Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:08 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Sure, but if it starts to seem like Labour is incapable of either recruiting, retaining or appointing women who are meet those qualifications then that is going to be a problem. In any individual leadership contest, it might just so happen that the best candidate is a man - but it's happened in every leadership contest Labour have ever had, which cannot be said of the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour and even UKIP. That's a series of coincidences which can't be expected to last much longer without people beginning to wonder what it is about Labour that means it can't produce a woman who commands sufficient respect among the backbenches and the electorate.
To be fair, Labour usually struggles to produce anyone who commands sufficient respect among the backbenches and the electorate to become leader. It's like an entire party of backbenchers.
  #102  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:15 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Sure, but if it starts to seem like Labour is incapable of either recruiting, retaining or appointing women who are meet those qualifications then that is going to be a problem. In any individual leadership contest, it might just so happen that the best candidate is a man - but it's happened in every leadership contest Labour have ever had, which cannot be said of the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour and even UKIP. That's a series of coincidences which can't be expected to last much longer without people beginning to wonder what it is about Labour that means it can't produce a woman who commands sufficient respect among the backbenches and the electorate.
It is a tricky one. I hate quotas as a general principle and couldn't care less about the gender of my political representatives and yet, now that you have listed out all those major parties with women leaders we can see that labour is conspicuous by it's absence. Do they now run the risk that, if they do choose a woman, qualified or not, it looks like some form of conscious bias has been applied. Not good for labour and not good for the woman involved. It looks doubly suspect if the woman chosen is one of the current front bench crop who I think are deeply unimpressive but seem to have the good fortune to be a) female, and b) very loyal to the hands currently pulling the strings.

Labour have a huge amount amount of talented politicians, men and women alike, but alienation from the Corbyn sect means I don't think their talents will be recognised in the current environment,
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #103  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:43 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Do they now run the risk that, if they do choose a woman, qualified or not, it looks like some form of conscious bias has been applied. Not good for labour and not good for the woman involved.
This is the bind they are now in, and it not ever going to go away. Shying away now from picking a qualified woman because it might look like her gender was a factor in her selection just means that you have the same problem only worse next time round.

But to be honest I don't think this is a big risk. Having a woman as leader is not really a big deal in politics now, and while it would be notable that this was Labour's first female leader, it wouldn't be epochal. If the candidate makes it through the typical leadership campaign, they'll be pretty obviously qualified.


Quote:
Labour have a huge amount amount of talented politicians, men and women alike, but alienation from the Corbyn sect means I don't think their talents will be recognised in the current environment,
Counterpoint - if they're so talented, how come they've allowed themselves to be so alienated by the Corbyn wing? Why can't they make the case for their brand of leftwing politics sound remotely appealing to a left wing party?
  #104  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:45 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
To be fair, Labour usually struggles to produce anyone who commands sufficient respect among the backbenches and the electorate to become leader. It's like an entire party of backbenchers.
That's a very disrespectful way to speak of the party of Chris Mullin, Owen Smith, Andy Burnham... ah.
  #105  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:16 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
This is the bind they are now in, and it not ever going to go away. Shying away now from picking a qualified woman because it might look like her gender was a factor in her selection just means that you have the same problem only worse next time round.

But to be honest I don't think this is a big risk. Having a woman as leader is not really a big deal in politics now, and while it would be notable that this was Labour's first female leader, it wouldn't be epochal. If the candidate makes it through the typical leadership campaign, they'll be pretty obviously qualified.


Counterpoint - if they're so talented, how come they've allowed themselves to be so alienated by the Corbyn wing? Why can't they make the case for their brand of leftwing politics sound remotely appealing to a left wing party?
Because Corbyn has a cult thatís even more fanatical than Bernie Sandersí cult. Several other people would make good leaders but the screwy way Labour picks their leader makes it impossible until Labour gets slaughtered on Thursday.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #106  
Old 12-09-2019, 04:38 PM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Because Corbyn has a cult that’s even more fanatical than Bernie Sanders’ cult. Several other people would make good leaders but the screwy way Labour picks their leader makes it impossible until Labour gets slaughtered on Thursday.
I think Corbyn is basically Corbyn-McCorbynface with no-one able to say "yeah, very funny, we'll choose something more serious"
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way

Last edited by Novelty Bobble; 12-09-2019 at 04:39 PM.
  #107  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:30 AM
gracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK & NL
Posts: 2,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Compared to other UK election threads, this one is incredibly slow moving.

