Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Not a surprise
Most people here don’t give a shit anyway
Not a surpriseGermany refuses to extradite man to UK over concerns about British jail conditions
Court in Karlsruhe decides against extradition of Albanian man ‘in view of the state of the British prison system’www.theguardian.com
Just embarrassing isn't it?
I feel like the sell off should have been limited to 50% of a property. Council retains the land/property as well as a decent amount of control over repairs/tenants etc. Renter can obtain equity and then have a vested interest to keep the house/area maintained.I think there’s got to be something that can equalise private and social rent history, take it into account for credit worthiness, and provide a foot onto home ownership for those people that doesn’t bankrupt councils or inflate house prices massively or benefit quick Buck landlords.
Seems odd that a council wouldn't qualify for a grant but a private association does.As far as I can remember Whitefriars qualified for a one-off government grant?
I think it had something to do with reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, on paper at least?Seems odd that a council wouldn't qualify for a grant but a private association does.
I remember years ago watching a documentary about the local council in Walthamstow, stuck in my memory because I'd not long before that moved from there. In that area they said 8 of 10 RTB properties were with private landlords and there had only been enough new social housing built to replace 1 in 10‘Council homes sold under Right To Buy tend to end up in the hands of private landlords, with an estimated 40 per cent of all those sold under the scheme now rented out for profit.’ - I hope they mean indirectly ie subsequently sold on. I would make any social housing sold on under such schemes ‘unrentable’ for X years and/or have some sort of payback to gov/local authority if sold within certain period
Maybe, but still ideological. Money is still going out of government funds and ending up in private hands with split interests rather than a body whose sole concern is providing social housing.I think it had something to do with reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, on paper at least?
Well it's actually probably more like 2007 to allow for the necessary pre construction planning and construction itself
Well this is the consequence of being ashamed of progressivism and going after Daily Mail votes.“Tory policies to deal with a Tory crisis” is a great line.
I honestly think she thinks anyone talking about growth or hope is a fringe loon and everyone wants nothing. Everyone I know of every political stripe thinks everything is fucked and change is needed.
It's what I do find slightly bizarre that they're following a supposedly Blair path but... he did offer hope and change!Everyone I know of every political stripe thinks everything is fucked and change is needed.
It's what I do find slightly bizarre that they're following a supposedly Blair path but... he did offer hope and change!
I still cling to the hope a manifesto might be a bit better - it has to offer an alternative otherwise you're voting for notTory, and that's not sustainable.
It's what I do find slightly bizarre that they're following a supposedly Blair path but... he did offer hope and change!
I still cling to the hope a manifesto might be a bit better - it has to offer an alternative otherwise you're voting for notTory, and that's not sustainable.
If Blair had Things Can Only Get Better as a theme song, what would Starmer have?
“Tory policies to deal with a Tory crisis” is a great line.
I honestly think she thinks anyone talking about growth or hope is a fringe loon and everyone wants nothing. Everyone I know of every political stripe thinks everything is fucked and change is needed.
If Blair had Things Can Only Get Better as a theme song, what would Starmer have?
Don’t know about him, but Johnson would have ‘Tears Of A Clown’If Blair had Things Can Only Get Better as a theme song, what would Starmer have?
I think that's the main issue, they cling to Blairism without realising that Blairism was still progressive-lite, and designed to appeal to traditional Labour voters as well. There's also the obvious that each leader since... is not Blair. It's what Corbyn actually did right, ignoring them.The political antenna of the Labour advisors is fucking shocking.
I think that's the main issue, they cling to Blairism without realising that Blairism was still progressive-lite, and designed to appeal to traditional Labour voters as well. There's also the obvious that each leader since... is not Blair. It's what Corbyn actually did right, ignoring them.
I mean, Milliband and Burnham have personalities when they're not being coached in government, or government in waiting, Brown looked ridiculous trying to be touchy feely, and apparently Starmer IRL is quick, witty, good company... and at least vaguely progressive.
But as soon as they come within a sniff of the leadership or a senior government post, they go all anodine and Stepford Labour Leader!
(Add Ed Balls to another who once out of government actually comes across as reasonably engaging!)
But it's also what's allowed to rule and come across. They totally missed that the USP of Brown at that point was he wasn't Blair, he was a serious policy-driven politician with intellect who was going to grasp the problems the country had and take it forward. Instead they tried to make him smiley-happy people person, and not only did that look bonkers, but it also made him appear indecisive and dithering, which is never a good look (see, Johnson - see, Corbyn - both of who raised it up a notch or two from that anyway).Id argue media has a fair bit to do with that. The way some of these were treated in and out of office was night and day.
But it's also what's allowed to rule and come across. They totally missed that the USP of Brown at that point was he wasn't Blair, he was a serious policy-driven politician with intellect who was going to grasp the problems the country had and take it forward. Instead they tried to make him smiley-happy people person, and not only did that look bonkers, but it also made him appear indecisive and dithering, which is never a good look (see, Johnson - see, Corbyn - both of who raised it up a notch or two from that anyway).
Burnham just came across as insincere and willing to bend to whatever the political tone of the day was, and looked grey as the others - is why Corbyn was able to come through and win. I'm pretty sure a Burnham as he conducts himself now would have been far more of a fight.
Yeah, probably why Milliband comes across better nowadays. Current way of doing things means he knows he'll never have another go at being leader (side note, craziness writ large there - Hague would have been a far more effective Tory leader later in his career than when he was actually doing the job), so he can come out with leftfield policies and relax into his witty quips a lot better, knowing he never needs to have the pressure as to whether he eats a bacon sandwich or not ever again!The most popular (and also divisive) figures have been the fringes cos they don’t care and know they’re seen as loons anyway so play to the base. But they’re also congruent. Centre ground politicians seem to feel they can’t just say what they think. The ones that do tend to do pretty well.
Yeah, probably why Milliband comes across better nowadays. Current way of doing things means he knows he'll never have another go at being leader (side note, craziness writ large there - Hague would have been a far more effective Tory leader later in his career than when he was actually doing the job), so he can come out with leftfield policies and relax into his witty quips a lot better, knowing he never needs to have the pressure as to whether he eats a bacon sandwich or not ever again!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?