Brexit matters

[edwin_m]

No - clearly smug self-satisfaction isn't the way to go. But that's not remotely the only path you can take away from idealism. The other path is the realisation that many of your idealistic ideals from when you are younger actually don't work in practice, and that it's better to be pragmatic and focus on things that actually will work, even if they don't sound as idealistic or as emotionally appealing.

(That's getting a bit away from Brexit, other than an obvious connection that, to my mind at least, freedom of movement is a perfect example of one of those idealistic things that sounds very appealing (who in their right mind wouldn't in principle want to let people live wherever they like?), but which it turns out doesn't really work well in the real World).

A lot of people who were idealistic about wanting the purest form of Brexit are now having second throughts...

 

[GS250]

If that was the case, why is no-one else following us out of the door of the EU or at least Schengen?

Because they will never get to vote on such an item. Lets fact it France would be petrified of the outcome of such a vote.

It also works very well between some European Nations, especially those which have generally been very cooperative between each other. As far as Britain goes, the problem hasn't just been the EU though. We over ruled their recommendations under the Blair government to allow UNRESTRICTED FOM between the former Eastern Bloc and UK.

 

[DC1989]

Icelandic fish plant pulls out of UK citing Brexit and Covid

Nearly 200 jobs at risk as Iceland Seafood says Grimsby no longer ‘a strategic fit’

www.theguardian.com

 

[AM9]

Perhaps because no other countries encountered the problem of everyone wanting to move to their country, to the point where numbers were just unsustainable, to the extent that happened in the UK?

Every country is after all different and unique. It's perfectly possible that something that works for - say - Italy or Poland doesn't work for the UK.

If that is true then it is depressing that despite the deteriorating economic and social situation since the UK was dragged out of virtually all EU related co-operation between 'mature' western countries, there is still a core obsession in a sector of the population about preventing people from other countries entering the UK. The irony is that there is a larger volume of potential migrants from beyond Europe being invited, and a much larger number of uninvited refugees/migrants actually arriving daily, which the goverment has no realistic way of preventing.

 

[REVUpminster]

If that was the case, why is no-one else following us out of the door of the EU or at least Schengen?

Because the majority of EU countries are net recipients of taxpayer's money and not contributors.

 

[E27007]

Because the majority of EU countries are net recipients of taxpayer's money and not contributors.

Exactly, well said, and Freedom of Movement is not reciprocated, who is their right mind will leave the advanced high-wage UK to go and work in a backward low-wage place such as Bulgaria, Moldova or Romania?

 

[DC1989]

Those famous members of the EU - Moldova

 

[E27007]

If that was the case, why is no-one else following us out of the door of the EU or at least Schengen?

Because they only have a ballot paper with names of MEP candidates, and not with the question IN or OUT.
Take the MEP elections for UK MEPs, turnout 1 in 3 or 15 million of the electorate of 45 million, 2 out of 3 turned their back to Brussels , after all voting for an MEP legitimises the EU.
Take the Brexit referendum, turnout was enormous,, almost 3 of 4.
About 16 million voted to remain, probably those who had bothered voted for MEPs , but the silent majority turned out to vote and a majority 17 million vote for Brexit

 

[GS250]

Exactly, well said, and Freedom of Movement is not reciprocated, who is their right mind will leave the advanced high-wage UK to go and work in a backward low-wage place such as Bulgaria, Moldova or Romania?

Very good point but 2/3 of your countries are correct. I've nearly done the same before but have googled 'EU countries' before making examples

The headline on the front of the Evening Standard is relating to business leaders calling for relaxations on immigration rules. They are clearly missing their grateful available on demand cheap labour a lot. Still no real strategy from our business leaders or the government on how to turn average ability UK School leavers into useful and valued employees. The 'Kickstart' scheme is a step in the right direction though. We've taken on a young lad who isn't the most confident, not the most academically gifted but is eager to learn, reliable and is genuinely interested in IT. Hopefully we'll make a man of him and set him on the path to a decent career in IT of some description.

 

[E27007]

Very good point but 2/3 of your countries are correct. I've nearly done the same before but have googled 'EU countries' before making examples

The headline on the front of the Evening Standard is relating to business leaders calling for relaxations on immigration rules. They are clearly missing their grateful available on demand cheap labour a lot. Still no real strategy from our business leaders or the government on how to turn average ability UK School leavers into useful and valued employees. The 'Kickstart' scheme is a step in the right direction though. We've taken on a young lad who isn't the most confident, not the most academically gifted but is eager to learn, reliable and is genuinely interested in IT. Hopefully we'll make a man of him and set him on the path to a decent career in IT of some description.

