politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Winning where? The Lib Dem targets for 2022
Comments
-
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.0 -
But politically toxic if you try and point that out.....brendan16 said:
Because that's the law. Social Housing is no longer allocated on the basis of responsibility, whether you work hard or add value to your community or do a useful job - but putting it brutally on your ability to churn out lots of children you don't have the means to provide for.tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.0 -
FWIW I don't actually feel hard done by. I believe that right to buy was a good policy. The real problem, in my opinion, is that we've had an open door immigration policy with Europe and we've kept interest rates at 0.5%. It's a toxic mix which none of our politicians want to address.brendan16 said:
Because that's the law. Social Housing is no longer allocated on the basis of responsibility, whether you work hard or add value to your community or do a useful job - but putting it brutally on your ability to churn out lots of children you don't have the means to provide for.tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.0 -
True , however when you have a conservative poster on here , saying the government is not just about Brexit.As they have a policy on private parking.One does wonder how bereft they are becoming.Casino_Royale said:Good analysis, and I think this is all largely academic unless they can get a leader who can make waves and get them noticed.
There are 7-8 seats there they should be able to swipe from the Tories in a "change" election, but I suspect fear of Corbyn within them is a greater motivator than kick-the-Tories out, at present.0 -
24 from 16 balls....0
-
20 from 15.....
Squeaky bum time....0 -
14 from 14.....-1
-
14 from 14...MarqueeMark said:20 from 15.....
Squeaky bum time....0 -
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
0 -
House the homeless in Ullapool.brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to work near where they live who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
In midge season.0 -
Won it0
-
England win!! Phew, that was close.0
-
Didn't one London borough try that a few years ago, renting places well outside the city (Clacton?) to house the long term unemployed?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!0 -
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.0 -
Now on to Federer-Cilic....0
-
For once its England bowlers that win the match for them, Curran in particular. Class performance from the young man.0
-
That was too close. Hope everyone got the good odds on the visitors.MarqueeMark said:England win!! Phew, that was close.
0 -
Proof please, and no ranting about Marxism unless you specify Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Zeppo - ismsSandpit said:
Tories need to get planning reforms through and go really hard on Corbyn over housing.brendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
We know he doesn't believe in private property at all, the idea that a vote for Labour will make it easier for young people to get on the housing ladder is madness.0 -
LSE:
A small but highly visible subset is lived in only occasionally. However, there was almost no evidence of homes being left permanently empty
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-is-the-role-of-overseas-investors-in-the-london-new-build-residential-market/0 -
Time to get themselves sorted out , get a job like tlg and rent their own home. If they don't like that put them in a hostel. Far too many moochers at each end of society nowadays , with the poor hard working sods in the middle paying for both lots.ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.0 -
Ultimately, that well illustrates Corbyn's problem. He is only interested in reining in one end of society. That he is preprared to give the other end a free pass really pisses off a large part of his natural vote though.malcolmg said:
Time to get themselves sorted out , get a job like tlg and rent their own home. If they don't like that put them in a hostel. Far too many moochers at each end of society nowadays , with the poor hard working sods in the middle paying for both lots.ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
The Tories problem is that they are perceived to be on the other end of that problem - eat the poor, whilst giving the rich a free pass to keep getting richer. But that has been their perennial problem.
The LibDems problem is...to be honest, who can be arsed with them?
0 -
Well he just announced today he’d take 9,000 homes out of the market. Everything Corbyn says about housing is about rented housing, he’s offering nothing to those who want to buy.OchEye said:
Proof please, and no ranting about Marxism unless you specify Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Zeppo - ismsSandpit said:
Tories need to get planning reforms through and go really hard on Corbyn over housing.brendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
We know he doesn't believe in private property at all, the idea that a vote for Labour will make it easier for young people to get on the housing ladder is madness.
Moreover, the banks would likely react to the uncertainty of a Corbyn government by hiking deposit requirements, making the practicality of buying a house even more onerous on the younger generation.0 -
It's a Mexican Wall statement. It doesn't stand any chance of being implemented, but sends a powerful message. In this case, that he sides with the homeless rather than with the property developers and foreign criminals investors who are sitting on empty property in London.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
0 -
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.0 -
Fifth set not going to be giving me much excuse to avoid being in the garden. Harumph!
