Join the Labour Party and save your country!

12357339

Posts

  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026

    Not really. But the 10 billion bill is eye watering. Perhaps the first of many expensive ideas up his sleeve.
  • LookyhereLookyhere Posts: 987
    the election is for labour party supporters to elect THEIR leader, this country needs an effective opposition.

    an accountant is deemed a suitable person to sign a firearms certificate and such a person should not be trying to distort this election and get an unelectable Corbyn into the driving seat.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    the election is for labour party supporters to elect THEIR leader, this country needs an effective opposition.

    an accountant is deemed a suitable person to sign a firearms certificate and such a person should not be trying to distort this election and get an unelectable Corbyn into the driving seat.

    Was he not required to garner the support of 35(?) MPs to have his nomination accepted? Clearly a sizable portion of the Parliamentary Labour Party think he is electable, and as such is their preferred candidate.

    Do they do family membership, Stevo? I could get the whole family involved. :lol:
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    All the posters on here saying we need an effective opposition, where was your outrage when Kinnochio (The best PM we never had, according to one contributor to this forum) stood up at the Party conference in 2007 and said of the Tories,'We will grind the bastards into the dust'?
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,262
    the election is for labour party supporters to elect THEIR leader, this country needs an effective opposition.

    an accountant is deemed a suitable person to sign a firearms certificate and such a person should not be trying to distort this election and get an unelectable Corbyn into the driving seat.

    I'm sure an accountant is a perfectly respectable profession but I don't see why an accountant should be any more above certain behaviours than a dustman, teacher, jobseeker or any other way of making a living. I agree it's rather immature behaviour but it's immature whatever job you do or do not do.
    Holbrook Sports FC Women - sign for us
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,433
    All the posters on here saying we need an effective opposition, where was your outrage when Kinnochio (The best PM we never had, according to one contributor to this forum) stood up at the Party conference in 2007 and said of the Tories,'We will grind the bastards into the dust'?
    And what goes around, comes around...

    It's no different to voting Conservative in the elections, just via a slightly more indirect route :) . If people think it's immature to take actions that could help save us from a party that is highly likely to put this country back into the financial mire if it gets in power, then I'm proudly off out to buy a dummy. Although unlike some on here, I will not spit it out :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    All the posters on here saying we need an effective opposition, where was your outrage when Kinnochio (The best PM we never had, according to one contributor to this forum) stood up at the Party conference in 2007 and said of the Tories,'We will grind the bastards into the dust'?
    And what goes around, comes around...

    It's no different to voting Conservative in the elections, just via a slightly more indirect route :) . If people think it's immature to take actions that could help save us from a party that is highly likely to put this country back into the financial mire if it gets in power, then I'm proudly off out to buy a dummy. Although unlike some on here, I will not spit it out :wink:


    it was a global crisis that put us in the financial mire and the measures taken by labour at the time, were with tory support, as well you know. or were you one of the very few calling for far more financial regulation ? no, i didnt think so.

    its an election for a labour leader, not a PM or the election of a government but you know that as well, so what are saving anyone from anything? rather arrogant, isnt up to the electorate in 2020 to decide?

    Personally i think this country needs saving from the Tories but thats not something you do know :wink:
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    All the posters on here saying we need an effective opposition, where was your outrage when Kinnochio (The best PM we never had, according to one contributor to this forum) stood up at the Party conference in 2007 and said of the Tories,'We will grind the bastards into the dust'?

    Kinnock was using political rhetoric. The Daily Mailegraph is encouraging practical action. That's quite a big difference.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    it was a global crisis that put us in the financial mire and the measures taken by labour at the time, were with tory support, as well you know. or were you one of the very few calling for far more financial regulation ? no, i didnt think so.

    Don't be silly. It's the job of the Tory to support complete deregulation of the banking industry.
    • A vast range of regulations on the financial services industry should either be abolished or watered down, including money-laundering restrictions affecting banks and building societies. Mr Redwood's group also sees "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    So, how many cities impose rent controls and how many do not? That should give a better idea of how good an idea this is seen to be.

    Without knowing how many cities could be said to need rent controls, it doesn't give much of an idea at all. Rent controls would be unnecessary in any place with a plentiful supply of affordable, quality housing.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,433
    So, how many cities impose rent controls and how many do not? That should give a better idea of how good an idea this is seen to be.