Moldova , Moldova and Romania are culturally very close, Moldovans claim to be Romanian for the purpose of gaining entry to the UK job market

 

[GS250]

Even Starmer is at it now. Claiming we need to 'wean ourself off' migrant labour.

 

[GusB]

Moldova , Moldova and Romania are culturally very close, Moldovans claim to be Romanian for the purpose of gaining entry to the UK job market

That doesn't alter the fact that Moldova is not in the EU.

 

[brad465]

Even Starmer is at it now. Claiming we need to 'wean ourself off' migrant labour.

The root cause of high immigration is the pyramid scheme economic growth model combined with a low domestic birth rate. We cannot grow the economy without a continuous growth in people to work and consume. The idea that growth and immigration controls are not mutually exclusive is a fantasy, but no politician will ever admit this.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps because no other countries encountered the problem of everyone wanting to move to their country, to the point where numbers were just unsustainable, to the extent that happened in the UK?

So not at all then? Despite what the Daily Mail, et. al. like to say the issues with housing and public services in the UK are entirely down to the Government's lack of foresight and chronic underinvestment. The UK is miles away from being overcrowded - as I've pointed out numerous times already only about 6% of our land area is built environment.

 

[brad465]

Perhaps because no other countries encountered the problem of everyone wanting to move to their country, to the point where numbers were just unsustainable, to the extent that happened in the UK?

Every country is after all different and unique. It's perfectly possible that something that works for - say - Italy or Poland doesn't work for the UK.

I can see your logic, but at the same time in the years leading up to the referendum net migration from outside the EU was also high, and according to the Migration Observatory that has being going up since 2016 (except during covid for obvious reasons), so the Government for some reason did not follow through on their rhetoric to cut immigration. My guess is, as alluded to above, that our economy is a pyramid scheme that can only keep going if population grows constantly, and as we have low birth rates, immigration is used to make up for that. There may also be vested interests in places like the property sector who profit from higher demand, although they also achieve this through other tactics like land banking and deliberately under developing.

 

[E27007]

Those famous members of the EU - Moldova

Moldova is not a member of the EU, however Moldovans can claim Romanian citizenship by means of family history, That is how Moldavans enter UK by FoM rules of the EU

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==

The root cause of high immigration is the pyramid scheme economic growth model combined with a low domestic birth rate. We cannot grow the economy without a continuous growth in people to work and consume. The idea that growth and immigration controls are not mutually exclusive is a fantasy, but no politician will ever admit this.

The root cause is not birth rate, it is the major difference in pay between East Europe and the UK. A Polish or Romanian worker in the UK could earn the in a single day the pay of a week of work in Poland.
Just ask them, they aim to work and to save money to send back home to fund buying property etc in their countries.

We can grow the economy without growth in population, if we raise worker productivity and worker income per head then extra consumption and spending follows.
As wages rise above low pay ( subsistence) to high pay with a high disposable income, then spending and consumption accelerate.

There is no wisdom in seeding our economy with low-pay low-skill immigrant McWorkers, the aim should be to create an economy of workers of a high-skill and high productivity such as the German or Japanese model.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==

So not at all then? Despite what the Daily Mail, et. al. like to say the issues with housing and public services in the UK are entirely down to the Government's lack of foresight and chronic underinvestment. The UK is miles away from being overcrowded - as I've pointed out numerous times already only about 6% of our land area is built environment.

You refer to the UK as a whole , Check the population density figures for England excluding Ni, Wales, Scotland.
Two countries Scotland and Wales of high area combined have a total population of around 8 million, roughly that of London alone.
UK may not seem overcrowded, but England certainly is, why else is housing once affordable in the 1980s now unaffordable to many, rents so high and social housing so inaccesible?

 

[najaB]

UK may not seem overcrowded, but England certainly is, why else is housing once affordable in the 1980s now unaffordable to many, rents so high and social housing so inaccesible?

Because successive governments have made rising house prices an indicator of economic success.

