Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Jools

The Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

My Grandson asked me why people who work for someone else, have to use PAYE, have a mortgage, a house that goes up and down in value depending on somebody panicking in Docklands and are told the yare spending more than they are worth . . .

ever vote Conservative?

He asked me, Don't they realise that is why so many younger people would rather believe Corbyn than Johnson and his cohorts and why they will vote Labour.

Well I had a mortgage a house that went up and down in price and paid PAYE and many of those years under a Labour government. Strangely it didn't seem to make much difference other than the mortgage rate going higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I had a mortgage a house that went up and down in price and paid PAYE and many of those years under a Labour government. Strangely it didn't seem to make much difference other than the mortgage rate going higher.

True, but in different times Ricardo. Dare I say a time when greed was not what it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Well I had a mortgage a house that went up and down in price and paid PAYE and many of those years under a Labour government. Strangely it didn't seem to make much difference other than the mortgage rate going higher.

True, but in different times Ricardo. Dare I say a time when greed was not what it is now.

Sadly house prices which have generally gone up are now totally out of reach of the average Jo.

Could you get a mortgage to buy your own house even if you never moved ? For nearly everybody of the boomer generation that's a big no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Well I had a mortgage a house that went up and down in price and paid PAYE and many of those years under a Labour government. Strangely it didn't seem to make much difference other than the mortgage rate going higher.

True, but in different times Ricardo. Dare I say a time when greed was not what it is now.

Have you forgotten the arguements about overtime down at the old factory😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Sadly house prices which have generally gone up are now totally out of reach of the average Jo.

Could you get a mortgage to buy your own house even if you never moved ? For nearly everybody of the boomer generation that's a big no.

The boomer generation didn't have to compete with so many new arrivals into the country in the way that millenials are. There's simply not enough housing for the level of population and house prices inevitably will rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ricardo said:

Well I had a mortgage a house that went up and down in price and paid PAYE and many of those years under a Labour government. Strangely it didn't seem to make much difference other than the mortgage rate going higher.

The mortgage rates under Thatcher and the Tory government were extremely high in 1979 through the 80’s. I am sure you will say it is the fault of the previous labour government!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The boomer generation didn't have to compete with so many new arrivals into the country in the way that millenials are. There's simply not enough housing for the level of population and house prices inevitably will rise.

Over 215,000 empty homes in the England.

The current government pledged to build 200,000 starter homes in 2014, so far they've not built a single one.

RTB is another idiot blaiming immigration for a problem that has not been caused by immigration, it's a familiar theme that RWNJ's hark back instead of facing reality.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Over 215,000 empty homes in the England.

The current government pledged to build 200,000 starter homes in 2014, so far they've not built a single one.

RTB is another idiot blaiming immigration for a problem that has not been caused by immigration, it's a familiar theme that RWNJ's hark back instead of facing reality.

 

Very much this. It's the simplistic view of blaming others rather than confronting the real issues. It's what government want us to believe so they don't have to take the blame for their failure of care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Over 215,000 empty homes in the England.

The current government pledged to build 200,000 starter homes in 2014, so far they've not built a single one.

RTB is another idiot blaiming immigration for a problem that has not been caused by immigration, it's a familiar theme that RWNJ's hark back instead of facing reality.

 

215k empty homes includes those properties where people are in the process of moving and are temporarily empty, often held up by chains which you would know about if you had ever bought or sold a house. It also includes homes that need repairs to make them habitable as you can't expect people to live in houses without utilities or a leaking roof. So the idea that there A4e 215k houses standing idle that could be occupied today is wrong. 

That these starter homes haven't been built proves my point that there are too many people and not enough houses and therefore house prices are unsustainably high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The boomer generation didn't have to compete with so many new arrivals into the country in the way that millenials are. There's simply not enough housing for the level of population and house prices inevitably will rise.

Post war immigration, Italians, Poles, returnees.

Windrush.

India, Pakistan, Bangladeshi migration.

Ugandan Asians.

