Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)

[HairyOb1]

But it's still wrong.  People use them as a horse to flog.  They're an important brake on government and until we get an elected house, we have to have them.  But just because it's been said before, does not make it right, and especially for a sitting Minister of the Home Office.

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

But it's still wrong.  People use them as a horse to flog.  They're an important brake on government and until we get an elected house, we have to have them.  But just because it's been said before, does not make it right, and especially for a sitting Minister of the Home Office.

It may be wrong, but it is not new nor it is "right wing" (of course you could take the view if people don't attack the house of Lords, we will never get an elected house).

[iamnumerate]

12 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

No, it isn't.  It is that we're being manipulated by the press, by the government, by much more than that; the rhetoric now, is more right wing than at anytime of my 40 years here.  It is vile.  The Home Office not chastising the press for sledging the judiciary, the blatant attempt to silence the House of Lords as undemocratic when it is part of the democracy and has been for ages.  The vilification of any non English person in the press.  I hate to mention yesterday, but the right wing media is full of talk about immigration when the chap was born in the UK.

 

1) This is about house prices - I think you should start a thread on off topic thread about this

2) I still don't believe we are being manipulated by the press nor the government.  They are both too incompetent* and don't speak with one voice

Look at the Daily Mail's coverage of that Brit in Mosul https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/british-suicide-bomber-ronald-fiddler-uk-security-services-guilty-of-failings-terrorism-chief 

do you really think an organization that incompetent is capable of manipulating us?  I have obviously don't have time to post the 100s of examples of Government incompetence

 

*It is possible that they are pretending to be incompetent so we don't know that they are manipulating us but I doubt it.

 

 

 

[HairyOb1]

I’ll ask this genuinely.  Do you think we’re not being manipulated?  Do you think we are left to think independently, clear of influence and pressure?

What do you think that all of the right wing press have been talking about all year, for some much more than that?

I have seen rare, incredibly rare, stories about EE foreigners being abused, yet it happens in our schools.  I heard one lady at Tesco’s, say in a heated discussion to an EE person, well, you will not be here much longer.  My Spanish friend, someone who has been here for almost 20 years, was asked to present herself at the Town Hall in a town in Devon, to show her papers.  She was asked for her papers.  We have a government who is using EU nationals as a bargaining chip.  People, peoples children, who have lived here for a long, long time, are being sued as bargaining chips.

That wasn’t driven years ago, but now it is the new normal.  The press is doing this, as are our politicians, which drives the new normal.

So let’s attack the existing HoC where a small minority can rule the country, let’s start calling that unconstitutional as it doesn’t reflect a constituency’s real view.

In the system we have, you can literally get in with 11% of the vote, if 9 others had less than that.  In one constituency I lived in, it didn’t matter who you voted, as there would always be a Conservative MP returned.  I think the system here is utterly flawed, as it doesn’t represent all of the people.

If you have a system, where one vote can mean 49.999999999999999999999% of the people are unrepresented, it’s wrong.  If you can have 4 parties all returning 19.98% of the vote, and someone getting in on 19.99%, it’s wrong.  There you go, that’s an altogether different discussion.

[HairyOb1]

It really is ok to disagree.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, HairyOb1 said:

I’ll ask this genuinely.  Do you think we’re not being manipulated?  Do you think we are left to think independently, clear of influence and pressure?

 

I do think that the media and Goverment try to manipulate us and affect our thinking.  However a) I don't think they speak with one voice, the BBC says one, Mail another, Express another etc.  Also I think within the papers themselves the views differ.  So I don't think we are being maniuplated to think in one way.

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

I have seen rare, incredibly rare, stories about EE foreigners being abused, yet it happens in our schools.  I heard one lady at Tesco’s, say in a heated discussion to an EE person, well, you will not be here much longer.  My Spanish friend, someone who has been here for almost 20 years, was asked to present herself at the Town Hall in a town in Devon, to show her papers. 

I think that is very sad, it should not happen.  

