Starmer Next Labour Leader

[twoleftfeet]

Could Labour trying to get Bercow in to the Lords be the begining of the end for tge second chamber?

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Could Labour trying to get Bercow in to the Lords be the begining of the end for tge second chamber?

I'm still completely bemused by it all.

 

Why are Labour doing this for Bercow? They don't owe him anything, he isnt a party member.

 

If they get him in it further gives ammo to their pro-Remain (hilariously that just autocorrected to pro-Kremlin) stance so unpopular in the heartlands, if he fails the party that is supposed to defend the vulnerable are backing people for peerages who bully staff members underneath them.

 

All this effort for someone who is nothing to do with them for something that can only give them grief.

Edited 5 February 2020 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

Certainly the worst policy of this campaign, maybe the worst policy ever thought up. At least nobody will be able to ever do a parody account of Richard Burgon.

 

I mean how would this even work in practice?

 

Would Labour e-mail the MI6 and intelligence advice to members and ask them to vote? Or do they just have to rely on Twitter?

 

If we had an ISIS target and a 20 minute window to strike would they call for a show of hands on the conference floor?

[Voll Blau]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Certainly the worst policy of this campaign, maybe the worst policy ever thought up. At least nobody will be able to ever do a parody account of Richard Burgon.

 

I mean how would this even work in practice?

 

Would Labour e-mail the MI6 and intelligence advice to members and ask them to vote? Or do they just have to rely on Twitter?

 

If we had an ISIS target and a 20 minute window to strike would they call for a show of hands on the conference floor?

What an absolute fruitcake.

[Alf Bentley]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

Certainly the worst policy of this campaign, maybe the worst policy ever thought up. At least nobody will be able to ever do a parody account of Richard Burgon.

 

I mean how would this even work in practice?

 

Would Labour e-mail the MI6 and intelligence advice to members and ask them to vote? Or do they just have to rely on Twitter?

 

If we had an ISIS target and a 20 minute window to strike would they call for a show of hands on the conference floor?

 

Bending over backwards to be generous to him, he does say this wouldn't apply in a national emergency or if action had UN approval.....

 

Even so, it's utter bollocks. Basically just an extension of the Hard Left view of MPs and party leaders as delegates taking their instructions from the party membership......even if they're in govt & supposed to be acting in the national interest and primarily accountable to parliament, not the party. There's also the whiff of an assumption that they won't be in govt - just narcissistic professional protesters, parroting a series of "principled" policies, as instructed, so as to feel good about themselves.

I want Labour to be led by people who want to be in govt, governing in the national interest, with all the national responsibilities & compromises that entails.

 

I'll despair if this bloke gets elected deputy (hopefully not - probably Rayner, I imagine) or gets any senior position.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Bending over backwards to be generous to him, he does say this wouldn't apply in a national emergency or if action had UN approval.....

 

Even so, it's utter bollocks. Basically just an extension of the Hard Left view of MPs and party leaders as delegates taking their instructions from the party membership......even if they're in govt & supposed to be acting in the national interest and primarily accountable to parliament, not the party. There's also the whiff of an assumption that they won't be in govt - just narcissistic professional protesters, parroting a series of "principled" policies, as instructed, so as to feel good about themselves.

I want Labour to be led by people who want to be in govt, governing in the national interest, with all the national responsibilities & compromises that entails.

 

I'll despair if this bloke gets elected deputy (hopefully not - probably Rayner, I imagine) or gets any senior position.

Agree with every word. 

 

It's a perfect crowd pleaser for him, gets to signal his anti-war credentials and it's an underhanded way to again criticise the Blair government.

 

I am nearly convinced he is some sort of comedy character, Sacha Baron Cohen seeing how far they can get in politics. He posted this picture of himself yesterday before deleting it, how can someone be so consistently accidentally ridiculous?

[Bilo]

On the plus side, his campaign means that he has torpedoed his own chances of being in Starmer's shadow cabinet. 

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Bilo said:

On the plus side, his campaign means that he has torpedoed his own chances of being in Starmer's shadow cabinet. 

