Incontinentia Buttocks
Banned
Camden has some of the most deprived areas in the country, IIRC. It's not all Primrose Hill and Hampstead.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Camden has some of the most deprived areas in the country, IIRC. It's not all Primrose Hill and Hampstead.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Indeed. However, young professionals who work in Old Street and Liverpool street are all looking for cheaper places to rent in Zone 1/2 than Angel or Clerkenwell, that means the less savoury areas of Camden are getting a look in. If council tenants are in private sector accommodation and the market is pricing rents above the housing benefit limit then they need to be rehoused elsewhere. The government doesn't have an endless supply of money for people live in expensive parts of London.
CyclopsRock
Member
That does all make sense - but then, I'd support Carney's (supposed) desire to have the Banks targets changed to growth and employment rather than inflation. In the same way that, as you describe, they may offer a short term increase in inflation for the sake of a long term decrease (or, rather, re-alignment to the target), so, too, they couldn't ignore inflation were their goal to be growth, for the same reason (that is, high short term inflation would dampen growth, etc). It seems that whatever their targets are - be it growth or inflation - they are both so inter-dependent that they'd do more or less the same responses, but at least this way they'd a) have the express consent of those we elect to pursue that and b) have their success measured on the correct metric.
Incontinentia Buttocks
Banned
I don't think there's really that many 'less savoury' areas of Camden with private rentals as most of the areas are quite a mix, apart from the obviously posh places. Where I live is on the corner of a council estate and then just across the road are £1m+ townhouses, like the rest of London.
I wasn't objecting to the housing benefit cap, I'm hoping it allows the market to correct it self a tad and lead to lower rents. pipe dream i know but it's nice to hope.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Someone just linked me the BBC article that Ed M has proposed to introduce a mansion tax (fair enough) and use the money to reintroduce the 10p rate (also a good move).
Hang on a minute, you're saying this doesn't make sense. Even by the most optimistic scenario the mansion tax raises just £2bn and the 10p reversal would cost £7bn to implement. Where does the extra £5bn come from? Oh are Labour really saying they are going to borrow extra money for this fool's errand. What's worse is that the £2bn from the mansion tax has already been spent by Ed Balls on reversing tax credit changes.
Not a very well thought out policy.
Hang on a minute, you're saying this doesn't make sense. Even by the most optimistic scenario the mansion tax raises just £2bn and the 10p reversal would cost £7bn to implement. Where does the extra £5bn come from? Oh are Labour really saying they are going to borrow extra money for this fool's errand. What's worse is that the £2bn from the mansion tax has already been spent by Ed Balls on reversing tax credit changes.
Not a very well thought out policy.
CyclopsRock
Member
"She said: "Not being given that option to choose where you want to live and where your children go to school isn't fair. The government is taking away people's homes and the places where they've made friends. To think that someone has the power to do that over you … Obviously the government made a lot of mistakes and now everyone is taking the brunt of their mistakes. My children are my priority. If I have to move I will but obviously I'm trying to resolve this.""
Of course "someone has the power to do that over you..." As the famous saying that's routinely misattributed to Jefferson goes, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." If someone is giving your all the money for your rent, why would you ever think it couldn't possibly go away?
Incidentally, it's a funny old situation when you think about it. These houses that the people are being kicked out of are not going to sit empty. In fact, it's the aggressive housing and rental market in London which has caused this locality problem. It's always going to be someone's home. A lot of people that do have the money to pay their own rent don't have the choice, so the question doesn't really come down to "taking away people's homes", it's about who should have a greater say in where they live - those that pay their own rent, or those that have their rent paid for by those very same people that can't afford to live in Camden?
Of course "someone has the power to do that over you..." As the famous saying that's routinely misattributed to Jefferson goes, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." If someone is giving your all the money for your rent, why would you ever think it couldn't possibly go away?
Incidentally, it's a funny old situation when you think about it. These houses that the people are being kicked out of are not going to sit empty. In fact, it's the aggressive housing and rental market in London which has caused this locality problem. It's always going to be someone's home. A lot of people that do have the money to pay their own rent don't have the choice, so the question doesn't really come down to "taking away people's homes", it's about who should have a greater say in where they live - those that pay their own rent, or those that have their rent paid for by those very same people that can't afford to live in Camden?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Oh, there it is. The 10p rate is not going to be a manifesto commitment for Labour. So the speech was just a bunch of waffle.
CyclopsRock
Member
double post!
zomgbbqftw
Banned
What's worse is that the people who lost out from the removal of the 10p rate are now better off under the current government because the tax free allowance moves up to £9440 from April.
