politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories must leave and give Corbyn his chance

Afternoon from Colombo! Has TMay resigned yet?

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪Now this would be were you up for Portillo with knobs on. ‬

https://twitter.com/iainaitch/status/875993859062472705

If Corbyn got a comfortable majority of about 50 he would likely win Uxbridge yes but there is unlikely to be an election later this year in my view

Scrapheap_as_was said:

stjohn said:

The PB consensus is May must go soon. Opinion is divided on whether we get a coronation or a contested leadership election.

The Tories in parliament ought to know whether one of their number has the skills to lead the country at this difficult time. Ordinarily it should be one of the senior figures from this or a previous government.

If she is replaced soon my expected short list would be

Boris
Davis
Rudd
Hammond
Gove
Fallon
Hunt

Two questions.

1. Does it have to be a leaver?

2. Is one of the above the next PM?

I'm on Crouch, Mercer and Rory!

But then I was on a Tory winning a NI seat in the GE too and that was a genius bet....

Rory! I'm on, but likely to be one after next. Pretty sure he will Foreign Sec at some point.

One more point - can I remind everyone that the Tory base GREW at the last election.

We won more votes. The problem is that the opposition's policy secured a greater increased vote for them, too.

If Theresa May is replaced as Prime Minister without a general election, her replacement should have extensive ministerial experience and ideally should have held one of the great offices of state.

That points to Philip Hammond really. Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd are barely conceivable. David Davis doesn't have enough ministerial experience.

Anyone else really would be the Conservative party putting itself ahead of the country. This is no time for a novice, as someone once said.

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.

it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.

There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.

I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?

Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.

How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.

42.5% to 40% isn't overwhelmingly.

I think it is fair to say that there is a nasty streak among the Tory votership. The idea that if people are feckless they should be allowed to starve to death is implied by Tory policy and supported by quite a few Tory voters of my acquaintance. We really aren't so poor that we need to let this happen.

If the Tories genuinely wanted the poor to starve to death they would have ended the welfare state, scrapped the NHS and banned foodbanks. It is absurdly partisan posts like this which show lefteingers at their most absurd, of all the Tories I know I have yet to meet one who wanted to stave people to death, McDonnell's hero Mao on the other hand....

Indeed. The major mass starvations of the 20th century were both caused by Communists.

Mortimer said:

I think you'd get on really well. He is a tremendously warm, charming man who cares deeply for the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged.

That you believe that speaks volumes about your grip on the reality of other people's lives. "Iain" has presided over a system which has literally driven people to suicide. He is an amoral inhuman monster.

RochdalePioneers said:

Mortimer said:

I think you'd get on really well. He is a tremendously warm, charming man who cares deeply for the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged.

That you believe that speaks volumes about your grip on the reality of other people's lives. "Iain" has presided over a system which has literally driven people to suicide. He is an amoral inhuman monster.

What a guy.

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.

it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.

There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.

I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?

Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.

How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.

42.5% to 40% isn't overwhelmingly.

I think it is fair to say that there is a nasty streak among the Tory votership. The idea that if people are feckless they should be allowed to starve to death is implied by Tory policy and supported by quite a few Tory voters of my acquaintance. We really aren't so poor that we need to let this happen.

If the Tories genuinely wanted the poor to starve to death they would have ended the welfare state, scrapped the NHS and banned foodbanks. It is absurdly partisan posts like this which show lefteingers at their most absurd, of all the Tories I know I have yet to meet one who wanted to stave people to death, McDonnell's hero Mao on the other hand....

Indeed. The major mass starvations of the 20th century were both caused by Communists.

Exactly

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie

I simply cannot let that stand. No party is 'fck the people'. No one gets into politics (it is seriously badly remunerated) for that.

The last manifesto was the most left wing Tory manifesto in my life time.

It secured more votes for it than any has done for decades.

The wing of the party that was sidelined last June was the neo-liberal 'lets cut middle class taxes whilst we cut disability benefit'.

The reason the Tories didn't secure a majority last week is because they've been deserted by self interested young professionals. Young professionals who should be owner-occupiers by now. To be fair, whilst many young professionals need to look to themselves (including my mates who have 5* holidays in the caribbean yet moan about not having money for a deposit), a lot of them are not because of continual stoking of the housing bubble by the neo-liberal wing of the Tory party, and before that the neo-liberal wing of the Labour party. Both of whom supported mass immigration, prioritised growth of the GDP rather than growth of GDP/capita, and did nothing to tackle the nimbyism and corporate builder complex that prevent mass housing projects

Err, so we're no longer the party of helping people help themselves.

Sorry Mortimer, you've completely lost it right now and your blaming the voters for not voting for us. We can't create a winning platform like that, we just had a complete unattractive proposition to too many people and a shite leader.

