Would a more centrist Labour be polling higher now? Watch

This discussion is closed.
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#121
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#121
(Original post by Karl_Redak)
All you are doing is putting your fingers in your eyes and going la la la.

You say that I've said stuff that I haven't, then keep on about not understanding what I've said. Seriously, do you have mental health problems?
Your approach has been to make a point, back it up poorly and then attack anyone who calls you out on your poor arguments.

You've lost the argument and resorting once again to childish insults.

Why does not sharing a platform with Cameron make him a hypocrite?
0
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#122
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#122
(Original post by Karl_Redak)
You mistaken you misrepresenting what I've said for me "poorly backing it up".

I've not insulted you. I've asked a serious question. Do you have mental health issues, it would explain your lack of reasoning, and your continual habit of posting stuff which is INCORRECT.

Why do you do that?
Sigh. Of course, accusing your opponent of having mental health issues is an entirely reasonable debate tactic.

Please, please explain how not doing a joint event with Cameron makes him a hypocrite...
0
Dalek1099
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#123
Report 1 year ago
#123
I think that Labour needs to start to appeal to people looking to buy houses. One thing I notice is that its always the Tories introducing new policies to help people get on the housing ladder and Labour will cap rents but they are ignoring why people rent in the first place which is because its far too hard/risky to get on the housing ladder. I would suggest that Corbyn adopt a policy of a £0 deposit mortgage with £0 extra costs as well because many people can afford to pay the monthly mortgage payments as they are lower than their rent payments but can't save much due to the high rents they have to pay. They could also massively increase mortgage security by saying they will pay mortgage payments if you become unemployed - considering that mortgage payments are often less than rent this could save the Government money because they would have to pay the housing benefit if the house is repossessed and they then end up renting a house.
0
Arran90
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#124
Report 1 year ago
#124
(Original post by Dalek1099)
I think that Labour needs to start to appeal to people looking to buy houses. One thing I notice is that its always the Tories introducing new policies to help people get on the housing ladder and Labour will cap rents but they are ignoring why people rent in the first place which is because its far too hard/risky to get on the housing ladder. I would suggest that Corbyn adopt a policy of a £0 deposit mortgage with £0 extra costs as well because many people can afford to pay the monthly mortgage payments as they are lower than their rent payments but can't save much due to the high rents they have to pay. They could also massively increase mortgage security by saying they will pay mortgage payments if you become unemployed - considering that mortgage payments are often less than rent this could save the Government money because they would have to pay the housing benefit if the house is repossessed and they then end up renting a house.
You make a very good point here and Labour could be missing a trick by not implementing measures to increase home ownership. The party fails to realise that most people who rent privately do so not through choice but through lack of choice. The majority want to be homeowners.

High levels of immigration and buy to let go hand in glove with each other. A hard Brexit that drastically reduces the number of EU citizens living in Britain (they overwhelmingly rent privately) will impact heavily on the rental market. A situation will emerge where too many landlords will be chasing too few tenants, so many will end up selling up and interest in BTL as an investment will fall. Banks will also be less inclined to lend money to landlords. Free movement of people will fuel BTL resulting in indefinitely high house prices and landlords buying up houses before first time buyers can get their hands on them. The banks will make billions of pounds available to landlords because there is profit to be made and older folk will use property for their pension.
0
Logical_Son
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#125
Report 1 year ago
#125
(Original post by Arran90)
You make a very good point here and Labour could be missing a trick by not implementing measures to increase home ownership. The party fails to realise that most people who rent privately do so not through choice but through lack of choice. The majority want to be homeowners.
Unfortunately you forget that an awful lot of socialism (and therefore socialists) is against private property. So, how much do you "dilute" the brand just to get votes? (You might want to check out the last time Labour were in power.
0
Arran90
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#126
Report 1 year ago
#126
(Original post by Logical_Son)
Unfortunately you forget that an awful lot of socialism (and therefore socialists) is against private property. So, how much do you "dilute" the brand just to get votes? (You might want to check out the last time Labour were in power.
This is yet another dilemma and division that plagues Labour.

Should Labour go down the road of populism by giving the hard done by electorate what they want - their own home - or should they stick with socialist purity even though it's a product of another era and fails to address the needs and concerns of the public?

Last time Labour was in power they presided over skyrocketing house prices resulting in millions priced out of home ownership and a BTL craze where landlords were swimming in money. Housing wasn't even an issue in the run up to the 1997 general election.

Overall, landlords and property investors have done better under a Labour government than a Conservative government. Since 2010 house prices have been more or less stagnant apart from a handful of hotspots (so no increase in capital gains) and the Conservatives gave us a referendum that resulted in voting to leave the EU which has the potential to impact badly on the rental market.
0
Logical_Son
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#127
Report 1 year ago
#127
You also have to factor in Labour bailing out the Too Big To Fails, that protected a lot of BTLers, as well as the idiots who got VRM for their houses. You wonder why interest rates have been low? Prices can't go down, because some people will be stuck in negative equity, so that means no new houses (the old S&D) Labour caused the homeless problem (my first time being homeless was under Blair).

Also, the Conversatives didn't "give us" a referendum, it was a manifesto pledge (which probably got them in), they won, so they had to deliever the promised referendum.
0
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#128
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#128
(Original post by Logical_Son)
You also have to factor in Labour bailing out the Too Big To Fails, that protected a lot of BTLers, as well as the idiots who got VRM for their houses. You wonder why interest rates have been low? Prices can't go down, because some people will be stuck in negative equity, so that means no new houses (the old S&D) Labour caused the homeless problem (my first time being homeless was under Blair).

