boynamedsue
-
Posts
468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by boynamedsue
-
-
2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:
I think he had an easy ride from the press. Naz Shah's tweet - "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity" was not even reported by the BBC, Independent, Guardian etc.
The BBC never asked McDonnell about his links to the IRA.
https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/why-labours-next-great-battle-could-be-corbyn-vs-mcdonnell/
The press literally never stopped banging on about the IRA, they did it so much that it stopped working and they moved on to anti-semitism. That thing with Naz Shah was all over the media! It was a tweet that, to be honest, she is not stupid enough to have shared it in seriousness, even if she actually had believed that. That's why she took it down in about 5 minutes. S
-
5 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:
If Labour ever wins we can see such stories again.
Why can't we have decent politicians who agree on basic things like :-
No one should get £100K+ on benefits.
Not unreasonable.
Thanks for that.
Only if labour don't build social housing, like they were going to. The problem is that the free market is a bad way to provide basic needs.
Who do you trust to crack down on Landlords? Starmer, Corbyn or Johnson? I know who my money is on.
-
Just now, iamnumerate said:
Compared to UKIP especially under Gerard Batten, Corbyn had an easy ride.
Of course any party opposed to mass migration would really harm landlords.
You are having a laugh mate. Corbyn was crucified over nothing, UKIP were built up into a force by the press. Of course, they got the michael severely extracted when the wheels fell off and they invited those three internet weirdoes to take part, but that is on them. That would be like Corbyn inviting Trotsky O'Jewhater of Hizbollah to be his foreign affairs spokesman.
-
Just now, Simhadri said:
Smart boy. Wish Thatcher is alive and I get such a chance to make a profit to set me for rest of life.
New Labour was more taxing government compared to Thatcher.
Cameron is mere shadow of Blair.
Problem with Thatcherite economics is that eventually you run out of other people's stuff to sell-off.
-
3 hours ago, longgone said:
finally some one with sense votes are for the brainwashed rats to believe they have choice.
If Corbyn and Johnson were the same, the landlord class wouldn't have bothered to smear Corbyn for 5 years solid.
-
The labour policy will practically eliminate BTL mortgages, as it will quickly become politically impossible to place a limit on mortgage borrowing for potential-homeowners while allowing it for BTLers. This is what we all want isn't it?
-
17 hours ago, bear.getting.old said:
"Labour have calculated that..." I don't trust anything that Labour have calculated, Diane Abbott school of maths anyone? We all know that Labour are useless with all monetary matters. And besides, after this breakdown in democracy we are currently facing over brexit, who can really trust a single word let alone a policy of any party today anymore?
And another thing... the house price falls in the SE have absolutely nothing to do with brexit.
This "news" story is just an ad for labour. If they really wanted to help people they would end help to buy, not extend and tweak it further...
"We all know"....you mean the press says because they want to protect the wealthy and starve the poor? Dianne Abbott grew up in a rough part of London, but went to Cambridge and became the first black woman in parliament in her early 30's. She is far more intelligent than the majority of MPs. That she muddled up some numbers in a live interview does not show she is incapable of doing maths, tonnes of pols have done similar or worse, without being crucified for it. But that's a "free press" for you.
As they say, Conservative voters fall into two categories, millionaires and idiots: to know which one you are, look in your wallet. With UKIP voters, it's a similar pattern, except the only millionaire who votes UKIP is bankrolling the party.
-
21 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:
It would just result in the BoE writting letters to the chancellor as HPI is above target, but then panicking and lowering interest rates/QE etc if HPI dropped below 0.
Interest rates wouldn't be part of it, they would only be allowed to use controls on mortgage availability. I suspect this would very quickly mean the end of BTL mortgages.
-
Would this change anybody's vote?
Labour considers house price inflation target for the bank of England
All the other parties seem to have an economic policy which can be summed up as either "everything as bad as it is now"(UKIP, Tories, Farage) or "the immediate reintroduction of 2007" (Lib Dems, CUK, Green). Allowing the BoE to regulate mortgages to limit house price growth seems ideal to me.
-
I think this more or less sums up my feeling on the topic. We should also be able to use really difficult to make minecraft structures as currency, at least they would have aesthetic value.