    Without knowing how many cities could be said to need rent controls, it doesn't give much of an idea at all. Rent controls would be unnecessary in any place with a plentiful supply of affordable, quality housing.
    There are loads of cities around the world which are fairly expensive to rent property in certain parts. I guess the problem for mamba is finding ones that have rent controls, hence the deafening silence :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    So, how many cities impose rent controls and how many do not? That should give a better idea of how good an idea this is seen to be.

    Without knowing how many cities could be said to need rent controls, it doesn't give much of an idea at all. Rent controls would be unnecessary in any place with a plentiful supply of affordable, quality housing.
    There are loads of cities around the world which are fairly expensive to rent property in certain parts. I guess the problem for mamba is finding ones that have rent controls, hence the deafening silence :wink:
    Manhattan has rent control.
    It is also one of the most expensive places to rent if you've not been in a controlled property for decades.
    Square that circle.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,433
    Well done, we're up to 2.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    So, how many cities impose rent controls and how many do not? That should give a better idea of how good an idea this is seen to be.

    Without knowing how many cities could be said to need rent controls, it doesn't give much of an idea at all. Rent controls would be unnecessary in any place with a plentiful supply of affordable, quality housing.
    There are loads of cities around the world which are fairly expensive to rent property in certain parts. I guess the problem for mamba is finding ones that have rent controls, hence the deafening silence :wink:


    People aren't too bothered about the fact that there are parts of town which are expensive to rent, people start complaining when you have a whole region or country which is hideously expensive.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    I think it's the entire NY state which uses rent controls, not just NYC. Los Angeles, Washington DC and San Francisco (IIRC) also have various forms.

    According to this, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland all use rent controls

    Is that enough for you to be getting on with?
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Oh, and various parts of Canada too.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Much of europe has some form of rent control and or provision of affordable social housing.
    I can also accept that rent control needs to be handled carefully or it could cause other issues but you just dismiss it of of hand, for you sky hi rents that the tax payer ends up subsidising is all ok in stevo land but i want my taxes to go to social services: help for the vulnerable, to provide a great ed / nhs system but housing benefit goes straight into the pockets of the wealthy and its dead money, a council with its own housing stock has assets and an income stream.
    The uk has the highest housing costs of any country in europe, Paris has a 20% of housing must be for social housing, we are getting rid of council housing, is this a great policy?
    the SE cannot recruit enough essential staff, you didnt ans this point did you? or put fwd an alternative solution either.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,433
    I think it's the entire NY state which uses rent controls, not just NYC. Los Angeles, Washington DC and San Francisco (IIRC) also have various forms.

    According to this, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland all use rent controls

    Is that enough for you to be getting on with?
    Yes thanks. It usefully highlight the two main issues with rent controls. One is that ifmappliedmtomthenprivate sector it causes disinvestmemt in rental housing stock which is needed. Two is that this only works where there is plenty of social housing stock available. Not always the case and probabl not in the UK.

    However the underlying reason for wanting this appears to more the leftie aversion to anyone who has the temerity to try to make money from renting out property. How dare they... :roll: Ironically these landlords that mamba seems to think are simply profiteering actual, perform more of a useful function that someone who just sticks their money in the bank or similar. Limit the returns on property and they may just stick their money in the bank instead. The buyers are then more likely to be those who can afford their own homes, thereby reducing the housing stock available to renters. Not really what was the aim of rent controls...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,433
    Yep, could be interesting, So Corbyn is plotting a coup if the result doesn't go his way - how very socialst.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Yes thanks. It usefully highlight the two main issues with rent controls. One is that ifmappliedmtomthenprivate sector it causes disinvestmemt in rental housing stock which is needed. Two is that this only works where there is plenty of social housing stock available. Not always the case and probabl not in the UK.

    We don't need more private rental stock. We need those houses back on the market for people to buy to live in.
    However the underlying reason for wanting this appears to more the leftie aversion to anyone who has the temerity to try to make money from renting out property. How dare they... :roll: Ironically these landlords that mamba seems to think are simply profiteering actual, perform more of a useful function that someone who just sticks their money in the bank or similar. Limit the returns on property and they may just stick their money in the bank instead. The buyers are then more likely to be those who can afford their own homes, thereby reducing the housing stock available to renters. Not really what was the aim of rent controls...