I'm pretty sure that's a comment on this election - it's been pretty dull with no major incidents positive or negative for any party, just a grinding out of planned campaign strategies. There's a lot at stake in this election, but none of that has really come to the fore, somehow.
Oh for me it's just despair.

I can't even really tell if it's dull anymore, like the frame of reference is now Boris Johnson and I don't know if that's what "dull" means? Despair seems right, though.

I lurk here, because at least that way I have you guys holding my hand through this. But I don't really have anything to say.

I can't even. This is my country? I'm at a loss.

The US seems to be working on correcting the embarrassing mess they landed themselves in, while we're just digging in deeper by the day. You can get rid of Cheetoh in Chief, if you want to. And then you can pick up the pieces. There are some promising people who could lead the US, people who have plans and who could regain some lost international standing.

But where would we even start? Look around. Good grief. Brexit doesn't have a term limit. And there's no-one to fix this mess we're in.

But I do hope some of you can continue to say something every now and then, it helps with the despair. Or if it doesn't, it makes it less dull.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
  #108  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:02 PM
Staggerlee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by gracer View Post
Oh for me it's just despair.

I can't even really tell if it's dull anymore, like the frame of reference is now Boris Johnson and I don't know if that's what "dull" means? Despair seems right, though.

I lurk here, because at least that way I have you guys holding my hand through this. But I don't really have anything to say.

I can't even. This is my country? I'm at a loss.

The US seems to be working on correcting the embarrassing mess they landed themselves in, while we're just digging in deeper by the day. You can get rid of Cheetoh in Chief, if you want to. And then you can pick up the pieces. There are some promising people who could lead the US, people who have plans and who could regain some lost international standing.

But where would we even start? Look around. Good grief. Brexit doesn't have a term limit. And there's no-one to fix this mess we're in.

But I do hope some of you can continue to say something every now and then, it helps with the despair. Or if it doesn't, it makes it less dull.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
It's of no comfort of course, but I feel similarly despondent. My Facebook feed's full of buoyant Labour supporters touting catty anti-Tory memes - and the crude fakery coming from Dominic Cummings' team is just right there, and should be scandalous. But seeing Boris on that face-off with Corbyn last week really brought it home to me; the simplistic three-word mantra ('Get Brexit Done'), the smirking and literal eye-rolling to the audience as Corbyn tried to come across as a relatively sane adult. We have our own Trump now, and he's going to fuck our country further because half the populace can't resist a cheeky character, even when he's clearly the front for the usual cabal of super-rich establishment self-servers.
  #109  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:44 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,129
The latest YouGov MRP model has come out. Forecasting a Tory majority (339 seats) but with hung parliament within the margin of error. However, the point of MoE is that it's +/- kind of deal. It's just as likely based on this that the Tories get 15 more seats than predicted rather than 15 fewer. If the prediction is accurate based on polling at the time, then only way the Tories don't get a majority is if there's a significant shift towards anti-Tory voting. A lot of the predicted Tory gains are really close (e.g. 1% winning margin) so it might not take much - but it will take something.
  #110  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:02 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
The latest YouGov MRP model has come out. Forecasting a Tory majority (339 seats) but with hung parliament within the margin of error. However, the point of MoE is that it's +/- kind of deal. It's just as likely based on this that the Tories get 15 more seats than predicted rather than 15 fewer. If the prediction is accurate based on polling at the time, then only way the Tories don't get a majority is if there's a significant shift towards anti-Tory voting. A lot of the predicted Tory gains are really close (e.g. 1% winning margin) so it might not take much - but it will take something.
It has seemed like Johnson has been slipping over the past few days. He's dodged a few interviews, and also tried to dodge a question about a sick boy sleeping on a hospital floor. In that incident, Johnson stuck a journalist's smart phone in his pocket, rather than look at a picture of the sleeping boy. Stealing a phone is not really a good campaign technique.

I'm surprised Johnson hasn't been more nationalistic. He's brought up the SNP during a couple of the debates, but unless I've missed it, he hasn't been hammering at them. I expected him to have a slogan like "A vote for Labour is a vote for a divided Britain." and be repeating it every time he gets on camera.
  #111  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:30 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
It has seemed like Johnson has been slipping over the past few days. He's dodged a few interviews, and also tried to dodge a question about a sick boy sleeping on a hospital floor. In that incident, Johnson stuck a journalist's smart phone in his pocket, rather than look at a picture of the sleeping boy. Stealing a phone is not really a good campaign technique.

