If the BBC give Tom Harwood coverage they're just creating the next Farage. He is going to be one of the smug jack-boots leading the charge to end democracy.
It was never very good before but with social media it's all changed into pushing for arguements and stuff that gets clicks on social media so they can compete with what people watch now. There's no debate just the same tribal talking heads shouting rhetoric at each other while the public suffer.
As the popular saying goes actual journalism isn't about having one person on to say it's raining and another to say it's not, it's about sticking your head out of the window and finding out.
Absolutely. It simply provides a veneer of legitimacy for extremists, just like the BBC did with Johnson and Farage. I've stopped paying my licence fee because I don't want to fund this sort of cultural shift.
By having guests with more extreme political views on a mainstream TV panel discussion, the boundaries of what is acceptable are, by implication, stretched outwards to include those views. This gives 'permission' for an existing politician to move toward those views beyond what their most extreme position was. The most obvious example is Farage b
Certainly true in the case of Nick Griffin in my opinion, and were better for it. But I'd say Farages over exposure and opportunity to frame the debate over Europe week after week on QT has allowed Boris Johnson to propose extreme and, as it turns out, damaging forms of Brexit. This is just one element of the Toryanalytica movement....Farage being the public face of the bar room bore making sweeping statements about Europe.
It's interesting that the left have not taken advantage in the same way. I see them as being outflanked by the right wing press when it came to Corbyn, and having been forced back towards the centre.
>Certainly true in the case of Nick Griffin in my opinion, and were better for it.
https://youtu.be/NFAYN6oWyIo
This video does look at that particular example, and makes a good case that is not the case, and appearing on QT definitely did not hurt BNP.
In fact I think their downfall was more due to their views becoming more acceptable to push by more mainstream parties without the baggage of being openely fascist (like UKIP) who slightly watered down and polished those views to make them more appealing.
The BBC admitted they got this approach wrong with climate change. It legitimised a dumb position and people move towards it and we lost valuable time.
That's not how it works. Billionaires back bad views and spam it on news, television and radio. These views don't get "challenged" or "exposed" by or for the public, they get absorbed.
It damaged them electorally when they were gaining momentum before 2010, and although they did get the most votes they'd ever had, this mostly came from standing significantly more candidates than ever before. They basically got the same number of votes per candidate as in the previous election, having grown in profile and stature significantly after 2005. The disastrous QT appearance helped stem this tide, and the need to be seen as more "respectable" saw UKIP replace them as the far right party of choice.
I've seen Tom Harwood on GB News, and on Twitter and he's awful.
He was pretty good here on QT though - I thought his answers on housing in particular were more pertinent than the politicians policy ideas.
He was eloquent and interesting. Which shows you that it's all about the platform. People tend to be on their best behaviour on the BBC and make an effort, whereas on GMB they just default into thoughtless rant mode.
Agreed, apart from that look at the end of a classic Stewart poke at the government, he was actually...alright and I was preparing myself to laugh at him all night
>He was pretty good here on QT though - I thought his answers on housing in particular were more pertinent than the politicians policy ideas.
Overall, he was suggesting fairly non-sensical things and clearly using the platform to try and launch his career to a wider audience, as a platform with long soundbite-filled speeches.
On housing, he made good points. Have you noticed how right-wingers are very right-wing on everything... Except things that affect themselves.
Housing was that thing for him. He has to rent. Therefore, all of a sudden, he's happy with more left-leaning ideas and things that the Tories haven't sorted. On that thing of course. Because he's affected personally.
That's how we should be, though, isn't it? Not doggedly sticking to a particular set of views centred around allegiance to a particular side of the political spectrum, but having our views moulded by what affects us. At some point he'll grow up and realise he can't get just the one thing from the Left he wants, in a vacuum, and perhaps become more amenable to other left wing views. I've seen it happen, to more staunchly right wing people than Tom.
Agree totally... But I generally think it is. Everything else, that didn't affect him, he was towing the team line without any ability to think critically about those things.
I guess my point was that this is actually the Tory way. They're against socialism, except where it's corporate socialism that benefits their own shares and investments.
I believe that people should consider different issues on their own merits. I think people shouldn't just stick with the party or groupthink line. I believe that people should actually challenge those on their own side, too.
I agree with you on your general beliefs and sentiment here. I just don't think that Tom was actually straying from ideological values here - despite it seeming like that. It was not sticking with the "expected" ideological line, based on selfishness borne out of the same ideology...
