Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Populist Party U-Turns - A Complete List Of 8 Months Incompetence


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

I loathe this government, but up until recently I was a life long Conservative supporter and donor. I gave my time to get Margaret Thatcher elected.

These are not Conservatives, they are populists and Benito Johnson is a proven liar. How can you trust this man?

I don't trust him, and I don't trust any politician in terms of what they say. But I do think that BoJo seems to take a deeper and longer term view of things than many others. A populist he may be but personally I think he has managed to unite a warring party to carry us through to the next chapter post covid and post Brexit. Once we're there I think he may meet a similar fate to his hero. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

19 hours ago, Postman said:

If all it takes to govern is to get things wrong the first time and do a U-turn when things get hot, hell, sign me up. 

The problem they have is the never seem to get anything right the first time, which leads to major questions over their competence. 

And besides, getting it wrong in the first instance, despite doing a U-turn, creates additional problems that then have to be addressed, not to mention the further problems they create while dragging their feet before committing to the eventual U-turn. 

This government are out of their depth and frankly, its embarrassing. 

Maybe (although I don't think they're as bad as many are making out). It's fine to criticise them for what they do wrong when that's the case, but the not for when they try to correct things. For criticism to bite it has to be fair, which doesn't mean finding any excuse to put the boot in, and means leaving it off for the bits that don't merit it. So by all means kick them for the original decision, and do it if the change is also no good. Even do it if you're unimpressed with the motivation for the change. But not for actually trying to fix mistakes. Not doing the last one still leaves you with plenty of ammunition and gives the impression you're not just out to get them, which makes it more effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, byron78 said:

Thatcher started the housing crisis. We just had a deep early 90s recession that saw the initial boom go bust for a little bit.

The banking deregulation, the boom of buy to let,  and the continued death of social housing etc definitely happened on Labour's watch mind, but it was all coming in under the Tories (and we in fact supported it in the HoC as it was essentially a continuation of our policies).

I don't think I've seen a "commie red" government in this country since the 1960s. The 70s (which for some reason come up a lot) was essentially a decade of global oil crisis.

So yeah. I wouldn't worry. You haven't had a leftie threat in your lifetime, and probably never will. 

One of my Great Uncle's was a Tory PM, and my entire family is blue blood or blue rosette (usually both)! I'm an old fashioned pre-Thatcher Tory. There are lots of us!

I don't agree with you. Maggie might have started a policy that eventually caused the crisis but at the time of selling these houses off there was a step change in policy. Even though they were not being replaced with new social housing imho it didn't matter. In the year of its introduction in 1980 population growth in the UK was nil AND we were building 200k houses a year. 

I will blame Labour squarely for the HPI we've seen. Blair pushed for expansion into EE, Labour curtailed building and stuffed tonnes of cash into the public sector (and it's suppliers). Tony himself owns about £50m of property!! As you say this policy continued under Labour and at that time it was the wrong policy with a housing stock growing at a slower rate than the population. 

I hope to never have a leftie threat (or a rightie for that matter). The middle past is the golden one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Locke said:

You seem fairly reasonable. Can you explain to me why, in a democracy, you consider doing what is popular with the electorate to be negative?

Subtle difference. Populists stoke the population to vote for them based on simple fear messages that work well psychologically but don't reflect reality and cause more harm than good.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/08/2020 at 06:47, winkie said:

Where is the boss.......what does he have to say about all this?😉

He is holidaying in an isolated location on Scottish coast

 

Quote

 

Boris Johnson at trendy bell tent with a cottage attached in Scotland - after he kept mum throughout exams fiasco

article-8648709-32213516-538_636x382.jpg

Daily Mail

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

Populists stoke the population to vote for them based on simple fear messages

If the message is true, does it matter whether it is "fear based"? Are you objecting to their tone? Was campaigning on fighting the losers of double U double U two a bad thing for Churchill to do?

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

messages that work well psychologically

Not universal; some populations will accept certain messages. If a population can be bamboozled, why shouldn't they suffer the consequences of their ignorance?

