If those policies weren't "aspirational" enough, what would be? If people are seriously aspiring to a £150k income and a £2m house, I'm afraid most of those aspirations will be dashed.

 

Labour will need to do some serious research into the reasons for their defeat, but I suspect that the problem was more that they failed to make their case properly over the last 5 years - particularly on the economy. This meant that many people believed the lie that "Labour can't be trusted with the economy", particularly at a time of fragile recovery. This then left them wide open to the Tory smear tactic alleging that an alliance of "untrustworthy Labour" and "SNP extremists" would massively over-spend and ruin the economy.

 

A quick stat for you (source: ONS): 

- Net increase in deficit under Major 90-96: £226.7 bn 

- Net increase in deficit under Labour 97-07: £180.8 bn

So, prior to the global financial crash, the Tories "over-spent" by more in 7 years than Labour did in 11 years! And that's without taking account of some of the useful spending on schools and hospitals that went on under Labour. Yet the "irresponsible Labour over-spending" message was successful for the Tories. Labour simply lost the political argument, staying quiet and/or indulging in gimmick initiatives.

 

Here's an important bit of analysis: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/election-2015-who-voted-for-whom-labour-conservatives-turnout

So, compared to 2010, there was a large swing to the Tories among those groups with the highest turnout, like the elderly and higher-income groups. Meanwhile, turnout fell to very low levels among the young and lower-income groups....precisely the groups that switched most to Labour..... That's a pretty deadly combination!

 

It's interesting to look at seats where Labour did well and those where it did badly:

- Seats won from Tories (or unexpectedly from Lib Dems): Enfield, Ealing, Brentford, Ilford, Bermondsey, Hornsey, Wirral, Chester, Lancaster, Dewsbury, Wolverhampton

- Seats lost to Tories/marginals not taken: Leeds, Bolton, Rhyl, Southampton, Corby, Plymouth x 2, Derby, Telford, Nuneaton, Thurrock, Gower

Labour took seats in London, heavily Asian areas and the more leafy marginals. They failed badly in less "leafy", mainly white marginals - areas where people were more likely to feel fearful of the impact on their lives of a Labour government that would supposedly spend irresponsibly in alliance with Scottish extremists, sinking the economy and their livelihoods. 

 

Always good to read your posts Alf but I think we have some serious holes in this one.

 

They might have had all those policies you have mentioned but they never really got around to telling us how they were going to pay for them aside from a bankers bonus and a mansion tax, two things that no fiscal body could give any sort of definitive sum on how much either would raise. the people aren't stupid, they've heard this before and realise in reality all it means is higher taxes for everyone.

 

The economy crash wasn't a big thing, Labour were running at 42% in some polls in 2012, they had the lead and lost it mainly due to the supposed economic recovery that happened and more importantly I'd suggest, the job creation that came with it, very few were blaming them for the economic crash, a more educated argument had surfaced by then about the borrowing of the party before the crash, the Question Time where Ed Miliband had to face the audience said it all, no one accused them of the crash, it was about the borrowing and he was still denying they had spent too much in the good years.

 

This was a Northern audience a few days before an election and they were openly laughing at the leader of the Labour party when he spoke about economics, it should have been obvious then he was in big trouble.

 

A lot of Labour people simply will never understand aspiration, because if they did they wouldn't be voting for them.

 

It doesn't help when mixed messages are still coming out now, Tom Watson again yesterday now denying you borrowed too much during the good years whilst Kendell, Hunt etc are admitting that the borrowing was clearly too much - someone needs to really tell us if we aren't running a surplus after 16 years of growth will Labour want too?

[Alf Bentley]

Always good to read your posts Alf but I think we have some serious holes in this one.

 

They might have had all those policies you have mentioned but they never really got around to telling us how they were going to pay for them aside from a bankers bonus and a mansion tax, two things that no fiscal body could give any sort of definitive sum on how much either would raise. the people aren't stupid, they've heard this before and realise in reality all it means is higher taxes for everyone.

 

The economy crash wasn't a big thing, Labour were running at 42% in some polls in 2012, they had the lead and lost it mainly due to the supposed economic recovery that happened and more importantly I'd suggest, the job creation that came with it, very few were blaming them for the economic crash, a more educated argument had surfaced by then about the borrowing of the party before the crash, the Question Time where Ed Miliband had to face the audience said it all, no one accused them of the crash, it was about the borrowing and he was still denying they had spent too much in the good years.

 

This was a Northern audience a few days before an election and they were openly laughing at the leader of the Labour party when he spoke about economics, it should have been obvious then he was in big trouble.

 

A lot of Labour people simply will never understand aspiration, because if they did they wouldn't be voting for them.