C'mon Cilic!!0 -
So Corbyn = Trump???IanB2 said:
It's a Mexican Wall statement. It doesn't stand any chance of being implemented, but sends a powerful message. In this case, that he sides with the homeless rather than with the property developers and foreign criminals investors who are sitting on empty property in London.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
0 -
Later in its career, the T-1000 moved on from being a terminator, and made a good living winning Grand Slam tennis tournaments....0
-
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.0 -
You are Ben Bradley and I claim my £5brendan16 said:
Because that's the law. Social Housing is no longer allocated on the basis of responsibility, whether you work hard or add value to your community or do a useful job - but putting it brutally on your ability to churn out lots of children you don't have the means to provide for.tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.0 -
Totally agreeMarqueeMark said:
Ultimately, that well illustrates Corbyn's problem. He is only interested in reining in one end of society. That he is preprared to give the other end a free pass really pisses off a large part of his natural vote though.malcolmg said:
Time to get themselves sorted out , get a job like tlg and rent their own home. If they don't like that put them in a hostel. Far too many moochers at each end of society nowadays , with the poor hard working sods in the middle paying for both lots.ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
The Tories problem is that they are perceived to be on the other end of that problem - eat the poor, whilst giving the rich a free pass to keep getting richer. But that has been their perennial problem.
The LibDems problem is...to be honest, who can be arsed with them?0 -
Trump knows well and understands what he is doing , Corbyn ?????MarqueeMark said:
So Corbyn = Trump???IanB2 said:
It's a Mexican Wall statement. It doesn't stand any chance of being implemented, but sends a powerful message. In this case, that he sides with the homeless rather than with the property developers and foreign criminals investors who are sitting on empty property in London.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
0 -
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
0 -
That's 20 for Federer. Would not be surprised if he wins Wimbledon as well.0
-
Yes and maybe the rest of the country should not be paying to build all the infrastructure etc for them. Make them pay all their own bills and charge them for all the UK government jobs centred there as well.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
The practical . Good.
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.0 -
You can make the argument that many of those who didn't like Corbyn and were worried about him but were more worried about the Tories and May came out and reluctantly voted for Labour in seats where Labour and the Tories were competing.
Presumably though in seats where the Lib Dems and Labour were competing people were actively choosing Labour over the Lib Dems as opposed to Labour over the Conservatives. It would appear, at least in those seats that people did actually prefer the left wing option of Labour rather than being railroaded into it.
It does seem to be a popular train of thought that Labour voters were dragged in kicking and screaming, there are probably always voters not completely happy with the party they are voting for in every election but I would be surprised if Labour voters are more discontented with the party than previously, I would contend the reverse is true.
Somebody mentioned Jacinda Ardern earlier, surely she is pretty much Corbyn in the British context.
Labour (in NZ) went from being quite a drab affair with no real energy or enthusiasm to packing out events, young people grabbing selfies with the leader I even saw some articles from NZ that appeared to be from the left noting Corbyn's relative success in the UK and how they could bring that over to NZ in the time leading up to Ardern taking over.
Now this doesn't mean they necessarily share policy positions or are the same politically but the drive that seemed to help propel her to her own success was quite similar to what helped drive Corbyn.0 -
Given that he's also been playing in the eras of Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic, it is an incredible achievement.Morris_Dancer said:That's 20 for Federer. Would not be surprised if he wins Wimbledon as well.
0 -
After he won the 2010 Australian Open, Federer won one of the next 27 grand slams (2012 Wimbledon). He's now won three of the last five. He must really love playing tennis.Morris_Dancer said:That's 20 for Federer. Would not be surprised if he wins Wimbledon as well.
0 -
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.0 -
Mr. Nashe, indeed, although his rise coincided pretty much with Sampras tailing off, Federer's had to deal with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, yet he's still won a huge number of titles and continues to do so. It's immensely impressive.
Mr. 86, he's a great ambassador for the sport too.0 -
There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
0 -
The government is going to be paying market rents for empty homes in Kensington???!brendan16 said:
Same as happens with properties buy to let landlords rent to councils - the council pays you a rent and hands it back at the end cleaned and if necessary repaired.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Yeah, still don't understand. Homeowners will be compulsorily required to lease it to the state, presumably? At what? A market rent? For how long? And what happens if the place gets trashed?brendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Andrew Marr show - he said itMexicanpete said:
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?HYUFD said:Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Very easy to avoid - don't leave properties empty long term and rent them out yourself or move in yourself.0 -
You might also try to consider how much wealth London would be creating without the rest of the UK.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
For one thing it would be a Corbynite Socialist Republic - you would really see the City relocate in that situation.0 -
On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.0 -
Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 (Sampras won that year's US Open so he wasn't totally past it). That was the last year that Wimbledon was a proper grass court tournament.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nashe, indeed, although his rise coincided pretty much with Sampras tailing off, Federer's had to deal with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, yet he's still won a huge number of titles and continues to do so. It's immensely impressive.