Given he is the SJS you would sincerely hope there is some legal brains in the party to step up, had Labour won last month won it would be Burgon and Diane Abbott now in charge of drafting our anti-terror legislation. 

 

There is a little gem in this old article though - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/15/jeremy-corbyn-world-supporters-mentors-influences

 

I'm not sure what is more surprising, him going to Cambridge of someone thinking he was a star of the intake.

 

The stars of the intake include Richard Burgon, the MP for Leeds East, a trade union lawyer and former chair of Cambridge University Labour Club.

[Guest MattP]

20 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

Could Labour trying to get Bercow in to the Lords be the begining of the end for tge second chamber?

 

20 hours ago, MattP said:

I'm still completely bemused by it all.

 

Why are Labour doing this for Bercow? They don't owe him anything, he isnt a party member.

 

If they get him in it further gives ammo to their pro-Remain (hilariously that just autocorrected to pro-Kremlin) stance so unpopular in the heartlands, if he fails the party that is supposed to defend the vulnerable are backing people for peerages who bully staff members underneath them.

 

All this effort for someone who is nothing to do with them for something that can only give them grief.

Bercow is going to think he's been fvuked by a train by the time this is all over.

 

Can see quite a few ending up in the courts with him.

[Guest MattP]

He looks like a chimpanzee looking at his zookeeper on about 1.10.

 

[Guest]

Present best odds have Starmer a 2/7 favourite https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader

[SheppyFox]

It won’t make a difference based on those vying for leadership. None are capable. Tory government for the next two decades.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Jesus, seizing property worth potentially millions of pounds, she's mental.

Edited 7 February 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Jesus, seizing property worth potentially millions of pounds, she's mental.

 

As she's only talking about seizing property or land left vacant for long periods with no good reason, it seems a good idea to me.

 

If there was a good reason (e.g. need time to get property built or rented out or to move into it), there'd be no problem.

 

But there's a genuine issue of land and housing that could help address the homelessness crisis being bought by wealthy owners who have no intention of occupying it or renting it out.

They're just speculating that they can further increase their wealth by land/house prices going up.

In London, in particular, land and housing is often bought by wealthy corporations, Russian oligarchs & Saudi billionaires for this reason.

 

If such a policy was introduced, buyers would know the rules and could build on land and sell it on, rather than hoarding; and anyone buying houses/flats as an investment could rent them out if they didn't want to live in them.

If they chose to invest their money elsewhere, it might help bring housing prices down - to the benefit of most would-be buyers, particularly younger people & the less well-off.

 

As Thornberry says, we have growing numbers of people sleeping in the streets & growing numbers of children living in B&Bs (often taxpayer-funded).

We also have vital service workers like nurses, teachers & firefighters unable to afford to live near their work because speculators are forcing housing prices up.

 

Unless you have an alternative, are you saying that the right of millionaires, oligarchs & sheikhs to further increase their wealth trumps the right of normal people to a roof over their heads & the right of our society to have staff for schools, hospitals & fire stations?

[Leicester_Loyal]

I agree with her sentiment of a housing crisis, but you can't just go taking land and property off rightful owners. Maybe stick a tax on unused property or vacated property? Use the funds to put towards new builds or providing accomodation for those living on the street. We have a housing crisis because we aren't building enough houses, but we are also an island and have to think about sustainability and the long term (although there definitely aren't enough houses being built). What she's suggesting sounds like something Stalin would do.

Edited 7 February 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

As she's only talking about seizing property or land left vacant for long periods with no good reason, it seems a good idea to me.

 

Unless you have an alternative, are you saying that the right of millionaires, oligarchs & sheikhs to further increase their wealth trumps the right of normal people to a roof over their heads & the right of our society to have staff for schools, hospitals & fire stations?

It's just cheap posturing to try to appeal to a few Corbynistas and get herself some momentum to what has been a pretty pathetic leadership campaign so far.

 

No government would ever seriously consider this as it's against the law to seize property unless you have very good legal reason (possible but doesn't ET back staying in SM still) and you pay the relevant compensation to do it.

 

By all means build more homes for people and stop oligarchs buying them up, but it's not serious to think we'll start compensating rich Arabs and Russians to the tune of billions just to put some homeless people up for a few nights.

