itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

When I am talking about the process of leaving the EU and the process of transposition of EU law in to UK law (and the associated issues with those processes) and what you want to talk about is the 'nitty gritty' of construction regulations, they're not difficult: they're impossible and futile.

Finally get you now. And yes I worry about how things will be transposed but I don't think that means ignoring the regulatory debate that will strengthen our hand in negotiations and inform politicians about what they've been doing wrong. I still don't see what that has to do with 99% of lobbyists.

And it's not just construction, it's anything. I just focused on construction because if you asked a question I could most likely answer it. I'd be happy to talk about CE markings, fishing, farming, renewable energy, milk production or anything if I can learn something. The Great Repeal Act meetings are as much about keeping legislation as they are about removing them.

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

When are they going to 'take this to the electorate'?

Perhaps October, maybe sooner, I am hoping Labour are able to get into the nitty gritty of regulation before there's another election. Like Corbyn once did (posted workers directive). They would then be seen as more credible and perhaps win the Brexit and national policy vote. 

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

The 'deal' that is of import is the process by which the government intends to transpose EU law in to UK law.

I believe it's going to be a bad deal due to the way it was laid out in the White Paper. I don't need to know the intricacies of any specific EU regulation on construction (or anything else for that matter) to make a judgement on the process and whether it is sufficiently accountable.

Having read your input on these meetings, I think it's going to be an even worse deal.

First time you've said that but still wouldn't offer any reasons in my specific cases. Meh, I got used to that over our many messages.

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

I'm sorry but that's claptrap especially when If anything , the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country.

Quote

If you don't believe that fewer burdensome regulations stimulate employment and new business - particularly for SMEs - then fair enough. Hopefully over your lifetime you can come up with other ways to support our rural communities and low paid who have been squeezed by the dominance of big business, or not big business.
I literally haven't got a clue what your position is on anything...apart from 'op'position. 

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

No, you gave me examples of regulation; regulation which you describe as burdensome.

 

This is utterly pointless so I'm done.

Why not give examples/reasons why you believe they're not burdensome? Why not ask why I thought they were? You didn't, you took an opposing view from start to finish.

Well fair enough if you're done. Some conversations are just too difficult.

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

Yes and no.

Of course I accept that the reality of politics is that small numbers of people have a disproportionately loud voice when it comes to forming public policy. I don't accept that it needs to be that way and I will certainly criticize this reality and most definitely the people who appear to take advantage of it.

With the rider that the process for 'The Great Repeal Bill' may not be quite as suggested before the election because of the result and the precariousness of the government position, I am being cynical about this because we were told by the government what to expect (should they get their way). We are to expect lots of secondary legislation with the apparent claim that this will be limited according to parameters set and agreed upon during the process of the primary legislation. I don't give much credence to this claim and have already indicated (either in this thread or elsewhere) that it's worrying that we have effectively been told that changes to regulations will take place in this way (via statutory instrument).

I think the cynicism is well-founded given the way in which statutory instruments have been used (increasingly used) over the past couple of decades and even more so when the ministers concerned told us that there was plenty of parliamentary oversight of SIs and therefore substantial accountability which doesn't really tell the whole story (numbers of SIs that have been overturned and the process whereby SIs can't be amended only rejected - though I can't, off the top of my head, remember whether that applies to all of them).

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're on about here. I make what seem so easy?

I hope I haven't made anything seem easy. If anything the underlying theme to any comment I make about politics is that it's far from easy.

I have no idea. Why do I have to? I don't think that's at all pertinent to the discussion about process, about who is involved, about the issues with vested interests driving policy, about the potential/probable lack of accountability, &c.

Perhaps then, those that 'lobby', could make the case in these terms rather than repeatedly returning to a theme of 'burdensome' regulation as you did in your previous post (or as was pointed to in the article posted the other day by @HanoiVillan?

Indeed, as these people (whatever industry they may be in) are the ones with the loudest voice and the ones driving policy formation from the industry and expert perspective, they would appear to be the best placed to change this thinking and maybe have a responsibility to do so as they have been afforded the privilege of having their voices heard above everyone else (the pesky 'population').