I'm surprised Johnson hasn't been more nationalistic. He's brought up the SNP during a couple of the debates, but unless I've missed it, he hasn't been hammering at them. I expected him to have a slogan like "A vote for Labour is a vote for a divided Britain." and be repeating it every time he gets on camera.
And this morning he hid in a fridge. Avoiding scrutiny (e.g Neil) has worked up to a point, but there are ways and ways of doing it.
  #112  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:38 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
And this morning he hid in a fridge.
This is where we are as a country now.
  #113  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:32 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,750
The furore about the boy on the hospital floor continues to expand:

https://dorseteye.com/strap-yourselv...ry-is-brewing/
  #114  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:34 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,750
[duplicate post deleted]

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 12-11-2019 at 08:35 AM.
  #115  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:07 PM
Really Not All That Bright is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,512
What the everloving fuck.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #116  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:10 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
What the everloving fuck.
Just in general, or anything specific?
  #117  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:49 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,560
It's a bit odd that this thread had so view responses, but then I don't go into this forum much either so I'm part of it, but I don't post much in general.

The Tories are likely to win and life for me will be much, much harder. And they'll win partly due to outright lies and stuff that would have been banned a few years ago.

Let's watch the world burn.
  #118  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:56 PM
Really Not All That Bright is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,512
Most people don't go into elections. They figure if something important comes up somebody will mention it in the Pit or GD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Just in general, or anything specific?
Hospital floor thing.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #119  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:57 PM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
The Tories are likely to win and life for me will be much, much harder.
As I said in the other thread, I'm not a current Tory voter. But as an extremely privileged, white, cis-male, straight, married, professional, (not wealthy by any means but comfortably off) I'm very insulated from a lot of the issues other people experience, and as such can find it hard to relate. Are you able to elaborate on this at all? I totally understand if you'd rather not, for whatever reason.
  #120  
Old 12-12-2019, 09:51 AM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
As I said in the other thread, I'm not a current Tory voter. But as an extremely privileged, white, cis-male, straight, married, professional, (not wealthy by any means but comfortably off) I'm very insulated from a lot of the issues other people experience, and as such can find it hard to relate. Are you able to elaborate on this at all? I totally understand if you'd rather not, for whatever reason.
I'm physically disabled and mostly depend on benefits and depend hugely on the NHS, under which I've witnessed privatisation first-hand (my heart tests were conducted by a private company and a lot of ambulances are now run by private companies). My daughter has autism and, while I'm hopeful that she will be able to work (she's at uni now), she'll need a safety net.

Universal credit makes life very hard for a lot of my friends, because it doesn't come close to covering rent; for example, one friend who works full-time at a decent job still doesn't earn enough to pay private rent (partly due to childcare costs), and universal credit leaves her with a c.£100 shortfall. Another friend who has disabilities has a huge £180 shortfall, leaving her with hardly anything to live on. Universal credit desperately needs reforming, and private renters need more rights. I'm not personally affected by private renting but so many people I know are, and it makes a big difference to their happiness, which affects mine.
  #121  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:04 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
And this morning he hid in a fridge. Avoiding scrutiny (e.g Neil) has worked up to a point, but there are ways and ways of doing it.
To be fair, he hid to avoid Piers Morgan. Any rational human being would throw himself off a cliff to avoid speaking with Piers Morgan.
  #122  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:31 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Any rational human being would throw himself off a cliff to avoid speaking with Piers Morgan.
But that would make anyone who wants to be PM (or even MP) not a rational human being.

Oh, wait a minute....

Unless they actually had the guts to say they were only going to do interviews with serious and credible journalists, or to be as terse and dimisssive as Attlee could be.

