The 2019 General Election

[Ted Striker]

In the Crick of It

 

[treelover]

I wonder how much the weather will affect the outcome. A cold December 12th that kept the oldies in their bungalows would be good news for Labour.

many are postal votes, one of the things I learnt from the Lol Duffy/Linda Chalker battle in Wallasey in the 87 election, is to have plenty of vehicles to get people to the polling stations, if you live on a large council estate it can be some way, same with rural, labour had plenty of transport in the cities in 2017, but not sure about the former.

 

[treelover]

Some guy on twitter reckoning the youth registration could count for an 8% shift in the polls.

isn't tomorrow last day? get tweeting, social media, etc.

 

[cupid_stunt]

According to BBC News, 9.4 million haven’t registered to vote, that includes 34% of 18-19 year olds, compared to just 6% of those aged 65+

 

[cupid_stunt]

isn't tomorrow last day? get tweeting, social media, etc.

Yes.

 

[treelover]

A mistake? Changed the whole story of the clip.

yes, like the editing at Orgreave was a mistake

 

[treelover]

According to BBC News, 9.4 million haven’t registered to vote, that includes 34% of 18-19 year olds, compared to just 6% of those aged 65+

anyone know what % of 18/19 yr olds voted in 79/83

 

[belboid]

anyone know what % of 18/19 yr olds voted in 79/83

low 60's

 

[Pickman's model]

anyone know what % of 18/19 yr olds voted in 79/83

How Britain Voted Since October 1974

 

[MickiQ]

low 60's

View attachment 191036

and I was one of them

 

[planetgeli]

low 60's

Sixtie’s.

 

[Don Troooomp]

Why make private buyers borrow at higher interest rates than available to the government, to build homes that the developers will need to recoup the cost of (including any dividends to share holders) in the relatively short term? Why not let the government borrow cheaply to build homes which can be offered at genuinely affordable rents and the costs recouped over the many decades long life time of the properties? In other words why go for the more costly solution, the costs of which fall on those less able to pay, rather than the cheaper alternative, the costs of which can be shared more equitably across society?

But thanks for coming back with some content re. your prefered sensible socialism (even if it isn't either very sensible or very socialist). Keep up the good work.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

The government would have to put no money into private built houses (No public borrowing) and not actually lose any taxes raised as there would be zero without the projects, but the goal of low cost housing would still be achieved. Add the fact builders would still make a profit, albeit more limited, and that stops any possibility the tories can complain without looking bad.
No losers (except estate agents), lots of winners, and the lower priced homes would have a downward effect on pricing in the area.

 

[Don Troooomp]

Also, much reduced spending by the government on housing means more for the NHS and other extremely important sectors.
NHS next, and more of the same no loser but lots of winners.

The NHS is a mess, much of that being tory fucking about, but a lot being down to really crap management. I'm not quite ready for posting the thoughts just yet, but they involve more win-win ideas.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Also, much reduced spending by the government on housing means more for the NHS and other extremely important sectors.
NHS next, and more of the same no loser but lots of winners.

The NHS is a mess, much of that being tory fucking about, but a lot being down to really crap management. I'm not quite ready for posting the thoughts just yet, but they involve more win-win ideas.

You do understand the different between day-to-day spending, such as on the NHS, and borrowing for investment in, for example, council houses, where you have an asset to off-set against that investment?

That, of course, is a rhetorical question, because clearly you are too fucking thick to understand that.

 

[maomao]

The NHS is a mess, much of that being tory fucking about, but a lot being down to really crap management. I'm not quite ready for posting the thoughts just yet, but they involve more win-win ideas.

Brown's 'sensible socialism' in the shape of PFI has done as much if not more damage to the NHS than that cunt Lansley did.

And lowering house prices not really widely considered a vote winner especially amongst the demographic that do the most voting. Which isn't to say that this shouldn't happen but I'm not sure pretty boy Starmer would go down so well with the swing voters if he was promising to knock a third off the value of everyone's houses. Whereas every poll suggests that renationalising the utilities is a widely popular policy.

 

[Don Troooomp]

between day-to-day spending, such as on the NHS, and borrowing for investment in, for example, council houses, where you have an asset to off-set against that investment?

You want to allow sales of council homes, one of only two ways to turn spending into investment?
The only other way is making a profit on rentals, but I would argue rentals should be break even plus a little put aside for improvements and repair, but no more.
Low rental costs would be really nasty hit on greedy landlords and their ever rising rents as easy availability of cheap rents would kill their ability to keep their own prices high.
I would not allow Thatcher style selling off for any reason, and only break even rents, thus that's spending, not investment.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Jesus, FFS what are you on about Don, you thick twat?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And lowering house prices not really widely considered a vote winner especially amongst the demographic that do the most voting. Which isn't to say that this shouldn't happen but I'm not sure pretty boy Starmer would go down so well with the swing voters if he was promising to knock a third off the value of everyone's houses.

Something that really doesn't get talked about a lot - but which the landlord and property-owning/investing sectors I'm sure are very aware of, which basically means pretty much all rich people because they've all invested in property even if they don't manage it - is that any successful* housing policy is going to mean a property price crash. There just isn't any way around it.

* Successful in the sense of "making it possible for people to have secure homes for amounts that they can afford".

 

[Don Troooomp]

Brown's 'sensible socialism' in the shape of PFI has done as much if not more damage to the NHS than that cunt Lansley did.