This is a very, very poorly thought out policy, but I expected nothing less from the architects of the 10p rate tax rise and 2p cut (raising taxes on the poor to give to the middle classes). Messrs Miliband and Balls, take a bow.
This is a very, very poorly thought out policy, but I expected nothing less from the architects of the 10p rate tax rise and 2p cut (raising taxes on the poor to give to the middle classes). Messrs Miliband and Balls, take a bow.
PJV3
Member
The 10p rate would only apply from £10-11,000, the 'plan' is to keep the LibDems tax exemption in place. Well I think that's what he was saying.
CyclopsRock
Member
Hmm, that seems oddly complicated for something that'll only save people about £2 a week.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
That would cost more than the mansion tax raises. I think going on the proper estimates for the mansion tax we're talking about £1bn raised annually, and then less as rich people start to shelter their assets in tax havens. On that basis they could go for a £250 10p band. That's about 50p a week. Without taking into account the cost of administering the mansion tax as it would require valuation officers to go up and down the country seeking out properties worth over £2m.
Sounds good to the uneducated though, same as raising the top rate of tax to 50p a decade after being in power and 3 months before they were going to fight an election they knew they would probably lose...
Even though the top tax rate is now higher than all the time they were in government, apparently its a big thing we should all get excited about they reckon. They must think we are as moronic as them.
PJV3
Member
All three parties are dealing in fractions, that's why I find them comical.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well, I dunno about that. Raising the tax free allowance by £3,000 saves people that earn up to it £600 a year. That's a months rent for a lot of people.
frankie_baby
Member
i wouldnt complain about an extra 100 quid a yeat
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It wouldn't be that much, probably closer to £25.
CyclopsRock
Member
Neither would I, but on the linear scale between "the government taking everything you have" and "the government taking nothing you have", £100 is a pretty meagre difference.
Edit: Even if it were £100.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
"I'm going to bring back the 10p Tax Rate that was abolished when I was a top party policy maker and my shadow chancellor was advising the then-PM on the economy. Oh, and we'll pay for this with a tax that we've already assigned to bringing back tax credits and that won't make enough to fund this anyway."
Man, Ed Miliband really knows what to say to ensure I don't vote Labour
And of course this is the same man who said this in '08 when they abolished the rate:
"When you make a big set of changes in the tax system, some people do lose out. That is a matter of regret. Of course it is. But overall these changes make the tax system fairer.
Man, Ed Miliband really knows what to say to ensure I don't vote Labour
And of course this is the same man who said this in '08 when they abolished the rate:
"When you make a big set of changes in the tax system, some people do lose out. That is a matter of regret. Of course it is. But overall these changes make the tax system fairer.
PJV3
Member
Cabinet responsibility, unless they want to do a Hestletine and kiss goodbye to the job. I sort of enjoyed Miliband today, just for the mild slapdown of Balls and Brown.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't know what happened to all the good politically operatives since Blair left. Both parties have made absolute amateur hour mistakes in policy, media, everything.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
From Peter Watt, former Labour party bigwig.
Balls and Miliband had their fingerprints all over the 10p rate abolishment to get those 2p basic rate cut headlines.
For them to try and disown it now is patently dishonest.
PJV3
Member
It's working in their favour, we expect them to be useless. Gove would've been flayed alive in the past, he just says sorry and people move on.
Ed is seen as rather dull and uninspiring, he won't let you down if he manages to become PM(How could he) our expectations are headed in the same direction as national living standards.
Zomg, Balls is being Balls, I suspect Miliband will offload him as soon as possible, Ed was too low down the greasy pole at that point to influence much, perhaps I'm wrong though.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Miliband was Brown's lieutenant as much as Balls was. At the Treasury Miliband was Brown's number two before Balls even came onto the scene.
Seriously, Miliband is being grossly dishonest if he is claiming that he was against the abolishment of the 10p rate and the reduction of the basic rate to 20p. I have heard that Balls, Brown and Ed M were the architects of the policy and it was vociferously opposed by David Miliband, James Purnell and others of the Blairite persuasion. It's pretty widely known in the finance world that Brown and his two lieutenants Balls and Miliband are the architects behind the current financial mess, from poor regulation to the overgrown state, it all has their fingerprints over it.
Labour picked the wrong brother, and I expect somewhere in CCHQ a massive dossier is being prepped over Miliband's involvement in the financial crash and fall out over the following years to be released at a damaging time, maybe just before the first debate on the economy.
