How to manage austerity in a caring society

[buctootim]

But what's decent and true . Opinions and politics are basically more nuanced than simple right or wrong . Why is saying Corbyn hates Britain any different than saying Cameron hates the poor . Surely saying the NHS is not safe under the Tory government is either true or untrue depending on your politics , rather than any actual facts . There are already laws against lies but quite rightly there are no laws against opinions or your conclusions you gain from studying others views . If you believe that Corbyn or Milliband snrs policies mean that in your opinion he hates Britain , that's a perfectly legitimate conclusion to reach .,it is for the electorate or consumers to judge that opinion , not the law. Just as a court or law can not rule on whether the Tories are " balancing the books on the back of the poor " , or selling the nhs to their " mates in the city "

 

What's honest decent and true for ads? you can apply the same principles. It doesnt have to heavy handed or bureaucratic, hundreds of thousands of ads are produced each year but complaints to the ASA are a tiny fraction of that. Agencies know where the line is and by and large stick to it. Politics is a sales game just like any product and its no more difficult to make sure the public isnt mislead than Carlsberg beer or VW cars.

[buctootim]

the banks got away with murder and Labour wouldn't admit to it's regulatory failures which led to it, the right blamed over-spending which was an oversimplification which ignored some chronic market failures which still aren't fixed and the dopey old taxpayer, small businesses and public sector had to sort out the private banks' mess. .

 

Ben Bernanke (chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time of the crash) came out a few days ago and said he argued the senior management of the banks should have gone to prison. His argument was that the people who caused the crisis kept the financial benefits of their actions whilst fines hurt the wrong people, the shareholders, mostly pension funds who had done nothing wrong.

Edited 8 October, 2015 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

Its interesting that Ben Bernanke (chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time of the crash) came out a few days ago and said he argued at the time the senior management of the banks should have gone to prison. His argument was that fining banks didnt punish the people who caused the crisis and benefitted from the preceding behaviour which caused it. Fines hurt the wrong people, the shareholders, mostly pension funds who had done nothing wrong.

 

And I agree with Mr Ben.

[Sheaf Saint]

Labour didn't cause the global financial crisis but they spent, spent spent right up until it happened. As for Gordon he was sticking two fingers up at anyone who was expressing concern at the size of the deficit, years before the global crisis happened.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051

 

Then just before the crisis hit over here in the 2nd half of 2007 Blair stood down and Gordon Brown got the job he'd always wanted.

 

Course, Blair never saw that coming. . .

 

It's interesting to note, though, that up until the crash the Tories broadly supported Labour's spending plans, because they had lost the previous 3 elections and felt that this was the best way to appeal to the centre ground, in much the same way that Milliband and Balls supported the Tories' austerity principle because they hoped it would win them the necessary votes from the centre.

 

But as soon as the crash happened, the Tories changed tack completely. They saw an opportunity to scapegoat the Labour government for the recession and portray themselves as the saviors of the economy.... "Don't trust them - they caused the economic downturn. Trust us instead, we'll pay off the deficit in 5 years and get Britain back on track".

 

On your final point we are in total agreement. It's pretty obvious that Blair could see the oncoming storm and jumped ship before he could take any of the blame for it.

[trousers]

as soon as the crash happened, the Tories changed tack completely. They saw an opportunity to scapegoat the Labour government for the recession

 

Labour would have done the same had the Tories been in power at the time. Opportunism....That's how politics works (said Trousers stating the obvious for once )

[eurosaint]

Having read through this thread, I have come to the conclusion that the Tories play the media better, are better at political opportunism and generally get all the good breaks (like not being in government during an economic collapse) !

I guess that this means Labour are either plain unlucky or maybe just too honest for their own good !

The only other conclusion could be (as Lord Duckhunter already pointed out!) that lefties never blame their own inadequacies, it's only ever someone else's fault !

[Lord Duckhunter]

Labour would have done the same had the Tories been in power at the time. Opportunism....That's how politics works (said Trousers stating the obvious for once )

 

As they did with black weds & the ERM .

[Lord Duckhunter]

What's honest decent and true for ads? you can apply the same principles. It doesnt have to heavy handed or bureaucratic, hundreds of thousands of ads are produced each year but complaints to the ASA are a tiny fraction of that. Agencies know where the line is and by and large stick to it. Politics is a sales game just like any product and its no more difficult to make sure the public isnt mislead than Carlsberg beer or VW cars.

 

But it's clearly not the same thing . Labour & The Unions claimed the jobless figures would go up by millions under GO. It didn't happen , they didn't lie they were just wrong .

 

It is already a criminal offence to lie about a political opponent , I believe the police are investigation George Galloway for this at present . There are libel laws if you print lies . It's nonsense to suggest you cant take someone's policies or beliefs and reach a conclusion .

