UK Politics Omnishambles: Page 162 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One more in the Tolly

UK Politics Omnishambles

Mirth

JazzG With any type of regulation it is about finding the right balance and Labour have gone too far the other way.

What part of the workers right or renters right regulation is an outlier with other European countries?

JazzG

Mirth Don't know or care how it compares with Europe if I'm being honest. We need to set our laws according to our countries needs not Europeans nations. There are bigger issues which need to be solved here. The main problem in the rental sector isn't regulations it is a severe shortage of housing, and funnily enough one of the main reasons for that is due to over regulation. This has been the EU's problem in recent times, over regulation and you have now have prominent leaders in Europe calling out for an urgent change.

awooga83 I'm talking about usual convention, Lords very rarely block bills but clearly this one they clearly had big issues with. If this was a vote of conscience why did the government not put this forward and give their MPs a free vote? I think you'll find there is broad support on the left and right for assisted suicide, Reform and Conservative MPs voted for it but what didn't sit well was how his was being forced through. Leadbetter and Falconer seemed determined to ram it through and that was their undoing. This is an extremely delicate subject and should have been handled properly, some bills I get the government know there would be stern opposition to so have to force the issue but this was not one of them.

As for Starmer, you are welcome to believe their spin on why they aren't being fully transparent with Mandelson's documents. Even his own MPs aren't convinced. Every paper has sources and just like the transfer forums some reporters are known to be reliable whereas some are now.

awooga83

JazzG This was a private members bill, the Lords is under no obligation to let it pass and if the bill has serious flaws and gives the state the power to take a life then it would have been a dereliction of duty for them to let it pass knowing the bill had problems. If Labour felt strongly about it, they should have put their name to it and set up a Royal Commission to handle something sensitive like this. That way it would have got proper scrutiny and would have had enough safeguards to put members of parliament and the public at ease.

The lord's are under no obligation to let any bill pass. Why do you assume the lord's know better then parliament.

The reason labour haven't taken it as government position is because they have said it's a question of conscience for the exact reasons you've stated that people have different views so they aren't forcing it as a government line but saying all MPS get a free choice which is what happend and it passed that's parliamentary democracy of you funny like it that's fair but it's the way it's been for hundreds of years.

On the guardian article I can't see where it says that Starmer is preventing release of relevant information on this to protect himself? It says he referenced material that might have national security or investigative interest to the police but all that is pretty standard procedure rather then him doing something explicitly to hide his own actions. If you have a specific quote in the article feel free to point me to it.

I think you would be able to see the difference between a football transfer rumor and a real world issue with tangible impact and therefore due to the seriousness should be fact based right? It adds nothing to the discussion to say well I've heard this or that without proper sourcing.

awooga83

JazzG If this was a vote of conscience why did the government not put this forward and give their MPs a free vote?

This was a free vote I don't really know what you're getting at here and it's not rammed through people could vote how they wanted and a majority voted for it, just because your against it that's democracy you have to accept or when it runs like that.

As for the Starmer stuff, it's not spin just because you say it is and equally by your own approach you are falling for the spin on people against Starmer it can work both ways.

No journalist is ever 100% reliable and you should never approach any information you come across as I'm not going to fact check because it comes from a source I trust that's the buggers mistake anyone can make. If you make a claim you need to substations it with evidence or additional sources corroborating the claims otherwise it's just hearsay.

That's plenty of rumours about trump and musk and their behaviour with Epstein that are all true as well I presume even if we don't have direct evidence at this time your perspective is it's unnecessary we can take it as they are proven because that's what the rumour says?

Mirth

JazzG Don't know or care how it compares with Europe if I'm being honest. We need to set our laws according to our countries needs not Europeans nations. There are bigger issues which need to be solved here. The main problem in the rental sector isn't regulations it is a severe shortage of housing, and funnily enough one of the main reasons for that is due to over regulation. This has been the EU's problem in recent times, over regulation and you have now have prominent leaders in Europe calling out for an urgent change.

But specifically - what parts of the bill do you disagree with and what parts do you agree with?

Would you prefer Section 21 notices remained? How do you feel about ending bidding wars? Is the shift from fixed term contracts to rolling period tenancies really causing a decrease in supply?

Increasing supply is would certainly help but the bill overall a net benefit to society and protects several vulnerable groups without really being a burden to most reasonable landlords. If there is, then you need to highlight that specifically rather go 'regulation BAD' therefore the overall bill is bad.

Qwiss

JazzG This has been the EU's problem in recent times, over regulation and you have now have prominent leaders in Europe calling out for an urgent change.

Europe has loads of countries with different regulations and different issues. Plenty of places in Europe have responded well to housing issues with regulation and public provision. Lack of regulation wont save you it'll just lead to more profiteering.

JazzG

awooga83 This was a free vote I don't really know what you're getting at here and it's not rammed through people could vote how they wanted and a majority voted for it, just because your against it that's democracy you have to accept or when it runs like that.

I have never said I am against it, it is something which makes me feel very uneasy as I don't like the idea of giving this kind of power to the state. But if we do give that kind of power it has to be completely water tight and this bill simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The job of the House of Lords is to scrutinise bills that come before it, this one didn't hold up.