Nope - you're completely misreading my post there Max. I don't blame the voters - that is a fools errand.

The Tory party has to disassociate itself from the building companies. From Buy to Let. It has to become the party of building 100s of thousands of houses a year. Of liberalising regulations on where and when houses can be built. Perhaps of limiting the amount of land that can be owned by house building companies. Just as it has to limit immigration to to prevent too much demand.

It has to become the party of strivers. It doesn't do that as a neo-liberal party.

The Conservative party has always been successful when it was associated with aspiration.

When Osborne robbed the young to bribe the old it became the party of privilege.

What the Conservatives need now is:

1) Affordable housing to buy
2) Affordable higher education and training

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/876021367556198400

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If Theresa May is replaced as Prime Minister without a general election, her replacement should have extensive ministerial experience and ideally should have held one of the great offices of state.

That points to Philip Hammond really. Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd are barely conceivable. David Davis doesn't have enough ministerial experience.

Anyone else really would be the Conservative party putting itself ahead of the country. This is no time for a novice, as someone once said.

Wouldn't be holding a P. Hammond PM after the election coupon, would you?

I do, but actually I now would make very nearly as much money from D Davis PM, thanks to beating the rush yesterday and backing him at odds of 350 or so. I do ok with Amber Rudd for the same reason.

So my advice is fairly disinterested.

Oh Al!

murali_s said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪Now this would be were you up for Portillo with knobs on. ‬

https://twitter.com/iainaitch/status/875993859062472705

Tbh, Labour's advance in London was partly down to having such an awful leader and us allowing Labour to become the default party of remain. I don't think any future campaign will make those mistakes again. Plus we won't be attacking our base like Theresa May did.

Uxbridge very winnable for Labour. The Tories will be more or less wiped out here in London next time around. Rest of the country could be very different though...

Not necessarily, if Hammond was leader I could see a small swing back to the Tories in London and the South but a swing to Labour in the North and Scotland and the Midlands and Wales staying about the same for the blues

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If Theresa May is replaced as Prime Minister without a general election, her replacement should have extensive ministerial experience and ideally should have held one of the great offices of state.

That points to Philip Hammond really. Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd are barely conceivable. David Davis doesn't have enough ministerial experience.

Anyone else really would be the Conservative party putting itself ahead of the country. This is no time for a novice, as someone once said.

Wouldn't be holding a P. Hammond PM after the election coupon, would you?

I do, but actually I now would make very nearly as much money from D Davis PM, thanks to beating the rush yesterday and backing him at odds of 350 or so. I do ok with Amber Rudd for the same reason.

So my advice is fairly disinterested.

Oh Al!

Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I reserve my right to aftertime occasionally, especially if I'm going to be accused of it anyway!

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.

it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.

There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.

I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?

Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.

How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.

42.5% to 40% isn't overwhelmingly.

I think it is fair to say that there is a nasty streak among the Tory votership. The idea that if people are feckless they should be allowed to starve to death is implied by Tory policy and supported by quite a few Tory voters of my acquaintance. We really aren't so poor that we need to let this happen.

If the Tories genuinely wanted the poor to starve to death they would have ended the welfare state, scrapped the NHS and banned foodbanks. It is absurdly partisan posts like this which show lefteingers at their most absurd, of all the Tories I know I have yet to meet one who wanted to stave people to death, McDonnell's hero Mao on the other hand....

I'm one of the least partisan people I know. I'd never campaigned for Labour until this election. In 2010 I was quite relieved that Labour lost. But Cameron's insistence on demeaning the disabled and unemployed, and his refusal to confront problems such as tax avoidance and homelessness - these turned me away again very quickly. It wouldn't've been hard for the Tories to build up a solid lead over Labour, but somehow it wasn't in their hearts to do it.

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If Theresa May is replaced as Prime Minister without a general election, her replacement should have extensive ministerial experience and ideally should have held one of the great offices of state.

That points to Philip Hammond really. Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd are barely conceivable. David Davis doesn't have enough ministerial experience.

Anyone else really would be the Conservative party putting itself ahead of the country. This is no time for a novice, as someone once said.

Wouldn't be holding a P. Hammond PM after the election coupon, would you?

I do, but actually I now would make very nearly as much money from D Davis PM, thanks to beating the rush yesterday and backing him at odds of 350 or so. I do ok with Amber Rudd for the same reason.

So my advice is fairly disinterested.

Oh Al!

Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I reserve my right to aftertime occasionally, especially if I'm going to be accused of it anyway!

I agree 100%!

I haven't backed Rudd though...

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If Theresa May is replaced as Prime Minister without a general election, her replacement should have extensive ministerial experience and ideally should have held one of the great offices of state.

