Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

I've gone Green. Principles with practicality. Not just tree-hugging

I could possibly accept they have some principles but practicality , not in a Zillion years ...just reading their website and policies , some of them are frankly bonkers , possibly it would work for a David Koresh type community but real world ..nah no chance

[Jon]

But despite this catalogue of shame, the Tories really are worse, by several degrees. They must be removed, and we must again learn the lesson of Thatcherism - keep them out of office for a generation, at least.

Kept out of office by whom (and I mean the political alternative rather than electorate)? In any realistic scenario it is a toss up between Conservative or Labour because an alternative with mass electoral support simply doesn't exist. We must learn the lesson of every previous Labour government - i.e. that they inevitably end in national economic ruin - and ensure they are kept out of power for a generation, at least.

But we must look beyond the Labour Party to do that. They are still confused, directionless, supine.

Ah, good. Suggestions then?

You're joking, right? I can't be sure.

Nope, I'd imagine not. AWOL is about as 'right' as they come. Further right than our friend Mr Tone Loc, I would venture.

The 1945 Labour government was the most progressive ever, bequeathing us amongst other things the NHS, probably the single biggest achievement of any government ever, anywhere.

Wilson's lot, despite armed forces/security forces treachery (capital offence), managed fairly well until upended by the currency crisis the tories had left behind.

Callaghan was a waste of space, as many knew and said at the time. He ended by inviting in the IMF, wholly pointlessly, and doing their bidding. Fool. The global crisis was beyond his control, as well as beyond his imagination.

Similarly, the kowtowing of Blair and Brown to international capital in 2008 left us unable to defend our own interests.

But your conclusion that Labour governments end in ruin is just mad. There's no connection at all between your notion, and the simple facts of global recession. Yes, Blair and his familiars may have made it easier to be a lying, thieving international tycoon, but most Labour PMs don't do that, haven't done that.

Another excellent post Sir. :notworthy:

[

Where else to go? I've gone Green. Principles with practicality. Not just tree-hugging.

Yep, me too. It actually felt good to go Green.

At some point, Labour MUST wake up, smell the coffeee and realise what they are for, why they exist, and who they represent. And that should not be a watered down version of Thatcherism (spit).

It should be policies for the people, in the interests of the people, not policies for the wealthy few, and in the interests of the wealthy few.

100 years down the line, Hardie et al must be turning in their graves ...

[Awol]

AWOL is about as 'right' as they come.

[drat01]

At some point, Labour MUST wake up, smell the coffeee and realise what they are for, why they exist, and who they represent. And that should not be a watered down version of Thatcherism (spit).

and that is exactly why they are still the only party that should be considered. Even with a diluted )on paper) Tory led Gvmt we have again seen their extreme right wing tendencies leading their policies. (shame still on the Lib Dems for allowing this to happen when the country clearly did not want that). at least with Labour there is a distinct chance that the bulk - and no party ever delivers ALL - policies will be for the benefit of the majority and those that need it rather than the Tory led look after their own way of thinking. As Peter alludes to Tory party led Gvmt's have consistently been there to look after one part of society and that is their own minority typically of the rich. They do attract some pretty scary right wing led thinkers along the way too and we see the god awful policies that infect this Gvmt with things like attacks on NHS, attacks on those vulnerable in society etc

[peterms]

AWOL is about as 'right' as they come. Further right than our friend Mr Tone Loc, I would venture.

No, I wouldn't say so. I'd have said more "liberal" in the sense that the Lib Dems have been moving away from for 20 years, but sometimes with views on some things which wouldn't sit well with a classic liberal, such as the projection of military power. Sometimes a bit to the right on social questions. Not easy to categorise, though. Tricky bugger.

[Jon]

At some point, Labour MUST wake up, smell the coffeee and realise what they are for, why they exist, and who they represent. And that should not be a watered down version of Thatcherism (spit).

and that is exactly why they are still the only party that should be considered.

I think they have to prove themselves again Ian. They have to SHOW what they stand for. Give us some proper left wing policies and principles in action.

If and when they get back in, deliver on those promises. IMO they are a long way from the only party that should be considered. They need to stand up for what they (used to) believe in.

[

Even with a diluted )on paper) Tory led Gvmt we have again seen their extreme right wing tendencies leading their policies. (shame still on the Lib Dems for allowing this to happen when the country clearly did not want that). at least with Labour there is a distinct chance that the bulk - and no party ever delivers ALL - policies will be for the benefit of the majority and those that need it rather than the Tory led look after their own way of thinking. As Peter alludes to Tory party led Gvmt's have consistently been there to look after one part of society and that is their own minority typically of the rich. They do attract some pretty scary right wing led thinkers along the way too and we see the god awful policies that infect this Gvmt with things like attacks on NHS, attacks on those vulnerable in society etc

Good post.

[peterms]

On the housing stuff, yesterday/today's announcement is interesting - undermining the Section 106 power to make developers include social housing, and reinstating a small amount of the cuts already made in the social housing budget to "make up for it".

