Westminster Politics

[Sweet Square]

It must be great to have a worldview where the tories have destroyed Britain but not property developers, waters companies or landlords.

Such bliss.

 

[DanH]

Would they stop building houses if they weren't 'friends'? Pretty fecking vindictive to abandon your business because you don't like the government of the day.

You might campaign against them and donate to their political opponents though.

 

[nickm]

I think you can do this without being a continuity government and have some serious policies that address the ridiculous disparity of wealth in this country. The only thing more shameful that maintaining the status quo is excusing it.

And I think I’d rather see some practical grappling with specific problems rather than everything having to be measured against whether it was sufficiently restructuring captitalist society or not.

 

[nickm]

It must be great to have a worldview where the tories have destroyed Britain but not property developers, waters companies or landlords.

Such bliss.

Equally it must be great to have a worldview where the actual practical effects of your policy ideas are never tested because nobody ever wants to elect the people who propose them. This does at least have the benefit of keeping the worldview holders in blissful ignorance.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Equally it must be great to have a worldview where the actual practical effects of your policy ideas are never tested because nobody ever wants to elect the people who propose them. This does at least have the benefit of keeping the worldview holders in blissful ignorance.

You're your own worst enemy. Unless you're a millionaire or a billionaire you're nothing but the equivalent of a 21st Century peasant being read selective passages of the bible so you can rejoice in the being at the thick end of inequality. You deserve better.

 

[Eplel]

Would they stop building houses if they weren't 'friends'? Pretty fecking vindictive to abandon your business because you don't like the government of the day.

Land hoarding is actually a big issue, and it is perpetrated largely by these companies.

 

[Sweet Square]

Equally it must be great to have a worldview where the actual practical effects of your policy ideas are never tested because nobody ever wants to elect the people who propose them. This does at least have the benefit of keeping the worldview holders in blissful ignorance.

The economics of British coal destroyed the mining industry, not Thatcher.

You castigate Thatcher for how she went after the mining unions, but you forget this is a fight they wanted and chose to have.

I am 40, so I remember this stuff too.

.

 

[Maticmaker]

I think you can do this without being a continuity government and have some serious policies that address the ridiculous disparity of wealth in this country. The only thing more shameful that maintaining the status quo is excusing it.

Do you really believe a new Labour government (especially) with large majority is going to become a 'continuity' government? To me what Labour is doing is beginning to look and sound like a government in waiting.

They will talk to anyone they need to talk too, whether it's to rebuild the economy or to make real changes to the lives of ordinary working people, by making lasting interventions in e.g. housing, with policy that will benefit those who now are struggling to find homes and those who are fearful they might be struggling to hold on their home in the future, and will ensure insulation and other energy management elements are included.

Once they have seen the books, then some emergency plans will be launched, probably around NHS/Social care and maybe education, simply to stop further implosion. Such plans won't be the be all and end all of the expectations, but the first steps. It is abundantly clear that to make a real movement on the dial, will take at least two terms in government, maybe even three.

Trying to put a price on what will be necessary in money terms and indeed on changes in legislation at this stage is foolish. The intentions Labour has already given, show a clear indication they know what the task ahead of them is likely to require, but they are also aware "that the devil is in the detail" and that has to be given some clear analysis once the full landscape requiring change is known and validated.

Even if the Tories get back, there will be no continuity government... or else we are all going to hell in a handcart

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Do you really believe a new Labour government (especially) with large majority is going to become a 'continuity' government? To me what Labour is doing is beginning to look and sound like a government in waiting.

They will talk to anyone they need to talk too, whether it's to rebuild the economy or to make real changes to the lives of ordinary working people, by making lasting interventions in e.g. housing, with policy that will benefit those who now are struggling to find homes and those who are fearful they might be struggling to hold on their home in the future, and will ensure insulation and other energy management elements are included.

Once they have seen the books, then some emergency plans will be launched, probably around NHS/Social care and maybe education, simply to stop further implosion. Such plans won't be the be all and end all of the expectations, but the first steps. It is abundantly clear that to make a real movement on the dial, will take at least two terms in government, maybe even three.

Trying to put a price on what will be necessary in money terms and indeed on changes in legislation at this stage is foolish. The intentions Labour has already given, show a clear indication they know what the task ahead of them is likely to require, but they are also aware "that the devil is in the detail" and that has to be given some clear analysis once the full landscape requiring change is known and validated.