Mr. 86, he's a great ambassador for the sport too.0 -
pardon my ignorance, what changed at Wimbledon between 2001 and 2002tlg86 said:
Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 (Sampras won that year's US Open so he wasn't totally past it). That was the last year that Wimbledon was a proper grass court tournament.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nashe, indeed, although his rise coincided pretty much with Sampras tailing off, Federer's had to deal with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, yet he's still won a huge number of titles and continues to do so. It's immensely impressive.
Mr. 86, he's a great ambassador for the sport too.0 -
+1Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.0 -
Mr. 86, fair enough
The competition he's had to deal with has been great indeed. The 2008, I think, Wimbledon final against Nadal was phenomenal.0 -
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.Foxy said:There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
0 -
London Labour councils are largely dominated by centrists. But I agree with your central premise: solidarity is what should guide policy-making. We are all in it together, so we should all be helping each other out.another_richard said:
You might also try to consider how much wealth London would be creating without the rest of the UK.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
For one thing it would be a Corbynite Socialist Republic - you would really see the City relocate in that situation.
0 -
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.0 -
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Who pays the rentbrendan16 said:
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
0 -
I'd be interested in what the homes in London represent. How do they come about? Are they wealthy (if lazy) speculators? Are they sentimental family homes left after probate? Are their owners not known? What other kind of holes are they stuck in?YBarddCwsc said:
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.Foxy said:There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
0 -
Mr. B2, that'd be popular with younger people struggling to acquire a home but hit pensioners who have limited income but own their own home. Tricky.0
-
Shifting the balance of taxation from work to expensive property would be IMO a good idea.Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
I would though then make it much easier for expensive property to be redeveloped into multiple, cheaper units as compensation for the owners.0 -
One of the worlds most successful entrepreneurs, has died:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-28/ingvar-kamprad-ikea-s-swedish-billionaire-founder-has-died
I love my Poang.
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/collections/poang/0 -
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.Foxy said:
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.0 -
But the little old lady with wealth but no income gets hit hard.brendan16 said:
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.Foxy said:
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.0 -
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.YBarddCwsc said:
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.Foxy said:There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.0 -
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?SouthamObserver said:
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.0 -
Not a charmer, though monumentally successful.Foxy said:One of the worlds most successful entrepreneurs, has died:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-28/ingvar-kamprad-ikea-s-swedish-billionaire-founder-has-died
I love my Poang.
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/collections/poang/0 -
Me too.Foxy said:One of the worlds most successful entrepreneurs, has died:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-28/ingvar-kamprad-ikea-s-swedish-billionaire-founder-has-died
I love my Poang.
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/collections/poang/
These are great for a fiver:
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/products/chairs-stools-benches/chairs/gunde-folding-chair-black-art-00217797/0 -
Why on earth should they have faith in the "global economy" ?Foxy said:
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.
The "influencers" at Davos don't care about Copeland, or anyone but themselves.0 -
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.another_richard said:
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?SouthamObserver said:
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.0 -
So the very best that Corbyn's Hard Labour can hope for is a hung parliament where a precarious 73 year old Corbyn minority government cant do anything without the Liberals who hold the balance of power. Abolition of tuition fees is vetoed as are all radical socialist measures. Corbyn presides over a reluctant New Labour sort of government until his defeat a few years later.................................0
-
If only there was some kind of Europe wide organisation we could join to co-ordinate policies in this area.YBarddCwsc said:
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.Foxy said:There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.0 -
It was a Europe wide organisation that largely created the problem.Recidivist said:
If only there was some kind of Europe wide organisation we could join to co-ordinate policies in this area.YBarddCwsc said:
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.Foxy said:There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.0 -
I don't think there would be a Corbynista Socialist Republic in London. But then I know London pretty well. If London kept all the wealth it created it would be able to buy in whatever it needed. That's essentially what happens now, but London does it with only a portion of what it earns.another_richard said:
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?SouthamObserver said:
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
0 -
This is my favourite:another_richard said:
Me too.Foxy said:One of the worlds most successful entrepreneurs, has died:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-28/ingvar-kamprad-ikea-s-swedish-billionaire-founder-has-died
I love my Poang.
