FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The Tories Manifesto - cause for a Social Housing crisis?
The Tories Manifesto - cause for a Social Housing crisis?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is madness. If you didn't see it watch Rooms, Rogues and Renters on BBC2 last night. HAs in London are already struggling to get land to develop social housing. I wasn't aware of the London local authority buying back, at market rates, stock sold on Right to Buy until I saw the programme last night. I understand that some wanting to buy their home will be happy but I wonder how long they will remain there before cashing in the bonus? The people who will ultimately benefit is private landlords. " The Local Authority/HA have the right, under the terms of the Right to Buy legislation to be offered the property back first, for the first ten years after it is sold under Right to Buy. Many don't, as the property is too expensive when it comes up for resale, compared to the cost of buying new builds off the shelf. I just think the whole concept of this element of their manifesto is poorly thought through! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just think the whole concept of this element of their manifesto is poorly thought through! " They haven't thought through any of it. It's all 'back of a fag packet' stuff designed to appeal to voters that has no basis on fact or forecast. This is why they refuse to answer how any of their manifesto promises will be paid for in even the vaguest detail, because they don't have a clue. The best they can say is 'it's part of our plan', and hope people then look the other way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is madness. If you didn't see it watch Rooms, Rogues and Renters on BBC2 last night. HAs in London are already struggling to get land to develop social housing. I wasn't aware of the London local authority buying back, at market rates, stock sold on Right to Buy until I saw the programme last night. I understand that some wanting to buy their home will be happy but I wonder how long they will remain there before cashing in the bonus? The people who will ultimately benefit is private landlords. The Local Authority/HA have the right, under the terms of the Right to Buy legislation to be offered the property back first, for the first ten years after it is sold under Right to Buy. Many don't, as the property is too expensive when it comes up for resale, compared to the cost of buying new builds off the shelf. I just think the whole concept of this element of their manifesto is poorly thought through! " That of course relies on the former tenant now owner to stick to the terms if the sale and remember to offer it back. Very little stick involved to enforce this and, as you say, the LA/HA then can't afford to buy back at market rate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Conservative government would extend the right-to-buy scheme for housing association tenants in England, David Cameron will say, as he unveils his party's general election manifesto. The PM will say up to 1.3 million tenants could buy their homes at a discount as a result, insisting the Tories are the party of working people. The Conservatives will also pledge a fund to help build 400,000 new homes. Under current rules, about 800,000 housing association tenants have a "right to acquire" their homes under smaller discounts, but the Conservatives would offer those people the same reductions as for those in local authority homes. And they would extend the scheme to those who currently have no purchase rights at all, estimated to be about 500,000 people. The move would be funded by new rules forcing councils to sell properties ranked in the most expensive third of their type in the local area, once they become vacant. The Conservatives say every house purchased will be replaced "on a one-for-one basis" with more affordable homes and no-one will be forced to leave their home. I have real reservations about this. I understand that they want to help more people own their own properties. I cannot see how their new builds will keep up with the sell offs which will be generated. There will end up being less Social Housing stock which only fuels the private rented sector and the Housing Market in general. Once this extra Housing Association stock is gone, it can't be regained! I also wonder, whether there are figures on how many properties end up being repossessed once purchased, because those who buy them, cannot afford them. Then they end up homeless and the whole cycle starts again. " Didn't Thatcher promise to do the same with right to buy council housing? Use the money to replace and possibly build more council properties with the money from the sell off? Never happened though did it? Never will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it's a Tory housing policy, you can rely on it being desperately ill thought through, with the only long term beneficiaries being private landlords and property speculators."  This^.
Social housing is cheap(er) housing, mostly owned by non-profit charities who also build more properties as well as maintain the ones they already built.
Why cut their funding if the plan is to build more social housing to benefit those who need it? Why cut housing benfits to the poor if the idea was to help those who need social housing?
The selling of properties to those not in them seems a good idea, unfortunately there are so many poor people living in privately rented properties and they will never be able to afford their own home so the people needing these properties will not be the ones buying them.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right." You have just typed out a load of irrelevant ideological waffle. Why do you think anyone is going to bother to 'debate' that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't see how it makes sense. We need more social housing, not less. "Just posted by a friend of mine on Facebook: "For the record: Selling council housing was first proposed by the Labour Party in the 1959 manifesto. (They lost that election) The problem with selling off council properties lies with the lack of new housing stock. It's a factor in the huge upturn of the boom-and-bust economic cycle of the 80s as new homeowners began selling on their properties for a profit, up to the point where there was more supply than demand... ....and that's why they don't want a culture of new housebuilding. The Conservatives banned councils from spending the money raised by selling their stock on new housing, which meant a reduction in the numbers of available properties... and an upturn in demand ...and a corresponding rise in house prices ...which causes an upturn in the economy. If a Government were to institute a massive house-building campaign, demand would drop and huge amounts would be wiped from the value of homes, triggering a economic slump. ..and pissing off all those buy-to-let landlords and homeowners... Our current economic prosperity is based on a lack of affordable housing, we've moved from a Gold Standard to a Brick Standard, if you like." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right." Providing homes for those that cannot and realistically never will be able to afford to buy or rent privately is not encouraging people to be dependent. The fact that people took up the option with right to buy proves that. We provide free hospital care. Does that encourage people to be I'll and have accidents? Relatively few people don't want to get on and improve their lot. More carrot and less whip makes for a happier and more productive people. There will always be poor people, capitalism depends on it. Just make life a bit more bearable for the ones who are getting screwed. Is a roof over a child's head to much to ask? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right." Ever been homeless/on a low income? Ever seen the mickey-taking that goes on with some private landlords? Lots of people aspire to buy their own homes; some are never lucky enough to see this aspiration come to fruition, some are. For the ones that aren't, a safety net is required i.e. Social Housing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would dearly love to buy my own home, but as a single parent with two kids, despite working full time, I'm never going to be able to afford to buy...would the "gent" above against social housing prefer to see us homeless...perhaps their selfish bastard of a father who put me in this position will let us live in his garden shed! "Now now come on, it's your own fault, you are just not ambitious or aspirational enough, otherwise you'd have a house. It's that simple! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right." Have a look at the programme that was on BBC2 last night. The private landlords in partnership with local government is to get as much housing benefit out of the system for as little provision as possible. I have posted on the forum before about rooms in London being rented for £800 a month - a room no more. I was only slightly aware of the rental of beds but it seems that too is on the increase. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right. Providing homes for those that cannot and realistically never will be able to afford to buy or rent privately is not encouraging people to be dependent. The fact that people took up the option with right to buy proves that. We provide free hospital care. Does that encourage people to be I'll and have accidents? Relatively few people don't want to get on and improve their lot. More carrot and less whip makes for a happier and more productive people. There will always be poor people, capitalism depends on it. Just make life a bit more bearable for the ones who are getting screwed. Is a roof over a child's head to much to ask?" excellent common sense and compassionate summary of the whole situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a private landlord I can assure you there isnt that much money in it, if mortgage rates go up I will be making a loss. I only stick with it as a very long term investment. " I think it depends a bit where you are in the country and your morals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right. You have just typed out a load of irrelevant ideological waffle. Why do you think anyone is going to bother to 'debate' that?" Your problem is that you equate ambition, aspiration, and success to material wealth. If that antiquated _iewpoint is all you have then their is nothing to debate. We will just leave behind a ruined earth as a mark of our 'success'. It's such a shame that there are so many dinosaurs still out there hampering real socio-economic progress. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If a Government were to institute a massive house-building campaign, demand would drop and huge amounts would be wiped from the value of homes, triggering a economic slump. ..and pissing off all those buy-to-let landlords and homeowners... " That is not correct. We are an island nation and history has shown that huge building programmes have a habit of stimulating demand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right. Have a look at the programme that was on BBC2 last night. The private landlords in partnership with local government is to get as much housing benefit out of the system for as little provision as possible. I have posted on the forum before about rooms in London being rented for £800 a month - a room no more. I was only slightly aware of the rental of beds but it seems that too is on the increase. " THen the response should be that the LA have a more robust policy in dealing with private home providors. The US has hardly any state/county supplied housing and it relies on the private sector. However, any private individual or entity who wants to partner with the HUD has to have an annual inspection and agree to fairly robust call out timelines for repairs. Even small failures by the landlord can result in rent being escrowed instead of paid to the landlord. The point being here is that the social housing provided for is based on supposed temporary circumstances. No one is under any illusions that they the "government" is going to house them for life. Dismissing the private sector contribution in the UK because it does not work now is being slightly closed minded. With some thought and application, the private sector can be the answer to the "social housing" needs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Conservatives will also pledge a fund to help build 400,000 new homes. " There is already a shortfall of over 1,000,000 of new housing stock, with 200,000 each year additionally not being built. Obviously when there is a shortage of property as always it is those with less money who get shafted. The private sector will not meet the deficit, as their profits then plummet. We need much more social housing than any 400,000 units, never mind selling off existing stock.. Lunacy. We are one of the only countries in Europe who places such a heavy value on home ownership, and thanks to the Land registration act you don't even own your own property anyway, just look after it for the Queen... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right." True that. So, how do we force employers to pay a living wage, and ensure the unemployed also are able to obtain the equivalent. There's always going to be unemployed so don't pretend there are jobs for everyone (or that everyone receives a living wage). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right. You have just typed out a load of irrelevant ideological waffle. Why do you think anyone is going to bother to 'debate' that? Your problem is that you equate ambition, aspiration, and success to material wealth. If that antiquated _iewpoint is all you have then their is nothing to debate. We will just leave behind a ruined earth as a mark of our 'success'. It's such a shame that there are so many dinosaurs still out there hampering real socio-economic progress. " Big assumption made from my post. At no point has material wealth mentioned by me. Just pointing out that people could, if they wanted to, think outside of the box and get an entirely different solution. By the way, just for the record. I for one don't have a problem. Private landlords already exist be they individuals or company's. Knowing that, these people could be the answer given a bit of sensible application. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Big assumption made from my post. At no point has material wealth mentioned by me. Just pointing out that people could, if they wanted to, think outside of the box and get an entirely different solution. By the way, just for the record. I for one don't have a problem. Private landlords already exist be they individuals or company's. Knowing that, these people could be the answer given a bit of sensible application." I wouldn't say a particularly big assumption, based on your clearly right wing _iews. How would one afford to rent/buy without a significant degree of material wealth..? Maybe your haven't expressed yourself in the clearest way, and maybe I have slightly misunderstood your post. If so I apologise. When does privatisation ever not result in skyrocketing prices though? The whole reason those private landlords are in the market is for profit. How does that scenario ever create MORE affordable homes..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course...but the majority of people will think no more deeply about this than 'discount houses, get in!'" . spot on.
