General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

stop it first, then see about how to even things out.

but even that's near impossible - because the population is growing, more housing is ne3eded, and people don't want to allow new housing.

It's all very well dreaming, but dreaming doesn't change the minds of those people. Preaching at them that they should think like you is not going to change their minds.

I know loads of people who recognise that higher house prices is not really much benefit to anyone, including themselves.

It's one thing recognising it, it's another thing entirely for them to willing give up the financial advantage they've already acquired.

Ultimately, the only fix is for house costs to fall as a proportion against wages - which means, no matter which way you approach doing it (making house prices fall or wages to rise), that you'll be taking from people the 'profit' they've already gained ... it might only be an 'on paper' gain, but to them it is a real part of their wealth that they're already counting.

Meanwhile, they'd be newer buyers who are likely to lose out in more than just 'on paper' - they'll lose out in real terms.

Apart from people who buy 'homes' as investments.

The buy to let thing for a lot of people is their retirement policy. So, a decent pension would also lessen the desire to buy homes (that they won't live in) as investments.

I think you need to read a dummy's guide to investments and pensions. People are investing in housing because it's the only place to get a decent return on any investment (a pension is just a vehicle to invest in other things, don#'t forget).

The real issue with pensions is that we're not contributing enough towards them. That ends up being "the govt wants to take another 10% of your wages". Yet again, that's a bloody hard sell.

[eFestivals]

I would quite happily live with my home decreasing in value. It wouldn't make any difference to me, but it might mean it's more affordable for people to rent if homes weren't worth the silly money that they are

the world is more than just you.

Get back to me when you think the majority are going to support this.

I haven't refused anything of the sort. As far as I'm concerned, Labour's approach isn't close to a gradualist one.

And that's because Labour's approach is nothing at all. They don't have power to approach anything with.

If your take on things is right, can work, will work, the Greens would have blown Labour away with votes at the GE.

If you can't join up the dots, I pity you.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

the world is more than just you.

Get back to me when you think the majority are going to support this.

And that's because Labour's approach is nothing at all. They don't have power to approach anything with.

If your take on things is right, can work, will work, the Greens would have blown Labour away with votes at the GE.

If you can't join up the dots, I pity you.

All the while there is further pushing to the right from the new majority government, without much coming from the left to stop it or persuade public opinion in the other direction. Far easier to get to these people from a more central platform that running further to the left - you're too far away, I can't hear you!

[gary1979666]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

An interesting poll with lots of pretty graphs; based on 100,000 people, so a decent sample size. Doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know, but show how different categories of people voted.

[eFestivals]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

An interesting poll with lots of pretty graphs; based on 100,000 people, so a decent sample size. Doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know, but show how different categories of people voted.

Thanks.

The thing that jumped out at me from that the most was just how much people appear to vote via their pocket - which to me says Labour have an impossible job if they move left.

[gary1979666]

what also jumps out, to me, is that people vote for what they're favourite bit of media (newspapers mainly) tells them to. Which is both depressing but hopeful at the same time. It shows (possibly) how little people actually engage with the process.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. People tend to buy the paper that appeals to their politics (although Russy does seem to like his Torygraph of late!) I would assume that you would pick up a copy of the Guardian over the Mail. Similarly, I'd pick up a Times over an Independent. Maybe it's less that when you get to the likes of the Sun/Mirror, but for the non red tops, I'd say it is.

[eFestivals]

but housing should be there for people to invest in. Half the country can't afford it while the other half are investing in it. It's bonkers

It's bonkers, but as I keep pointing out it's almost impossible to change by more than a little bit.

The simple fact is, the little bit doesn't get to happen if there's the suggestion of it being more than a little bit.

if all the homes that aren't lived in (are left empty as investments) were actually lived in, there'd be next to no housing shortage

It's a better investment if rented out than left empty.

The number of empty as investments is pretty small in reality.

The vast majority of 'vacant' housing is really only the surplus that's necessary for there to be a moving market - in a similar way to how there's always something like around a million job vacancies. It's the slack that needs to be there to make the whole thing work.

While there's always some that could be used more efficiently, vacant properties isn't really the place to find a solution to the current housing issues. There's no big fix that will come from it.

it is with a government who's main appeal is less taxes, which is made easier with the opposition selling the same ideal

The simple fact is, most people consider themselves better qualified to decide how to spend their own money than others are, so it's no surprise that the major parties play tyo that and those who don't end up nowhere.