[Sheaf Saint]

But it's clearly not the same thing . Labour & The Unions claimed the jobless figures would go up by millions under GO. It didn't happen , they didn't lie they were just wrong .

 

It is already a criminal offence to lie about a political opponent , I believe the police are investigation George Galloway for this at present . There are libel laws if you print lies . It's nonsense to suggest you cant take someone's policies or beliefs and reach a conclusion .

 

Those laws only apply when the lies printed directly affect the reputation of an individual or an organisation. But when a government minister stands up in parliament and tells outright lies about, say, the state of the economy and the actual scale of the promised deficit reduction, gets called out on it by the IMF, and then subsequently repeats the same lie, nobody is being defamed and under our current laws there can be no legal consequences.

 

Given that the BBC, Sky, and the vast majority of the mainstream media failed to report on the IMF statement which contradicts Cameron's deliberately misleading comments about the deficit, how many people actually know about it? How many ordinary people, who are generally far too distracted by brainless crap like X Factor or posting pictures of their dinner on instagram, will go to the trouble of searching for such information? That's the kind of influential disinformation that buctootim is talking about.

 

Surely there can be no rational argument from anybody, regardless of their political leanings, to support such a system that allows MPs (and the media) to say anything they like to the public without fear of prosecution for deliberately misleading the electorate.

[Whitey Grandad]

Those laws only apply when the lies printed directly affect the reputation of an individual or an organisation. But when a government minister stands up in parliament and tells outright lies about, say, the state of the economy and the actual scale of the promised deficit reduction, gets called out on it by the IMF, and then subsequently repeats the same lie, nobody is being defamed and under our current laws there can be no legal consequences.

 

Given that the BBC, Sky, and the vast majority of the mainstream media failed to report on the IMF statement which contradicts Cameron's deliberately misleading comments about the deficit, how many people actually know about it? How many ordinary people, who are generally far too distracted by brainless crap like X Factor or posting pictures of their dinner on instagram, will go to the trouble of searching for such information? That's the kind of influential disinformation that buctootim is talking about.

 

Surely there can be no rational argument from anybody, regardless of their political leanings, to support such a system that allows MPs (and the media) to say anything they like to the public without fear of prosecution for deliberately misleading the electorate.

 

Don't forget that MPs have parliamentary privilege.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Given that the BBC, Sky, and the vast majority of the mainstream media failed to report on the IMF statement which contradicts Cameron's deliberately misleading comments about the deficit, how many people actually know about it? How many ordinary people, who are generally far too distracted by brainless crap like X Factor or posting pictures of their dinner on instagram, will go to the trouble of searching for such information? That's the kind of influential disinformation that buctootim is talking about.

 

 

The IMF have got plenty of things wrong in the past , plenty .

 

You can't start legislating and lecturing the media about what to report . Again , you're blaming the " thick " voters & media rather than addressing the basic fact that the country , many of which are far more intelligent than you give them credit for, voted for the Tories . The biggest lie that labour have run and run with for years and years is that the nhs is not safe in Tory hands . The voters should decide if this is pony, not the courts.

 

Why do lefties always want to control everything , thank god they never get any power. We'd be such a boring and righteous country , as well as being skint.

[BlakeySFC]

F@ck those Tory c_unts.

[JackanorySFC]

Well, here's the view from the floating voter in the centre, not the left like some posters here and not the Thatcher right like you. Whoever isn't in power and out of favour always feels the opposition have duped the electorate, I was an undergraduate in 1997 when Blair won the election and you can take it from me (I was at a largely Conservative supporting university) that the right were furious at Blair's wooing of the media, especially Rupert M. The arguments back then and in 2001 after I'd graduated sounded remarkably similar. Other more radical right wing groups (such as the Countryside Alliance) sought to disrupt the Labour government by organising strikes and disorder, just as the unions have at times with the Tories in power. They were also moaning that Labour was a largely metropolitan party which didn't understand the countryside (some truth in that if you look at the last few elections although they were overstating rather and were overwrought by the fox-hunting ban. They tend to hold similar views about Cameron and Osborne as well). So what you hearing now is different, but also very similar to those times.

 

Neither party ever fully admits to getting it wrong, the banks got away with murder and Labour wouldn't admit to it's regulatory failures which led to it, the right blamed over-spending which was an oversimplification which ignored some chronic market failures which still aren't fixed and the dopey old taxpayer, small businesses and public sector had to sort out the private banks' mess. Bad, wasteful spending of which Labour was clearly guilty of (e.g NHS IT system), yes, but spending efficiently and proportinately ahead of when needed on your infrastructure, education system and R&D are never bad things if well directed, although some on here will never agree with any state spending or even having a state.

