|
|
Post by thomas on Apr 2, 2023 7:20:50 GMT
Not true. The Thatcher government left us with far higher unemployment than it inherited, in spite of constantly fiddling the figures. Blair, like rest of Labour, frown on home ownership, which is why he crushed the housing market and forced people to rent (his wife now runs property management and profits on it)
You know b4 , i read your posts sometimes and i wonder what alternative universe you inhabit . Tony blair and his new labour party didnt frown on home ownership. In fact , the opposite occured , where he massivley encouraged home ownership , for example by continuing the thatcherite right to buy scheme.
I voted for the man and his party in 1997 , but came to detest him and everything that he stood for , but when criticising new labour , you have to be realistic.
New labour did cause many problems in the housing market as you allude to , much of which are still with us today , but the idea they frowned on home ownership is laughable. Encouraging first time buyers getting the chance to own their own home was a key pledge in 2005.
They increased home ownership in their thirteen years in power by well over a million , and there was 655 000 less social homes by 2010 then when they were first elected in 1997.
107,468 council homes were demolished during this period.
Councils were barred from applying for ‘social housing’ grant to build new homes. Only Housing Associations could apply.
The government pursued a policy of selling off council housing stock to housing associations. They set a target of ‘transferring’ 200,000 council homes a year. Tenants were blackmailed into voting the ‘right’ way. If they agreed to transfer then council housing debt was written off. Yet Gordon Brown refused to do that for if tenants voted against ‘transfer’. Councils were provided with no resources to improve their stock if tenants voted against transfer.
To overcome resistance from tenants to selling off their homes the government introduced Arms Length Management Companies. The transfer of council housing to these could take place without a ballot, so tenants had no say. The cost of the programme for improving ALMO stock, £5.7 billion, was simply added to the supposed council housing debt. This meant that council tenants everywhere were paying for for the cost of servicing this debt through their rent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2023 7:23:48 GMT
Blair, like the rest of Labour, frown on home ownership, which is why he crushed the housing market and forced people to rent (his wife now runs property management and profits on it). His government built less council accommodation than Thatcher's, whilst he was knowingly screwing the country. British industry was also decimated under Blair, whilst he sold the country out to the USA, Germany and France and boosted their manufacturing. The manufacturing economy was trashed under Blair, and fell more than the entire Conservative government prior. Education education education quickly became massive debts for young people, political indoctrination, a business run course system which led to millions of pointless and costly degrees and the deranged and fascistic Woke camps we see today. If that wasn't enough, mass-immigration was used to further trash the country and divide the people, whilst at the same time destroying civil liberties in the name of some war of terrorism. All of which was sidelined for the the utter failures that were Blair's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it cost ~£40 billion and hundreds of lives in Afghanistan alone to cover up all his other failures, where today the Taliban have taken over where Blair left off. Iraq, his other total failure led to ISIS and militia movements, just so he can see a man hanged from the neck by America's new government. He also broke Britain and intentionally created an anti-democratic system to again divide, destroy and benefit the foreign powers he was in the pocket with.
Sadly, I don't see a way out of it. The establishment, institutions and even the left and right of politics is just too corrupt in every way, mostly thanks to Blair. We cannot vote this out, at least not whilst playing ping pong with these mainstream parties.
Though as a genuine left winger - not a fake one like Blair - I do not agree with everything you have just said, I pretty much agree with the broad gist of what you say about Blair. It nevertheless remains true that unemployment was far higher under Thatcher than under Blair. And with good reason I generally detest both. They both admired each other. Starmer will always be Blair's number two, who is currently trying to mould fresh meat. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 7:24:05 GMT
Not true. The Thatcher government left us with far higher unemployment than it inherited, in spite of constantly fiddling the figures. . Err what? He was against home ownership yet built less public housing??? You might want to re-think hat sentence. He did he do that then. I built my business under Blairs government and benefitted from the stable economy and steady interest rates. So I suspect you have nothing to back up this claim.
Whilst I think mass immigration was wrong, It was done to increase GDP and tax revenue, not to divide the people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2023 7:27:03 GMT
Affordable housing was trashed under Blair where property prices had almost tripled. Fewer council homes were built under Blair. There's such a thing as the private landlord, which you appear to have intentionally ignored, even when I pointed to his wife's property management little empire.
It's common knowledge. Will fullfact do, my others are paywalled?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2023 7:28:07 GMT
Though as a genuine left winger - not a fake one like Blair - I do not agree with everything you have just said, I pretty much agree with the broad gist of what you say about Blair. It nevertheless remains true that unemployment was far higher under Thatcher than under Blair. And with good reason I generally detest both. They both admired each other. Starmer will always be Blair's number two, who is currently trying to mould fresh meat. I know what Starmer is and will never vote for a party led by him or anyone like him. I left the Labour party because of such types. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Apr 2, 2023 7:47:23 GMT
Multiculturalism - a highly divisive experiment. A total betrayel of the British workers to drive down wages. etc etc
rubbish. The uk has been a multi cultural state since its inception in 1707. The uk has differing native cultures and languages , of which the english language has only become the de facto language of the uk and ireland in recent history.
On top of that , the empire brought further multi cultures to our shores. I mind borchester telling me of all the black slaves who inabited bristol in the 17th and 18 centuries.