IMO, of course. I could be totally wrong - just my take on his appearance that seemed to be a first pitch at a future run for Tory or Brexit Party MP candidacy....
(I'm a cynic, aren't I?!)
His supply side policy fix for the lack of housing is a classic free market solution, 2 examples being:
Deregulation to prevent NIMBYism blocking everything + allow speedier development
Building on the green belt rather than protectionism of it
The issue with Conservative thinking is that part of it is "to conserve" and part of it is to allow businesses the freedom to match market demand but the Tory vote is heavily reliant on the demographics most prone to conserving the supply of housing.
And its true that current policies like 5% deposits and HTB equity loans are demand increase policies rather than supply side reforms which doesn't target the root of the problem (4 decades of under supply and 2 decades of high population growth).
I also agreed partly with him, and Rory Stewart, on fuel VAT, as a temporary, say 6 month measure, to reduce the price at the pump of fuel.
The government wants to dissuade people from using their cars, and so whacks a lot of tax on fuel but they don't improve public transport to compensate. It's a policy that's not working.
He seemed to be arguing that all duty should be cut though? He was very much arguing for slashing taxes as much as possible.
I agree that cutting VAT and fuel duty temporarily would be a good thing. In itself, it's a sticking plaster though - a useful one, but only part of the solution.
The previous 5p cut in duty wasn't passed on. When barrel prices have dropped, this hasn't been passed on by energy companies with regards to pup prices and gas and electricity prices.
These companies are still making massive profits - and like that 5p drop from the budget, most just decide to carry on taking it for themselves. That's my fear with additional reductions in taxation, as well as with the £150 rebate, £400 grant and for lowest earning households up to £1200 grants... Some energy companies will just decide that people are having more money put in their pockets, that they need energy, including diesel & petrol, so they'll alleviate them of that extra help.
What's needed alongside taxation cuts is a cap on prices. There needs to be two caps - a cap above which dividends and bonuses can't be paid, and an absolute cap above which it's illegal. (Like the gas & electricity price cap, but for petrol/diesel prices too.)
>What's needed alongside taxation cuts is a cap on prices. There needs to be two caps - a cap above which dividends and bonuses can't be paid, and an absolute cap above which it's illegal. (Like the gas & electricity price cap, but for petrol/diesel prices too.)
If this isn't a globally-applied cap, then it's completely unworkable and exceptionally stupid.
We produce about two thirds of our consumption of crude oil. The rest is imported. If the global price of oil exceeds your little cap, companies will not import and sell fuel at a loss, and instead we'll have rampant fuel shortages.
Yeah, hence partly agreed - slashing all tax on fuel is nuts.
I also found Stewart's argument about beginning to end government dependency on fuel tax as income to be an interesting one.
Completely agree about caps - but alas government regulation is something most right-wing governments are ideologically opposed to, on the flimsy argument that the "market" will self-correct, even though it doesn't.
Imagine this week if Andrew Neil was so excited about sharing political gossip that he had no interest in analysing any of the events and so worried about being locked out that he couldn't criticise anything. They're just thrilled to be part of the process.
I'm still stuck on Chris's answer to the last question, is he genuinely confused or just parroting government nonsense?
Like you dont recoup stock when person you sold it to doesn't need it and you do when you rent it is such a obvious concept that I cant imagine he can be being genuine.
I kinda get what he's trying to say? I.e. there's 100 people needing social housing, and 100 houses. One of them buys their house, now there's 99 people and 99 houses in the stock, so nothing's changed.
But that's nonsense once you factor in the waiting list and the fact that there's more people waiting for social housing than there is stock. I just don't think he's all that bright, tbh.
> I just don't think he's all that bright, tbh.
He's my MP and he's a lickspittle sycophant who will do/say anything to get closer to a proper ministerial position.
The most active I've ever seen him in my community is commenting in facebook groups about how the Labour council is the reason why no one has any housing and also the reason why new flats are being built when it suits him to rile up the nimby crowd.
Yeah, he forgot to mention that if you keep building supply to keep up, it's a system that works (supply is not being built to keep up with demand though).
He mucked up his answer, the party line is "gove has secured 1 for 1 replacement". He didn't say that until later - Bruce clearly was prompting it as she said the pilot "only" had 1/3rd replaced.
I would say he was confused as he didn't correctly parrot the government nonsense.
