The Political Thread

[Jim_Campbell]

As for the code, its very hard for anyone on the left to pick fault with anything done by the left, especially when you look through this thread.

You'll note that I provided you with an explanation of why new council houses weren't built with the proceeds of the sale of the old ones, and criticised New Labour for doing nothing about the collapse of the social housing sector during its time in power.

All generalisations are rubbish, CF.

Cheers

Jmi

[GordonR]

The sale of council houses - and my parents used the opportunity to buy the one I grew up in - happened on Michael Heseltine's watch, when he was Environment Secretary. Here's what ol' Tarzan had to say about the matter just last week in an interview in that bastion of leftie agitation, the Daily Telegraph:

The unintended consequence of this policy, though, has been a shortfall of social housing stock. It is very much a live issue, with the Coalition struggling to make amends by, in effect, taxing council tenants on empty bedrooms.

Lord Heseltine has his defence ready: "I did argue at the time that we needed to invest the proceeds from the sales into building new social housing, but after I left, the department failed to follow through with the investment."

Full interview here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9975599/Michael-Heseltine-at-80-on-Boris-Ukip-and-why-he-wont-visit-Lady-Thatcher.html

So are we all clear now that the failure to reinvest in public housing was the fault of central government, and not of local councils, Labour or otherwise, who didn't see back the money made from the sale policy?

[Jim_Campbell]

Where did I post that I said everyone who is left wing voted Labour Richmond.

He didn't say that, CF. He was noting — not for the first time — that your knee-jerk reaction to criticism of the Tories is point to something Labour/New Labour did or didn't do and demand "Well, what about that?"

Rich is pointing out to you that since he has never voted Labour, he is under no obligation to justify anything they did or did not do. You have a habit of creating a homogenous lump of 'lefties' on the grounds that they disagree with the right and applying cretinous generalisations to them (that "code", for a start) all the while moaning that people label you a right-winger on the grounds of your frequently right-wing rants.

People, you included, do not fit so easily into these party-political pigeonholes. I have already told you that I have put my X next to candidates from all three main parties (in England) and one minor one across various national and local elections. I am generally left-of-centre on social welfare and considerably left-of-centre on regulation of the free market, taxation and the ownership of national infrastucture, but I'm far more pro-military and pro-law and order than you might infer from my position on those matters. I'm pro-Europe and relaxed on immigration. I'm a disciplinarian and educational traditionalist when it comes to children, and support first-past-the-post and the House of Lords* when it comes to our parliamentary democracy.

No party represents me, so every election is a case of finding the best fit or not bothering. A lot of people have sacrificed a great deal over a great many years to enable me to stick that little X next to someone's name, and I believe it would be disrespectful not to exercise that right. So, I vote. Often without much hope or conviction, but believing it to be better than the alternatives.

Cheers

Jim

*Oddly, the Lords is an imperfect answer to the oft-repeated truism that seeking high office ought to lead to automatic disbarment from said high office.

[Hawkmumbler]

This thread is a shit storm just waiting to happen, if I may use such a colloquial term.

[Jim_Campbell]

This thread is a shit storm just waiting to happen, if I may use such a colloquial term.

Well, yes, that's rather the point of it. The idea is that whenever another thread threatens to de-rail because of political differences, the participants can be directed here rather than shitting up every other thread with political barnies.

Cheers

Jim

[Hawkmumbler]

This thread is a shit storm just waiting to happen, if I may use such a colloquial term.

Well, yes, that's rather the point of it. The idea is that whenever another thread threatens to de-rail because of political differences, the participants can be directed here rather than shitting up every other thread with political barnies.

Cheers

Jim

At least there is an excuse then I guess.

[Proudhuff]

As for the code, its very hard for anyone on the left to pick fault with anything done by the left, especially when you look through this thread.

While I understand there is a general blindness to the faults of whichever group in life one belong to, I must say the left are particularly good at picking fault with other lefties, IMHO its what has destroyed any concensus on the left anytime 'we' achieve the slightest victory, as someone who has been involved in campaigns since the 70s the People's Liberation Front of Judea scene in Life of Brian is spot on.

