Let's remember. Years of DWP using sanctions inappropriately is why private landlords started refusing to take anyone on benefits.
2010 changes in how benefits sanctions were used and the randomness of "non targeted job centres" sanctioning Universal credit. left landlords unable to really on benefits claiments to pay rent at all.
Due to that many cancels we're forced to use other methods to house low or no income homeless.
That consort tittle only applied pre corranation.
Once the King was coronated, King is considered the highest position. So Camilla became Queen.
Nope we are talking about democratic processes. Membership voting on proposed policies and MPs.
To sell current stock. Can't possibly cost big corps money extra when creating safety rules.
Government issues voluntary guidance calling for less sugar and salt.
Gov mildly suggests company's stop ,fattening salty babies for xmas. But the given 18 months tittle means fuck all if it's "voluntary guidance"
PS Committees archive nothing is actually false statement. Committees are responsible for every regulatory framework you have ever used. And even when you don't know it. You use them every minute of your life.
They are just slow. And even that can be resolved with. A regulatory framework.
In theory (and it's still to be agreed to formally).your party will expect members to vote on overall policy at conference each autumn. That vote will happen every autumn. The conference pre election it will form the manifesto. As it dose for every party in the UK. All that is different is who get to vote on what.
MP will be selected by constituency sub parties. As Labour claims to do. Your party will just not allow the leadership of the party to parachute potential support into safe seats. The local party will have full control over candidates. (With some to be decided vetting process. Not yet discusses but criminals etc)
Once an MP is elected. It works as any other party. That MP vote in parliament based on consultancy needs. The leader is selected by members not MPs (or MPs controling the choice members can make)
The big differences are in the ability for the leadership to protect MP when they fail a constituency party. It won't exist. Next election that local party can replace them before the election. Preventing Top down control of the parties long term political agenda. Instead replace with democratic control from active membership.
Polling indicated 15%. But that's one poll and far to early to be more then interesting. But it is interesting.
More so is how much they inspire the young under 35s are polling at nearly 50%. Add that to that is also the voters Labour under Corbyn got to turn out in far higher numbers then normal. (Remembering he actually had way higher vote numbers then Starmer was elected on. Even in 2019. Loss of Tory votes is likely to be again the biggest direct effect in 2029 added to Labour looking at losing huge turnout if they stay as now,
And well yes it's just interesting at this point but it is promising for a new direction of politics. Reform/Tory is looking less like a forgone conclusion. For 2029
Name wise. I agree but your party was always planned as a temp name. To make a point about it being a community party rather then the much more top down labour is. Corbyn did try to make Labour less top down. As did Mlliband sp? Starmer reset it all and increased leadership control.
It dose interest me that a few of the membership. A fair few like your Party. Seems to be a Love hate thing. But I'd be surprised if it stays. No single idea is very popular ATM. We will start to see a short list of names around autumn when the vote will happen.
I imagine Santannas hint at "The Left" Will settle as more talk. But that's just a guess.
She seems a much better politician as far as selling her vision then Corbyn is now. His experience as Labour leader and the baggage from that. He seems to be taking a more supporting role to the younger founder.
FYI and it's not popular I submitted "Your Left" with "Our Left" as an informal name.
My explanation and rational is very popular the name not so much. being. "Your Left" as a formal name forces MPs etc to remember the party is run and owned by membership. While also reminding them is is left of centre. Also they(MPs) vote for a constituency members not billionaires etc.
But having members informally say our left. Also reminds them they have a duty to help form policy and community.
Yes he sold left wing labour to more voters then Starmer both in number and %. More voters then any leader post Blair.
While Starmer lost votes in the last election and only won because the Tories lost more.
Corbyn sold his policies not only to more voters then Starmer ever did. He had the largest membership join the party of any political party in history.
The argument he fails to sell is Just an outright false one. Invented by the right of labour to justify their attacks etc.
Also he is not actually the leader of YourParty.uk No one is. That is a membership decision. He has just agreed to stand.
