to think that until the Left engage rather than name call, there will be a Tory govt?

[ApplePaltrow]

Over the last year every thread on UKIP or tory voters has been 80% name calling. Over and over people have called them idiots, racists, disablist and worse. Any attempt to discuss calmly any potential valid concerns were met with vitriol. Even post the election, most of the commentary has been that the electorate were duped or that they were evil cunts.

AIBU to think that this is part of the problem? It turns out that when you name call, people are quiet - but don't change their views! UKIP are wrong - 100%. But people had fears and concerns about the future of the country and instead of engaging with them, the left made them feel ashamed and told them to shut up. So they went to UKIP and they abandoned Labour.

I think a big issue and very prominent on mumsnet is that the anti-fascist working class seems to despise (what they perceive to be as) the "softly pro fascist" working class. There seems to be huge contempt on the basis that "we grew up similarly and I didn't fall for it". They have the evangelical zeal of ex smokers. But not everyone is you. And you have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.

You can't win people without respecting them. Part of respecting them is listening to them. (John Harris at the Guardian is actually pretty good on this.) Labour will not win again until they realize that.

rootypig

So increased spending - just for longer - is the silver bullet? We increased spending hugely in social welfare from 2007 and as you said, it's remained high. Our system is still inefficient. Our outcomes are still very bad. I don't believe that spending slightly more will lead to some magical change. The US spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare and obviously it's outcomes are terrible. We are in much more danger of ending up like the US than France.

You refer to "German alchemy" as if institutions and culture don't matter, all that matters is money. I would say pretty much all modern economic and social data is against you.

SorryToDisturbYou

I'm sorry you are feeling down. The truth is that I don't think that the NHS will be "better" in 5 years to the average end user but my guess is that the NHS in 5 years will be more likely to last 50 years than the NHS today will.

Again, I'm not saying that answer is that we have to cut spending. But we run a huge deficit and don't balance the budget so at some point, someone has to pay. 2008 brought home that this "someone" might be our children - or even us in a few decades.

I just think that if someone has an answer then tell us! But they have to do better than just say "more money". And I don't think Labour has an answer. That's the real problem.

Okay. So if you are working on minimum wage and you see a report of a court trial where those figures are submitted as evidence you should dismiss them?

This isn't just something a hack made up, it was submitted in a court case.

rooty surely both sides are a problem?

TooManyHouseGuests

I agree 100%

I agree, it's not the fault of the refugees, they did nothing wrong, they claimed a benefit they were legitimately entitled to.

But the fault wasn't just private landlords, it was the system that allowed claims like that.

Apple I said nothing about a silver bullet, nor did I say that all that matters is money. I was merely rebutting your mad assertion that there is anything strange about services starting to fail when they are significantly defunded, and I backed my thoughts up with the numbers. If you want a healthcare system that compares to the French and the Germans then yes, you're going to have to pay for it. Their systems are not sustainable, so much as sustained. Money may not be sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.

funny no, there's no "surely" about it. Properly planned and funded social housing would address the issue entirely.

We were recovering pretty well until ideologically-driven tory austerity cuts tanked the economy and hence tax receipts.

Austerity or no austerity, we're a mature economy with an aging population. Economists disagree on this but I personally come down to believing that even if we could "grow ourselves out of the deficit", it's illusory growth. We can increase consumption again, get people buying what they don't need on credit cards they can't afford. Hurray - tax receipts increase! GDP is up! But influencing production, productivity and savings (saving hurts gdp btw) is much harder and the numbers are less comforting.

This isn't just something a hack made up, it was submitted in a court case.

I didn't say it was made up, I said it didn't matter. There is a very small number of very high benefits claims, it's just statistically insignificant. What is much more important is the system. Which brings us to:

But the fault wasn't just private landlords, it was the system that allowed claims like that.

Housing benefit is designed to meet local housing costs. That is why it varies wildly around the country. Those costs are entirely set by the private rental market. So yes, it is the fault of landlords, and of the Tory government that sold our public housing stock. Which in many cases, the government now pays through the nose to rent back. You couldn't make it up.

rooty I was just thinking the same in terms of the solution.

I still think it's not logical to describe the landlords' rational, legal behaviour as scandalous. Equally if a benefit is available to someone it's not a scandal if they then claim it. But both sides of the issue can be seen as a problem for public finances.

I still think it's not logical to describe the landlords' rational, legal behaviour as scandalous.

You've clearly never rented a flat in London!

rooty

Apple I said nothing about a silver bullet, nor did I say that all that matters is money. I was merely rebutting your mad assertion that there is anything strange about services starting to fail when they are significantly defunded, and I backed my thoughts up with the numbers. If you want a healthcare system that compares to the French and the Germans then yes, you're going to have to pay for it. Their systems are not sustainable, so much as sustained. Money may not be sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.

Germany and France's systems are not just sustained, they have significantly better outcomes than we do and even though their healthcare spending remains the same, they are in practice reining in their spending because of the increased strain of demographic changes.

There is no evidence that even if we increased to their level of spending we would see anything like their outcomes.

And if money isn't sufficient, isn't it time people started focusing on what is? Again, you haven't actually given any answers at all except increase spending.

saving hurts gdp btw

Saving is investment. Your money is not sitting in a box in a bank's basement. While a healthy demand side of the economy is essential, unless you're stuffing money under your bed to say saving "hurts" gdp is patently nonsense.