[HairyOb1]

I am posting this, as the conversation turned to benefits, tax credits, which was when I suggested we didn’t look at those who claimed them, as it was an obfuscation and that the people we really should be looking at, are those profiting massively from the governments actions, that we shouldn’t be suggesting Self employed people not paying as much NI was crippling the UK more than the companies not paying tax, that the real problems lied with the really big money in big business.

This is all about house prices and the economy.  MY argument was that the PTB will not stop tax credits, as they feed directly into the economy, which would cause a crash – take £6bn of liquidity out of the UK economy and it will fall and fail very quickly.  Someone’s argument was that immigrants send most of their money home, some 30-60% according to some, that it didn’t make its way into OUR economy, which is simply untrue.  So it is all linked.  It’s all linked to looking at each other at ground zero and not the people who deserve our ire.

 

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

We have a government who is using EU nationals as a bargaining chip.  People, peoples children, who have lived here for a long, long time, are being sued as bargaining chips.

Well the rest of the EU is doing the same

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-angela-merkel-eu-migrants-deal-a7445261.html

If we were to say EU nationals can stay here and then UK citizens were deported from the EU -that would be the end of the Tories and cause massive racism.  Merkel is the problem here - unless the British press are lying although the independent is not normally anti EU.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, HairyOb1 said:

 It’s all linked to looking at each other at ground zero and not the people who deserve our ire.

 

 

But I do think my former neighbour who got a better house than me - paid for me - does deserve my ire (a word you don't hear that much).  If she (and enough people like her) had been given a council flats in Glasgow her landlord would have had to sell her house and I could have bought it.

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

Well the rest of the EU is doing the same

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-angela-merkel-eu-migrants-deal-a7445261.html

If we were to say EU nationals can stay here and then UK citizens were deported from the EU -that would be the end of the Tories and cause massive racism.  Merkel is the problem here - unless the British press are lying although the independent is not normally anti EU.

Now I am sure you can see why I say the government sends rhetoric down and people lap it up; this is precisely May's view, verbatim.    The EU have stated the first thing they wish to discuss is the fate of EU and UK citizens in and out of the EU/UK.  It’s the very first thing.  Now factor in the fact that we’re still using people as bargaining chips by doing this, that hasn’t changed.

[iamnumerate]

11 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

So let’s attack the existing HoC where a small minority can rule the country, let’s start calling that unconstitutional as it doesn’t reflect a constituency’s real view.

In the system we have, you can literally get in with 11% of the vote, if 9 others had less than that.  In one constituency I lived in, it didn’t matter who you voted, as there would always be a Conservative MP returned.  I think the system here is utterly flawed, as it doesn’t represent all of the people.

If you have a system, where one vote can mean 49.999999999999999999999% of the people are unrepresented, it’s wrong.  If you can have 4 parties all returning 19.98% of the vote, and someone getting in on 19.99%, it’s wrong.  There you go, that’s an altogether different discussion.

Obviously I disagree with that, I would like that to be changed.

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

But I do think my former neighbour who got a better house than me - paid for me - does deserve my ire (a word you don't hear that much).  If she (and enough people like her) had been given a council flats in Glasgow her landlord would have had to sell her house and I could have bought it.

 

And there’s the rhetoric again; you’re pitching yourself against your neighbour when the anger should be directed at government policy: If there were enough council houses, then the discussion would move on to not enough council housing, not ‘me paying for hers’.  It is precisely that level, and kind, of language that’s being sued now, which is why I am saying, we fall for it and our anger is shown in the wrong direction.

There will always be private landlords.  My first steps out of my parents house was to a rented flat.  This will not disappear, it’s a service, a needed one, for some people really do not want to buy.  Lots of Germans don’t buy, and French.

[HairyOb1]

Sorry, what I meant was if you thought, there isn't enough council houses, then your argument would be that, not that the lady next door has a flat you've paid for, which is driving up costs.  Pick the right argument and you'll engage with the people you should be getting angry with.  Your angry with her as she has a nicer house than you when the fault of that is with the government, not her.