 

[Annetts key]

Moldova is not a member of the EU, however Moldovans can claim Romanian citizenship by means of family history, That is how Moldavans enter UK by FoM rules of the EU
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==
The root cause is not birth rate, it is the major difference in pay between East Europe and the UK. A Polish or Romanian worker in the UK could earn the in a single day the pay of a week of work in Poland. Just ask them, they aim to work and to save money to send back home to fund buying property etc in their countries. We can grow the economy without growth in population, if we raise worker productivity and worker income per head then extra consumption and spending follows. As wages rise above low pay ( subsistence) to high pay with a high disposable income, then spending and consumption accelerate. There is no wisdom in seeding our economy with low-pay low-skill immigrant McWorkers, the aim should be to create an economy of workers of a high-skill and high productivity such as the German or Japanese model.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==
You refer to the UK as a whole , Check the population density figures for England excluding Ni, Wales, Scotland. Two countries Scotland and Wales of high area combined have a total population of around 8 million, roughly that of London alone. UK may not seem overcrowded, but England certainly is, why else is housing once affordable in the 1980s now unaffordable to many, rents so high and social housing so inaccesible?

I do love how people believe the bull about the solution being improved worker productivity. So how does a bus driver, a train driver, an airline pilot, a fire fighter, a doctor, a nurse, or many, many other service industry, manufacturing, or retail workers make any significant improvements in productivity, and continue to increase productivity year on year?

Can you increase the number of posts you make to these forums by at least 5% a year, every year?

Realistically, improved worker productivity only occurs when technology improves and where that technology helps to allow a worker to do more, or otherwise makes a process cheaper or increases output. But please note that not all new technology does this. Some technology actually slows down work (waiting for Microsoft Windows to stop thrashing the computer hard drive for example).

In addition, the regulatory environment can and does affect productivity. So leaving the E.U. and all the extra administration involved with trading across the U.K./E.U. border, plus having different standards and regulations decreases productivity.

Poor or inadequate infrastructure and poor or inadequate public transport will also affect productivity. If people can’t get to work, or are trying to work in poor conditions…

And yes, the previous comments that say that our economy is a pyramid scheme are correct. That’s partly the reason that over the course of a century, there will always be a number of “market” or economic crashes.

The real problem in our society, is that a lot of the lower paid jobs are not considered to be important or significant. Until of course, employees stop work or not enough can be found to fill the vacancies.

That’s a bit like having cheap and substandard foundations for an expensive tall building, and then being surprised when it starts leaning at an ever alarming angle or many of the window and door frames become parallelograms rather than rectangles with square 90 degree right angle corners.

I was hoping that the recent pandemic would illustrate how important cleaners and many, many other low paid workers are. And that our society would then see that the people who do these jobs are valuable members of our society.

In my area, the bus services are in trouble due to a lack of bus drivers. The number of doctors keeps decreasing. No doubt that’s just two examples that are the tip of the iceberg and there are many, many more problems, with brexit making matters far worse than just our governments incompetence over the last twelve years.

It’s often said that England is the most densely populated large country in Europe – typically in discussions about the nation’s rising population, and the growing strain on public services. But it’s not true.

With 426 people per km², as of 2016, England is densely populated when compared to most other European countries. But it’s not as densely populated as the Netherlands, where there were 505 people per km², or a much poorer country such as Bangladesh, where there were 1,252 per km².

When we look at “lived density” across Europe, it’s fair to say that England is a densely populated country – but it still sits behind Spain and the Netherlands on the list of major European nations, and below the microstates of Monaco, Andorra and Malta. The lived density figure for the Netherlands is 546 people per km², compared to 531 for England, 204 for Wales, 200 for Scotland and 160 for Northern Ireland.

The above quotes comes from this article

One significant reason that housing is expensive in the U.K., especially rented housing, is due to the right to buy scheme by Margaret Thatcher. Where are all the replacements for the reasonable priced homes that were sold off at a substantial discount?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I do love how people believe the bull about the solution being improved worker productivity. So how does a bus driver, a train driver, an airline pilot, a fire fighter, a doctor, a nurse, or many, many other service industry, manufacturing, or retail workers make any significant improvements in productivity, and continue to increase productivity year on year?

Just because there are some jobs for which productivity is largely fixed by the numbers of hours worked doesn't mean that's true for all jobs. Historically, increasing productivity (largely driven by technology improvements) has overwhelmingly been the reason why the standard of living has been transformed over the last 300 years.

However to give a partial answer to your question: Specifically in the case of a bus or train driver, productivity improvements could theoretically come from the bus/train carrying more passengers, or from infrastructure improvements/reductions in congestion allowing the vehicle to travel faster. In the case of bus drivers, you could also gain productivity improvements through ticketing technology that means the driver spends less time selling tickets (and having to stop the bus while doing so).