[Trout]

No party represents me

I'm the same. I'd rather consider an issue then act accordingly.

[Richmond Clements]

No party represents me

I'm the same. I'd rather consider an issue then act accordingly.

Yup. If at all possible, I will vote for an independent candidate. But back in NI, I voted at one time for pretty much every party from the DUP to the Shinners at some point.

[Proudhuff]

The final word on the Thatcher years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WhhSBgd3KI

skip the ad, gggggrrrrr!

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

No party represents me

I'm the same. I'd rather consider an issue then act accordingly.

Yup. If at all possible, I will vote for an independent candidate. But back in NI, I voted at one time for pretty much every party from the DUP to the Shinners at some point.

The elections here are largely a pointless sectarian head count. The main problem for me is the parties represent either the British or the Irish, and none of them seem to give a shit about the Northern Irish, the people that actually live here. I consider myself neither British nor Irish. I'm Northern Irish.  I don't have any problems with British or Irish people, but if'n they're going to live in my country, they had best learn to behave themselves.The British/Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community and the Irish/Catholic/Nationalist/Republican community don't seem to realize they have more in common with each other than they do with anyone across the Irish sea or south of the border.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

Jim, I don't think I have ever mentioned that I have been moaned at for being so called right wing on here. If you think that by merely pointing out that there are two sides to every point is me moaning that people think I'm right wing, then you are very much mistaken. Sadly a few people on here don't ever want to see their points being corrected and so they pick one tiny part of the debate and go off on one again but ignore everything else that has been said. Just look back and you will see it happen all the time.

I, like you vote different parties and have tried to keep our Tory MP out of Maidstone but alas not yet but the numbers are getting closer each vote. I even post my vote up here for a laugh but still one person didn't believe that when I did it at least one of those times. It doesn't matter what you say, some people will never believe you.

If we want this thread to be a debate then the way to do it is actually talk and discuss stuff in the end and not just do the above and pick and choose, leaving out the stuff that finds that you were wrong. The latest was due to a post by Billy Bragg. I picked the quote up on numerous points and expected some debate and the only part that has happened is with the housing when Gordon came back with a link to an interview which I enjoyed reading.

I always thought that the money from the sales was destined to go into more builds and I am wrong. Still doesn't alter the main fact in the end though does it, that no-one built enough new council stock in the end and still to this day we haven't enough.

That is what it all boils down to in the end as I keep saying, all the parties in power are out for themselves.

I suppose we could have this thread as a sounding board with no debate!

[Zarjazzer]

Let's have a 2000ad.party then. 

[Frank]

I always thought that the money from the sales was destined to go into more builds and I am wrong. Still doesn't alter the main fact in the end though does it, that no-one built enough new council stock in the end and still to this day we haven't enough.

There isn't really any incentive for local authorities to invest in creating more social housing when they would be forced to sell their stock off in a few years time at a very generous discount. No political party is going to repeal the right-to-buy legislation because it's been an enormously popular policy - who wouldn't want (almost) free stuff, or at least an investment that would only appreciate in the long term? - and, as you say, all political parties are only interested in gaining or keeping power.

That's why the only new social housing in my area has been built as a result of 'partnerships' between the local authority and housing trusts, where taxpayers' money is basically given away to private corporations to get round the problems presented by right-to-buy. This doesn't really address the housing shortfall, because changes in funding and grant allocation mean local authorities can only really afford to make housing provision for the most vulnerable and difficult to home tenants.

The new housing association homes under construction next to my work right now are intended to house both the profoundly disabled and newly released felons, which sounds like a recipe for trouble. Although that's all very necessary, it doesn't help the majority of folk who don't meet those criteria find accommodation at a time when private rents (in an area of the country officially recognised as an economic disaster area) are upwards of $400 per month, a 2 bed former council flat will set you back £70,000, and the days of 90% mortgages and low deposits are a distant memory. Housing costs now account for almost half of the spending of low/middle income households and that percentage has been rising since the eighties.

[Frank]

The definition of low income here is the universally accepted one of any household earning 60% or less of the median income.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/03/index.shtml