M21er

Theresa May | Statement at 11:15am

628 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Or...she's a bankers/London spiv shill  and has been placed there to make sure "BrExir" is pretty much in the interests of the bankers/London

IIRC she used to work in Debenhams and her husband runs a green grocer ?

That reminds me of a hilarious (I thought at the time) description of our current 2nd heir to the throne from the mid-1990s - "the balding son of a grocer's mistress".

Venger - thanks so much for the links to 118 re: Ken Clarke! I mis-rembered! "Stern confronting look" indeed it was :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Venger said:

Except Conservatives did see through painful structural economic reforms to rebalance the economy (and hit some VI) INCLUDING quite a BIG HPC.

And it was other people's choice for paying high buying prices towards 80s end. I note some people on HPC smugly tell of their mad-gainz HPI+++ from year 2000, but want us to believe they were 'brainwashed' when they bought late 80s... (and quickly sold on to someone else before that recession began to really take hold.)

Labour danced in with 'Things Can Only Get Better' threw a Celeb party, and they were the Government in charge for Iraq and The Blood Price.

You just can't know what Conservatives would do, and as I remember it, Conservative policies were drowned out by Labour and all their ever more £Billions and £Billions to outspend spend spend party... party of the tax credits to become beholden to Labuor.    Minimum wage is fairness crap when the actual pay gap between top-and-bottom becomes ever more extreme (green light much bigger exec pay). 

FSA/BoE/Treasury Tripartite was all Labour's doing.   http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=tripartite-system

Of course it's not that simple, but you can't know what Conservatives would have done, we can only know what Labour did in power, 1997-2010, and many HPIers/BTLers grateful for it.

 

 

 

 

Putting peoples' responsibility for their purchases aside (they should accept the consequences/losses/gains for unwise or wise purchases, sales or inactivity etc).

The Conservatives offered very little effective opposition to NuLabour's policies to the extent that they more or less implicitly agreed with the generality of NuLabour's policies (although probably not every single detail or emphasis) and when they got a chance to improve matters after 2010 they pretty much reneged on their relevant promises and again boosted and propped house prices where they could.  I doubt the opposition policies would have been significantly different during the various Parliaments if the opposition had been in power irrespective of which main party was actually in power.

Our opinions differ on that so I suggest we agree to disagree or just accept plain disagreement. 

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billybong said:

Putting peoples' responsibility for their purchases aside (they should accept the consequences/losses/gains for unwise or wise purchases, sales or inactivity).

The Conservatives offered very little effective opposition to NuLabour's policies to the extent that they more or less implicitly agreed with the generality of NuLabour's policies (although probably not every single detail or emphasis) and when they got a chance to improve matters after 2010 they pretty much reneged on their relevant promises and again boosted house prices.  I doubt the opposition policies would have been significantly different during the various Parliaments if the opposition had been in power irrespective of who was actually in power.

Our opinions differ on that so I suggest we agree to disagree or just accept plain disagreement

They don't differ that much, from my side of things anyway.  I did not engage you on this topic of 'Labour being Conservative-Lite/Heavy (97-2010)' with any ill-will whatsoever, simply to give my own view about that.     

I am always willing to put thought into the posts you make, and often agree or partially agree with points you make.  

I was knackered just listening to Labour 'spend-spend-spend' talk 2000-2007.   It seems to me it was difficult for the Conservatives (2000-2005) to push back hard against it imo, with many voters well up for the spending.   It was such a 5 year surge.   And party time for many vested interests, including those on the miracle win side of HPI.  

And then at some point things changed and young Metropolitan Conservatives leaders (after Howard departing in 2005) did not really know much better than 5+ years of Labour magic paradise policies where the money never runs out, and perhaps a bit seduced by it all themselves (IMO), with the HPI++++ forever.

Yes there have been some pushbacks between us on some points on other threads, but nothing I ever took to heart.  I'm not going to back down on respecting individual adults as being fully being capable of making their own choice in life, with anyone on forum or in the real world.  If they really want to believe people are just mindless sheeple they can believe that.  If we have clashed at any point (right or wrong), would hope you can follow the policy I follow.  (A real man/woman should let bygones be bygones) for I do value your posts, and learn from many of your posts as well.

