Next Leader of the Labour Party

The party that conceived and built the NHS, the benefits system and council housing has never represented the poor, unemployed, disabled or pensioners? Of all the frankly ridiculous nonsense you have posted in these pages, this takes the biscuit.

 

Yet despite what you say and your right they spend years out of office and seem irrelevant to many people

 

That is the original party, Built from the working classes and trade unions, They built the NHS, the welfare state and good council housing, However they realised that as people got better off they changed to vote tory, Labour then kept the poor poorer by keeping benefits and pensions as low as possible while preaching their support for the poorer classes, ( Labours pension increase of 25p for an example) You say it is nonsence but I say you are as stupid as most of the working classes that support a party who has to keep its support by keeping them poor, Otherwise answer this, When in power why do not Labour make sure benefits and pensions are much higher to a living standard instead of been the lowest in the modern Europe, Why do they cut the NHS just like the Tories, You need to think deeper and get away from years of brainwashing and been gullible, How many Labour MPs have come from a working class background? Not many

 

People have at last wised up to the hypocrisy of the labour party

 

"Never" is too strong for this. Historically they clearly were and the great socalist ideas that they set our were brilliant and laid the foundation for much of our underlying British ethos.

The problem for the Labour party is that they've done these things a generation of more ago - they can't redo them - and that's put the county in a situation where we it is about to the left as people in general are prepared to go. It leaves Labour with very few grand schemes and in effect often tinkering around the edges but if they want to go more ambitious (like Corbyn did second time around) it takes it in a direction that is unpalatable for the majority. Similarly the eradication of poverty which seems to be central to a lot of Labour policy often feels like an unachievable goal or to the benefit of people who could do more to help themselves.

Starmer therefore has his own difficulties and his speech yesterday showed this. He wants to be ambitious and demonstrate clear ground between both the Tories and the Corbyn era but in that narrow stretch of ground there are no ambitious plans that really grab attention. All the talk is woolly soundbites about leveling up and people being left behind but it strikes much less of a chord with people and they've heard it.

 

One of the things that put people off labour is they elect champagne socialist to office London lovies who have none or little connection with much of their assumed electorate.

 

I agree that the last Labour government under Blair and Brown was far too cautious, especially in its early days. They had a massive majority and therefore the opportunity to be far more radical, but they were scared of alienating the right wing press - in particular Rupert Murdoch, who backed them into office.

It's simply untrue to say that they cut the NHS like the Tories. They rejuvenated the NHS after years of Tory decline, to a point where it had its lowest ever waiting lists and highest ever outcome stats and public approval. The Tories then ran it down again for ten years until the pademic made them recognise how valuable it is.

Yes, we have very low pensions and benefits. But let's be honest here - raising benefits is never a vote-winner with the majority of the population, who don't claim them. It's not an electoral strategy to sweep Labour to power. It's only really doable by a government with a big majority, in economic good times. Blair's government did raise benefits, but they should have been bolder, as I said above. But the idea that they deliberately keep people poor to retain voters is tosh.

Pensions are a difficult problem. Many people already feel that our baby boomer generation has had it too good at the expense of those coming behind them - beneficial house inflation, free university education etc. And we have a demographic timebomb on our hands. People are living far longer and therefore receiving pensions for decades longer than was envisaged when they were first introduced. The younger workforce, who have to generate the money to pay our pensions, understandably resent the existing triple lock when they are struggling to keep secure jobs, put food on the table or afford their own homes. So putting up pensions is hardly a priority, or a vote winner, especially with the vast pandemic debt to repay.

Your post said that Labour has never represented the poor, unemployed, disabled or pensioners. You didn't say, 'in recent years' or qualify it in any way. So I stand by my view that your statement was nonsense.

 

Actually, I think they have to. The economic damage caused by the pandemic, and the eye-watering levels of debt incurred, won't be dealt with by cautious austerity policies. The Tories tried that for ten years and it didn't work - we fell behind, with the slowest recovery from the banking crash of all the leading economies and growing government debt.

