Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About brainclamp

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. Great discussion thread. As I understand it, The DUP are meant to be pretty much like the UKIP before the UKIP happened, in that, although they favour things like a soft border, and the impression given that a soft Brexit is about to happen, they are likely to want repatriation of powers (entry/immigration etc... ) i.e. Full British soveriegnty to come back back to our own parliament, as well as the power to make our own laws without ECHR overriding etc... They may agree to various 'soft' arrangements on trade, immigration over this parliament in negociation etc... but in reality this will be after hardballing British Soveriegnty fully back over these areas IMO and not sub-ordinating it to futher future long term agreements like EEA arrangements. It is unlikely IMO if this sort of 'soft' position/hardball on sovereignty stance will be undermined by the 60-70% remainer Tory MP's to face another GE, and any outragious barriers or bad deal put up by the EU could still be walked away from. I hope this is the case anyway. The end result would be pretty much what the original Brexit stance was in practice.
  2. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4311161.ece?shareToken=15b2410d946d0a35bf4bb875d204d1d6 Of 2.9m new homes built since 2000, 2.5m (i.e.86%) bought by landlords, 400k by owner-occupiers as home ownership plunges to lowest since 1988.
  3. Nothing you can't do with a hoover and over cleaner. Basically most things like this can be put down to fair wear and tear over the years which the landlord would already have claimed from your rent over the years. You must make sure that the landlord is holding your deposit in a approved scheme for your protection if he isn't then you get a multiple of your deposit back... You must remember that many landlords simply regard the deposit as thiers and whatever you do they will try and rip you off. The best approach is never ever to trust your landlord however friendly he may seem, and try and work out what to do in advance when he raises objections to the decor etc... The deposit scheme ombudsman will likely not give the landlord a leg to stand on over wear and tear because you have been in there so many years.
  4. Money matters. It forms opinions. Which political party before 'New Labour' limited immigration the most - which implemented the most laws and most protection for British workers? Conservatives under Thatcher? No not at all. It was Labour in the 1960's which established a fair labour pool for the benefit of UK workers believe it or not. Pre 1980 Labour implemented the strongest immigration laws to stop the increasdingly frightening spectre of mass immigration from the commonwealth this country ever had. It was forced to do this because although their was a body within the Labour party callin for mass immigration and no bounardries, private sector unions and the electorate would never stand thier members real wages falling through oversupply of labour, and they funded the Labour party together with the public sector. In the 1980s the private sector unions died. Post 1997 New Labour depended on only the public sector unions for 86% of funds. And its been the public sector unions have been the main propenents of mass immigration, as it would drop private sector wages for Labour, raise profits and result in more taxes and higher public sector wages, and would fund an great expansion of the public sector and the size of government. There are virtually no private sector unions now. The Labour party is the public sector lobbying arm for all intents and purposes. Thats how much party funding matters.
  5. Thank you for staying up so early in the morning in Australia counting your money to reply at exactly 10:30am UK time to my message. That must have took some doing - did you use matchsticks to keep your eyes open? LOL... I smell BS. Australia uses a highly controlled immigration system seeking skills - not mass immigration. Now, what did you call it - fascist? - to control immigration to sensible levels and stop mass immigration? Are these Australians all fascists in a sorry pool of hatred and bile and blame then?
  6. What if these benefits- tax credits - were dropped? In a situation of mass immigration, do you think employers would start to pay higher wages to make up the difference? Or would the other side of capitalism - the wicked foot of overpopulation rule - called in science the 'tragedy of the commons'? Basically this says that if employers can import people at will, then the most proven profitable situation is one of wages driven to substiance levels and overexplotation. i.e. wages drop to bread and water levels while profits and rents rise to grand country estate levels. We have seen wages utterly collapse as a share of GDP, while profits and rents have soared. I am afraid there is this wishful thinking that if only the market was allowed to work, rents would fall - in many areas they would - and wages would rise - they would not - profits would instead. I accept that £800 from the average workers pay packet per year - 21bn - goes directly to subsidize landlords and is an evil, and leads directly to many vast areas of the north swamped with immigration at the puzzlement of the Ms Duffys of this world in places like Oldham, because low cost housing is smapped up and then filled with imported 'housing benefit bodies' which benefit the landlord at the cost of the taxpayer, as there is a minimum rent established by HB. The housing benefit system fuels mass immigration and welfare claims at the expense of taxpayers. But do we really want to see people driven to the victorian levels of poverty the free market under mass immigration implies?
  7. Over the past decade British Born employment has dropped from 24million people to 23.5 million people. Virtually all of the millions of new jobs created have went to immigrants under a policy of mass immigration. I am in favour of forced work camps and concentration camps for the unemployed. Trouble is many others would find it immoral to castigate displaced British unemployed to these camps while a stealth policy of mass immigration continues at record rates, which means more and more British workers unable to compete with immigrants who exist to work and rent a room in a house 10 to a room, on very low pay, and who do not have any families to feed,housing to buy, and often no taxes to pay.
