Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by iamnumerate

  1. 3 hours ago, Cocha said:

    I really enjoyed Bolivia and it was the cheapest of the South American countries I went to. We didn't have any problems in Colombia, but if planning an extended stay, then yes, I'd probably have been more wary, Cartagena was beautiful, but a bit too hot.

    You have to be very careful in Cartagena the sea is very dangerous - quite a lot of Colombia is like that to be honest.

  2. 13 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

    You could go to South Africa and/or Colombia if you want to “chase the sun”. Why restrict yourself to EU? I know quite a few who do Spain for 4 months and elsewhere in the world for another 2 months.

    I would recommend Costa Rica rather than Colombia much safer and easier.

    Bolivia is also meant to be nice (never been).

  3. 8 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    I know, because you suffer from an emotional investment in your decision where if challenged you will double down on it. That is normal behaviour.

    I think you are projecting. When I tell you what made me vote Brexit you talk about the Tories (I decided to support Brexit under Labour so they are pretty irrelevant).

    I didn't support Brexit in the past - and if things had been probably wouldn't have done.

    If I had been given the power in 2010 to change five things about the UK - leaving the EU wouldn't have been one of them.

  4. Just now, Cocha said:

    We are blaming the system. Keep ticking that red box and being part of the problem.


    I wouldn't vote Tory if there were a better party that didn't support HTB nor getting rid of the benefit cap.

    2 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    It is not a mystery to me at all why remain lost. I know very well since I started trying to understand in the year leading up to the referendum.


    It was because of people like you. Talking to you would have made me more not less likely to vote leave.

  5. 5 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    I don't know, but best to blame immigrants, the EU and benefit cheats and keep ticking that box for blue. 👏🏻

    With that sort of attitude,  listening carefully to your opponents and trying to meet their concerns. It is a mystery that remain lost. 

    When did I mention benefit cheats? All these people had claims that were valid under our system - the problem is that our system is far too generous with housing benefit.

    The funny thing is that I could have voted remain under the right circumstances.


  6. Just now, dugsbody said:

    I would have been pro stopping it, if the benefit of doing so outweighed the cost.

    But it is the same way the Conservative Party convinces people to keep voting for them, probably against their interest. They play the population off against each other, creating a narrative that benefit cheats are the enemy and only the Conservative Party will do something about it. Meantime they award their chums billions of pounds in contracts, get their cushy guaranteed position on a board when they retire and the masses just squabble amongst each-other and keep voting the same way.

    Labour were in power 97-2010 so why didn't they change the benefit system?

    Also what is the cost (apart from politically) of saying "You get benefits for six months in London after that - you get an empty house in an ex pit village."?

    Sounds great an empty home gets someone in it to look after it, a commuter gets a shorter commute and the tax payer saves money!

  7. Just now, dugsbody said:

    I bet you think that happened a lot. Whereas in reality, it probably wasn't a big deal.

    People always overestimate the impact of immigration. Been studied. But then, in our new culture war world, we ignore intellectuals.

    If it happened very rarely then why not stop it? Surely stopping that something that does not happen very much is not a big deal?



  8. 3 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

    James O'Brian has built his LBC career on pointing these things out prior to the vote, you weren't the only one....

    But it wasn't an option on the ballot paper sadly. It was status quo or leave.

    Goodness knows why we couldn't have all these things. For example not giving people who don't work in London housing in London is not that radical.

  9. 2 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

    And there you go, just like I said up-thread, you are incapable of understanding or being reasoned with, because you're a cultist. I tried, really hard, leading up to the referendum.

    I have since given up and now just point out cultists when I see them.

    You simply do not understand what FOM is.

    That is not true. I voted for Brexit because 

    a) I knew someone who got of the plane in 1999 and was given flat in an expensive area

    b) I wasn't happy with not being able to vote on previous treaties.

    Now if instead an expensive area my acquaintance had been given a valueless house in a ex pit village and we had plenty of referenda then I would never have even thought about support Brexit.

    Countries like Denmark were probably more anti the EU than the UK in the 90s - but they got to vote on treaties we didn't.

  10. 15 minutes ago, winkie said:

    Who said we couldn't change it?.....;)

    Sorry I should we couldn't change it because although a minority of people supported the benefits system - a majority of politicians and people in the media system supported it.

    I hope that is clearer.

    6 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

    Spot on Winkie! These were policy decisions by U.K. govt. However,   I also agree with the previous comments from iamnumerate, both that this contributed to the Brexit vote, and that the SU could have been more flexible on the issue when it was clear what was going on.  

    Thank you.

  11. 5 minutes ago, winkie said:

    Who enabled that then?......what makes you think anybody cares about you and what you can afford now, we have had plenty of immigration inwards since, and we will continue to do so, the rest of the world is bigger and has more people in it than Europe, there is plenty of foreign money out there, since the pound has fallen property has just got cheaper for others to buy.;)


    I don't mind foreigners buying here so much (although if they live here they might find that taxes will take away their investment). I mind people being coming here and being given free housing.

    Now of course that was not the EU's fault, but sadly we couldn't change it.

    9 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

    Essentially what i wanted to, i also felt we needed to look more like the other states, eg a local registry of residency and the removal of economically inactive migrants, just like eg Belgium

    as you say the UK was polarised, the pro EU were often crazily idealistic and wanted us to be better than the other states!