Developers have of course been building schemes which meet the Section 106 requirements for many years, and the reason they aren't building now is lack of demand. They already have lots of land with planning permission, and they put forward those schemes for planning permission only after running the usual cost calculations and being assured they were profitable. But because of the recession, demand has fallen away, same as the reason why large parts of the private sector have cash and spare capacity but won't invest in producing things they think won't sell. The line about planning permission is just a smokescreen, and the tories want to weaken planning powers because that's something they always want to do, regardless of prevailing economic conditions.

Of course developers would prefer not to have to bother with social housing, and no doubt they will bring forward some schemes with the figures adjusted to show that it's only profitable without social housing, contrary to what their actions have shown over the last 20 years. The effect will be to reduce social integration, and take another little step towards segregation by income, so that people are spared the indignity of having people living within their line of sight who aren't as well off as them. In that respect, it's a similar outlook to the housing benefit changes - ship the poor off to reservations elsewhere.

[Dale]

Developers have of course been building schemes which meet the Section 106 requirements for many years, and the reason they aren't building now is lack of demand. They already have lots of land with planning permission, and they put forward those schemes for planning permission only after running the usual cost calculations and being assured they were profitable. But because of the recession, demand has fallen away, same as the reason why large parts of the private sector have cash and spare capacity but won't invest in producing things they think won't sell. The line about planning permission is just a smokescreen, and the tories want to weaken planning powers because that's something they always want to do, regardless of prevailing economic conditions.

The cynic in me says that whilst this is partly correct - it isn't the whole story. Land banking and driving up costs is in the interests of the developer and has been happening for years. Its immoral when thousands of people need housing, there should be some form of tax on unused development land in these cases to get things moving. Show the bastards the stick.

[Dale]

and that is exactly why they are still the only party that should be considered.

I don't buy that, your vote shouldn't be reduced to that... I have other considerations - like liberty and what not. An ideal government for my political leanings would actually be Lib Lab - however I dear that it won't happen because of the damage LDs have done in constituencies which Tories will end up gaining to get a majority. The ideal result this time would've been a tiny Tory majority they'd have ripped each other apart and we'd have had a second 2010 election which would have seen them lose seats. Sadly they just weren't good enough to achieve that.

[Jon]

and that is exactly why they are still the only party that should be considered.

I don't buy that, your vote shouldn't be reduced to that... I have other considerations - like liberty and what not. An ideal government for my political leanings would actually be Lib Lab - however I dear that it won't happen because of the damage LDs have done in constituencies which Tories will end up gaining to get a majority. The ideal result this time would've been a tiny Tory majority they'd have ripped each other apart and we'd have had a second 2010 election which would have seen them lose seats. Sadly they just weren't good enough to achieve that.

Sadly, you got into bed with 'em, propped up a god awful 'Tory government, and copped all the flak for it.

and it'll hit you at the next GE.

Don't get into bed with the 'enemy'. The people won't thank you for it.

[peterms]

The cynic in me says that whilst this is partly correct - it isn't the whole story. Land banking and driving up costs is in the interests of the developer and has been happening for years. Its immoral when thousands of people need housing, there should be some form of tax on unused development land in these cases to get things moving. Show the bastards the stick.

Yes, and not just unused development land - there are very strong arguments for a land tax to replace some other forms of tax which are easier to dodge than a land tax would be.

[tonyh29]

Nope, I'd imagine not. AWOL is about as 'right' as they come. Further right than our friend Mr Tone Loc, I would venture.

apart from rounding up people that wear caps and keep whippets , keep coal in their bath ,students and the French and having them thrown to lions for sport , I'm more towards the centre ground than anything ... Alan Duncan was my choice for Tory leader ..before I found out he was a bit of a crook and also a bit bonkers

[tonyh29]

and that is exactly why they are still the only party that should be considered.

I don't buy that, your vote shouldn't be reduced to that... I have other considerations - like liberty and what not. An ideal government for my political leanings would actually be Lib Lab - however I dear that it won't happen because of the damage LDs have done in constituencies which Tories will end up gaining to get a majority. The ideal result this time would've been a tiny Tory majority they'd have ripped each other apart and we'd have had a second 2010 election which would have seen them lose seats. Sadly they just weren't good enough to achieve that.

Sadly, you got into bed with 'em, propped up a god awful 'Tory government, and copped all the flak for it.

and it'll hit you at the next GE.

Don't get into bed with the 'enemy'. The people won't thank you for it.

they couldn't have got into bed with Brown though , it just wouldn't have been credible .. even if the deluded one had stepped down I think the Lib/ Lab coalition would have lacked legitimacy / respectability .

Clegg will have to go before the next election I think that's a given but the only real debate is whether Ed and Cameron will also be replaced before the next election .... I still think that Cameron will get "lucky" in that the economy will start it's next inevitable cycle and be in the "boom" position come 2014 and that push comes to shove labour die-hards apart the general public just wont vote for Ed

[peterms]

I'm more towards the centre ground than anything ...