One significant reason that housing is expensive in the U.K., especially rented housing, is due to the right to buy scheme by Margaret Thatcher. Where are all the replacements for the reasonable priced homes that were sold off at a substantial discount?

Right to buy was flawed in many ways, but it did not reduce the number of available homes for people to live in - lack of which is the main driver of house/rent costs in most of the country [*]: It caused houses to be transferred from the public to the private sector, but those houses were still there with people living in them! So it doesn't make sense to blame right to buy for the current housing shortage.

[*] With an exception for a few places like parts of Cornwall where the main problem seems to be more to do with people who already have somewhere to live buying 2nd homes.

 

[najaB]

So it doesn't make sense to blame right to buy for the current housing shortage.

Right to buy itself, no. But the effective ban on reinvesting the money from sales into new council housing definitely has played a major role. Using two years as an example*: in 1970 local authorities built 179,280 homes, by 1990 that had dropped to 17,710.

Data source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...buildingpermanentdwellingsstartedandcompleted

*Not cherry picked for effect. There were years with higher numbers of houses built before 1970 and the figure dropped to under 1,000 in later years.

 

[Lost property]

The generosity of the public, as in tax payers, can never be understated when it comes to the Gov't celebrating the rip roaring success of Brexit....although employees of a fish processing plant in Grimsby may not be in complete agreement here.

However, as this article shows, a mere £120m was spent to celebrate. Answers, on a post card please, as to where this trivial amount could have been more beneficially allocated.

‘Festival of Brexit’ visitor numbers fall short of expectations

Number of visitors to £120m Unboxed project, under investigation by spending watchdog, well below 66 million aspiration

www.theguardian.com

 

[nw1]

I realise this is a few months out of date (I've only just come across it), but a bit disturbed to read this:

Starmer vows no freedom of movement under plan to ‘make Brexit work’

Labour leader wants new agreement with EU on protocol – but rules out return to single market

www.independent.co.uk

Can't read the whole article sadly as it's behind a sign-up-wall, but it appears Labour want to keep the isolationist, anti-customs-union, anti-single-market, anti-freedom-of-movement position of the Tories.

None of the political class, save some minority parties who will never achieve power, appear to care about people who thought Brexit was a bad idea, particularly the "hard" version loved by the Tories and, seemingly, Labour. All of them seem to want to keep the UK as an isolationist, anti-EU, anti-free-trade-with-the-continent anti-freedom-of-movement country. It's to me wrong that no-one will stand up for the 48%. The role of an opposition should be to oppose, rather than continue Tory policy. I don't understand why Labour is so keen to keep going a policy that is not of their making: it could be a golden opportunity to repair relations with continental countries, and move on from the Johnson-Truss years.

We are the odd-country-out in the whole of Europe northwest of Serbia. We are the only country in that area who wants to be "different" to the rest. It seems we have completely rejected western European values. Why are Labour not acting as a real opposition on this matter and offering an alternative point of view?

Unless something radically changes it looks like we could be denied closer relations with the continent for the rest of my lifetime, which is sad. In particular I did have plans to move, or retire, elsewhere in the future (10-20 years) and these could now be dashed. Maybe the under-40s might get to live through better times in regard to our relations with the continent but not sure about anyone older than that given not only the Tories but also Labour appear to be unwilling to make any progress on this matter.

But maybe I'm just out of step with "2020s British values". Moving into other spheres of politics, "2020s British values" appear to include not only keeping a distant relationship with the rest of Europe, but (even more critically) lack of ready access to a doctor, lack of access to affordable dental care, running down the public transport system, and all manner of other undesirable things. I think it was Blur who put out an album entitled "Modern Life Is Rubbish" in the 90s. They were only about 25 years too early.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Right to buy itself, no. But the effective ban on reinvesting the money from sales into new council housing definitely has played a major role. Using two years as an example*: in 1970 local authorities built 179,280 homes, by 1990 that had dropped to 17,710.

But if there had been no council house sales then there would have been no money for the councils to invest to build any new houses anyway!

I would say the most important thing from the point of view of the housing shortage and house prices/rent levels is not how many council houses are built but how many houses in total (council + private) are built, and whether that matches how many houses people need. Clearly something has gone wrong in that regard since 1970, and far fewer have been built than required, but the causes of that are rather more complex than simply blaming right-to-buy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==

So not at all then? Despite what the Daily Mail, et. al. like to say the issues with housing and public services in the UK are entirely down to the Government's lack of foresight and chronic underinvestment. The UK is miles away from being overcrowded - as I've pointed out numerous times already only about 6% of our land area is built environment.

