Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[TwoSheds]

The leadership race was trash. I think Starmer may have been best of a bad bunch, although Thornberry might have been vaguely ok I reckon. What matters now is that he's not totally mental, unlike most of the government. By all means we should be appalled by his keeping around talentless bellends who've spent years trying to sabotage their own party, and by God is the man boring, but let's hope he wins the next election for the sake of all the hundreds of thousands of British people the Tories have killed in the last 10 years, and the many more around the world for that matter.

 

[esmufc07]

i don't care about landlords, they already have more than they need and are overdue significant loses, especially as i said earlier, airbnb landlords who are the worst

the housing market needs to half in price in most of the country and more in other places

OK

 

[T00lsh3d]

i'm okay with your stepdad losing his second home dude, which part of that is difficult to understand? he has two fecking houses, so cry me a river

What a lovely post.
The guy explained the situation, his stepdad already owned a home and moved in with his partner, then rented out his home. What a mental response to that fairly innocuous situation

 

[Silva]

What a lovely post.
The guy explained the situation, his stepdad already owned a home and moved in with his partner, then rented out his home. What a mental response to that fairly innocuous situation

his stepdad decided to keep the second house so he could make money off it long term, long term investments fail sometimes and if the failure is due to society protecting more vulnerable people - good.

if i stop paying my water bill because i'm broke the water companies aren't allowed to turn my water off and i get a bad credit score as a punishment, if i can't afford my rent because i'm broke i end up homeless and in a downward spiral that becomes more and more difficult to escape, and this is a result of the concentration of housing ownership into fewer and fewer hands - it's not a good way to structure a basic necessity market

landlords have to lose a lot of their investment for the housing market to be in a healthy place and i'm not going to feel sorry for them when or if it happens

 

[Drifter]

Starmer is a bit of a blank canvas .

 

[T00lsh3d]

his stepdad decided to keep the second house so he could make money off it long term, long term investments fail sometimes and if the failure is due to society protecting more vulnerable people - good.

What’s so repugnant is that you’re acting as if his stepdad is some rich slumlord shitting on the poor, when he clearly isn’t.

 

[Silva]

What’s so repugnant is that you’re acting as if his stepdad is some rich slumlord shitting on the poor, when he clearly isn’t.

i don't care what kind of landlord his stepdad is, he has invested in an overpriced basic necessity and even if he's going around and licking his tenants arseholes what he provides is overpriced and his tenants should be protected more than the person who doesn't live there.

if elvis had said his stepdad can't afford the mortgage on his only home i would feel sorry for him and might suggest kier tries helps out homeowners so they don't lose the home they live him, but landlords? not even once

 

[berbatrick]

And then to answer the question I've been trying to get you to answer - Starmer needs to adopted better policy over better media coverage, it's of course a huge risk but well you can't afford to piss off the only social base labour has- The under 40's(Who are overwhelmingly renters). I dare say all of this is far more productive than moaning about a failure to connect or gutter people.

bold is a failed strategy though

 

[T00lsh3d]

i don't care what kind of landlord his stepdad is, he has invested in an overpriced basic necessity and even if he's going around and licking his tenants arseholes what he provides is overpriced and his tenants should be protected more than the person who doesn't live there.

if elvis had said his stepdad can't afford the mortgage on his only home i would feel sorry for him and might suggest kier tries helps out homeowners so they don't lose the home they live him, but landlords? not even once

How do you know it’s overpriced exactly? Unless you’re suggesting the entire rental market everywhere is overpriced? Which is not the responsibility of a sole landlord, especially just a sole bloke renting out his home.
And what exactly is supposed to happen if the home is repossessed. It goes to auction and bought by another prospective landlord in the most likely scenario.
Either way, if people have the capacity to buy, they buy. If they don’t, they’ll have to rent, and in that circumstance landlords will have to exist. Crossing your fingers and praying for the nasty wealthy second home owners (who in this case don’t actually sound wealthy) to lose what they’ve got is devoid of reality and ultimately solves feck all anyway.

 

[Silva]

bold is a failed strategy though

Labour's approach should be what keir campaigned on during the leadership election, the 2017 manifesto wrapped up in milder rhetoric. Labour needs to maintain the enthusiasm gained from key policies like rent control and social housing while being as boring and inoffensive as possible

 

[Kentonio]

the economy is going to do worse long term as a result of people having to spend more and more of their falling wages to finance boomers shitty investments

Could you have phrased that in any more of an ideological way? People paying rent isn’t some huge new surprise, it’s generally accepted as a pretty normal part of life. Yet now apparently people shouldn’t have to pay rent? What about the landlords who aren’t boomers?

Damn this is wierd, I hate buy-to-rent and the whole rental system in general, but just saying people shouldn’t have to pay rent for months and those costs should be dropped on landlords is just too much.