That's because PFI wasn't sensible. To be sensible it must achieve the goal of 100% free health care, or at least improve the situation - didn't happen.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The government would have to put no money into private built houses (No public borrowing) and not actually lose any taxes raised as there would be zero without the projects, but the goal of low cost housing would still be achieved. Add the fact builders would still make a profit, albeit more limited, and that stops any possibility the tories can complain without looking bad.
No losers (except estate agents), lots of winners, and the lower priced homes would have a downward effect on pricing in the area.

Where do the people you are expecting to buy these homes get the money from? What interest rates can they borrow at and over what length of time? What do they forego spending on and how does that tied up capital effect the rest of the economy? And vitally how do you limit how much builders can charge, while still encouraging them to build?

You seem to be looking at this just from a 'what would make headlines' point of view, rather than what would actually provide the most affordable housing at the lowest capital outlay. Don't get blinded by the 'style' of the battle over party political soundbite above the 'substance' of might provide/has provided actual real world solutions...council housing successfully provided homes for a third of the population for many years. It was attacked for a reason(s) which wasn't to do with the efficient delivery of appropriate, secure and affordable homes. It's an interesting and important history you should look into; it will open up more possibilities than you currently seem to invisage.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[SpookyFrank]

Something that really doesn't get talked about a lot - but which the landlord and property-owning/investing sectors I'm sure are very aware of, which basically means pretty much all rich people because they've all invested in property even if they don't manage it - is that any successful* housing policy is going to mean a property price crash. There just isn't any way around it.

* Successful in the sense of "making it possible for people to have secure homes for amounts that they can afford".

House prices falling are often seen as bad for homeowners, but if you only own a house so you can live in it then it doesn't make that much difference. Maybe it grates a bit if your mortgage payments don't go down to reflect the present value of your property but ultimately you still have a place to live, and also a lot of other people have a better chance at having a place to live. A general fall in prices doesn't make it any harder to sell up and move elsewhere.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You want to allow sales of council homes, one of only two ways to turn spending into investment?
The only other way is making a profit on rentals, but I would argue rentals should be break even plus a little put aside for improvements and repair, but no more.
Low rental costs would be really nasty hit on greedy landlords and their ever rising rents as easy availability of cheap rents would kill their ability to keep their own prices high.
I would not allow Thatcher style selling off for any reason, and only break even rents, thus that's spending, not investment.

How do impose low cost rentals on private landlords (e.g rents at break even plus a little extra for improvement repairs)? It can be done but imagine the media outcry you were so concerned with earlier.

Surely it would be easier to have democratically accountable landlords with very long term financial commitments to and statutory obligations for the provision of appropriate, affordable and secure housing?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Marty1]

A lot of elderly voters have a postal vote. It is a shame the RM strike was blocked.

One day you’ll be elderly.

 

[Don Troooomp]

any successful* housing policy is going to mean a property price crash. There just isn't any way around it.

Absolutely, and the only way to do that is create an alternative that puts them out of business or forces them to change.
Easy to find affordable rental housing will stop them in their tracks, another downward pressure on the sales market as buy to let will die.

Can I suggest crash is bad, but a steady downward trend over a few years of building is good.

 

[SpookyFrank]

One day you’ll be elderly.

But I'll never be a fucking tory.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Can I suggest crash is bad, but a steady downward trend over a few years of building is good.

Price bubbles do not traditionally deflate in a controlled fashion.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Absolutely, and the only way to do that is create an alternative that puts them out of business or forces them to change.
Easy to find affordable rental housing will stop them in their tracks, another downward pressure on the sales market as buy to let will die.

You mean like Labour's policy to build loads of new council houses?

 

[SpookyFrank]

You mean like Labour's policy to build loads of new council houses?

No, because that's mad commie talk. First it's council houses then it's salt mines, every single time.

 

[Marty1]

Something that really doesn't get talked about a lot - but which the landlord and property-owning/investing sectors I'm sure are very aware of, which basically means pretty much all rich people because they've all invested in property even if they don't manage it - is that any successful* housing policy is going to mean a property price crash. There just isn't any way around it.

* Successful in the sense of "making it possible for people to have secure homes for amounts that they can afford".

A nationwide property price crash or just down South?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

House prices falling are often seen as bad for homeowners, but if you only own a house so you can live in it then it doesn't make that much difference. Maybe it grates a bit if your mortgage payments don't go down to reflect the present value of your property but ultimately you still have a place to live, and also a lot of other people have a better chance at having a place to live. A general fall in prices doesn't make it any harder to sell up and move elsewhere.

For individuals it's generally okay as long as they weren't relying on that money to fund social care - and a proper social care plan would remove that issue too.

But let's face it, if anyone was prepared to talk about it, it could still be a big issue. "Labour's plans will cause property price crashes and take away all that money you've earned!" Except that to do that, they'd have to also admit that it really _was_ a choice between affordable housing and the increasing profits of property owners, and there increasingly tend to be more votes for the latter and less for the former.

Property needs to crash - I've been saying this for years, decades in fact. The longer it takes the worse it will be when it does, and if you can guarantee anything it will be that it _will_ crash eventually, so let's get it over with ASAP. Right now it won't be fun because of how much the financial system in this country is tied to property, including pension funds etc, and you can bet they will try to take us down with them (or first). But it will just be worse the bigger the bubble gets.