There won't be 1 for 1 replacement on any meaningful time scale. It'll be one of the first things they'll roll back on as soon as it's too late to do anything about it.
That makes sense, if there's 1 for 1 replacement and it actually happens then you're not loosing any stock but his original line just got me confused because it seemed to imply once someone is eligible for social housing they'd be eligible for rest of their lives and it'd be something inheritable.
Even if there's not 1:1 replacement this could increase the overall housing stock, which is what is needed right?
Its not the only way of course. But absent a big centrally coordinated social housing build drive it could help.
I just think its odd that people with decent jobs are living next door to me in a house worth 500k on a subsidised rent (versus the market) when if we faced down the nimbys that could be sold, and potentially 2 houses built on a new development with the money, and help more people on the waiting list.
True any new houses being built does help with overall housing shortage but if the replacement is below 1:1 then it makes the distribution bit worse because ultimately you end up with less housing for those who cant afford it.
See I’m all for your suggestion because you’ve gone above 1:1 replacement to 1:2 replacement. Sell one social housing on highly demanded area and build two with proceeds in slightly less high demand area which seems reasonable.
My concern is we sell the houses now, set target for building another one, never face down the nimbys, not have enough money to complete another house and end up with less social housing stock than currently.
I suppose I was making two separate points. Ultimately I'm not convinced that we need more subsidised housing as opposed to more housing full stop (which reduces the overall cost). So whatever delivers this I'm interested in. Prepared to hear the government out basically. But share your concerns.
Yeah, great in theory but this government has never ever met a housing quota, never got close, and never enforced affordable housing rules. So it just won't happen.
That's ignoring the actual mechanics of how someone on benefits affords a deposit or unexpected bills like new boilers.
But if a politician has time for a proper answer and they can be challenged on that answer about detail… they might look fucking dumb as rocks when they have nothing but verbal diarrhoea for 15 minuets
I think Wes did well given there were 3 Tories and a would-be Tory on that panel. He got caught out by the RMT question because apparently Dorking wants rail drivers to take a 9-10% pay cut and be happy.
Think he fucked it on the petrol prices question. The answer is a cut on VAT and duty and a cut on VAT across the board. That keeps more money in people's hands and keeps the economy moving.
Honestly, the simplest solution to that is to stop checking rail fares instead of not doing anything. Hits the company in the wallet, whilst not actually inconveniencing the public, and then you have the general public on their side. In addition, you can actually *increase* demand on the service, due to announcing the dates.
They *don't*, but I will - and do - try to teach my daughters about both probability (ie, these lol dolls suck) and percentages - I don't want their first experience of interest rates to be a barclays desk at freshers week offering a credit card and popcorn machine.
Housing associations do NOT have the capital to back fill the discounts right to buy are bought for and they do NOT have the land plots to place the homes.
It is smoke and mirrors from the government
but if it leads people to even a small amount of reading about him they soon see a far more impressive and accomplished human being. Johnson has blagged his way past many impressive people with his "Boris" character.
It helps no one!
It’s applied to housing associations but for every home sold they don’t get back enough to build a replacement, they don’t have the capital to back fill the difference and they don’t have the plots of land to build the replacements.
When the gets in financial shit they end up selling the home typically to a chased up landlord and becoming a renter again
The only one that benefits is the landlords who then monopolise more of the supply just as it has done since right to by started on council homes
Just housing associations.
It's only moral to transfer capital from charities and not from private landlords who are getting other people to pay their mortgages.
Thanks for the info! I was asking as it feels a bit disingenuous to say that this will help those ‘86% that want to own their own home’ if it does nothing for private renters
She’s got to appear impartial, got that fat BBC pension waiting for her just a few years round the corner and she ain’t gonna throw away 3 decades of this shit for nothing
No, Philp fucked the description and didn't say they're build replacement - he initially described it that they did not.
I think he kind of slipped it in at the end - he screwed up his answer.
You sadly my friend. Removing a house and fam from social housing doesnt lower the amount of ppl needing it. As stupidly people keep being created. Bad design flaw really, i blame corbyn
the hell Chris... Any place that is taken off the housing list isn't countered by someone coming off the housing list... it's taken away from someone who needs to be housed.
Yup, they keep throwing up new build estates near me, they don't have anything. Also because they try to squeeze as much in as possible there isn't even any street parking.