-
1 hour ago, markyh said:
Tell me what % of Barcelona residents are without housing compared to the Total that live there? And then what % of the world population Hold Bitcoin. Long, long way yo go yet.
Tell me what proportion of Barcelona residents need bitcoins? If your answer is higher than 0%, I'd like to see some working out
-
10 minutes ago, markyh said:
Do you not read my posts? None. I HODL, had the same stash as when I quit mining in 2014. First rule of Bitcoin, never sell. TBH anywhere from £500k to £1m a BTC and I will start selling because I will be a FIAT multi millionaire, retired, mortgageless, and will want to really enjoy life.
I remember listening to an old lady talking to her friend about a flat in the country that she was thinking of selling, in Barcelona, 2006. "Never sell houses," The lady said. "Never, ever sell!"
If she listened to her friend's advice, she lost about 200k in Euro. The difference is that at least she still has a house now the market has crashed, bitcoins will be worth nothing
-
It's not never worked, it's currently workless households. Liverpool is only 0.3% higher than Nottingham.
They've corrected it now, it's a good job the OP actually quoted the article, as they have merely changed it without admitting their "mistake". Still, lots have people have seen the ridiculous lie, and believed it because it fits with what they want to believe... job done for the Telegraph. It's amazing how anyone can believe something like this, probably the kind of people who get special compasses made without north on them.
-
The journalist just made the stat up.
It's actually worse than that. The journalist found a stat about Liverpool's current unemployment rate (which is around 1 in 3, including students and those on various forms of disability), he then wrote an article claiming that this number represented the number of people who had never worked in Liverpool, playing on his readers prejudices about benefit claimants and scousers.
Now when Liverpool corpy e-mail the paper to complain, they will apologise and claim that the journalist had misunderstood the figures, but no harm was intended. Then they print a correction, as the PCC code requires... at the bottom of page 47, below the pictures of toffs who are getting married or the Iranian beach volleyball results or summat.
Net result? The paper has managed to knowingly publish untrue political propaganda, which will stick in the minds of its readers, without falling foul of the PCC.
-
Love this thread. About 10 posts back someone points out that the story is simply (and easily verifiably) not true, and everyone just carries on as if nothing has been said.
By the way, Liverpool's student population is around 40k, and its total population is 450k. When you hear that the percentage not currently working is 31%, in a place with 40k students and a history of long term structural unemployment, in the middle of a recession, it's not really shocking at all.
As for scousers not leaving to find work, Liverpool's population has actually halved since 1930, as a response to the city's economic decline.
-
Ah the Mugabe solution, fix the price.
It has never worked before. Why will it work this time?
Both has worked and does work. Various developed countries have controlled rents today, and throughout the seventies there were controlled rents in the private sector in the UK, also during the fifties and early sixties.
The reason we had the hell-bubble was not just mortgage loosening, but the rent deregulation of the Thatcher and Major governments.
-
Not your choice, buddy.
Free people, let them choose.
Well, that's your ideological point of view, I disagree, but you are welcome to it. But I take bit of an issue when you say that the government "says there is a social problem". Inadequate housing is a social problem, and unless you take your view that social problems are nobody's business but those who suffer from them, then they don't just say there is a social problem, there is a social problem. Without government intervention, then these problems get worse, and if you advocate a stateless solution you are advocating people living in conditions of utter misery (and not through choice, but through circumstance).
-
Simple solution, rent controls. Put a ceiling on rent district by district and you could cut HB by however much you feel like. Would also push down house prices. Job's a fish.
Re Injin:
1) prevent people from doing something (in this case assembling their own shelter)2 ) say there is a social problem which needs to be tackled (the people displaced by the above need housing paid for)
I've lived for many years in places where people are not prevented from assembling their own shelter, and I think you'll find the social problems caused by this far outweigh the minor inconveniences of very low level homelessness, slight over-crowding and a high social housing budget. Cholera, Typhoid, abandonned children and chips anybody?
-
Yeah. All of earth's problems stem from the use of hydrocarbon fuels. Even our last ice ace in Britain, about 10,000 year ago! You're right....
Nobody ever said that. Ever. Climate changes, it always has. It can cause problems, and it can make life easier. On a planet with 6 billion people, the climate change that a massive change in the quantity of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause will be disastrous.