I wouldn't say entirely. Certainly there has for a long time been a lack of foresight and investment by the UK Government when it comes to housing and associated services - and that's a problem that needs fixing. But at the same time, the sudden unexpected flow of people into the UK from about 2005ish onwards as a result of freedom of movement would have made it very - shall we say, challenging - to build adequate infrastructure, even if we'd had a Government that was investing properly.

 

[jon0844]

There's no shortage of land to build on, and plenty of places with planning already given. There's just a desire by the developers not to build too quickly and lower prices.

No Government seems to have had any desire to speed up home building, which always struck me as odd - although I guess everyone wants house values to keep on going up.

 

[Annetts key]

Specifically in the case of a bus or train driver, productivity improvements could theoretically come from the bus/train carrying more passengers, or from infrastructure improvements/reductions in congestion allowing the vehicle to travel faster. In the case of bus drivers, you could also gain productivity improvements through ticketing technology that means the driver spends less time selling tickets (and having to stop the bus while doing so).

None of which an employee has any significant control over. Investments are all primarily management decisions.

And once the bus/train is full, then investment is needed in a larger bus/train. Hence the likelihood of say an increase of say 5% every year, year after year is extremely unlikely.

And improvements to journey time, while welcome on railways, are less likely on the road network, where the trend is on lower speed limits in urban areas.

Right to buy was flawed in many ways, but it did not reduce the number of available homes for people to live in - lack of which is the main driver of house/rent costs in most of the country [*]: It caused houses to be transferred from the public to the private sector, but those houses were still there with people living in them! So it doesn't make sense to blame right to buy for the current housing shortage.

[*] With an exception for a few places like parts of Cornwall where the main problem seems to be more to do with people who already have somewhere to live buying 2nd homes.

It made it extremely difficult for local authorities to build new housing in any great numbers. And although in general the number of homes did not decrease, it has reduced the number of reasonably priced homes that can be rented. Making it more difficult for low paid people to get their own home.

 

[edwin_m]

I realise this is a few months out of date (I've only just come across it), but a bit disturbed to read this:

Starmer vows no freedom of movement under plan to ‘make Brexit work’

Labour leader wants new agreement with EU on protocol – but rules out return to single market

www.independent.co.uk

Can't read the whole article sadly as it's behind a sign-up-wall, but it appears Labour want to keep the isolationist, anti-customs-union, anti-single-market, anti-freedom-of-movement position of the Tories.

None of the political class, save some minority parties who will never achieve power, appear to care about remainers. All of them seem to want to keep the UK as an isolationist, anti-EU, anti-free-trade-with-the-continent anti-freedom-of-movement country. It's to me wrong that no-one will stand up for the 48%. The role of an opposition should be to oppose, rather than continue Tory policy. I don't understand why Labour is so keen to keep going a policy that is not of their making: it could be a golden opportunity to become as close to the EU as the EU will allow us to, and move on from the Johnson-Truss years.

We are the odd-country-out in the whole of Europe northwest of Serbia. We are the only country in that area who wants to be "different" to the rest. It seems we have completely rejected western European values. Why are Labour not acting as a real opposition on this matter and offering an alternative point of view?

Unless something radically changes it looks like we could be denied closer relations with the continent for the rest of my lifetime, which is sad. In particular I did have plans to move, or retire, elsewhere in the future (10-20 years) and these could now be dashed. Maybe the under-40s might get to live through better times in regard to our relations with the continent but not sure about anyone older than that given not only the Tories but also Labour appear to be unwilling to make any progress on this matter.

But maybe I'm just out of step with "2020s British values". Moving into other spheres of politics, "2020s British values" appear to include not only keeping a distant relationship with the rest of Europe, but lack of ready access to a doctor, lack of access to affordable dental care, running down the public transport system, and all manner of other undesirable things.

Starmer's priority is to get elected - he can't do any good in opposition. A significant proportion of the public are still in favour of Brexit and/or anti immigration, and if Starmer gets ahead of public opinion then the Tory press will jump on it and he risks the fate of Neil Kinnock.

Now that the consequences of Brexit are starting to become clearer, public opinion is shifting. Labour is currently in favour of some limited closer integration with the EU, and it may be that by the time the manifesto is written, there is scope to move further.