The boomers had plenty of migration, The difference was that there were houses being built, there was social and genuinely affordable housing, schools and hospitals were funded.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

That these starter homes haven't been built proves my point that there are too many people and not enough houses and therefore house prices are unsustainably high. 

How does this statement prove your point?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herman said:

Very much this. It's the simplistic view of blaming others rather than confronting the real issues. It's what government want us to believe so they don't have to take the blame for their failure of care. 

So where are you going to build all these new homes? In the south-east which is already under the strain of over-capacity of the infrastructure? Public Transport overcrowded, roads full, school class sizes growing, hospitals unable to cope with demand, impossible to get doctor's appointments. It isn't a case of just building houses, you have to supply the infrastructure to go with it. Or do you think we should tear up more of the Norfolk country side to build more homes in our villages? Because I thought you Green eco-warriors were all against the destruction of natural habitat in the face of development. 

It's not a question of blaming others. It's about people like you who need to open their eyes and engage their brains and realise what the real implications of an ever-increasing population means for the UK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

215k empty homes includes those properties where people are in the process of moving and are temporarily empty, often held up by chains which you would know about if you had ever bought or sold a house. It also includes homes that need repairs to make them habitable as you can't expect people to live in houses without utilities or a leaking roof. So the idea that there A4e 215k houses standing idle that could be occupied today is wrong. 

That these starter homes haven't been built proves my point that there are too many people and not enough houses and therefore house prices are unsustainably high. 

RTB has no knowledge of the housing sector otherwise he would know he's talking b0ll0cks.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03012

The full report is linked from the above, I don't suppose he'll take the time to educate himself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Herman said:

Post war immigration, Italians, Poles, returnees.

Windrush.

India, Pakistan, Bangladeshi migration.

Ugandan Asians.

The boomers had plenty of migration, The difference was that there were houses being built, there was social and genuinely affordable housing, schools and hospitals were funded.

 

 

 

Immigration was at sustainable levels prior to the Millennium. Then Blair and Brown opened up the gates to higher levels of immigration without supplying the infrastructure to go with it because they totally underestimated what the levels of immigration would be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

So where are you going to build all these new homes? In the south-east which is already under the strain of over-capacity of the infrastructure? Public Transport overcrowded, roads full, school class sizes growing, hospitals unable to cope with demand, impossible to get doctor's appointments. It isn't a case of just building houses, you have to supply the infrastructure to go with it. Or do you think we should tear up more of the Norfolk country side to build more homes in our villages? Because I thought you Green eco-warriors were all against the destruction of natural habitat in the face of development. 

It's not a question of blaming others. It's about people like you who need to open their eyes and engage their brains and realise what the real implications of an ever-increasing population means for the UK

There's plenty of brown field sites that can be used.

About 6% of the land in the UK is built on and about 3% is green urban (parks, private estates etc.)

The 'the country is full' myth is just that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you forgotten the arguements about overtime down at the old factory

That is a fair point but ultimately, overtime meant extra work. I remember the old arguments about not worth doing because of the extra tax. I suppose it depended on what the work was. Luckily as a printer, my job wasn't too taxing and overtime wasn't too bad. An extra money was always welcome and there was very little opportunity to get it elsewhere. 

Working on a building site in winter doesn't seem the best place to be working extra hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where are you going to build all these new homes? In the south-east which is already under the strain of over-capacity of the infrastructure? Public Transport overcrowded, roads full, school class sizes growing, hospitals unable to cope with demand, impossible to get doctor's appointments. It isn't a case of just building houses, you have to supply the infrastructure to go with it. Or do you think we should tear up more of the Norfolk country side to build more homes in our villages? Because I thought you Green eco-warriors were all against the destruction of natural habitat in the face of development. 

It's not a question of blaming others. It's about people like you who need to open their eyes and engage their brains and realise what the real implications of an ever-increasing population means for the UK

I don't know what Norfolk is like but my town, Redruth has many empty properties. I know it is alleged there are up to 200,000 empty properties in the UK.

Instead of paying housing allowance, why not give deserving people the money to repair and make habitable  a lot of these properties with a right to buy?

I agree we can't just keep tagging on new sub divisions onto existing places unless the infrastructure is in place. But I also agree there is still plenty of room for new houses. Trouble is people want to live in detached properties in solitude but with a hospital, airport, shopping arcade et al close by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So where are you going to build all these new homes? In the south-east which is already under the strain of over-capacity of the infrastructure? Public Transport overcrowded, roads full, school class sizes growing, hospitals unable to cope with demand, impossible to get doctor's appointments. It isn't a case of just building houses, you have to supply the infrastructure to go with it. Or do you think we should tear up more of the Norfolk country side to build more homes in our villages? Because I thought you Green eco-warriors were all against the destruction of natural habitat in the face of development. 

It's not a question of blaming others. It's about people like you who need to open their eyes and engage their brains and realise what the real implications of an ever-increasing population means for the UK

I don't know what Norfolk is like but my town, Redruth has many empty properties. I know it is alleged there are up to 200,000 empty properties in the UK.

Instead of paying housing allowance, why not give deserving people the money to repair and make habitable  a lot of these properties with a right to buy?

I agree we can't just keep tagging on new sub divisions onto existing places unless the infrastructure is in place. But I also agree there is still plenty of room for new houses. Trouble is people want to live in detached properties in solitude but with a hospital, airport, shopping arcade et al close by.

The number of empty properties is a scandal when we have so many homeless. The government has given local authorities incentives to bring empty properties back into use but the local authorities dont have sufficient resources to to take advantage of it. One good aspect of recent housing policy has been the introduction of a new system wherebye landlords who breach regulations can be fined by local authorities and the LA's can keep that money to finance their private sector housing regulation. As this is rolled out we should see LA's becoming more active in the private housing sector again. Much more needs to be done.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The boomer generation didn't have to compete with so many new arrivals into the country in the way that millenials are. There's simply not enough housing for the level of population and house prices inevitably will rise.

Any evidence to support this hypothesis? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem of the affordable housing shortage has far more to do with an aging population (less turnover of older properties) and the huge increase in singleton and single parent families. Immigration is just a part but dont get fooled by it. 

The of course not building properties as we did before and selling off council housing just might have something to do with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we've got a genuine list of what is wrong with the housing market. In no order of importance.

1 An aging and single population.

2. Far more broken up families.

3. Immigration.

4. Lack of building. (Yes RTB, I would build in Norfolk.)

5. Selling for investment purposes.

6. Sell off of housing stock and non-replacement.

7. Growth of universities and amounts pf students.

8. Land banking.

9, Green belt myth.

10. Second home owning.

Any others I've missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Herman said:

So we've got a genuine list of what is wrong with the housing market. In no order of importance.

1 An aging and single population.

2. Far more broken up families.

3. Immigration.

4. Lack of building. (Yes RTB, I would build in Norfolk.)

5. Selling for investment purposes.

6. Sell off of housing stock and non-replacement.

7. Growth of universities and amounts pf students.

8. Land banking.

9, Green belt myth.

10. Second home owning.

Any others I've missed?

Yes vacant dwellings and use of EDMO

Investment funds buying up prime London property and leaving it unlet

 

Edited by Van wink
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

Working on a building site in winter doesn't seem the best place to be working extra hours.

It isn't, but people are prepared to do it

The workers on the site I am on, in Keflavík, Iceland are currently keen for more hours, despite the sun not rising until about 9am (will be 11am in a few weeks) and setting at 5pm. Many of them are from East European countries 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guardian

"The former home secretary David Blunkett has said the “antisemitism” and “thuggery” within Labour makes him despair, compounding a difficult few days for the party.

Lord Blunkett, who was an MP for 28 years before becoming a Labour peer, said the likelihood of Jeremy Corbyn winning a majority was “extraordinarily slim”.

But he urged moderates within the party to “stay and fight” to ensure the “voice of reason” prevailed, following deputy leader Tom Watson’s decision to stand down.

The former cabinet minister’s comments came after two of its former MPs urged voters to back the Tories instead. Ian Austin and John Woodcock said they would be supporting the Conservatives as they did not believe Corbyn was fit to be in No 10.

 

And on Friday, Dame Margaret Hodge – one of the most prominent Jewish figures in Labour – declined to endorse the opposition leader as prime minister.

Writing in the Telegraph, Blunkett said: “The behaviour of the hard left within the Labour party – the antisemitism, the thuggery, the irrational views on security and international issues, and the lack of realisation that you have to embrace a big tent of people in order to win – certainly makes me despair."

 

 

Someone will be along to smear David Blunkett shortly.  Thing is though he is only saying what we all know.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer

A bit like this chap who perhaps should have spoken up sooner

Keir Starmer

Sad to see

arrive home from Bassetlaw today. A dedicated woman of principle, who always speaks up for those least heard. In public or in private unflinchingly considerate and respectful. Proud to have endorsed her.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/06/labour-accused-of-student-union-politics-in-candidate-row

 

Lord Mann, the former MP, said: “The people in Bassetlaw will not accept or vote for a Momentum stooge. People liked Sally Gimson because she was a strong personality.

“Momentum had stitched up the selection already to exclude good local candidates and now want to change the result because their candidate was not chosen. Local people won’t have it. It is crude – the worst kind of student union politics.”

 

Anybody remember "Militant Tendency"

"Militant, commonly called the Militant tendency, was a Trotskyist entryist group designed to infiltrate the British Labour Party. Its voice was the Militant newspaper that launched in 1964."

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, so it is all about Russia then...

If the British public votes in Boris and his compromised Tories after tomorrow's Sunday Times story is digested, then they deserve everything they are going get.....just saying, you were warned. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they care Surfer. So long as their team wins any evidence proving their team is corrupt as **** will be ignored. (Even the Times artcle is tucked away on their website.) (I have one attempt to post it up here before Nginx goes mental again.)

 

"Nine Russian business people who gave money to the Conservative Party are named in a secret intelligence report on the threats posed to UK democracy which was suppressed last week by Downing Street.

Oligarchs and other wealthy Tory donors were included in the report on illicit Russian activities in Britain by the cross-party intelligence and security select committee (ISC), whose publication was blocked by No 10.

Some Russian donors are personally close to the prime minister. Alexander Temerko, who has worked for the Kremlin’s defence ministry and has spoken warmly about his “friend” Boris Johnson, has gifted more than £1.2m to the Conservatives over the past seven years.

MPs on the ISC, which conducted an 18-month inquiry, were also briefed on Alexander Lebedev, the former KGB spy in London whom the last Labour government allowed to buy the London Evening Standard newspaper.

Lebedev’s son Evgeny invited Johnson when he was foreign secretary to parties at the family’s converted castle near Perugia, Italy. The future prime minister apparently travelled without the close-protection police officers that normally accompany senior ministers of state during the trip in April 2018.

The largest Russian Tory donor is Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Vladimir Chernukhin, a former ally of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. She paid £160,000 in return for a tennis match with Johnson and has donated more than £450,000 in the last year alone.

Britain’s intelligence agencies are understood to be “furious” at the delay in releasing the report because measures to protect sensitive information have already been taken.

It is not known whether the Tory donors are named in the public section of the report, or whether they have been included in its confidential annex, which will remain classified indefinitely.

The government’s argument that it needs more time to redact information has been dismissed by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler, Lord Ricketts, a former national security adviser, and Lord Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Last week, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, told MPs the delay was “utterly unjustifiable, unprecedented and clearly politically motivated”. She added: “I fear it is because they realise that this report will lead to other questions about the links between Russia and Brexit and the current leadership of the Tory party, which risks derailing their election campaign. What is Downing Street so worried about?”

Thornberry also raised a whistleblower’s claims regarding “relationships” that Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, made during the “mysterious three years he spent in post-communist Russia”. She said the Downing Street chief of staff allegedly met Vladislav Surkov, who is known as the “grey cardinal” of the Kremlin and has close links to Russia’s security agencies.

In the Commons, Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, said last week that he would not comment on security clearances, but denied the “insinuation” that No 10 was “in the grip of a Kremlin mole”

In a letter to Thornberry last week, Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, also did not deny the unusual arrangement. “Classified information, especially intelligence, is made available only to those with the appropriate security clearance,” he wrote. “This applies to Mr Cummings and his access is appropriate for someone in his role.”

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “We cannot speculate on what may or may not be in a leaked parliamentary report.”

Andrew Gwynne, a Labour parliamentary candidate, said: “Billionaires fund the Conservative Party, so this sordid cover-up shouldn’t be surprising. The Tories blocked this report and oppose tax transparency so their billionaire backers can continue to rip us off unchallenged.

“Labour is on the side of the many, not the few, so we’ll get dirty money out of politics, introduce an oligarch levy and take on the vested interests selling out our people and public services."

And just to add another likely suppression of Johnson's dodginess.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/09/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri-iopc-delay-announcement-investigation

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Van wink said:

Guardian

"The former home secretary David Blunkett has said the “antisemitism” and “thuggery” within Labour makes him despair, compounding a difficult few days for the party.

Lord Blunkett, who was an MP for 28 years before becoming a Labour peer, said the likelihood of Jeremy Corbyn winning a majority was “extraordinarily slim”.

But he urged moderates within the party to “stay and fight” to ensure the “voice of reason” prevailed, following deputy leader Tom Watson’s decision to stand down.

The former cabinet minister’s comments came after two of its former MPs urged voters to back the Tories instead. Ian Austin and John Woodcock said they would be supporting the Conservatives as they did not believe Corbyn was fit to be in No 10.

 

And on Friday, Dame Margaret Hodge – one of the most prominent Jewish figures in Labour – declined to endorse the opposition leader as prime minister.

Writing in the Telegraph, Blunkett said: “The behaviour of the hard left within the Labour party – the antisemitism, the thuggery, the irrational views on security and international issues, and the lack of realisation that you have to embrace a big tent of people in order to win – certainly makes me despair."

 

 

Someone will be along to smear David Blunkett shortly.  Thing is though he is only saying what we all know.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer

A bit like this chap who perhaps should have spoken up sooner

Keir Starmer

Sad to see

arrive home from Bassetlaw today. A dedicated woman of principle, who always speaks up for those least heard. In public or in private unflinchingly considerate and respectful. Proud to have endorsed her.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/06/labour-accused-of-student-union-politics-in-candidate-row

 

Lord Mann, the former MP, said: “The people in Bassetlaw will not accept or vote for a Momentum stooge. People liked Sally Gimson because she was a strong personality.

“Momentum had stitched up the selection already to exclude good local candidates and now want to change the result because their candidate was not chosen. Local people won’t have it. It is crude – the worst kind of student union politics.”

 

Anybody remember "Militant Tendency"

"Militant, commonly called the Militant tendency, was a Trotskyist entryist group designed to infiltrate the British Labour Party. Its voice was the Militant newspaper that launched in 1964."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/11/2019 at 10:44, Rock The Boat said:

So where are you going to build all these new homes? In the south-east which is already under the strain of over-capacity of the infrastructure? Public Transport overcrowded, roads full, school class sizes growing, hospitals unable to cope with demand, impossible to get doctor's appointments. It isn't a case of just building houses, you have to supply the infrastructure to go with it. Or do you think we should tear up more of the Norfolk country side to build more homes in our villages? Because I thought you Green eco-warriors were all against the destruction of natural habitat in the face of development. 

It's not a question of blaming others. It's about people like you who need to open their eyes and engage their brains and realise what the real implications of an ever-increasing population means for the UK

Is it that bad? Man, you must really hate whoever has been in power for most of the last decade then. Probably best that they're kicked out at the next election, yes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×