What if you are the one who is wrong and that is why the messages do not resonate with you?

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

don't reflect reality

Can you name a single politician who doesn't do this? Can you, for the sake of argument, present what you would consider to be a populist talking point which does not accord with reality?

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

cause more harm than good.

That is your opinion.

 

Are you objecting to politicians influencing the electorate? How would you run a system where politics did not affect your day to day life, but still achieved something noticeable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Locke said:

If the message is true, does it matter whether it is "fear based"? Are you objecting to their tone? Was campaigning on fighting the losers of double U double U two a bad thing for Churchill to do?

Not universal; some populations will accept certain messages. If a population can be bamboozled, why shouldn't they suffer the consequences of their ignorance?

What if you are the one who is wrong and that is why the messages do not resonate with you?

Can you name a single politician who doesn't do this? Can you, for the sake of argument, present what you would consider to be a populist talking point which does not accord with reality?

That is your opinion.

 

Are you objecting to politicians influencing the electorate? How would you run a system where politics did not affect your day to day life, but still achieved something noticeable?

Look, you've made up your mind so there is no point trying to debate it. You profess to be some sort of anarchist but your actions are those of a typical conservative authoritarian. You're happy for liars to be in control because they align with your anti-EU views. Very much at odds with an "enlightened" anarchist. Take this how you will, I don't mind, it is how I see you based on what you post.

In terms of what if I'm wrong, of course I must consider that. 

I don't have to look very far to see the evidence that one side is overwhelmingly more packed with liars, frauds, corruption and nastiness. And I support the other side.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a u turn in policy is fine if the facts change, the sittuation changes or their are unforseen outcomes. Exam results fiasco doesnt fit these criteria. The complaints from those downgraded could be forseen, so if you decide to implement it, then do a u turn purely because of complaints, this is bad policy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

Making a u turn in policy is fine if the facts change, the sittuation changes or their are unforseen outcomes. Exam results fiasco doesnt fit these criteria. The complaints from those downgraded could be forseen, so if you decide to implement it, then do a u turn purely because of complaints, this is bad policy. 

You either downgrade or you give the benefit of the doubt.......2020 will be the year different to other years, however judged, all will be on a level playing field.......now is the time to teach the skills of the future......a qualification has no financial benefit if it can't provide a future financial income.😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

Making a u turn in policy is fine if the facts change, the sittuation changes or their are unforseen outcomes. Exam results fiasco doesnt fit these criteria. The complaints from those downgraded could be forseen, so if you decide to implement it, then do a u turn purely because of complaints, this is bad policy. 

Exactly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

Making a u turn in policy is fine if the facts change, the sittuation changes or their are unforseen outcomes. Exam results fiasco doesnt fit these criteria. The complaints from those downgraded could be forseen, so if you decide to implement it, then do a u turn purely because of complaints, this is bad policy. 

An objective assessment of a U-turn, free from political dogma and posturing. 

How refreshing

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

Making a u turn in policy is fine if the facts change, the sittuation changes or their are unforseen outcomes. Exam results fiasco doesnt fit these criteria. The complaints from those downgraded could be forseen, so if you decide to implement it, then do a u turn purely because of complaints, this is bad policy. 

Like Brexshit you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

I don't agree with you. Maggie might have started a policy that eventually caused the crisis but at the time of selling these houses off there was a step change in policy. Even though they were not being replaced with new social housing imho it didn't matter. In the year of its introduction in 1980 population growth in the UK was nil AND we were building 200k houses a year. 

I will blame Labour squarely for the HPI we've seen. Blair pushed for expansion into EE, Labour curtailed building and stuffed tonnes of cash into the public sector (and it's suppliers). Tony himself owns about £50m of property!! As you say this policy continued under Labour and at that time it was the wrong policy with a housing stock growing at a slower rate than the population. 

I hope to never have a leftie threat (or a rightie for that matter). The middle past is the golden one. 

Well you're wrong, but what do I know?