 

It doesn't help when mixed messages are still coming out now, Tom Watson again yesterday now denying you borrowed too much during the good years whilst Kendell, Hunt etc are admitting that the borrowing was clearly too much - someone needs to really tell us if we aren't running a surplus after 16 years of growth will Labour want too?

 

I largely agree with your 2nd paragraph about Labour failing to make the case for the viability of their policies. However, the failure to make that case dates back a lot longer than the election campaign. After all, the figures bandied about by the Tories during the campaign were no more credible than those bandied about by Labour. The difference is that, rightly or wrongly, over previous years the Tories had established a greater degree of trust than Labour - or were mistrusted less, at least.

 

Good point re. the 2012 polls, but I didn't mean to argue anything as crude as "voters blamed Labour for the crash". I reckon that a majority consensus formed among voters that (a) Labour had spent irresponsibly in office; and (b) the Tories could be trusted more with the economy.The formation of that consensus represents a massive failure by Labour to argue its case convincingly. As most people have little interest in politics/economics, I'd imagine that consensus came about less through analysis, more through osmosis: a general awareness that Labour "tax and spend" more; a general awareness that the crash/rocketing deficit occurred on Labour's watch; consistent & effective Tory arguments that Labour would spend irresponsibly, whereas they were cutting the deficit and sorting the economy out....and almost 5 years of Labour failing to convincingly argue against that. Add in some last-minute fear/panic over SNP influence and that's a pretty deadly brew.

 

Yes, there's a case for claiming that Labour wasted money in certain areas and shouldn't have been running a deficit during a boom....but every government wastes some money and almost every government runs a deficit most of the time. Labour could have presented a decent case against those claims: (a) that much of their spending was desperately needed (while admitting that they got some things wrong and showing determination not to waste money if elected); (b) that the impression "Labour run up debts, while Tories are more frugal" is false: see my figures above showing that Major borrowed more in 7 years than Blair/Brown did in 11 years before the crash. Instead, over 5 years, they mainly seemed to call for spending and criticise Tory economic policy (often with justification - but that's no good if the problem changes from a "flatlining" economy to a high-employment, low-pay, low-skills, low-productivity economy that generates a little bit of growth & wealth for a couple of years before the election.

 

I'd see the laughter of that Northern TV audience as evidence that the "wasteful Labour" consensus was in place, certainly. Though people interested enough to come to a TV politics show are untypical of the electorate.

 

If Labour running a deficit 7 years out of 11 before the crash is an issue, why is it not an issue that Thatcher ran a deficit 9 years out of 11 and Major 7 years out of 7?

 

As for aspiration, that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Some people aspire to a decent standard of living and an enjoyable life with friends, family & a bit of fun. Some aspire to as much material wealth as they can possibly accrue, either for its own sake or to feel superior to others. Some aspire to great success in their chosen career or a field in which they have some ability, or to great adventures in life. Some aspire to social success - achieving high esteem, which may or may not go hand in hand with material wealth. Some may aspire to lead a good life and to feel that they have been true to their values and have helped others, and may aspire to a society that matches those values. Most of us probably have a mixture of several of those aspirations. Your comment seems to suggest that there is only 1 possible form of aspiration and that a lot of Labour people don't understand that 1 permissible form of aspiration. Care to clarify what aspiration means to you? I promise not to tell the Labour Party. 

[MiniFox]

Again, aspiration has been mentioned, but my question is, if these people are so aspirational, why are they one of the first to complain about buy to let?

Of course this has implacations for them, they can't afford housing possibly, but if investing your money into property and seeing a return as profit isn't what aspiration is, then I really don't understand aspiration.

You can't preach one minute about how much aspiration you have, then in the next breath get angry at someone for being aspirational.

As I've said I can understand them being against this, but comments such as "one house is enough" and "greedy people", why is this? Because their aspiration hasn't benefitted you?

This isn't everyone, but I was shocked to see this opinion from anyone who voted for "aspiration".

[Guest MattP]

As for aspiration, that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Some people aspire to a decent standard of living and an enjoyable life with friends, family & a bit of fun. Some aspire to as much material wealth as they can possibly accrue, either for its own sake or to feel superior to others. Some aspire to great success in their chosen career or a field in which they have some ability. Some aspire to social success - achieving high esteem, which may or may not go hand in hand with material wealth. Some may aspire to lead a good life and to feel that they have been true to their values and have helped others, and may aspire to a society that matches those values. Most of us probably have a mixture of several of those aspirations. Your comment seems to suggest that there is only 1 possible form of aspiration and that a lot of Labour people don't understand that 1 permissible form of aspiration. Care to clarify what aspiration means to you? I promise not to tell the Labour Party. 

 

It's a tough question, the things you talk about here are things I'm happy and content to have, I wouldn't describe them as aspirational though. I wouldn't even descrive myself as 'aspirirational' anymore, but I wouldn't want to stop someone else being so.