It's going to take bold vision, akin to the post-war recovery programme that Labour masterminded, to undo the damage. A major affordable housebuilding programme is essential - the Tories won't do that, because their big donors in the construction industry don't want to build affordable housing; they want to build big, high profit houses. Major investment in green technology and infrastructure are needed. Interest rates are historically low and will remain so for years so, despite the huge existing debt, governments have to be prepared to borrow and lead such investment. I can't see the Tories doing that. Sunak is a typical Thatcherite monetarist who can't wait to put the brakes on spending; most of the rest of the party are Thatcher's children, brought up to believe that borrowing is bad and thrift is good. We need a good dose of old fashioned Keynsian expansionism. Labour has to position itself as the party to build us out of the Covid wreckage. That won't necessarily go down well now, but in two years time, with an election due the following year and the economy still in the toilet, it would look increasingy attractive.

 

I think you're partly right but when I said "the can't do them again" I meant big things like NHS and the benefits system. Things that do make a difference, I'm not sure that an affordable housing scheme resonates in the same way or would be a vote winner.

The issue with the Keynesian method in terms of votes is that debt on top of debt doesn't automatically make sense to enough voters. It seems utopian and requires deep explanation to even get past first base, in previous years Labour have been poor at explaining it and then fall apart at first mention of the 'magic money tree'. If the Tories veer away from making the mistakes of austerity again it loses even more impact.

You can already see it happening. Kier is all for keeping the £20 increase in Universal Credit fo example but hasn't got close to explaining how the £6bn a year that it costs would be funded. Just saying "ah, it'll come from the rich" no longer works.

 

Noo, not again, we are not under stocked with houses but we are overstocked with people....

 

We are significantly understocked with affordable housing. Because us older people are staying in our houses for much longer.

 

The problem is that it's almost impossible for a government to guarantee affordable housing unless you actually cause an over supply in the market. Unless they are going to turn the clock back on the ethos of home ownership?

When you do that just as many voters lose as they do win. It's not an automatic vote winner and it doesn't make automatic economic sense.

But they do need a big project to justify their outlook. But what?

 

But you can directly commission housing that is aimed at first time buyers, which is where the shortage is. Left to their own devices the construction companies would only build detached four bedroomed houses and upwards, because that's where the biggest markup is.

 

And that's cool...but what happens when those first time buyers sell it on? Do the new people pay market rate?

Regardless of the details it's a great way to spend a lot of money initially but it's not going to change the fortunes if a political party in the same way as an idea like the NHS or benefits would do.

 

As a young person Tony who is right leaning I disagree, trying to get onto the ladder is an unbelievably hard task.

 

As it was for most of us at any time...hard work, planning and determination will get you there..

 

Yes, of course. But the market rate is significantly lower because there is adequate supply. At present there is a chronic shortage of small housing for first time buyers so supply and demand means that prices get pushed too high for most first time buyers to afford. Only those with access to the bank of mum & dad can get a foot on the ladder. A process made worse by rich landlords, several of them Tory MPs, buying up all the ex-council houses and letting them at exorbitant rents.

 

So it's only affordable for yhe 1st people who buy it? Then they make a fortune off it and carry on on their merry way?

I'm not saying there isn't an issue in the housing market, but I'm saying messing with it is not a vote winner. Its too complex and people fear that it will diminish their house price more than they want cheap houses. The bank of Mum and Dad is prevalent precisely because Grandparents benefitted from the housing boom.

We're getting bogged down in specifics though. The general point is that the big socialist/Keynsian projects that would be both winners have already been done. That's why Kier and the Labour Party are in a difficult position, none of their big projects resonate or are ambitious enough.

 

Yes, I accept your general point that it is much more difficult to come up with a big picture proposal to excite the electorate than it was after WW2. It will partly depend on how things work out in the next two years. If the combination of the pandemic and Brexit mean that there is no sign of economic recovery, and the Tories just do their default austerity thing, making it worse, then I think it becomes more doable. It wouldn't just be about housing though. It would be a broader focus on government investment on infrastructure, green technology etc to create jobs and a better society.

Re the housing issue. The people who sell their first time buyer house wouldn't make a fortune on it. That happens because competition for limited available stock pushes up prices. If there is enough first time buyer stock then the sell on prices would remain largely stable.