And I think I read somewhere that Hitler was an alien...
Which is silly and backed by no evidence. Unlike the mass of evidence that climate is changing, and that extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased temperatures.
The videos I put up are served only to make my point. That it depends on where you get your information. The rice demonstration did get your knickers in a knot, why is that?
Mate, this is a thread about peak oil, and you've deliberately turned it onto the topic of climate change. Why? Because you are a nutter who has an obsession, and evidently zero knowledge of science.
The theory of GW due to human influence may be wrong, and I've a fairly open mind on that, but the rice demonstration has absolutely nothing to do with that. The Earth's climate is a sensitive system that is composed of many sub-systems that feed back off each other. The fact that the Earth is (usually) habitable, rather than a ball of ice, is due to the Greenhouse effect, a system which allows the Earth to retain a larger amount of the sun's heat. The strength of this effect changes over the years, sometimes gradually and sometimes catastrophically (which doesn't mean what you think BTW), due to various factors ranging from the configurations of the continents, to the level of volcanic activity to the type of organisms which predominate at any given time.
Now, I might be wrong, but I can't see how a modest increase in over all Greenhouse Gas levels will not be enough to increase this effect by a few degrees. This will bring into play other feedback mechanisms which will further increase greenhouse gas levels, throwing the system into catastrophic (which both does and doesn't mean what you think it does this time) change.
You might be right about climate change, but even if you are, it's for the wrong reasons. If you think that cheap demagoguery like this rice trick is convincing evidence, you are a fool. Stable systems can be thrown out of balance by very small changes, especially when those systems are very complex. There, right at the end I brought it back to Economics......
-
Is that a question? Depends on where you get your information.
These are just nobody's. How do these folk compete with the likes of Leo DiCaprio,and the raft of other dimwit Hollywood A-listers who pimp the Al Gore mantra?
Try believing evidence before you believe what you want to believe. Only a scientific illiterate would pay any attention to the two videos you link. If you need telling why, then you are dum, if you don't, you are dishonest.
-
BTW, one thing nobody's raised here, the 40 quid delivery charge, what's the maximum number of packets shipped for that cost?
It would be very rare for a doctor to prescribe gluten free pasta, as the prescription charge is 7.50 per packet, more than it costs in the shop. So we are looking at folk on benefits, kids and pensioners. I suspect we are looking at a very low cost to the council that was not being claimed then until a couple of kids got diagnosed somewhere in Kent and the authority realised what it would cost them to get through their suppliers. As soon as they did they stopped it.
-
If the editor is willing to lie so blatantly about the circulation, I would not trust a word of it.
I hadn't heard about that. What's the tale?
-
Just like the Guardian then. You do know your paper of choice is The Mail for lefties, don't you?
Except it doesn't lie. It has comment articles you disagree with. The Mail publishes nonsense which it's next to made up, where as the Guardian focuses on things that you don't think are important. Like I say, I disagree with the Torygraph, but have respect for its reporting. I also respect the Graun's reporting, even though I find it excessively right wing.
-
Yup, you got me there, the Daily Mail never prints stories ramping house prices. It his highly respected on HPC. On this site, we hang on it's every word for wise analysis, it's uncanny understanding of house prices, and perceptive explanation of the causes of the problem.
If you want to see how thoroughly and professionally the Mail checks out easily-verified 'facts' before publishing its retarded drivel articles, check this recent thread.
Funny you call me a loser...I just came out of retirement because I was bored and enjoy running my business so much (so much for me being a public sector leftie Grauniad reader). Life has rarely been better for me. The Daily Mail is for whiners who failed to take their careers into their own hands and want to blame everyone else for their dismal waste of their time on earth. The highlight of their tedious day is reading Fred Basset.
Now pop on your slippers, light your pipe, and have a nice evening in with your wife as she knits and you sip your Horlicks. Reading about £50 pasta is excitement enough for you for today.
+1 It's not a left and right issue, the Mail lies, and is read by scared, small-minded little people who want somebody else to blame.
They are coming for our cash
in House prices and the economy
Posted
There's nothing wrong with a wealth tax if it includes wealth held as property. Especially on assets like private rental houses. My mother-in-law has a large semi-agricultural property in Italy, she pays a fortune in tax on it. The sky stays up.