That points to Philip Hammond really. Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd are barely conceivable. David Davis doesn't have enough ministerial experience.

Anyone else really would be the Conservative party putting itself ahead of the country. This is no time for a novice, as someone once said.

The best happy ending to the whole Brexit misadventure would be for Ken Clarke to be given a swansong as PM for 6-12 months to lead us into the Euro. It's too early for that of course as the Brexiteers still haven't admitted defeat.

LOL. You really, really don't understand the British public do you. It will never happen. If ever there was a chance, the events of the last decade have killed it stone dead.

HYUFD said:

murali_s said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪Now this would be were you up for Portillo with knobs on. ‬

https://twitter.com/iainaitch/status/875993859062472705

Tbh, Labour's advance in London was partly down to having such an awful leader and us allowing Labour to become the default party of remain. I don't think any future campaign will make those mistakes again. Plus we won't be attacking our base like Theresa May did.

Uxbridge very winnable for Labour. The Tories will be more or less wiped out here in London next time around. Rest of the country could be very different though...

Not necessarily, if Hammond was leader I could see a small swing back to the Tories in London and the South but a swing to Labour in the North and Scotland and the Midlands and Wales staying about the same for the blues

I don't see why there might not be a larger swing to the Tories than you suggest. I reckon that many people voted Labour to save their local MP and stop a May landslide, safe in the belief that Corbyn will be nowhere near No.10.

I doubt they will make the same mistake next time.

A proper old skool Tory campaign, hammering Labour's manifesto and taxes, might deliver a swing.

So it's either David Davis who hasn't run a whelk stall,that "nasty piece of work",old Etonian bully,Boris Johnson or Mogadon Phil who would make an excellent Funeral Director and has he inspirational qualities of a turnip.

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mortimer said:

I think you'd get on really well. He is a tremendously warm, charming man who cares deeply for the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged.

That you believe that speaks volumes about your grip on the reality of other people's lives. "Iain" has presided over a system which has literally driven people to suicide. He is an amoral inhuman monster.

Funny. I was thinking pretty much the same about you last night.

I've been called worse....

RochdalePioneers said:

Mortimer said:

I think you'd get on really well. He is a tremendously warm, charming man who cares deeply for the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged.

That you believe that speaks volumes about your grip on the reality of other people's lives. "Iain" has presided over a system which has literally driven people to suicide. He is an amoral inhuman monster.

I think you need a rest. The Government aren't the evil monsters that you imagine.

williamglenn said:

FrankBooth said:

jonny83 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie

Beg Dave to come back?

He's just a PR man. And eventually PR gets found out.

His final plea to vote Remain has aged better than most things said during the campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_zN3vNr-Y&t=9s

LOL. "Brits don't quit, we get involved" said Mr Cameron immediately before quitting.

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

Nope - you're completely misreading my post there Max. I don't blame the voters - that is a fools errand.

The Tory party has to disassociate itself from the building companies. From Buy to Let. It has to become the party of building 100s of thousands of houses a year. Of liberalising regulations on where and when houses can be built. Perhaps of limiting the amount of land that can be owned by house building companies. Just as it has to limit immigration to to prevent too much demand.

It has to become the party of strivers. It doesn't do that as a neo-liberal party.

Yes, I think that's fair enough, but it was Osborne who started our attack on BTL and private renting to much squealing on here and other places. Instead of hitting the scumbag parasite landlords we went after old people with dementia. The more we make the landlords association protest and hurt the more votes we will win.

I also think we need serious reform of student fees, a hypothecated graduate tax is probably what makes the most sense, but I personally don't like it as it attacks success and rewards failure. Maybe lowering fees back down to £3k, but that creates a huge funding gap in HE which will need to be filled from general taxation, I'm not sure how we can square that circle easily but we need to look at all options available, I think alumni funding needs to be increased as a source of income. I wouldn't mind paying £200 per month to Cardiff University if they asked me to and could show that it wouldn't be wasted on more shitty admin staff.

Anyway, glad to see that you are getting on board with gutting the BTL sector, I don't remember who said it, but it is an existential threat to our party and we need to be the party that gets credit for tackling it and increasing home ownership.

Absolutely Max.

As well as the traditional scum bag landlords, which you're right to highlight, BTL has also become a middle class lifestyle choice. A dinner party conversation piece that follows comparisons of whether to get the new Jag or the Range. It disgusts me.

The student fees issue is one I'm not sure about. Perhaps reduce fees to actual cost (there is no way, for example, that it costs my old uni £9k a year to teach history), and heavily subsidise (perhaps with some input from industry and financial services) the STEM subjects. That might result in fewer going to University - and whilst I'm not convinced that is a bad thing, it might not be popular....