 

The sensible people work with whatever government is in power and make the best of it.

 

You make some excellent points that I generally agree with. FWIW that's probably because like you I'm a floating voter in the centre, God knows where you got the Thatcher loving right winger nonsense from? I was brought up to hate Thatcher and I've voted for Labour more often than the Tories. However it seems to me that left wing politics is getting so partisan there will never be room to accommodate centre views like mine which probably means they will never get elected again (the UK is predominantly a centre/ centre right country IMO) which is shame for our democracy, the Government needs an opposition and the frothing at the mouth, intimidating and insulting nature of supporters of the Labour party are making them seem way nastier than the Tories have ever been.

 

Just an opinion of a floating voter like.

[buctootim]

the Government needs an opposition and the frothing at the mouth, intimidating and insulting nature of supporters of the Labour party are making them seem way nastier than the Tories have ever been.

 

You sound more fixed than floating in your views. In any event you have a selective memory. Opposition, by its nature, is always more fervent / rabid / violent than Government -just as the right wing opposition was when Labour was in power. Violent riots, invading Parliament, blocking roads and dumping dead animals in the street.

 

"Scotland Yard chief Sir John Stevens today revealed police were taken by surprise by the ferocity of the violence during the pro-hunt demonstration outside Parliament.

He said 48 police officers were hurt in disturbances at the Countryside Alliance protest on 15 September."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/met-chief-shocked-by-violence-at-hunt-protest-6974030.html

Dead horse dumped in Brighton street

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3656524.stm

 

 

Edited 9 October, 2015 by buctootim

[trousers]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/08/hate-tories-conservatives-dominance-pointless-protest

[buctootim]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/08/hate-tories-conservatives-dominance-pointless-protest

 

I dont necessarily disagree, its not effective. The people who are in the main being screwed by this government are the young and poor - so you're going to get street protests and marches rather than the slick paid for lobbying, media campaigning and legal loophole get outs deployed by the wealthy and corporates. The majority of the tools to persuade the electorate will always be with the 'haves' rather than the 'have nots'. A Conservative victory should be the norm. Letting Labour in occasionally is a miscalculation on their part about how far they needed to hold their nose and reach out to the middle.

Edited 9 October, 2015 by buctootim

[JackanorySFC]

You sound more fixed than floating in your views. In any event you have a selective memory. Opposition, by it nature is always more fervent / rabid / violent than Government -just as the right wing opposition was when Labour was in power. Violent riots, invading Parliament, blocking roads and dumping dead animals in the street.

 

"Scotland Yard chief Sir John Stevens today revealed police were taken by surprise by the ferocity of the violence during the pro-hunt demonstration outside Parliament.

He said 48 police officers were hurt in disturbances at the Countryside Alliance protest on 15 September."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/met-chief-shocked-by-violence-at-hunt-protest-6974030.html

 

Dead horse dumped in Brighton street

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3656524.stm

 

 

 

Yep absolute scum bags. Being a Southampton lad I have little if anything in common with the Countryside alliance. Never seen bile directed towards other countrymen like we are seeing now from the extreme left though. That, despite your assumption based on God knows what, that I am more right than centre, is a shame to me as I'm from a Labour voting family, believe in a caring society that supports and protects the vulnerable, think the cuts made to the disabled in particular right now are horrible and would love to vote for Labour again. I also believe it is absolutely possible to be successful without being a complete pr1ck.

 

FYI I feel I am central, I have certain left leaning views, certain right leaning views. Depends on the subject, my mood and what the weather is like. I don't have all the answers and can't see into the future. Right now I think the Tories have improved the economy and think Cameron is a decent leader and has the gravitas needed to stick up for us in the company of over G8 leaders. I couldn't give a **** that he went to a posh school, not his fault. He received a world class education and has clearly not wasted it, what's to hate about that?

 

Basically I reserve the right to change my mind depending on my circumstances and those of the country and the people that aspire to run it. Personally I don't see the problem with that (I thought all that right/ left nonsense was for the Americans) and the more partisan the left become, and the more voters like me get labelled as brainwashed/ stupid selfish/ scum the less likely I'll be to vote for them. If the Lib Dem's can keep their dignity I can see them making a decent comeback in 2020 actually.

[Whitey Grandad]

I dont necessarily disagree, its not effective. The people who are in the main being screwed by this government are the young and poor - so you're going to get street protests and marches rather than the slick paid for lobbying, media campaigning and legal loophole get outs deployed by the wealthy and corporates.

 

How do you work that out? Screwing them by not giving them enough of fellow citizens' money?

[buctootim]

How do you work that out? Screwing them by not giving them enough of fellow citizens' money?