I was pretty sure Labour didn't want nor expect Ed to win. That said, isn't the rumour that David will be "in" before the election?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Yes, I should have said the unions picked the wrong brother. Those rumours about David come and go to placate the more centrist Labour supporters and 2010 Lib Dem switchers.
Well if they want a majority in 2015 they better find someone else, Ed and Balls are both fucked before it even starts.
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
CHEEZMO;47709474 said:
From an outsider's perspective, David would have been an infinitely better choice. He actually sounds intelligent and charismatic and could have been a great leader for the party.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Ed even managed to let the Unions down. I was on strike with my union (Prospect) in November 2011 and when Ken Livingstone called Ed out for his lack of support during his speech the boos were resounding.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
CHEEZMO™;47709474 said:
He reminds me of a school prefect who hides behind the stairs in order to dob someone in
zomgbbqftw
Banned
CHEEZMO;47709474 said:
This is the problem Labour will have in 2015. With Blair and Cameron, you can imagine them both giving big weighty speeches to the UN or Davos and come across with authority and lend weight to the nation. Ed just can't do that, neither could his mentor.
Meus Renaissance
Member
I expected him to be Leader. What happened?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The unions basically got EdM into the position by using their might and membership to vote en masse for him. Balls is said to have brokered the deal in return for being Chancellor after 2015.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
David at least believes in what he preaches, I've never got that sense from either ed at all.
But you guys are having a mini-democratic revolt.
PCC elections, giving more power to the councils, the rise of UKIP putting pressure on the big three and getting the PM to act on the European question.
Your democracy is far from perfect (no ones is) but it's not as bad as you might think. (From an Australian perspective).
Best thing we could do is get rid of all this "left right" bullshit for one, we are a nation of centralists by and large and someone who speaks to that (but isn't beholden to racist, xenophobic, homophobic, poorophobic fuckmongs in the Tory back bench) would be great.
PJV3
Member
I don't want the Ed's either, I want to see a bold Labour party offering a real alternative. They would probably lose the election, but at least people would hear different ideas, and the debates would actually be interesting.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Unfortunately it doesn't seem either Alan Johnson or Alastair Darling have any intention of running for the leadership, so a strong centre-left leader seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.
I'd have voted for either of those guys
PJV3
Member
Being centrist doesn't make somebody automatically right on an issue, it's just another political position between left and right. It's more healthy to come to a centrist position after a proper clash of ideas, than everybody just assuming that centrist position from the get go.
Labour should move to the left, and either win/lose on those policies or be moderated in a coalition with the LibDems.
I live in ex-council houses in Camden. Some residencies are privately owned but most are not. If this place was all private then it would pretty much be full of university students (almost like a massive student halls) since its near UoL, or it would be knocked down and new apartments would be built. There are people living here (including me I may add) living in a prime location for relatively low rent.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
You got it the wrong way around. David Milliband is rotten for his involvement in rendition/torture as Foreign secretary. When you hear him talk in vapid buzzwords, it becomes clear that he's Blair 2 which is what nobody really wants. Ed Milliband is the opposite - not as suave or stylised but he is likeable in person. Ed Balls needs to be obliterated though.
EDIT: I think that the next election will be one where charisma is valued less than it has been in a long time. People are fed up with lies and untruths from politicians. People crave authenticity - its one part of why Boris gets appeal from all across the spectrum. He gives the appearance of being unafraid to speak the 'truth'.
CyclopsRock
Member
I've heard from my secret sources - ie, the Spectator - that Ed is actually a very nice, funny, charismatic guy, but stick a camera in front of him and he turns into the scared, Beaker-esque mess we see daily.
Also you need left-right bullshit. It's how you make sure at least two sides get an airing. The idea of politicians "putting aside their partisan squabbles for the good of the country" scares the shit out of me.
Also you need left-right bullshit. It's how you make sure at least two sides get an airing. The idea of politicians "putting aside their partisan squabbles for the good of the country" scares the shit out of me.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I dunno, I still remember when he chastised blears(?) for clapping ferverently for some nonsense ed was railing against which both she and david voted for.
And I don't dislike ed because he's a crap speaker, I dislike him because he's an oppourtunistic piece of human refuse who helped get us into this mess in the first place. Just like Balls and Brown, he puts himself before his party and his party before the country.
Don't get me wrong, I feel that way about a lot of the tory front bench, but ed's the leader of his frigging party.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Opportunistic, how? I'm not sure how he puts himself or his personal issues ahead of the country. Which Brown is definitely guilty of. Cameron and the tories' internal squabbles also do such a thing.