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

murali_s said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪Now this would be were you up for Portillo with knobs on. ‬

https://twitter.com/iainaitch/status/875993859062472705

Tbh, Labour's advance in London was partly down to having such an awful leader and us allowing Labour to become the default party of remain. I don't think any future campaign will make those mistakes again. Plus we won't be attacking our base like Theresa May did.

Uxbridge very winnable for Labour. The Tories will be more or less wiped out here in London next time around. Rest of the country could be very different though...

Not necessarily, if Hammond was leader I could see a small swing back to the Tories in London and the South but a swing to Labour in the North and Scotland and the Midlands and Wales staying about the same for the blues

I don't see why there might not be a larger swing to the Tories than you suggest. I reckon that many people voted Labour to save their local MP and stop a May landslide, safe in the belief that Corbyn will be nowhere near No.10.

I doubt they will make the same mistake next time.

A proper old skool Tory campaign, hammering Labour's manifesto and taxes, might deliver a swing.

Possible but I think Corbyn gets about 37% regardless of who leads the Tories

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mortimer said:

I think you'd get on really well. He is a tremendously warm, charming man who cares deeply for the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged.

That you believe that speaks volumes about your grip on the reality of other people's lives. "Iain" has presided over a system which has literally driven people to suicide. He is an amoral inhuman monster.

Funny. I was thinking pretty much the same about you last night.

I've been called worse....

And deservedly so I have no doubt judging by your comments on here.

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

Nope - you're completely misreading my post there Max. I don't blame the voters - that is a fools errand.

The Tory party has to disassociate itself from the building companies. From Buy to Let. It has to become the party of building 100s of thousands of houses a year. Of liberalising regulations on where and when houses can be built. Perhaps of limiting the amount of land that can be owned by house building companies. Just as it has to limit immigration to to prevent too much demand.

It has to become the party of strivers. It doesn't do that as a neo-liberal party.

Yes, I think that's fair enough, but it was Osborne who started our attack on BTL and private renting to much squealing on here and other places. Instead of hitting the scumbag parasite landlords we went after old people with dementia. The more we make the landlords association protest and hurt the more votes we will win.

I also think we need serious reform of student fees, a hypothecated graduate tax is probably what makes the most sense, but I personally don't like it as it attacks success and rewards failure. Maybe lowering fees back down to £3k, but that creates a huge funding gap in HE which will need to be filled from general taxation, I'm not sure how we can square that circle easily but we need to look at all options available, I think alumni funding needs to be increased as a source of income. I wouldn't mind paying £200 per month to Cardiff University if they asked me to and could show that it wouldn't be wasted on more shitty admin staff.

Anyway, glad to see that you are getting on board with gutting the BTL sector, I don't remember who said it, but it is an existential threat to our party and we need to be the party that gets credit for tackling it and increasing home ownership.

Absolutely Max.

As well as the traditional scum bag landlords, which you're right to highlight, BTL has also become a middle class lifestyle choice. A dinner party conversation piece that follows comparisons of whether to get the new Jag or the Range. It disgusts me.

The student fees issue is one I'm not sure about. Perhaps reduce fees to actual cost (there is no way, for example, that it costs my old uni £9k a year to teach history), and heavily subsidise (perhaps with some input from industry and financial services) the STEM subjects. That might result in fewer going to University - and whilst I'm not convinced that is a bad thing, it might not be popular....

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Seems unlikely ...

https://twitter.com/SurryKnight/status/875988728883273728

The word 'sprinkler' does not appear in the document he links to.

Sean_F said:

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

Is the Queen happy with your refurb of Kensington Palace .... clad in gold leaf one hopes ?? ..

JackW said:

BBC - Prime Minister not at Trooping of the Colour.

Another hostile crowd avoided ....

I think it would be pretty insensitive to attend it, when more urgent tasks await.

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Yes, I think that's fair enough, but it was Osborne who started our attack on BTL and private renting to much squealing on here and other places. Instead of hitting the scumbag parasite landlords we went after old people with dementia. The more we make the landlords association protest and hurt the more votes we will win.

I also think we need serious reform of student fees, a hypothecated graduate tax is probably what makes the most sense, but I personally don't like it as it attacks success and rewards failure. Maybe lowering fees back down to £3k, but that creates a huge funding gap in HE which will need to be filled from general taxation, I'm not sure how we can square that circle easily but we need to look at all options available, I think alumni funding needs to be increased as a source of income. I wouldn't mind paying £200 per month to Cardiff University if they asked me to and could show that it wouldn't be wasted on more shitty admin staff.

Anyway, glad to see that you are getting on board with gutting the BTL sector, I don't remember who said it, but it is an existential threat to our party and we need to be the party that gets credit for tackling it and increasing home ownership.