This is a palliative care consultant talking about how this bill was flawed. This is someone who has left wing views so I wouldn't say our politics are aligned either.

awooga83

JazzG mate there are right wing people who support it, this isn't a tribal thing. If you you believe in parliamentary democracy then if the elected chamber has determined a law and an unelected chamber is blocking it that didn't seem democratic. The house of lords is totally outdated what expertise do hereditary peers or bishops have apart from ancestors that gives them no more right to "scrutinize"this then any normal member of the public. This fantasy we need more time at what point do you say that's fine we've met the scrutiny timeframe. A law was brought forward in 2015 that failed to go through so it's not just arisen blue and other countries have also inacted similar laws so it's not like this is brand new territory in the world either. The lord's are deliberately delaying it so the time in this parliament expires. There are mechanisms to bypass them but it may not be an immediate priority for Starmer despite apparently him orchestrating it all begins the scenes to get this passed.

JazzG

The Lords is not some new creation, if Labour don't agree with it they should abolish it. Other laws Labour have put forward have gone through fine so why hasn't this one? The House of Lords exists to scrutinise and revise bills before they are enacted into law, this bill was clearly flawed so didn't get through.

Also introducing a law like this should not be done with via a private members bill. As soon as Labour got into power within a few months this popped up, a bill of this kind of importance should have been on Labours manifesto.

You are right Labour will let this die, Starmer is fighting for his political life and with local elections coming up if they take a battering I'm sure someone will make a move on him.

awooga83

JazzG doesn't sorry the idea that it's Starmers plan. The bill is supported by a Labour and conservative MP so it's not host a labour initiative and I've explained the reason it's a private members bill as opposed to a government sponsored one as it was a free vote. The lord's should be abolished I can agree with you there but that's my point they aren't there in merit it's a historical legacy from when ordinary people couldn't vote.

JazzG

Interesting to see who wins the by-election. Reckon the Greens will nick it but looks like it is a three way battle between Labour, Greens and Reform with it being too close to call.

awooga83

JazzG I think the left would win but two parties they may dilute each others votes.

JazzG

awooga83 I think there will be a lot of tactical voting. This would have been an easy win for Andy Burnham but I think a lot of those votes will go to the Greens to keep Reform out and protest the current direction of the Labour Party.

I don't think Reform have run a particularly good campaign from what I can see, the Greens are a bunch of loonies but have run a very good campaign here.

JazzG

If the results are close this might get messy...

JazzG

Greens win comfortably in the end and Reform come 2nd and Labour third.

Greens will obviously be delighted by this vote, they were tap into the large Ethnic vote and a lot of disillusioned Labour voters. Probably a lot of tactical voting as well to keep Reform out. The Greens will also now be under a lot more scrutiny as they will be seen as the viable Populist Left work party going forward.

Reform had an ok showing, probably hoped they could nick it but this area was going to be tough and the only way realistically they would win was if the left bloc was more split. Also a bit of a reality check, these lot for a while now have become stagnant and failed Conservative MPs joining only makes them look more like Tory 2.0 which will turn people away from them.

Absolute disaster for Starmer, they worked to keep Burnham off the ballot and he probably would have walked this election. A lot of people would have seen him as a viable replacement for Starmer and wanted him to win. Labour will probably get their arses handed to them in the May elections and I'm not sure Starmer will last much longer if that happens. There will be a lot of anger today as many in the party wanted Burnham.

awooga83

JazzG I'm not sure Labour would have won with Burnham either, certainly would have been closer but the labour brand in this particular by election was always going to struggle not least because of their position on Gaza so even with a better candidate it might not have automatically secured them anything.

The locals will be a disaster for sure but the whole thing is a bit stupid. I have a mate who's a councillor and has been campaigning in a London council when doing doorstops about the local election and someone says they will vote reform when asked what issue locally they feel that it's because of they will reference all the boats. Even though no boats are arriving at this London borough and the local council doesn't have any involvement in that but shows you how this stuff gets totally distorted. Your supposed to be voting in your local services and how that's administered but focusing on issues unrelated to it.

JazzG

Qwiss I am open to hear about these things, which measures could help the rental market when there is already a chronic shortage of properties and market supply is only getting tighter with more landlords exiting the market.

Mirth I don't agree with removing of Section 21. If you enter into an agreement, once that time period is over both parties should have the option to end it. I do however agree the current system of rolling contract after your tenancy end where the tenant does not know when they could be asked to leave is not good and should be reformed. If I am just thinking out loud maybe a a longer notice period which can only be given in a certain window, once you pass that window the contract should renew again by 12 months or whatever your agreement was.

JazzG

awooga83 I think a lot of the tactical voters and those who are disillusioned with Starmer would have voted for him, just so they could get rid of Starmer!

As for Reform, people are not voting for them just due to local issues. You cite the boats but people are quite right to feel angry that people are coming over and being put up in hotels while the rest of the country is being bled dry with high taxes. I know he is not popular here but Trump has shown in America that if you have the political will you can stop people coming in. This current and previous government don't want to take the necessary steps so people will look to more extreme solutions.

Burnwinter Their ground game was very good, they had nothing to lose and threw everything at it and has worked out for them.

Qwiss I'm open to hearing any kind of suggestion but this idea that squeezing landlords will bring about a better rental market is for the fairies.

Burnwinter

A couple of manc friends have told me Labour never had a chance. Apparently Spencer's ground game was very strong and also, rusted-on Labour supporters such as minority business owners have had enough of Starmer's Labour and preferred Spencer.

Mirth

Burnwinter the incumbent party losing a by election against a 47% turnout isn’t really news unless you’re trapped in the 24x7 news cycle.

The May local elections will be the main test.

Burnwinter

Mirth Well it's news for my mates who are local organisers whose candidate just won, tough guy 😇

Mirth

Burnwinter don't get me wrong, it's an impressive achievement for the Greens regardless.

It's also devastating for the Tories who no one's even talking about despite being the actual opposition. Losing is one thing, not even being worthy of attention is fatal.

« Previous Page Next Page »