    +1  I think if Spain had been as generous as us and loads of economically inactive Brits had gone there to live off Spanish benefits we would not have had Brexit - we might have had Spain leave the EU though!

  12. 8 minutes ago, winkie said:

    You are absolutely right most will not wish to do that, that is not the point, the freedom to choose has been removed from millions of people......brexit means we all now have fewer choices, both in where we might like to go and how long we might want to stay, but also restriction of the number of goods we might like to buy .....;)

    I am sorry that people are unhappy about that. I was unhappy that people could get off a plane and have nice housing for free when I couldn't afford it, sadly no one cared about that.

  13. 2 minutes ago, Cocha said:

    I think this is what hurts them the most. Some of them actually enjoyed looking down their noses and sneering, rather than engaging, but in the end that is what has cost them. Like Cameron before the referendum, they were far to complacent. 

    Now they are struggling to deal with the fact that those they loved to see as losers and beneath them, have beaten them. No wonder their teddies are still flying all over the place!

    Very true.

    Ironically I think a compromise would have been the best idea. Staying in the EU with a reformed benefit system, working towards the CFP being fairer, referenda on treaties, a clear plan showing enough housing etc could be built. 


    Sadly that was not an option - no one wanted that apart from me.

  14. Just now, dugsbody said:

    What would those legitimate concerns be? The only legitimate one I've heard is if you don't like high immigration and want to remove FOM. The rest of the arguments were smoke-screens.

    But we can't remove FOM without leaving the EU. So in the end, brexiters wanted us to leave the EU no matter what.

    We could have changed the benefits system to discourage EU migration. My problem with FOM is that we were paying for it in many cases via benefits.

    We could have held referenda like other EU countries on treaties. 

  15. Just now, AThirdWay said:

    But this was the inevitable fallout from Brexit, as the UK joined the ranks of non-EU countries. It wasn't the French that punished their travel industry, it was the English/Welsh. 

    The French could have accepted UK pet passports - we accept theirs*. Personally not a problem for me I don't own a dog nor a campsite in France. If I owned a campsite in the UK I would try to capitalize on the hassle and expense of an EU pet passport.



  16. 1 hour ago, AThirdWay said:

    You think that limiting stays to < 3 months will benefit the UK "holiday" industry? How many people take 3 months holiday's in the UK?!?!!?!!  🤣

    I can't believe that people would have gone away to the EU for 6 months don't spend any money in the UK instead.

    (It is of course possible that people will spend the money outside the EU or the UK).

    BTW I should have been and said that I am not saying that this is a big deal either way - but it does seem strange the EU wants to punish its travel industry over Brexit. 

    I have a French friend and because of Brexit it is now harder for him to take his dog back to France seems a bit unfair on him.

  17. I got this from spareroom


    Right now the market is busy. There are thousands of people looking for rooms and not enough supply to keep up. That means you could be getting way more responses to your ad than you have time to deal with.

    Don’t forget we have a great ‘bulk response’ tool that lets you send one message to dozens (or even hundreds) or people in one go.

    Bulk responses save you time, and they also mean people know if your room has gone, so they don’t keep messaging, clogging up your inbox again. It also makes life easier for those tenants who are desperate to find a room but aren’t getting responses, so everyone wins.


  18. 17 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

    It's the oven ready deal that BJ negotiated, whereby we can stay a maximum of 3 months in the EU and they can stay a maximum of 6 months in the UK. Another reason to hate BJ.

    That is good news for the UK holiday industry and bad news for the EU holiday industry. Same with the rules on dogs travelling - making it harder for UK citizens to go on holiday to the EU doesn't seem to be a very clever idea for the EU tourist industry.

    Providing that EU citizens can't get benefits I don't have any problems with them coming here.

    I do wonder why pro EU politicians didn't change the benefit system as there was resentment from at least 2001, a bit late now.


  19. 5 hours ago, slawek said:

    That is a journalist saying something 10 years ago without providing the source. 

    Thames Water is using the ONS population estimation in their water demand forecasts. This wouldn't make sense if they believed ONS number were wrong. In 2019/20 they overestimated population by 120k (1%). 


    I don't think the ONS figures have been accurate for a long time



    Eighteen months after the 2001 census results were first published, the Office for National Statistics is still trying to solve the mystery of vanishing men.


    Harder to get a man?

    When the statisticians first added up the numbers, they found a big hole in the figures: there were a million fewer people than they had expected from the population estimates

    If before 2001 there were a million less men than the ONS thought why do you believe them now?

  20. On 02/07/2022 at 15:18, slawek said:

    Is this a kind of delusion on your side?

    The fact that you believe in it doesn't mean it is true. You need to provide evidence to support it. You have failed to do that so far. 

    If you look at my post above you see that m2 per person increased since 90s. You noticed also a significant inequality. Older households enjoy over 50m2 pp, younger households have to live on twice less. This inequality increased since 90s. 

    Do you really think the population figures are accurate? Slough council paid for sewage to measured to prove that it is they are wrong.



    Thames Water says the outflow of rich or poor alike reveals true numbers – and Slough has 30,000 more people than officially registered.


  • 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.