 

Lobbyists, you, me, organisations, charities, media etc. drive the conversation and politicians that we all just voted in are the ones who have the loudest voices.
Surely Labour's gain is a great example of that? I gave you examples of burdensome regulation, that was my point. Lobbyists are pretty open if people check their campaigns, especially as the Great Repeal Bill may see limited change.

That's why when we have debates it's imperative all politicians understand the problem and produce solutions (better overall regulation) so the incumbent government are held to account. The louder and more coherently they shout, the more government falls in line. Eg - Corbyn bringing up the Posted Workers Directive and literally every politician giving a puzzled look.
That's a major part of scrutiny and nothing to do with lobbyists behind closed doors.

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't see why this process, as described in your own words, should be viewed anything but cynically. The process is, you say, 'framed to interest industry' because 'media, politicians and individuals' don't care. I dispute this. I'm absolutely certain that most people don't know what a CDM regulation is (and I'm happy to admit to being one of them) but I know that people and politicians care whether they can live in a house that's safe or not. You mistake a lack of interest in industry jargon for a lack of interest in the subject generally. 

As @snowychap has said, the context for this discussion is the Great Repeal Bill in which people like yourself are going to be given enormous power as huge changes will be enacted with little scrutiny via secondary legislation. The idea that lobbyists and Conservative politicians will not take the opportunity to creatively remake and reword and redefine regulations during this process in a manner that suits them strikes me as very naive. Lobbyists might wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and tell themselves that what they are lobbying for that day is in the national interest - and they might even mean it - but I'm happier when important changes are scrutinised by our elected representatives first. 

Finally, on the topic of 'what EU regulation do you believe should be changed' - I don't know. It's not necessary to my further discussion in this thread to have read every EU rule about housebuilding. This stuff is obviously your job; it isn't mine. I have a full-time job, and I don't have the time or inclination to read through EU legislation in my limited hours of free time. But this thread is for general discussion of the politics of exiting the EU, and I was making in my last post, and will continue to make, a basic point: we should be suspicious of people in the Conservative party who want to roll back regulation without scrutiny, because doing so can have profound effects and because these people are planning to create a legislative process in which many changes can be enacted without sufficient scrutiny. These people have made their priorities clear over many years, and their priorities (less environmental protection, less food safety, less worker protection, more regulations 'framed to interest industry') are not those shared by many people on this thread. By demanding that people tell you what they feel about individual regulations, you seem to hope to narrow down the number of people who are allowed to discuss the topic to yourself only. But it's not necessary to be an expert to see a bad deal. I can't make a great soup, but if I go to a restaurant and order one and there's a turd floating in it, you better believe I'm sending it back to the kitchen. 

Exactly, part of my job - like the majority of lobbyists - is to inform government and politicians; particularity where regulation is great of terrible. 
Therefore, it is completely right to recognise lobbying is not part of that open door/closed door discussion. Even if some of those conversations are held behind closed doors.
Lobbyists, especially open ones offer a great level of scrutiny. And anyone can lobby, which is my point about industry vs. people. It was a genuine question because I was interested/engaged in policy many years before it became my job; definitely not a demand.

But again, that's why it's phrased for industry, so govt gets a definite reply with realistic metric examples they can then take to the electorate who rightly don't believe promises. 

With scrutiny it is important that opposition politicians, the media, individuals, lobbyists can all scrutinise. Lobbyists hold meetings cross party in the hope of getting cross party support. Recorded recommendations by an opposition party on the intricacies or regulatory change is far more poignant than anything industry says or campaigns for. That's where the real level of scrutiny and influence is, particularly when you're talking about such a huge topic like the great repeal bill. 

I'm happy to talk about other EU regulation but I can - with certainty - talk about construction and give an informed opinion.I'd be delighted if others offered their perspective but surely to know what a bad deal is, you need to understand what you can and cannot move, or should not move. That's the intricacies of policy. Eg - VAT on renewables.

Well before Brexit happened, remain were not willing to offer proper scrutiny of policy that leave were claiming. Policy doesn't sell....yet as saw with Corbyn, it persuades!  On the Brexit campaign, whether that was ignorance or both parties not wanting to expose their previous failures, I don't know. But it meant we had a v poor level of scrutiny. before and after.

A year on, literally nothing has changed and it feels like only government is bothering about these things...and that's not going all that well either!