Absolutely Max.

As well as the traditional scum bag landlords, which you're right to highlight, BTL has also become a middle class lifestyle choice. A dinner party conversation piece that follows comparisons of whether to get the new Jag or the Range. It disgusts me.

The student fees issue is one I'm not sure about. Perhaps reduce fees to actual cost (there is no way, for example, that it costs my old uni £9k a year to teach history), and heavily subsidise (perhaps with some input from industry and financial services) the STEM subjects. That might result in fewer going to University - and whilst I'm not convinced that is a bad thing, it might not be popular....

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

Yep. Society has moved toward a model where people are more likely to wed at 36 than 26, so it's Corbynically comic to demand that young single people take out huge mortgages to buy cheap suburban houses that won't fit their long-term needs, rather than renting BTLs in the cities where they live their lives and seek mates.

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Mortimer said:

I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?

Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.

How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.

42.5% to 40% isn't overwhelmingly.

I think it is fair to say that there is a nasty streak among the Tory votership. The idea that if people are feckless they should be allowed to starve to death is implied by Tory policy and supported by quite a few Tory voters of my acquaintance. We really aren't so poor that we need to let this happen.

If the Tories genuinely wanted the poor to starve to death they would have ended the welfare state, scrapped the NHS and banned foodbanks. It is absurdly partisan posts like this which show lefteingers at their most absurd, of all the Tories I know I have yet to meet one who wanted to stave people to death, McDonnell's hero Mao on the other hand....

Indeed. The major mass starvations of the 20th century were both caused by Communists.

Exactly

Right-wingers who indulge in the fantasy that a Labour government will lead to the UK being like Venezuela or North Korea should've worked out by now that voters are rightly going to ignore them.

Well they still refused to make Corbyn PM last Thursday but even if he does eventually get power a few years of socialism will be the quickest way to make conservativism fashionable again

That's little more than a truism though. Every government, left, right or centre, is bound to become unpopular in the end.

To be fair, if it wasn't for Osborne's postgraduate loans policy, I would have no way of going back to university to do a MSc which I plan to do within the next few years.

rottenborough said:

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

Nope - you're completely misreading my post there Max. I don't blame the voters - that is a fools errand.

...

It has to become the party of strivers. It doesn't do that as a neo-liberal party.

Yes, I think that's fair enough, but it was Osborne who started our attack on BTL and private renting to much squealing on here and other places. Instead of hitting the scumbag parasite landlords we went after old people with dementia. The more we make the landlords association protest and hurt the more votes we will win.

I also think we need serious reform of student fees, a hypothecated graduate tax is probably what makes the most sense, but I personally don't like it as it attacks success and rewards failure. Maybe lowering fees back down to £3k, but that creates a huge funding gap in HE which will need to be filled from general taxation, I'm not sure how we can square that circle easily but we need to look at all options available, I think alumni funding needs to be increased as a source of income. I wouldn't mind paying £200 per month to Cardiff University if they asked me to and could show that it wouldn't be wasted on more shitty admin staff.

Anyway, glad to see that you are getting on board with gutting the BTL sector, I don't remember who said it, but it is an existential threat to our party and we need to be the party that gets credit for tackling it and increasing home ownership.

Absolutely Max.

As well as the traditional scum bag landlords, which you're right to highlight, BTL has also become a middle class lifestyle choice. A dinner party conversation piece that follows comparisons of whether to get the new Jag or the Range. It disgusts me.

The student fees issue is one I'm not sure about. Perhaps reduce fees to actual cost (there is no way, for example, that it costs my old uni £9k a year to teach history), and heavily subsidise (perhaps with some input from industry and financial services) the STEM subjects. That might result in fewer going to University - and whilst I'm not convinced that is a bad thing, it might not be popular....

BTL may be many things, but it's not a "lifestyle choice". The middle classes have in general gone for it because it made economic sense as a way of providing a pension.

Invest in a business, creating jobs, or buy bonds, or buy into a fund that does any of that.

Productive use of capital.

I'm afraid if people own more than one house they are de facto depriving another person of owning that second, third or fourth house.

Ownership is in British DNA. It is the route to power.

This seems to be an argument for a return to the 1923/24 scenario -the only occasion in British history when the party which came second formed a government. It implies that whoever leads the Tories can do a Stanley Baldwin trick -losing his majority, giving Labour rope to hang itself and then coming back with a landslide. I am not sure whether history would repeat itself. It might well be that Labour got the landslide in a second election. I think the Tories should get rid of May quickly, get a new leader, do some popular things for a year, with a DUP deal, and then hold a second election in 2018.