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's just cheap posturing to try to appeal to a few Corbynistas and get herself some momentum to what has been a pretty pathetic leadership campaign so far.

 

No government would ever seriously consider this as it's against the law to seize property unless you have very good legal reason (possible but doesn't ET back staying in SM still) and you pay the relevant compensation to do it.

 

By all means build more homes for people and stop oligarchs buying them up, but it's not serious to think we'll start compensating rich Arabs and Russians to the tune of billions just to put some homeless people up for a few nights.

 

But won't we be in control of our own laws and outside the SM in this brave new Brexit Britain? 

 

A Govt could legislate for such a policy to be legal without compensation, but subject to sufficient safeguards to cover genuine/reasonable delays over building or occupying or renting out.

 

It also makes it a lot more difficult to "build more homes" if a large proportion of the land is bought up by speculators....or should  we just use taxpayers' money to outbid them and pay exorbitant prices for building land?

 

Clearly, addressing the housing shortage isn't the only solution to the homelessness crisis, but it could be one.

If you reject this idea, I'd be interested to hear what your alternatives are.

- Building on the green belt? Not popular & not much use to people working long hours in inner London hospitals/schools.

- Simplifying planning regulations? Might help, but there are limits if wealthy speculators hoard large tracts of land & property

- Local Govt building lots of council houses or Central Govt paying big incentives for building work? Again, could help in some areas but there are limits if land/property is hoarded by speculators - & the taxpayer would have to fund it.

- Just accept that Tory Britain is a place that protects the property rights of the rich, including many super-rich foreigners, while not looking after the basic rights of its own citizens & hope not to stand on any homeless kids on your way to the opera?

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

But won't we be in control of our own laws and outside the SM in this brave new Brexit Britain? 

 

A Govt could legislate for such a policy to be legal without compensation, but subject to sufficient safeguards to cover genuine/reasonable delays over building or occupying or renting out.

 

It also makes it a lot more difficult to "build more homes" if a large proportion of the land is bought up by speculators....or should  we just use taxpayers' money to outbid them and pay exorbitant prices for building land?

 

Clearly, addressing the housing shortage isn't the only solution to the homelessness crisis, but it could be one.

If you reject this idea, I'd be interested to hear what your alternatives are.

- Building on the green belt? Not popular & not much use to people working long hours in inner London hospitals/schools.

- Simplifying planning regulations? Might help, but there are limits if wealthy speculators hoard large tracts of land & property

- Local Govt building lots of council houses or Central Govt paying big incentives for building work? Again, could help in some areas but there are limits if land/property is hoarded by speculators - & the taxpayer would have to fund it.

- Just accept that Tory Britain is a place that protects the property rights of the rich, including many super-rich foreigners, while not looking after the basic rights of its own citizens & hope not to stand on any homeless kids on your way to the opera?

I do wish you wouldn't resort to this sort of hyperbole. This government will hopefully continue to preserve the property rights of everyone, whether it's me stumbling home from the pub or your rich bogeyman on the way to the opera.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said regarding things like the Green Belt - the government does need to build houses to solve a crisis, but turning into some authoritarian regime that seizes the property of it's citizens? (Or foreigners, that doesn't make it more acceptable) Not for me.

[urban.spaceman]

On 04/02/2020 at 21:25, Dirkster the Fox said:

I get the houses of Parliament has dropped the standards in recent years, but going to work there in a bin bag is a new low......

 

On 04/02/2020 at 21:49, Mike Oxlong said:

Burgon is either looking a bit creepy or he’s concentrating hard on not breaking wind 

He's checking out her tattoo:

 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

By all means build more homes for people and stop oligarchs buying them up, but it's not serious to think we'll start compensating rich Arabs and Russians to the tune of billions just to put some homeless people up for a few nights.

Bottom line is the real issue of housing isn't Arabs or Russians - it's to do with multiple house purchases, who lend money off the back of their existing mortgages and then rent them out. Basically the middle class with a bit of wedge whose the problem, then rent out to the student market or private renting. These houses in the main have residents for 75% of the year. 