 

We've been through this. Over the past 20 years there has been a large transfer of wealth from the young to the old and over the past 30 years from the 95% to the 5%. When you add in the housing crisis and student debts then you have a real and sustained loss of standard of living. You can deny its happening, but thats because you dont want to read and prefer to dismiss the stats.

[Whitey Grandad]

We've been through this. Over the past 20 years there has been a large transfer of wealth from the young to the old and over the past 30 years from the 95% to the 5%. When you add in the housing crisis and student debts then you have a real and sustained loss of standard of living. You can deny its happening, but thats because you dont want to read and prefer to dismiss the stats.

 

There has been no transfer of wealth. Where do you imagine this supposed wealth has come from? Has somebody been stealing their bank accounts? Do you really think that tax rates today are higher than they were a generation or two ago?

 

30 years ago the young didn't even exist and 20 years ago they were only 10 years old. To even begin to think that the old are stealing from the young is absolutely ridiculous. All the capital infrastructure that the young are using was provided by the old.

[buctootim]

Yep absolute scum bags. Being a Southampton lad I have little if anything in common with the Countryside alliance. Never seen bile directed towards other countrymen like we are seeing now from the extreme left though. That, despite your assumption based on God knows what, that I am more right than centre, is a shame to me as I'm from a Labour voting family, believe in a caring society that supports and protects the vulnerable, think the cuts made to the disabled in particular right now are horrible and would love to vote for Labour again. I also believe it is absolutely possible to be successful without being a complete pr1ck.

 

FYI I feel I am central, I have certain left leaning views, certain right leaning views. Depends on the subject, my mood and what the weather is like. I don't have all the answers and can't see into the future. Right now I think the Tories have improved the economy and think Cameron is a decent leader and has the gravitas needed to stick up for us in the company of over G8 leaders. I couldn't give a **** that he went to a posh school, not his fault. He received a world class education and has clearly not wasted it, what's to hate about that?

 

Basically I reserve the right to change my mind depending on my circumstances and those of the country and the people that aspire to run it. Personally I don't see the problem with that (I thought all that right/ left nonsense was for the Americans) and the more partisan the left become, and the more voters like me get labelled as brainwashed/ stupid selfish/ scum the less likely I'll be to vote for them. If the Lib Dem's can keep their dignity I can see them making a decent comeback in 2020 actually.

 

Fair enough. Obviously all I know about you is what you post here, so either I've misread or your posts have misrepresented your politics slightly. I find it hard to understand how you view the Cameron government as successful. They have repeatedly missed their own targets for growth and deficit reduction whilst simultaneously engaging in a large transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest, continuing the trend of the past 30 years.

 

I dont agree with much of Corbyn's polcies but he is at least principled and honest. Thats what I see as lacking from the current government. They will talk grandly about protecting the most vulnerable in society whilst doing the exact opposite.

 

The violence and the hatred is a symptom imo of the very divided country we are becoming, created by divisive policies. Reminds me of the early 1980s.

 

 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

I dont agree with much of Corbyn's polcies but he is at least principled and honest.

 

 

 

 

]

 

 

Rubbish , look at all the positions he's rowing back from. Won't sing the national anthem, now he will. The principled position is " I'm a Republican I won't sing god save the queen ( as I won't myself) , corbyns position is to not sing it until he gets negative reaction and then he will sing it. Instead of saying he won't kiss the queens hand in this pathetic PC ceremony because he's a Republican he pretends to be " busy" . He's been anti EU all his life, but has backed down, he campaigned on unilateral nuclear disarmament but is now kicking trident into the long grass. The man is fraud who has spent his whole life as a student activist and has now suddenly woken up in the real world. Just like the lib dumbs and their hopeless tuition fees gimmick , he's now found out the difference between opposing things and having a coherent electable strategy .

[benjii]

We've been through this. Over the past 20 years there has been a large transfer of wealth from the young to the old and over the past 30 years from the 95% to the 5%. When you add in the housing crisis and student debts then you have a real and sustained loss of standard of living. You can deny its happening, but thats because you dont want to read and prefer to dismiss the stats.

 

If we assume that is absolutely true, by its own frames of reference I'm not sure how it translates to "screwed by this government"

[Whitey Grandad]

We've been through this. Over the past 20 years there has been a large transfer of wealth from the young to the old and over the past 30 years from the 95% to the 5%. When you add in the housing crisis and student debts then you have a real and sustained loss of standard of living. You can deny its happening, but thats because you dont want to read and prefer to dismiss the stats.

 

...and there's another thing. Student debts are by no means compulsory, and in what way do they enrich the elderly?

 

...the housing crisis is a result of all the extra millions in the country. In what way does that enrich the elderly?

 

I cannot deny something which is neither true nor does not exist.

