Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

http://www.cityam.com/221014/over-1300-skilled-visa-applications-were-rejected-home-office-june

 

It was a government introduced cap. What does that have to do with the EU?

[Innovindil]

9 hours ago, Strokes said:

I’ve never said we need less immigrants, ever.

Ive just said we need controls so we know who is coming. Under the current system we stop skilled people coming here from non EU countries so we can massage figures for less skilled EU migrants. How is that beneficial?

 

 

 

for continuation tomorrow.

 

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It was a government introduced cap. What does that have to do with the EU?

It has nothing to do with the eu, again you're making up your own points. He's being critical of the government policy of capping skilled migrants from outside the eu for the sake of making the unskilled eu numbers look more acceptable. 

 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

 

It has nothing to do with the eu, again you're making up your own points. He's being critical of the government policy of capping skilled migrants from outside the eu for the sake of making the unskilled eu numbers look more acceptable. 

 

 

No, I'm not making up anything - I merely misunderstood his point.

[Guest MattP]

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/0787a1ec-03a5-11e8-825e-96e193a013c1

 

Labour Councils fighting back against Momentum. 

[Strokes]

23 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

No, I'm not making up anything - I merely misunderstood his point.

It’s an ongoing argument whereas landlords are getting solely blamed for the housing crisis and I’m arguing that freedom of movement is just as responsible for pushing prices up. A few on here are trying to divert my argument into something else because they don’t have the answer to it though.

But just to reiterate, I’m not picking on my migrants or blaming them for the crisis or even migration. Just a policy that does not allow us to plan for housing and other services.

[Buce]

 

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s an ongoing argument whereas landlords are getting solely blamed for the housing crisis and I’m arguing that freedom of movement is just as responsible for pushing prices up. A few on here are trying to divert my argument into something else because they don’t have the answer to it though.

But just to reiterate, I’m not picking on my migrants or blaming them for the crisis or even migration. Just a policy that does not allow us to plan for housing and other services.

 

Tbh, Strokes, although I'm pretty much politically alligned with Moose and Toddy, I'm struggling to see where the landlord argument is coming from. I absolutely agree that big landlords that exploit their tenants with high rents, poor service, and generally trample on their tenants rights, are scum of the worst kind. But not all landlords do that. The rent I charge is pegged to the level of comparable social housing - renting from me is no different to renting off the council. I could get away with charging nearly double what I do but I choose not to because of my political beliefs. But I also believe that a man has a duty and a right to care for his children - my daughter doesn't have much of an extended family (certainly none that are reliable) and if anything happens to me and her mother, she's on her own. The money I've put into that bricks and mortar is a safety net for her and I resent any suggestion that that is in any way immoral.

 

And it's a nonsense to suggest that everyone who currently rents would be in a position to buy, even if house prices weren't artificially inflated. Millions of low paid workers, and those in insecure employment, are simply not eligable for a mortgage. There are also people (like myself) who don't want to be taking out a mortgage in the autumn of their years. And are not Housing Associations and local authorities also landlords?

 

And therein lies the problem and the solution. The reason those who have to/choose to rent are vulnerable to exploitation by greedy landlords is because Thatcher sold off much of the social housing stock and wouldn't let councils replace it. The answer is quite simple - reverse that policy, build an adequate amount of social housing at affordable rents, and put the private landlords out of business.

 

[Guest]

Thatcher's decision to allow right to buy but not to allow councils to reinvest in more housing has to go down as one of the most short sighted and failed policies in political history. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Tbh, Strokes, although I'm pretty much politically alligned with Moose and Toddy, I'm struggling to see where the landlord argument is coming from. I absolutely agree that big landlords that exploit their tenants with high rents, poor service, and generally trample on their tenants rights, are scum of the worst kind. But not all landlords do that. The rent I charge is pegged to the level of comparable social housing - renting from me is no different to renting off the council. I could get away with charging nearly double what I do but I choose not to because of my political beliefs. But I also believe that a man has a duty and a right to care for his children - my daughter doesn't have much of an extended family (certainly none that are reliable) and if anything happens to me and her mother, she's on her own. The money I've put into that bricks and mortar is a safety net for her and I resent any suggestion that that is in any way immoral.

 

And it's a nonsense to suggest that everyone who currently rents would be in a position to buy, even if house prices weren't artificially inflated. Millions of low paid workers, and those in insecure employment, are simply not eligable for a mortgage. There are also people (like myself) who don't want to be taking out a mortgage in the autumn of their years. And are not Housing Associations and local authorities also landlords?

 

And therein lies the problem and the solution. The reason those who have to/choose to rent are vulnerable to exploitation by greedy landlords is because Thatcher sold off much of the social housing stock and wouldn't let councils replace it. The answer is quite simple - reverse that policy, build an adequate amount of social housing at affordable rents, and put the private landlords out of business.

 

I just can't see that the huge opening up of rental property to millions of landlords has been positive for society. It's obviously been positive for those landlords and could be seen as something that has made ordinary people wealthy but I just think the negative effects are so great that the negative outweighs the positive. Nothing against you personally, obviously.

[Strokes]

Labour has had 13 years in power since Thatcher, this isn’t a sole Tory issue is it? I do get that labour are the only ones offering a viable solution to it but they don’t exactly come out of It squeaky clean do they?

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I just can't see that the huge opening up of rental property to millions of landlords has been positive for society. It's obviously been positive for those landlords and could be seen as something that has made ordinary people wealthy but I just think the negative effects are so great that the negative outweighs the positive. Nothing against you personally, obviously.

Still no recognition of the impact of freedom of movement?