Only lived through it. Only VERY heavily involved in Tory politics for half my life. ;)

Nothing wrong with having an axe to grind with Blair mind!

But look. We're 10 years into our next turn, and house building hasn't recovered (in fact, it was going the other way until Osborne reinflated the bubble). We're out of the EU and I can absolutely promise you that won't make a blind bit of difference to house prices either.

What happened in the 80s was radical. Property stopped being a home and became an investment opportunity. I picked up half a dozen places in London myself on advice from within the party. You'd have struggled to find a letting agent before the 80s tbh. They popped up everywhere from that point on.

Not that I'm looking to solely blame Thatch. It's neoliberalism, and it's caused problems everywhere tbh. We embraced the free market and globalism under Maggie. Obviously. It was basically her religion. But the changes start there. And I lived from time to time in London through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. It changed in the 80s. Massively.

RE: population growth. Yes, it's a problem. But back then we knew populations would rise. I REPEAT - WE KNEW THAT. It was seen as a positive! 

Who do you think employed the influx of overseas labour? Who do you think helped hedge funds from around the globe pile into London property? It wasn't the proles...

 

Edited by byron78
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Subtle difference. Populists stoke the population to vote for them based on simple fear messages that work well psychologically but don't reflect reality and cause more harm than good.

Populists get elected by promising to do what people want done.

Which is kind of what democracy is supposed to be.

And this is why authoritarians hate them, because those authoritarians believe they should be telling people what they want done, they shouldn't have to listen to the proles.

Of course, people like Boris claim they'll do it and then do something completely different. Which is where the whole thing falls over.

And he'll probably be re-elected because Labour will likely be openly pushing white genocide and communism by the next election and he'll still be the least worst option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Even though they know it's impossible to deliver.

Often, yes. But every politician in a democracy does that.

My point was mostly that populists don't get elected by pushing fear porn, they get elected by promising what people want. There's this crazy belief that Trump was elected by convincing people that they should put America first, and it will all disappear if only they can elect Biden instead. In reality, Americans have wanted to put America first for decades, but no politician was willing to pay more than lip service to doing so.

And then, for no reason, Trump was elected.

Edited by MarkG
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarkG said:

Populists get elected by promising to do what people want done.

Which is kind of what democracy is supposed to be.

And this is why authoritarians hate them, because those authoritarians believe they should be telling people what they want done, they shouldn't have to listen to the proles.

Of course, people like Boris claim they'll do it and then do something completely different. Which is where the whole thing falls over.

And he'll probably be re-elected because Labour will likely be openly pushing white genocide and communism by the next election and he'll still be the least worst option.

Have a word with yourself

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with government policy evolving during such unusual times.

If they try something and it doesn't work, I'd far rather a "U-turn" than dogmatically sticking to the wrong plan.

Of course getting everything right first time would be better still....but honestly what government possibly could in times like these?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

Making a u turn in policy is fine if the facts change, the sittuation changes or their are unforseen outcomes. Exam results fiasco doesnt fit these criteria. The complaints from those downgraded could be forseen, so if you decide to implement it, then do a u turn purely because of complaints, this is bad policy. 

I think it was a bad policy, because it produced results that were correct at nationwide level but unfair at individual person level. 

However, this is not a problem with an easy obvious solution - for example, going with teachers' grades avoids people being marked down, but that still doesn't magically create more university places, for example.

Therefore, I don't think that changing it because of complaints means it's a bad policy per se.  If there's no easy answer, proposing one of a number of difficult solutions, but being prepared to change it based upon the reaction, isn't unreasonable.  Government consultations kind of work like that anyway, with the government saying to industry "we're proposing a new law that would do XXXX - what are your thoughts?" and then the law is tweaked if needs be.  It wasn't done here, and perhaps should have been, then the fiasco could have been headed off earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, byron78 said:

Well you're wrong, but what do I know?

Only lived through it. Only VERY heavily involved in Tory politics for half my life. ;)

Nothing wrong with having an axe to grind with Blair mind!