A lazy disaffected public is exactly what they intended from the beginning.
It's part of the plutocracy takeover | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right." . Let's assume your right and the state should stay out of private business. So how does that sit with keeping like we do now a totally insolvent banking industry going!. You remember the banks don't you, they were the industry which when left alone by the government, when given less regulation, when left to self govern. They totally fucked the 99% right up the ass and then had the fucking audacity to give a load of money to think tanks to make it look like the whole problem was the fault of poor people!!. The trouble with you ideology is, it's already been done and we can see the consequencers for our own eyes! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wouldn't say a particularly big assumption, based on your clearly right wing _iews. How would one afford to rent/buy without a significant degree of material wealth..? Maybe your haven't expressed yourself in the clearest way, and maybe I have slightly misunderstood your post. If so I apologise. When does privatisation ever not result in skyrocketing prices though? The whole reason those private landlords are in the market is for profit. How does that scenario ever create MORE affordable homes..? " Right wing _iews? Does that mean I am racist and hate foreigners? You might be surprised. Do I have robust _iews about people and personal responsibility - yes I do. I hold very strong _iews that the country as a whole should be adopting a more ambitious and aspirational point of _iew. Providing cradle to grave housing and benefits does not help achieve that aim. You asked how does one rent/buy without wealth? Well renting in the private sector need not be any different than in LA housing. At the moment there is little in the way of controlling private landlords and in my opinion that is wrong. The US has a very good system called the "Housing Choice Voucher." The local HA will support a family up to a certain amount of money (based in their income) and they get a rental voucher for that amount. The family can then choose where they want to live and the qualifying houses are all privately owned and have to meet certain criteria including having an annual safety inspection (paid for by the owner). Privatisation absolutely does not always result in sky high charges - that is a myth. Councils, local government, state departments and big government have always been and will always be notoriously ineffecient and ultimately that costs all of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So how does that sit with keeping like we do now a totally insolvent banking industry going!. You remember the banks don't you, they were the industry which when left alone by the government, when given less regulation, when left to self govern. They totally fucked the 99% right up the ass and then had the fucking audacity to give a load of money to think tanks to make it look like the whole problem was the fault of poor people!!. The trouble with you ideology is, it's already been done and we can see the consequencers for our own eyes!" Where do you think the country might have been had Gordon Brown decided not to prop the banks up with a "loan" that will eventually be repaid as a profit to the tax payer? In my opinion, Gordon Brown did the only thing that he could have done for the greater good of the nation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So how does that sit with keeping like we do now a totally insolvent banking industry going!. You remember the banks don't you, they were the industry which when left alone by the government, when given less regulation, when left to self govern. They totally fucked the 99% right up the ass and then had the fucking audacity to give a load of money to think tanks to make it look like the whole problem was the fault of poor people!!. The trouble with you ideology is, it's already been done and we can see the consequencers for our own eyes! Where do you think the country might have been had Gordon Brown decided not to prop the banks up with a "loan" that will eventually be repaid as a profit to the tax payer? In my opinion, Gordon Brown did the only thing that he could have done for the greater good of the nation. " . Ahh so really your for state intervention? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wouldn't say a particularly big assumption, based on your clearly right wing _iews. How would one afford to rent/buy without a significant degree of material wealth..? Maybe your haven't expressed yourself in the clearest way, and maybe I have slightly misunderstood your post. If so I apologise. When does privatisation ever not result in skyrocketing prices though? The whole reason those private landlords are in the market is for profit. How does that scenario ever create MORE affordable homes..? Right wing _iews? Does that mean I am racist and hate foreigners? You might be surprised. Do I have robust _iews about people and personal responsibility - yes I do. I hold very strong _iews that the country as a whole should be adopting a more ambitious and aspirational point of _iew. Providing cradle to grave housing and benefits does not help achieve that aim. You asked how does one rent/buy without wealth? Well renting in the private sector need not be any different than in LA housing. At the moment there is little in the way of controlling private landlords and in my opinion that is wrong. The US has a very good system called the "Housing Choice Voucher." The local HA will support a family up to a certain amount of money (based in their income) and they get a rental voucher for that amount. The family can then choose where they want to live and the qualifying houses are all privately owned and have to meet certain criteria including having an annual safety inspection (paid for by the owner). Privatisation absolutely does not always result in sky high charges - that is a myth. Councils, local government, state departments and big government have always been and will always be notoriously ineffecient and ultimately that costs all of us." I looked at the US model, which includes rent control. There are still huge abuses, on the very poor. Nothing is perfect. I am in favour of rent control and utilising private rented stock. We have been sold an idea that ownership is the only thing to aspire to in housing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So how does that sit with keeping like we do now a totally insolvent banking industry going!. You remember the banks don't you, they were the industry which when left alone by the government, when given less regulation, when left to self govern. They totally fucked the 99% right up the ass and then had the fucking audacity to give a load of money to think tanks to make it look like the whole problem was the fault of poor people!!. The trouble with you ideology is, it's already been done and we can see the consequencers for our own eyes! Where do you think the country might have been had Gordon Brown decided not to prop the banks up with a "loan" that will eventually be repaid as a profit to the tax payer? In my opinion, Gordon Brown did the only thing that he could have done for the greater good of the nation. " . Also could actually give me some figures on how they intend to repay with interest this loan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am in favour of rent control and utilising private rented stock. We have been sold an idea that ownership is the only thing to aspire to in housing. " I feel ownership is the exact reason WHY we have problems in the first place, with just about everything. I'll stay on topic though. For housing your needs tend to change for what you need, you only need something small when your young, plan a family (or have a surprise one like me) and you need something bigger, now you have the problem of selling your small house and buying a bigger one that you won't need later when you're old. People go on about old people should move out of their large homes for the younger people who need them, but there is a sense of entitlement to things you don't need so they won't do that. And because it's expected that people won't move like that then nobody bothered building anything to house them in anyway so there's nowhere for them to go when or of they wanted to now. And the housing benefit 'austerity cuts' didn't even apply to those people who if they moved out of a large property would free up some housing (not many but it would be something). It's just fucked up and weird how they do anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right wing _iews? Does that mean I am racist and hate foreigners? You might be surprised. Do I have robust _iews about people and personal responsibility - yes I do. I hold very strong _iews that the country as a whole should be adopting a more ambitious and aspirational point of _iew. Providing cradle to grave housing and benefits does not help achieve that aim. You asked how does one rent/buy without wealth? Well renting in the private sector need not be any different than in LA housing. At the moment there is little in the way of controlling private landlords and in my opinion that is wrong. The US has a very good system called the "Housing Choice Voucher." The local HA will support a family up to a certain amount of money (based in their income) and they get a rental voucher for that amount. The family can then choose where they want to live and the qualifying houses are all privately owned and have to meet certain criteria including having an annual safety inspection (paid for by the owner). Privatisation absolutely does not always result in sky high charges - that is a myth. Councils, local government, state departments and big government have always been and will always be notoriously inefficient and ultimately that costs all of us." I didn't say you were a fascist, you are very clearly a conservative though (if you know something I don't about the conservatives political alignment, please enlighten me!). So with your voucher proposal, the state is still indirectly funding social housing, just allowing more opportunity for abuse.. How does that help anything from either _iewpoint....!?! If you genuinely think emulating US politics is the answer, then there is nothing more to be discussed.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ahh so really your for state intervention?" I take it you are just being mischievous? There is a world of difference between emergency state intervention and the state supporting people (or indeed anything) from cradle to grave. The state should be prepared to help those who find themselves in emergency need more than they do at the moment in accordance with the basic principles of welfare - a safety net. It should not be a lifelong, lifestyle choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I didn't say you were a fascist, you are very clearly a conservative though (if you know something I don't about the conservatives political alignment, please enlighten me!). So with your voucher proposal, the state is still indirectly funding social housing, just allowing more opportunity for abuse.. How does that help anything from either _iewpoint....!?! If you genuinely think emulating US politics is the answer, then there is nothing more to be discussed.. " I am using that particular example as a way in which private housing can be better controlled. How on earth can something that has MORE controls be open to more abuse? As with NHS discussions, like many, you see only the English way OR the horrid American way and therefore nothing to talk about. It is a very blinkered _iew. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ahh so really your for state intervention? I take it you are just being mischievous? There is a world of difference between emergency state intervention and the state supporting people (or indeed anything) from cradle to grave. The state should be prepared to help those who find themselves in emergency need more than they do at the moment in accordance with the basic principles of welfare - a safety net. It should not be a lifelong, lifestyle choice." As the number of people who do see the state as a lifelong lifestyle choice is infinitesimally small, your _iew is moot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ahh so really your for state intervention? I take it you are just being mischievous? There is a world of difference between emergency state intervention and the state supporting people (or indeed anything) from cradle to grave. The state should be prepared to help those who find themselves in emergency need more than they do at the moment in accordance with the basic principles of welfare - a safety net. It should not be a lifelong, lifestyle choice." . I'm not trying to be mischievous but I've seen what " light touch " regulation got us!!. A great big hole that were unlikely to get out of?. Why an earth would I want more of it now just because those very same companies and people that got us in the hole, tell us in that all knowing way, that less is better!. Heres a fact for you only one country in the g8 had a government who stood up to the banking industry in that country one out of eight and for years those financial gwhizz gogetters scoffed saying this country will be left behind in the mire. That country come the financial crash didn't have to bail their banks out and haven't had a recession!. What's best for a particular industry in the "_iew of those inside experts" is not always what's best for the people!