Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Eurasia or Eastasia?

Lib Dems fall behind UKIP

Every few years TPTB offer the electorate two clenched hands; in A a palmful of promises, in B a fist with which to beat them repeatedly until the next election. The majority choose incorrectly and receive a good dose of political pugilism. Next time round they figure that they'll choose the other. Unfortunately, in the meantime TPTB have performed the old switcheroo so back to another 4/5 years of face-slapping. Again, the next time round they figure they'll go back to their original choice. Rinse and repeat.

Posted by sibley's b'stard child @ 11:54 AM (1416 views)
Please complete the required fields.



11 thoughts on “Eurasia or Eastasia?

  • An interesting article in it’s own right SBC but where is the HPC connection?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • A Conservative / UKIP Coalition would do no end of good to British Politics.

    UKIP would reign in European influence, end the bailouts, and they would end the eco-extremist policies of carbon taxes and shutting down all our coal fired power stations. In short, that co-alition would be a pro-british, pro jobs, pro industry coalition. I very much looking forward to it, economic growth and a future for our children.

    The British people are slowly waking up to the fact that collectivist socialism equals poverty and that handing over national sovereignty and democratic representation to unelected international bureaucracies is a threat to liberty, and not a moment too soon.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @Libertas

    “The British people are slowly waking up to the fact that collectivist socialism equals poverty”

    If only.

    To read some of the comments on HPC, you would think that socialism is the panacea for all our problems.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    Tis tenuous at best Mr G although apparently over a decade of New Labour rapacity isn’t enough for some people.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Mr G, the Tories are running exactly the same policies as Labour in most things, certainly in the big things.

    And Home-Owner-Ism is very much like Soviet style socialism anyway, in that it’s difficult to earn money fair and square by getting a job or running a business, all the big money is collected by the ruling clique – banker, politician, landowner, public sector fat cat, with a willing army of baby boomers voting them in each time. The top Soviets had daches on the Blakc Sea, our Homey top dogs have second homes in the South West, where’s the big difference?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @5

    Spot on. Couldn’t agree more.

    @ mr g

    Swat up on oligarchism.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Hail The Tripod says:

    A Westminster insider said: “It’s hugely embarrassing for Clegg that his councillors are ashamed to even call themselves Lib Dems.”

    Ashamed? Nonsense, politicians have no shame. Interesting that they now see the party affiliation as a liability more than a benefit. Might see this as a growing trend with Labour and Conservatives also after Bradford West.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Marx, that is not an argument against home ownership no, it is an argument against fraud manipulating the home loan market, redistributing liquidity from legitimate home-owners to buy to let speculators. If the fraud were stamped out liquidity would flow to families who have deposits to spend and ultimately, prices would fall, favoring first time buyers.

    That is pro home ownership.

    So you have legitimate gripes but fall to the totally wrong conclusion, seeing ownership as the problem and land taxation as the solution and you are completely wrong.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @MW “And Home-Owner-Ism is very much like Soviet style socialism”

    Come on, I’ll indulge you in your fantasies about LVT but this statement beats them all.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Jeez, you people don’t get it. Do you?

    On your head be it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Libertwat as per usual misunderstands what Home-Owner-Ism is about.

    Home-Owner-Ism is NOT about encouraging the widest spread of owner-occupation, which is broadly accepted to be A Good Thing, it is about a small select few making as much money as possible by restricting supply and pumping up credit, which combined with heavy subsidies and low taxation of land leads to the inevitable position that land ownership becomes more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, even those people who “own” have huge mortgage debts and a large number of people are tenants.

    If there is a scarce resource – like land – and we want as many people as possible to have a share in it (i.e. a wide spread of owner-occupation), then the best kind of rationing (to ensure that nobody grabs more than his fair share) is price rationining, i.e. Land Value Tax. If everybody had to pay tax on the land he wants to own, and no tax on his earned income, then nobody would want to own more than he really needs/wants/can afford, ergo, there would be fewer tenants and far more homeowners.

    So it is Georgism (i.e. LVT and CI) which encourages/enables the widest spread of home-ownership or land-ownership and by pushing the puchase price of land down to effectively nil, means that there is nothing for the banks and others to speculate in. So that’s a win-win. Georgism is very and extremely pro-land ownership, because if nobody owns any then nobody will be paying tax (and everything has to belong to somebody)

    And Georgism doesn’t adopt this false Daily Mail propaganda of dividing people up into “good” homeowners and “bad” BTL landlords. Plenty of homeowners are land price speculators (i.e. getting on the ladder and buying in up and coming area to try and make a capital gain) and even with LVT, there’d still be enough landlords to provide housing for those for whom buying is inappropriate (i.e. if you are only going to live somewhere for a year or two), being a landlord would still be a profitable activity, there’d just be no unearned capital gains any more.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>