I suggest Conservative choices were limited from 2010, but that's a guess.  Some minds I respect disagree (hello Hulky).  Anyway many BTLers have doubled down and now we have Section24 core-voter shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Corbyn is he has good ideas about wealth re-distribution but as long as he is "comfortable about the number of migrants" coming into the country he is un-electable. He just cant do simple maths, 1000'0000's of migrants entering a country with full schools, clogged roads and a lack of Housing does not make the local population, richer, happier or better off in any form. Unless you own 100 BTL properties.. but then BTL landlords are greedy scumbags to stupid to earn money using their brains, they have tenants to do that for them.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Venger said:

They don't differ that much, from my side of things anyway.  I did not engage you on this topic of 'Labour being Conservative-Lite/Heavy (97-2010)' with any ill-will whatsoever, simply to give my own view about that.     

I am always willing to put thought into the posts you make, and often agree or partially agree with points you make.  

I was knackered just listening to Labour 'spend-spend-spend' talk 2000-2007.   It seems to me it was difficult for the Conservatives (2000-2005) to push back hard against it imo, with many voters well up for the spending.   It was such a 5 year surge.   And party time for many vested interests, including those on the miracle win side of HPI.  

And then at some point things changed and young Metropolitan Conservatives leaders (after Howard departing in 2005) did not really know much better than 5+ years of Labour magic paradise policies where the money never runs out, and perhaps a bit seduced by it all themselves (IMO), with the HPI++++ forever.

Yes there have been some pushbacks between us on some points on other threads, but nothing I ever took to heart.  I'm not going to back down on respecting individual adults as being fully being capable of making their own choice in life, with anyone on forum or in the real world.  If they really want to believe people are just mindless sheeple they can believe that.  If we have clashed at any point (right or wrong), would hope you can follow the policy I follow.  (A real man/woman should let bygones be bygones) for I do value your posts, and learn from many of your posts as well.

I suggest Conservative choices were limited from 2010, but that's a guess.  Some minds I respect disagree (hello Hulky).  Anyway many BTLers have doubled down and now we have Section24 core-voter shock.

I note what you say.  Thank you for your approval of a post when it's deserved.and just to say that my posts aren't coloured by any discussions or bygones we might or might not have had in the past.  They're just an expression of my own opinion on that particular subject.  For sure we're all learning from each other and you make very many good points but it's impossible to be in agreement on everything although I do agree with your stance on accepting personal responsibility.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, crashmonitor said:

...But where exactly Corbyn will find the money after bigging up public sector wages ( indirectly final salary pensions ) and all the health and welfare promises chiefly helping the old God only knows. And we still have a huge structural deficit Labour calls Austerity. 

Why does this It'll-cost-too-much argument keep popping up?
The Tories are spending BILLIONS propping up house prices.

Any sensible UK housebuilding program would turn a tidy profit, raise living standards, create jobs and improve our international competitiveness.
 

7 hours ago, macca13 said:

The problem with Corbyn is he has good ideas about wealth re-distribution but as long as he is "comfortable about the number of migrants" coming into the country he is un-electable...

Be sure to vote UKIP, as the Torys say immigration will rise after Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, macca13 said:

The problem with Corbyn is he has good ideas about wealth re-distribution but as long as he is "comfortable about the number of migrants" coming into the country he is un-electable. He just cant do simple maths, 1000'0000's of migrants entering a country with full schools, clogged roads and a lack of Housing does not make the local population, richer, happier or better off in any form. Unless you own 100 BTL properties.. but then BTL landlords are greedy scumbags to stupid to earn money using their brains, they have tenants to do that for them.. 

 

No hes not.

All hes said so far is 870k is a large income and should be taxed.

The only wealth distribution hes mentioned taking from the wealth destroyers (private companies) and giving to the wealth creators (benefits/public sector).I think he's got the last one the wrong way around.