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/collections/poang/
These are great for a fiver:
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/products/chairs-stools-benches/chairs/gunde-folding-chair-black-art-00217797/
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/search/?k=PRODUKT milk-frother
Why get a cappuccino maker, when £1 buys you this (which works far better than the frothers on the great majority of machines).0 -
The end game of that scenario would depend also on how the post-Brexit (or abandoned Brexit) divisions played out within the opposition.stevef said:So the very best that Corbyn's Hard Labour can hope for is a hung parliament where a precarious 73 year old Corbyn minority government cant do anything without the Liberals who hold the balance of power. Abolition of tuition fees is vetoed as are all radical socialist measures. Corbyn presides over a reluctant New Labour sort of government until his defeat a few years later.................................
0 -
Oh the famous little old lady living in her £3m home she owns outright who has no money and is living on beans on toast.TheWhiteRabbit said:
But the little old lady with wealth but no income gets hit hard.brendan16 said:
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.Foxy said:
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.
Of course if she needed social care we would be quite happy to slap a £6k a month bill on her for the cost!
Said little old lady is just used as an excuse by wealthy London based property owners - some of whom are MPs - to ensure wealth is not taken into account in tax policy.
She would of course pay nothing while alive - as with her social care you would place a charge on her property and it would be paid out of her estate after death. So her poor relatives might only inherit £2.8m instead of £3m for a house she probably bought for £10k in the 1960s - poor diddums
Or she could just downsize to a £2m house rent it Jeremy Corbyn for a homeless family and go on year long world cruise. Such tough choices.0 -
Mr. Meeks, provincials?
Yorkshire isn't a province. It wasn't conquered by London. They're both parts of England.0 -
The solution here has always been to allow the liability to be rolled up and set against the sale value of the property, when it is next sold.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B2, that'd be popular with younger people struggling to acquire a home but hit pensioners who have limited income but own their own home. Tricky.
0 -
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
So what? Income is taxed as a rough proxy for wealth. But the relationship is decoupling to some extent. The wealthy on relatively low incomes should not be allowed to evade their social responsibilities.TheWhiteRabbit said:
But the little old lady with wealth but no income gets hit hard.brendan16 said:
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.Foxy said:
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.0 -
It would be wildly unpopular amongst homeowners.IanB2 said:
+1Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Who decide elections.0 -
Brexit points towards an economic, industrial and regional policy that Labour would find much easier to deliver than the Tories.Foxy said:
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.YBarddCwsc said:
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.Foxy said:There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.0 -
'tis always a challenge to democracies when the right thing to do isn't immediately popular.Mortimer said:
It would be wildly unpopular amongst homeowners.IanB2 said:
+1Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Who decide elections.0 -
About the same as we would, with indifference?justin124 said:
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
I'm presuming you've never had the misfortune to travel on CrossCountry or Arriva Trains Wales, two of Deutsche Bahn's UK franchises and generally agreed to be among the worst-run, most under-invested franchises on the network. I suspect most travellers would prefer a hopeless British organisation whether public (Directly Operated Railways) or private (Stagecoach or even First).edmundintokyo said:Deutsche Bahn already runs a decent chunk of the British railway system. Corbyn wants to kick them out and put some hopeless British organisation in charge instead.
0 -
Then you and those millions of Conservative voters were badly let down by the incompetent Home Secretary from 2010 on. Theresa something, I think her name was.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.0 -
Quite right, but it is why Brexit is the wrong answer. These are not the areas that will vote for a Tory buccaneering Brexit, though may rather fancy a Corbynite brexit.YBarddCwsc said:
Why on earth should they have faith in the "global economy" ?Foxy said:
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.
The "influencers" at Davos don't care about Copeland, or anyone but themselves.0 -
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.AlastairMeeks said:
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.another_richard said:
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?SouthamObserver said:
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.0 -
The last stand is approaching.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/9575831220900782080 -
They were indeed.DecrepitJohnL said:
Then you and those millions of Conservative voters were badly let down by the incompetent Home Secretary from 2010 on. Theresa something, I think her name was.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.0 -
I think London is definitely missing a trick here. They really should set up something like the Hunger Games to divert those provincials from their lot. After all, they made such a good job of the Olympics.AlastairMeeks said:
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.another_richard said:
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?SouthamObserver said:
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:ThomasNashe said:tlg86 said:NickPalmer said:
.