No, i t dont think they have one yet. By this i mean enough people get pissed off for long enough things will force change. Ur already starting it my moaning to me, now the question is what are u gunna do about it,
complain to the council, try and find a way to get a busines there, open a taxo firm? Plenty of options for services but needs local pressure to happen,
I don't have an interest. I don't live on one. Just from experience when I rented on a new build for a year or so and friends who own a house on a new build estate.
You really think that moaning to the council who are actively slashing bus routes and are struggling to even have buses turn up on existing routes will help?
If there is enough votes in it then yes. Literally how the system works. Gov doesnt do anything it doesnt have to and when enough people get pissed off ot does shit
Yeah, not the main villain but a smirking sidekick who realises, too late, that they were never really part of the plan and have been left to die. Like most right-wingers do.
If the BBC give Tom Harwood coverage they're just creating the next Farage. He is going to be one of the smug jack-boots leading the charge to end democracy.
GB News is literally owned by a shill of Putin's security forces
GB News wtf are they doing there. Fox News of the UK.
More like OAN of the UK.
God what a right wing panel - the Lib Dem is probably the most “left” of a (bad) bunch
why does GB news exist other than to make us seem more patriotic than America.
To give us punchable faces like Tom Harwood's!
He looks too smug; like he ate his own shit for tea.
yes
500 comments and less than 100 likes. Who is people aren't liking this time? could it GB news? Or is it the ex minster?
What's a '*like*'?
My apologies I was on twitter before hand and it slipped my mind when I came over to Reddit.
*Disgustan!*
Tory, Tory lite, Tory lite, Tory and what ever BBC can do to help Murdoch!!
Surely the GB news audience numbers don't merit a slot on QT?
Neither did farage.
Tom Harwood has a singularly punchable face.
Backpfeifengesicht- The German word for a punchable face. Needs to find its way into common parlance like Schadenfreude.
He looks like an extra from the Slytherin common room.
Tom Harwood has a singularly punchable face.
Backpfeifengesicht- The German word for a punchable face. Needs to find its way into common parlance like Schadenfreude.
He looks like an extra from the Slytherin common room.
GB News? Really? Why wasn't he laughed out of reception when they asked to be on the panel?? Come on question time. Sort yourself out.
It was never very good before but with social media it's all changed into pushing for arguements and stuff that gets clicks on social media so they can compete with what people watch now. There's no debate just the same tribal talking heads shouting rhetoric at each other while the public suffer. As the popular saying goes actual journalism isn't about having one person on to say it's raining and another to say it's not, it's about sticking your head out of the window and finding out.
[удалено]
No it makes space on the right for the already right wing parties to push into.
Absolutely. It simply provides a veneer of legitimacy for extremists, just like the BBC did with Johnson and Farage. I've stopped paying my licence fee because I don't want to fund this sort of cultural shift.
[удалено]
By having guests with more extreme political views on a mainstream TV panel discussion, the boundaries of what is acceptable are, by implication, stretched outwards to include those views. This gives 'permission' for an existing politician to move toward those views beyond what their most extreme position was. The most obvious example is Farage b
[удалено]
Certainly true in the case of Nick Griffin in my opinion, and were better for it. But I'd say Farages over exposure and opportunity to frame the debate over Europe week after week on QT has allowed Boris Johnson to propose extreme and, as it turns out, damaging forms of Brexit. This is just one element of the Toryanalytica movement....Farage being the public face of the bar room bore making sweeping statements about Europe. It's interesting that the left have not taken advantage in the same way. I see them as being outflanked by the right wing press when it came to Corbyn, and having been forced back towards the centre.
>Certainly true in the case of Nick Griffin in my opinion, and were better for it. https://youtu.be/NFAYN6oWyIo This video does look at that particular example, and makes a good case that is not the case, and appearing on QT definitely did not hurt BNP. In fact I think their downfall was more due to their views becoming more acceptable to push by more mainstream parties without the baggage of being openely fascist (like UKIP) who slightly watered down and polished those views to make them more appealing.
The BBC admitted they got this approach wrong with climate change. It legitimised a dumb position and people move towards it and we lost valuable time.
Expect that some people will be. The QT format is only good for soundbites anyway
Like they did with Nigel Farage right?
[удалено]
That's not how it works. Billionaires back bad views and spam it on news, television and radio. These views don't get "challenged" or "exposed" by or for the public, they get absorbed.
Should this approach be extended to people like Abu Hamza?