Show me the people who think they're sheep-like enough to require the govt to tell them how their money should be spent. When you can, only then does politics stop being a sales pitch.

One of the problems that many of those 'on the left' have is that they're fixated with the idea that because something happened in the past it will happen again in the same way. Those people need to wise up to the fact that people's mindsets have changed.

there's more than one way to join up the dots. If you don't know that, I pity you.

Show the solutions, then. Ones that people actually support.

Until then you're only blowing hot air.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

what also jumps out, to me, is that people vote for what they're favourite bit of media (newspapers mainly) tells them to. Which is both depressing but hopeful at the same time. It shows (possibly) how little people actually engage with the process.

do people get that mindset because they read those papers, or do people read those papers because they have that mindset?

I reckon you're grasping at straws there, in much the same way that someone might look at that polling and think "in 30 years the tories majority will have died out".

Things are a bit more complicated in real life. After all, do you think you're getting mugged into thinking particular things via your own choice of media? Here's betting you don't, because you think you're smarter than those you've just identified as mindless sheep.

[russycarps]

One of the main reasons the torys won the election is because of their pledge to raise the 40p tax rate threshold to £50k.

Even to those who dont earn such a sum, it is a salary that is not outside the realms of possibility that they will one day earn. It's one thing to highly tax people earning a million quid, a fantasy sum that 99.99% of people will never earn. It's easy to support that. But when there is a possibility that they will have to pay more tax themselves it's a different matter altogether.

People want to pay less tax, not more. There is no appetite for tax rises, unless it's paid by "rich bankers" and the like. Anyone who thinks otherwise is utterly deluded.

Edited June 9, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

It's not sheep like to believe that a tax system that provides a good welfare system is a good thing. Scandinavia.

I didn't say it was.

The problem isn't that, but the exact opposite. If it was that, it would be easy to get the decent welfare that both you and I would like. We'd tell them t5o follow what we say, and the world would be perfect.

The problem is that they think for themselves, and what they value are different things to you or I. This is why parties play to those values.

We're still in the post-Thatcher 'me' fallout. Labour aren't doing anything to change that, because they're lost. The fact that Thatcher created the 'me above all else' concept means the opposite can happen.....with a little vision

unless we're intrinsically selfish by nature. In which case, there's no point in trying to change

maybe...

Thatcher offered people something, and 'the people' lapped it up. They only did that because it appealed to them, more-so than other options on offer.

It's easy to write off as selfishness, but it's probably better to give it the context of different priorities and different weighting to the ideas on offer.

Cos don't forget, it's one thing to promise a better tomorrow, but another thing entirely to be able to deliver it and sustain it.

And like it or not, Labour fucked it up last time. Yes, you can point out that if the tories were in power they'd have fucked it up worse thru even laxer regulation of the banks, but they weren't in power, Labour were.

Labour have recently shown that they can't deliver their vision. The tories, while they've failed to achieve all they promised have managed to keep things going in the 'good enough' direction for enough of the people.

These people, ordinary normal people much like you, are weighing up the good against the bad as they see it and making their choice.

You can think they're wrong, but that achieves nothing at all in changing things. You have to give them something they can believe in and trust, and not pie in the sky.

[eFestivals]

There is no appetite for tax rises, unless it's paid by "rich bankers" and the like.

Not quite correct.

There is no appetite for tax rises, unless it's paid by "other people" and not 'me'.

It's much like the things where even those on benefits believe other benefit claimants are taking the piss but not them, or the supporters of grammar schools who all think it'd be other kids and not their kids who'd be excluded as not bright enough.

[lost]

I'd go with the property thing. Though people may not own btl's or million pound houses the fear of rent controls or mansion taxes hitting the wider market was enough to scare people. From the jobs I've done working with 40 - 65 year olds, for those not on final salary pension schemes their retirement plans seem to be to move up the housing ladder trying to add value with diy and then down size when the kids move out releasing the equity..

the telegraph was speculating a couple of weeks ago that capital gains on primary residences maybe up for taxation soon:

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/capital-gains-tax/11637842/Capital-gains-tax-on-homes-its-only-a-matter-of-time.html

quite difficult to believe they would do it though.

Edited June 9, 2015 by lost

[eFestivals]

the telegraph was speculating a couple of weeks ago that capital gains on primary residences maybe up for taxation soon:

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/capital-gains-tax/11637842/Capital-gains-tax-on-homes-its-only-a-matter-of-time.html

quite difficult to believe they would do it though.

it would be no meaningful fix. It would just be another layer of confusion into sorting it all out.