2 hours ago, mjmooney said:

This mantra really boils my piss. BUILDING MORE HOUSES IS NOT, NOT, NOT 'THE ANSWER'. The only thing it's good for is the building industry. 

It's happening all around where I live. Huge new estates going up on green belt land. Are they 'affordable, first time buyer' homes? Are they ****. They're 4 and 5 bedroom jobs, costing 3, 4, 5 hundred grand. There are some smaller ones, but they are still totally unaffordable by young people - they are getting bought up by buy-to-let landlords, to turn themselves a nice little profit. 

And the roads around here are very close to gridlock (not just at rush hour, all **** ing day). The new estates are throwing hundreds more cars into the chaos on a daily basis. It's madness. 

Both my daughters and their partners want to buy. They all have decent jobs, but not money enough to save a deposit, and zero chance of getting a mortgage. There are plenty of available houses that they'd buy, but they're in a poverty trap. 

Stop this crap about building houses, and start addressing the real problems - low paid jobs (don't get me started on zero hours contract), banks who will only lend to the already rich, lack of investment in existing properties, not enough use of brown field sites, no social housing. The system is broken, and it's about time we kicked out the bastards responsible and got our priorities right. 

Construction is one of the better paying industries with certain sectors delivering careers not 'jobs'. We also desperately need more homes despite your opinion that we don't. That includes tackling the empty homes problem. 

However, we need the right type of homes and a market which delivers a more diverse housing stock. Well exampled by how many families are living in studios/shared flats.

That isn't achieved by opposing housebuilding - in fact that attitude over the last 20 years has made things many times worse - neither is it achieved by tarring the whole industry with the same brush. 

You nailed it when you said huge estates. It's the biggest housebuilders building 80% of the market and competing against....nobody. Local/regional builders used to build 65%+ of the market but opposition and regulation has squeezed out their opportunities. Now even Housing Associations struggle with the financial risk of development. You can thank local government for that. 

Wages need to rise but then the price of housing would too. You need wages and appropriate supply to increase so that increased salaries are complemented by more affordable housing.

17 hours ago, snowychap said:

You were trying to create a straw man about 'media depictions' of lobbyists. It's a bit rum to be having a go at the thought processes of others.

Not in the slightest, I am just responding to a sentiment I often feel in here and have been told directly. 

If you can be bothered to offer discourse I'm happy to respond but to be honest it's become tedious replying to someone who cares less about policy than they do about opposition.

18 hours ago, snowychap said:

I think you're talking cobblers if you're really trying to suggest that.

You're not seriously trying to use a line like that to suggest that the interests of a Company Director align neatly with that company's employees?

Edit: In some (probably most) cases, they are. In others, they may not be.

The issue in a nutshell, for me. It isn't about getting the regulation right, it's about a demand to reduce regulation. The argument is virtually always: regulation is burdensome, we need to lessen the burden.

I'm assuming that you're referring to the 'take back control' line? If so, the process that you have described is not about people 'taking back control', it's about a small subset of people and interests having control given to them behind closed doors in a manner that only casts a cursory glance in the direction of accountability.

If you are or represent one of the voices that will get heard then I imagine it seems like a good deal. Perhaps it isn't that good a deal for those who don't get in to these backrooms?

Isn't that politics worldwide? That's the environment we live in.

I think you're too cynical about the lobbying process, but then I covered engaged MP's earlier on. I work with very many amazing people who fight and orchestrate brilliant things and they will be part of the process of informing cross-party what works, what doesn't and from our perspective, why.

You make it seem so easy, so what EU regulation do you believe should be changed now/if we Brexit?

Absolutely it's about getting regulation right and I wholeheartedly agree that it should defined that way; maybe in 2017 the media/population would care more! However, it's framed to interest industry because quite frankly the media, politicians and individuals don't care about let's say, CDM regulations. But a contractor does.
So let's say CDM comes up, we'd send a contractor to discuss something so complicated, especially if they've seen the same process abroad. That's the point of being a trade association fighting for members interests! That's lobbying.

Our sector didn't lobby against unsustainable increases in Part L (energy efficiency) for homes, we just asked for one standard and we'd all follow. We got that, and an uplift value if a local authority fancied it (thanks to green lobbying). An overheating seminar awaits me and many others. 