But look. We're 10 years into our next turn, and house building hasn't recovered (in fact, it was going the other way until Osborne reinflated the bubble). We're out of the EU and I can absolutely promise you that won't make a blind bit of difference to house prices either.

What happened in the 80s was radical. Property stopped being a home and became an investment opportunity. I picked up half a dozen places in London myself on advice from within the party. You'd have struggled to find a letting agent before the 80s tbh. They popped up everywhere from that point on.

Not that I'm looking to solely blame Thatch. It's neoliberalism, and it's caused problems everywhere tbh. We embraced the free market and globalism under Maggie. Obviously. It was basically her religion. But the changes start there. And I lived from time to time in London through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. It changed in the 80s. Massively.

RE: population growth. Yes, it's a problem. But back then we knew populations would rise. I REPEAT - WE KNEW THAT. It was seen as a positive! 

Who do you think employed the influx of overseas labour? Who do you think helped hedge funds from around the globe pile into London property? It wasn't the proles...

 

I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say......lived through it myself, the 80s was the time of big societal monetary and structural change that has never been undone by following governments, maybe it takes a virus to finally make tptb sit up a act?........very many did very well out of it, they thrived on it......others took a beating and later generations have found the opportunities they might once of had they have no longer......right place, right time, those people are able to leave a legacy.😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MarkG said:

Often, yes. But every politician in a democracy does that.

My point was mostly that populists don't get elected by pushing fear porn, they get elected by promising what people want. There's this crazy belief that Trump was elected by convincing people that they should put America first, and it will all disappear if only they can elect Biden instead. In reality, Americans have wanted to put America first for decades, but no politician was willing to pay more than lip service to doing so.

And then, for no reason, Trump was elected.

But all Trump has done is pay lip service to the idea of putting America First, while the global financial elite on Wall Street and the robber barons of Silicon Valley are richer and more powerful than they've ever been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, byron78 said:

Well you're wrong, but what do I know?

Only lived through it. Only VERY heavily involved in Tory politics for half my life. ;)

Nothing wrong with having an axe to grind with Blair mind!

But look. We're 10 years into our next turn, and house building hasn't recovered (in fact, it was going the other way until Osborne reinflated the bubble). We're out of the EU and I can absolutely promise you that won't make a blind bit of difference to house prices either.

What happened in the 80s was radical. Property stopped being a home and became an investment opportunity. I picked up half a dozen places in London myself on advice from within the party. You'd have struggled to find a letting agent before the 80s tbh. They popped up everywhere from that point on.

Not that I'm looking to solely blame Thatch. It's neoliberalism, and it's caused problems everywhere tbh. We embraced the free market and globalism under Maggie. Obviously. It was basically her religion. But the changes start there. And I lived from time to time in London through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. It changed in the 80s. Massively.

RE: population growth. Yes, it's a problem. But back then we knew populations would rise. I REPEAT - WE KNEW THAT. It was seen as a positive! 

Who do you think employed the influx of overseas labour? Who do you think helped hedge funds from around the globe pile into London property? It wasn't the proles...

 

I'm an 80's child so I didn't live though things as you did, but I do recall my mum having to work in the local shop through evenings for a period when interest rates went mental. 

There's the supply issue which at the time of right to buy wasn't an issue, and in fact many of those sold off were probably in a very sorry state anyway being built in a rush. 

The neoliberalism and financialisation of housing could be arguably rooted back to 'Big Bang' in the city but that really broke the cartels. I guess though the willingness of banks to lend (and you to borrow) is really what stoked the market. 

The changes Maggie effected had to be made imho (this is something I studied closely during my economics degree). The UK was stuck in decline and that was manifested by a population at zero growth at that time. Even so, we were still building many houses (I grant it's not only supply of housing but supply of cheap and easy credit too).

Pre war over 90% of people rented, post war it almost inverted. 

I'm with you on the proles being shunted while the man got cheap and easy labour. That alone probably gave the Brexit campaign half of its votes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.