(it would, however, be a good way of relieving the oiks of their easy money. Money for nothing is something reserved for the special people and not the oiks)

The only real fix is to build more houses - and it's the govt who control house prices and house building via the amount of land they release for housing thru the planning rules.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Obviously, the rich benefit from a tory government. So it makes sense for the tories to make more people 'rich'. That that is at the expense of the not rich matters not a jot to them (obviously). Labour, aren't doing enough to suggest they really want to change that.

Just take a moment to read that back to yourself.

It reads like you don't want people to get rich.

Meant or not, that's how plenty of people end up hearing Labour sounding like, and why Labour has to pander to them with soundbytes at the very least.

After all, no one is going to win with a "smash the rich" (© Class War) message.

[eFestivals]

Is Charlotte Church deluded? She can't be the only person on the planet with a conscience.

I'm very pleased she's spoken up. It's a very good thing. However....

She's long ago done her big earning, and it's now money in the bank. Her earning nowadays are (in the scheme of things) negligible and very unlikely to hit the heights of any new 'supertax'.

If her experiences growing up had been 70p of every pound she earned disappearing to the tax man, it's quite possible she wouldn't have the same opinions now. We are all, after all, defined of our past experiences.

[russycarps]

Is Charlotte Church deluded? She can't be the only person on the planet with a conscience.

she is a green party supporter. Yes, she's deluded.

And consumed with bitterness over the phone hacking scandal. I think her motives arent entirely altruistic.

[eFestivals]

Is Charlotte Church deluded? She can't be the only person on the planet with a conscience.

PS ....

She may or may not be deluded, but you are, if you think her views mean very much.

They're worth only as much as the support that can be mustered around them, which is not enough.

Victory can only come from the public support that you never want to face up to.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

that's a point in her favour (if it's true). The fact that she might not be earning millions, but is prepared to pay higher taxes.

she was talking about 70% income tax for high earners.

In other words, not her, today.

Sadly it's the same as it ever was: someone else is paying.

Plus, she's saying that from the comfort of already having her millions squirrelled away - so from one angle she's saying "I'm rich, and I'm going to make it harder for anyone to get as rich as me".

I'm not particularly knocking her, I believe she was being as sincere as it's ever possible to be from the position she's in short of giving all her money away and getting a job for the first time in her life, but there's no mileage in highlighting it and trying to use it as a way to convince others. It's as flawed as the worst of them.

[zahidf]

she was talking about 70% income tax for high earners.

In other words, not her, today.

Sadly it's the same as it ever was: someone else is paying.

Plus, she's saying that from the comfort of already having her millions squirrelled away - so from one angle she's saying "I'm rich, and I'm going to make it harder for anyone to get as rich as me".

I'm not particularly knocking her, I believe she was being as sincere as it's ever possible to be from the position she's in short of giving all her money away and getting a job for the first time in her life, but there's no mileage in highlighting it and trying to use it as a way to convince others. It's as flawed as the worst of them.

It's better than whinging about the Masion tax like most of them do! refreshing her and JK rowling stand up for welfare at least

[eFestivals]

I have no idea what public support I apparently never want to face up to is

What do the public support as a majority, tony?

What you advocate, or something that's about the polar opposite of what you advocate?

Why are you intrisically right, and they are absolutely wrong?

Or perhaps, is it all a bit more nuanced than that, and no one is in any position to claim the high moral ground?

Perhaps one side is acting "we know best" just like organised religions do, and that people are abandoning, for good reason because they don't?

Perhaps try listening to the people sometimes, instead of only ever expecting them to listen to you?

It's all very well having your wants and desires, but in the political area you don't get them unless enough others have the same.

[eFestivals]

It's better than whinging about the Masion tax like most of them do! refreshing her and JK rowling stand up for welfare at least

yep, but ultimately they're other single individuals.

They don't expose anyone to any new ideas, to cause them to change their mind.

And hoping that they have some sort of celebrity endorsement is crediting The Daily Mail and all the rest with the ability to turn us into sheep - which we all reject for ourselves.

[GlastoSimon]

Trouble is, do most of these people really want equality or fairness? Even if its put into a decent plan which does benefit these 'aspirational' types?

Perhaps the ideal leader now is somebody who is the leftie equivalent of a Cameron, who will come out with a load of 'aspirational', Tory-lite bullshit before the election, win a majority and then go back on all their promises and bring in a load of left-wing policies on the sly. It's a bit of a joke really.