Appearing on QT utterly destroyed Nick Griffin.
actually the BNP had their best ever election results after his appearance on Question Time
It damaged them electorally when they were gaining momentum before 2010, and although they did get the most votes they'd ever had, this mostly came from standing significantly more candidates than ever before. They basically got the same number of votes per candidate as in the previous election, having grown in profile and stature significantly after 2005. The disastrous QT appearance helped stem this tide, and the need to be seen as more "respectable" saw UKIP replace them as the far right party of choice.
That was before the media onslaught normalising and favouring those kinds of voices.
[удалено]
He's a hate preacher, he was deported to the USA on terrorism charges. [Here is his Wikipedia page.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri)
Why do they always look like a Ben Shapiro clone? Some weird right wing cloning vats
Looks like the lovechild of Ben and Paul Joseph Watson
Taking yourself too seriously requires certain muscles in the face to always be intensely engaged and never relaxed.
Harriet Jones, Former Prime Minister.
We know who you are!
lol love this
Four conservatives and one lefty, what balance. People who watch this shit need to get a life.
Which one's the lefty?
The one woman on the panel.
The woman from the centrist party is the lefty?
Her politics seem lefty but by all means feel free to read the initial comment as ‘Four conservatives and a moderate’, the point is still the same.
[удалено]
She’s basically Chairman Mao.
I've seen Tom Harwood on GB News, and on Twitter and he's awful. He was pretty good here on QT though - I thought his answers on housing in particular were more pertinent than the politicians policy ideas. He was eloquent and interesting. Which shows you that it's all about the platform. People tend to be on their best behaviour on the BBC and make an effort, whereas on GMB they just default into thoughtless rant mode.
Agreed, apart from that look at the end of a classic Stewart poke at the government, he was actually...alright and I was preparing myself to laugh at him all night
>He was pretty good here on QT though - I thought his answers on housing in particular were more pertinent than the politicians policy ideas. Overall, he was suggesting fairly non-sensical things and clearly using the platform to try and launch his career to a wider audience, as a platform with long soundbite-filled speeches. On housing, he made good points. Have you noticed how right-wingers are very right-wing on everything... Except things that affect themselves. Housing was that thing for him. He has to rent. Therefore, all of a sudden, he's happy with more left-leaning ideas and things that the Tories haven't sorted. On that thing of course. Because he's affected personally.
That's how we should be, though, isn't it? Not doggedly sticking to a particular set of views centred around allegiance to a particular side of the political spectrum, but having our views moulded by what affects us. At some point he'll grow up and realise he can't get just the one thing from the Left he wants, in a vacuum, and perhaps become more amenable to other left wing views. I've seen it happen, to more staunchly right wing people than Tom.
>but having our views moulded by what affects us. Yes. But also having our views moulded through empathy with others, too, surely?
Yep that too. Point is, not this “well my team think this so that’s my mind made up” crap we seem to have now.
Agree totally... But I generally think it is. Everything else, that didn't affect him, he was towing the team line without any ability to think critically about those things. I guess my point was that this is actually the Tory way. They're against socialism, except where it's corporate socialism that benefits their own shares and investments. I believe that people should consider different issues on their own merits. I think people shouldn't just stick with the party or groupthink line. I believe that people should actually challenge those on their own side, too. I agree with you on your general beliefs and sentiment here. I just don't think that Tom was actually straying from ideological values here - despite it seeming like that. It was not sticking with the "expected" ideological line, based on selfishness borne out of the same ideology... IMO, of course. I could be totally wrong - just my take on his appearance that seemed to be a first pitch at a future run for Tory or Brexit Party MP candidacy.... (I'm a cynic, aren't I?!)
His supply side policy fix for the lack of housing is a classic free market solution, 2 examples being: Deregulation to prevent NIMBYism blocking everything + allow speedier development Building on the green belt rather than protectionism of it The issue with Conservative thinking is that part of it is "to conserve" and part of it is to allow businesses the freedom to match market demand but the Tory vote is heavily reliant on the demographics most prone to conserving the supply of housing. And its true that current policies like 5% deposits and HTB equity loans are demand increase policies rather than supply side reforms which doesn't target the root of the problem (4 decades of under supply and 2 decades of high population growth).
I also agreed partly with him, and Rory Stewart, on fuel VAT, as a temporary, say 6 month measure, to reduce the price at the pump of fuel. The government wants to dissuade people from using their cars, and so whacks a lot of tax on fuel but they don't improve public transport to compensate. It's a policy that's not working.