 

[JamesT]

I realise this is a few months out of date (I've only just come across it), but a bit disturbed to read this:

Starmer vows no freedom of movement under plan to ‘make Brexit work’

Labour leader wants new agreement with EU on protocol – but rules out return to single market

www.independent.co.uk

Can't read the whole article sadly as it's behind a sign-up-wall, but it appears Labour want to keep the isolationist, anti-customs-union, anti-single-market, anti-freedom-of-movement position of the Tories.

I've always been able to click on the "I'll do this later" and read Independent articles, it doesn't force a signup.

 

[nw1]

Starmer's priority is to get elected - he can't do any good in opposition. A significant proportion of the public are still in favour of Brexit and/or anti immigration, and if Starmer gets ahead of public opinion then the Tory press will jump on it and he risks the fate of Neil Kinnock.

Now that the consequences of Brexit are starting to become clearer, public opinion is shifting. Labour is currently in favour of some limited closer integration with the EU, and it may be that by the time the manifesto is written, there is scope to move further.

But by mid-2024 (election date guess) will people still be put off voting Labour if they adopt a more middle-of-the-road position on Brexit (i.e. some concessions to remainers, such as bringing back FoM, the single market, or the customs union - just like every other western and central European country)? I suspect by mid-2024 a clear majority will be neutral on, or somewhat against, Brexit and the true believers will be a minority who spend their time ranting at left-wingers and liberals in their living room plastered with posters of Cash, Chope, Farage and John Lydon.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==

I've always been able to click on the "I'll do this later" and read Independent articles, it doesn't force a signup.

Thanks; I've tried again and it works this time.

Reading the whole article basically it's a load of waffle from Labour which doesn't address people's concerns about the problems with Brexit.

As I said, if you like Brexit, the Tories are the party for you. Labour, in their role as an opposition, should be offering something different, not rejoining (as I doubt they'd have us) but closer integration certainly.

Don't get me wrong, I will still vote (perhaps tactically) for Labour, as I can't stand the Tories, but I am disappointed by their stance on this matter.
I'd really like Labour to be a true socially-liberal and unambiguously left-of-centre party.

 

[edwin_m]

But by mid-2024 (election date guess) will people still be put off voting Labour if they adopt a more middle-of-the-road position on Brexit (i.e. some concessions to remainers, such as bringing back FoM, the single market, or the customs union - just like every other western and central European country)? I suspect by mid-2024 a clear majority will be neutral on, or somewhat against, Brexit and the true believers will be a minority who spend their time ranting at left-wingers and liberals in their living room plastered with posters of Cash, Chope, Farage and John Lydon.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==



Thanks; I've tried again and it works this time.

Reading the whole article basically it's a load of waffle from Labour which doesn't address people's concerns about the problems with Brexit.

As I said, if you like Brexit, the Tories are the party for you. Labour, in their role as an opposition, should be offering something different, not rejoining (as I doubt they'd have us) but closer integration certainly.

The flipside of what you say here is that those seeking to re-join will probably vote Labour (unless in a seat where the LibDems have the best chance of beating the Tories) even if their policy only goes some of the way to what they want. And I think you'll find that Starmer has chosen his words carefully and left some wriggle room to vary the policy depending where public opinion is at the time.

However, much as I'd like it to be, I don't think rejoining is possible in the next Parliament. The EU will want to see a high degree of political concensus as they won't want a future Tory government just to leave again, and I can't see the Tories coming to that position for at least a decade. There is also the thorny question of whether we get all the opt-outs we had before. Just as it should have been with leaving, we shouldn't commit to rejoin until we have some idea of the terms.

 

[AM9]

It made it extremely difficult for local authorities to build new housing in any great numbers. And although in general the number of homes did not decrease, it has reduced the number of reasonably priced homes that can be rented. Making it more difficult for low paid people to get their own home.

That is the nub of the current housing problem. The Thatcher government introduced the right to buy scheme for two reasons:

1) to increase the number of owner occupiers and instil a more property-owning self image of those new owners that is more likely to vote Conservative in the next election.​

2) by preventing local authorities from using the proceeds to replace the lost social housing stock, and simultaneously squeezing LA grants, it meant that councils with a higher number of social housing needs (which were more likely Labour led) were seen in a poorer light than those in wealthier owner-occupier areas, (more likely Conservative led).​

In effect, it was a very clever plan, leaving the Government with more money for other projects and looking like a white night to those working class voters who later became Conservative voting, and examples of the 'Essex Man' stereotype.
The troubler is that 40 years later we now have the current disasterous housing crisis.