 

[Sweet Square]

bold is a failed strategy though

This is where Labour have to hope in the power of the suit, that simply the idea of ''electability'' will win people over just like in the leadership race, regardless of the bad headlines. The alternative is no better, as he will just alienate the one social base that labour can material appeal to and override the the media(Under 40's). Lose them and well you've got nothing, labour can't just win on lib dem vote and a constant smaller portion of ''traditional labour voter''.

This really this goes to the heart of labour problems which is a generational and class divide, something which Starmer or any policy can't solve(Although again this current policy is just shite in a ton of different ways.)

 

[Silva]

How do you know it’s overpriced exactly? Unless you’re suggesting the entire rental market everywhere is overpriced? Which is not the responsibility of a sole landlord, especially just a sole bloke renting out his home.

just looking at the prices dude, it's ridiculous, you've got people in so called good middle upper class jobs having to house share with strangers because they can't afford to rent a tiny flat, what hope do people in less well paid jobs have?

Could you have phrased that in any more of an ideological way? People paying rent isn’t some huge new surprise, it’s generally accepted as a pretty normal part of life. Yet now apparently people shouldn’t have to pay rent? What about the landlords who aren’t boomers?

Damn this is wierd, I hate buy-to-rent and the whole rental system in general, but just saying people shouldn’t have to pay rent for months and those costs should be dropped on landlords is just too much.

i didn't say zero rent for everyone, you and your centrist friends here are projecting all your animosity onto the posts and assuming worse than i've said

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

What’s so repugnant is that you’re acting as if his stepdad is some rich slumlord shitting on the poor, when he clearly isn’t.

That’s you projecting I feel.

Silva’s Point is grounded in Economic principles. Not personalities.

 

[Kentonio]

just looking at the prices dude, it's ridiculous, you've got people in so called good middle upper class jobs having to house share with strangers because they can't afford to rent a tiny flat, what hope do people in less well paid jobs have?

Like I said earlier, I hate buy to rent and would like to see the whole system changed. It’s hard though and fraught with danger, unless you want to suddenly drop millions of home owners into negative equity. I still want it done, but it needs to be done incredibly carefully or else the unintended consequences are likely to be devastating for people you didn’t even intend to target.

i didn't say zero rent for everyone, you and your centrist friends here are projecting all your animosity onto the posts and assuming worse than i've said

Well apologies if I misunderstood your point. Calling me a centrist is pretty funny though.

 

[T00lsh3d]

just looking at the prices dude, it's ridiculous, you've got people in so called good middle upper class jobs having to house share with strangers because they can't afford to rent a tiny flat, what hope do people in less well paid jobs have?

The case in point was a guy renting out his second home. I doubt very much his second home was a room in an HMO.

 

[Silva]

Like I said earlier, I hate buy to rent and would like to see the whole system changed. It’s hard though and fraught with danger, unless you want to suddenly drop millions of home owners into negative equity. I still want it done, but it needs to be done incredibly carefully or else the unintended consequences are likely to be devastating for people you didn’t even intend to target.

That's why you'd put in protections ensuring people remained housed or are rehoused and make sure that the losses are eaten by a combination of investors and the government that doesn't see widespread bankruptcy. Elivis dad can't afford all the negative equity? help him a little, lord whatever with 2000 homes? help him less and so on

there's no good or bad time to feck the housing market, and even if we start to plan it now it's not going to happen until the current crisis is settled and the tories have lost - this is mostly abstract and will remain such for a long time

 

[Silva]

The case in point was a guy renting out his second home. I doubt very much his second home was a room in an HMO.

that was an illustrative example of how bad the market is not about elvis stepdad who we've moved on from now

 

[T00lsh3d]

That’s you projecting I feel.

Silva’s Point is grounded in Economic principles. Not personalities.

“i'm okay with your stepdad losing his second home dude, which part of that is difficult to understand? he has two fecking houses, so cry me a river”

I find that post repugnant. And I don’t think my assessment of his attitude is at all a stretch when you read it

 

[BobbyManc]

Yeah, I really don’t get what’s supposedly so bad about Starmer’s proposal. It seems like a sensible way to help renters without screwing over the property owners during this difficult time.

I’m all for the government cracking down on second home ownership long term to bring down housing prices, but that needs to be done incredibly carefully, not just as a sudden emergency measure in the middle of an economic crisis or the economy is going to be even more fecked.