Its a highly feasable postition to take to disagree with mass uncontrolled immigration. Blair seems to have made a mass miscalculation that has haunted labour ever since in 2004 when he opened the doors to swamping the uk with eastern europeans .
However , the tories record of mass immigration is just as bad if not worse.
sure , but there is a balancing act that has to be kept at all times. What we have at the moment is mass vacancies , wages going up , demands for further increases and lack of skills needed .
Controlled immigration is whats needed , not the all or nothing approach by both labour and torys depending on the court of public opinion .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2023 7:49:58 GMT
They both admired each other. Starmer will always be Blair's number two, who is currently trying to mould fresh meat. I know what Starmer is and will never vote for a party led by him or anyone like him. I left the Labour party because of such types. It's puke on a stick, which the EUphiles love to lick. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Apr 2, 2023 7:57:04 GMT
I know what Starmer is and will never vote for a party led by him or anyone like him. I left the Labour party because of such types. It's puke on a stick, which the EUphiles love to lick. There are many pro europeans who cant stand keir starmer and the latest reincarnation of new labour.
You have to hand it to him and his advisor mandelson though , they look good in the polls for winning the next UKGE. Rishi the remainer seems to be slowly but surely running out of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 8:02:03 GMT
And how did these private landlords rent out houses that didn't exist?
Besides you have already been told home ownership grew dramatically under Blair.
They also introduced housing associations.
From your own link. And finally, some perspective
It's simplistic to conclude from any of these statistics that Labour or the Conservatives caused every ebb and flow on the manufacturing graphs, there is a wider context to consider the numbers in. One such context is to look abroad, and see how other nations have fared over the same period.
The House of Commons Library helpfully collates international data, again from the UN's National Accounts Database.
The chart below shows how the UK has actually held a very high world ranking for the actual value of manufactured goods (GVA) although this has fallen off in recent years per head. Again, it's the proportion of national income that has changed. The UK's world ranking has transformed thanks to the 'rebalancing' of the economy to other sectors:
Manufacturing declined in all Western countries as the BRIC countries grew and undercut ours. What happened is our GDP grew in financial services instead.
But the threatened destruction of our way of life simply never happened. It has been shown time and time again that it did not drive down wages increased population increases demand in direct proportion.
What drove down wages was the loss of semi skilled jobs to foreign production and automation. These jobs were replaced by service industry ones that pay less because they are discretionary spend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2023 8:26:11 GMT
I never said they didn't exist in the private market, so I guess this is a strawman? I pointed out that they were unaffordable to the "masses", where far more people are forced to rent under these huge demands.
---
So, it rapidly shrank under Blair. A GDP is not a valid measurement of a healthy economy and well being.
---
I don't recall claiming anything about a destruction of our way of life, merely that it was designed to trash, divide and rule, where even satire is under threat. Mass-immigration affected low paid jobs and the people who would have normally voted Labour. It was the natural outcome, which they temporarily patched with minimum wage. Don't mistake mass-immigration, which Blair maliciously pushed, for a controlled skill based immigration system.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 8:36:55 GMT
So they were affordable to private landlords, but not to the masses? So this speaks of a lack of housing, not a lack of council housing. I would agree with you here. The biggest thing by far ANY government could do for the poor is allow more land for building and bring house prices back down. --- Avoiding the evidence does not make you right. --- Then you need to explain what you did mean by "designed to trash, divide and rule," What has this got to do with mass immigration. Your dots don't join up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2023 8:43:20 GMT
Blair built less council homes than Thatcher whilst the housing market became so expensive that it was described as a luxury.
How am I avoiding evidence when I prove that manufacturing hit a rapid decline under Blair? You're just redirecting whilst relying on vague and inaccurate measurements.
One is a design the other is outcome. It's still in process.
If you cannot connect the dots as to how mass-immigration and forced experimental multiculturalism relate, both of which had no democratic mandate, then this could get very tedious. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 8:51:45 GMT
The problem with forcing up wages by restricting those available is that it doesn't address the underlying causes.
1, Competition from emerging economies.
2, Automation and artificial intelligence.
We can't do much about emerging economies unless or until their wages begin to match ours.
By example:
The current shortage of workers caused a 12% rise in pay in my company, but at the same time we fast forwarded some new technology that cut the number of employees needed by about 10%.
It was a balancing act as we feel the AI we introduced may not be as good as the humans it replaced, but was made necessary by the lack of staff and the costs of employing them.
You have to understand that once these changes are put in place, they never reverse. So as my company continues to grow it will always employ 10% less staff.
What we need to address how we distribute money in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Apr 2, 2023 9:01:11 GMT
Blair built less council homes than Thatcher whilst the housing market became so expensive that it was described as a luxury.
Thats true , but you earlier claimed blair frowned on home ownership , and a number of posts in now since you made that claim and still you havent proved this to be the case.
Manufacturing in terms of jobs and relevance to the uk economy did drop under blair , but again , you are cherry picking . The golden age of uk manufacturing was supposed to have been the 50`s and 60`s , and as this article makes clear the responsibility for the decline in uk manufacturing is long and varied....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2023 9:01:37 GMT
Considering Labour screwed up so bad under the arrogant and somewhat blatantly evil Tony Blair, where we're now in a worse position to combat these new fads, and considering the OP by Pacifico that highlights a totally imcompetent bunch on these matters, I think it's safe to argue that Starmer is not the answer.
|
|