[buctootim]

If we assume that is absolutely true, by its own frames of reference I'm not sure how it translates to "screwed by this government"

 

As I said its part of a long term trend although I think its speeded up over the past 10 years - largely because the young don't vote enough and when they do it tends not to be Tory. The major problem is the extortionate price of housing, sort that out and the other problems become more manageable. In 1994 60% of 30 year olds owned their home, in 2004 it was 54%, 34% in 2014 and probably even lower now. That means increasing the housing stock by around 10%, some 2.4 million homes, not 200,000.

Edited 9 October, 2015 by buctootim

[buctootim]

But it's clearly not the same thing . Labour & The Unions claimed the jobless figures would go up by millions under GO. It didn't happen , they didn't lie they were just wrong .

 

It is already a criminal offence to lie about a political opponent , I believe the police are investigation George Galloway for this at present . There are libel laws if you print lies . It's nonsense to suggest you cant take someone's policies or beliefs and reach a conclusion .

 

Obviously there are difficulties, but the 'reasonable person' maxim used in courts would work.

[buctootim]

Rubbish , look at all the positions he's rowing back from. Won't sing the national anthem, now he will. The principled position is " I'm a Republican I won't sing god save the queen ( as I won't myself) , corbyns position is to not sing it until he gets negative reaction and then he will sing it. Instead of saying he won't kiss the queens hand in this pathetic PC ceremony because he's a Republican he pretends to be " busy" . He's been anti EU all his life, but has backed down, he campaigned on unilateral nuclear disarmament but is now kicking trident into the long grass. The man is fraud who has spent his whole life as a student activist and has now suddenly woken up in the real world. Just like the lib dumbs and their hopeless tuition fees gimmick , he's now found out the difference between opposing things and having a coherent electable strategy .

 

Catch 22 though isn't it, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Making clear what your views are but agreeing to compromise on the small stuff seems principled to me.

[Whitey Grandad]

As I said its part of a long term trend although I think its speeded up over the past 10 years - largely because the young don't vote enough and when they do it tends not to be Tory. The major problem is the extortionate price of housing, sort that out and the other problems become more manageable. In 1994 60% of 30 year olds owned their home, in 2004 it was 54%, 34% in 2014 and probably even lower now. That means increasing the housing stock by around 10%, some 2 million homes, not 200,000.

 

I know that housing is a long term problem with no instant solutions but the period you quote covers a Labour government from 1997 to 2010 so blaming the Conservatives is not appropriate. In my opinion the problem is almost entirely due to the unsustainable increase in the population caused by uncontrolled immigration.

[buctootim]

I know that housing is a long term problem with no instant solutions but the period you quote covers a Labour government from 1997 to 2010 so blaming the Conservatives is not appropriate. In my opinion the problem is almost entirely due to the unsustainable increase in the population caused by uncontrolled immigration.

 

I didn't say the housing crisis was solely a Tory failing and yes its caused largely by an increasing population (and to a lesser extent household size becoming smaller). Even if immigration stopped tomorrow we would still have a massive pent up housing shortage. The question is why isn't it being addressed.

[Johnny Bognor]

I didn't say the housing crisis was solely a Tory failing and yes its caused largely by an increasing population (and to a lesser extent household size becoming smaller). Even if immigration stopped tomorrow we would still have a massive pent up housing shortage. The question is why isn't it being addressed.

 

I would add in that part of the demand for housing is the increase in divorce rates. More and more couples, that previously lived in one house, now live in two.

[buctootim]

I would add in that part of the demand for housing is the increase in divorce rates. More and more couples, that previously lived in one house, now live in two.

 

I agree that's part of it, myself included. Also people living longer means there proportionately less time when the house was fully occupied with both parents and kids. Average household size has shrunk by around 4% between 2003 and 2013. The main issue is population increase though - 59.6m in 2003 to 64.1m in 2013 - that's 7.5% in 10 years. Combine the two figures and we needed around 2.6m new homes but built only around 1m

 

 

 

Edited 9 October, 2015 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

I agree that's part of it, myself included. Also people living longer means there proportionately less time when the house was fully occupied with both parents and kids. Average household size has shrunk by around 4% between 2003 and 2013. The main issue is population increase though - 59.6m in 2003 to 64.1m in 2013 - that's 7.5% in 10 years. Combine the two figures and we needed around 2.6m new homes but built only around 1m

 

So failure to control / manage immigration is the main issue, not necessarily the housebuilding.

 

But even if we had built enough houses, that doesn't solve all our ills. When I just think about Chichester with the growth in house building that we have had, coupled with zero upgrades to road infrastructure, it's no wonder this place permanently gridlocked.

 

So with building more houses, comes more infrastructure upgrades. Seems to me that slowing down immigration would take the pressure off, would it not?