Even if the Tories get back, there will be no continuity government... or else we are all going to hell in a handcart

I do. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[decorativeed]

God forbid Labour makes friends with companies that know how to build houses eh? I mean what sort of bastards would do that in the middle of a house supply crisis? This type of criticism is just posing.

Apparently it's debatable that we are in a housing crisis in the way most people interpret that. We have as many houses per capita as we did decades ago. The problem caused by too many landlords and too many empty properties.

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeand...risingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis

We now find ourselves in a situation where one in every 21 adults in the UK is a landlord. We have four times as many landlords as teachers. As a consequence, virtually everyone struggles to afford a home that meets their needs despite a net gain in housing stock.

We need a government to address that issue, and increase social housing, not just build more so that landlords can increase their portfolios and let others pay their mortgages for them.

 

[Jericholyte2]

I’m gonna throw out two ideas I’d love a Labour Party to use, but no idea how genuinely feasible it would be, so gonna run it up the flagpole here:

1. To renationalise water

• Create UK Water Co
• Arrange a meeting with the heads of each of the water companies
• Offer them a deal
  • We empower OFWAT to fine then £10,000,000 per day until they resolve issues. This’ll cripple them and run down their stock value, at which point UK Water buys them out.
  • Companies agree to sell up at 50% market value

2. Temporary NHS waiting list resolution

• Arrange a medial agreement with EU, to allow the free movement of medical professionals between UK and EU
• As part of this, agree with nations to use EU members’ medical capacity to fast track outstanding appointments (essentially make Turkey Teeth a temporary government policy)
• Subsidise travel and accommodation for those who agree to it
• Start with younger, orthopaedic issues (usually day surgeries, in and out within 24hrs

Would both be even remotely workable?

 

[F-Red]

I’m gonna throw out two ideas I’d love a Labour Party to use, but no idea how genuinely feasible it would be, so gonna run it up the flagpole here:

1. To renationalise water

• Create UK Water Co
• Arrange a meeting with the heads of each of the water companies
• Offer them a deal
  • We empower OFWAT to fine then £10,000,000 per day until they resolve issues. This’ll cripple them and run down their stock value, at which point UK Water buys them out.
  • Companies agree to sell up at 50% market value

2. Temporary NHS waiting list resolution

• Arrange a medial agreement with EU, to allow the free movement of medical professionals between UK and EU
• As part of this, agree with nations to use EU members’ medical capacity to fast track outstanding appointments (essentially make Turkey Teeth a temporary government policy)
• Subsidise travel and accommodation for those who agree to it
• Start with younger, orthopaedic issues (usually day surgeries, in and out within 24hrs

Would both be even remotely workable?

On point 1, creating a UK water company is fine. The points of offering them a deal and fine them to resolve issues would fall down at the very first legal hurdle, and agreeing to sell them at 50% market value won't even begin at a conversation as most investors in these companies will have other investments in the country. Plus also any re-nationalisation of a water company needs 25 years notice if their license is being removed.

Point 2 doesn't look workable, the waiting list matter is complex and is as much about the lack of social care as much as under investment/lack of capacity in the NHS. To create all of that will take a long time, and you'd be quicker investing in the UK service rather than sending people around Europe for healthcare.

 

[Frosty]

On point 1, creating a UK water company is fine. The points of offering them a deal and fine them to resolve issues would fall down at the very first legal hurdle, and agreeing to sell them at 50% market value won't even begin at a conversation as most investors in these companies will have other investments in the country. Plus also any re-nationalisation of a water company needs 25 years notice if their license is being removed.

Maybe not:

Dr Ewan McGaughey, a professor of law at King’s College London, argues England should join Scotland, Wales, Paris and most of the world, and restore public ownership using the legal framework of special administration that already exists.

This can be triggered if companies are unlikely to be able to pay their debts without public subsidies or have seriously breached their duties, for example by failing to improve their pipes to stop leaks or failing to drain and clean sewers to stop pollution.


Once in special administration, the companies can be transferred to a new publicly owned entity. Responding to the criticism that paying off shareholders and debts would cost too much, he argues the current law allows for debts to be reduced or even removed if they infringe on the water company’s ability to properly carry out its legal duties.

Richard Murphy, of the Corporate Accountability Network and Sheffield University, argues the water companies are in effect environmentally insolvent because they do not have the financial means to raise the £260bn needed to stop their sewage dumping, according to a House of Lords assessment. Therefore no compensation is due to shareholders, or to those who lent money to the companies.

But Murphy said in order to be pragmatic, a small offer to shareholders and a reasonable offer to secured creditors would be required to take the companies back into public control using the special administration rules.