The greendeal is an interesting one for EU regulation. I wasn't around when it was introduced but because of the ECJ we were not able to use it as a mechanism for the industrial strategy, despite there being a natural opportunity for it. Therefore at this point it would be important to lobby for certain changes so we can support our renewable industries through a VAT reduction. That needs to come from many different sectors and not just the green guys. If it just comes from environmentalists it gets less traction, or more worryingly, you get burdensome regulation that must then be reviewed (wasted time) or even challenged in court.

1 hour ago, Xela said:

There clearly is an issue with rich overseas investors 'landbanking' in London  and it should be looked at through the proper channels and legislation and if agreed, measures put in place going forward. What you can't do is just take peoples legally owned property now just to score some political brownie points. 

It really is. And I can't imagine proposals such as doubling council tax would make enough of a difference in central London.

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Then why say the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country?

Are you really suggesting that, just because you 'often send members and not advisors like you [changed to reflect it being quoted] to meetings so the practitioner POV is put across', the priorities of employers are shared by employees or even that the priorities of employers are in the best interests of anyone else (they might not even be in the best interests of other employers)?

I think everyone who isn't an employer ought to be very worried that there will be these 'Great Repeal Bill meetings' where you claim it is the priorities of employers that will supposedly be highlighted.

Still, let's take back control, eh?

Yes, 100%! The practitioners we send can be anyone from the company. Directors, site managers, bricklayers etc; that's why I used that word. Tbh Directors typically don't attend, they prefer to send employees. It's the same with the board I run. Also do you think Directors are not employees too?....They are at our level.

We are talking SMEs here, the ones hit hardest by burdensome regulatory change. SMEs train three quarters of apprentices, employ 60% of the private sector and a fifth are in construction. 13% of the overall construction Labour is foreign, 9% from the EU. Tbh we won't be that massively impacted by a loss of EU staff - we don't employ that many - until the big guys poach our guys. In the 1980's, SMEs built 65% of houses. 2007 - 29%, 2017 - 20%. 

We attend so we can actually achieve a pipeline of work to sustain employee investment...something lost under New Labour, the Conservatives and sadly the EU....though tbh I have always blamed govt more than the EU. They could just ignore the EU like other countries do! Though it didn't work for the SME milk industry....

Also these meetings have trade unions etc at them....strangely I get on very well with them all....perhaps they're all Villa fans because they surely can't like what comes out of my mouth?! Or maybe they just realise they are getting information they never realised existed....now that would be a problem eh!

Without employers getting work there will be no employees! It makes a lot more sense to help SMEs employing locally that deliver careers (a big focus in the Labour manifesto though nothing about meaningful about regulation apart from late payments), rather than big companies employing for one or two jobs. This is especially vital in our rural communities and areas without commuter cities.....coincidentally, where Brexit had the most votes.

With less burdensome regulation we may be able to support local employers more equally. And that's not just the developer, that's the entire supply chain from client, planner and investor to bricklayer, college and supplier.

So yes, lets! Let's do it right bloody now! And that doesn't necessarily mean leave but it does mean convincing people there were legitimate and realistic reasons the EU is flawed. And when it's not (despite it being reported that it is), both sides learn something! Something remain didn't bother to learn/campaign on pre-referendum.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone's opinion but some people do not ask questions or assess fact before replying. That's why I made that legitimate comment and followed it up with some examples.

39 minutes ago, snowychap said:

One might put that as much down to the employees as the employers.

100% correct, which is why I am extremely comfortable posting the meeting I was involved in if it is published. I am all about employees and have been fighting for changes that sustain our economy and careers and not just deliver 'jobs'. In fact we often send members and not advisors like myself to meetings so the practitioner POV is put across with more urgency. 

Obviously many of you (not saying you specifically) see me as the 'lobbyist' typically depicted by the media. Sadly those who do might as well show the same contempt for Natural England, Community Land Trusts, Environment Agency, LEP's, charities and many others because we're all singing from the same page on construction and in reality, it's industry which is solving many of our issues. Eg - Great Crested Newt protection. (btw, not endangered in the UK but is in some EU countries)

If (and it's a big if) the good part of industry has support from opposition MP's, good policy and good conversation is delivered more quickly. However, many of us do not get that support and therefore wait until things are desperate or a general election is called until policy actually matters. (in housebuilding and skills at least...and others but I'm not a policy advisor in those fields)

That's not opinion; that's fact. It's bloody important to have great MP's and a strong opposition and as we've seen this week; good council/councillors also help.
The second reading of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill is a good example of the struggle industry faces.