If Corbyn said something about taxing the huge  public sector pension pots, or actually going after unearned wealth i..e property, I might have been impressed. He did not

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, him an John Trot came out with a law on banning Banks from leaving high streets.

Surely the solution to that is to cap rates from the council, something the public sector have control of. They could do that by gutting local government and putting low wage caps on LA workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

The difference between the government's macroeconomic approach in the early 90s and in the 2000s is unarguable and not a sign of tribalism.

The difference is that Major was forced into a rebalancing of the economy by his bungling attempts to join the Euro.  

The last 40 years have been an unbroken era of neoliberal Thatcherite politics and that is what has brought us debt bubbles, unaffordable housing, mass migration, and all the rest of it. 

Its no coincidence that people born after 1979 are significantly worse off than those born before. 

Edited by DrBuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

The difference is that Major was forced into a rebalancing of the economy by his bungling attempts to join the Euro.  

The last 40 years have been an unbroken era of neoliberal Thatcherite politics and that is what has brought us debt bubbles, unaffordable housing, mass migration, and all the rest of it.

If he hadn't had an opt out, it might have stayed rebalanced.  Having a hard currency that the government can't mess with is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

If he hadn't had an opt out, it might have stayed rebalanced.  Having a hard currency that the government can't mess with is a good idea.

WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apols if already posted. Labour already talking about boosting council housing supply:

Barwell in danger as Labour targets housing minister’s seat to launch General Election campaign

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/labour-targets-housing-ministers-marginal-seat-to-launch-general-election-campaign/

The Labour Party chose the marginal seat of housing minister Gavin Barwell to launch its General Election campaign, calling for council houses to be built across the country.

Barwell holds a slim majority of just 165 in Croydon Central, the fourth most marginal seat in the country, and Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn visited the constituency to make it the launchpad for Labour’s General Election campaign.

Corbyn told supporters: “We are here in Croydon because we want to win Croydon. We want a Labour MP who will stand up for the people of Croydon.

“The Labour council in Croydon is building council houses – we want a Labour Government that is building housing across our country.”

Share this post


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

Apols if already posted. Labour already talking about boosting council housing supply:

I think Corbyn's campaign could start to build momentum. Of all current candidates he is most likely to cause house prices to fall either through policy or by the reaction/panic of the financial markets if he were to win.

If Corbyn wants to build housing for all this is great but I think the market will start to question how the government would pay for all this... which could lead to interest rates rising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Quote

 

The Labour Party chose the marginal seat of housing minister Gavin Barwell to launch its General Election campaign, calling for council houses to be built across the country.

 

So that seems to continue his emphasis on housing that he's been emphasising during Prime Minister's Questions.

It'll be interesting to see what the Conservative manifesto has to say on housing as the election is a great opportunity to renege on the promise of 1 million new homes by the next election (2020) which so far has never looked like being achieved.  Maybe it'll still be 1 million new homes by the next election but by 2022 this time.

None of which really helps with crazy house prices though as that's mainly due to levels of credit.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, B63 said:

I think Corbyn's campaign could start to build momentum. Of all current candidates he is most likely to cause house prices to fall either through policy or by the reaction/panic of the financial markets if he were to win.

If Corbyn wants to build housing for all this is great but I think the market will start to question how the government would pay for all this... which could lead to interest rates rising. 

The election will become dominated by Brexit. For any traction Corbyn could gain he'd lose again when everyone is constantly reminded the majority of his party wants to remain in the EU. That will motivate the leave voters to go Tory. 

The next election will be wide open though I suspect, depending on how Brexit goes that is. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B63 said:

If Corbyn wants to build housing for all this is great but I think the market will start to question how the government would pay for all this... which could lead to interest rates rising. 

The Tories are spending BILLIONS propping up house prices.

Any sensible UK housebuilding program would turn a tidy profit, raise living standards, create jobs and improve our international competitiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Quote

 

The Labour Party chose the marginal seat of housing minister Gavin Barwell to launch its General Election campaign, calling for council houses to be built across the country.