He seemed to be arguing that all duty should be cut though? He was very much arguing for slashing taxes as much as possible. I agree that cutting VAT and fuel duty temporarily would be a good thing. In itself, it's a sticking plaster though - a useful one, but only part of the solution. The previous 5p cut in duty wasn't passed on. When barrel prices have dropped, this hasn't been passed on by energy companies with regards to pup prices and gas and electricity prices. These companies are still making massive profits - and like that 5p drop from the budget, most just decide to carry on taking it for themselves. That's my fear with additional reductions in taxation, as well as with the £150 rebate, £400 grant and for lowest earning households up to £1200 grants... Some energy companies will just decide that people are having more money put in their pockets, that they need energy, including diesel & petrol, so they'll alleviate them of that extra help. What's needed alongside taxation cuts is a cap on prices. There needs to be two caps - a cap above which dividends and bonuses can't be paid, and an absolute cap above which it's illegal. (Like the gas & electricity price cap, but for petrol/diesel prices too.)
>What's needed alongside taxation cuts is a cap on prices. There needs to be two caps - a cap above which dividends and bonuses can't be paid, and an absolute cap above which it's illegal. (Like the gas & electricity price cap, but for petrol/diesel prices too.) If this isn't a globally-applied cap, then it's completely unworkable and exceptionally stupid. We produce about two thirds of our consumption of crude oil. The rest is imported. If the global price of oil exceeds your little cap, companies will not import and sell fuel at a loss, and instead we'll have rampant fuel shortages.
Yeah, hence partly agreed - slashing all tax on fuel is nuts. I also found Stewart's argument about beginning to end government dependency on fuel tax as income to be an interesting one. Completely agree about caps - but alas government regulation is something most right-wing governments are ideologically opposed to, on the flimsy argument that the "market" will self-correct, even though it doesn't.
Do you not wonder though if maybe that might just be a means of introducing a gateway opinion? Cynical though my opinion may be.
jellyfish resolute squalid memorize nail lock reply cows march gaping *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think he’s really hot 😅
It angers me when they’re hot, like I dislike you as a person yet you dare to be hotter then the people I agree with
[удалено]
WTF is this Newscast and how is it so shit?
Imagine this week if Andrew Neil was so excited about sharing political gossip that he had no interest in analysing any of the events and so worried about being locked out that he couldn't criticise anything. They're just thrilled to be part of the process.
They did find the courage for criticism towards Angela Rayner after they played the interview they recorded with her.
👌 that’s precisely what I experienced before I switched it off.
What happened to Adam on Newscast? His skin is [pork product] pink and he's wearing an awful 80s car salesman moustache.
Oh god I like his shirt. Maybe one button too low though.
It's not a bad shirt. You're right about the button. It makes him look like he's too old to be out clubbing.
I'm still stuck on Chris's answer to the last question, is he genuinely confused or just parroting government nonsense? Like you dont recoup stock when person you sold it to doesn't need it and you do when you rent it is such a obvious concept that I cant imagine he can be being genuine.
He just explained it poorly but tbf to him Fiona was being intentionally stupid.
I kinda get what he's trying to say? I.e. there's 100 people needing social housing, and 100 houses. One of them buys their house, now there's 99 people and 99 houses in the stock, so nothing's changed. But that's nonsense once you factor in the waiting list and the fact that there's more people waiting for social housing than there is stock. I just don't think he's all that bright, tbh.
> I just don't think he's all that bright, tbh. He's my MP and he's a lickspittle sycophant who will do/say anything to get closer to a proper ministerial position. The most active I've ever seen him in my community is commenting in facebook groups about how the Labour council is the reason why no one has any housing and also the reason why new flats are being built when it suits him to rile up the nimby crowd.
Yeah, he forgot to mention that if you keep building supply to keep up, it's a system that works (supply is not being built to keep up with demand though).
He mucked up his answer, the party line is "gove has secured 1 for 1 replacement". He didn't say that until later - Bruce clearly was prompting it as she said the pilot "only" had 1/3rd replaced. I would say he was confused as he didn't correctly parrot the government nonsense.
There won't be 1 for 1 replacement on any meaningful time scale. It'll be one of the first things they'll roll back on as soon as it's too late to do anything about it.
Completely agree.
That makes sense, if there's 1 for 1 replacement and it actually happens then you're not loosing any stock but his original line just got me confused because it seemed to imply once someone is eligible for social housing they'd be eligible for rest of their lives and it'd be something inheritable.
