the snap general election thread

Filo25

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, Anthony Wells is simply repeating what has been well known for a number of years.

There is confirmation from a ComRes poll for The Mirror. Some of those Labour policies are so 'popular'; nationalising this and that, for example. However 56% of people still think that Corbyn "would be a disaster as Prime Minister".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/poll-shows-people-love-labours-10404216

People will tend to vote for whatever party that has a leader who won't be a disaster.:)

Giving people stuff is generally very popular as well, especially when there is no price tag attached or they assume that someone else is going to pick up the bill for them

ThinkingOutLoud_2

kabayiri wrote: »

This is the headline in our local freebie paper :
"Mayor pledges to fix NHS and Homelessness"
...
There is absolutely no way on earth he will fix either. .

So fix the NHS seems to me a task beyond his remit and capability.
But homelessness - while it happens everywhere - is by its nature a local issue with local people and local solutions can solve it. The scale is challenging, but nothing like fixing the NHS.
This seems to me one of the Labour manifesto objectives that any decent society would try to achieve.
That does not mean everyone will want to be housed...but removing involuntary homelessness seems and admirable objective for a mayor.

Can Andy Burnham achieve it cost-effectively and without undesirable consequences- who knows?
Finland did it.

antrobus

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

So fix the NHS seems to me a task beyond his remit and capability.
But homelessness - while it happens everywhere - is by its nature a local issue with local people and local solutions can solve it. The scale is challenging, but nothing like fixing the NHS.
This seems to me one of the Labour manifesto objectives that any decent society would try to achieve.
That does not mean everyone will want to be housed...but removing involuntary homelessness seems and admirable objective for a mayor.

Can Andy Burnham achieve it cost-effectively and without undesirable consequences- who knows?
Finland did it.

Here is a piece from the MEN that explains what the new metro mayor can do.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-mayoral-election-candidates-2017-12521146

Apparently they have a seat on the regional health board, so they have an 'influence' over local health policy, and control of a "£300m recyclable loan fund for developers". I don't know whether this would be sufficient to 'fix' anything.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

antrobus wrote: »

Here is a piece from the MEN that explains what the new metro mayor can do.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-mayoral-election-candidates-2017-12521146

Apparently they have a seat on the regional health board, so they have an 'influence' over local health policy, and control of a "£300m recyclable loan fund for developers". I don't know whether this would be sufficient to 'fix' anything.

Exactly.

So he has both some funds and some significant influence over housing which means he can hope to address homelessness more directly whether by forcing large private projects to help with permissions contingent on "socially supportive construction" or by direct action to say convert an old empty office block or two.

The number of people sleeping rough on the streets is maybe shocking in a country as well off as we are - but not insurmountable.

kabayiri

The reasons for homelessness are both complex and not easily understood by most of us. There are elements of addiction and yes even choice in there.

He can't fix the homeless or NHS IMO. If you set unreasonable goals then you build up unreasonable expectations in the public. When reality bites and you fail to meet these goals, well, it's just an opportunity for different unreasonable goals from another lot, and voila...we are in to see-saw politics.

To get better quality politics needs a more honest, more open, narrative between the voters and the politicians. The voters need to understand what is achievable, and the politicians need to offer targets which are both achievable and measurable.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

kabayiri wrote: »

The reasons for homelessness are both complex and not easily understood by most of us. There are elements of addiction and yes even choice in there.

He can't fix the homeless or NHS IMO. If you set unreasonable goals then you build up unreasonable expectations in the public. When reality bites and you fail to meet these goals, well, it's just an opportunity for different unreasonable goals from another lot, and voila...we are in to see-saw politics.

To get better quality politics needs a more honest, more open, narrative between the voters and the politicians. The voters need to understand what is achievable, and the politicians need to offer targets which are both achievable and measurable.

I agree not all want to be housed. And not all that want to be are easy to house. Most thought don't start out as much more than homeless.
It is down to circumstances such as escaping a violent home or abusive relationship or have simply been kicked out by their families - I think these folk can be housed before other issues kick in. As other nations show this at least if not more is possible.

Conrad

Is anyone else slightly concerned Corbyn might pull-off a miracle win?


His populist pennies from heaven policies could tempt a lot of gullible people. I understand the nationalised railway policy is a bit of a farce as the first opportunity wont come up for many years hence.

Arklight

Conrad wrote: »

Is anyone else slightly concerned Corbyn might pull-off a miracle win?


His populist pennies from heaven policies could tempt a lot of gullible people. I understand the nationalised railway policy is a bit of a farce as the first opportunity wont come up for many years hence.

Considering what you have been posting on the Brexit thread I am surprised you can type that with a straight face.

Arklight

Moby wrote: »

You can see from so many of the posts on this thread what a class ridden country we are. Politicians are denigrated for being common and thick, out of their depth etc. A working class accent is a sign of ignorance apparently. Perhaps they should know their place and let the elite get on with running the country. We have such a long way to go! One good thing about the States no one gives a toss where you come from or what you sound like, same in modern Germany! So Labour are taking us back to the seventies.....May seems rooted in the 50's!

Yes, according to the Daily Mail, Labour want to take us back to the 70s. A time when 50% of Mail readers bought a house on one salary, enjoyed a non contributory final salary pension scheme, went home on time, didn't have to wait weeks to see a doctor, had never heard of a zero hours contract and enjoyed free further and higher education.


I have no idea what time the Tories are trying to return us to. The 1920s presumably.

Enterprise_1701C

Conrad wrote: »

Is anyone else slightly concerned Corbyn might pull-off a miracle win?


His populist pennies from heaven policies could tempt a lot of gullible people. I understand the nationalised railway policy is a bit of a farce as the first opportunity wont come up for many years hence.

It is a terrifying thought. I only hope that people in general are not the idiots he takes them for.

It would be the unions running the UK, that thought alone should put anyone off voting for him.