The cost of nationalisation would run into billions – all of which could be paid for by the issue of government bonds.

To raise capital for the future of the publicly owned industry, the public could be offered the chance to buy a bond paying 4% or more in the long term to last for at least 70 years. For the first 15 years the return would be guaranteed by the government, encouraging the public to buy the bonds at scale and fund much of the required investment the industry needs over time.

Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at Oxford University, says the privatised industry has “run into the sands” and what is required is systemic change focusing on sustainability, water conservation and a catchment system of regulation to tackle pollution at its source.

Helm does not support re-nationalisation, but he does dismiss the often-repeated view that to take water back into public control would cost too much.

“The one objection to nationalisation which has little merit is that it would cost the government a lot. This is nonsense,” says Helm. Re-nationalisation, he argues, would involve swapping the regulatory asset-based debt (RAB) for government bonds. “The government would gain the assets and the RABs and swap utility debt for Treasury debt,” he says.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/10/how-could-englands-water-system-be-fixed

Also the current 25 years' limit is a piece of UK legislation, which can be changed. The market and private finance would react, sure. That's a political calculation and would involve a lot of reassurance that we are not going to renationalise anything else.

 

[Sweet Square]

Third of voters believe Starmer was wrong to let Elphicke into Labour Party

More voters believe Keir Starmer was wrong to allow a rightwing Tory MP into Labour than think it was the right move, after anger from within the party’s ranks over the defection.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-labour-party-opinium-poll-tory-mp-defection

.

 

[F-Red]

Also the current 25 years' limit is a piece of UK legislation, which can be changed. The market and private finance would react, sure. That's a political calculation and would involve a lot of reassurance that we are not going to renationalise anything else.

On levels that would make Liz Truss economics look like childs play.

 

[dumbo]

In latest Opinium poll, only 16% say accepting rightwing Tory MP’s defection was the right move. Third of voters believe Starmer was wrong to let Elphicke into Labour party

Again it just baffles me at those angrily debasing themselves in defense of Kier Starmer debasing hisself, and pretending that theirs is the grown up, willing to compromise position. When they are the fringe.

You want to win really bad: cool. You still fear the Tories: fine. You want to stick it to Corbyn so much: ok. But can't you try to be a little bit normal some of the time.

 

[Jippy]

I’m gonna throw out two ideas I’d love a Labour Party to use, but no idea how genuinely feasible it would be, so gonna run it up the flagpole here:

1. To renationalise water

• Create UK Water Co
• Arrange a meeting with the heads of each of the water companies
• Offer them a deal
  • We empower OFWAT to fine then £10,000,000 per day until they resolve issues. This’ll cripple them and run down their stock value, at which point UK Water buys them out.
  • Companies agree to sell up at 50% market value

2. Temporary NHS waiting list resolution

• Arrange a medial agreement with EU, to allow the free movement of medical professionals between UK and EU
• As part of this, agree with nations to use EU members’ medical capacity to fast track outstanding appointments (essentially make Turkey Teeth a temporary government policy)
• Subsidise travel and accommodation for those who agree to it
• Start with younger, orthopaedic issues (usually day surgeries, in and out within 24hrs

Would both be even remotely workable?

Nationalising/expropriating water companies would also have unintended victims, eg the university pension scheme owns 20% of Thames Water.

Wouldn't freedom of movement for medical staff risk the UK losing more staff to EU countries than they can attract?

 

[Jericholyte2]

Nationalising/expropriating water companies would also have unintended victims, eg the university pension scheme owns 20% of Thames Water.

Wouldn't freedom of movement for medical staff risk the UK losing more staff to EU countries than they can attract?

1. That’s completely fair
2. Yes it would, I’d hopefully be able to convince them to stay, showing this as step 1 of a program to return the NHS to former glory

I just don’t understand how, after WWII, we were able to magically build the NHS and social housing despite how broke the country was, yet all we hear is how fragile things are.

 

[Jippy]

1. That’s completely fair
2. Yes it would, I’d hopefully be able to convince them to stay, showing this as step 1 of a program to return the NHS to former glory

I just don’t understand how, after WWII, we were able to magically build the NHS and social housing despite how broke the country was, yet all we hear is how fragile things are.

I guess necessity was such a big driver, given the decimation to housing in WWII and later baby boom. The UK population was 50m in 1950 vs nearly 70m now, plus life expectancy was 66 for men/70 for women in 1951, compared to 78.6m/82.6w in 2024.