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Yes, I think that's fair enough, but it was Osborne who started our attack on BTL and private renting to much squealing on here and other places. Instead of hitting the scumbag parasite landlords we went after old people with dementia. The more we make the landlords association protest and hurt the more votes we will win.

I also think we need serious reform of student fees, a hypothecated graduate tax is probably what makes the most sense, but I personally don't like it as it attacks success and rewards failure. Maybe lowering fees back down to £3k, but that creates a huge funding gap in HE which will need to be filled from general taxation, I'm not sure how we can square that circle easily but we need to look at all options available, I think alumni funding needs to be increased as a source of income. I wouldn't mind paying £200 per month to Cardiff University if they asked me to and could show that it wouldn't be wasted on more shitty admin staff.

Anyway, glad to see that you are getting on board with gutting the BTL sector, I don't remember who said it, but it is an existential threat to our party and we need to be the party that gets credit for tackling it and increasing home ownership.

Absolutely Max.

As well as the traditional scum bag landlords, which you're right to highlight, BTL has also become a middle class lifestyle choice. A dinner party conversation piece that follows comparisons of whether to get the new Jag or the Range. It disgusts me.

The student fees issue is one I'm not sure about. Perhaps reduce fees to actual cost (there is no way, for example, that it costs my old uni £9k a year to teach history), and heavily subsidise (perhaps with some input from industry and financial services) the STEM subjects. That might result in fewer going to University - and whilst I'm not convinced that is a bad thing, it might not be popular....

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

Yep. Society has moved toward a model where people are more likely to wed at 36 than 26, so it's Corbynically comic to demand that young single people take out huge mortgages to buy cheap suburban houses that won't fit their long-term needs, rather than renting BTLs in the cities where they live their lives and seek mates.

We lost among 35-50 year olds as well. All of my friends who are in the 27-33 range are looking to buy, but most are unable to raise enough money for deposits because rents are so high. As always you're completely clueless.

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Yes, I think that's fair enough, but it was Osborne who started our attack on BTL and private renting to much squealing on here and other places. Instead of hitting the scumbag parasite landlords we went after old people with dementia. The more we make the landlords association protest and hurt the more votes we will win.

I also think we need serious reform of student fees, a hypothecated graduate tax is probably what makes the most sense, but I personally don't like it as it attacks success and rewards failure. Maybe lowering fees back down to £3k, but that creates a huge funding gap in HE which will need to be filled from general taxation, I'm not sure how we can square that circle easily but we need to look at all options available, I think alumni funding needs to be increased as a source of income. I wouldn't mind paying £200 per month to Cardiff University if they asked me to and could show that it wouldn't be wasted on more shitty admin staff.

Anyway, glad to see that you are getting on board with gutting the BTL sector, I don't remember who said it, but it is an existential threat to our party and we need to be the party that gets credit for tackling it and increasing home ownership.

Absolutely Max.

As well as the traditional scum bag landlords, which you're right to highlight, BTL has also become a middle class lifestyle choice. A dinner party conversation piece that follows comparisons of whether to get the new Jag or the Range. It disgusts me.

The student fees issue is one I'm not sure about. Perhaps reduce fees to actual cost (there is no way, for example, that it costs my old uni £9k a year to teach history), and heavily subsidise (perhaps with some input from industry and financial services) the STEM subjects. That might result in fewer going to University - and whilst I'm not convinced that is a bad thing, it might not be popular....

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

The problem with some freedoms, e.g. the freedom to buy and let property, is the consequences they have. In this case the consequence is that the British value of being able to own one's own home is being trashed. If one believes that homeowning is important, then renting is clearly antithetical to that. Therefore someone who believes in homeowning should not, on principle, be a landlord. One has to make a choice whether one is more interested in upholding one's values, or in making money.

x

GeoffM said:

NickPalmer said:

rinkystingpiece said:

I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.

You feel that David H is a splenetic remainiac, a rabid corbynista and an overt left-wing campaigner?

Man, our sleeper operation is GOOD.

But welcome to the site.

DH isn't a sleeper agent.

He's tolerated as the House Tory because his of his unorthodox views (see also PR)

A shame he's blind to the fact that he's being manipulated to push a meme of a party divided (which it is to an extent, but not down his lines)

To be fair, on twitter the other day I saw him railing against a BAME only journalist scheme. Obviously he knows better than to say anything like that on here because the powers that be are v PC

Dadge said:

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Yes, I think that's fair enough, but it was Osborne who started our attack on BTL and private renting to much squealing on here and other places. Instead of hitting the scumbag parasite landlords we went after old people with dementia. The more we make the landlords association protest and hurt the more votes we will win.

