Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


World Wide Web Teenage Strop.

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:21 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Im-a-Ridah wrote:
It's extremely socialist but it's not as if there are a lot of good options available.


I knew you had it in you, comrade.

https://media.thetab.com/blogs.dir/90/files/2017/05/happ.gif
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:40 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would be quite happy if they took a zero off the back of house prices but I have already paid for my house. Those with mortgages would be fcuked but people wanting to buy would be better off. You would have to have rules in place to stop people buying large swathes of houses to rent out though.

I have to say I do not understand what fuels house prices. If it's supply and demand then there are a lot of people who obviously don't have a problem paying the prices asked or they would drop wouldn't they?

Germany for instance, most people rent rather than buy their homes but there again, a very high percentage of Spaniards buy their homes yet prices are way cheaper than UK.

No logic to it.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Riejufixing
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jun 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:27 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

"It's the bomers" (whine drivel):
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:39 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:
I would be quite happy if they took a zero off the back of house prices but I have already paid for my house. Those with mortgages would be fcuked but people wanting to buy would be better off. You would have to have rules in place to stop people buying large swathes of houses to rent out though.

I have to say I do not understand what fuels house prices. If it's supply and demand then there are a lot of people who obviously don't have a problem paying the prices asked or they would drop wouldn't they?

Germany for instance, most people rent rather than buy their homes but there again, a very high percentage of Spaniards buy their homes yet prices are way cheaper than UK.

No logic to it.


If the prices lost a zero they would be less affordable for younger people if they needed a mortgage. Yes they would be cheaper, but if the prices just crashed and our economy with it then banks also wouldn't be giving out mortgages.

House prices this decade have been fuelled by foriegn investors and George Osbornes attempts to help younger people afford a deposit with "help to buy" schemes that just gave people more lending to bid up the prices with. Also probably immigration to some extent but the government doesn't like admitting anything is the fault of immigrants.

https://www.ft.com/content/fdbb8a00-5dfe-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Easy-X
Super Spammer



Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:07 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big rise in the social housing property traps. Latest one in my town is they knocked down (what was) council flats and rebuilt as one of those housing trust schemes. You get the luxury of owning 40% of an apartment Neutral
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:50 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Easy-X wrote:
Big rise in the social housing property traps. Latest one in my town is they knocked down (what was) council flats and rebuilt as one of those housing trust schemes. You get the luxury of owning 40% of an apartment Neutral


That's councils fault.

We have a labour council in MK and all they are interested is accumulating money. They were meant to regenerate 7 estates in MK. After the first they have given up with the mass demolition and rebuilding (too expensive even though they had gov money for it) and gone with social regeneration whatever the fcuk that means. Rolling Eyes
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:43 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:
Easy-X wrote:
Big rise in the social housing property traps. Latest one in my town is they knocked down (what was) council flats and rebuilt as one of those housing trust schemes. You get the luxury of owning 40% of an apartment Neutral


That's councils fault.

We have a labour council in MK and all they are interested is accumulating money. They were meant to regenerate 7 estates in MK. After the first they have given up with the mass demolition and rebuilding (too expensive even though they had gov money for it) and gone with social regeneration whatever the fcuk that means. Rolling Eyes


There needs to be a two track system. Houses yes, but also single bedroom setups more like those of a student accommodation but priced very low like £50 a week or something. Install a gym and a communual area on the ground floor and job done. The latter can be built in towers creating hundreds of beds at a time. Plus... can be reused as nursing homes Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:46 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think a lot of the problem was how the right to buy of the council housing stock was done.

I think it was an inherantly good idea apallingly implemented. The revenue from the sale of the stock should have been ring-fenced and only allowed to be used for the building of more social housing (which in turn should have been available to buy). Then supply would have kept ahead of demand because the cost of building a house is less than the income from selling one. Especially with regard to councils who have economies of scale and a special case when it comes to planning and obtaining/re-purposing land to build on.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:45 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
I think a lot of the problem was how the right to buy of the council housing stock was done.

I think it was an inherantly good idea apallingly implemented. The revenue from the sale of the stock should have been ring-fenced and only allowed to be used for the building of more social housing (which in turn should have been available to buy). Then supply would have kept ahead of demand because the cost of building a house is less than the income from selling one. Especially with regard to councils who have economies of scale and a special case when it comes to planning and obtaining/re-purposing land to build on.


