Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

ilovehouses wrote: »

It'll be the one after that then. Sometimes it's just time for a change. What's the longest period of continuous government by the same party in the modern UK? 18 years for the Tories & 13 for labour? If we make it to 2022 until the next election the tories will be 12 years in - time flies.



I reckon the choice you're looking at for the next couple of elections is a labour somewhat left of what of what you want or Tory. Rock and hard place.

True but as you say we've had 18 years of Tory government before and that is not out of the question,

I think you are right at least for next election I didn't vote in last election as that was my choice saying that for the best part of 50 years my vote has never made a difference.

System

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you are right at least for next election I didn't vote in last election as that was my choice saying that for the best part of 50 years my vote has never made a difference.

Even longer here. Since 1950 we've returned a labour MP. Before that there used to be two MP's and you'd have to go back to 1910 to find a time when at least one of them wasn't labour.

Tromking

I have a sneaky feeling that come 2022, the Tories are not going to get any credit for steering us through the post GFC era. As it was in 1945 when Churchill was expected to romp home, there is a growing feeling that the country is being run for the benefit of others and another more collegiate less nasty way is possible.
It is no longer tenable for the Tories to harken back to the 70's in order to try and scare people into not voting Labour. If they believe in the free market economy, make the case for it and take the British people with them.

michaels

ilovehouses wrote: »

It'll be the one after that then. Sometimes it's just time for a change. What's the longest period of continuous government by the same party in the modern UK? 18 years for the Tories & 13 for labour? If we make it to 2022 until the next election the tories will be 12 years in - time flies.



I reckon the choice you're looking at for the next couple of elections is a labour somewhat left of what of what you want or Tory. Rock and hard place.

History would say those changes have come when the opposition has moved to the middle - 1992 the country should have been due a change but Kinnock ran on a left wing manifesto and lost,1997 the economy was much better but Blair ran in the centre and won. Similarly Cameron in 2010 moved far to the centre in order to make the Tories electable.

The suggestion is that Labour are electable on what until recently was very much the political fringe and way outside any politically successful movements this side of the failed Syriza experiment in Greece and Chazez in Venezuela.

LHW99

I do wonder whether the next or next-but one elections are going to give a 'no overall majority' parliament again, leading to further formal or informal coalition arrangements.
In some ways that can be good, as it can moderate the more extreme ideas of both left and right.
Its something that's fairly common on the continent, although its not been popular in the UK.

michaels

LHW99 wrote: »

I do wonder whether the next or next-but one elections are going to give a 'no overall majority' parliament again, leading to further formal or informal coalition arrangements.
In some ways that can be good, as it can moderate the more extreme ideas of both left and right.
Its something that's fairly common on the continent, although its not been popular in the UK.

And in other ways bad if it turns out to be a narrow interest party such as the DUP or SNP who end up holding the balance of power and use their leverage to extract way more than their share of the national pot.

System

michaels wrote: »

History would say those changes hvae come when the opposition has moved to the middle - 1992 the country should have been due a change but Kinnock ran on a left wing manifesto and lost,1997 the economy was much better but Blair ran in the centre and won. Similarly Cameron in 2010 moved far to the centre in order to make the Tories electable.

The suggestion is that Labour are electable on what until recently was very much the political fringe and way outside any politically successful movements this side of the failed Syriza experiment in Greece and Chazez in Venezuela.

The tories are drifting away from that centre-ground albeit not at the pace of labour. Lib-dems next time?

Labour's policies are left wing which you'd suggest is electoral suicide but their polling at least suggests you're wrong or people are buying the idea that labour are mainstream.

Besides people are fickle. It's difficult to support politicians who aren't on their uppers. Look at Milliband - he gave the impression he couldn't make a cup of tea without scalding himself, dropping the cup and spilling the milk. You've got to be extra special to get over that charisma bypass. I wonder how many votes Kinnock lost just by falling over on the beach and having a roll in the sea?

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

Given they chose the wrong Milliband and then followed that up with Corbyn it could well be Diane Abbott.

Sometimes comments aren't worth responding too. As can't be taken seriously.

.string.

AFF8879 wrote: »

Diane Abbott

I don't mean to be critical, but that doesn't add up! ;-)

setmefree2

Surprise as Shelter queries whether rent controls would really work

But Shelter has warned that this could indirectly “end up harming” the very tenants which Corbyn and his colleagues seek to protect.
Shelter chief executive officer, Polly Neale, says: “Shelter supports controls that lengthen tenancies and protect families from unfair rent rises, but not old fashioned rent-setting which we think could end up harming the very people on low incomes they’re meant to help, if and when landlords sell their properties.”

The comment received sharp criticism from one Corbyn supporter, the former Channel 4 journalist Paul Mason - now a cheerleader for the Labour party - who went to Twitter to say: “Shelter’s attack on Labour’s rent cap proposal is unfortunate. I thought the organisation’s aim was to protect tenants and homeless.”
He continued: “Their repeated opposition to rent caps does not seem based on evidence but on neoliberal assumptions about market behaviour.”
Mason’s tweets appear now to have been deleted.

Meanwhile the rental sector professionals continue in their criticism of the Labour proposal. The National Landlords’ Association has branded it “economically illiterate” and says government intervention through rent controls would be counter-productive to encouraging supply at a time when it is so badly needed.
“Rent control, or the artificial suppression of rents, may also serve as a barrier to further investment in the stock of private rented properties if the rent generated is too low to allow the landlord to operate a proper maintenance regime without making a financial loss” it adds.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2017/9/surprise-as-shelter-queries-whether-rent-controls-would-really-work?source=mostcommented