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As the number of people who do see the state as a lifelong lifestyle choice is infinitesimally small, your _iew is moot." So why the fuss about doing away with state provided social housing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am using that particular example as a way in which private housing can be better controlled. How on earth can something that has MORE controls be open to more abuse? As with NHS discussions, like many, you see only the English way OR the horrid American way and therefore nothing to talk about. It is a very blinkered _iew. " Can you explain which further controls are to be implemented. The only reason private landlords become involved is if there is a profit to be made, that's basic capitalism. If someones primary motivation is profit, then automatically the needs of the tenants become secondary.. Actually i think the English way is almost (key word) as broken as the American one. The blinkered _iew is the one that is not open to trying to new things, the _iewpoint that we must cling on to a system which 'works' even though the cracks are appearing everywhere. Clinging onto a system which rely's on consumption, profits at the expense of morals, and rampant individualism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As the number of people who do see the state as a lifelong lifestyle choice is infinitesimally small, your _iew is moot. So why the fuss about doing away with state provided social housing?" . The question should be what's wrong with state run social housing?. We build houses cheaply because we control the land and the supply!. We rent these cheaply to people who fall foul for one reason or another. If they do make the choice like you say to stay in social housing, well we benefit the most by getting our rent back!! Unlike if they stay in private housing and were still paying the rent!! But we make a profit on them in the long run anyhow, so what's really the problem with social housing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I know is if we get anything other than a Conservative government we can all expect to go back to the days of recession and doom. Wake up people." William Hague is on Fab?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So how does that sit with keeping like we do now a totally insolvent banking industry going!. You remember the banks don't you, they were the industry which when left alone by the government, when given less regulation, when left to self govern. They totally fucked the 99% right up the ass and then had the fucking audacity to give a load of money to think tanks to make it look like the whole problem was the fault of poor people!!. The trouble with you ideology is, it's already been done and we can see the consequencers for our own eyes! Where do you think the country might have been had Gordon Brown decided not to prop the banks up with a "loan" that will eventually be repaid as a profit to the tax payer? In my opinion, Gordon Brown did the only thing that he could have done for the greater good of the nation. " I'm glad someone else see's that. The only choice was to bail out the banks NOW and worry about repayment later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I know is if we get anything other than a Conservative government we can all expect to go back to the days of recession and doom. Wake up people." If that one unsubstantiated sentence is indeed all you know, then i think it can be justifiably ignored.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple maths shows you can't sell off a social home at a large discount and expect the proceeds of the sale to provide sufficient funds to replace that home." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So how does that sit with keeping like we do now a totally insolvent banking industry going!. You remember the banks don't you, they were the industry which when left alone by the government, when given less regulation, when left to self govern. They totally fucked the 99% right up the ass and then had the fucking audacity to give a load of money to think tanks to make it look like the whole problem was the fault of poor people!!. The trouble with you ideology is, it's already been done and we can see the consequencers for our own eyes! Where do you think the country might have been had Gordon Brown decided not to prop the banks up with a "loan" that will eventually be repaid as a profit to the tax payer? In my opinion, Gordon Brown did the only thing that he could have done for the greater good of the nation. I'm glad someone else see's that. The only choice was to bail out the banks NOW and worry about repayment later." Surely a decent portion of that bail out could and should have been taken from the salaries/bonuses of the bankers responsible for all the foul play, via criminal prosecutions and fines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think u need to look back to the labour days, borrow borrow borrow. The conservatives are still sorting out the mess labour created. If can't see that get yourself down to Specsavers son !" George Osborne is on Fab?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think u need to look back to the labour days, borrow borrow borrow. The conservatives are still sorting out the mess labour created. If can't see that get yourself down to Specsavers son !" Until the recession hit their borrowing rates were no more than John Major's. And when the recession hit most of that borrowing went to the banks. Should they not have bailed out the banks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So how does that sit with keeping like we do now a totally insolvent banking industry going!. You remember the banks don't you, they were the industry which when left alone by the government, when given less regulation, when left to self govern. They totally fucked the 99% right up the ass and then had the fucking audacity to give a load of money to think tanks to make it look like the whole problem was the fault of poor people!!. The trouble with you ideology is, it's already been done and we can see the consequencers for our own eyes! Where do you think the country might have been had Gordon Brown decided not to prop the banks up with a "loan" that will eventually be repaid as a profit to the tax payer? In my opinion, Gordon Brown did the only thing that he could have done for the greater good of the nation. I'm glad someone else see's that. The only choice was to bail out the banks NOW and worry about repayment later. Surely a decent portion of that bail out could and should have been taken from the salaries/bonuses of the bankers responsible for all the foul play, via criminal prosecutions and fines." Whilst I agree in principle, the sums generated from fines, bonus taxes etc would never have paid off the loan. Then, to make matters worse, we elected a Tory led coalition which has no interest in punishing their pals in the City. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sink or swim ! You don't pour money into a bucket with a hole in it" . Your just factually wrong and that means your ideology is flawed. The tories have borrowed twice as much as labour in half the time. It's not one or the other, perpetual borrowing is inevitable in a fiat based currency authored by fractional reserve banking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well gd luck with a labour government and interest rises and more benefits claims and payouts." Interest rises? Don't you mean normal interest rates instead of suppressed rates? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well gd luck with a labour government and interest rises and more benefits claims and payouts." Ian Duncan Smith is on Fab?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well gd luck with a labour government and interest rises and more benefits claims and payouts. Ian Duncan Smith is on Fab?! "Yeah, he's looking for more free labour for RBS & SERCO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"U will all be wingeing about a labour government in 18 months time, mark my words" I don't want Labour but I'd take them over the Tories any day of the week and twice on a Sunday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you explain which further controls are to be implemented. The only reason private landlords become involved is if there is a profit to be made, that's basic capitalism. If someones primary motivation is profit, then automatically the needs of the tenants become secondary.. Actually i think the English way is almost (key word) as broken as the American one. The blinkered _iew is the one that is not open to trying to new things, the _iewpoint that we must cling on to a system which 'works' even though the cracks are appearing everywhere. Clinging onto a system which rely's on consumption, profits at the expense of morals, and rampant individualism. " Owning real estate - be it land, roads or property is an investment strategy that has stood the test of time. It has been around for thousands of years and will likely be around for thousands more. UK At the moment, I can buy a house locally and rent out via the local housing association. Knowing my future tenant quality, I can choose to do a marginal renovation in the expectation that it will come back to me needing another renovation at the end of the term. During the term, I can be pretty reckless with maintenance call outs and pretty much disregard any moaning by the tenant. USA If I want to partner with a local housing association in the US, first thing I have to do is apply (for a fee). Then I get a landlords handbook and a list of regulations (Federal & State) and building codes that the property has to meet. I get the property up to code and the inspector comes round (for a fee). Invariably he finds something wrong and once rectified it is re-inspected (for a fee) and I get a permit that lasts 12 months. I can then adevertise my property on the HCV website and to local Agents and the tenant can choose my property as opposed to being told where they have to go. It is good for the tenant because they have choice and therefore power and it is good for the investor because they get a reliable state funded income. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well gd luck with a labour government and interest rises and more benefits claims and payouts. Ian Duncan Smith is on Fab?! "Haha i'm glad your providing the faces behind these cliches. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"U will all be wingeing about a labour government in 18 months time, mark my words" Labour are not the answer to our problems, but the conservatives most certainly aren't! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"U will all be wingeing about a labour government in 18 months time, mark my words Labour are not the answer to our problems, but the conservatives most certainly aren't!" Those are the choices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Owning real estate - be it land, roads or property is an investment strategy that has stood the test of time. It has been around for thousands of years and will likely be around for thousands more. UK At the moment, I can buy a house locally and rent out via the local housing association. Knowing my future tenant quality, I can choose to do a marginal renovation in the expectation that it will come back to me needing another renovation at the end of the term. During the term, I can be pretty reckless with maintenance call outs and pretty much disregard any moaning by the tenant. USA If I want to partner with a local housing association in the US, first thing I have to do is apply (for a fee). Then I get a landlords handbook and a list of regulations (Federal & State) and building codes that the property has to meet. I get the property up to code and the inspector comes round (for a fee). Invariably he finds something wrong and once rectified it is re-inspected (for a fee) and I get a permit that lasts 12 months. I can then adevertise my property on the HCV website and to local Agents and the tenant can choose my property as opposed to being told where they have to go. It is good for the tenant because they have choice and therefore power and it is good for the investor because they get a reliable state funded income." Humanity as a species will not be around for another thousand years if we carry on the way we are. We were talking about LA housing rather than housing associations, as they are not state controlled anyway.. Which is the whole crux of the issue.. Each and every housing association which I have come across, deal with maintenance issues in a timely fashion, and often have an in-house team to do the repairs. Much like any other agency in the private rented sector. All rented property in the UK has to meet certain standards anyway, and those standards vary dependant on the type of tenancy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"U will all be wingeing about a labour government in 18 months time, mark my words Labour are not the answer to our problems, but the conservatives most certainly aren't! Those are the choices. " Sadly, and that is why I shall be voting for labour. Damage limitation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only way to increase tax take is to increase the 99% share in the total take. The rich will tell you there the wealthy creators and job creators and blah blah blah, just tax us less,regulate us less and we will get you out of this mess, but the bit they fail to tell you is.... There the people that got us into this mess. You lot keep blathering on about Gordon brown raiding your pension funds but fail to note that it was the banking sector that wrapped up useless driveless shit debt bonds and sold then to your pension firms who fell over themselves buying this utter dire tripe because there all in the 1% .... They don't give a flying fuck about people, just grabbing money, they won't lose one nights sleep driving people out of their homes, into bankruptcy or trampling you into the quagmire of industry pollutants?. They've got previous They've got form They've got the means and the motive. The last people you can trust for any honesty or answers are the wealthy, they will stab you in the back every fucking time, the system dictates it and crucially can't work without the parasitic nature of it" Ha ha ha ha ha ha Full of the joys of Spring again. Spread the love... It is infectious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are right about one thing "we won't be about in a thousand years time" we won't be around in 10yrs time if labour get in. Everyone will have left." I wasn't talking narrowly about UK politics.. Where you gunna go anyway? America? Thats the last place I'd want to be when the final crash happens! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"U will all be wingeing about a labour government in 18 months time, mark my words Labour are not the answer to our problems, but the conservatives most certainly aren't! Those are the choices. Sadly, and that is why I shall be voting for labour. Damage limitation. " Good luck. EVERY labour government has emptied the coffers. I already have plans B ready in the event of an ED n ED experiment with the country. Actually, I expect a Labour led coalition this time around because the Conservatives are not doing enough in this election campaign. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Conservative government would extend the right-to-buy scheme for housing association tenants in England, David Cameron will say, as he unveils his party's general election manifesto. The PM will say up to 1.3 million tenants could buy their homes at a discount as a result, insisting the Tories are the party of working people. The Conservatives will also pledge a fund to help build 400,000 new homes. Under current rules, about 800,000 housing association tenants have a "right to acquire" their homes under smaller discounts, but the Conservatives would offer those people the same reductions as for those in local authority homes. And they would extend the scheme to those who currently have no purchase rights at all, estimated to be about 500,000 people. The move would be funded by new rules forcing councils to sell properties ranked in the most expensive third of their type in the local area, once they become vacant. The Conservatives say every house purchased will be replaced "on a one-for-one basis" with more affordable homes and no-one will be forced to leave their home. I have real reservations about this. I understand that they want to help more people own their own properties. I cannot see how their new builds will keep up with the sell offs which will be generated. There will end up being less Social Housing stock which only fuels the private rented sector and the Housing Market in general. Once this extra Housing Association stock is gone, it can't be regained! I also wonder, whether there are figures on how many properties end up being repossessed once purchased, because those who buy them, cannot afford them. Then they end up homeless and the whole cycle starts again. " Totally agree Vote Labour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually, I expect a Labour led coalition this time around because the Conservatives are not doing enough in this election campaign. " Come on, it's not their fault, they are lying and making up stuff as fast as they can. And they have probably scribbled on the back of every fag packet lying around at Conservative HQ, so they are most likely at a bit of a loss as to what to do next. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually, I expect a Labour led coalition this time around because the Conservatives are not doing enough in this election campaign. Come on, it's not their fault, they are lying and making up stuff as fast as they can. And they have probably scribbled on the back of every fag packet lying around at Conservative HQ, so they are most likely at a bit of a loss as to what to do next." You can at least make a judgement on what is likely to happen in the next five years based on what has happened in the last five years with the conservatives. ED n ED are an unknown quantity and at the start of a recovery that has bettered anything else in Europe. Why risk it? Socialist France was the flag bearer of Labour's 2010 campaign and that has been a disaster. Vote for what you can be pretty sure will happen... Further recovery and deficit reduction. Or throw your money in a pot and give it to ED n ED to experiment with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour ! Why ?? Are they paying your benefits !!" Almost funny but not even close | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour ! Why ?? Are they paying your benefits !!" Many a true word spoken in jest. Labour rely on people staying oppressed and downtrodden. Without those people Labour would not have a reason to exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour ! Why ?? Are they paying your benefits !! Many a true word spoken in jest. Labour rely on people staying oppressed and downtrodden. Without those people Labour would not have a reason to exist." I work Have done since 13 I'M just a person with a social conscience And daughter of a Welsh miner So whatever of it I'd vote for a byson rather than conservatives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well gd luck with a labour government and interest rises and more benefits claims and payouts." You do know over 800,000 more people are claiming housing benefit since the coalition got in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I totally agree" Who cares what you think I know the truth Ner ner lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well gd luck with a labour government and interest rises and more benefits claims and payouts. You do know over 800,000 more people are claiming housing benefit since the coalition got in?" Good point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well gd luck with a labour government and interest rises and more benefits claims and payouts. You do know over 800,000 more people are claiming housing benefit since the coalition got in?" Sorry not people^, households. Was busy still chuckling at edwalu's posts and lost concentration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"R u claiming aswell then" Whats it got to do with you nosey? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour = benefits = scroungers Simple !" BS Labour = Hard workers Social conscience Zero nepotism Earned not inherited money Kinder people Building cocommunities | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You can at least make a judgement on what is likely to happen in the next five years based on what has happened in the last five years with the conservatives. ED n ED are an unknown quantity and at the start of a recovery that has bettered anything else in Europe. Why risk it? Socialist France was the flag bearer of Labour's 2010 campaign and that has been a disaster. Vote for what you can be pretty sure will happen... Further recovery and deficit reduction. Or throw your money in a pot and give it to ED n ED to experiment with." See i can agree with a lot of what you are saying here, and if voting for the conservatives was a short term solution with as you suggest a sure route to economic recovery, then they would have my backing. Unfortunately going by what has happened in the past 5 years i just see more tax breaks for the wealthy, further political co-operation with big business and more criminal peers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"R u claiming aswell then" Ad hominem is considered very poor debating. I know politics uses it all the time but meh, it's poor quality all the same. I work. I live in social housing. So fucking what? This topic is not abut peoples personal lives, it's about political policies. Why is it that: 1) people do not google for facts about things and instead spout out scary myths to make the party they support look better? 2) people start making personal criticisms* once they are losing an argument. *Being on benefits should not be a criticism of anyone, you DO NOT know their personal circumstances UNLESS they divulge information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour = benefits = scroungers Simple !" See that is the kind of idiotic and backwards _iew that undermines everyone on your side of the argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You forgot dossers and layabouts" Is there actually a point to you being in here coz you're not adding anything to this debate. Not sure if you're even old enough to be on an adult site? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You forgot dossers and layabouts" No I forgot nothing Sheila Porter tory caught buying votes for housing, case proved Neil Hamilton tory Corrupt case proved Jeffrey Archer tory sent to prison Oh just to name but 3 very corrupt rich conservatives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well work harder and get a house of your own !" How do you know I don't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well work harder and get a house of your own !" I've got my own house, i pay rent for it and everything. Even decorated it myself. But what has this got to do with the fact that 800,000 more people are now claiming housing benefit since the coalition got in? And the coalition want to buy more houses for people to buy when less people seem to be able to afford one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You forgot dossers and layabouts No I forgot nothing Sheila Porter tory caught buying votes for housing, case proved Neil Hamilton tory Corrupt case proved Jeffrey Archer tory sent to prison Oh just to name but 3 very corrupt rich conservatives " While I stand with you on the debate, Labour are not much better. Tony Blair is a war criminal and as corrupt as they come.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour = benefits = scroungers Simple !" Well i'm very left wing in my beliefs, I finish my degree in 2 months and will walk into a job paying a very nice salary. I also stand to inherit several properties. How do you explain that oh fountain of wisdom? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour = benefits = scroungers Simple !" I work 40+ hours a week in the health service (for no pay) and study 16 hours every weekend. I claim some benefits to top up the paltry £9000 a year student loan I get. You think I'm a scrounger? I've paid plenty of tax before going to university and I'll pay an abundance more when I'm qualified. Please feel free to enlighten me as to how I'm a 'scrounger'?? Simple?? Yes you are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour = benefits = scroungers Simple ! I work 40+ hours a week in the health service (for no pay) and study 16 hours every weekend. I claim some benefits to top up the paltry £9000 a year student loan I get. You think I'm a scrounger? I've paid plenty of tax before going to university and I'll pay an abundance more when I'm qualified. Please feel free to enlighten me as to how I'm a 'scrounger'?? Simple?? Yes you are" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only way to increase tax take is to increase the 99% share in the total take. The rich will tell you there the wealthy creators and job creators and blah blah blah, just tax us less,regulate us less and we will get you out of this mess, but the bit they fail to tell you is.... There the people that got us into this mess. You lot keep blathering on about Gordon brown raiding your pension funds but fail to note that it was the banking sector that wrapped up useless driveless shit debt bonds and sold then to your pension firms who fell over themselves buying this utter dire tripe because there all in the 1% .... They don't give a flying fuck about people, just grabbing money, they won't lose one nights sleep driving people out of their homes, into bankruptcy or trampling you into the quagmire of industry pollutants?. They've got previous They've got form They've got the means and the motive. The last people you can trust for any honesty or answers are the wealthy, they will stab you in the back every fucking time, the system dictates it and crucially can't work without the parasitic nature of it Ha ha ha ha ha ha Full of the joys of Spring again. Spread the love... It is infectious. " always joyful and always love spring  .
I just happen to keep pointing out to you where it's going wrong through facts and figures which you always ignore because it doesn't fit you personal but of the world.
I'm an environmentalist, I base this _iew on facts, not personal beliefs, I'm sorry it's bad news, I really wish it wasn't.
You can't fix a system until firstly admitting the system is broken, then when you can do that you can look at where it's broken and "regulate" changes into it.
I'm still waiting on you to prove your claim that we will get repaid of the banks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well i'm very left wing in my beliefs, I finish my degree in 2 months and will walk into a job paying a very nice salary. I also stand to inherit several properties....." Come back here in 5 years and I can assure you that you will not be quite so left wing by then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well i'm very left wing in my beliefs, I finish my degree in 2 months and will walk into a job paying a very nice salary. I also stand to inherit several properties..... Come back here in 5 years and I can assure you that you will not be quite so left wing by then." Why not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would dearly love to buy my own home, but as a single parent with two kids, despite working full time, I'm never going to be able to afford to buy...would the "gent" above against social housing prefer to see us homeless...perhaps their selfish bastard of a father who put me in this position will let us live in his garden shed!
Now now come on, it's your own fault, you are just not ambitious or aspirational enough, otherwise you'd have a house. It's that simple!