You don't want it. You are not everybody. More then 800k people have signed to support the idea of the party.
Edit: In the main part a very large % of left supporters. Saw Labour leadership move against them and removed all left wing representation. So yes banning such matters to many.
..It happens we have all done it at some point.
Would likely be found easier. As feddit UK is becoming a default UK Lemmy.
But it's not a requirement.
Sorry did not expect anyone else to be up. I tend to edit my posts a lot. I am now finished. Sorry if I dramatically changed anything.
Given it's 4 years till the next election. And nothing can really happen until then.
Added to the way the PLP and leadership took over the labour party ignoring the members wishes. On many issues. And outright lying to members to gain power. Then removing MPs to keep that power using the PLP control over leadership.
The founders think ensuring the democratic roots and management of this new party is more important then rushing it's formation.
Edit: I'll add.
The party has 0 Leaders or MPs ATM. This is also related to the same issue. The founders will not call them self Leaders unless the membership chooses them to, but they are offering to stand. Several MP on the left of labour have announced they support the party. But they are all still registered in parliament as independent having resigned from labour or had the whip removed then resigned.(Members of labour are banned from supporting other parties apart from coop) Unlike labour Your Party will not allow leaders to select MPs. But instead as labours original plan. Local constituency party members will vote on the candidates that represents them. Then local voter vote for or against them. No more parachuteing MPs in that support the leadership. Against the membership. Into safe seats( once /ifsuch seats exist in the future)
The tempory name your party is more then just words. It is used to make a point. You being the members.
Membership is open now under that name. And one of the founders have indicated their preference of name. But not in a way that is more then just. Well I like the idea of.
"The Left"
Personally I like "Your Left" as it will force any party officials or MP to forever remember it is the members party and is expected to be left of centre.
Also reminding the MPs they are answerable to thier constituency constantly would be a nice side effect of such a name.
But other members seem to dislike the sound of it.
They are not failing to pick a name. They are making the point that the party will be entirely run by members. So members will choose the name at the first conference in autumn.
Won't be till autumn. It is down to members to vote. That is expected to happen at the first party conference.
This is pretty much the plan with everything for this party. Membership democracy is its main point. This is why the 2 founders will not call them self the leaders. The members have to choose them.
Not in the way proposed. Pretty much garrenteed to pass on to renters.
Only way I think it would be possible. Would be some form of progressive income tax based on number of properties owned.
But even then it will be complicated. All landlords would register the property as owned by an LTD.
On the whole their really is no way to prevent any tax getting passed on to customers. Without also controlling prices. And that will lead to reduction in the number of folks renting property.
Real Social housing investment is the only solution. Creating actual lower priced compition to the private market.
Exactly why Thatchers gov argued to destroy it. She openly opposed what she called unfair competition to private rentals.
The current market is exactly what the Tories wanted.
You will likely need some form of support structure. L Angle welded as a pitched frame is my plan. A d some seal between each panals.
But for a single story shed structure yes.
Also rent but social so I have a bit more stability and flexibility. Sorry an advantage of being old and disabled. Was able to get a place while it was still possible.
I fully understand how fucked over a high % over my age voters left your age group.
Likely both. Landlords will not swallow it, of course. Pass on to the tenant is the only other option.
Most will use it as an excuse ti increase profit. As there, administrative/accounting cost go up as well.
Those costs, any fears will also remover many small time single property rentals from the market. Although, potential increases in the taxes related to selling houses may limit that as well. Depends on the actual implementation.
ATM it is just the press guessing anything that gets clicks,
Agreed, just a little annoyed is all. I'm thinking of building a gazebo in my garden with solar cells on top. Seems like they some Aluminium l angle with a little fibreglass will act as a bloody cheep roof ATM.
I vaguely remember it being on the news when it was created. Such setup were never that common. This one was only created in the early 2000s. The design was to try and compete against huge international companies. Allowing a step above barter form local companies and customers.