It’s a damning indictment of the state of politics that people are surprised at the backlash to Labour not taking the side of the working class, and ‘not screwing over the property owners’ is supposed to be applauded - meanwhile workers have suffered for decades under a system where the political framework heavily favours property owners, and in the middle of a crisis Labour are too timid to even attempt to redress the balance. I mean people will read this as some kind of radical point when it should be the most basic and unalienable principle of the Labour party.
And it doesn’t make economic sense and hence is not ‘sensible’, as others have pointed out - it’s reducing the already limited spending power of workers. More debt for the 63% of private tenants who have to survive with zero savings to fall back on. It’s the same backwards logic of austerity.

 

[T00lsh3d]

that was an illustrative example of how bad the market is not about elvis stepdad who we've moved on from now

Fair enough. I guess us ‘moving on’ is an acknowledgment that your assessment of the situation was poor.

 

[Silva]

“i'm okay with your stepdad losing his second home dude, which part of that is difficult to understand? he has two fecking houses, so cry me a river”

I find that post repugnant. And I don’t think my assessment of his attitude is at all a stretch when you read it

you know what he and his wife would have if he lost his second house? a house to live in which is more than a lot of less fortunate people have and i care more about those people, if that's wrong i don't want to be right

 

[sullydnl]

Labour's approach should be what keir campaigned on during the leadership election, the 2017 manifesto wrapped up in milder rhetoric. Labour needs to maintain the enthusiasm gained from key policies like rent control and social housing while being as boring as possible

Yep. The 2017 manifesto sold as moderate common sense from competent, moderate Sir Keir should broadly be the way forward. Diverting too far from that in either direction would be ill-advised. Take as many of the Telegraph editorials as you can, just don't lose sight of how much to the left the centre of the party has now shifted.

Though really the time to judge Starmer on that score will be when we see the policy platform for his first election attempt and can directly compare the two. Until then a lot of policy talk will just be noise.

 

[Shamwow]

Fair enough. I guess us ‘moving on’ is an acknowledgment that your assessment of the situation was poor.

No, it's everyone else getting bored of you not getting something really bloody simple.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

“i'm okay with your stepdad losing his second home dude, which part of that is difficult to understand? he has two fecking houses, so cry me a river”

I find that post repugnant. And I don’t think my assessment of his attitude is at all a stretch when you read it

I’m also ok with him losing his second home.

People are dying. The economy we have created should not be what we try to keep afloat.

Massive change is necessary and people that invested in a second home ran the risk of the market changing its behaviour that impacted those investments negatively.

Bleating about second homes needing to be protected is the equivalent of coal miners wanting to be given special treatment in this age.

I care about the fellas step dad on a personal level. I don’t wish ill will on anyone.

But I don’t give a shit about people losing second homes while others are losing lives.

 

[Kentonio]

It’s a damning indictment of the state of politics that people are surprised at the backlash to Labour not taking the side of the working class, and ‘not screwing over the property owners’ is supposed to be applauded - meanwhile workers have suffered for decades under a system where the political framework heavily favours property owners, and in the middle of a crisis Labour are too timid to even attempt to redress the balance. I mean people will read this as some kind of radical point when it should be the most basic and unalienable principle of the Labour party.
And it doesn’t make economic sense and hence is not ‘sensible’, as others have pointed out - it’s reducing the already limited spending power of workers. More debt for the 63% of private tenants who have to survive with zero savings to fall back on. It’s the same backwards logic of austerity.

I’m not sure when ‘here’s a sensible policy to help renters get through the crisis’ became ‘this is a horrible attack on the working class!!’.

Unless I missed something, giving renters three months off rent payments and spreading the balance out over the next two years is a considerable improvement over not doing anything and expecting them to find rent while they can’t work. It might not be as big a help as you want, but it’s certainly not screwing people over.

 

[TwoSheds]

i don't care about landlords, they already have more than they need and are overdue significant loses, especially as i said earlier, airbnb landlords who are the worst

the housing market needs to half in price in most of the country and more in other places

Whilst I would agree with the gist of it, some people use it as their pension. That would be sad if they lost their investment in full in that case. Generally though I would hope people wouldn't put all their eggs in one basket in future.

 

[Skills]

Whilst I would agree with the gist of it, some people use it as their pension. That would be sad if they lost their investment in full in that case. Generally though I would hope people wouldn't put all their eggs in one basket in future.

Tbf, all of our pension funds have taken a hammering. A lot of people who will be retiring in the next few years have/will lose a chunk of their retirement money.

 

[BobbyManc]

I’m not sure when ‘here’s a sensible policy to help renters get through the crisis’ became ‘this is a horrible attack on the working class!!’.

Unless I missed something, giving renters three months off rent payments and spreading the balance out over the next two years is a considerable improvement over not doing anything and expecting them to find rent while they can’t work. It might not be as big a help as you want, but it’s certainly not screwing people over.

You’re twisting what I said, but would you genuinely argue that Labour’s proposal represents them taking the side of the workers as opposed to landlords? You’d be pissing in the wind with that one.