"Wow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well i'm very left wing in my beliefs, I finish my degree in 2 months and will walk into a job paying a very nice salary. I also stand to inherit several properties..... Come back here in 5 years and I can assure you that you will not be quite so left wing by then." Oh I will. You see I believe there is much much more to life than buying a house and filling it with things.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Now now come on, it's your own fault, you are just not ambitious or aspirational enough, otherwise you'd have a house. It's that simple! Wow "I think you've missed the sarcasm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well i'm very left wing in my beliefs, I finish my degree in 2 months and will walk into a job paying a very nice salary. I also stand to inherit several properties..... Come back here in 5 years and I can assure you that you will not be quite so left wing by then. Oh I will. You see I believe there is much much more to life than buying a house and filling it with things.. " Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Now now come on, it's your own fault, you are just not ambitious or aspirational enough, otherwise you'd have a house. It's that simple! Wow
I think you've missed the sarcasm "You know what, I don't think there was any! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"U will all be wingeing about a labour government in 18 months time, mark my words I don't want Labour but I'd take them over the Tories any day of the week and twice on a Sunday. " I always Remember tony blairs period in office Education Education Education well If Anything we,re still learning and not all from our mistakes debates a great thing if your going in the right direction but unfortuneately That won,t happen on a forum only in Parliament if ever unfortuneately..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" always joyful and always love spring .
I just happen to keep pointing out to you where it's going wrong through facts and figures which you always ignore because it doesn't fit you personal but of the world.
I'm an environmentalist, I base this _iew on facts, not personal beliefs, I'm sorry it's bad news, I really wish it wasn't.
You can't fix a system until firstly admitting the system is broken, then when you can do that you can look at where it's broken and "regulate" changes into it.
I'm still waiting on you to prove your claim that we will get repaid of the banks!"You keep pointing out global facts and figures which are completely meaningless to you and I. Who cares about the global strategy of fractional reserve banking, QE etc etc I only know that for most of my life I have travelled the world and seen many aspects of life in places as diverse as from the south pacific to the Middle east and from Russia to the United States and everything in between. One thing that I took from all of this is that you have a tiny fraction of almost any population who seek to scare and place fear in the minds of the majority because they believe that their _iews and their alone are the only _iews that matter. You do it consistently as do most Green activists because you feel that your minority _iew should be adopted. The fact is that the majority don't give a shit about global fears, fractional reserve banking, QE or anything else for that matter - they just want a good life for themselves and their family. There is NO POVERTY in this country by world standards. On the contrary, the country is fat with complacency and this is why idle minds come up with fantastical theories whilst conveniently forgetting just how fucking great it is here. You hold a minority opinion but you are convinced that you are right. It probably makes you feel good grand standing your global theories but they are meaningless to ordinary people who in the main just want a better day to day life. I personally could not give a flying fuck about global warming, but I care passionately about my family because that is the most immediately important thing to me as a human being. In this respect I am no different to 99.999% of the people that I have met from countries all over the planet. The bailout by the way was secured with shares. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You keep pointing out global facts and figures which are completely meaningless to you and I. Who cares about the global strategy of fractional reserve banking, QE etc etc I only know that for most of my life I have travelled the world and seen many aspects of life in places as diverse as from the south pacific to the Middle east and from Russia to the United States and everything in between. One thing that I took from all of this is that you have a tiny fraction of almost any population who seek to scare and place fear in the minds of the majority because they believe that their _iews and their alone are the only _iews that matter. You do it consistently as do most Green activists because you feel that your minority _iew should be adopted. The fact is that the majority don't give a shit about global fears, fractional reserve banking, QE or anything else for that matter - they just want a good life for themselves and their family. There is NO POVERTY in this country by world standards. On the contrary, the country is fat with complacency and this is why idle minds come up with fantastical theories whilst conveniently forgetting just how fucking great it is here. You hold a minority opinion but you are convinced that you are right. It probably makes you feel good grand standing your global theories but they are meaningless to ordinary people who in the main just want a better day to day life. I personally could not give a flying fuck about global warming, but I care passionately about my family because that is the most immediately important thing to me as a human being. In this respect I am no different to 99.999% of the people that I have met from countries all over the planet. The bailout by the way was secured with shares." At least you are finally being honest. You are motivated by purely selfish reasons. Most people are, that's why you are in the majority. It's still wrong though. You talk about fear mongering yet those you support bombard us daily with terrorists threats and anti muslim sentiment, in order to fuel war for profit. Global warming is much more real and scary. No poverty by world standards? Surely depends which standard. If your going by infrastructure, i'm pretty sure people in some rural parts of cornwall may disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Oh I will. You see I believe there is much much more to life than buying a house and filling it with things.. " We can agree on that, but I dont think that this was what we were talking about. You were talking about getting a fat salary and inheriting property (wealth). I am saying that you should wait until the tax implications filter through - and re_iew your motivations in five years time. Let's not be precious about this, people vote with self interest in mind. You want higher taxes and greater state interference in your life, you vote labour. You want a generally lower tax economy and more personal freedoms you would vote conservative. Broadly speaking a person working 16 hours a week and claiming benefits is not going to vote conservative. By the same token a person well into the higher tax bracket and paying through the nose to keep the 16 hour person in benefits is unlikely to vote labour. You did not say how many properties you are inheriting but the fact that they are inherited will mean that they will be free and clear so unless you re-mortgage them you will be accruing a considerable tax liability on top of your fat salary. Either way, paying out a lot of tax is always painful so voting to reduce that burden is bound to be a motivation. You would not be human if you didn't at least think that, turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Oh I will. You see I believe there is much much more to life than buying a house and filling it with things.. We can agree on that, but I dont think that this was what we were talking about. You were talking about getting a fat salary and inheriting property (wealth). I am saying that you should wait until the tax implications filter through - and re_iew your motivations in five years time. Let's not be precious about this, people vote with self interest in mind. You want higher taxes and greater state interference in your life, you vote labour. You want a generally lower tax economy and more personal freedoms you would vote conservative. Broadly speaking a person working 16 hours a week and claiming benefits is not going to vote conservative. By the same token a person well into the higher tax bracket and paying through the nose to keep the 16 hour person in benefits is unlikely to vote labour. You did not say how many properties you are inheriting but the fact that they are inherited will mean that they will be free and clear so unless you re-mortgage them you will be accruing a considerable tax liability on top of your fat salary. Either way, paying out a lot of tax is always painful so voting to reduce that burden is bound to be a motivation. You would not be human if you didn't at least think that, turkeys rarely vote for Christmas." Maybe i'm just an altruist. The reasons you give for voting conservative are the exact reasons I never would.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" always joyful and always love spring .
I just happen to keep pointing out to you where it's going wrong through facts and figures which you always ignore because it doesn't fit you personal but of the world.
I'm an environmentalist, I base this _iew on facts, not personal beliefs, I'm sorry it's bad news, I really wish it wasn't.
You can't fix a system until firstly admitting the system is broken, then when you can do that you can look at where it's broken and "regulate" changes into it.
I'm still waiting on you to prove your claim that we will get repaid of the banks!
You keep pointing out global facts and figures which are completely meaningless to you and I. Who cares about the global strategy of fractional reserve banking, QE etc etc
I only know that for most of my life I have travelled the world and seen many aspects of life in places as diverse as from the south pacific to the Middle east and from Russia to the United States and everything in between. One thing that I took from all of this is that you have a tiny fraction of almost any population who seek to scare and place fear in the minds of the majority because they believe that their _iews and their alone are the only _iews that matter. You do it consistently as do most Green activists because you feel that your minority _iew should be adopted. The fact is that the majority don't give a shit about global fears, fractional reserve banking, QE or anything else for that matter - they just want a good life for themselves and their family. There is NO POVERTY in this country by world standards. On the contrary, the country is fat with complacency and this is why idle minds come up with fantastical theories whilst conveniently forgetting just how fucking great it is here.
You hold a minority opinion but you are convinced that you are right. It probably makes you feel good grand standing your global theories but they are meaningless to ordinary people who in the main just want a better day to day life. I personally could not give a flying fuck about global warming, but I care passionately about my family because that is the most immediately important thing to me as a human being. In this respect I am no different to 99.999% of the people that I have met from countries all over the planet.