(BTW, I am really sorry to read of SciFiSam's troubles - one of the many disgraces of this absolute shower of a government).
  #123  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:36 AM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
Universal credit makes life very hard for a lot of my friends, because it doesn't come close to covering rent; for example, one friend who works full-time at a decent job still doesn't earn enough to pay private rent (partly due to childcare costs), and universal credit leaves her with a c.£100 shortfall. Another friend who has disabilities has a huge £180 shortfall, leaving her with hardly anything to live on. Universal credit desperately needs reforming, and private renters need more rights. I'm not personally affected by private renting but so many people I know are, and it makes a big difference to their happiness, which affects mine.
Thank you for furthering my understanding. I suppose the follow-up questions are: why is this the case, and how do we solve it? Neither is easy to answer, in my view. From a standpoint of basic economics, how can the prevailing market rent be more than people are able to pay? I presume the answer to that one is that enough people are able to do so, such that those who can't are either excluded from living in that area/property or go deeper and deeper into debt. But the answer isn't to reform/increase universal credit so that people can spend more on rent - that would just continue to push up prices and enrich private landlords at the expense of taxpayers. Clearly what is needed is more social housing. But is Labour the answer to that? According to this site, which appears to be legitimate and independent (but please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm going to feel an absolute fool if it turns out to be one of those fake Tory ones), more social housing has been completed per year since 2010 than under Labour from 1997-2010: https://fullfact.org/economy/council-houses-labour/. Now, of course one can point to the fact that the prospective Labour government will be a good deal to the left of the last one, but I'm not convinced it's fair to lump all the blame with the Tories, here. They're certainly a convenient scapegoat and have done some bad things (and as I've already said, they don't have my vote at the moment) but I'll also point out that they have legislated to reduce the amount of mortgage tax relief available to private landlords, which should help the problem in the long term.

My conclusion is that everyone agrees more social housing is needed, and yes perhaps Labour might do better at it than the Tories have managed recently, but it's not a slam dunk in my opinion.

Your point about childcare costs is also interesting. I'm seeing a lot on Facebook and elsewhere about 4.6 million children living in poverty. Of course no-one wants that to be the case. But the fact is, for the vast majority of these poor children, they are in such a situation due to their parents making poor choices. Not all, of course - unexpected hardship can happen to anyone. But there are huge numbers of people up and down the country intentionally bringing babies into the world with the expectation that someone else will support them. I don't thank that's great news for a fairly densely-populated island on an already over-populated planet. Rearing children is a responsibility, not a basic human right.

In a nutshell, despite all the above I do have huge sympathy for those less fortunate than me, but I'm not convinced this Labour manifesto will solve anything - in fact, it could make things worse.
  #124  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:47 AM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,560
The rent shortfall is due to Local Housing Allowance. The problem with LHA is that the prevailing market rent is more than people can pay, it's that Local Housing Allowance is not the prevailing market rent, or anywhere close to it: it's based on the 30th percentile of local rented accommodation. That means that most rents in the area will be higher than the local housing allowance, often by significant amounts. The 30th percentile is really low, and doesn't take into account any factors like size of home, furnished or unfurnished, or state of repair, though it does exclude service charges for things like communal lighting - they're payable by the tenant. (Charged for utilities are also excluded but I have no argument with that in principle).

I understand about not wanting to increase rents for private landlords, and that's why LHA was introduced. But one simple reform would be to make it, say, the 80th percentile, not the 30th. Tenants who are on benefits have a much harder time getting private rentals (most agencies refuse to consider them and mortgage restrictions often disallow landlords letting to tenants on benefits), even if they're working, so they have less choice of homes to rent, not more.

It's a very, very unrealistic way of "helping" people pay private rents if they're ill or simply low-paid. I think you'd agree that the 30th percentile is nowhere near market rent.

There are other problems - if you're under 35 and childless you can only get the shared room rate, even if, say, you had a one bedroom flat - or even a studio flat - and lost your job, and still have nine months to run on your contract and pay a penalty for leaving. The shared room rate is so low that it drives people into homelessness.

A lot of the social housing that's been completed is not what you'd think of as a council house or flat. More council housing has not been built - your link is talking about social housing. Councils rarely build new homes, which isn't a big deal in a way - like your link says, it's usually housing associations building the new homes.

But the term "social housing" has been broadened so far that it's not really meaningful. Social housing now includes shared ownership flats, where the tenant takes out a mortgage on a proportion of the home (usually 25%) and pays rent on the rest. So this is only for people who can get mortgages. It often works out more expensive than a full mortgage, but if you don't have a large deposit, then this might be your only way out of private rent.