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Correct. That's what the EU has been doing to its less affluent long term members and trading "partners" for years.

11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Further lessons in 'you don't get your Brexit, you get a Tory Brexit':

Home Builders Federation set to quiz members on post-Brexit reform of regulations

'A cross-party drive to identify EU regulations that can be quickly amended as part of the Brexit process will make housing construction its initial focus, it has emerged.

Former Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin (pictured) last week launched the Red Tape Initiative, which aims to find “quick wins” that can be implemented to help UK business improve productivity as part of the Brexit process.

In a subsequent interview with Whitehall magazine Civil Service World, former minister Letwin said he envisaged the programme would conduct around 10 sector-specific inquiries over the next two years, with the first looking at lifting burdens on the housebuilding sector.

That inquiry is set to begin in June, and will feature input from the Home Builders Federation, as well as other industry groups, Letwin said. The second inquiry will look into burdens on infrastructure construction and is due to start later in the summer.

The HBF told Building that it was too early to be specific about EU regulations that it wanted to see removed in the interest of helping the industry, but said members would be consulted.

Director of external affairs John Slaughter said: “‘We will be looking at a range of EU financial, technical and environmental requirements to see how unnecessary rules for achieving public policy objectives can be cut back for the future.”

Letwin told CSW that the Red Tape Initiative was designed to sit between the proposed Great Repeal Bill, which will repatriate EU law when the UK formally leaves the European Union, and future trade deals that will be negotiated to underpin a new relationship with the remaining 27 member states.'

http://m.bdonline.co.uk/5087364.article?mobilesite=enabled

Interesting in light of this week's events that slashing red tape related to building standards was considered a 'quick win'. It's not directly relevant to the fire, but it certainly illuminates the priorities of those running the place. 

It is a quick win because in many cases there are real problems with regulation in the EU and UK/England. I've listed a few of those in previous posts.
I actually know what was on the agenda for the first meeting and clearly the article above didn't! 

I've attended two high level Brexit meetings and a cross-party housing roundtable was held this week. I wrote a briefing for it.
I believe one of our meetings is going public after being held under Chatham a few months ago. I'm happy to post it when released.

If anything , the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country; the guys keeping the economy sustainable. If you'd have looked at many of the pre-brexit briefings you'll see the HBF generally happy with remaining. 

That is because the HBF members are the largest housebuilders and profit from EU procurement which negatively impacts almost all small companies, cheaper transient labour (transient is imperative here), better bargaining power when buying materials (which in the past has allowed them to buy the majority of stock like bricks), energy policy etc.

19 hours ago, villa4europe said:

i still dont feel the need to defend my leave vote but knowing what i know now i voted remain, but not on the grounds of anything that was argued by either side

in 30 years time when we're all living the life out of The Road, fighting over 10 year old tins of peaches i'll be telling campfire stories about how it could of worked if we actually had politicians that weren't laughably inept

 

Ha, I actually feel those tins may be headed to existing EU members who will be left behind by EU trade arrangements....our tins will more likely have lychee in them.

I would probably change my vote though. Firstly, I think the bloody nose we gave the EU will smart for a while and secondly, many remainers have moved outside their bubble to understand why leave was so heavily supported. The media and politicans still don't have a clue but as long as the people get it, things will improve and they already have. 
The slightly protectionist Labour manifesto was a good example of that....but then Corbyn was an EU sceptic. 

15 hours ago, villa4europe said:

they did, it was called the decent homes scheme

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7812/138355.pdf

my experience of it is that the main target was sustainability, reducing energy loss etc, which if the recent refurb of this tower block was external cladding and windows and works to the heating sounds like what they did too

did see on the news a bloke outside the contractor, naming and shaming them and then naming and shaming the subcontractor who installed it too, no mention of the architect who would have specified the product and designed how it was installed...or the council project manager who signed off the works...or the building control officer who signed it off on building regs...

But then we would have to talk about policy in practice and that doesn't work with the anti-Conservative rhetoric.....also, if they talk about this in terms of practical delivery then different parties councils may find themselves exposed. 

