Nothing to see here. Just Labour threatening to compulsorily purchase private

[Burney]

property at a fraction of market value in order to 'redistribute' it. Which, of course, undermines the whole concept of property rights, which in turn underpin all other human rights. Plus, of course, it's straight out of the state communism handbook.

Not to mention, of course, that if businesses and industry believe the state is willing to arbitrarily remove their assets without adequate compensation, they will be packing up and relocating somewhere more stable in a fücking heartbeat - to the utter ruination of our economy.

But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. I'm sure Uncle Jezza's a lovely, friendly chap who has all our best interests at heart.

Fückssake. :shakehead:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

[Peter]

property at a fraction of market value in order to 'redistribute' it. Which, of course, undermines the whole concept of property rights, which in turn underpin all other human rights. Plus, of course, it's straight out of the state communism handbook.

Not to mention, of course, that if businesses and industry believe the state is willing to arbitrarily remove their assets without adequate compensation, they will be packing up and relocating somewhere more stable in a fücking heartbeat - to the utter ruination of our economy.

But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. I'm sure Uncle Jezza's a lovely, friendly chap who has all our best interests at heart.

Fückssake. :shakehead:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

Suck it up, b. Your old ways are rapidly ageing, and all that.

[Burney]

Suck it up, b. Your old ways are rapidly ageing, and all that.

I'd hardly call full state communism a 'new way', p. I believe it's been tried. It went quite badly as I recall.

Besides, you're just as petty bourgeois as me. You'll not be spared.

[Sir C]

I'd hardly call full state communism a 'new way', p. I believe it's been tried. It went quite badly as I recall.

Besides, you're just as petty bourgeois as me. You'll not be spared.

But he's not a Marxist. On no. He's a 'social democrat', you know. :nod:

[Sir C]

Suck it up, b. Your old ways are rapidly ageing, and all that.

Yes, when you look at the world's rapidly expanding economies like China, Vietnam and Indonesia, it's amazing how tightly they have rejected free market capitalism and turned to the exciting new way, communism.

Yes. That's right. Yes.

[Pokster]

property at a fraction of market value in order to 'redistribute' it. Which, of course, undermines the whole concept of property rights, which in turn underpin all other human rights. Plus, of course, it's straight out of the state communism handbook.

Not to mention, of course, that if businesses and industry believe the state is willing to arbitrarily remove their assets without adequate compensation, they will be packing up and relocating somewhere more stable in a fücking heartbeat - to the utter ruination of our economy.

But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. I'm sure Uncle Jezza's a lovely, friendly chap who has all our best interests at heart.

Fückssake. :shakehead:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

Strange you didn't highlight that a previous Tory housing minister sugested a similar thing

[Burney]

Yes, when you look at the world's rapidly expanding economies like China, Vietnam and Indonesia, it's amazing how tightly they have rejected free market capitalism and turned to the exciting new way, communism.

Yes. That's right. Yes.

:hehe: Are the Chinese and Vietnamese even still pretending to be communists?

[Sir C]

:hehe: Are the Chinese and Vietnamese even still pretending to be communists?

The Vietnamese, not at all. It's full on, every man for himself, frantic capitalism there. You notice lots of soldiers and police about the place, none of whom do anything at all, so the state is clearly still employing people for the sake of it, and criticising the government gets you in front of the People's Court and a 5 year stretch in chokey, so elements of the old days survive, but there's a change even in the 6 years since we were there; the flags and banners in the streets all display the Vietnamese yellow star on a red background now, not a hammer and sickle to be seen, and the censoring of the BBC, Facebook and Twitter appears to have been given up on.

[Burney]

Strange you didn't highlight that a previous Tory housing minister sugested a similar thing

Something with some similarities has been suggested by a man who is a Tory MP and now has no ministerial portfolio whatsoever. Hardly the same thing.

[Pokster]

Something with some similarities has been suggested by a man who is a Tory MP and now has no ministerial portfolio whatsoever. Hardly the same thing.

I would suggest the suggestion isn't as daft as you make out.... the housing shortage can certainly be largely blamed on the right to buy scheme which was the biggest, most obvious bribe I can remember

[Ash]

I would suggest the suggestion isn't as daft as you make out.... the housing shortage can certainly be largely blamed on the right to buy scheme which was the biggest, most obvious bribe I can remember

The housing shortage is definitely a problem. It has undoubtedly made some people rich, while making it very hard for others to afford anywhere, let alone a family home within practical travelling distance of their work. Wages have flatlined for a decade while housing costs continue to spiral upwards.

But hey! The market fixes every problem every time apparently. Even when it doesn't.

[Burney]

I would suggest the suggestion isn't as daft as you make out.... the housing shortage can certainly be largely blamed on the right to buy scheme which was the biggest, most obvious bribe I can remember

A 'bribe' that lifted millions out of state dependency, allowed them to be the first in their families ever to own property and by extension capital. Plus, of course, relieving the taxpayer of a huge financial burden in the process.

Yes, how despicable.

Oh, and I don't suppose you think that the mass immigration of 3.6 million people (and that's just the legal ones) between 1997 and 2010 - vast numbers of whom of course had to be housed by the state - may have had a negative impact on the availability of housing stock at all? No? Course not.

[Pokster]

A 'bribe' that lifted millions out of state dependency, allowed them to be the first in their families ever to own property and by extension capital. Plus, of course, relieving the taxpayer of a huge financial burden in the process.

Yes, how despicable.