Social housing also includes homes that are defined as "affordable rent." Almost all newly built homes are let on an affordable rent basis. That's supposedly 80% of market rent. The problem with that is that, in my area at least, the "affordable rent" has been calculated in such a strange way that it's often higher than many other local rents. They look at number of bedrooms only, ignoring factors like square footage, a concierge or secure entrance, a balcony or garden or communal space, a kitchen and flooring (social housing properties have power points for ovens and washing machines but do not provide them, and do not provide flooring making sure you don't walk on rafters), and various other factors that some private lets have and social housing doesn't usually have. Starter tenancies are also six months to begin with, the same as private lets. People take them because after that six months there is more security of tenure, though it's usually three or five years, not the old council home lifetime tenancy, and you don't usually have to pay a large deposit - though you do have to pay the first two weeks up front, which in my area of London for a two-bedroom flat on "affordable rent" is over £700 (and I'm in the east end). That's still better than a private let which usually asks for at least a month, plus two months as a deposit, plus fees.

So social housing has increased, but mainly by not really being social housing at all, just slightly less awful private housing plus some shared ownership.

I don't blame you for knowing any of this, but when people say the situation is bad, it's because it really is.

Last edited by SciFiSam; 12-12-2019 at 11:49 AM.
  #125  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:25 PM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,450
Thank you for the detailed additional information, it is useful and appreciated. It clearly demonstrates where there are problems. But I think we are going to seriously disagree on what can be done to solve them. It seems to me the nub of it is this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
I understand about not wanting to increase rents for private landlords, and that's why LHA was introduced. But one simple reform would be to make it, say, the 80th percentile, not the 30th.
I may be seriously misunderstanding this, but as I read it, you are basically saying that those on low incomes should be given a housing allowance that covers the rent of 80% of the market. To put it another way, if you were to rate the available rented accommodation on a '5 star' system, currently LHA only covers accommodation up to the '1.5 stars' level (i.e. 30%), you are proposing it covers up to the '4 star' (80%) level. If this interpretation is correct, I have two major problems with it. One, why should those on low incomes (which may be through any or no fault of their own) be entitled to '4 star' accommodation? Two (much more importantly in my view) this would still push rents up, wouldn't it? If a large section of the market is suddenly able to afford higher rents, and there is demand for this, then rents are likely to go up across the board, potentially putting us back to square one (and as I said earlier, simply diverting money from taxpayers' pockets to private landlords').

I do have to wonder whether people's expectations of location and quality are simply too high. When I first rented a flat 10 years ago, my girlfriend and I were able to afford a compact 1.5 bedroom place with a tiny kitchen opening on to the living area, about 20 minutes' walk from the city centre (this was in Bristol, which I believe has some of the highest average rents outside London). Since we both worked full-time we were able to afford this fairly comfortably, as I recall. But we have/had a relatively modest lifestyle - only one car, one phone contract, no fancy clothes, for example. Had our joint income been lower, no doubt we would have needed to look at smaller places, in less desirable areas and/or further out of town, possibly relying on public transport to get to work. I'm sure both the market and the system have changed quite dramatically in the last decade so the specifics of this example may not be relevant any more, but the general point is - do people have realistic expectations?
  #126  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:43 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,052
When do the polls close, BTW?
  #127  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:50 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by alessan View Post
when do the polls close, btw?
22:00 gmt
  #128  
Old 12-12-2019, 01:03 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Thank you for the detailed additional information, it is useful and appreciated. It clearly demonstrates where there are problems. But I think we are going to seriously disagree on what can be done to solve them. It seems to me the nub of it is this:



I may be seriously misunderstanding this, but as I read it, you are basically saying that those on low incomes should be given a housing allowance that covers the rent of 80% of the market. To put it another way, if you were to rate the available rented accommodation on a '5 star' system, currently LHA only covers accommodation up to the '1.5 stars' level (i.e. 30%), you are proposing it covers up to the '4 star' (80%) level. If this interpretation is correct, I have two major problems with it. One, why should those on low incomes (which may be through any or no fault of their own) be entitled to '4 star' accommodation? Two (much more importantly in my view) this would still push rents up, wouldn't it? If a large section of the market is suddenly able to afford higher rents, and there is demand for this, then rents are likely to go up across the board, potentially putting us back to square one (and as I said earlier, simply diverting money from taxpayers' pockets to private landlords').