The bailout by the way was secured with shares.". Oh dear, well I shall not to grandstand my grandstanding ideas to much then!. I'll just stick to facts. Poverty in this country exists, this is a fact even proven by our own government reports. You wish to pit a poor person here to a poor person in Bangladesh!, one has nothing to do with the other!. Your ideology is crazy, even in your own words, you couldn't give a flying fuck about global warming but you care totally about your family!! Which bit don't you get that consuming all the resources yourself leaves nothing for your children!. If you can't grasp basic simple economic theory about QE and how it's used to bail out the banking industry you only need to ask, and I will be quite happy explaining it more to you, but to deny the basic principles I'm pointing out to you about why we have high debt, why governments always spend more regardless of colour, why capital outgains labour, why we have high currency and deflation, as having no meaning to the masses is exactly why we are where we are and why politics deals in soundbites a bit like yourself! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least you are finally being honest. You are motivated by purely selfish reasons. Most people are, that's why you are in the majority. It's still wrong though. You talk about fear mongering yet those you support bombard us daily with terrorists threats and anti muslim sentiment, in order to fuel war for profit. Global warming is much more real and scary. No poverty by world standards? Surely depends which standard. If your going by infrastructure, i'm pretty sure people in some rural parts of cornwall may disagree. " Finally being honest? I am always honest. I mean why not be honest - no better place to be honest than on an anonymous forum lol I don't "support" anyone. I vote for people who would most closely represent my interests. Not everything that the conservative party do I agree with. I dont agree with an EU referendum, I dont agree with their stance on drugs, I dont agree with the negative way that they have approached this election campaign. AS for the terror comments. If you think that is just a conspiracy then you are way off base. That is not party political leaning in any direction. Voting wise, in the end it comes down to my life experience and fundamental beliefs. The conservatives are closest to my core beliefs and so that is who I vote for. My beliefs were fashioned by 15 years at sea in the days when being at sea meant actually being in port. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just don't think the right wingers can ever see past the end of their nose, the more I pay in tax (and I'm happy to) the better I'm doing personally, so I'm happy to share it around because someday if one day I'm not doing so well I hope that others will help me out...I think it's called a social conscious " I don't disagree. But by what degree of logic is it right that everyone pays a flat rate up to a certain amount and then everything over that you pay more than twice as much again just for being successful? How is that fair? There is only one fair level of taxation and that is a fixed rate for everyone. In that way, everyone pays the same proportion of their income in tax. Someone earning £20,000 a year pays £2,000 a year in tax and someone earning £200,000 a year pays £38,000 in tax. It is still significantly more. Why should a high rate kick in and then an even higher rate after that? How is that fair? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just don't think the right wingers can ever see past the end of their nose, the more I pay in tax (and I'm happy to) the better I'm doing personally, so I'm happy to share it around because someday if one day I'm not doing so well I hope that others will help me out...I think it's called a social conscious I don't disagree. But by what degree of logic is it right that everyone pays a flat rate up to a certain amount and then everything over that you pay more than twice as much again just for being successful? How is that fair? There is only one fair level of taxation and that is a fixed rate for everyone. In that way, everyone pays the same proportion of their income in tax. Someone earning £20,000 a year pays £2,000 a year in tax and someone earning £200,000 a year pays £38,000 in tax. It is still significantly more. Why should a high rate kick in and then an even higher rate after that? How is that fair?" . There you see, I can concur with you on that principle. What we disagree on is the fundamentals like why does five years in prison work for burglar's but not for corporate fraud or tax evasion, the problem is what you've already stated, people vote in self interests and usually self interests don't work on the whole!. I'm all for honesty in politics unless we discuss the problems and the best way to cure them, they just roll on into bigger problems!. So we can agree on the fact that there's not enough tax revenue coming in, what's the best way to increase it, I happen to believe that the best way is to increase the share earned by the 99% instead of trying to make the 1% pay more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just don't think the right wingers can ever see past the end of their nose, the more I pay in tax (and I'm happy to) the better I'm doing personally, so I'm happy to share it around because someday if one day I'm not doing so well I hope that others will help me out...I think it's called a social conscious I don't disagree. But by what degree of logic is it right that everyone pays a flat rate up to a certain amount and then everything over that you pay more than twice as much again just for being successful? How is that fair? There is only one fair level of taxation and that is a fixed rate for everyone. In that way, everyone pays the same proportion of their income in tax. Someone earning £20,000 a year pays £2,000 a year in tax and someone earning £200,000 a year pays £38,000 in tax. It is still significantly more. Why should a high rate kick in and then an even higher rate after that? How is that fair?" Successful?, some are, some are lucky some are in the right place at the right time some do no more than have the 'right' surname, but after a certain point what is someone supposed to do with this accrued success? buy more trinkets and baubles? It's just stuff, you said your family are your first priority (as it is for anyone) you'd run back into a burning house to save family but would you do the same for stuff?, it's just stuff, would a swimming pool in the west annexe make you happier than knowing your success has funded an intensive care bed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just don't think the right wingers can ever see past the end of their nose, the more I pay in tax (and I'm happy to) the better I'm doing personally, so I'm happy to share it around because someday if one day I'm not doing so well I hope that others will help me out...I think it's called a social conscious I don't disagree. But by what degree of logic is it right that everyone pays a flat rate up to a certain amount and then everything over that you pay more than twice as much again just for being successful? How is that fair? There is only one fair level of taxation and that is a fixed rate for everyone. In that way, everyone pays the same proportion of their income in tax. Someone earning £20,000 a year pays £2,000 a year in tax and someone earning £200,000 a year pays £38,000 in tax. It is still significantly more. Why should a high rate kick in and then an even higher rate after that? How is that fair?. There you see, I can concur with you on that principle. What we disagree on is the fundamentals like why does five years in prison work for burglar's but not for corporate fraud or tax evasion, the problem is what you've already stated, people vote in self interests and usually self interests don't work on the whole!. I'm all for honesty in politics unless we discuss the problems and the best way to cure them, they just roll on into bigger problems!. So we can agree on the fact that there's not enough tax revenue coming in, what's the best way to increase it, I happen to believe that the best way is to increase the share earned by the 99% instead of trying to make the 1% pay more" Right, put up the basic tax allowance to 15k and put a penny on basic income tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's madness while there is no proper replacement programme in place (which there isn't). The pooling of the receipts compounds the scale of the discounts, so local authorities don't have enough funding to build or purchase new properties. Local authorities have the ability to borrow, where there's a secure income stream or savings to repay that borrowing, for the likes of transport, infrastructure or economic development schemes. But not to build new housing, where the rental income would provide a good income stream and save the government money on housing benefit in the long term. It's a perfect example of central government taking the credit for something (allowing people massive discounts on the purchase of their properties) and leaving local authorities to pick up the consequences of that. " Local knows best, according to the localism pundits. We have always had social housing in this country, it has just had other names over the years. The landed gentry had their villages for their serfs, we had poor-houses and the workhouse and then bigger schemes from Peabody, Guinness and Octavia Hill. The modern housing association movement from the 60s to mid 90s was about providing a genuinely affordable, quality home offer to people in need. The reforms in the mid 90s created a model that relies more on bidding against each other for development land. The further reforms in the last five years increased rents to be 80% of the market rate. When the market rate is out of control (as it is in London) even social housing becomes unaffordable without top-ups from the state. As a young friend of mine (in her mid 20s and unable to move out of the parental home) keeps saying, "why do we even talk about affordable homes? If a roof over your head isn't affordable we're all fucked." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour = benefits = scroungers Simple !" What!!!!
So those of us who have never claimed ANYTHING but have voted Labour must be scroungers?
I assume you have never used any of the welfare state such as the NHS, education or even tax credits? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well i'm very left wing in my beliefs, I finish my degree in 2 months and will walk into a job paying a very nice salary. I also stand to inherit several properties..... Come back here in 5 years and I can assure you that you will not be quite so left wing by then." I agree that as you get older and own more stuff, feel you've worked your socks off (Saturday/holiday job from 14 and in proper employment from 17 puts me at 36 years working, paying in and not taking out other than NHS and my school education in my case) you can begin to soften your left wing leanings. However, it isn't a given and is a tad patronising to do the pat on the head, you young 'uns will see things my way as you get older schtick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But what has this got to do with the fact that 800,000 more people are now claiming housing benefit since the coalition got in? " And that's the even crazier thing about selling off more housing stock at a discount. When there's less supply, they'll end up placing more people into private rentals. Private rents are generally. higher than social housing rents, thus costing more in Housing Benefit . So it's all a false economy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But what has this got to do with the fact that 800,000 more people are now claiming housing benefit since the coalition got in? And that's the even crazier thing about selling off more housing stock at a discount. When there's less supply, they'll end up placing more people into private rentals. Private rents are generally. higher than social housing rents, thus costing more in Housing Benefit . So it's all a false economy! " They weren't bothered when they told people to downsize and there was nowhere for them to go, so yeah they don't plan anything properly. People lost cheap rents and had to go into private places that cost more. It probably boosted the economy but at a high cost, and idk where the money for it has come from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Finally being honest? I am always honest. I mean why not be honest - no better place to be honest than on an anonymous forum lol I don't "support" anyone. I vote for people who would most closely represent my interests. Not everything that the conservative party do I agree with. I don't agree with an EU referendum, I dont agree with their stance on drugs, I dont agree with the negative way that they have approached this election campaign. AS for the terror comments. If you think that is just a conspiracy then you are way off base. That is not party political leaning in any direction. Voting wise, in the end it comes down to my life experience and fundamental beliefs. The conservatives are closest to my core beliefs and so that is who I vote for. My beliefs were fashioned by 15 years at sea in the days when being at sea meant actually being in port. " You were initially purporting that a conservative would be better for the country. Now you've added a bit of candour to your argument, and admitted it would be better for you. In terms of politics we are clear you are voting for the good of yourself, not the good of the nation. My comment about fear mongering to perpetuate war is absolutely valid. While not specifically tied to any party, it was intended as rebuttal to your comments regarding environmental fear mongering. Enlighten me as to how I am off base? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well i'm very left wing in my beliefs, I finish my degree in 2 months and will walk into a job paying a very nice salary. I also stand to inherit several properties..... Come back here in 5 years and I can assure you that you will not be quite so left wing by then. I agree that as you get older and own more stuff, feel you've worked your socks off (Saturday/holiday job from 14 and in proper employment from 17 puts me at 36 years working, paying in and not taking out other than NHS and my school education in my case) you can begin to soften your left wing leanings. However, it isn't a given and is a tad patronising to do the pat on the head, you young 'uns will see things my way as you get older schtick. " Read what he said and then tell me again that turkeys vote for Christmas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Finally being honest? I am always honest. I mean why not be honest - no better place to be honest than on an anonymous forum lol I don't "support" anyone. I vote for people who would most closely represent my interests. Not everything that the conservative party do I agree with. I don't agree with an EU referendum, I dont agree with their stance on drugs, I dont agree with the negative way that they have approached this election campaign. AS for the terror comments. If you think that is just a conspiracy then you are way off base. That is not party political leaning in any direction. Voting wise, in the end it comes down to my life experience and fundamental beliefs. The conservatives are closest to my core beliefs and so that is who I vote for. My beliefs were fashioned by 15 years at sea in the days when being at sea meant actually being in port. You were initially purporting that a conservative would be better for the country. Now you've added a bit of candour to your argument, and admitted it would be better for you. In terms of politics we are clear you are voting for the good of yourself, not the good of the nation. My comment about fear mongering to perpetuate war is absolutely valid. While not specifically tied to any party, it was intended as rebuttal to your comments regarding environmental fear mongering. Enlighten me as to how I am off base? " Let me be absolutely clear. I think that a conservative led government would be in the best interests of the country because we have seen what five years of conservatism has done to the UK, compared to what five years of socialism has done in France from broadly the same starting position. If anything, UK PLC was probably more fucked at the time but that makes our improvements all the more impressive. Anyway, with five years more of the same, I can see the UK being in a very good place because of the experience so far. I see Labour fucking the economy and the country and in the process try to extract ever more tax from an ever diminishing number of tax payers. No truly socialist Labour Party has EVER managed the economy competently. I discount the Blair years because Blair sucked up to big business and the City. New Labour are a million miles away from ED n ED and they will do to Britain what the Wilson years did. Of course, I can't be 100% sure that this will happen but based on my experience of Labour governments past as well the anti big business, anti city rhetoric that is coming out of red Ed... I forecast a calamity. Remember that ED n ED opposed every single economic policy of the last coalition and predicted deflation, massive job losses and high interest rates. Can you imagine where we would be now had we followed their doctrine? By the way, just as a side comment. I have just been on the phone to a non Dom client of mine and he has just given notice to his tenants in his Dubai house that he may be leaving London in the summer and moving to Dubai. This guy pays millions in UK tax and his intention now is to compromise his lifestyle by domiciliation in Dubai and managing the days that he spends in the UK to run his business here. Big loss to the Treasury. I bet there will be a lot of people looking a plan B. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it's a Tory housing policy, you can rely on it being desperately ill thought through, with the only long term beneficiaries being private landlords and property speculators." Nothing ill thought out about a policy that strips social housing stock from organisations that are set up to provide for those in need of social housing and over time transfer that housing stock to those who are rich and see the poor as an income stream. Just your standard Tory policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is madness. If you didn't see it watch Rooms, Rogues and Renters on BBC2 last night. " What a shocking programme, just watched it. If ever there was an advert justifying compulsory landlord licensing/registration, that is it! It's like we're back in Victorian times. Mr ddc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Finally being honest? I am always honest. I mean why not be honest - no better place to be honest than on an anonymous forum lol I don't "support" anyone. I vote for people who would most closely represent my interests. Not everything that the conservative party do I agree with. I don't agree with an EU referendum, I dont agree with their stance on drugs, I dont agree with the negative way that they have approached this election campaign. AS for the terror comments. If you think that is just a conspiracy then you are way off base. That is not party political leaning in any direction. Voting wise, in the end it comes down to my life experience and fundamental beliefs. The conservatives are closest to my core beliefs and so that is who I vote for. My beliefs were fashioned by 15 years at sea in the days when being at sea meant actually being in port. You were initially purporting that a conservative would be better for the country. Now you've added a bit of candour to your argument, and admitted it would be better for you. In terms of politics we are clear you are voting for the good of yourself, not the good of the nation. My comment about fear mongering to perpetuate war is absolutely valid. While not specifically tied to any party, it was intended as rebuttal to your comments regarding environmental fear mongering. Enlighten me as to how I am off base? Let me be absolutely clear. I think that a conservative led government would be in the best interests of the country because we have seen what five years of conservatism has done to the UK, compared to what five years of socialism has done in France from broadly the same starting position. If anything, UK PLC was probably more fucked at the time but that makes our improvements all the more impressive. Anyway, with five years more of the same, I can see the UK being in a very good place because of the experience so far. I see Labour fucking the economy and the country and in the process try to extract ever more tax from an ever diminishing number of tax payers. No truly socialist Labour Party has EVER managed the economy competently. I discount the Blair years because Blair sucked up to big business and the City. New Labour are a million miles away from ED n ED and they will do to Britain what the Wilson years did. Of course, I can't be 100% sure that this will happen but based on my experience of Labour governments past as well the anti big business, anti city rhetoric that is coming out of red Ed... I forecast a calamity. Remember that ED n ED opposed every single economic policy of the last coalition and predicted deflation, massive job losses and high interest rates. Can you imagine where we would be now had we followed their doctrine? By the way, just as a side comment. I have just been on the phone to a non Dom client of mine and he has just given notice to his tenants in his Dubai house that he may be leaving London in the summer and moving to Dubai. This guy pays millions in UK tax and his intention now is to compromise his lifestyle by domiciliation in Dubai and managing the days that he spends in the UK to run his business here. Big loss to the Treasury. I bet there will be a lot of people looking a plan B." . Good luck to him in Dubai I say, that's not me being anti rich but me saying what's best for the uk. If he can't even be loyal enough to hang around and pay a bob or two more, well don't slam the door on the way out!. The very nature of capitalism is death and rebirth, as one person leaves, company fails, goes bankrupt.... Then another steps into the void, it's exactly how a free market should work. So bye bye enjoy Dubai, I hope he doesn't get caught naked on the beach though, there not quite as liberal as me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way, just as a side comment. I have just been on the phone to a non Dom client of mine and he has just given notice to his tenants in his Dubai house that he may be leaving London in the summer and moving to Dubai. This guy pays millions in UK tax and his intention now is to compromise his lifestyle by domiciliation in Dubai and managing the days that he spends in the UK to run his business here. Big loss to the Treasury. I bet there will be a lot of people looking a plan B.. Good luck to him in Dubai I say, that's not me being anti rich but me saying what's best for the uk. If he can't even be loyal enough to hang around and pay a bob or two more, well don't slam the door on the way out!. The very nature of capitalism is death and rebirth, as one person leaves, company fails, goes bankrupt.... Then another steps into the void, it's exactly how a free market should work. So bye bye enjoy Dubai, I hope he doesn't get caught naked on the beach though, there not quite as liberal as me! "This guy is of I**** descent and he runs his own commercial real estate business out of an office in a very nice part of the West End and he has a home in Ab Fab land. If things go wrong he plans to rent the HP house and re-domicile in Dubai where he has another home. He will then take all the profit from his UK Company as salary and manage his days in this country to avoid tax liability here. It is not ideal for him because he likes living in London but financially it will now make more sense if his worldwide assets are also going to be taxed by ED n ED. We as a country lose out by a significant number of £millions every year in lost tax revenue. This is one guy who I happen to know. There will be many, many more just like him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So how about this scenario. Housing stock is sold off, money goes into the LA coffers. The Government looks at how much money the LA has and decides to cut their grants as they have enough to carry out their essential services! Surely this could not happen! Oh, wait, it happened under the Thatcher regime, quelle surprise! Flashback to the eighties anyone?" Well it wouldn't, because local authorities already don't retain the receipts from right to buy sales. And if they did they'd be capital receipts so legally they couldn't use them to provide services anyway, only for capital investment. This government has fucked over LAs a lot but this isn't the way they're doing it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"State/local authority/social housing is a relic from the post war years. Why on earth do we want to be encouraging people to be dependant on the state providing housing and money from cradle to grave? I dont understand why some people think that the social housing / welfare concepts that have existed in this country for 60 years should go on ad infinitum? There are other countries in the world that have perfectly good privately operated housing schemes where the private investors partner with local authorities. My opinion is that the state should butt out of our lives and as a nation we should all strive to be much more ambitious and aspirational. State dependancy through housing, tax credits and in work benefits is not good for anyone - recipient or payee. Stands back and awaits the Green/Socialist coalition to arrive and slam the very thought of home ownership, ambition and success. Go on... Tell us. We would all be much happier earning less and living in houses supplied for life by the government?... Yeh, right. Have a look at the programme that was on BBC2 last night. The private landlords in partnership with local government is to get as much housing benefit out of the system for as little provision as possible. I have posted on the forum before about rooms in London being rented for £800 a month - a room no more. I was only slightly aware of the rental of beds but it seems that too is on the increase. " . A room being rented at the price which you quote would have to be in a central area of London and in a house that is in perfect condition. These rooms would be let to professionals and the type of properties or rooms which these tenants rent would have no impact on social housing . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way, just as a side comment. I have just been on the phone to a non Dom client of mine and he has just given notice to his tenants in his Dubai house that he may be leaving London in the summer and moving to Dubai. This guy pays millions in UK tax and his intention now is to compromise his lifestyle by domiciliation in Dubai and managing the days that he spends in the UK to run his business here. Big loss to the Treasury. I bet there will be a lot of people looking a plan B.. Good luck to him in Dubai I say, that's not me being anti rich but me saying what's best for the uk. If he can't even be loyal enough to hang around and pay a bob or two more, well don't slam the door on the way out!. The very nature of capitalism is death and rebirth, as one person leaves, company fails, goes bankrupt.... Then another steps into the void, it's exactly how a free market should work. So bye bye enjoy Dubai, I hope he doesn't get caught naked on the beach though, there not quite as liberal as me!
This guy is of I**** descent and he runs his own commercial real estate business out of an office in a very nice part of the West End and he has a home in Ab Fab land.
If things go wrong he plans to rent the HP house and re-domicile in Dubai where he has another home. He will then take all the profit from his UK Company as salary and manage his days in this country to avoid tax liability here.
It is not ideal for him because he likes living in London but financially it will now make more sense if his worldwide assets are also going to be taxed by ED n ED. We as a country lose out by a significant number of £millions every year in lost tax revenue.
This is one guy who I happen to know. There will be many, many more just like him.". Again what I'm saying is your trying to corrupt a free market. If he thinks it's better in Dubai for him so be it, I've got nothing personal against him leaving. But the entire point of free market economics, is that somebody will fill his shoes!. This modern capitalist bullshit that there's only so many go getters in a society is just that utter bollocks. Somebody will fill that role he leaves and that person will be willing to pay the tax we ask them to pay. The point your making about paying tax in one country while making your profits in another is the exact problem that globalisation has caused every other western government!. You like honesty.... Let's be honest. You want more but want to pay less?. You want to live longer with free health care but want too pay less. You want growth without debt? You want to use more oil without using all the oil. You want to keep taking more and more from natural finite resources but you want them to last forever?. Let's be honest none of this is remotely possible, it's not grandstanding global ideology... It's basic common sense. Let's be honest you want more and your happy to have more providing everybody else in the world is held in utter abject poverty. Let's be honest you really really don't like paying tax, you want to keep hold of as much of your money as possible (gwizz and I don't)... But you also want more and better services, you want to keep trident and military spending and you want your dear old parents to keep their pension.... Let's be honest we agree that we detest terrorist states but we turn a blind eye to our own terrorism committed for the Nobelist cause of capitalism. Let's be honest... The real problem is that 6% of deficit we spend on those work shy bums that cause our 57% over budget spend!!. Yeah if we get that 6% working that will really cure the problem, well no but it will make you happier.. Yeah! Nobody likes working their ass off while others dilly dally their days away in town centres drinking cider with their stupid fucking pit bulls with stupid fucking collars... Yeah I'm left wing I'm not fucking blind, that generation is fucked, it's way way way to late to help them, they were fucked over before they were born by sub standard shite education and services given to them by successive sub standard shite governance by both colours. But let's really be honest all the pollution Billon's of tonnes of carcinogenic particulates, water contamination, catastrophic environmental damage the size of Wales on a yearly basis, 70% of species lost within 40 years but it's OK none of that is bad because we've got rich, well when I see we've got rich 1% of us got rich and in the end being honest as long as that 1% can avoid paying a bit of that wealth to help some others while living a ridiculously stupid wasteful utterly hedonistic lifestyle of helicopter jet pads, air conditioned ski slopes in desserts and diamond encrusted I phones. Well let's be honest who gives a fuck ... Certainly not the people living those lifestyles that's for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again what I'm saying is your trying to corrupt a free market. If he thinks it's better in Dubai for him so be it, I've got nothing personal against him leaving. But the entire point of free market economics, is that somebody will fill his shoes!...... " A bit too long to wade through that, but you are missing the point. He can run his business from anywhere in the world - he has the capacity. His business is rooted to the UK but he does not necessarily need to be here all day every day to run it. Up until now he took part salary and part dividend and both had a stake that went to the Treasury. By upping sticks, the Treasury lose all the CT because he transfers the dividend to salary for he and his wife and they also lose their share of that because they will be non domiciled in the UK by reason of the amount of days that they will be spending here. You watch this start to happen more and more - the cost will be colossal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again what I'm saying is your trying to corrupt a free market. If he thinks it's better in Dubai for him so be it, I've got nothing personal against him leaving. But the entire point of free market economics, is that somebody will fill his shoes!...... A bit too long to wade through that, but you are missing the point. He can run his business from anywhere in the world - he has the capacity. His business is rooted to the UK but he does not necessarily need to be here all day every day to run it. Up until now he took part salary and part dividend and both had a stake that went to the Treasury. By upping sticks, the Treasury lose all the CT because he transfers the dividend to salary for he and his wife and they also lose their share of that because they will be non domiciled in the UK by reason of the amount of days that they will be spending here. You watch this start to happen more and more - the cost will be colossal. " .. Yes I know, I pointed that out in my second paragraph, it's a problem every western country is facing due to globalisation. But just like it was caused by politics it CAN be solved by politics given the right amount of pressure by the people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Conservative government would extend the right-to-buy scheme for housing association tenants in England, David Cameron will say, as he unveils his party's general election manifesto. The PM will say up to 1.3 million tenants could buy their homes at a discount as a result, insisting the Tories are the party of working people. The Conservatives will also pledge a fund to help build 400,000 new homes. Under current rules, about 800,000 housing association tenants have a "right to acquire" their homes under smaller discounts, but the Conservatives would offer those people the same reductions as for those in local authority homes. And they would extend the scheme to those who currently have no purchase rights at all, estimated to be about 500,000 people. The move would be funded by new rules forcing councils to sell properties ranked in the most expensive third of their type in the local area, once they become vacant. The Conservatives say every house purchased will be replaced "on a one-for-one basis" with more affordable homes and no-one will be forced to leave their home. I have real reservations about this. I understand that they want to help more people own their own properties. I cannot see how their new builds will keep up with the sell offs which will be generated. There will end up being less Social Housing stock which only fuels the private rented sector and the Housing Market in general. Once this extra Housing Association stock is gone, it can't be regained! I also wonder, whether there are figures on how many properties end up being repossessed once purchased, because those who buy them, cannot afford them. Then they end up homeless and the whole cycle starts again. " totally agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course...but the majority of people will think no more deeply about this than 'discount houses, get in!'" Unfortunately, most of the people in social housing have incomes that will prevent them from getting anywhere near a mortgage application. This is another pointless promise; I used to vote for the conservatives (note the lack of capitalization) but this year, I'm unable to vote for any candidate as no-one has published where the money, otherwise know as cuts to service, is coming from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated it all, as the Tory manifesto is typically absent of detail on where their cuts will fall. It boils down to: Massive cuts to local government services Massive cuts to benefits payments. So, if your vision of progress for the UK is living in a steadily collapsing economy surrounded by the dispossessed poor and crumbling local services while the housing market bubble is desperately inflated - Vote Conservative!" Local government being fucked over some more is the likely scenario no matter which party or combination of them gets into power. And none of the parties will tackling the housing bubble because it would be political suicide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again what I'm saying is your trying to corrupt a free market. If he thinks it's better in Dubai for him so be it, I've got nothing personal against him leaving. But the entire point of free market economics, is that somebody will fill his shoes!...... A bit too long to wade through that, but you are missing the point. He can run his business from anywhere in the world - he has the capacity. His business is rooted to the UK but he does not necessarily need to be here all day every day to run it. Up until now he took part salary and part dividend and both had a stake that went to the Treasury. By upping sticks, the Treasury lose all the CT because he transfers the dividend to salary for he and his wife and they also lose their share of that because they will be non domiciled in the UK by reason of the amount of days that they will be spending here. You watch this start to happen more and more - the cost will be colossal. .. Yes I know, I pointed that out in my second paragraph, it's a problem every western country is facing due to globalisation. But just like it was caused by politics it CAN be solved by politics given the right amount of pressure by the people" I will give you another little example. Labour have said that they would increase Corporation a Tax but still make it the lowest of the G7 countries which is 25%. That gives them room to up CT to 24%. I opened an Irish Company a couple of weeks ago. It is not worth the hassle now but if the red lemons do push up CT then a 12.5% CT rate in Ireland is worth dealing with the extra aggro. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated it all, as the Tory manifesto is typically absent of detail on where their cuts will fall. It boils down to: Massive cuts to local government services Massive cuts to benefits payments. So, if your vision of progress for the UK is living in a steadily collapsing economy surrounded by the dispossessed poor and crumbling local services while the housing market bubble is desperately inflated - Vote Conservative!" The alternative of course is to do a Greece and keep borrowing other people's money in order to support people in this country who feel entitled to only work 16 hours a week so they don't lose their entitlements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again what I'm saying is your trying to corrupt a free market. If he thinks it's better in Dubai for him so be it, I've got nothing personal against him leaving. But the entire point of free market economics, is that somebody will fill his shoes!...... A bit too long to wade through that, but you are missing the point. He can run his business from anywhere in the world - he has the capacity. His business is rooted to the UK but he does not necessarily need to be here all day every day to run it. Up until now he took part salary and part dividend and both had a stake that went to the Treasury. By upping sticks, the Treasury lose all the CT because he transfers the dividend to salary for he and his wife and they also lose their share of that because they will be non domiciled in the UK by reason of the amount of days that they will be spending here. You watch this start to happen more and more - the cost will be colossal. .. Yes I know, I pointed that out in my second paragraph, it's a problem every western country is facing due to globalisation. But just like it was caused by politics it CAN be solved by politics given the right amount of pressure by the people I will give you another little example. Labour have said that they would increase Corporation a Tax but still make it the lowest of the G7 countries which is 25%. That gives them room to up CT to 24%. I opened an Irish Company a couple of weeks ago. It is not worth the hassle now but if the red lemons do push up CT then a 12.5% CT rate in Ireland is worth dealing with the extra aggro." . These tax breaks were given by governments! There not natural law!. In the end with enough will they will be closed by government, but it will take a will of the people to change... On that I won't hold my breath, the majority of the population are either to busy/can't be arsed/will vote for anything that suits their colour/busy watching x factor! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated it all, as the Tory manifesto is typically absent of detail on where their cuts will fall. It boils down to: Massive cuts to local government services Massive cuts to benefits payments. So, if your vision of progress for the UK is living in a steadily collapsing economy surrounded by the dispossessed poor and crumbling local services while the housing market bubble is desperately inflated - Vote Conservative! The alternative of course is to do a Greece and keep borrowing other people's money in order to support people in this country who feel entitled to only work 16 hours a week so they don't lose their entitlements." . We do and have always been in debt and borrowing "other peoples money" (although technically what we're actually borrowing is our children's future tax's). That aside even if you completely scrapped every non working benefit, you wouldn't cure or even remotely dent the deficit!. I also told you this before in paragraph 4 above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated it all, as the Tory manifesto is typically absent of detail on where their cuts will fall. It boils down to: Massive cuts to local government services Massive cuts to benefits payments. So, if your vision of progress for the UK is living in a steadily collapsing economy surrounded by the dispossessed poor and crumbling local services while the housing market bubble is desperately inflated - Vote Conservative!" the problem for me is when the chancellor is asked 18 times "where are you going to find the money/what are you going to cut to fund your promises" and 18 times he avoids the question..... it doesn't really scream credibility or well thought out..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated it all, as the Tory manifesto is typically absent of detail on where their cuts will fall. It boils down to: Massive cuts to local government services Massive cuts to benefits payments. So, if your vision of progress for the UK is living in a steadily collapsing economy surrounded by the dispossessed poor and crumbling local services while the housing market bubble is desperately inflated - Vote Conservative! The alternative of course is to do a Greece and keep borrowing other people's money in order to support people in this country who feel entitled to only work 16 hours a week so they don't lose their entitlements." You don't even understand why what you've written is nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated it all, as the Tory manifesto is typically absent of detail on where their cuts will fall. It boils down to: Massive cuts to local government services Massive cuts to benefits payments. So, if your vision of progress for the UK is living in a steadily collapsing economy surrounded by the dispossessed poor and crumbling local services while the housing market bubble is desperately inflated - Vote Conservative! The alternative of course is to do a Greece and keep borrowing other people's money in order to support people in this country who feel entitled to only work 16 hours a week so they don't lose their entitlements. You don't even understand why what you've written is nonsense." Well clearly you do and that is all that matters in your world eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