 

I would think aspiration is wanting to know that you will achieve the highest possible mark you can if you are prepared to work hard for it and that's something most young people do seem to aspire to, even more so those that have families and want to give their children the advantages they didn't have, i think it's totally different on whatever circumstances your life currently holds.

 

It certainly isn't thought just talking about taxing anyone and anything that is successful, you don't have to be on 100k a year to view a 50% tax rate as unreasonable. To see that taxing people on their houses and their wealth which they have already been taxed on is wrong, taxing the dead on the money they want to leave to someone for the third time around, which I think is totally immoral.

[Alf Bentley]

Again, aspiration has been mentioned, but my question is, if these people are so aspirational, why are they one of the first to complain about buy to let?

Of course this has implacations for them, they can't afford housing possibly, but if investing your money into property and seeing a return as profit isn't what aspiration is, then I really don't understand aspiration.

You can't preach one minute about how much aspiration you have, then in the next breath get angry at someone for being aspirational.

As I've said I can understand them being against this, but comments such as "one house is enough" and "greedy people", why is this? Because their aspiration hasn't benefitted you?

This isn't everyone, but I was shocked to see this opinion from anyone who voted for "aspiration".

 

If there was a reasonable supply of decent, affordable housing that people could afford to buy, buy-to-let wouldn't be such an issue (or, maybe, so profitable).

 

As it is, without a high income or a lot of capital, many people are priced out of buying a home to live in - by people with more money who use that money to make even more money.

 

Nothing to do with aspiration, everything to do with disparities in wealth/income - and a housing shortage.

 

Imagine that Abramovich turned round and said that Chelsea were offering to double the pay of every Premier League footballer if they moved to Chelsea. If all our squad headed to Stamford Bridge and we ended up loaning players from Cov, would you turn round and say: "Well, fair enough, Abramovich is just more aspirational than we are" ?

[Frank to be]

Aspiration to a tory just means being able to earn more than other people and to never have to give any help to other people. It's totally ego-driven. Future generations will view that mindset how we view cavemen.

[Guest MattP]

Aspiration to a tory just means being able to earn more than other people and to never have to give any help to other people. It's totally ego-driven. Future generations will view that mindset how we view cavemen.

 

[Alf Bentley]

It's a tough question, the things you talk about here are things I'm happy and content to have, I wouldn't describe them as aspirational though. I wouldn't even descrive myself as 'aspirirational' anymore, but I wouldn't want to stop someone else being so.

 

I would think aspiration is wanting to know that you will achieve the highest possible mark you can if you are prepared to work hard for it and that's something most young people do seem to aspire to, even more so those that have families and want to give their children the advantages they didn't have, i think it's totally different on whatever circumstances your life currently holds.

 

It certainly isn't thought just talking about taxing anyone and anything that is successful, you don't have to be on 100k a year to view a 50% tax rate as unreasonable. To see that taxing people on their houses and their wealth which they have already been taxed on is wrong, taxing the dead on the money they want to leave to someone for the third time around, which I think is totally immoral.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the highest possible mark". Are you talking career progression? Your subsequent comment about "giving their children the advantages they didn't have" suggests something more material....though children can be given a lot (time, care, love, stimulation, encouragement) that costs nothing in cash outlay.

 

It would be nice if there was a world where there was a strong correlation between hard work and achievement / material gain. There is some correlation.....but there are also an awful lot of people who work very hard to the best of their abilities without such achievement or material gain. That may be because they didn't have exceptional abilities in the first place, it may be because their chosen career is poorly paid, it may be bad luck or it may be that their face doesn't fit with those handing out the rewards. Likewise, there are an awful lot of people who achieve high status or material gain by pure luck, by greasing up to the right people, through nepotism, by inheriting wealth or by dishonesty in all its forms - and not just through merit or hard work.

 

Nobody sane wants to stop other people having or achieving aspirations, but sometimes aspirations come into conflict. If everyone aspires to have their tax cut, then who is going to pay for public services? Taking an extreme example of your inheritance tax comment, if Abramovich popped his clogs and there were children dying of malnutrition, would it really be "totally immoral" to tax some of his estate so as to feed them, instead of giving all his billions to his heirs?

 

In a country where disparities in wealth and income have been growing for several decades, this is only going to get worse. I was lucky to jointly buy a house years ago, as I'd be unable to afford a decent one now. That's not because of a lack of work on my part (though I've been slacking a bit since joining FoxesTalk!) or a lack of aspiration (I went back to uni at 30 and got a good degree in a supposedly in-demand, vocational qualification - and set up a business when nobody would give me a career job).