I do have to wonder whether people's expectations of location and quality are simply too high. When I first rented a flat 10 years ago, my girlfriend and I were able to afford a compact 1.5 bedroom place with a tiny kitchen opening on to the living area, about 20 minutes' walk from the city centre (this was in Bristol, which I believe has some of the highest average rents outside London). Since we both worked full-time we were able to afford this fairly comfortably, as I recall. But we have/had a relatively modest lifestyle - only one car, one phone contract, no fancy clothes, for example. Had our joint income been lower, no doubt we would have needed to look at smaller places, in less desirable areas and/or further out of town, possibly relying on public transport to get to work. I'm sure both the market and the system have changed quite dramatically in the last decade so the specifics of this example may not be relevant any more, but the general point is - do people have realistic expectations?
The drastic reduction in available benefits due to the introduction of LHA didn't result in a decrease in private rents, so no, it doesn't work like that. And we're talking about costs, not quality. Some more expensive homes are better, and some are also simply more expensive, and taking percentiles is what skews the figures the most; it's not the same as the lowest 30% - luxury apartments don't make much of a difference to the cost for LHA - they're outliers. For your star comparison, it means all tenants can only get the rent for 1* accommodation, even though there isn't enough 1* accommodation to support the demand. They end up living in 2* accommodation and paying the shortfall, and it can be a very, very large shortfall. My friend with the £180 shortfall has an income of £73.10pw after LHA, so she's left with £25pw, and pays a share of utilities out of that.

Expectations of location aren't relevant because LHA rates depend on your location. So very cheap areas pay less LHA. So you can choose to live in a cheaper area and still have a massive shortfall. You can move out to a distant suburb or something to try to find 1* accommodation there, but the mechanisms mean that all that 1* accommodation is oversubscribed there too. You're the lowest 30% wherever you go.

The pool of private rental homes available to people on benefits is already the least desirable homes. It doesn't even matter what people's expectations are, they're still only going to get the crappest places anyway.

Very few low-income people in cities even own a car - and one phone contract for two people is not really practical if you both need them for work or benefits (and you need daily internet access if you're a jobseeker).

I think you must have made your mind up in a very strong way if you argued that housing benefit shouldn't necessarily cover more than market rent, then, when told it covers the lowest 30% of market rent, continue to argue the same point.
  #129  
Old 12-12-2019, 01:38 PM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,450
I believe I have a reasonably open mind about it, I just need to work harder to understand the issues. So thanks once again for persevering. I think it's this "shortfall" concept I'm not really getting. Let me see if I can do better.

For the sake this hypothetical, I'm going to imagine that I qualify for the full amount of the LHA. Once I know how much this is, I look around local letting agencies/newsagents' windows or whatever, and quickly determine that there is no suitable accommodation available for this amount. So my choices are either to be homeless, or find accommodation at a higher cost, hoping to make up the shortfall with other income. But given the fact I qualify for full LHA, my other income is likely to be extremely limited, leaving me with very little to live on. Is this a correct assessment of the situation that many find themselves in?

Now let's assume the LHA is drastically increased. Suddenly I find I have some options for places to live which my LHA will cover. But everyone else in a similar situation will find the same thing. How will prices not go up in this scenario, to reflect the increased demand for that type of accommodation? I don't doubt what you say about rents not dropping when LHA came in, but I suspect this was more to do with renters on benefits being replaced by renters who were slightly better off and could afford to pay.

The bottom line is that I maintain the solution here is to provide more genuinely affordable accommodation, not fiddling with the benefit system.
  #130  
Old 12-12-2019, 02:11 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
I believe I have a reasonably open mind about it, I just need to work harder to understand the issues. So thanks once again for persevering. I think it's this "shortfall" concept I'm not really getting. Let me see if I can do better.

For the sake this hypothetical, I'm going to imagine that I qualify for the full amount of the LHA. Once I know how much this is, I look around local letting agencies/newsagents' windows or whatever, and quickly determine that there is no suitable accommodation available for this amount. So my choices are either to be homeless, or find accommodation at a higher cost, hoping to make up the shortfall with other income. But given the fact I qualify for full LHA, my other income is likely to be extremely limited, leaving me with very little to live on. Is this a correct assessment of the situation that many find themselves in?

Now let's assume the LHA is drastically increased. Suddenly I find I have some options for places to live which my LHA will cover. But everyone else in a similar situation will find the same thing. How will prices not go up in this scenario, to reflect the increased demand for that type of accommodation? I don't doubt what you say about rents not dropping when LHA came in, but I suspect this was more to do with renters on benefits being replaced by renters who were slightly better off and could afford to pay.