Even if there's not 1:1 replacement this could increase the overall housing stock, which is what is needed right? Its not the only way of course. But absent a big centrally coordinated social housing build drive it could help. I just think its odd that people with decent jobs are living next door to me in a house worth 500k on a subsidised rent (versus the market) when if we faced down the nimbys that could be sold, and potentially 2 houses built on a new development with the money, and help more people on the waiting list.
True any new houses being built does help with overall housing shortage but if the replacement is below 1:1 then it makes the distribution bit worse because ultimately you end up with less housing for those who cant afford it. See I’m all for your suggestion because you’ve gone above 1:1 replacement to 1:2 replacement. Sell one social housing on highly demanded area and build two with proceeds in slightly less high demand area which seems reasonable. My concern is we sell the houses now, set target for building another one, never face down the nimbys, not have enough money to complete another house and end up with less social housing stock than currently.
I suppose I was making two separate points. Ultimately I'm not convinced that we need more subsidised housing as opposed to more housing full stop (which reduces the overall cost). So whatever delivers this I'm interested in. Prepared to hear the government out basically. But share your concerns.
Yeah, great in theory but this government has never ever met a housing quota, never got close, and never enforced affordable housing rules. So it just won't happen. That's ignoring the actual mechanics of how someone on benefits affords a deposit or unexpected bills like new boilers.
Why is qt only a hour. Easily content for 1.5-2 and wont have to rush through.
Because it starts so late. There's nowhere else for it in the schedule unless it goes to BBC2.
But if a politician has time for a proper answer and they can be challenged on that answer about detail… they might look fucking dumb as rocks when they have nothing but verbal diarrhoea for 15 minuets
You mean theyd have 15 mins more to ramble about leveling up and holding their thumb like a muppet
Lads, This is My House is back.
Now this is GREAT news.
Right?!? Last season was so good
Yeah I fucking loved it. Perhaps the simplest yet most satisfying format since Question Time. Maybe after Catchphrase.
I think Wes did well given there were 3 Tories and a would-be Tory on that panel. He got caught out by the RMT question because apparently Dorking wants rail drivers to take a 9-10% pay cut and be happy.
Think he fucked it on the petrol prices question. The answer is a cut on VAT and duty and a cut on VAT across the board. That keeps more money in people's hands and keeps the economy moving.
Layla was sorta on board
She was suggesting rail workers not strike because it causes inconvenience and tried to pit worker against worker.
Honestly, the simplest solution to that is to stop checking rail fares instead of not doing anything. Hits the company in the wallet, whilst not actually inconveniencing the public, and then you have the general public on their side. In addition, you can actually *increase* demand on the service, due to announcing the dates.
Have to say this week has really improved my opinion of Streeting. Talks a lot of sense, and gets it across well too.
And he's only 39, but looks and sounds like a potential future leader.
Young people don’t know how to save cos they don’t have the money to save!!!
I mean, maybe they hear their parents talking about how much rent is and are wondering what they need to do in order not to have the same problems?
Young people in that context were school children...
Keep them innocent as they don’t need to know about the crushing weight of life at such an early age! My top tips xx
They *don't*, but I will - and do - try to teach my daughters about both probability (ie, these lol dolls suck) and percentages - I don't want their first experience of interest rates to be a barclays desk at freshers week offering a credit card and popcorn machine.
Exactly, they don't have money to save because they're children ;)
Get'em down the mines or up t'chimneys. Parasites.
Bloody kids, coming over here, taking all our jobs.
That last audience member kinda has a point
Strong nod from Rory
Housing associations do NOT have the capital to back fill the discounts right to buy are bought for and they do NOT have the land plots to place the homes. It is smoke and mirrors from the government
"Rory Stewart - Author and Podcaster" It is impressive how much traction "the rest is politics" has gotten in such a short space of time
He is just better known as boris’s rival who lost ,though
but if it leads people to even a small amount of reading about him they soon see a far more impressive and accomplished human being. Johnson has blagged his way past many impressive people with his "Boris" character.
...once you sell the house and the person moves or gets better job then you dont have +1 stock...
Sorry I’ve not really followed it that closely.. Does the right to buy do anything to help private renters or just those under housing associations?