Well it was decades ago now, back then it was the price of the beer in London that seemed a scandal!

I am really prone to find everything a bit of a scandal (I've noticed my youngest child says "That's ri-DIC-ulous!" rather too much.) So I'm training myself out of it. If I succeed I may join the Quakers by the time I'm 80!

Apple, I was merely pointing out that what you said was ridiculous.

Well don't train yourself out of commenting on real scandals!

In places where housing is short, landlords' behaviour, collectively, is outrageous. Renting property in London is like printing money.

It's justifiable for a family to receive the tax of 170 minimum wage workers because they have a 'local housing need'?

What's wrong with a cheaper house in Sidcup or Dartford and a travel card? Again, it comes down to the fact that options like that are only for mugs who work.

And don't give me the 'needing to be with their community' BS. Swathes of young people who grew up in London have been priced out and nobody gave a shit about breaking their communities up.

Going back to the original point this again shows exactly where the OP is coming from. These are absolutely obscene sums. And the fact that people on the left will still try and defend or dismiss them as insignificant illustrates exactly why the electorate wouldn't trust them in government again.

Actually Aermingers, I think that it's very serious - so much so that I'm interested in the system, rather than one shock story that demonises immigrants, and I have given you a response. The private rental market should be tightly regulated. The social housing stock expanded.

It's just not what you want to hear.

The UK population has since 1985 grown from 56m to its hard to find exact 2015 figures but maybe 64m and we wonder why there is a housing crisis (which due to supply and demand has made housing riduculously expensive and is the background problem in people not being able to afford to live). Bolstering social housing including for those who should not need it and rent controls isn't going to solve that. Housing benefit/ welfare just pushes rent up and makes it worse.

We need to build lots of compact, high quality housing for everyone at the bottom end of the housing market as a first step. So people who are working can access housing in the normal way as one would generally expect. Unfortunately this will lead to house prices dropping so it isn't going to happen aaaarrrgghhh!!

YANBU - but to be fair no one takes any notice of what labour supporters say anymore - labour are finished. They've lost Scotland, Wales, & most of the white working class vote in England - & they will never get them back.
The only people labour can rely on now are people on benefits & ethnic minorities. ( & a few Russell Brand types ) I'm afraid that is a fact.

I completely agree with you OP. And I think this is why so few Labour voters saw this drubbing coming. They smugly and wrongly assumed that radio silence from Tory voters meant that there were not that many of us.

Actually it was just the result of their constant haranging, gross exaggerations and misrepresentations of Tory policy, vitriolic name calling and accusations of vileness, elitism, racism and anything else they could think of to close down debate. It just meant we just didn't bother discussing our intentions (or the reasons for them) at all.

Not a goady thread this,eh?

Oh seriously. Grow up.

What's the point of encouraging political debate at all, if every single conflict of opinion is going to be met with an accusation of goading? How pathetic.

Totally agree OP.

I linked THIS on another thread. Sums it up for me.

I think many Tory voters think "right, that's it. I'm going to vote Tory despite the name calling." The rhetoric pushes people more twoards their party whereas reasoned debate might change minds.

This is not a 'goady' thread, this is a reasonable discussion. well, it is at the moment anyway

And the point you made in your OP about working class people's fears being ignored by Labour and dismissed as stupidity or bigotry are exactly what lost Gordon Brown the last election after the catastrophic Gillian Duffy incident. It really showed new Labour for exactly what they are, and exactly how little respect they have for the people who should by rights be their core voters. It seems no-one at Labour HQ learned from his mistakes.

That's the trouble with democracy isn't it? We give votes to everyone regardless of their leanings, their opinions or their intellect. If you want to win elections you have to find a way of being all things to all men, or at least most things to most men. And that is something Labour cannot seem to do at the moment. They are far too arrogantly caught up in telling us what they think the people should think and feel, instead of listening to what the electorate are saying.

"The only people labour can rely on now are people on benefits & ethnic minorities. ( & a few Russell Brand types ) I'm afraid that is a fact."

Where can I find more information about this fact? It sounds interesting, I didn't realise there was such a high proportion of people on benefits.

Part of the reason I voted Green was because of all the parties, they seem to be the ones most likely to say this is what we believe in and this is what we want to do, and we believe it is the best for most people. Even if they're wrong (which they are on some things IMO) I do admire their beliefs.

And I've seen plenty of name calling and exaggerating of policy on both sides [shrug]

It actually reminds me a bit of the Scottish referendum, it did come as a surprise that Yes didn't win, despite how vocal they were.

Read a lot of these threads recently and this is the first one that seems predominantly to be a discussion rather than name calling.

Can I just point out though, that we should not compare our health or education services to the German System. Having lived in Germany and used their system I know that everyone has to have private health insurance. Even with this, it costs 10 euros a quarter to see a GP and having been in A&E with a sick child I found they saw people in order of how good their insurance was - it's the first thing you're asked when you arrive. I know a German friend whose child was turned away because they forgot their insurance card.

As for their education system, parents have to buy all exercise books, text books, paints, and any other equipment. Nothing is provided by the school. Teachers are quite poorly paid in comparison to the UK although they do get tax breaks.

Someone is bound to come on and say I'm wrong, but all the above is my (and German friends) experience of life in Germany.

In comparison to Germany, I think the NHS and our education system are pretty good.