That would be the centre ground where Ken Clarke is a dangerous leftie?

:winkold:

[snowychap]

On the housing stuff, yesterday/today's announcement is interesting...

This bit especially so, I thought:

The Beeb"]

Putting poorly performing council planning departments into "special measures" and allowing developers to bypass them if they fail to improve.

[LondonLax]

Developers have of course been building schemes which meet the Section 106 requirements for many years, and the reason they aren't building now is lack of demand. They already have lots of land with planning permission, and they put forward those schemes for planning permission only after running the usual cost calculations and being assured they were profitable. But because of the recession, demand has fallen away, same as the reason why large parts of the private sector have cash and spare capacity but won't invest in producing things they think won't sell. The line about planning permission is just a smokescreen, and the tories want to weaken planning powers because that's something they always want to do, regardless of prevailing economic conditions.

The cynic in me says that whilst this is partly correct - it isn't the whole story. Land banking and driving up costs is in the interests of the developer and has been happening for years. Its immoral when thousands of people need housing, there should be some form of tax on unused development land in these cases to get things moving. Show the bastards the stick.

Except that there is no conspiracy of collusion between developers to all agree to not push on with development.

Surely then the first developer that broke ranks with their co-conspirators would mop up the demand and clean up!

The fact is however that people are not able to get loans guaranteed at the moment and the developer can't push for a build without knowing that the property will be actually be sold and they won’t make a loss.

[Jon]

and that is exactly why they are still the only party that should be considered.

I don't buy that, your vote shouldn't be reduced to that... I have other considerations - like liberty and what not. An ideal government for my political leanings would actually be Lib Lab - however I dear that it won't happen because of the damage LDs have done in constituencies which Tories will end up gaining to get a majority. The ideal result this time would've been a tiny Tory majority they'd have ripped each other apart and we'd have had a second 2010 election which would have seen them lose seats. Sadly they just weren't good enough to achieve that.

Sadly, you got into bed with 'em, propped up a god awful 'Tory government, and copped all the flak for it.

and it'll hit you at the next GE.

Don't get into bed with the 'enemy'. The people won't thank you for it.

they couldn't have got into bed with Brown though , it just wouldn't have been credible .. even if the deluded one had stepped down I think the Lib/ Lab coalition would have lacked legitimacy / respectability .

I agree to an extent, but only to an extent. I think the current 'coalition' also lacks legitimacy. In fact, you could go further and say that many/most GE results lack legitimacy when only say 35% of the electorate/population have voted for that party.

But I digress. Trying to form a lib/Lab pact wouldn't have worked as well due to the lack of numbers/MPs they would have had, even combined.

Personally, I think the Libs should have said there were too many fundamental differences between them and the Cons to form a coalition, and let them sail their own minority govt boat into oblivion. But they got on board, and have been treated like lowly deckhands, before being thrown overboard.

[tonyh29]

Personally, I think the Libs should have said there were too many fundamental differences between them and the Cons to form a coalition, and let them sail their own minority govt boat into oblivion. But they got on board, and have been treated like lowly deckhands, before being thrown overboard.

Possibly they were guilty of believing their own hype around Saint Vince and Cleggs TV performances and the I think the "perceived " lure of power was too much for them and they probably saw it as a springboard to winning in 2014

I'm sure with hindsight they wished they had stayed away ....

[peterms]

Land banking and driving up costs is in the interests of the developer and has been happening for years. Its immoral when thousands of people need housing, there should be some form of tax on unused development land in these cases to get things moving. Show the bastards the stick.

Except that there is no conspiracy of collusion between developers to all agree to not push on with development.

Surely then the first developer that broke ranks with their co-conspirators would mop up the demand and clean up!

The fact is however that people are not able to get loans guaranteed at the moment and the developer can't push for a build without knowing that the property will be actually be sold and they won’t make a loss.

The point as I understood it was not that developers collude with each other to drive up land costs, but that they buy up land and sit on it, which drives up costs. That's correct - it's been well demonstrated that developers' profits come mainly from the land price speculation element of their activities, more than from actually building houses.

But on the housebuilding side of things, there certainly is collusion to force up prices. The Office of Fair Trading found that bid-rigging and corruption is endemic in the industry. In fact, they advised local authorities that they shouldn't prevent those found guilty from tendering for future contracts, because corruption is so entrenched in the industry that firms other than the 112 found guilty were very likely to be at it as well. It's the kind of thing we sneer at when it happens in countries like Pakistan, but we have systemic, entrenched corruption here.

[blandy]

They had to get in to bed with the Tories. No choice at all, realistically. No other options.

"Vote Lib Dem"

"why? I like your policies but you never get in"

Their problem is that having got into bed with blood sucking vampires, they've got bitten and all but killed.

Then they did the tuition fee thing, which while there's an argument for it as a measure, there was no argument for it given they'd just promised not to do it, on pledge cards and the like. - ergo instant utter cynical lying bastard status, which will probably last for decades.