 

As Owen Jones in the Establishment pointed out (before his irrational days) the parliament on average has about 65% to 70% of it's members (variety of parties) owning more than one property, therefore legislation change in this area is near on cast iron difficult to get through. Alongside this white papers are generally written by the big housing firms which helps shape policy which is part restrictive and secures their position. 

 

As per politicians don't get engaged enough with these subjects to make truly changing policy. The combination of the housing issue seems from the growth of people who own multiple houses and a lack of stock. The latter issue can be tied to a multiple issues from planning to lack of labour to public housing percentages etc. A policy needs to address all those rather than a single issue, simplified soundbite. 

Edited 7 February 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I do wish you wouldn't resort to this sort of hyperbole. This government will hopefully continue to preserve the property rights of everyone, whether it's me stumbling home from the pub or your rich bogeyman on the way to the opera.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said regarding things like the Green Belt - the government does need to build houses to solve a crisis, but turning into some authoritarian regime that seizes the property of it's citizens? (Or foreigners, that doesn't make it more acceptable) Not for me.

 

The "opera" comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. I'll use more emojis in future to make that clear.

 

As for "hyperbole", you're employing that yourself, aren't you? An "authoritarian regime that seizes the property of its citizens"? We're talking about buyers having due legal warning that any land bought in particular areas has to be built on within a given timescale, and that any properties bought have to be sold, occupied or rented out within a certain period.....with provisos for if there was some good reason why this couldn't happen within that timescale (e.g. proven complications with building work, occupation delayed due to problem in selling existing property, intended tenant pulling out at last minute).

 

Anyway, our "authoritarian" state already "seizes" property from citizens: e.g. proceeds of crime (and if such a law was introduced & someone kept land/property vacant for no good reason, they'd be in breach of that law).

 

So are you going to suggest any alternative ways of addressing the shortage of affordable housing? The current combination of market and legislation clearly isn't working, so something needs to change.

If you just will the ends ("build more homes") but don't will the means, you're effectively accepting the status quo......of homeless families in B&B, people sleeping on the street & investors, many of them very wealthy, using much needed housing to further increase their wealth through speculation that limits housing supply for those who need it and that keeps prices too high even for many who are in work, particularly the young.

[CosbehFox]

Just to add, once again we've been ignorant of policy in continental Europe regards a lack of housing in inner-city areas. Whilst their threat is the Airbnb/tourist market, they have made actions to combat it. 

[Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Jesus, seizing property worth potentially millions of pounds, she's mental.

The problem isn't the policy, it's the fact the neurons in her brain have allowed her to think it will make an iota of difference. And that the people that have empty properties wouldn't put someone in them for a bit to make them seem not empty. But hey why talk about an effective housing policy and really challenge the government on that when you can excite party membership more with nonsense like this. 

 

Cos it is posturing to the base. The sure fire thing to get lefties pulses going is something that gives the illusion of helping people that they can connect to putting the middle finger up to some rich people. 

 

You do have to hope that when the leadership contest is done (why is it not over yet) the preening to the membership will end and they'll get on with ensuring the party actually stands a chance of electoral success sometime soon and is relevant for the average person. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

The problem isn't the policy, it's the fact the neurons in her brain have allowed her to think it will make an iota of difference. And that the people that have empty properties wouldn't put someone in them for a bit to make them seem not empty. But hey why talk about an effective housing policy and really challenge the government on that when you can excite party membership more with nonsense like this. 

 

Cos it is posturing to the base. The sure fire thing to get lefties pulses going is something that gives the illusion of helping people that they can connect to putting the middle finger up to some rich people. 

 

You do have to hope that when the leadership contest is done (why is it not over yet) the preening to the membership will end and they'll get on with ensuring the party actually stands a chance of electoral success sometime soon and is relevant for the average person. 

Said far more clearly that I could have communicated it.

 

Fully agree with the last point as well. Obviously I expected it from Thornberry and RBL- but even Nandy and Starmer are pandering to the momentum mob at minute.

 

I mean if this is what it is going to be what is point of it? They may as well just cancel it now and let Jeremy Corbyn carry on.

[Guest MattP]

You can smell the desperation.