Can Starmer survive? The wolves are circling in the Labour Party.

Picking the pickets of pensioners whilst leaving the super rich untouched.

No idea who the woman was, but that’s how it looks .

Sorry, that was on the news tonight before you ask for the source.

Primrose53

Galaxy

I am afraid that Billy Bragg is exactly what people are voting against.
Calling people gammon, cheering on Kneecap and calling women bigots. He stands for nothing I would want to follow.

Hear, hear! 👏👏

Look at Bragg and other Champagne Socialists like Bob Geldof, Bono, Jo Brand, Steve Coogan, Grayson Perry and Eddie/Susie Izzard …. What an absolute shower of unfortunate lookers who love telling people much poorer than them who to support and donate to. They all speak with forked tongues.

So being rich and successful means that someone is not allowed to have a social conscience?

Champagne Socialists - how very dare these people enjoy the fruits of their labour, drink champagne at the same time as wanting less fortunate people to get a fairer share of the pie.

Confess - I was drinking champagne with eleven friends at the weekend, every one a Labour voter 🌞

I stopped buying the G when they kept and feted the awful Owen Jones but banished some good women

🎯 Iam ✔️

Funny how so many Labour folk hate Margaret Thatcher, particularly because of the Right To Buy scheme for council houses.

It was well known that Angela Rayner did very well out of this by buying her council house. Today we learn that Bridget Phillipson also made a massive profit selling her Mum’s former council house. Apparently her mother was a single parent who was unable to work but she still managed to buy her house under the RTB scheme. Not sure how she managed that on benefits but there! They both have a lot to thank Margaret Thatcher for but they just gloss over how they got on the property ladder.

Iam64

Champagne Socialists - how very dare these people enjoy the fruits of their labour, drink champagne at the same time as wanting less fortunate people to get a fairer share of the pie.

Confess - I was drinking champagne with eleven friends at the weekend, every one a Labour voter 🌞

I hope you were all wearing your standard issue hair shirts Iam64!

Billy bragg views working class people and women with contempt.
Eddie Izzard uses womens spaces knowing they don't consent
Grayson Perry wore a dildo to a childrens charity event.
Their champagne drinking is the least of my worries.

I don’t like any of those three either Galaxy. Even if you don’t have a personal objection to their attitudes or behaviour though, different comedians appeal to different senses of humour, generally speaking.

Indeed. But bragg wasn't singing on QT, which means that people are free to express their views on his political stance.

At least I am assuming he didn't sing on QT, that would have been embarrassing to say the least.

Galaxy

Indeed. But bragg wasn't singing on QT, which means that people are free to express their views on his political stance.

I’d have switched it off if he was. By this reckoning though, all comedians except Geoff Norcott (who I confess to not having heard of before) are champagne socialists, to a man or woman.

Whoops! Starmer avoiding Inheritance Tax. In tomorrow’s Times.

x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1971998843039560071

Not to worry. We’ll soon be governed by people like this..
“Reform UK's former leader in Wales has admitted taking bribes to make statements in favour of Russia while being a Member of the European Parliament.
Nathan Gill, 52, from Llangefni, Anglesey, pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery between 6 December 2018 and 18 July 2019.”
The politician took money from Oleg Voloshyn - a man once described by the US government as a "pawn" of Russian secret services - and made speeches in the parliament, statements to a TV channel and arranged an event with a pro-Russian politician.
Gill will be sentenced in November and his defence barrister said he expected to be jailed.
The Old Bailey was told he was tasked by Ukrainian Oleg Voloshyn on at least eight occasions to make specific statements in return for money and there was evidence of WhatsApp messages between the two men.
Mr Voloshyn is a former member of the Ukrainian parliament for the pro-Russian Opposition Platform for Life party

The "Right to Buy" scheme, introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the UK in 1980 allowed tenants of council housing to purchase their homes at discounted rates. While promoting homeownership was thought by most to be a "good" thing, it was a pure right-wing destructuring of the social measures put in place after the war. The measures that improved the lives and opportunities of many Gransnetters and their parents.

Those buying the houses had no say about about how the purchase money was to be used nor were they in a position to sell them under any other conditions than the rest of society did.

Yes, the policy led to a significant reduction in affordable rental housing for low-income and vulnerable groups and over time it contributed to a shortage of social housing. This was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

Yes, the scheme often benefited middle-income households more than the most disadvantaged. That was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

Yes, the revenue generated from sales was often not reinvested into building new affordable housing, leading to a decline in the overall supply of social housing. That was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

Yes, as public housing stock diminished, some low-income individuals faced increased difficulty finding affordable accommodation and this contributed to homelessness and housing instability. That was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

Yes, the sale of council homes sometimes resulted in the erosion of community, especially as some properties were sold to wealthier buyers or left vacant. That was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

Yes, many of the sold homes were not maintained adequately, and the decline in public housing management contributed to deteriorating living conditions in remaining social housing. That was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

Yes, it is argued that "Right to Buy" contributed to a more privatised housing market, with increased homeownership but also greater housing inequality and market volatility. That was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

The scheme has succeeded in doing exactly what the Conservative Right intended. It has increased homeownership rates and individual wealth accumulation. But to do that it impacted and still impacts on social equity, housing availability, and community stability.