 

[africanspur]

Nationalising/expropriating water companies would also have unintended victims, eg the university pension scheme owns 20% of Thames Water.

Wouldn't freedom of movement for medical staff risk the UK losing more staff to EU countries than they can attract?

I doubt that would happen. Freedom of movement wasn't quite as useful for UK healthcare staff, I (rightly) couldn't turn up to Germany or France for instance without a medical level knowledge of the language and a process to get certification for their regulatory body.

In terms of EU staff in the NHS previously, it was mostly Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Polish and Romanian I would say.

Its an interesting idea but I have to be honest, I see no reason why the EU would agree to it. The NHS are currently going on massive hiring sprees for doctors from across the subcontinent, Egypt, Western Africa and Nepal etc too.

 

[Jippy]

I doubt that would happen. Freedom of movement wasn't quite as useful for UK healthcare staff, I (rightly) couldn't turn up to Germany or France for instance without a medical level knowledge of the language and a process to get certification for their regulatory body.

In terms of EU staff in the NHS previously, it was mostly Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Polish and Romanian I would say.

Its an interesting idea but I have to be honest, I see no reason why the EU would agree to it. The NHS are currently going on massive hiring sprees for doctors from across the subcontinent, Egypt, Western Africa and Nepal etc too.

Absolutely. Plus it would be politically difficult domestically most likely too, with even the most targeted, sensible freedom policy guaranteed to have Braverman and her ilk screaming betrayal.

 

[nickm]

Apparently it's debatable that we are in a housing crisis in the way most people interpret that. We have as many houses per capita as we did decades ago. The problem caused by too many landlords and too many empty properties.

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeand...risingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis



We need a government to address that issue, and increase social housing, not just build more so that landlords can increase their portfolios and let others pay their mortgages for them.

https://x.com/TorstenBell/status/1770103836595601623?t=4IFexJt98VvI-2K3iAk9dQ&s=19

 

[nickm]

.

Yes the one thing we can all agree on is we need more coal mines (by the way, well done for putting the time into going through 15 years of my old posts to try to make a point, I have to respect that.)

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Bert_]

1. That’s completely fair
2. Yes it would, I’d hopefully be able to convince them to stay, showing this as step 1 of a program to return the NHS to former glory

I just don’t understand how, after WWII, we were able to magically build the NHS and social housing despite how broke the country was, yet all we hear is how fragile things are.

The post war nationalisations were funded by trading shares for government bonds. So it didn't cost anything up front. The UKs debt increased significantly as bonds are essentially a long term iou. But that was offset by the fact they now owned all the assets of that industry.

 

[Frosty]

On levels that would make Liz Truss economics look like childs play.

So we cannot do anything about the failures of the private sector then.

 

[Red in STL]

I guess necessity was such a big driver, given the decimation to housing in WWII and later baby boom. The UK population was 50m in 1950 vs nearly 70m now, plus life expectancy was 66 for men/70 for women in 1951, compared to 78.6m/82.6w in 2024.

And the NHS of then didn't cater for half of what the NHS does now

 

[decorativeed]

https://x.com/TorstenBell/status/1770103836595601623?t=4IFexJt98VvI-2K3iAk9dQ&s=19

Why should I take the word of someone who hasn't backed up what he's saying with any evidence, as far as I can see from that thread?

 

[DanH]

Why should I take the word of someone who hasn't backed up what he's saying with any evidence, as far as I can see from that thread?

I think there is something in saying that in a society where family units are shrinking then maintaining a similar per capita ratio of housing does indicate a shortage. Happy to be corrected on that though.

 

[Bert_]

https://x.com/TorstenBell/status/1770103836595601623?t=4IFexJt98VvI-2K3iAk9dQ&s=19

Torstens view is oversupply to reduce demand. Make it less profitable to hoard or rent out property. Have landlords compete for tenants rather than the other way round.

It has a negative impact on house prices though so it's avoided. If a policy was implemented that set property to real value, then anyone with a mortgage, or anyone relying on their "assest" to fund their golden years will be fecked.

 

[4bars]

I doubt that would happen. Freedom of movement wasn't quite as useful for UK healthcare staff, I (rightly) couldn't turn up to Germany or France for instance without a medical level knowledge of the language and a process to get certification for their regulatory body.

In terms of EU staff in the NHS previously, it was mostly Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Polish and Romanian I would say.

Its an interesting idea but I have to be honest, I see no reason why the EU would agree to it. The NHS are currently going on massive hiring sprees for doctors from across the subcontinent, Egypt, Western Africa and Nepal etc too.

