Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
wherebee

Major Housebuilding Plan Announced!

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/23/labour-ed-miliband-housebuilding-pledge

well i was going to vote labour anyway as I think they will **** it up so badly this time the international markets will kill the UK financially, forcing interest rate rises and thus a HPC.

BUt this was interesting......until I realised the promise was effectively not worth the breath used to say it. 'BY 2020'.

Yeah, right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a lot of those promises frankly.

Aside from houses, no second jobs for MPs is a no brainer, and the small business tax cuts appeal to me as a small business owner.

But as you say, a promise isn't worth the paper it's written in.

I'd rather Milliped than Camoron, but it's a bit like choosing whether I'd rather be hit by a truck or a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Miliband will propose on Tuesday to reform Britain's dysfunctional housing market by building 200,000 new houses a year by 2020, the end of the next parliament.

It sounds just like another of those "no more boom and bust", “I will not allow house prices to get out of control" and "tuition fees" "cast iron" promises.

Ed Miliband will tell the Labour party conference: 'They used to say a rising tide lifts all boats. Now the rising tide just seems to lift the yachts and gin palaces.'

(addition for accuracy)

The same vessels that they used to enjoy being guests on.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Esther Rantzen thread, they will say anything, do anything, to stay in the public eye. Millipede is not yet totally desperate, Balls Up obviously is, he is like a hooker outside a late club desperately trying to pay the rent, total nonsense all of their promises. Mass building would cause flats to trade at about 10k in some cities, so in banker led world it will never happen.

Edited by dances with sheeple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on mother******ers put your money where your mouth is.

I would vote.for labour on the back of a policy such as this. Can't say I think they'd see it through thought. *****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Labour leader also intends to use his speech to ask voters to recognise that Britain can be better – and to ask themselves in 2015 whether they are better off than five years ago, an echo of the famous question asked by the Republican Ronald Reagan in the 1990 presidential election.

Hmmm - sounds like a bit of a trick question :rolleyes: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

200,000 unaffordable homes?

200,000 dodgy shared equity scam homes?

200,000 social homes?

The devil is in the detail.

Also where?

At least Labour are moving housing onto the agenda.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a lot of those promises frankly.

Aside from houses, no second jobs for MPs is a no brainer, and the small business tax cuts appeal to me as a small business owner.

But as you say, a promise isn't worth the paper it's written in.

I'd rather Milliped than Camoron, but it's a bit like choosing whether I'd rather be hit by a truck or a bus.

...second jobs for MPs means they pay proper income tax to help the country meet it's benefits bills ....and MPs wages etc...but the thickos in Labour don't get that ..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...second jobs for MPs means they pay proper income tax to help the country meet it's benefits bills ....and MPs wages etc...but the thickos in Labour don't get that ..... :rolleyes:

Oh come on. It's a tiny TINY amount of money generated by second incomes for MPs. Hardly generates anything tax wise in the wider scheme of things (doubt it would be 0.0001 of tax receipts for pity's sake), but it does generate a lot of vested interests.

They probably make more "flipping" second homes - could you defend that so readily?

I'm really not comfortable with how many companies/institutions MPs are employed by or directors of get taxpayer money.

If the figure of taxpayer cash to said companies greatly exceeds the tax receipts generated by said MPs employment by them it's a system that's definitely questionable. And it does. Vastly actually.

Also stop and think through your logic. Are you suggesting these jobs wouldn't exist (and therefore wouldn't generate taxes) if MPs didn't do them? That really shouldn't be the case, but if it is it screams "vested interests" and "professional bribes" to me.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Any connection between the new house building scheme and this? A nicely inflated bubble to float on?

The owners of Miller Group, the UK's largest privately-owned housebuilder, are considering a possible stock market debut as the positive sentiment around the country's property market continues to gather momentum.

Miller, which has been under the management of the Miller family throughout its 80-year history, saw pre-tax profits jump to £4m in the first half of the year, compared with £400,000 for the first six months of 2012. The group said Help to Buy, the government-backed mortgage scheme, had accounted for 16 per cent of reservations in England.

Mr Miller has been vocal in the past about his desire to expand the business rather than wait to be taken over by a rival, saying: "People are going to get bought. But when the meal starts, we want to be at the table, not on the menu."

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2foXespRM

"People are going to get bought. But when the meal starts, we want to be at the table, not on the menu" sounds like a hard core double glazing salesman :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on. It's a tiny TINY amount of money generated by second incomes for MPs. Hardly generates anything tax wise in the wider scheme of things (doubt it would be 0.0001 of tax receipts for pity's sake), but it does generate a lot of vested interests.

They probably make more "flipping" second homes - could you defend that so readily?

I'm really not comfortable with how many companies/institutions MPs are employed by or directors of get taxpayer money.

If the figure of taxpayer cash to said companies greatly exceeds the tax receipts generated by said MPs employment by them it's a system that's definitely questionable. And it does. Vastly actually.

Also stop and think through your logic. Are you suggesting these jobs wouldn't exist (and therefore wouldn't generate taxes) if MPs didn't do them? That really shouldn't be the case, but if it is it screams "vested interests" and "professional bribes" to me.

Yeah, his post is a load of tosh. There is about 650 MP's, so it's an absolutely tiny amount of revenue in the grand scheme of things.

But what it does provide is a fantastic way for the corporate community and wealthy elites to legally bung bribes at our politicians, and so to influence them to act in their best interests instead of ours.

Typical example that occurred not too long ago -

David Blunkett joins Oracle Capital. This company provides financial services to “high net worth individuals and their families”. Typical services are wealth structuring, asset protection and investment advice through tax havens in Switzerland and the Bahamas.

Now on issues of tax avoidance, evasion and closing loopholes, will he vote/act in our interests or those paying him a £100K+ a year?

Southe Lorne is talking tosh. This sort of thing should rightfully be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical example that occurred not too long ago -

David Blunkett joins Oracle Capital. This company provides financial services to “high net worth individuals and their families”. Typical services are wealth structuring, asset protection and investment advice through tax havens in Switzerland and the Bahamas.

Now on issues of tax avoidance, evasion and closing loopholes, will he vote/act in our interests or those paying him a £100K+ a year?

Southe Lorne is talking tosh. This sort of thing should rightfully be banned.

Indeed.

Would that 100K a year post even exist if David Blunkett (or another MP) didn't accept it?

If it's not a job anyone other than an MP who just happens to vote on things that might be beneficial to said company can do for the same money/tax income, it's probably a job (and tax income) we can do without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather Milliped than Camoron, but it's a bit like choosing whether I'd rather be hit by a truck or a bus.

:lol:

Major housebuilding to commence in 10 years time?

FFS, there will be at least 2 General Elections in that time. :rolleyes:

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   222 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.