 

So presumably in due course he'll explain how these new council houses won't just become wealth vehicles for a lucky few under right to buy.  If not under a Labour government but under a subsequent Conservative government.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

I was looking for a quote where Osborne said, pre 2010 election, something like "We can't continue to run the economy based on a housing Bubble", instead I found this little gem..... https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/05/osbornes-bubble/

This is what I was looking for.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7136868/George-Osborne-sets-out-new-Tory-economic-benchmarks.html

"We cannot go on with the old economic model of the last decade. A model that depended on a public spending boom we couldn't afford, an overblown banking sector and unsustainable consumer borrowing off the back of a housing bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where will they find the money?

Always the counter argument of those in power.  Left or right.

The UK has the money. The political class hasn't the will to work for the people.  It's been this way for decades now.  The City pulls the strings.

Scrap HS2. There's  £50 billion - yes, £50 billion - for other social projects that will benefit the country.  And 50 could become 60 or 70 or more by the time the final bill arrives.

There's a garden bridge in London being proposed. Probably a cool billion or more - for a BRIDGE. !!!

Housing market props for the big housebuilders. £20-30 billion or more? Who knows. 

Plenty of money in the govt coffers. Just a question of priorities and paybacks to those who help govts get elected. 

Shameless.  HM Govt.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, spyguy said:

No hes not.

All hes said so far is 870k is a large income and should be taxed.

The only wealth distribution hes mentioned taking from the wealth destroyers (private companies) and giving to the wealth creators (benefits/public sector).I think he's got the last one the wrong way around.

If Corbyn said something about taxing the huge  public sector pension pots, or actually going after unearned wealth i..e property, I might have been impressed. He did not

 

I thought he wanted a land value tax? Sounded a good idea to me.. I don't have a house or land.. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Agentimmo said:

Where will they find the money?

Always the counter argument of those in power.  Left or right.

The UK has the money. The political class hasn't the will to work for the people.  It's been this way for decades now.  The City pulls the strings.

Scrap HS2. There's  £50 billion - yes, £50 billion - for other social projects that will benefit the country.  And 50 could become 60 or 70 or more by the time the final bill arrives.

There's a garden bridge in London being proposed. Probably a cool billion or more - for a BRIDGE. !!!

Housing market props for the big housebuilders. £20-30 billion or more? Who knows. 

Plenty of money in the govt coffers. Just a question of priorities and paybacks to those who help govts get elected. 

Shameless.  HM Govt.

Post! 

Share this post


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

They should cut the bit to London that will suck the life yet more out of the rest of the country.

Just have a triangle linking the northern 'industrial' cities to the ports. Liverpool to Hull thru Manchester and Leeds. Leeds down to Sheffield and onto Birmingham and up to Manchester.

Focus on fostering local hubs and exports. Not creating new dormitory towns for London nor a London-like competitor that would fail.

Sadly that is not the plan of TPTB, all jobs must be in London. Even jobs in the London suburbs must be moved to central London. This is why there are masses of office blocks next to or near the suburb stations that are empty. Soon there will be daily commuters from Bristol, Birmingham, Sheffield and York .............. oh wait, there already are! The rail services into London and the mainline stations are being upgraded to enable even more people to be transported in and the tube capacity also needs to be increased. You must understand that all the jobs can only be done in London.

Share this post


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

Sadly that is not the plan of TPTB, all jobs must be in London. Even jobs in the London suburbs must be moved to central London. This is why there are masses of office blocks next to or near the suburb stations that are empty. Soon there will be daily commuters from Bristol, Birmingham, Sheffield and York .............. oh wait, there already are! The rail services into London and the mainline stations are being upgraded to enable even more people to be transported in and the tube capacity also needs to be increased. You must understand that all the jobs can only be done in London.

I've never worked in London!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I've never worked in London!

I did. I lived elsewhere though. It was sh1t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spyguy said:

I did. I lived elsewhere though. It was sh1t.

Lol. When I do go in, on the train, it's thoroughly unpleasant.

People, especially not UK people (not being racist), DNGAF about anyone else. So rude. Not like other parts of Britain.

Edited by GrizzlyDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.