Edited 9 October, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[hutch]

The long term trend, Tim, is that the old are getting much much older. And there are a helluva lot more of them than there used to be.

 

30 years ago when the wrinklies pegged it, they passed their wealth on to their kids while they were still young enough to enjoy it. Nowadays most of the "kids" have retired by the time they inherit their parents wealth. It's got nowt to do with government policy. Personally I blame the NHS for keeping them all going for too long.

[buctootim]

So failure to control / manage immigration is the main issue, not necessarily the housebuilding.

 

Its two sides of the same coin. Personally I'd be happy with a one out one in policy immigration policy. The population has increased by 4.5m over the past 10 years, that's a fact, regardless of whether or not it should have been allowed to happen a government has to respond to the reality. For them to put its fingers in its ears and not address the consequences of that influx compounds the problems, it doesn't make them go away. Congestion is only partly population related, much more to do with much higher levels of car ownership

 

The long term trend, Tim, is that the old are getting much much older. And there are a helluva lot more of them than there used to be.

 

30 years ago when the wrinklies pegged it, they passed their wealth on to their kids while they were still young enough to enjoy it. Nowadays most of the "kids" have retired by the time they inherit their parents wealth. It's got nowt to do with government policy. Personally I blame the NHS for keeping them all going for too long.

 

That's true, I think I read about half the population increase is immigration related and half increased longevity and birth rate. With more older people you have greater demand on healthcare and pensions - and if you are trying to lower expenditure then you get disproportionate and more severe cuts elsewhere, hence part of wealth transfer from young to old, so it does impact policy.

 

There are no easy solutions. Compulsory birth control and limits on children aka China? no healthcare past 75? Euthanasia if you've had three hospital admissions in the past year? I cant see any of those being vote winners.

Edited 9 October, 2015 by buctootim

[Jonnyboy]

Are the Right Whingers still making out that tories are all misunderstood Saints and that labour wants to confiscate all private property?

[Jonnyboy]

Rubbish , look at all the positions he's rowing back from. Won't sing the national anthem, now he will. The principled position is " I'm a Republican I won't sing god save the queen ( as I won't myself) , corbyns position is to not sing it until he gets negative reaction and then he will sing it. Instead of saying he won't kiss the queens hand in this pathetic PC ceremony because he's a Republican he pretends to be " busy" . He's been anti EU all his life, but has backed down, he campaigned on unilateral nuclear disarmament but is now kicking trident into the long grass. The man is fraud who has spent his whole life as a student activist and has now suddenly woken up in the real world. Just like the lib dumbs and their hopeless tuition fees gimmick , he's now found out the difference between opposing things and having a coherent electable strategy .

 

Yeah because Cameron has really kept to all his pre-leadership promises and principles.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yeah because Cameron has really kept to all his pre-leadership promises and principles.

 

Exactly , Corbyn is no different , despite all his pony about principles and a new politics .

[trousers]

[trousers]

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/george-osborne-has-forgotten-the-human-factor-he-should-think-again/

 

Totally agree with this. Reforming the tax credit system is a sound policy, but it should be phased out not suddenly chopped.

 

Tory politicians: sensible policies, often poorly implemented.

[Shroppie]

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/george-osborne-has-forgotten-the-human-factor-he-should-think-again/

 

Totally agree with this. Reforming the tax credit system is a sound policy, but it should be phased out not suddenly chopped.

 

Tory politicians: sensible policies, often poorly implemented.

Agreed. This could be Cameron's Poll Tax.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/george-osborne-has-forgotten-the-human-factor-he-should-think-again/

 

Totally agree with this. Reforming the tax credit system is a sound policy, but it should be phased out not suddenly chopped.

 

Tory politicians: sensible policies, often poorly implemented.

 

Me too. The tax credits system has totally distorted the labour market and changes must be made in stages. You can't pull the rug out suddenly from under their feet.

[Special K]

I didn't say the housing crisis was solely a Tory failing and yes its caused largely by an increasing population (and to a lesser extent household size becoming smaller). Even if immigration stopped tomorrow we would still have a massive pent up housing shortage. The question is why isn't it being addressed.

 

Housing provision in the UK comes primarily from private developers alongside a smaller amount provided by HA's, LA's, etc. There are numerous hurdles that need to be addressed before anything can get built in this country, but from experience, the following list, albeit not exhaustive, may provide a flavour;

 

Landowners expectations of values of land make a number of potential schemes not viable.

Large Private Developers have no social conscience. They are happy to amass land banks if it is in their financial interest to do so.

There is not enough social housing / affordable / shared ownership housing included on private developments. Private Developers want to minimise the number / commute off site / pay money instead, as social potentially dilutes private sale prices. Therefore they will fight this and often get their way.