As you mentioned, freedom of movement benefitted more the UK than any other country. Everybody knows or wants to learn english and uk haa among the most competitive salaries in europe meaning that they were bleeding out the other countries of young and/or qualified workers. At the same time, the eldery with its medical conditions were spending their retirement years in sunnier countries which seriously put pressure on housing price as tgey outcompete locals and and spend a lot of resources to the local NHS. True that there was transfers between countries about these costs, but you cant compensate for the waiting times provoked.

So yes. The UK screw up big time. Now they have less NHS personnel, that have higher salary expectations (and theoretically more negotating power) to catter more elderly people that can't retire or at least not the whole year in a country were they can use other's countries NHSs

 

[decorativeed]

Torstens view is oversupply to reduce demand. Make it less profitable to hoard or rent out property. Have landlords compete for tenants rather than the other way round.

It has a negative impact on house prices though so it's avoided. If a policy was implemented that set property to real value, then anyone with a mortgage, or anyone relying on their "assest" to fund their golden years will be fecked.

It also has a terrible impact on the environment.

The government need to invest in a care system for the elderly that negates the need for people to 'invest' in properties and take them out of the market for the people who would actually want to live in them.

They need to regulate the private landlords - perhaps tax them out of existence - and act to remove properties from their portfolios and move some of them into public ownership and the rest back on to the market for people to make homes in rather than money with. Because the lack of regulations on this has directly resulted in the mess we're currently in.

 

[Eplel]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

"common sense" is 2024's most popular right wing dogwhistle

 

[Paul the Wolf]

She could be the Minister for 'Extreme Stupidity'

 

[nickm]

Why should I take the word of someone who hasn't backed up what he's saying with any evidence, as far as I can see from that thread?

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/housing-outlook-q1-2024/

It's Torsden Bell so I going to be confident he's done the maths.

 

[nickm]

It also has a terrible impact on the environment.

The government need to invest in a care system for the elderly that negates the need for people to 'invest' in properties and take them out of the market for the people who would actually want to live in them.

They need to regulate the private landlords - perhaps tax them out of existence - and act to remove properties from their portfolios and move some of them into public ownership and the rest back on to the market for people to make homes in rather than money with. Because the lack of regulations on this has directly resulted in the mess we're currently in.

I think we need to do all those things, but first and foremost we need to build many more houses in the places people want to live. Eg if that means London becomes a skyscraper city, then so be it.

 

[nickm]

Torstens view is oversupply to reduce demand. Make it less profitable to hoard or rent out property. Have landlords compete for tenants rather than the other way round.

It has a negative impact on house prices though so it's avoided. If a policy was implemented that set property to real value, then anyone with a mortgage, or anyone relying on their "assest" to fund their golden years will be fecked.

People are being fecked right at this moment though - new housebuyers, people wanting to start families, tenants looking to rent, rising homelessness. We need to build.

If we had enough houses, we would not need to specifically build "affordable housing"

 

[The Boy]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

"common sense" is 2024's most popular right wing dogwhistle

Says the MP paid over 6 grand by GB News in just the last ten months, it clearly doesn't cost too much buy Jenkyns' lobbying power

 

[nickm]

It also has a terrible impact on the environment.

The government need to invest in a care system for the elderly that negates the need for people to 'invest' in properties and take them out of the market for the people who would actually want to live in them.

They need to regulate the private landlords - perhaps tax them out of existence - and act to remove properties from their portfolios and move some of them into public ownership and the rest back on to the market for people to make homes in rather than money with. Because the lack of regulations on this has directly resulted in the mess we're currently in.

Sounds like you are advocating for the government to build.... Albeit a ton of care / retirement homes?

I agree the govt needs needs to make it far easier to build, so the market can supply the housing there is clearly the demand for.

 

[11101]

It also has a terrible impact on the environment.

The government need to invest in a care system for the elderly that negates the need for people to 'invest' in properties and take them out of the market for the people who would actually want to live in them.

They need to regulate the private landlords - perhaps tax them out of existence - and act to remove properties from their portfolios and move some of them into public ownership and the rest back on to the market for people to make homes in rather than money with. Because the lack of regulations on this has directly resulted in the mess we're currently in.

Actually it's the opposite, it's the trying to tax landlords out of existence that has increased rents by about 10% a year since they started. We now realise the market functioned, just about, before they started getting involved. Now it's well and truly fecked.

The government needs to understand private rentals are a key part of the housing market and not something to be eradicated.