Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Rita_Poon]

Ta. What amazing timing.

 

[supertoffee98]

channel 4 right now. Early release into homelessness. Insanity.

I don't think Starmer has enough humanity to care about homeless people. Liz Kendall was asked about how to deal with homelessness and insecure housing and she completely glossed over extortionate rents from private landlords, saying in the long term Labour will build more housing. The single biggest thing Labour could do right now is implement rent controls legislation. And make current unused properties habitable.

It will once again be incumbent on charities to pick up the slack of the state's inability to care for the most vulnerable. Reminds me of the Housemartins lyric "Got Blue Peter to stage an appeal"

 

[tsubaki]

I don't think Starmer has enough humanity to care about homeless people. Liz Kendall was asked about how to deal with homelessness and insecure housing and she completely glossed over extortionate rents from private landlords, saying in the long term Labour will build more housing. The single biggest thing Labour could do right now is implement rent controls legislation. And make current unused properties habitable.

It will once again be incumbent on charities to pick up the slack of the state's inability to care for the most vulnerable. Reminds me of the Housemartins lyric "Got Blue Peter to stage an appeal"

Rent controls are not the magic bullet that people think they are - its very hard to see how they'd ever get past the Human Rights Act to begin with. I am also not sure how fixing rent prices would ever lead to more properties being put into use.

Building many more social homes available for rent is a much more sound measure, both legally and morally; take the heat out of the housing market and you'd have a bigger impact on rent levels. You'd also probably see a lot of landlords sell up as well, further boosting the housing supply and it would create an income stream for the state.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

It isn’t a problem of vetting, so much as it is one of who they are bringing in as candidates.

People with no life experience, no achievements of their own but who owe their positions to factions or patronage (as Gethin did) are much more susceptible to the things he got in trouble for. The trouble for Labour is that it’s precisely those types who form the bulk of the PLP now.

I hope people in Wales realise now what a good thing they had in Mark Drakeford.

Both legal types with careers outside party poltics.
Drakeford himself back in December lamented the vitriol in modern politics as in why so little choice was put out. And if the "anointed left" here, is any representation of what lurks in Labour who can blame anyone for not standing.

 

[tsubaki]

Both legal types with careers outside party poltics.
Drakeford himself back in December lamented the vitriol in modern politics as in why so little choice was put out. And if the "anointed left" here, is any representation of what lurks in Labour who can blame anyone for not standing.

Gething wasn't, he was standing for elected office even before he finished his training.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Rent controls are not the magic bullet that people think they are - its very hard to see how they'd ever get past the Human Rights Act to begin with. I am also not sure how fixing rent prices would ever lead to more properties being put into use.

Building many more social homes available for rent is a much more sound measure, both legally and morally; take the heat out of the housing market and you'd have a bigger impact on rent levels. You'd also probably see a lot of landlords sell up as well, further boosting the housing supply and it would create an income stream for the state.

What people can do with their second third homes fourth homes is key, not unusual for single landlord having this amount Airbnb\rental properties in one village alone in coastal Wales. Then local authority gets a slither of land to build rabbit hutches so people can keep servicing. Much like elswhere in the UK.

 

[supertoffee98]

Rent controls are not the magic bullet that people think they are - its very hard to see how they'd ever get past the Human Rights Act to begin with. I am also not sure how fixing rent prices would ever lead to more properties being put into use.

Building many more social homes available for rent is a much more sound measure, both legally and morally; take the heat out of the housing market and you'd have a bigger impact on rent levels. You'd also probably see a lot of landlords sell up as well, further boosting the housing supply and it would create an income stream for the state.

Rent controls don't violate the Human Rights Act, are you thinking of the Right to Rent scheme? That was just dog-whistle politics giving private landlords the ability to refuse accommodation based on the country somebody came from.

Rent caps and controls were Labour policy under Corbyn and were Labour policy until the 90s when Blair tried to schmooze the private landlords.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Some positive words in that King's speech from Labour.

Plans on nationalising the railways.

Speeding up the delivery of high-quality infrastructure and housing.

Modernising the asylum and immigration system.

Removing the VAT exemption for private school fees.

A Duty of Candour law to make public servants legally bound to the truth, post Post Office, the blood scandal and Hillsborough.

A good first set of objectives, for me, and not too pie in the sky stuff.

 

[tsubaki]

Rent controls don't violate the Human Rights Act, are you thinking of the Right to Rent scheme? That was just dog-whistle politics giving private landlords the ability to refuse accommodation based on the country somebody came from.

Rent caps and controls were Labour policy under Corbyn and were Labour policy until the 90s when Blair tried to schmooze the private landlords.

They would, potentially by restricting the right to peaceful enjoyment of property - the landlord would no longer be able to get a “fair” price for the rent because the state had intervened.