Democracy encourages running up debts for future governments to pay off and selling off assets to funda current spending. If you don't do that then you're just leaving more money for the other party to bribe the electorate with. The total budget should be decided before an election on a cross-party basis so nobody can magic up more money than the other to bribe voters, and the public get to benefit from long term investments.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Easy-X
Super Spammer



Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:53 - 22 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
I think a lot of the problem was how the right to buy of the council housing stock was done.

I think it was an inherantly good idea apallingly implemented. The revenue from the sale of the stock should have been ring-fenced and only allowed to be used for the building of more social housing (which in turn should have been available to buy). Then supply would have kept ahead of demand because the cost of building a house is less than the income from selling one. Especially with regard to councils who have economies of scale and a special case when it comes to planning and obtaining/re-purposing land to build on.


No one [in power] likes ring fencing as it means you actually have to do some work and prove you've done it Sad
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:16 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
I think a lot of the problem was how the right to buy of the council housing stock was done.

I think it was an inherantly good idea apallingly implemented. The revenue from the sale of the stock should have been ring-fenced and only allowed to be used for the building of more social housing (which in turn should have been available to buy). Then supply would have kept ahead of demand because the cost of building a house is less than the income from selling one. Especially with regard to councils who have economies of scale and a special case when it comes to planning and obtaining/re-purposing land to build on.


Selling off public owned assets to the public disguised as 'letting the man in the street own a bit of something' was a shocking confidence trick/slight of hand by a gang of charlatans.
The bastirts should have been jailed for fraud.
Organised crime hasn't cost as much as Tory cabinet decisions have. Whankers.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:23 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if you could have both Tories and Labour in power at the same time?
Tories look after the stuff that needs discipline and a hard head, Labour look after the social stuff? Each is allocated a budget from tax revenues.

Yeah, I know, probably a stupid idea. But you can't get rid of either one. That would be disastrous.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:32 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
What if you could have both Tories and Labour in power at the same time?
Tories look after the stuff that needs discipline and a hard head, Labour look after the social stuff? Each is allocated a budget from tax revenues.

Yeah, I know, probably a stupid idea. But you can't get rid of either one. That would be disastrous.


They'd probably spend all the time in parliament arguing. 🙄

🤣
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:36 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

They'd never do that!

No, no, you don't get it. They each have their own responsibilities, and they don't interfere with each other in those domains. When we vote, we vote for two people, one for the head of the social policy body and one for the economic/foreign affairs etc section, or whatever way it is decided to divide the responsibilities.

Point being, you need both kinds of thinking.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

TaffyTDM
Spanner Monkey



Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:09 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:
Easy-X wrote:
Big rise in the social housing property traps. Latest one in my town is they knocked down (what was) council flats and rebuilt as one of those housing trust schemes. You get the luxury of owning 40% of an apartment Neutral


and gone with social regeneration whatever the fcuk that means. Rolling Eyes


Cladding Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:47 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
What if you could have both Tories and Labour in power at the same time?
Tories look after the stuff that needs discipline and a hard head, Labour look after the social stuff? Each is allocated a budget from tax revenues.

Yeah, I know, probably a stupid idea. But you can't get rid of either one. That would be disastrous.


When Labour is in power (except Jeremy) they don't spend much differently to the Tories. Actually the Tories seem to be spending more on the NHS than Labour did. It's the university campus revolutionaries that propose all the crazy ideas not the Labour leadership. It's easy to just issue demands for "more spending" from a University student union. Do we really need an even bigger foreign aid budget? Tough on what? Immigraton is sky high, criminals still get trivial prison terms for all manner of violent crimes.

MCN wrote:
stinkwheel wrote:
I think a lot of the problem was how the right to buy of the council housing stock was done.

I think it was an inherantly good idea apallingly implemented. The revenue from the sale of the stock should have been ring-fenced and only allowed to be used for the building of more social housing (which in turn should have been available to buy). Then supply would have kept ahead of demand because the cost of building a house is less than the income from selling one. Especially with regard to councils who have economies of scale and a special case when it comes to planning and obtaining/re-purposing land to build on.


Selling off public owned assets to the public disguised as 'letting the man in the street own a bit of something' was a shocking confidence trick/slight of hand by a gang of charlatans.
The bastirts should have been jailed for fraud.
Organised crime hasn't cost as much as Tory cabinet decisions have. Whankers.