 

There always have been - and always will be - disparities in wealth/income, some merited and some not. Now, however, there is a growing assumption that "wealth = merit" and "lack of wealth = idleness / lack of aspiration". As discussed with MiniFox, we're now living in a society where a lot of hard-working people with responsible jobs and aspirations cannot afford to buy a house, while others with capital (possibly earned, possibly inherited, possibly accrued though the lottery of the housing market) buy up the stock in order to make even more money.

 

If I outlive my father (which is starting to look unlikely, the way I've been living recently), I'll probably inherit a tidy sum. I wouldn't acquire that money through any merit on my part - and, too bloody right, if it were to be more than £650k or whatever the Tories increase the threshold to, I should pay inheritance tax on it! For that matter, my parents didn't earn that capital through clever business investments or working much harder than average (my Mum probably did a bit, my Dad just worked responsibly at quite a cushy number). They just had final salary pensions and moved to London before the property boom sent house prices through the roof. 

 

The Labour Party should indeed be led by someone who wants to encourage and facilitate aspirations - aspirations for all, not just those with high incomes or stacks of capital....otherwise, they might as well have a makeover as "The Capital Party", 

[ADK]

Talking of "Aspiration" is a bit of classic dog whistling really.

[Guest MattP]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the highest possible mark". Are you talking career progression? Your subsequent comment about "giving their children the advantages they didn't have" suggests something more material....though children can be given a lot (time, care, love, stimulation, encouragement) that costs nothing in cash outlay.

 

The Labour Party should indeed be led by someone who wants to encourage and facilitate aspirations - aspirations for all, not just those with high incomes or stacks of capital....otherwise, they might as well have a makeover as "The Capital Party", 

 

As I say, I think it's different for anyone, a person with children will have far different aspirations to those who don't.

 

You are right on the bottom line, you need aspiration for all, something that Ed Miliband couldn't achieve, chasing the lowest vote talking about the evil wealth creators and rich only gets the vote of a certain section of society these days and thank god it's nowhere near enough to win an election.

[Guest]

Again, aspiration has been mentioned, but my question is, if these people are so aspirational, why are they one of the first to complain about buy to let?

Of course this has implacations for them, they can't afford housing possibly, but if investing your money into property and seeing a return as profit isn't what aspiration is, then I really don't understand aspiration.

You can't preach one minute about how much aspiration you have, then in the next breath get angry at someone for being aspirational.

As I've said I can understand them being against this, but comments such as "one house is enough" and "greedy people", why is this? Because their aspiration hasn't benefitted you?

This isn't everyone, but I was shocked to see this opinion from anyone who voted for "aspiration".

 

Aspiration is a word for those who "can't do".

 

Don't aspire, perspire, do and succeed.

[Rincewind]

I aspire to live until I am 100. Does that count?

[Guest MattP]

I aspire to live until I am 100. Does that count?

 

Yeah of course, although I'm not sure what the government can do about that, plenty of respect for you though if you make the lifestyle decisions to help you try and achieve that.

[MiniFox]

If there was a reasonable supply of decent, affordable housing that people could afford to buy, buy-to-let wouldn't be such an issue (or, maybe, so profitable).

 

As it is, without a high income or a lot of capital, many people are priced out of buying a home to live in - by people with more money who use that money to make even more money.

 

Nothing to do with aspiration, everything to do with disparities in wealth/income - and a housing shortage.

 

Imagine that Abramovich turned round and said that Chelsea were offering to double the pay of every Premier League footballer if they moved to Chelsea. If all our squad headed to Stamford Bridge and we ended up loaning players from Cov, would you turn round and say: "Well, fair enough, Abramovich is just more aspirational than we are" ?

The post about housing was just an example, the point was less about housing and more about the fact that the same people who said they voted Tory based purely on (financial) aspirations, to then be angry at people for making money through an investment, is hypocritical in many ways, as they would willingly have financial gain at the expense of others just like their landlords. 

 

On the issue of housing, I'd agree it has nothing to do with aspirations, being more aspirational doesn't give you the opportunity to buy a house more so than the next person. But as explained above, those who cannot afford a house and at the same time voted Tory (For their aspirations) have simply been taken advantage of by their landlords own aspirations, you can't then go call those people "Greedy" when that's what you voted for;

 

Labour actually set out to cap rents to the rate of inflation, which surely would have helped the situation, but the people didn't vote for that, which seeing as it could have helped them secure their own homes, I'm not sure why?

 

Those who cannot afford their own home, they are in a powerless position, as you've said people are able to use their money to make more money at the expense of people, it's unfair because we all expect that once we work and particularly if you work hard, we should be almost entitled to have the opportunity to buy our own home, right now, that's not the case for many.

 

Aspiration is a word for those who "can't do".

 

Don't aspire, perspire, do and succeed.

If you wan't to succeed, that's the best way to do it. 

[ADK]

You can't really achieve anything positive with rent control.