    If that's the only thing that you can see, it says a lot more about you than it does about me, mamba or any of the other "lefties". People in my generation have to pay ridiculously expensive rents, our finances are taking an absolute hammering and all the time, buying a house seems to be a fading dream. If you really imagine that I am more interested in stopping landlords making money than I am in having a more financially secure future for myself and my family, putting some money aside for our children and saving for our retirement, then that's a really dismal worldview you've got.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Stevo, you not addressing the points raised.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    People in my generation have to pay ridiculously expensive rents, our finances are taking an absolute hammering and all the time, buying a house seems to be a fading dream.
    I agree with your general point - There should be more council properties. Much more.

    I take issue with the section above though. You do not have to stay in an overpriced area.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    By the way, talking of leftie aversion to making money off property, didn't Adam Smith despise landlords?
  • verylonglegsverylonglegs Posts: 3,400
    Painting landlords as if they are doing everyone a favour and providing a noble service is nonsense. They aren't providing rental stock, they are buying up something in short supply for their own benefit, they don't supply anything as such. This notion that if they didn't exist then no new houses would appear makes no sense. Finchy is right in that the houses would just be purchased by owner-occupiers.

    On a wider scale I always find it quite baffling how anyone can argue against trying to lower the cost of housing for the populace as in a global economy any reduction in the cost of living makes us as a nation more competitive. Money being poured into housing is just dead money, it just becomes a meaningless figure on the balance sheet. Lower the cost of a roof over people heads, be it their rent or their mortgage and they'll have more disposable income to spend on other things like eating out etc, which in turn creates more jobs. I also don't see how this is leftist either, how is that tag relevant? It's not left or right, it's merely a case of looking after citizens basic needs for a wider mutual benefit. If that isn't a long term goal then what a censored state we are in.

    Rental controls are always bandied about but I think there are other measure that could be put in first. At start would be to ban BTL mortagages so if you want to speculate in the housing market then do so with your own cash upfront, not a loan. I also don't see a problem with limiting the number of homes someone owns, doesn't Robbie Fowler own something like 80 houses? I find that ridiculous. Maybe I'm a little biased though in his case as he has his own investment seminars http://rf-london.localspecific.com/ talking like he actually has some intelligent insight rather than just being able to take advantage of a certain set of circumstances. What a knob.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    People in my generation have to pay ridiculously expensive rents, our finances are taking an absolute hammering and all the time, buying a house seems to be a fading dream.
    I agree with your general point - There should be more council properties. Much more.

    I take issue with the section above though. You do not have to stay in an overpriced area.

    No, but I live where I do for family reasons. If it weren't for my family, I'd leave England without a moment's hesitation.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    People in my generation have to pay ridiculously expensive rents, our finances are taking an absolute hammering and all the time, buying a house seems to be a fading dream.
    I agree with your general point - There should be more council properties. Much more.

    I take issue with the section above though. You do not have to stay in an overpriced area.

    No, but I live where I do for family reasons. If it weren't for my family, I'd leave England without a moment's hesitation.
    It is still a lifestyle choice.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    People in my generation have to pay ridiculously expensive rents, our finances are taking an absolute hammering and all the time, buying a house seems to be a fading dream.
    I agree with your general point - There should be more council properties. Much more.

    I take issue with the section above though. You do not have to stay in an overpriced area.

    No, but I live where I do for family reasons. If it weren't for my family, I'd leave England without a moment's hesitation.
    It is still a lifestyle choice.

    Not entirely. It's a private family matter, I'm not going to discuss it on this forum, but sometimes people don't always have as much choice as they would like.
  • sungodsungod Posts: 11,762
    wrt to rental housing, the problem with uk, especially london, is that property has become the investment of choice, the influx of money from ouside the uk seeking safe haven and residency has exacerbated the problem

    mostly, the 'investment' is not building new stock, but simply buying up what's already there, driving prices higher without any benefit to the overall economy

    the pool of reasonably priced rental property has deliberately been destroyed by government driven sell-offs of council housing combined with restriction on using the income to replace stock, prices soar, availability plummets, duh, i stress it was deliberate, only an idiot would have failed to see the consequences

    i own property, no one ever subsidized me, but ffs what was the point of selling off council property that my taxes subsidise to make others a profit? absolutely criminal, one of the worst cases of politicians meddling in the market there's ever been, the damage will last decades
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    Not entirely. It's a private family matter, I'm not going to discuss it on this forum, but sometimes people don't always have as much choice as they would like.
    Fair enough. You may have compelling reasons.
    I would wager that it is a choice for most though.
    I personally know someone who refuses to leave London even though he can't afford to stay there, most of his friends and family are outside London and he could half his rent by moving. His choice to be skint but I get fed up of the moaning.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
Sign In or Register to comment.