It did a lot of good. The problem is that it only did a lot of good for the boomers and to a lesser degree Gen X. Millennials and Gen Z got totally screwed. What is required is for the government to offer Millennials and Gen Z the chance to buy a small house or flat at simiar levels below the market rate just like was offered to Boomers and Gen X.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:47 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thing is I don't even really equate Labour with socialism.

In my lifetime, I look at the spike in that house price chart starting from 1995. Who was in charge for most of that ? Bliar. Buy-to-let and giving the Bank of England freedom over interest rates.

Whatever, the people who gained were the already asset rich landlords owning several houses, and the ones who suffered were those not yet on the housing ladder. If you owned one house you weren't better or worse off.

Hardly socialism IMO.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:52 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Im-a-Ridah wrote:
chickenstrip wrote:
What if you could have both Tories and Labour in power at the same time?
Tories look after the stuff that needs discipline and a hard head, Labour look after the social stuff? Each is allocated a budget from tax revenues.

Yeah, I know, probably a stupid idea. But you can't get rid of either one. That would be disastrous.


When Labour is in power (except Jeremy) they don't spend much differently to the Tories. Actually the Tories seem to be spending more on the NHS than Labour did. It's the university campus revolutionaries that propose all the crazy ideas not the Labour leadership. It's easy to just issue demands for "more spending" from a University student union. Do we really need an even bigger foreign aid budget? Tough on what? Immigraton is sky high, criminals still get trivial prison terms for all manner of violent crimes.


I'm not sure you address my point/idea?

@bhinso: take it that by Labour I mean a party that focuses on social issues.
Or just take it that I mean you have these two sides to the government, kept largely separate, rather than a single ideology that favours one or the other in totality.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:59 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:

I'm not sure you address my point/idea?

@bhinso: take it that by Labour I mean a party that focuses on social issues.
Or just take it that I mean you have these two sides to the government, kept largely separate, rather than a single ideology that favours one or the other in totality.


We already have the situation which you propose. Both parties contain elements of left and right.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:03 - 24 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Im-a-Ridah wrote:
chickenstrip wrote:

I'm not sure you address my point/idea?

@bhinso: take it that by Labour I mean a party that focuses on social issues.
Or just take it that I mean you have these two sides to the government, kept largely separate, rather than a single ideology that favours one or the other in totality.


We already have the situation which you propose. Both parties contain elements of left and right.


I think what I'm suggesting is that you separate them more, with two entirely separate budgets, and election voting for those two separate bodies. So that one ideal isn't 'drowned out' by the other. Ah, forget it! Laughing
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 03:07 - 25 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

We need clear separation between Church and State.
Demolish Religion and Real Socialism will thrive.
Cancel TAX breaks for religious bodies (and charities) allowing that revenue to be diverted to meaningful purpose and not worthless BS.

(I already know that won't be popular. 🤣)
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.


Last edited by MCN on 10:00 - 25 Jun 2020; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:26 - 25 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
What if you could have both Tories and Labour in power at the same time?
Tories look after the stuff that needs discipline and a hard head, Labour look after the social stuff? Each is allocated a budget from tax revenues.

Yeah, I know, probably a stupid idea. But you can't get rid of either one. That would be disastrous.


This is the huge mistake people today seem to be making. They think Labour are the soft touch party of freebies and feel good uselessness, while the Tories are the party of law and order and fiscal responsibility.

1. No party is that much better than the other when it comes to the economy

2. The party of 'law and order' (and whatever other idea of 'societal strictness' people have) actually cut police funding, cut border force funding, uk immigration service funding... and for a while were letting in more immigrants than any other time in British history. So whatever discipline you'd expect from the Tories is just not there, it seems.

So this idea that one party is 'nice but naive' while the other is 'strict but wise' is just not correct. This means that firstly it wouldn't be the best of both worlds if somehow Labour and Tory shared power, and secondly they'd still argue forever over how exactly each issue should be handled.

Proportional representation might work though Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:55 - 25 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
What if you could have both Tories and Labour in power at the same time?

That's easy, with a coalition nobody gets what they voted for. Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

UnknownStuntm...
World Chat Champion



Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:43 - 25 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bottom of 2nd page and still no mention of Hitler.

Who even are you people anymore.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:59 - 25 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
chickenstrip wrote:
What if you could have both Tories and Labour in power at the same time?

That's easy, with a coalition nobody gets what they voted for. Thumbs Up


Wrong quote to single out. But it doesn't matter.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 3 years, 304 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.49 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 152.62 Kb