  8. Small Parties like UKIP are where the political change over key issues happens in the US/UK political system. UKIP will never get power, as most of its activists know, so whats the point?. Small parties act like a dagger at the throat of the main parties when major issues are deliberately ignored. There is little chance a small prinicipled issue based party like UKIP (Mass Immigration and the EU) can engage the vast coalition of opposing factors of production (Land, Labour and Capital) who give broad historical support to the mainstream parties. UKIP will never form a government, so to seriously consider not voting for them because of odd minor issues it doesn't have a hope of implementing etc.. is missing the point. A small party creates a swing from the main parties over key issues. By giving 5-10% of voters a principled place to go, the unprincipled MP's who ignore these issues are looking at a significant slice of support taken away from them, as thier voters vote for the smaller party. Just a 5% swing away from a main party to UKIP is enough to end many MPs majority and give them thier P45s. UKIP is currently on 7%. They increasingly start to panic as the end of their careers as MPs loom, and so push these issues (Ending mass immigration, democracy back over much of our borders and our economy by leaving the undemocratic unelected EU) onto the front of the political agenda, against the political party elites business backhanders and the state of crony capitalism who say one thing and practice the opposite. "Major parties have lived more for patronage than for principles; their goal has been to bind together a sufficiently large coalition of diverse interests to get into power; and once in power, to arrange sufficiently satisfactory compromises of interests to remain there. Minor parties have been attached to some special idea or interest, and they have generally expressed their positions through firm and identifiable programs and principles. Their function has not been to win or govern, but to agitate, educate, generate new ideas, and supply the dynamic element in our political life. When a third party's demands become popular enough, they are appropriated by one or both of the major parties and the third party disappears. Third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die. " Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: from Bryan to F.D.R. (1955)
  9. David Cameron has set the date of the next general election to 7th May 2015. Who do you think you will vote for? What is your big issue for the local elections?
  10. In the political economy there are 3 factors of production; Land, Labour and Capital. Nearly all the mainstream parties have to embrace one or more of these opposing factors to gain enough support to win power. Before the Labour Party was created in 1906, the Liberals represented the Labour and Capital factors of production (The vote did not really get to the working man/women before this Liberal era), and the Tories the Land factor. From 1906 the Labour party better represented the Labour Factor of production, and the Liberal party died off as pointless while the Tories represented Land and Capital. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s most people were members of a Trade Union. During this time the spectre of mass immigration from the commonwealth loomed large (all commonwealth subjects had the right to settle in the UK in the 1950s i.e. over half of the world) It might suprise people on this forum, but it was the Labour party which enacted the strongest immigration controls in UK history, with the Tories on the backfoot during these decades (Labour combined this with strong anti-racism legislation). In the 1980s with the breakup of monopolies and trade unions under Thatcher combined with limited immigration, people saw rising real wages, falling inflation and greater employment and life opportunities, trade union membership sharply declined in the private sector, as workers felt they didn't need mass representation to protect their interests and that industrial trade unions acted against their interests. This left the Labour party funded only by public sector trade unions. There was virtually no private sector 'workers' trade unions left funding the party. Soon enough, in the 1990s the Labour party changed into 'New Labour' and embraced a policy of mass immigration which acted DIRECTLY against the interests of the Labour factor of production. The public sector gained from this, because rising rents and profits at the expense of declining private sector real wages, massive competition for jobs, increasing job insecurity and unemployment meant more revenue for the state through taxation. The Tories can never really represent Labours interests, apart from Thatcher, pre-new labour they have been on the backfoot and thats why we have no real cuts in immigration today even through they spout on about it.There is no political competition, because the Labour party is really just the 'Public Sector party'. COMPETITION is needed to force the Tories to really embrace strong immigration controls. Only the smaller parties like UKIP offer any hope to change the status quo.
  11. LOL.. Hows that crash you have been waiting for coming about? Still renting and facing rising rents per chance? Seems to me, like the idiot awards, in which people are given awards for the most stupid self inflicted accidental death, (thus doing us all a favour by removing themselves from the genepool) maybe there should be a similar idiot awards for this forum - there still seems to be plenty of similar old fools around on this board who still can't connect that when unlimited immigration means hundreds of thousands of new people in the UK every year need housing, that houseprices and rents go up. Maybe its good they are so limited mentally, as with a few extra IQ points, they may well work out that THEY are the ones paying £1000's per year just in housing benefit taxes alone to landlords to house them and then start to resent it as they are not only paying their own inflated rent, but the rents of others - keeping them unable to afford housing. (Housing benefit is about a incredible £1000 per worker in taxes, but not all workers are paying it) Luckly, posters like Pond321 show that there's no fool like an old fool, so no danger there for landlords!.
  12. With over 5000 new people per week settling in the UK (over 260,000 pa) each needing housing, and their taxes for tax payer funded resources like housing benefit, education, health etc... and UKIP being the only party seriously offering to limit this, its in the priced-out voters interests to vote UKIP. It doesn't matter if UKIP can command only a few percent of the vote in your consitituency, because usually thats enough to swing it away from a major party and rob that party of a M.P. Although 1 in 3 seats are 'safe' seats, over 60% of seats will hinge on a few percent either way, this means a few percent support for UKIP cuts disproportionately deep into the main parties and their careerist MPs as their seats are under threat. Thats the beauty of a small party, under FPTP, small parties have a disproportionate effect on the body politic even if it has never won any seats.