I also think we need serious reform of student fees, a hypothecated graduate tax is probably what makes the most sense, but I personally don't like it as it attacks success and rewards failure. Maybe lowering fees back down to £3k, but that creates a huge funding gap in HE which will need to be filled from general taxation, I'm not sure how we can square that circle easily but we need to look at all options available, I think alumni funding needs to be increased as a source of income. I wouldn't mind paying £200 per month to Cardiff University if they asked me to and could show that it wouldn't be wasted on more shitty admin staff.

Anyway, glad to see that you are getting on board with gutting the BTL sector, I don't remember who said it, but it is an existential threat to our party and we need to be the party that gets credit for tackling it and increasing home ownership.

Absolutely Max.

As well as the traditional scum bag landlords, which you're right to highlight, BTL has also become a middle class lifestyle choice. A dinner party conversation piece that follows comparisons of whether to get the new Jag or the Range. It disgusts me.

The student fees issue is one I'm not sure about. Perhaps reduce fees to actual cost (there is no way, for example, that it costs my old uni £9k a year to teach history), and heavily subsidise (perhaps with some input from industry and financial services) the STEM subjects. That might result in fewer going to University - and whilst I'm not convinced that is a bad thing, it might not be popular....

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

The problem with some freedoms, e.g. the freedom to buy and let property, is the consequences they have. In this case the consequence is that the British value of being able to own one's own home is being trashed. If one believes that homeowning is important, then renting is clearly antithetical to that. Therefore someone who believes in homeowning should not, on principle, be a landlord. One has to make a choice whether one is more interested in upholding one's values, or in making money.

Not everyone can afford to buy immediately or have it make sense do so. The country needs a healthy rental and ownership market.

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

Sean_F said:

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

I'm sure you've done a great job Sean, and are I bet a great landlord. But, and it is a big but, you are de facto depriving another of the joy of owning that flat and doing it up themselves....

But, you always get people, like our tenants, who only wish to stay there for a short while. Think how hard it would be to take up jobs in new places, if the only way of doing so was to buy a new property.

Well, quite. And some of us have zero interest in doing up properties and spending our time worrying about the roof, the boiler, etc. - and would much prefer to leave it to people who are either interested in doing it or professionally trained.

Because a bad landlord can pretty much ruin your life, people feel strongly about them. But a healthy rental market is an important part of any society and there's nothing inherently evil in being a landlord. I've rented nearly all my life and had good relationships with every landlord/agent throughout. But good regulation is important to prevent the bad landlords undercutting the good ones and giving them a bad name.

GeoffM said:

DH isn't a sleeper agent.

He's tolerated as the House Tory because his of his unorthodox views (see also PR)

A shame he's blind to the fact that he's being manipulated to push a meme of a party divided (which it is to an extent, but not down his lines)

Is David Herdson one PBer you would be happy to extinguish a fire on if he were ablaze, as opposed to another PB you recently deemed unsuitable for saving from death by burning?

Just asking .... so the site fire fighters might be on hand.

williamglenn said:

Moniker's favourite columnist Fintan O'Toole has graduated to the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/britain-ireland-brexit-leo-varadkar.html

Britain is discovering what Ireland had to face up to a long time ago: You can’t govern a modern democracy by defining only what it isn’t.

The near total lack of interest in Eire's exotic new taoiseach says it all. He's insignificant.

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

@seanfear

We let our first property out because we were in negative equity and couldn't afford to move without transferring the mortgage. We let out another property (our home) because we moved to Italy and didn't want to sell it. We bought the flat over our property many years ago scraping together a deposit because we didn't want someone moving over us and doing the floorboards....and have let it out to a single woman for 12 years without putting up the rent (in Oxford) and have even given her periods off when she she has moved jobs or so forth. We've developed other properties and sold them on because my wife has a spectacular eye for this kind of thing and, like you, have turned rundown properties around.

I have now bought a really modest house to live in for the moment and am exceptionally happy...we may want to move back to our main flat in Oxford so do not want to sell it......I couldn't sell the flat above because the girl lives there and for all intents and purposes it is her home. I drive a knackered car...the worse car on the road. I hate airports and travelling so am not one for holidays. OK...I accumulated wealth and assets, am still youngish don't have to work and so forth and know that I am exceptionally lucky that way.

As much as I get derided here, I wouldn't classify myself as a scumbag landlord. If you want to blame anyone, blame the banks for lending me the money and leveraging...that's what has enabled someone like me build up some assets from a position of negative equity using a 2.5k loan from my parents to buy another house.

NickPalmer said:

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

Sean_F said:

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

I'm sure you've done a great job Sean, and are I bet a great landlord. But, and it is a big but, you are de facto depriving another of the joy of owning that flat and doing it up themselves....