[iamnumerate]

4 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Now I am sure you can see why I say the government sends rhetoric down and people lap it up; this is precisely May's view, verbatim.    The EU have stated the first thing they wish to discuss is the fate of EU and UK citizens in and out of the EU/UK.  It’s the very first thing.  Now factor in the fact that we’re still using people as bargaining chips by doing this, that hasn’t changed.

Why doesn't the EU say "We will let all UK citizens stay here if EU citizens can stay in the EU?"

(It is possible that they have and it has not been reported in the UK press, please feel free to put a link to a German report I am sure Google translate would help).

[HairyOb1]

I genuinely think if people spent more time addressing the real cause of the issues, then they’d be less division in society.

Genuinely.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

Sorry, what I meant was if you thought, there isn't enough council houses, then your argument would be that, not that the lady next door has a flat you've paid for, which is driving up costs.  Pick the right argument and you'll engage with the people you should be getting angry with.  Your angry with her as she has a nicer house than you when the fault of that is with the government, not her.

Well you are right that it is the fault of the Government that they didn't send her to an empty house in Liverpool instead they spent money knocking them down (google John Prescott and Liverpool if you want more details).  However I think she should have against the idea.

 

4 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

 

And there’s the rhetoric again; you’re pitching yourself against your neighbour when the anger should be directed at government policy: If there were enough council houses, then the discussion would move on to not enough council housing, not ‘me paying for hers’.  It is precisely that level, and kind, of language that’s being sued now, which is why I am saying, we fall for it and our anger is shown in the wrong direction.

There will always be private landlords.  My first steps out of my parents house was to a rented flat.  This will not disappear, it’s a service, a needed one, for some people really do not want to buy.  Lots of Germans don’t buy, and French.

In a country with our planning controls and open borders there will never be enough council housing - unless we only give it to people who work in an area.

I am not anti private landlords - just paying them rent for others to have luxury housing.

[HairyOb1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

Why doesn't the EU say "We will let all UK citizens stay here if EU citizens can stay in the EU?"

(It is possible that they have and it has not been reported in the UK press, please feel free to put a link to a German report I am sure Google translate would help).

Well they haven’t, what they did say, and have said from the start, is that they cannot start discussing any Brexit arguments until Brexit has been triggered via Article 50. In the German, and French, press, there was always the thought it wouldn’t be triggered.  Their view, from my friends in the country still, was that they really didn’t think we’d do it, or be allowed to do it. 

You’re forgetting, that Merkel cannot discuss anything with May, as she’s not the leader of the EU, nor part of the EU Brexit committee.  There are 27 countries you’d have to do a deal with, not one.  To agree this would take the agreement of 27 leaders, not one.  She was simply articulating that.  The message was delivered very disingenuously by the independent, to be honest.

[iamnumerate]

4 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I genuinely think if people spent more time addressing the real cause of the issues, then they’d be less division in society.

Genuinely.

True - but we would all have to agree what they are.

[HairyOb1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

Well you are right that it is the fault of the Government that they didn't send her to an empty house in Liverpool instead they spent money knocking them down (google John Prescott and Liverpool if you want more details).  However I think she should have against the idea.

I know about Prescotts grand plan.  But why should she be against the idea?

 

Just now, iamnumerate said:

In a country with our planning controls and open borders there will never be enough council housing - unless we only give it to people who work in an area.

I am not anti private landlords - just paying them rent for others to have luxury housing.

Land banks should be made illegal.  Land is being held back from development by major house builders to keep supply where they need it.  I believe if you buy housing land, it should be used within a certain amount of time or bought back via compulsory purchase and built on.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

Well they haven’t, what they did say, and have said from the start, is that they cannot start discussing any Brexit arguments until Brexit has been triggered via Article 50. In the German, and French, press, there was always the thought it wouldn’t be triggered.  Their view, from my friends in the country still, was that they really didn’t think we’d do it, or be allowed to do it. 

You’re forgetting, that Merkel cannot discuss anything with May, as she’s not the leader of the EU, nor part of the EU Brexit committee.  There are 27 countries you’d have to do a deal with, not one.  To agree this would take the agreement of 27 leaders, not one.  She was simply articulating that.  The message was delivered very disingenuously by the independent, to be honest.