  13. Its interesting looking back on this thread dating from 2004 which I contributed to. My understanding of the themes I was adamantly putting forth about why there will be no houseprice crash have matured greatly after so many years. For instance: How did we get here? Within the poltical economy, the main parties always represent 1 or 2 of the 3 factors of production i.e. (land, labour and capital). In the 1900s the '2 party' system was between the Liberals (who represented capital and somewhat off-handedly, labour) and the Conservatives who represented LAND. Then the vote was extended to more ordinary folk, and a new poltical movement had the voters to rapidly gain power, a Labour party was born which represented working people (the Labour factor) and the Liberals where toast and died off. We moved into a postwar political era where Labour represented working people and the Conservatives represented Land and Capital. Even the prospect of mass immigration at the behest of big business, undermining living standards was a massive electoral issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and the Labour Party, funded at the time mainly by private sector unions, brought out the toughest immigration policies this country had ever had. HOWEVER in the 1990s the working class trade unions declined sharply, as Thacthers disinflationary policies combined with limited immigration, led to a rising standard of living and working people gradually abandoned trade unions. in the private sector - that is!. This left only the public sector unions to fund the Labour party. The Labour party ceased representing the ordinary working man, and instead represented only the public sector. (Labour today is 90% funded by the Public Sector Unions). Labour ditched its opposition to Thatcherism, and, setout on a central policy of mass immigration, which was masked by stealth and deceit from it's own voters. The public sector unions pushed hard, and are still pushing hard, for mass immigration. By this policy the level of rents and profits would rise at the expense and stagnation of ordinary peoples real wages. Very large unproductiive expansion and large wages of the public sector, would be matched by large unremitting deflation in real terms of ordinary workers through competition with anyone from the rest of the world arriving to compete with them on their doorstep. Today, profit levels to the Land and Capital factors are at the highest levels in history, yet the share of national income to the Labour factor is at the lowest level in modern history. What amazes me is how apolitical people are about it. Well, thats not quite true, as the Labour party have hemmoraged millions of voters over its immigration betrayal. But the youth of today just don't seem to be interested in fighting the setup by joining a non mainstream party like UKIP or whatever one bit, dispite the bulk of them having horrendous prospects in the labour/jobs market and massive levels of debts paying for thier own training. The current Tory government are in the same hands of big business as the Labour party. The elite of the party are fervent supporters of mass immigration, and immigration has rocketed to much higher levels under their stewardship. However much they intend to concrete over the countryside the mass immigration maths says only one thing! Its the same theme I have been pushing for many years. There will be no welfare state. There will be no pensions. There will be a very small chance of owning a rathole somewhere. Ordinary peoples lives will crumble into a ratrace existance. The overcrowded lives of the Japanese in thier tiny tiny apartments with no welfare state and tube hotels will be something to envy - famously Japan has limited immigration.
  14. With 5000 new people are settling here each week, another city with all the infrastructure of Birmingham is needed every 5.5 years. If you have ever driven around Birmingham you will notice how massive it is. As you say the HMO trend is inevitable. Slumification is immensely profitable. The Conservative cap of 50,000 due to come in April 2011, only applies to non-EU skilled visa route migration, they cannot control EU migration having given control of our borders to the (unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, elite etc...) EU. What is notable; they also have not clamped down on chain migration and student visas, which are the biggest single drivers of non-EU migration. So this tens of thousands slogan looks to be nonsense. I am afraid to say the immigration cap is a fig leaf, which William Hague and Vince Cable is looking to undermine by having the EU rule on a free trade treaty which will mean UK open borders with the counterparty (India to start with). Hague and Cameron are also desperate for Turkey to join. I think this will happen within 5 years. That's 70 million muslim's whose massive numbers and impact will change our ways of life and culture far more than now through their sheer voting power.
  15. A fantastic result in this election thanks to UKIP the tories have been denied a majority in at least 21 of their key marginal seats! Lost Cameron the election. (BTW UKIP are offering free membership at the moment http://www.ukip.org/helpukip) All the discussions above starting to bear some form of noxious fruit in the form of AV. The spitting fury of the Tories and BTLers about a return to 40% CTG (removing a massive tax break to BTLers given by Labour) across all business enterprises is right. It should be focused only on property, all loopholes (like CTG free primary residence if lived in for a few weeks) closed, and applied as a corrective measure to the property bubble, which you and me are paying for as the BTLers property portfolios were bailed out by our future taxes. Its only right that the vast wealth of the property empires should be forced to pay those taxes back as property inflation is made real by each pound you and me hold being massively devalued as the BOE swapped top quality bonds for BTL debt - and the BTLers are the benificaries sitting on vast profits. Every pound coin is a liability of the Bank of England - on the other side of its balance sheet it should hold top quality assets like Gilts, TBills etc.. it has now swapped these top quality assets for rubbish BTL loans and 125% no deposit mortgages to bail out the private sector banks and the housing market. Now its time for the wealthy from this disaster to pay us all back.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.