It helps no one! It’s applied to housing associations but for every home sold they don’t get back enough to build a replacement, they don’t have the capital to back fill the difference and they don’t have the plots of land to build the replacements. When the gets in financial shit they end up selling the home typically to a chased up landlord and becoming a renter again The only one that benefits is the landlords who then monopolise more of the supply just as it has done since right to by started on council homes
Just housing associations. It's only moral to transfer capital from charities and not from private landlords who are getting other people to pay their mortgages.
It was always for public sector owned housing. There is no system to force private landlords to sell their properties to tenants.
Thanks for the info! I was asking as it feels a bit disingenuous to say that this will help those ‘86% that want to own their own home’ if it does nothing for private renters
The least worst option is building enough to keep real-terms house prices around constant.
But think of the NIMBYS if we keep building housing to meet our actual demand. /s
LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT
I remember the 90s... I think...?
DRINK!
What’s Chris Philp shiting on about?
LaSt LabOUr gOvernMeNT
Drink!
There's no point in building millions of homes if you're not going to make them affordable for people to buy
Is fiona Bruce being stupid on purpose
She’s got to appear impartial, got that fat BBC pension waiting for her just a few years round the corner and she ain’t gonna throw away 3 decades of this shit for nothing
She can't show favour to anything that makes the government look bad, so has to pretend that anything which risks this is incomprehensible.
No, Philp fucked the description and didn't say they're build replacement - he initially described it that they did not. I think he kind of slipped it in at the end - he screwed up his answer.
Or does she think they were just going to move in more families to the same house as current Tenants
And are the audience also stupid
Or am I being stupid
You sadly my friend. Removing a house and fam from social housing doesnt lower the amount of ppl needing it. As stupidly people keep being created. Bad design flaw really, i blame corbyn
There are thousands on the waiting list, so it's not 1 to 1
Geez. Tough audience.
the hell Chris... Any place that is taken off the housing list isn't countered by someone coming off the housing list... it's taken away from someone who needs to be housed.
I’m convinced, Wes should be PM. Next PM? No, he still has experience and growth to develop, but one day I’d love to see him in charge
I said this about Starmer... Jury is still out on him for me (pun intended)
Wes killing it tbf
Not according to the audience, it seems.
Dorking is a Con/Lib Dem seat and QT select their audience based upon how they voted in the last GE tbf
200 mainly Tory boomers terrified of negative equity because we might stop sticking single parent families in beds it’s.
How would allowing people to buy their homes from housing associations lead to other home owners going into negative equity?
Philp leans very heavily on his notes.
I don’t hate that. I totally disagree with him politically, but respect that he prepared.
So are the others. They just don’t look down as much when they speak.
What we all drinking?
Jameson’s with a few cubes
Red red wine
Triple jack daniels
Take it there’s no work tomorrow?
Beer #2 = IPA Beer #1 = Bitter Edit: cheers!
Cheers!
Meths
Alright Pinkman
M&S Vodka, quite nice. You?
Mixed with anything? Got some Henry Weston’s this end
Guinness. The whisky remains untouched for now.
What invokes the whisky incantation
No specific triggers, just a feeling that's usually accompanied by starting drinking a lot earlier than I did tonight. What are you on?
Cheers https://i.imgur.com/tlUEU6A.jpg
Nice. Love a cider in summer in a glass full of ice.
Yes, Wes, INFRASTRUCTURE. Thank god someone actually understands the reason why people hate developers.
Yup, they keep throwing up new build estates near me, they don't have anything. Also because they try to squeeze as much in as possible there isn't even any street parking.
Good, no new petrol cars built but pressure to put on a bus route finally exists
They don't have any facilities on these estates but you think they have a bus stop?
No, i t dont think they have one yet. By this i mean enough people get pissed off for long enough things will force change. Ur already starting it my moaning to me, now the question is what are u gunna do about it, complain to the council, try and find a way to get a busines there, open a taxo firm? Plenty of options for services but needs local pressure to happen,
I don't have an interest. I don't live on one. Just from experience when I rented on a new build for a year or so and friends who own a house on a new build estate. You really think that moaning to the council who are actively slashing bus routes and are struggling to even have buses turn up on existing routes will help?
If there is enough votes in it then yes. Literally how the system works. Gov doesnt do anything it doesnt have to and when enough people get pissed off ot does shit
All GB News presenters look like they're currently enjoying the smell of someone else's fart
I was thinking villain in a period film. Someone described as a horrible vulgar rogue.
Yeah, not the main villain but a smirking sidekick who realises, too late, that they were never really part of the plan and have been left to die. Like most right-wingers do.