Planning departments and the system of planning approvals is archaic, time consuming and costly. The whole planning system need a serious overhaul if the ridiculous target of 1m new homes by 2020 is to ever be realised.

There is not enough clout given to HA's in terms of financial flexibility and land purchase - this will only get worse with RtB. But equally, they can be dogmatic and difficult to deal with.

Substantial increases in Building Regulations makes the cost of construction quite a bit more expensive, especially when LA's impose added "eco" targets.

We still build houses in the same way we did 100 years ago. Although there is a small but impressive sector pushing for easier construction methods (they tend to be inspired by Germany), there is quite a bit of resistance to embracing this wholesale. We still need the infrastructure of course, but houses could be put up a lot quicker.

The whole system of housing provision is far too fragmented. Too many parties to satisfy and for a consensus to be reached. And along the way, everyone wants their profit of course.

[Johnny Bognor]

Housing provision in the UK comes primarily from private developers alongside a smaller amount provided by HA's, LA's, etc. There are numerous hurdles that need to be addressed before anything can get built in this country, but from experience, the following list, albeit not exhaustive, may provide a flavour;

 

Landowners expectations of values of land make a number of potential schemes not viable.

Large Private Developers have no social conscience. They are happy to amass land banks if it is in their financial interest to do so.

There is not enough social housing / affordable / shared ownership housing included on private developments. Private Developers want to minimise the number / commute off site / pay money instead, as social potentially dilutes private sale prices. Therefore they will fight this and often get their way.

Planning departments and the system of planning approvals is archaic, time consuming and costly. The whole planning system need a serious overhaul if the ridiculous target of 1m new homes by 2020 is to ever be realised.

There is not enough clout given to HA's in terms of financial flexibility and land purchase - this will only get worse with RtB. But equally, they can be dogmatic and difficult to deal with.

Substantial increases in Building Regulations makes the cost of construction quite a bit more expensive, especially when LA's impose added "eco" targets.

We still build houses in the same way we did 100 years ago. Although there is a small but impressive sector pushing for easier construction methods (they tend to be inspired by Germany), there is quite a bit of resistance to embracing this wholesale. We still need the infrastructure of course, but houses could be put up a lot quicker.

The whole system of housing provision is far too fragmented. Too many parties to satisfy and for a consensus to be reached. And along the way, everyone wants their profit of course.

 

Interesting regarding these 'kit' type houses, which are pre-built in a warehouse and then installed on site. They can litereally put up an office block over a weekend. Seems popular in Germany and Sweden.

[hutch]

Housing provision in the UK comes primarily from private developers alongside a smaller amount provided by HA's, LA's, etc. There are numerous hurdles that need to be addressed before anything can get built in this country, but from experience, the following list, albeit not exhaustive, may provide a flavour;

 

Landowners expectations of values of land make a number of potential schemes not viable.

Large Private Developers have no social conscience. They are happy to amass land banks if it is in their financial interest to do so.

There is not enough social housing / affordable / shared ownership housing included on private developments. Private Developers want to minimise the number / commute off site / pay money instead, as social potentially dilutes private sale prices. Therefore they will fight this and often get their way.

Planning departments and the system of planning approvals is archaic, time consuming and costly. The whole planning system need a serious overhaul if the ridiculous target of 1m new homes by 2020 is to ever be realised.

There is not enough clout given to HA's in terms of financial flexibility and land purchase - this will only get worse with RtB. But equally, they can be dogmatic and difficult to deal with.

Substantial increases in Building Regulations makes the cost of construction quite a bit more expensive, especially when LA's impose added "eco" targets.

We still build houses in the same way we did 100 years ago. Although there is a small but impressive sector pushing for easier construction methods (they tend to be inspired by Germany), there is quite a bit of resistance to embracing this wholesale. We still need the infrastructure of course, but houses could be put up a lot quicker.

The whole system of housing provision is far too fragmented. Too many parties to satisfy and for a consensus to be reached. And along the way, everyone wants their profit of course.

The recent decision of the government to hand all of the UK's small airports and airfields over for new development without the need for planning approval should help though. Loadsa more houses and no more pesky aeroplanes. Win-win.

[Special K]

The recent decision of the government to hand all of the UK's small airports and airfields over for new development without the need for planning approval should help though. Loadsa more houses and no more pesky aeroplanes. Win-win.

 

 

They have plans to make permanent the Permitted Development right to turn vacant office buildings into residential accommodation (it was/is currently a temporary measure).Invariably the landlords have high price demands for the buildings and in any case they only lend themselves to apartments or maybe duplpex's if the design is right. It's a small step though and if they work they can be good.