1 hour ago, hippo said:

I think Rebbeca Long-Bailey has just tossed that momentum out of the window by saying a labour govt would allow free movement to get a better brexit deal. To ya average bozzo in the street that means opening the floodgates to immigrants from all over the world to come here destroy our NHS, claim benefits and commit terrorist offences.  (it doesn't and its entirely sensible, but you can see how that will play out) 

 

If you're basing that assumption on Brexit then I think you need to rethink it.
Immigration did not play as big a part in Brexit as the average bozo in a forum seems to think (jokes). Corbyn may be a good example of that.

The reason Labour did so well is because they finally changed the direction of politics in the country, something Blair/Brown/Miliband weren't willing to do. That message is not going away and it will chip away at the Conservatives because they might not be brave enough to embrace reality/change.

I'm not sure if it's enough to win an election outright but the results in Scotland aren't discouraging if you're a betting man.

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

It was always going to have some political angle, so here it starts.

Apparently Gavin Barwell, May's new chief of staff, knew there was a risk of this when he was housing minister after an all-party group created a report recommending sprinkler systems were installed

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-chief-staff-sat-10620357

 

 

To be fair to Barwell, he'd only been housing minister for a year before the GE was called.

Austerity politics.

Not quite. Clearly in tall blocks of flats there needs to be legislative change.

In Wales, where sprinklers are mandatory even in domestic properties, there has been a real issue with technical delivery. The installation and design process was not clearly thought out and more importantly sustainable water pressures barely featured in the solution.
This has left many people with sprinklers that don't work properly, or at all, and consequently delayed the supply of homes and perhaps put people in danger.

It's been lost in the whole conversation but local government (local politicians) can require sprinklers as a planning condition. LA's shouldn't always get away with picking and choosing what central govenment is blamed for.

15 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Interesting to note that EU nurse application numbers have absolutely collapsed.

Given that seemingly EU nurses don't want to work here anymore, numbers of British nurses coming through are falling, and nursing ages are apparently rather high, either we best hope this anti immigration thing we've got going turns a blind eye to brown nurses (and their number grows rather a lot) or we have some kind of miraculous change in the career aspirations of young women en masse.

Healthcare in this country is ****.

We've needed to reform the NHS employment process/budgeting for at least fifteen years. (I don't know what is was like before then).

The reliance on agency staff and external organisations is one problem. It may appear cost effective but the knock-on costs to care/consistency quickly wipe that saving. 
Another problem is the overall cost of becoming a nurse/healthcare professional. Many graduates are retraining but there aren't enough people being supported into nursing/training from an unqualified entry level hospital position.

We can immediately begin tackling under-supply by employing full time and delivering more accessible employment opportunities. It doesn't solve the existing problem but like much of the 'skills crisis', we must first create the right environment to increase capacity.

On 10/06/2017 at 20:54, chrisp65 said:

The problem is the likes of Welsh Labour running it's own campaign here and asking Plaid voters to lend their vote and be tactical in opposing the tories. I really really considered doing it myself. Genuinely still considered it, stood in the booth with the pen in my hand.

Then the day after the election, tweeting that they smashed Plaid who's vote shrunk in places Labour unexpectedly won.

Very poor form.

In my constit., 'the left' as total votes would have beaten the tory, and that's with Labour having declined to bother campaigning. Labour reduced a majority of 7,000 to a majority of 2,000 with 3,500 people having voted Plaid / Lib Dem / Womens Equality / Green / Pirate. 

That's a real shame. I'm also struggling with the whole tactical vote concept. Though perhaps that's the price we have to pay for change. I'm glad the Lib Dems were helped out in Scotland; they deserve more from the voter.

I may have  previously posted this but I thought Welsh Labour and Plaid offered a good approach to solving the Welsh housing crisis. In fact I felt Welsh Labour's attempt was better than the main Labour manifesto.

14 minutes ago, villarule123 said:

LOL at Jess Phillips being all pro-Corbyn now. That's not what the vile, two-faced bitch said when I met her earlier this year. Wish I recorded the conversation now. 

I supported Jerry Evans (Lib Dem) throughout his campaign and I feel the same about Godsiff, Jerry was trounced because of a swing (third time that's happened to him now) and Hall Green gets an apathetic, disinterested MP for another few years.