The bottom line is that I maintain the solution here is to provide more genuinely affordable accommodation, not fiddling with the benefit system.
Well, knowing many people who are actually in this situation, they take the accommodation that leaves them with practically nothing to live on because it's better than being homeless. They simply live on less money because being homeless in, say, London, especially with a child, is unpleasant. £20pw and a roof over your head is better than £70pw and no roof. And you have a job or family here and moving elsewhere would mean the same problems with no job or family.

Increasing the amount of LHA would not have a big effect because the number of landlords that accept LHA is so small. I can't find any way to get a cite for that, I'm afraid, apart from spending ages searching letting agencies and websites that let out rooms in shared houses, and showing that most of them say "no DSS" or "no benefits," or the agency they're let by also saying the same. But anyway, because LHA is a percentile of local rents, and landlords that accept LHA are a very small subset of local private landlords, overall rent won't increase, because 90% or more of the landlords don't accept LHA to begin with.

The percentage of rent paid as LHA would increase (and I think most landlords would be well in favour of this, btw - evictions cost money), but for the actual rent to increase, all the rents would have to increase. All the rents in the vast majority of the private sector that doesn't allow LHA would have to increase.

Totally agreed about providing more genuinely affordable accommodation, but that takes at least a couple of years to get started, and people need to live in the meantime, and there will always be private renters. LHA has only existed for 8 years, so it's not like it's something the entire economy has been built around.
  #131  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:04 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,255
Tory landslide. Goodbye, Corbyn. 86 seat Tory win prediction from the exit poll.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #132  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:07 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,997
Exit poll results:
Quote:
Conservatives: 368
Labour: 191
SNP: 55
Liberal Democrats: 13
Plaid Cymru: 3
Greens: 1
Brexit party: 0
Others: 22
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ults-exit-poll

A big win for the Conservatives.

I am surprised the Liberal Democrats did so poorly--only winning 13 seats.

Last edited by PastTense; 12-12-2019 at 05:08 PM.
  #133  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:10 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,216
I know very little about this but is Corbyn considered too far to the left?
  #134  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:11 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 15,204
the man rides a maoist bicycle fergawdsakes
  #135  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:12 PM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,197
Boris Johnon takes a lot of flak on this board but here in the UK we know just what an astute politician he is. Love him or hate him you should never underestimate him.
  #136  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:17 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,216
seems odd to not vote directly for the leader of the government but we here in the US are pretty rare in doing that. And yes I know technically we vote for electors for the electoral college.
  #137  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:22 PM
Fiendish Astronaut's Avatar
Fiendish Astronaut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London - England
Posts: 1,204
This exit poll is showing Labour's worst result for 95 years.

And Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson might lose her seat. And I daresay a few other big names.

This could be an absolutely brutal night.
  #138  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:22 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,052
Huh.
  #139  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:26 PM
Fiendish Astronaut's Avatar
Fiendish Astronaut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London - England
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
seems odd to not vote directly for the leader of the government but we here in the US are pretty rare in doing that. And yes I know technically we vote for electors for the electoral college.
The Prime Minister is supposed to be "first amongst equals". But since Thatcher the Prime Ministers have dominated their cabinets.

EDIT: words.

Last edited by Fiendish Astronaut; 12-12-2019 at 05:27 PM.
  #140  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:27 PM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,432
If the poll turns out to be anywhere near then it is pretty much in line with what previous labour voters have said to me. Corbyn was toxic.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #141  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:29 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I know very little about this but is Corbyn considered too far to the left?
Yes. But remember he was also the Labour leader in 2017 where Labour won 262 seats. So Labour lost 71 seats while the Conservatives gained 49 seats and the Scottish Nationalist Party gained 20 seats [based on the exit polls--the final results will be a little different]. Labour's Brexit policy was probably a major factor--a lot of traditional Labour voters want to leave the European Union.
  #142  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:31 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 225
Thank you so much, Corbynites. Every single one of you should hang your heads in shame for what you've done to this country.

The people of the UK loathe Johnson and the Tories, but when the only alternative is a pompous, moralising circle-jerk with overtones of jew-bashing and neo-stalinism...