 

JB - there are some impressive developments - http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/10/12/first-uk-house-manufactured-totally-offsite/ is an example. The infrastructure still needs to be installed of course, but the process of house building can easily be improved. Germany and the Scandinavian countries also seem to have no problem with (flexible, efficient and quick) timber frame housing, which we traditionally seems to be shy of. I can understand why multi-storey timber frame isn't appropriate (site fires during construction are too commonplace) but for low rise houses, they aren't a problem.

[buctootim]

Housing provision in the UK comes primarily from private developers alongside a smaller amount provided by HA's, LA's, etc. There are numerous hurdles that need to be addressed before anything can get built in this country, but from experience, the following list, albeit not exhaustive, may provide a flavour;

 

Landowners expectations of values of land make a number of potential schemes not viable.

Large Private Developers have no social conscience. They are happy to amass land banks if it is in their financial interest to do so.

There is not enough social housing / affordable / shared ownership housing included on private developments. Private Developers want to minimise the number / commute off site / pay money instead, as social potentially dilutes private sale prices. Therefore they will fight this and often get their way.

Planning departments and the system of planning approvals is archaic, time consuming and costly. The whole planning system need a serious overhaul if the ridiculous target of 1m new homes by 2020 is to ever be realised.

There is not enough clout given to HA's in terms of financial flexibility and land purchase - this will only get worse with RtB. But equally, they can be dogmatic and difficult to deal with.

Substantial increases in Building Regulations makes the cost of construction quite a bit more expensive, especially when LA's impose added "eco" targets.

We still build houses in the same way we did 100 years ago. Although there is a small but impressive sector pushing for easier construction methods (they tend to be inspired by Germany), there is quite a bit of resistance to embracing this wholesale. We still need the infrastructure of course, but houses could be put up a lot quicker.

The whole system of housing provision is far too fragmented. Too many parties to satisfy and for a consensus to be reached. And along the way, everyone wants their profit of course.

 

The main issue imo is that councils largely collude with existing residents to stop additional development. We should never forget that where all of our houses are built was once virgin countryside. My ex is fighting a development in the field next to her house - a scraggy piece of rough grazing land sandwiched between a main road and and a railway line which has almost zero ecological or aesthetic benefit. It is however already linked to roads and transport - perfect for housing.

 

The problem could be addressed by creating a new housing agency with the power to compulsorily purchase farm land at agricultural land prices. They would then invite builders to tender for the development. That way the council can specify the services it wants to see provided - schools, shops etc but you dont end up with uniform large estates. It would also bypass large housebuilders stranglehold on development land and take away their incentive to hoard it. If you start building higher quality houses for less money than at present public nimby opposition would largely melt away.

Edited 22 October, 2015 by buctootim

[Hockey_saint]

Me too. The tax credits system has totally distorted the labour market and changes must be made in stages. You can't pull the rug out suddenly from under their feet.

 

This exactly. It's fair to say that tax credits have done this but then tax credits would never have been needed if the minimum wage was higher (but then try getting retailers to pay more on the falling profits they have been getting the last few years...it's a chicken and the egg situation and you can't really have one without the other)

 

This here is a good example from John Lewis though:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/25/john-lewis-may-alter-staff-benefits-national-living-wage

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well yesterday's dramatic volte-face by the Chancellor on his plans to hammer the existing 'Tax Credits' system should come as a substantial relief to the millions who had been facing a big fall in their benefit income. However, ultimately methinks that moving towards a higher wage & lower tax/benefits future still does seem a desirable road for our nation to take - even if getting there make take a little longer now. It will be interesting to see the impact the coming 'Universal Credit' roll-out has because the devil is always in the detail.

 

Osborne is a unusual politician in that you'd think he may well have gotten this mainstay of the last budget through Parliament had he merely scaled back on the scale of his Tax Credit cuts. Instead he abandoned them altogether - which is either a sign of embarrassing weakness or perhaps the mark of a politician looking to make that short, but difficult, move from No 11 to No 10 Downing Street.

 

PS - let's not forget here the hugely significant role our much maligned House of Lords played in yesterdays u-turn. Many seek to rip up our Constitution and replace it with something else. But as anachronistic as having unelected politicians in a modern democracy undoutably is, this incident does seem to show that our ancient 'Second Chamber' does kinda work - in a charmingly illogical British fashion that is ...

[bridge too far]

However, not quite as rosy as first thought!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/george-osbornes-autumn-statement-leaves-families-1600-a-year-worse-off-says-ifs_n_8654656.html?1448543676

[Johnny Bognor]

However, not quite as rosy as first thought!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/george-osbornes-autumn-statement-leaves-families-1600-a-year-worse-off-says-ifs_n_8654656.html?1448543676

 

... So he is "lucky" with lower debt interest payments and higher tax receipts, but no doubt it would have been his fault if tax receipts were lower and interest on debt was higher.