Landlord groups are already using this as a defence against reforms to lease holding, though of course they’d be on much strong ground when it came to private rents (as they are not usually the scam that leasehold is).

As I said the better way to drop rents (and FWIW to reduce government expenditure) is to increase supply of state-owned quality accommodation.

 

[mightymoyes]

They would, potentially by restricting the right to peaceful enjoyment of property - the landlord would no longer be able to get a “fair” price for the rent because the state had intervened.

Landlord groups are already using this as a defence against reforms to lease holding, though of course they’d be on much strong ground when it came to private rents (as they are not usually the scam that leasehold is).

As I said the better way to drop rents (and FWIW to reduce government expenditure) is to increase supply of state-owned quality accommodation.

this does not appear to be on labours agenda

 

[tsubaki]

Some positive words in that King's speech from Labour.

Plans on nationalising the railways.

Speeding up the delivery of high-quality infrastructure and housing.

Modernising the asylum and immigration system.

Removing the VAT exemption for private school fees.

A Duty of Candour law to make public servants legally bound to the truth, post Post Office, the blood scandal and Hillsborough.

A good first set of objectives, for me, and not too pie in the sky stuff.

The two quibbles I have with these are:

Firstly, the duty of candour law has to come with protections for the people to whom it applies, otherwise they’ll just end up holding the bag for whatever body they represent. I don’t mean get out of jail free cards, I mean protecting them when they say (for example) that they missed something because of the staffing levels being low, through overwork or whatever. These people probably won’t have, or won’t be able to afford, independent legal advice.

Also the private schools VAT thing really needs to have some way of distinguishing between the rich sending their kids there for advantage and those people for whom circumstance makes it a sensible option.

My eldest niece goes to a private school at the moment. She is a really bright kid, they did try to get her into the best state school nearby but found a load of barriers were put up that she didn’t manage to all clear (an interview, a series of exams and aptitude tests - this is for a 10 year old). Since both her parents were at the time in the military and were being deployed overseas, she was eligible to get a big chunk of the fees paid and do has spent two years at the school doing really well. Why should their and other military families get an extra charge like this, when it’s the very top of the private school system where the problems are?

 

[tsubaki]

this does not appear to be on labours agenda

I know, like the rest of mainstream politics they don’t want to house prices fall because they only think in the short term.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

The two quibbles I have with these are:

Firstly, the duty of candour law has to come with protections for the people to whom it applies, otherwise they’ll just end up holding the bag for whatever body they represent. I don’t mean get out of jail free cards, I mean protecting them when they say (for example) that they missed something because of the staffing levels being low, through overwork or whatever. These people probably won’t have, or won’t be able to afford, independent legal advice.

Also the private schools VAT thing really needs to have some way of distinguishing between the rich sending their kids there for advantage and those people for whom circumstance makes it a sensible option.

My eldest niece goes to a private school at the moment. She is a really bright kid, they did try to get her into the best state school nearby but found a load of barriers were put up that she didn’t manage to all clear (an interview, a series of exams and aptitude tests - this is for a 10 year old). Since both her parents were at the time in the military and were being deployed overseas, she was eligible to get a big chunk of the fees paid and do has spent two years at the school doing really well. Why should their and other military families get an extra charge like this, when it’s the very top of the private school system where the problems are?

From personal experience I'd suggest a Duty of Candour law might be one of the most important objectives, if they can deliver it.

 

[supertoffee98]

They would, potentially by restricting the right to peaceful enjoyment of property - the landlord would no longer be able to get a “fair” price for the rent because the state had intervened.

Landlord groups are already using this as a defence against reforms to lease holding, though of course they’d be on much strong ground when it came to private rents (as they are not usually the scam that leasehold is).

As I said the better way to drop rents (and FWIW to reduce government expenditure) is to increase supply of state-owned quality accommodation.

It's an interesting interpretation if landlords are using that. The Human Rights Act does allow for the right for state interference if it's in the public interest, which rent controls are. Building more council houses is the long-term solution but there are too many homeless people and people on the brink of homeless right now.

 

[supertoffee98]

Some positive words in that King's speech from Labour.

Plans on nationalising the railways.

Speeding up the delivery of high-quality infrastructure and housing.

Modernising the asylum and immigration system.

Removing the VAT exemption for private school fees.

A Duty of Candour law to make public servants legally bound to the truth, post Post Office, the blood scandal and Hillsborough.

A good first set of objectives, for me, and not too pie in the sky stuff.

The King's Speech is just performative virtue signalling. Tony Benn described our society as semi-feudal and he was very right to do so. Nationalisation is good, nationalisation without compensation is ideal. I think the Labour plan is to nationalise as every contract expires, that's going to take years potentially and more rip-offs for customers. If Labour wants to actually win over Tory voters, which it largely didn't do in this election, then it'll need to actually change things.