Maybe true - although I am not 100% sure all leaders in the EU are equal.  The independent is not normally anti EU.

[HairyOb1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

Maybe true - although I am not 100% sure all leaders in the EU are equal.  The independent is not normally anti EU.

I have always assumed Merkel and Hollande, currently, pretty much guide the EU, but they still have to get 27 votes to secure something like this.  And don't forget, the principle of freedom of movement is one of 4 key tenets of the EU and I am sure they can’t give up one of them, before the full discussion starts, as it may include it as part of any trade deal.  As I said, this is 27 entities needing to agree on someone.  We have one, and it’s a human principle, it shouldn’t have been an ideologically driven one.

3 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

True - but we would all have to agree what they are.

I think if you sat 100 members of this board in a pub, we'd quickly come to the same conclusions about what needed to be done, if we removed the man on the ground from the equation.

[iamnumerate]

2 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

 

I think if you sat 100 members of this board in a pub, we'd quickly come to the same conclusions about what needed to be done, if we removed the man on the ground from the equation.

Do you mean 100 randomly picked members?

Sadly I have to disagree.  This is what I would say in the pub meeting.

My solution to making housing cheaper is

1) Don't provide housing in expensive parts of the South East (most of it) to people who don't work there

2) Workfare for people on benefits to stop fraud.

3) Carry on with S24 etc to make the playing field between BTL and home buyers

4) Make immigration to be decided at a local level.  Every 5 years people should vote for how many houses where they live and the number of immigrants to be allowed in to be x% of the UK total number of houses that will be built .  (Lets not get into details of the value of x).  I think people who are pro immigration should provide the housing in their back yard, I am not sure what number I would vote by the way)

5) To encourage people to not be anti immigrants don't give immigrants benefits for the first few years (my wife is an immigrant and was here for 5 years before she could have claimed benefits, she didn't BTW).

Edited March 23, 2017 by iamnumerate

[HairyOb1]

17 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Do you mean 100 randomly picked members?

Sadly I have to disagree.  This is what I would say in the pub meeting.

My solution to making housing cheaper is

1) Don't provide housing in expensive parts of the South East (most of it) to people who don't work there

Disagree, you can't geolocate people, who may have family, history there, against their will.

17 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

2) Workfare for people on benefits to stop fraud.

Hmmm, kind of with you here, although I'd propose local community work.

17 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

3) Carry on with S24 etc to make the playing field between BTL and home buyers

Absolutely.

17 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

4) Make immigration to be decided at a local level.  Every 5 years people should vote for how many houses where they live and the number of immigrants to be allowed in to be x% of the UK total number of houses that will be built .  (Lets not get into details of the value of x).  I think people who are pro immigration should provide the housing in their back yard, I am not sure what number I would vote by the way)

Disagree.  Completely.  I agree with open borders and equivalence.

17 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

5) To encourage people to not be anti immigrants don't give immigrants benefits for the first few years (my wife is an immigrant and was here for 5 years before she could have claimed benefits, she didn't BTW).

I'd suggest a lower level of subsistence benefits for anyone who hasn't contributed enough.  Roof over their heads, food in their stomachs, heating and hot water.

[iamnumerate]

16 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Disagree, you can't geolocate people, who may have family, history there, against their will.

 

Why not?  My Gran was born in South Kensington does that mean that my Great Grandparents had an inalienable right to a decent home there and ipso factor all their descendants for ever.  Loads of Londoners have moved out of London because of housing pressures why should people on benefits be any different?  I once heard someone talking about the benefit cap and how it might make her move, when she was asked about where her friends live she "said the ones who work had to move out of this area because it was too expensive".  IMHO that justifies the benefit cap.

BTW how much history means that someone cannot be forced to move from an area - a year, two years or a week?

[iamnumerate]

33 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Disagree.  Completely.  I agree with open borders and equivalence.

 

If we had open borders how many people would come here and how would we house them?  I would guess at least 1-2 million a year (look at the number of internal migrants in China and how badly they are treated) and no idea.