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.0 -
With the money that London generates, rather than lavish it on hostile lotus-eaters.another_richard said:
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.AlastairMeeks said:
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.another_richard said:
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?SouthamObserver said:
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.0 -
You really are a horrible little bastard, aren't you?justin124 said:
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
Not among the tory client vote, for sure. But it doesn't need to be.Foxy said:
Higher taxes on property will never be popular, however sensible or justified.Pong said:On homelessness/housing/empty properties etc...
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
I get the argument - poll tax, dementia tax etc. But if it can successfully presented as "a tax cut for 8 out of 10 property owners who are in work," or whatever.
To pull it off, it would require Mcdonnel to go a bit new new labour, but I recon property taxes could actually be an election winner.0 -
As I understand it 'jacindababymania' is an actual thing in NZ.kle4 said:
About the same as we would, with indifference?justin124 said:
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
London is the fat overflowing bastard on the train who puts his bags over all the empty seats and his feet on the upholstery, while bragging into his smartphone about how good he is.another_richard said:
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.0 -
And one who has clearly never been to NZ. I doubt more than a handful of Kiwis give a monkey's about the kids' parents' marital status. NZ has its social preoccupations but that isn't one of them.TwistedFireStopper said:
You really are a horrible little bastard, aren't you?justin124 said:
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
Just an aside, but this silly London versus the rest of the UK/England is precisely why we need an English Parliament rather than carving England into shitty little regional assemblies. Doing that would create permanent institutional divisions in politics that would perpetuate and deepen the divide and hostility between regions.
[And that's without getting into equality with Holyrood requiring the equal ability to make the same laws, such as tax changes, which must only be done on an England-wide basis].0 -
It’s almost as astonishing as the number of provincials who move to the capital, and then presume to speak for the whole city.AlastairMeeks said:
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.another_richard said:
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?SouthamObserver said:
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.another_richard said:
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.SouthamObserver said:
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.brendan16 said:
'London's immigrants?'another_richard said:
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?brendan16 said:
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?ThomasNashe said:
Because they literally don't have a home?tlg86 said:
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?NickPalmer said:
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
Snip
Local council London did their bit.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.0 -
+1TwistedFireStopper said:
You really are a horrible little bastard, aren't you?justin124 said:
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
Golly..justin124 said:
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
You could believe the Tories were for immigration in the tens of thousands in 2010. But seven years later after the highest levels of UK net immigration ever -.much of it from outside the EU - to still believe that was their true policy was naive at best.DecrepitJohnL said:
Then you and those millions of Conservative voters were badly let down by the incompetent Home Secretary from 2010 on. Theresa something, I think her name was.another_richard said:
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
They probably want less net immigration than Labour - but there isn't much evidence of it in their actual policies. They now want to exclude students from the figures - as apparently while living here they don't use public services or require housing or use trains and tubes or use the NHS so don't need to be accounted for in planning for these. They seem to be seeking to cut official immigration by changing the counting method rather than actually cutting it.0 -
I see Jezza's inner Marxist was on show this morning...Also lifetime tenancies at secure rent, f##king bonkers...we could call it the Frank Dobson law. Millionaire living in a million pound council house, while others freeze on the streets.
Also, Corbyn also said he would introduce a government-backed mortgage scheme to help first-time buyers. That was part of the issue that caused the sub-prime crisis in the US....
Edit:- From 2011,
For some London properties this amounts to the equivalent of someone having their rent subsidised by the taxpayer by up to £70,000 a year.
According to a Whitehall analysis prepared for ministers, there are up to 6,000 people in social housing with an income greater than £100,000.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html
Like student fee proposals, Jezza helping the millionaires...0 -
Her husband is good looking and surfs a lot, the baby will no doubt look lovely and in any case that is what they expect from liberal metropolitan elitist Aucklanders anyway. So I expect they are very happy for the couple.justin124 said:
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!YBarddCwsc said:On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.0 -
On topic, there's a constituency of people who are centrist, internationalist and globalist and aren't being served by any party at the moment, including the Lib Dems. It's about 25% of the electorate and would be a prize for a third party. They need to rebrand themselves, at the risk of losing their rural bastions, that don't contain many of those kind of people. It's a risk they need to take. Labour could take that group under a different leader than Corbyn. The Conservatives are out for the duration on internationalism, I think, but they do have most of the nationalist conservative vote, which is a bigger group.0
-
Really quite surprised that Joe Root has not been bought at the IPL. He's not a big 6 hitter but he scores way better than a run a ball in the format and can hold an innings together. Man of the Series against Australia in the ODIs.0
