the snap general election thread

lovinituk

masterwilde wrote: »

Labour could if the conservatives before forming a government get a vote of no confidence and labour call for a new election and get over 50% of the vote, then its a new election and no government, therefore labour could be the next government, although i do put this at best at 5%

So another election is the only way Labour have a chance?

Thrugelmir

Chrysalis wrote: »

Labour have probably offered everything they can

Labour need to offer far far more. Not just sweeteners to certain select groups. As highly probable the economy is going to enter a more challenging period for a whole variety of reasons.

masterwilde

agree on all the above, hence a minimum bet at 1000/1, i simply put the odds at less than 1000/1 as if there is another election i fully expect Labour to get 350 seats as alot of people are truly angry at the Conservative party, including some MP's

ThinkingOutLoud_2

CKhalvashi wrote: »

No, the opposition may have to oppose moves that aren't in the interests of the country..

So I half-agree and you missed my point.

We have two+ years of intense negotiations across a dizzying array of items - if we debate for too long on every issue - we will be left at the exit door with no deal sorted.

No-one is going to get everything they want whether the EU let us or not - there are too many poles apart - so there is a need to compromise or fail.

If any set of MPs on any side set about to be unnecessarily disruptive as they are not getting their perfect deal ... it will be costly to us and later to them I suspect.

Thrugelmir

masterwilde wrote: »

agree on all the above, hence a minimum bet at 1000/1, i simply put the odds at less than 1000/1 as if there is another election i fully expect Labour to get 350 seats as alot of people are truly angry at the Conservative party, including some MP's

Nu Labour is dead. Chances of big hitters returning to the front bench to strengthen the Shadow Cabinet are therefore somewhat slim. Going to require more than Corbyn himself to sell passionately Labours new policy direction to the wider public.

Chrysalis

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Labour need to offer far far more. Not just sweeteners to certain select groups. As highly probable the economy is going to enter a more challenging period for a whole variety of reasons.

What they have offered affects a very large part of the population in a positive way.

The only clear losers I can see from labour's policies are landlords.

The way things are now, millions of people live as if there is a permanent recession.

There is two directions been offered.

The tories are offering selected prosperity, for the have's at the expense of the have not's. Note how well the south east has done vs the north and midlands since the 1980s.
The labour are offering less prosperity for the very best off, but those at the bottom will do better and as such the equality gap should in theory reduce, I say in theory because the rich tend to always find a way to keep their hold.

Personally I couldnt care less if we borrow, I consider it perfectly normal to borrow money to advance, businesses do it, governments do it, individuals do it (mortgages etc.), I think running in permanent austerity just "in case" a recession hits tomorrow is ridiculous, it clearly hinders growth and enforces poverty.

bobbymotors

Chrysalis wrote: »

ok so I did a little bit of testing.

LHA rates in my city are £86 per week so £344 every 4 weeks for a one bad flat (not bedsits, shared rooms).

Bedsits are going for close to £400 per month, with £1000 needed to move in. (the LHA rate for these is lower than £344)
One bed studio flats about £420-450
Proper one bed's about £450-500

There is an absolute chasm between LHA rates and market rates, this is "free market failure". The need for profit has won out.

There is no way those rent's reflect cost of mortgages.

Either there needs to be rent regulation. Or the state needs to step up up in the rental market to provide affordable alternatives which will course a correction.

I can actually understand why LHA got capped because costs would have run away with whats happening, the problem is it has left poor people in a very dangerous situation.

The only 2 party leaders who have recognised this are caroline lucas and corbyn. If the tories came out with a plan to address the problem, they would be getting the same praise from me.

What I find shocking is that various people dont even think this is a problem. Even for those who dont qualify for LHA and as such paying rent out of wages, they suffer as well since they paying extortionate rents for shelter, which in turn prohibits things such as saving up for a mortgage deposit or preparing to have children.

Absolute rubbish. It's a free and fair market controlled by supply and demand. If demand falls an / or supply goes up rents will fall and vica versa. Rent controls have never worked and never will.

Yes, rents ARE high in some places, they are also low in others. That's the market for you. If you try to bring in controls there will still not be enough houses to go round.

What IS very wrong are rogue land lords renting out rat infested hovels for lots of money. What should be regulated are standards, not rents.

What's also wrong are rogue tenants that fail to pay rent, abuse the home, and generally live like pigs.

You can't buck the market.

Chrysalis

bobbymotors wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. It's a free and fair market controlled by supply and demand. If demand falls an / or supply goes up rents will fall and vica versa. Rent controls have never worked and never will.

Yes, rents ARE high in some places, they are also low in others. That's the market for you. If you try to bring in controls there will still not be enough houses to go round.

What IS very wrong are rogue land lords renting out rat infested hovels for lots of money. What should be regulated are standards, not rents.

You can't buck the market.

not rubbish.

There is nothing successful about rents that are in some cases over double the cost of a mortgage, perhaps even triple and all one gets is 6 months security. Standards is a secondary issue to that.

By the way my area has one of the lowest rents in the country due to the poverty here, I dread to think how bad it is in more affluent areas.

You are simply looking at it as how profitable it is for landlords and from a business viewpoint, the problem is this is not just some optional commodity people can turn away from, they need shelter.

Demand is artificially constrained for obvious reasons.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Makes having a general election somewhat pointless.

This is only effectively the same as what happens with PR all the time - you get many parties with tiny shares deciding who to get into bed with.

Look at those like Israel where extreme parties on both side hold unreasonable sway over the desperate need of the slightly larger parties trying to find a tiny majority based on a deal no-one likes that ends up being short-lived.

No way to run a country ... repeated mid-term collapse of governments and early elections.

bobbymotors

No, it is rubbish, because you can't buck the market! You just can't! If something - not necessarily a home, anything - is worth £1500 then NO ONE will sell it for £1000. Why should they? They won't is the answer.

Im not saying it's right, it's just how it is, a free market controlled by supply and demand. This will not change.