But, you always get people, like our tenants, who only wish to stay there for a short while. Think how hard it would be to take up jobs in new places, if the only way of doing so was to buy a new property.

Well, quite. And some of us have zero interest in doing up properties and spending our time worrying about the roof, the boiler, etc. - and would much prefer to leave it to people who are either interested in doing it or professionally trained.

Because a bad landlord can pretty much ruin your life, people feel strongly about them. But a healthy rental market is an important part of any society and there's nothing inherently evil in being a landlord. I've rented nearly all my life and had good relationships with every landlord/agent throughout. But good regulation is important to prevent the bad landlords undercutting the good ones and giving them a bad name.

As we have just unfortunately seen, a non profit landlord is no guarantor of a safe rental property.

The tightly-scripted ritual of a top British education and the House of Commons doesn't seem to prepare many politicians well for crises and dynamic situations.

RoyalBlue said:

Hello all.

For what it's worth, the Tories could do far worse than reversing the 2011 tuition fees reforms. They has saved the government almost no money (thanks to the hike in repayment threshold from c. £15k to £21k) and have made the financial position of young people dramatically worse than those a few years their senior.

On May, she will be PM for the next 2 years. Tory MPs have accepted it, so what any of us think doesn't really matter. The mob rule that we would experience if Corbyn got into power, as exemplified by the reaction to Grenfell, makes keeping him out the overwhelming duty of the Tory party. We cannot afford a trial run with authoritarian socialism.

Abandoning the tuition fee hikes now would be a huge about face, but it has clearly cost the Tories support amongst the middle class especially. What a pickle Osbourne policy has put The Conservatives in.

Maybe it could be replaced with a graduate tax as getting rid of it all togther would cost £9.5 billion.

Gallowgate said:

RoyalBlue said:

Hello all.

For what it's worth, the Tories could do far worse than reversing the 2011 tuition fees reforms. They has saved the government almost no money (thanks to the hike in repayment threshold from c. £15k to £21k) and have made the financial position of young people dramatically worse than those a few years their senior.

On May, she will be PM for the next 2 years. Tory MPs have accepted it, so what any of us think doesn't really matter. The mob rule that we would experience if Corbyn got into power, as exemplified by the reaction to Grenfell, makes keeping him out the overwhelming duty of the Tory party. We cannot afford a trial run with authoritarian socialism.

I'm sorry but that's rubbish. I paid the 3k fees but my brother paid the 9k fees and he's better off financially due to the repayment thresholds.

I think the truth is just it depends.

For someone who becomes a charity worker on £14k a year, or only works part-time, or becomes a housespouse.... both systems work out the same, the education turns out to have been free.

For someone with a salary in the low to mid twenty thousands, the new deal is clearly a nicer way to start off in life. But for those who work through professional progression into the higher rate tax band, the higher fees will not be paid off nearly so quickly as the old ones so the lifetime effect is more noticeable.

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

Sean_F said:

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

I'm sure you've done a great job Sean, and are I bet a great landlord. But, and it is a big but, you are de facto depriving another of the joy of owning that flat and doing it up themselves....

But, you always get people, like our tenants, who only wish to stay there for a short while. Think how hard it would be to take up jobs in new places, if the only way of doing so was to buy a new property.

Well, quite. And some of us have zero interest in doing up properties and spending our time worrying about the roof, the boiler, etc. - and would much prefer to leave it to people who are either interested in doing it or professionally trained.

Because a bad landlord can pretty much ruin your life, people feel strongly about them. But a healthy rental market is an important part of any society and there's nothing inherently evil in being a landlord. I've rented nearly all my life and had good relationships with every landlord/agent throughout. But good regulation is important to prevent the bad landlords undercutting the good ones and giving them a bad name.

As we have just unfortunately seen, a non profit landlord is no guarantor of a safe rental property.

An issue that struck me with all this debate about fire-resistant cladding: what do insurers feel? Surely there is an issue with potentially invalidating building insurance if you fit flammable materials to the outside of the building?

GeoffM said:

JackW said:

GeoffM said:

DH isn't a sleeper agent.

He's tolerated as the House Tory because his of his unorthodox views (see also PR)

A shame he's blind to the fact that he's being manipulated to push a meme of a party divided (which it is to an extent, but not down his lines)

Is David Herdson one PBer you would be happy to extinguish a fire on if he were ablaze, as opposed to another PB you recently deemed unsuitable for saving from death by burning?

Just asking .... so the site fire fighters might be on hand.

I said no such thing. I said I wouldn't run back to him with an opinion.

Kindly retract that untruth.

GeoffM Posts: 5,149 June 16
AlastairMeeks said:
» show previous quotes
Get back to me when you can count to 326.


I wouldn't "get back to you" if you were on fire, to be honest.