Also, the Conversatives didn't "give us" a referendum, it was a manifesto pledge (which probably got them in), they won, so they had to deliever the promised referendum.
If Labour did not bail out the banks, there would have been a run on the banks and they would have fallen like dominoes, bringing the global economy crashing down with them.
I
0
DziNe
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#129
Report 1 year ago
#129
Labour under a moderate would be over 50% right now. Fact.
0
Logical_Son
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#130
Report 1 year ago
#130
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
If Labour did not bail out the banks, there would have been a run on the banks and they would have fallen like dominoes, bringing the global economy crashing down with them.
I
That's not true. If they didn't bail them out, Britain would be through the worst of it. The idea that the whole global economy would have tanked due to a couple of banks is a bit silly.

The real reason the banks were bailed out, is because a load of middle class socialists would have been forced to down size. And they'd rather the lower third would suffer.
0
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#131
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#131
(Original post by Logical_Son)
That's not true. If they didn't bail them out, Britain would be through the worst of it. The idea that the whole global economy would have tanked due to a couple of banks is a bit silly.

The real reason the banks were bailed out, is because a load of middle class socialists would have been forced to down size. And they'd rather the lower third would suffer.
It was not just a couple of banks. The whole world's financial markets were highly integrated and a couple of them collapsing would have caused a domino effect. People who had their life savings in banks would have lost everything.

If Bank A owes Bank B hundreds of millions and Bank A goes bust, then Bank B is likely to go bust. Then whoever Bank B owes money too goes bust. Etc. People panic and rush to the banks to get their money out and the banks don't have anywhere near enough.

We don't even need to imagine what would have happened. Just research the 1920s.
0
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#132
Report 1 year ago
#132
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
It was not just a couple of banks. The whole world's financial markets were highly integrated and a couple of them collapsing would have caused a domino effect. People who had their life savings in banks would have lost everything.

If Bank A owes Bank B hundreds of millions and Bank A goes bust, then Bank B is likely to go bust. Then whoever Bank B owes money too goes bust. Etc. People panic and rush to the banks to get their money out and the banks don't have anywhere near enough.

We don't even need to imagine what would have happened. Just research the 1920s.
Actually the situation is somewhere between the two scenarios you talk about
0
So-Sarah
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#133
Report 1 year ago
#133
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
Then again, I don't know if a more centrist leader would be as popular with younger voters.

We seem to be in a similar position to 2005, an unpopular government with an equally unpopular opposition.

Thoughts?
If Labour toughened up a little, say went for the Patriotic Leftish approach, ditched the old windbag and imbecileBot , then perhaps
0
So-Sarah
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#134
Report 1 year ago
#134
seeing as a large chunk of traditional Labour voters now vote UKIP, similar, or Tory , then lab are screwed - they need to stop just being for the middle classes
0
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#135
Report 1 year ago
#135
(Original post by So-Sarah)
seeing as a large chunk of traditional Labour voters now vote UKIP, similar, or Tory , then lab are screwed - they need to stop just being for the middle classes
UKIP don’t have a large vote anymore they reached their goal and imploded.

To be honest I don’t think we will see where the land lays for another election or two.

One if brexit goes ok two if it doesn’t.
0
Eboniser
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#136
Report 1 year ago
#136
Maybe if Labour stopped promoting/tolerating antisemitism people might believe they were really `for the many`
0
So-Sarah
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#137
Report 1 year ago
#137
and maybe if they got rid of the retards in Labour that are constantly popping up on mainstream TV shows, well, maybe then people would stop mocking them
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#138
Report 1 year ago
#138
(Original post by Dalek1099)
I think that Labour needs to start to appeal to people looking to buy houses. One thing I notice is that its always the Tories introducing new policies to help people get on the housing ladder and Labour will cap rents but they are ignoring why people rent in the first place which is because its far too hard/risky to get on the housing ladder. I would suggest that Corbyn adopt a policy of a £0 deposit mortgage with £0 extra costs as well because many people can afford to pay the monthly mortgage payments as they are lower than their rent payments but can't save much due to the high rents they have to pay. They could also massively increase mortgage security by saying they will pay mortgage payments if you become unemployed - considering that mortgage payments are often less than rent this could save the Government money because they would have to pay the housing benefit if the house is repossessed and they then end up renting a house.
I suspect if Labour proposed this you would get the usual suspects saying they are offering free houses to scroungers. It is a nice idea but the marketing of it would need to be done very carefully.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#139
Report 1 year ago
#139
(Original post by So-Sarah)
and maybe if they got rid of the retards in Labour that are constantly popping up on mainstream TV shows, well, maybe then people would stop mocking them
As opposed to modern geniuses of our time like BoJo and David Davies


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
TheCasual MK2
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#140
Report 1 year ago
#140
I really don't get what centrist disagree on with Corbyn?

Proper living wage? Getting rid of the public sector wage cap? investment in public services and infrastructure? Better working rights? Corporation Tax at New Labour levels?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (188)
23.95%
Pop (192)
24.46%
Jazz (30)
3.82%
Classical (46)
5.86%
Hip-Hop (148)
18.85%
Electronic (53)
6.75%
Indie (128)
16.31%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed