Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 11:39:27 GMT
Might be a bit harsh on Al himself but that’s a good point actually. I do feel there is a certain ‘entitlement’ about the older generation- particularly the ones who have voted for Brexit, in that they made hay under the EU and built quite nice nest eggs for themselves through property and business precisely because the UK was able to transition from the “sick man of Europe” to quite a prosperous country as part of the EU and now they have done alright and despite all the projections about shrinking of the economy and loss of jobs they want to pull the ladder up after them and f**k everyone else. This attitude also seems to permeate down into national politics and there is a certain “buying into” the narrative of Corbyn as a full on communist who wants everyone to have money they haven’t earned (unfortunately I think Al is guilty of falling for that). Labour have some controversial policies but what I see from them mostly is a genuine and well meaning attempt to try and level some of the rank inequality in this country, the only people who would have a problem with that are the people I mentioned above- the older generation who milked the opportunity out of the land, creating a housing crisis for young people as they did so and now don’t want to give any opportunity back because hey, “I’m alright Jack”. It’s not their fault of course, the state enacted fiscal policies that enabled them to do very nicely (no tax on second homes creating buy to let etc). Housing is probably the single most significant driver (as well as tax avoidance) of the widening gap between classes and difficulty in social mobility and it’s almost inevitable that you would eventually get a party that seeks to do something about it and naturally that party is going to be smeared as being communist by those who want to maintain the status quo of rich getting richer. Over the years the ladder up to the rich has been set upon by policy so much that it’s being held together by string and tape to the point where now the rich just want to kick it away completely and have done with it. Nothing like a good bit of generalisation. Christ!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 11:44:30 GMT
Actually, part of the answer is simple: build more homes. Yet since 2014 the 200,000 new starter homes the Tories pledged to build didn’t happen. Hmm...any guesses as to why? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-50296672“ But the spending watchdog said the sites were all now being used for housing more generally, only some of which was affordable.” You can’t make it up sometimes  Absolutely And the "trickle down" effect is a myth. Us baby boomers are living longer than our previous generations, average is now above a 80. If you have kids in mid 20s to 30s, as most of us did, that means our kids might inherit the intrinsic value of our homes when they are in their 50s or 60s. Fat lot of good that is if you struggling with housing and a family when you in your 30s. We need to be building more social housing. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 11:50:39 GMT
Actually, part of the answer is simple: build more homes. Yet since 2014 the 200,000 new starter homes the Tories pledged to build didn’t happen. Hmm...any guesses as to why? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-50296672“ But the spending watchdog said the sites were all now being used for housing more generally, only some of which was affordable.” You can’t make it up sometimes Supply and demand. Build more homes, reduce demand on existing stock so reduce prices. Reducing prices will have a psychological effect on the voter's 'feel good' factor and the ability to borrow against the increasing value will affect the money flow and therefore the economy. It is all connected somewhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 12:05:13 GMT
Actually, part of the answer is simple: build more homes. Yet since 2014 the 200,000 new starter homes the Tories pledged to build didn’t happen. Hmm...any guesses as to why? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-50296672“ But the spending watchdog said the sites were all now being used for housing more generally, only some of which was affordable.” You can’t make it up sometimes Supply and demand. Build more homes, reduce demand on existing stock so reduce prices. Reducing prices will have a psychological effect on the voter's 'feel good' factor and the ability to borrow against the increasing value will affect the money flow and therefore the economy. It is all connected somewhere. Ooooh...we disagree!! (Made a mental note of time, date and topic) Homeownership as a basis for wealth creation is a spoof, it's a gigantic pyramid selling scam. You only get rich if demand is maintained below you, that is others always pay more. One day that supply of gullible newcomers to the market dries up. What happens then? Crash. The same as Right to Buy was a scam. By removing that many social homes from the rental market an artificial demand for bought homes was created. No real wealth was ever created, the buyers just paid a higher % of their incomes to banks who raked it in the interest. They then cross collateralized the mortgage to borrow and place bets on other "financial" instruments. Paper, it crashed in 2008. All the while the financial markets obeyed the Tory line in return for almost zero regulation and chunky donations to the party coffers. And people swallow this absolute guff. (Not aimed at anyone on here) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 12:10:39 GMT
Actually, part of the answer is simple: build more homes. Yet since 2014 the 200,000 new starter homes the Tories pledged to build didn’t happen. Hmm...any guesses as to why? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-50296672“ But the spending watchdog said the sites were all now being used for housing more generally, only some of which was affordable.” You can’t make it up sometimes Supply and demand. Build more homes, reduce demand on existing stock so reduce prices. Reducing prices will have a psychological effect on the voter's 'feel good' factor and the ability to borrow against the increasing value will affect the money flow and therefore the economy. It is all connected somewhere. That’s exactly what I was interring. As Oldie says the country needs new homes but does it *want* new homes? The government will not want to undercut house prices whilst also letting any renting serfs escape from their feudal yoke so the best they could come up with is help to buy where the developers saw that the buyer suddenly had more leverage and so jacked the cost of the houses up! Nice little winner for Persimmon and their CEO got a tidy 75 million bonus courtesy of the government and funded by tax payers. One hand washes the other. It’s arguable whether it even helped people get on the ladder as, anecdotally, it just helped people who could already afford a house afford a bigger one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 12:15:39 GMT
Supply and demand. Build more homes, reduce demand on existing stock so reduce prices. Reducing prices will have a psychological effect on the voter's 'feel good' factor and the ability to borrow against the increasing value will affect the money flow and therefore the economy. It is all connected somewhere. Ooooh...we disagree!! (Made a mental note of time, date and topic) Homeownership as a basis for wealth creation is a spoof, it's a gigantic pyramid selling scam. You only get rich if demand is maintained below you, that is others always pay more. One day that supply of gullible newcomers to the market dries up. What happens then? Crash. The same as Right to Buy was a scam. By removing that many social homes from the rental market an artificial demand for bought homes was created. No real wealth was ever created, the buyers just paid a higher % of their incomes to banks who raked it in the interest. They then cross collateralized the mortgage to borrow and place bets on other "financial" instruments. Paper, it crashed in 2008. All the while the financial markets obeyed the Tory line in return for almost zero regulation and chunky donations to the party coffers. And people swallow this absolute guff. (Not aimed at anyone on here) You mean it’s not actual wealth in the sense that people will continue to live in their homes so the worth is effectively just a number on paper? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 12:21:31 GMT
The Brexit Party not standing in 317 existing Conservative seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 11, 2019 12:25:19 GMT
Ooooh...we disagree!! (Made a mental note of time, date and topic) Homeownership as a basis for wealth creation is a spoof, it's a gigantic pyramid selling scam. You only get rich if demand is maintained below you, that is others always pay more. One day that supply of gullible newcomers to the market dries up. What happens then? Crash. The same as Right to Buy was a scam. By removing that many social homes from the rental market an artificial demand for bought homes was created. No real wealth was ever created, the buyers just paid a higher % of their incomes to banks who raked it in the interest. They then cross collateralized the mortgage to borrow and place bets on other "financial" instruments. Paper, it crashed in 2008. All the while the financial markets obeyed the Tory line in return for almost zero regulation and chunky donations to the party coffers. And people swallow this absolute guff. (Not aimed at anyone on here) You mean it’s not actual wealth in the sense that people will continue to live in their homes so the worth is effectively just a number on paper? Well none of it is really wealth as it is a debt until its paid off isnt it I am 37 and took out a 30 year mortgage at 31 with the wife. Bought a neglected 3 bed 'for life' house added value, which has allowed me to borrow to do other things to it. I was pretty fortunate to get on the ladder at a good time with the right property. I wouldnt change that for the world. In some respects negative equity matters not to be me barring misfortune as i dont intend to go anywhere. Was an interesting story the other day saying nee buyers were looking at bigger houses and shunning smaller 1 bed starter stuff as they are trying to future proof |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 12:39:11 GMT
The Brexit Party not standing in 317 existing Conservative seats. That’s game over then, I guess? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 12:46:04 GMT
Ooooh...we disagree!! (Made a mental note of time, date and topic) Homeownership as a basis for wealth creation is a spoof, it's a gigantic pyramid selling scam. You only get rich if demand is maintained below you, that is others always pay more. One day that supply of gullible newcomers to the market dries up. What happens then? Crash. The same as Right to Buy was a scam. By removing that many social homes from the rental market an artificial demand for bought homes was created. No real wealth was ever created, the buyers just paid a higher % of their incomes to banks who raked it in the interest. They then cross collateralized the mortgage to borrow and place bets on other "financial" instruments. Paper, it crashed in 2008. All the while the financial markets obeyed the Tory line in return for almost zero regulation and chunky donations to the party coffers. And people swallow this absolute guff. (Not aimed at anyone on here) You mean it’s not actual wealth in the sense that people will continue to live in their homes so the worth is effectively just a number on paper? Correct. And if the pyramid is pulled down there is higher than average chance people will be in negative equity territory. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 12:47:07 GMT
The Brexit Party not standing in 317 existing Conservative seats. That’s game over then, I guess? They seek him here, they seek him there, he is dedicated follower of ....bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 12:54:03 GMT
The Brexit Party not standing in 317 existing Conservative seats. That’s game over then, I guess? Apparently they are not standing in existing seats, by my reckoning they will lose 20-30 of those to SNP and Lib Dems. They still need to win in those Labour Leave seats and as far as I can see, the vote splitting is still a risk. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 12:58:16 GMT
One good bit of news that somebody pointed out is that, if the Brexit party are now a regional party they should be given the same amount of coverage as Plaid Cymru: ie none.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 11, 2019 13:06:06 GMT
The Brexit Party not standing in 317 existing Conservative seats. So Farage back tracking already. Is he now backing 'not Brexit' with Boris? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 13:10:52 GMT
That’s game over then, I guess? Apparently they are not standing in existing seats, by my reckoning they will lose 20-30 of those to SNP and Lib Dems. They still need to win in those Labour Leave seats and as far as I can see, the vote splitting is still a risk. I’d like to think you’re right, but it seems to me the biggest fracture is amongst remain. Corbyn’s mere existence means no-one can unite remain as the Lib Dem’s don’t want to remain enough that they would contemplate Corbyn as PM. At the very least it seems to me the path is open for Boris to claim a slender majority in Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 13:12:48 GMT
The Brexit Party not standing in 317 existing Conservative seats. So Farage back tracking already. Is he now backing 'not Brexit' with Boris? Farage backtracked the moment he realised the referendum was won. He is as hypocritical as the politicians he despise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 13:13:12 GMT
The Brexit Party not standing in 317 existing Conservative seats. So Farage back tracking already. Is he now backing 'not Brexit' with Boris? Backtracking perhaps, but will anyone really care what the ethics of it are? I will also say that Farage is at least doing what the politicians who want a second referendum won’t do and that is accept a compromise so he gets some form of Brexit. You have to admire him for that if nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 13:16:24 GMT
Apparently they are not standing in existing seats, by my reckoning they will lose 20-30 of those to SNP and Lib Dems. They still need to win in those Labour Leave seats and as far as I can see, the vote splitting is still a risk. I’d like to think you’re right, but it seems to me the biggest fracture is amongst remain. Corbyn’s mere existence means no-one can unite remain as the Lib Dem’s don’t want to remain enough that they would contemplate Corbyn as PM. At the very least it seems to me the path is open for Boris to claim a slender majority in Parliament. My concern too, 50/50 on small Boris Johnson majority. If he is short then possible short term coalition but they should contemplate Corbyn. Hopefully just electioneering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 13:23:20 GMT
I’d like to think you’re right, but it seems to me the biggest fracture is amongst remain. Corbyn’s mere existence means no-one can unite remain as the Lib Dem’s don’t want to remain enough that they would contemplate Corbyn as PM. At the very least it seems to me the path is open for Boris to claim a slender majority in Parliament. My concern too, 50/50 on small Boris Johnson majority. If he is short then possible short term coalition but they should contemplate Corbyn. Hopefully just electioneering. A horrible thought I’ve seen posted elsewhere: if Farage is now suddenly convinced whereas he was vehement last week, has he been promised no deal at the end of the consultation period in 2020? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 13:35:25 GMT
My concern too, 50/50 on small Boris Johnson majority. If he is short then possible short term coalition but they should contemplate Corbyn. Hopefully just electioneering. A horrible thought I’ve seen posted elsewhere: if Farage is now suddenly convinced whereas he was vehement last week, has he been promised no deal at the end of the consultation period in 2020? Depends if this is a real promise or a politician's promise. Real possibilty though. |
|