My god do we need electoral reform!

42 minutes ago, Xela said:

i've warmed to Corbyn during this campaign but is there another 60 seats out there for Labour to win? If so, how?

Winning it is v tough. First thing they need to do as a party is understand the working class, whatever that now is. 

Imo that's the people who do not suit university but still want career training, the ones who need a home but will never access council housing, people with health issues that were previously affected by Labour and small business owners who are really worried about tax implications. Few others but these come to mind straight away.

If they can attract those guys I think there's a good chance they can grab a few more seats in Scotland and the South, which might give them enough of a push to oust the Conservatives from being dominant.

21 minutes ago, hippo said:

Really ?

In 2010 an independent report was produced the UK NHS was the most efficient in the world.

I work in the NHS. It got really messy in 2010 - when everyone was getting redundancy payments, and then applying for then own jobs, - covering for the many decent staff that just upped and left. We had that totally unnecessary re organisation - which created massive bureaucracy for absolutely zero end product.

If you don't labour fair enough. But youre backing a looser if you think they aren't the architects of the current mess in the NHS.  

  

I'm not entrenched enough to make this about one or the other. I work in policy, my focus is on robust delivery. Labour were the architects for many things the Tories then continued effing up, but Labour voters struggle to accept that....well, not Corbyn....

NHS computer systems, PFI, agency staff, levels of management, expensive procurement contracts, private provision of services all promoted heavily by Labour.  Many of the same errors were made in employment services and benefits (including the mental health contract I worked on). The waste of money and talent was incredible.

I'm not defending what happened after Brown/Blair but I'm not going to ignore what happened before. I also worked for the QEH while it was being built....what a mess of an opening that was!

Those costs are horrific and in many cases the spend did little to nothing to improve care. In many cases care was made worse, especially when PFI built shoddy hospitals with plugs and even air conditioning in the wrong places (v important when you have multi-million £ very hot machines that work 13+ hours a day). Or schools built on large frameworks that electrocuted teachers and students....yup, it happened! 

I also think many patients in Mid-Staffs might disagree with that report......

Oh and I have never voted Labour because they might as well have been conservatives; but at least the Conservatives tell you from the start how they're going to shaft you! 

I'm a broken record but this is the first time in my voting lifetime that I genuinely feel the Labour party represents many of my values. 

20 minutes ago, hippo said:

Really ? - Ive heard many times last night and today - That JC earned respect for running an upbeat campaign and not getting into personal slanging matches. One of the verdicts from the tory campaign seems to be they did to much labour bashing 

I live near a few safe seats and always talk to the guys handing out leaflets or campaigning. You never know who you're going to meet or how insightful people are!

I had three different groups at the end of my road handing out 'Stop the Tories' flyers. Non-Labour campaigners  (especially on TV) were going for 'stop the Tories'; heck even the 'Save our NHS' focused on Tories out and not what all parties got/get wrong....let's remember much of the NHS mess began under Blair/Brown.

Then there's sites like this - http://therealsimonkirbymp.uk/

For the record and it's relevant to my previous post, I don't think Corbyn is the hate preacher that I'm used to with New Labour. If he can move Labour away from that position it will be fantastic for British politics and policy.

12 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Could you imagine a coalition of labour- lib dems-SNP and greens? Would be absolute chaos (i know that wasn't your point but imagine if we had a situation like this) 

I don't see it as a problem. For the first time in my voting lifetime I think Labour might actually represent unity. We shall see over the coming months,

We need to get used to coalitions because electoral reform (one day) will bring us many more. No reason why those four can't collaborate together now, even if it's been in the name of anti-Tory and not pro-policy......though that rhetoric might change with Corbyn in charge,

10 minutes ago, hippo said:

Why would it ? 

Lets be kind and say the greens got 10 seats at an election. What laws would they be able through - or vote down ?

While it's true it would be extremely difficult, in a more representative voting system you have improved opportunities to go against your party and vote for good.

The following link is for private members bills etc that got through. Makes for interesting reading. In fact Lucas put forward PR in the past but the following guys voted it down....just...

Pretty epic result. Plus, if we get another election, I get a crack at helping each party write a manifesto that might actually solve the housing crisis for all.