And don't you dare try and blame Corbyn's critics or the unfairness of the media. Working through and around that shit is the whole god-damned game. Your man had the podium, and it was your lot's job to bring people on side. Instead, all you've done is tell people to fuck off and vote Tory.

Five more years... I feel like I might actually puke.
  #143  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:33 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I know very little about this but is Corbyn considered too far to the left?
Think of Bernie Sanders on steroids. Heís got a devoted cult bordering on fanaticism. I texted a friend in the UK who poured his heart into this election. He still thinks thereís a chance.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #144  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:40 PM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
seems odd to not vote directly for the leader of the government but we here in the US are pretty rare in doing that. And yes I know technically we vote for electors for the electoral college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs McGinty View Post
The people of the UK loathe Johnson and the Tories, but when the only alternative is a pompous, moralising circle-jerk with overtones of jew-bashing and neo-stalinism...
One bittersweet advantage of choosing a leader separately: even if there were a candidate for President that were literally as bad as this quote, I could still in clear conscience vote for them against Trump because they would not be able to enact their agenda without control of the Senate, whereas if you have a loathsome party leader win in a landslide, they by definition have a working majority in a Strong PM system.
  #145  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:40 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 225
Labour can sit a fair way to the left of where they were under Blair and still be very much electable.

What they can't do is treat everyone who's less than 100% in lock step as if they're scum of the earth, or insist that the most unpopular major leader in British political history is literally the only person in the country suitable to be Prime Minister.
  #146  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:53 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 225
I've been very restrained about how I've talked about Corbyn and his followers over the past few years, purely because I am so desperate to be rid of the Tories, and only Labour can do that.

The gloves are off now, though. They have behaved appallingly. It's an absolute disgrace to see the party reduced to this nasty, petty, vindictive personality cult. All the good people I know who initially supported Corbyn have long since turned against him, voting Labour in spite of his pathetic excuse for leadership simply because our electoral system offers no other choice. Hell, if Labour had made even the slightest effort to campaign in my own constituency, I would have given them my vote without a second thought. And if people like me, feeling like I do, were still prepared to vote for them, that shows just how bad the rest of the country must see them to receive such a kicking off a weasel like Johnson.
  #147  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:58 PM
casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,422
Part of the problem is that Labour promotors and supporters -especially at the lower levels - have been shrill, and strident informing anyone who cares to listen that non-Corbynites are rich, immoral, have no conscience, are old and are stupid.

What they have done is appeal to people just like themselves and very much insulted those who are not.

You don't win democratic power that way, and none of us were ever fooled into believing that a 'peoples vote' on Brexit was anything other than a vehicle to find some way not to carry out the majority vote on the issue - plus the added prospect of many months more of Euro negotiations, largely in bad faith on our part by a Remain party dressed up as going through the motions of Leave, at the end of which would be a vote for another vote for more years of uncertainty.

The magic money tree that Corbyn produced was never going to be convincing - the last Labour admin did us no favours on their spendthrift policies so an unrealistic set of promises was seen through rather easily.

I will be interested to see just how much support Labour has lost in its heartlands - the ones they have taken for granted, I predict that the Conservative vote in its safe areas has likely held up well and its the Labour heartlands that have swung it.
  #148  
Old 12-12-2019, 06:03 PM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by casdave View Post
I will be interested to see just how much support Labour has lost in its heartlands - the ones they have taken for granted, I predict that the Conservative vote in its safe areas has likely held up well and its the Labour heartlands that have swung it.
I think Labour has become more and more (especially so under Corbyn's rule) London Labour
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #149  
Old 12-12-2019, 06:12 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,560
I really, really, REALLY hate the world right now.

And anyone on here who actually thinks this result is a good thing, I do literally hate you, because you are supporting policies that kill people. That's not an overstatement. It's very easy to sit back and talk about niceties but Tory policies will kill people. Fuck it all.
  #150  
Old 12-12-2019, 06:12 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by casdave View Post
Part of the problem is that Labour promotors and supporters -especially at the lower levels - have been shrill, and strident informing anyone who cares to listen that non-Corbynites are rich, immoral, have no conscience, are old and are stupid.
I know fuck all about UK politics, but it does seem like Corbyn is Sanders on steroids, and that the right wing in Britain has achieved the same kind of ironic success, succeeding with blue collar workers as a result of dissatisfaction on trade and immigration.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017