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....dlord-or-eating-research-suggests-coronavirus

It is screwing private tenants. It’s compelling them to amass debt in the middle of an economic crisis. “It’s better than nothing” - is this how low we have sunk in our ambitions for the policies of Labour. Depressing.
Why do you think the likes of Andrew Neil and George Osborne have been lining up to sing the praises of Starmer? Because they suspected he would champion policies like this i.e. policies not designed to benefit workers. It really is a symptom of how skewed our politics has become that anyone who claims to identify on the left of the spectrum can not see the issue with the policy - aside from its economic incoherency.

 

[sun_tzu]

 

[Grinner]

@Grinner I’d be interested to hear what you think as someone who rents out property.

Think about what?

 

[Sweet Square]

Anti landlord sentiment totally goes against the principles of the labour party

 

[sun_tzu]

Anti landlord sentiment totally goes against the principles of the labour party

I mean I know the corbynistas have not moved on since 1893...

. Independent Labour Party was formed in 1893. It was decided that the main objective of the party would be "to secure the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange"

So I guess you agreeing that renting out a property should deprive you of human rights because kier hardy had a poster makes sense

Wish the ehrc would drop the report so the purge could start and starmer could get on with taking the party forwards

 

[Silva]

can't wait for a report into systemic racism to reveal that only people i personally dislike are bad

 

[jeff_goldblum]

This whole debate on rent perfectly encapsulates why it's stupid to treat housing as a commodity and ridiculous that private landlordism has been allowed to become such a big part of our housing sector.

I've seen posts here that are expressing disbelief at the suggestion that if you make an investment which doesn't return profits you might be forced to either offload it or risk losing money (or both). That is the small print on every investment. I assume those arguing on behalf of landlords are also pushing for each and every capital investment to return guaranteed profit regardless of economic conditions?

The success of landlordism as a 'career' is based on the fact that it doesn't have to play by the normal rules - the service it supplies is a basic requirement of life so in places where the demand is high the only limitation on what they can charge is what the richest person who wants the house will pay, or how much of their income the most desperate will spend on rent to avoid having to uproot their entire life. I can't say I really feel for professional landlords who have made shitloads of money exploiting the scarcity of available housing irrespective of economic conditions and are now, seemingly for the first time, being faced with the reality that investments aren't guaranteed to deliver returns.

At the end of the day though, it's the fault of successive governments for shirking their responsibility to provide housing and allowing a woefully underregulated private rental sector to gobble up so much of the market.

 

[Dobba]

Maybe he thinks the name of the party refers to childbirth?

 

[BobbyManc]

Maybe he thinks the name of the party refers to childbirth?

No real issue with what he’s said there. I don’t think it’s fair to expect any Labour leader on live radio to commit to backing a hypothetical strike.

 

[Dobba]

No real issue with what he’s said there. I don’t think it’s fair to expect any Labour leader on live radio to commit to backing a hypothetical strike.

I'd expect a lawyer and leader of the Labour Party to refer to the existing employment law that protects these people and the importance of unions. Not have to run it by some focus groups before he'll pretend to give a toss about them.

 

[sun_tzu]

No real issue with what he’s said there. I don’t think it’s fair to expect any Labour leader on live radio to commit to backing a hypothetical strike.

indeed because whilst section 44 of the ERA 1996 can be sited as a reason for not turning up to work this would typically happen at a tribuneral (i.e. after people have lost their job - given the current environment possibly years after and a lot of hassle for probably very small compensation)

Probably a better action would be unions engaging with employers to develop a safe environment ...

perfectly reasonable to say rather than simply backing action which may not even have a basis (i.e. it could be the work conditions are safe) and certainly simply telling people to not turn up would be likely to result in sacking and many months if not years for a tribunal which may or may not succeed it almost certainly wouldn't change the working practices

Franky it would be stupid just to say yeah we will back a union without knowing the details ... though clearly it will be time for #smearstarmer the evil blairite

 

[Dobba]

indeed because whilst section 44 of the ERA 1996 can be sited as a reason for not turning up to work this would typically happen at a tribuneral (i.e. after people have lost their job - given the current environment possibly years after and a lot of hassle for probably very small compensation)

Probably a better action would be unions engaging with employers to develop a safe environment ...

perfectly reasonable to say rather than simply backing action which may not even have a basis (i.e. it could be the work conditions are safe) and certainly simply telling people to not turn up would be likely to result in sacking and many months if not years for a tribunal which may or may not succeed it almost certainly wouldn't change the working practices

Franky it would be stupid just to say yeah we will back a union without knowing the details ... though clearly it will be time for #smearstarmer the evil blairite

Which is presumably why he didn't.