[Buce]

Just now, toddybad said:

I just can't see that the huge opening up of rental property to millions of landlords has been positive for society. It's obviously been positive for those landlords and could be seen as something that has made ordinary people wealthy but I just think the negative effects are so great that the negative outweighs the positive. Nothing against you personally, obviously.

 

I agree, but it's the destruction of the social housing stock that has allowed it to happen.

 

Like I said, reverse that policy and put them out of business.

 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Thatcher's decision to allow right to buy but not to allow councils to reinvest in more housing has to go down as one of the most short sighted and failed policies in political history. 

Labour of course had 13 years to change this, but didn't for various reasons. Even when in the early 2000's when the country was in a financial position to be able to do it.

Edited 29 January 2018 by MattP

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Labour has had 13 years in power since Thatcher, this isn’t a sole Tory issue is it? I do get that labour are the only ones offering a viable solution to it but they don’t exactly come out of It squeaky clean do they?

 

I think you know where I stand on that, Strokes - I don't regard the Blair government as being anything other than Tory-lite.

 

What Corbyn offers is a return to a more traditional Labour Party, one that I can largely support.

[Rogstanley]

Imagine a charity dropping food parcels from a helicopter into an impoverished area where people are dying of starvation. Then imagine the local gun wielding gangster grabs all the parcels for himself, takes them into his armed compound and only allows anyone to have any of the food if they pay him. Some people can't afford it and they starve. 

 

If that analogy sounds extreme then remember we currently have record numbers of homeless people on our streets and some of those homeless will die an avoidable death this winter. A typical buy to let landlord will feel, with some justification, that there's too many other factors and too much distance between them and the homeless person for them to feel responsible. But the fact is that they are contributing to the problem. It's not their fault, I'm not blaming them, but they are taking an active role in creating the situation where people cannot afford somewhere to live.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I think you know where I stand on that, Strokes - I don't regard the Blair government as being anything other than Tory-lite.

 

What Corbyn offers is a return to a more traditional Labour Party, one that I can largely support.

I do but the tories are saddled by history as much as Labour and people who argue your point above are often happy to use the Tory lites to back up their arguments against this government, when it suits their agendas.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think you know where I stand on that, Strokes - I don't regard the Blair government as being anything other than Tory-lite.

 

What Corbyn offers is a return to a more traditional Labour Party, one that I can largely support.

Even if there is a part of that party (that seems to be growing) that (as we saw in the other thread) would happily take your property off you when you die and give it to the state rather than your own daughter?

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

Even if there is a part of that party (that seems to be growing) that (as we saw in the other thread) would happily take your property off you when you die and give it to the state rather than your own daughter?

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

There are extremist nutters in every party, Matt - I'm confident that won't happen

 

Anyway, when she's eighteen I intend to transfer it into her name.

[Buce]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I do but the tories are saddled by history as much as Labour and people who argue your point above are often happy to use the Tory lites to back up their arguments against this government, when it suits their agendas.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand you. Can you give me an example?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

There are extremist nutters in every party, Matt - I'm confident that won't happen

 

Anyway, when she's eighteen I intend to transfer it into her name.

Very good idea, that was something I have already advised people to do in the event of a Corbyn government.

[Rogstanley]

No surge in young people voting in last year's election

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

 

Puts to bed all the lies about Corbyn's success being down to bribing the young. The people who actually work in this country want the Tories gone.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Still no recognition of the impact of freedom of movement?

I'll take you up on this later

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

No surge in young people voting in last year's election

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

 

Puts to bed all the lies about Corbyn's success being down to bribing the young. The people who actually work in this country want the Tories gone.

Thought this was interesting as well, people who take an interest in politics generally vote Tory.

 

Bit annoying really, we certainly need to get people more interested in the subject.

[Rogstanley]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Thought this was interesting as well, people who take an interest in politics generally vote Tory.

 

Bit annoying really, we certainly need to get people more interested in the subject.

Well the article you've lifted that from starts off by claiming that "a flood of young voters [were] crucial for boosting support for Labour".

 

We now know that's not actually true, so straight away I'm not sure how much of the rest of their findings to believe.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I'm not quite sure I understand you. Can you give me an example?

Sure, plenty of people on here will call the last Labour government Tory lite but they don’t seem to mention that when they are heralding Labours record on spending for the NHS or Schools etc etc. It’s only Tory lite when we talk about their mistakes and this isn’t unique to modern times. The whole reason Blair had to rebrand to new Labour was to disassociate himself with the mistakes labour had made the previous time around. If you wait long enough people will forget and history can be rewritten.

They expect Tory voters to mindful of previous mistakes, I mean we haven’t heard about poll tax for at least a year but then never take ownership of their own mistakes. The excuses roll from Tory lite, to its was a global issue, to the tories didn’t oppose them.

I don’t support everything the tories do, I don’t even support a majority of it these days but tories evil - Labour saints pisses me off.

[Fox Ulike]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Thought this was interesting as well, people who take an interest in politics generally vote Tory.

 

Bit annoying really, we certainly need to get people more interested in the subject.

 

It is interesting.

 

I voted Labour, and the first thing that occurs to me is that there’s no definition of “political knowledge” on this graph. Is it self-assigned or was a test administered to determine each respondent’s level of ‘political knowledge’. What is actually being assessed here? Actual political knowledge, or the extent to which you just swallow everything that you read in your own echo chamber?

 

You think that you have a good political knowledge, you vote Tory, and you have found a graph which you think supports this.  You don’t follow up the source, you don’t challenge any of the terms which the graph uses.  You just swallow it.

 

The fact that you’ve just posted it without challenging it really suggests that Conservatives are just more likely to believe anything that supports what they already believe. (As a Labour voter in the last election though, I obviously need to point out that I’ve reached this conclusion based on a survey population of two).