the snap general election thread

hallmark

Moby wrote: »

My problem with Corbyn was not his politics though. I didn't think he was electable and I also believed that he was destroying the Labour Party. I totally acknowledge I was wrong about him.

So far you've been proven correct. He was the subject of a massive vote of no-confidence but stayed anyway then lost a winnable election.

Chrysalis

ukcarper wrote: »

The deficit as proportion of GDP is now about what it was prior to crash.

To some that is unacceptable they are obsessed with having zero deficit even tho government historically have always had a deficit and its normal practice for business, and consumers to borrow.

Chrysalis

I think I explained my argument wrongly earlier.

In terms of "market failure" in the private rental sector perhaps its better if I put it like this.

The free market is deemed a success if the competition encourages lower prices and higher quality of service, however in the private rental market there is a rush to the top in pricing ala cartel fashion and an obsession with minimum security of tenancy. By this measurement it is clear market failure.

Thrugelmir

Chrysalis wrote: »

To some that is unacceptable they are obsessed with having zero deficit even tho government historically have always had a deficit and its normal practice for business, and consumers to borrow.

Just because an economic policy adopted after the war (that was modified further), and has held sway since. Doesn't mean that it's right in a world which is now a very different place. Consumers borrowing money on the basis that the value of the debt will be inflated away isn't equitable either. As those with money are best positioned to benefit.

steampowered

hallmark wrote: »

Corbyn has already been on TV making suggestive comments. He didn't even wait a day until appearing on TV yesterday saying "if you make cuts somebody pays the price eventually" which anybody can see is the most thinly veiled way possible of blaming the Conservatives for yesterday's tragedy.

I haven't seen the TV interview. Perhaps provide a source if you care to do so.

The only evidence you provided was an article which quoted Corbyn as saying "questions need to be answered". Which is a completely reasonable statement.

It may well be that the swinging cuts imposed on local government did contribute to this disaster, and it may well be that substantial cuts have been made in other social housing projects which mean the disaster is at risk of repeating. If that turns out to be the case it will be legitimate to point it out. Although we don't of course know whether that is the case until a bit more information is available.

chucknorris

steampowered wrote: »

I haven't seen the TV interview. Perhaps provide a source if you care to do so.

The only evidence you provided was an article which quoted Corbyn as saying "questions need to be answered". Which is a completely reasonable statement.

It may well be that the swinging cuts imposed on local government did contribute to this disaster, and it may well be that substantial cuts have been made in other social housing projects which mean the disaster is at risk of repeating. If that turns out to be the case it will be legitimate to point it out. Although we don't of course know whether that is the case until a bit more information is available.

As far as the design of the building is concerned I don't see how cuts could have contributed TBH, no matter how much you cut, you still have to have to comply with building regs. I think the problem is more fundamental than cuts. Although there may be issues with ongoing maintenance of course.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

However, the government(s) since 2010 have borrowed more than every Labour government combined both nominally and in real terms.

Just like having a credit card. Takes seconds to spend the money. Years to pay it back. "Things" don't simply happen at the flick of a switch. Scaling back the size of the public sector is a time consuming and expensive exercise.

hallmark

steampowered wrote: »

I haven't seen the TV interview. Perhaps provide a source if you care to do so.

It was on Skynews yesterday afternoon. I don't have a link the actual piece but I presume it's possible to retrospectively watch Skynews somehow as you can with BBC?

steampowered

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't see how cuts could have contributed TBH, no matter how much you cut, you still have to have to comply with building regs. I think the problem is more fundamental than cuts.

Building regs approval only happens when a property is constructed.

There are also ongoing issues such as whether ongoing inspections have been done and whether buildings have been maintained properly.

For example the fact that the fire alarms did not go off in the tower suggests that the alarms were not checked/maintained. The fact that no sprinklers were installed also raises concerns.

Councils have seen the largest cuts of anywhere in the public sector - a quick google search suggests council budgets have been cut by around 40% since 2010.

Did the council stop doing the proper inspections/maintenance of its social housing as a result of cuts in its budget? Did the council choose to cut too far in this area, for example to reduce the cuts it would have had to make to social care for the elderly? It is very possible. Although I accept we should wait for more information.

hallmark

Here you go:
http://news.sky.com/story/checks-on-tower-blocks-in-wake-of-deadly-grenfell-tower-fire-10915843

His quote:
"If you deny local authorities the funding they need, then there is a price to be paid."