Could someone please tell me why any of this was a young Angela Rayner's fault? Or why they vote for people who mean them harm?

I know all about the RTB scheme thanks but I was asking how a single unemployed mother could manage to buy her council house ( BPs mother) when BP claims they were so poor she had to sleep in her clothes in winter and a neighbour had to give them a few quid to buy her a coat.

Most people in council houses struggled to pay the rent, let alone buy their house.

In each party there will be people we don't like, we are all flawed human beings.

Yet many join in agreement with the hoards of law-breaking thugs to follow the guy who would take away every bit of democracy - that's what the alt-right do, it is their intention. But some on here still laud them and grasp at another chance to sing their praises.

What is the intention of the party you are following, prepared to vote for? No matter what criticism can be aimed at individuals, it's that intention the party will follow when they have power. Just be sure you really do understand it before you vote for them.

Primrose53

I know all about the RTB scheme thanks but I was asking how a single unemployed mother could manage to buy her council house ( BPs mother) when BP claims they were so poor she had to sleep in her clothes in winter and a neighbour had to give them a few quid to buy her a coat.

Most people in council houses struggled to pay the rent, let alone buy their house.

What you are asking is irrelevant to what parties intend.

Good post, DAR

A great illustration of the neoliberal economic strategy which has been destroying the country since Thatcher implemented it when she came to government.

Yes, the revenue generated from sales was often not reinvested into building new affordable housing, leading to a decline in the overall supply of social housing. That was exactly what the Conservative Right intended.

I would emphasise that local authorities weren't allowed to reinvest the revenue in new affordable housing. Which is why we have a serious problem with sky high private rents which the least well off struggle to pay, or cannot afford at all.

Thank you *Maizie, and yes, I should have emphasised that. After all it shows, even more obviously, the intention of what seemed to many to be a "good idea".

Could someone please tell me why any of this was a young Angela Rayner's fault? Or why they vote for people who mean them harm?

Council housing for sale has never been attributed to a young Angela Rayner, far too busy hanging around clubs and getting pregnant rather than concentrating on education to be concerned with Political policies, but very quick to take advantage of social housing and exploit it later to make a personal profit.(no case to investigate said the authorities). She got away with it then but fell foul of the tax system when she attempted to play it to her advantage years later.

I don’t like being mean to Andy Burnham. With his soft, doe-eyed features, it feels rather like punching a lamb. But it’s quite an achievement when “We’ve got to get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets” isn’t actually the stupidest thing a politician has said in any given week.

The other day Burnham kicked off his not-quite-a-leadership bid by urging Labour to embrace “Manchesterism”. This he defined as “business-friendly socialism”, in which the state “rolled back the 1980s” by seizing control of “the basics of life”: housing, energy, water, rail. This included borrowing £40 billion for new council housing.

Obviously, someone urging the country to do the things he’d done as mayor of Greater Manchester would have actually done those things, right? Turns out, not so much.

Burnham did announce, in May 2024, that he was going to build 10,000 council houses by 2028. But over the following year the region started construction on just ten. No, that’s not a typo.

More broadly, during his mayoralty Greater Manchester has gone from building 5 per cent of England’s new houses to 3 per cent. Private housebuilding starts are a third of what they were when he took office in 2017.

From The Times

No matter what criticism can be aimed at individuals, it's that intention the party will follow when they have power.

It’s the intention they say they will follow, but don’t, or don’t say they will follow, but do it anyway , that is worrying.

The party is going to introduce ID cards. Are all LP supporters on GN posting enthusiastic backing for the scheme?

Never mind, then, that we are all old enough to understand any parties intentions eazybee. Let's tear the young woman apart for doing exactly what the government of the day wanted her to do and had put "push factors" in place to encourage the buying and selling of council houses by people new to doing this.

So what you are complaining about is a young womens personal actions at an age which, I would guess, many make poor choices and often with much more behind them to suggest they might have done otherwise.

This is, of course what populism and populist followers do. They divide society on a personal basis. They make a division between those painted as "pure people" (including themselves), and those the charged as being "the corrupt".

They see politics as an expression of the general will, that "general will" being assessed by the leaders and supporters, not by democratic means. It is represented by today's culture populist who give their followers, not the difficult, time consuming, democratic plan they don't have patience for, but the "hate these people; they are the cause of your problems, we will rid you of them" solution. While not explaining that the winners will be them and the loosers will be you.

I'm not a Labour Party "supporter" Mollygo but neither do I see our country, under Labour, as "socialist" country which I think is were your "horror" comes from. Are you really comparing it to what, say Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc., would do?

A better comparison would surely be to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, normally thought of as "social democracies" which would surely be what a Labour run democracy is. All have all national identity card systems which are widely used for travel, official identification, and administrative purposes. They seem to be doing okay.