I'll be supporting Corbyn in the leadership debates, only one who isn't either on the fence about everything, or Blairite. He's the only one I could see coming up with a decent plan. But you can see how it will be played in the media already. 'Corbyn TOO OLD', 'Corbyn supports cap for benefit SCROUNGERS', 'Corbyn in ANTI-BUSINESS shocker'. This election was written by the media, the next one will be too etc. etc.

Whilst I can see where Neil et al. are coming from about targeting what is achievable, if I wanted a Blairite 'winner' like Kendall (she's the worst) who essentially backs big business owners over normal people, I'd vote effing Tory. Principles vs power is a difficult debate, and unless we get a 'clever' leftie who can play the media I wouldn't want to sacrifice principles for the power.

Edited June 9, 2015 by GlastoSimon

[eFestivals]

Whilst I can see where Neil et al. are coming from about targeting what is achievable, if I wanted a Blairite 'winner' like Kendall (she's the worst) who essentially backs big business owners over normal people, I'd vote effing Tory. Principles vs power is a difficult debate, and unless we get a 'clever' leftie who can play the media I wouldn't want to sacrifice principles for the power.

That's not quite what I'm getting at. Blairism isn't the only choice, but listening to the electorate is.

The days of preaching at them are gone, you've got to make them want what you're offering, you can't just tell them that they should do.

[eFestivals]

Make them want what they're offering?

How about offering something they might want?

Do you think the Greens did?

The vote says differently.

To offer them something they might want, you first have to listen to what they want.

The votes gets to show how much you listened if the vote is high, or how much you don't care for listening if the vote is low.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

That's not quite what I'm getting at. Blairism isn't the only choice, but listening to the electorate is.

The days of preaching at them are gone, you've got to make them want what you're offering, you can't just tell them that they should do.

So the electorate votes Tory with a hint of UKIP, so the answer for Labour is to listen to Tory & UKIP voters? Presumably it's just a case of finding the right spot on the political spectrum where they don't lose too much of their core support but win over enough selfish bigoted racists to get a majority. How inspiring! I'm writing the placards now for the great revivalist march to Labour victory in 2020. This is the "vision" you are selling.

I am not suggesting for a minute that anyone "preaches a the electorate" that is a ridiculous argument.

Equally ridiculous is your argument that "people won't vote for a left wing option" Neil, they haven't had an electable left wing option for well over 30 years. Astonishingly, you use the "failure" of the greens to back your argument up - knowing full well that under FPTP, no matter how much people would like to vote Green, they see it as a wasted vote.

You've given up the fight Neil. You accept that monetarism, Globalisation and International capital has won. Thatcher & Reagan & their disciples have succeeded in returning us to the early days of the industrial revolution where the privileged few make massive fortunes on the backs of low paid workers with no rights & little job security. the unions have been broken. But even worse the fat cats who get richer & richer get away with paying a pittance to their employees because the state picks up the slack when these poor sods can't afford to live. Victorian mill owners must have dreamed of such generosity.

OK, I know we don't have absolute poverty in the way we once have & in some ways I exaggerate for effect. My 17 year old daughter recently started her first job zero hours contract, £3.79 an hour (i may be a few pence out) She's lucky - she's just filling in before she goes to Uni & she has parents who support her. Imagine if she was expected to support herself? What if she wasn't bright enough to go to Uni. Imagine she had parents who didn't think that was a good thing to do & wouldn't give her the support she needs to go there.

What is Labour offering these people?

Ed's Labour at least offered them something - it looks highly unlikely that the next gen labour party will match that .

What saddens me is that you accept all this as inevitable. All we can do is tinker around the edges, whilst pandering to public opinioin.

Labour didn't become a force in British politics through listening to focus groups, or reflecting public opinion. It stood up for its values, campaigned with passion to change society, challenged the powers that be and changed Britain for the better.

Would we have the welfare state or the NHS if we had listened to focus groups?

A couple of articles that discuss seriously the choices facing the Labour party - I don't agree with everything the writers say but at least they are thinking. (the first one is to a large extent about the Scottish Labour Part but makes some telling points about the UK party in my opinion)

https://commonspace.scot/articles/1564/fraser-stewart-what-is-the-point-of-labour

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/06/09/labour-can-win-in-2020-but-it-has-to-pause-this-leadership-c