Oh, and I don't suppose you think that the mass immigration of 3.6 million people (and that's just the legal ones) between 1997 and 2010 - vast numbers of whom of course had to be housed by the state - may have had a negative impact on the availability of housing stock at all? No? Course not.

Did I say it didn't? No...but hey, if it make you happy to think I did/do carry on with your stupid comments.

RTB enabled people to buy (and still does) at rock bottom prices.. and that money partly goes to central Govt. So it was a bribe that enabled lots of council tennats to make a nice tidy sum but then left councils short of housing and the cash to build mor ehouses

[redgunamo]

The housing shortage is definitely a problem. It has undoubtedly made some people rich, while making it very hard for others to afford anywhere, let alone a family home within practical travelling distance of their work. Wages have flatlined for a decade while housing costs continue to spiral upwards.

But hey! The market fixes every problem every time apparently. Even when it doesn't.

Nobody has family anymore, A, and those that do mostly wish they didn't while those that don't are thanking their lucky stars :shrug:

[Burney]

Did I say it didn't? No...but hey, if it make you happy to think I did/do carry on with your stupid comments.

RTB enabled people to buy (and still does) at rock bottom prices.. and that money partly goes to central Govt. So it was a bribe that enabled lots of council tennats to make a nice tidy sum but then left councils short of housing and the cash to build mor ehouses

I'm not making stupid comments, I'm pointing out that Right to buy is being scapegoated because no-one wants to talk about the devastating impact that uncontrolled immigration has had on the housing market. Much easier to demonise the white, working class baby boomers who fancied a step up.

[Burney]

The housing shortage is definitely a problem. It has undoubtedly made some people rich, while making it very hard for others to afford anywhere, let alone a family home within practical travelling distance of their work. Wages have flatlined for a decade while housing costs continue to spiral upwards.

But hey! The market fixes every problem every time apparently. Even when it doesn't.

The market was skewed in no small part by an artificial spike in demand caused by flooding it with millions of additional consumers who drove availability down and prices up in a country whose housing stocks had been adequate to accommodate the pre-1997 population.

I thank my lucky stars I bought my first house in 2000 before the worst effects of this were felt.

[Ash]

RTB enabled people to buy (and still does) at rock bottom prices.. and that money partly goes to central Govt. So it was a bribe that enabled lots of council tennats to make a nice tidy sum but then left councils short of housing and the cash to build mor ehouses

I know someone quite affluent who bought his dad's central London council flat for a song, and will rent it out at a handy profit for a decade or two until giving it to his child.

Nice work if you can get it.

[Burney]

Nobody has family anymore, A, and those that do mostly wish they didn't while those that don't are thanking their lucky stars :shrug:

The state in this country has never done anything to help those who can afford children to have more - while of course doing loads to encourage those who can't afford them at all to have loads. It's totally fücked up.

[Sir C]

Did I say it didn't? No...but hey, if it make you happy to think I did/do carry on with your stupid comments.

RTB enabled people to buy (and still does) at rock bottom prices.. and that money partly goes to central Govt. So it was a bribe that enabled lots of council tennats to make a nice tidy sum but then left councils short of housing and the cash to build mor ehouses

I still don't understand how RTB had any impact on the housing shortage, unless you're tellingm me that people who bought their council houses then demolished them.

[Burney]

I know someone quite affluent who bought his dad's central London council flat for a song, and will rent it out at a handy profit for a decade or two until giving it to his child.

Nice work if you can get it.

Good luck to him. Once it ceases to belong to the state, what individuals do with their property is entirely up to them.

[Ash]

Good luck to him. Once it ceases to belong to the state, what individuals do with their property is entirely up to them.

Of course. As I said, nice work if you can get it.

Does the stock get replaced though? i don't think so.

[Burney]

I still don't understand how RTB had any impact on the housing shortage, unless you're tellingm me that people who bought their council houses then demolished them.

I think the idea is that those who bought their council houses now have the temerity to still be alive and occupying them, thus denying them to the younger generation. Or, they have acquired other properties and are renting their properties out at 'exorbitant rates' (i.e. market value). In some instances, of course, they may have sold to developers who are sitting on the land until such time as it is financially advantageous for them to develop it - as is their right.

It all obscures the more fundamental demographic problems of a/ an ageing population of homeowners who aren't dying young enough to keep the housing stock moving and b/ increased demand for low income housing brought about by idiotic immigration policies.

[redgunamo]

The state in this country has never done anything to help those who can afford children to have more - while of course doing loads to encourage those who can't afford them at all to have loads. It's totally fücked up.

No, people who don't really want them in any case use that as an excuse for not having had them. Or more of them, as you say.

People are ****ed up and government policy reflects that fact, not the other way about.

[Sir C]

I think the idea is that those who bought their council houses now have the temerity to still be alive and occupying them, thus denying them to the younger generation. Or, they have acquired other properties and are renting their properties out at 'exorbitant rates' (i.e. market value). In some instances, of course, they may have sold to developers who are sitting on the land until such time as it is financially advantageous for them to develop it - as is their right.

It's all obscures the more fundamental demographic problems of a/ an ageing population of homeowners who aren't dying young enough to keep the housing stock moving and b/ increased demand for low income housing brought about by idiotic immigration policies.

Of course, the whole issue could be solved at a stroke by releasing Green Belt land for building. If May weren't such a Nimby, of course...

[Burney]

Of course. As I said, nice work if you can get it.

Does the stock get replaced though? i don't think so.

The stock gets replaced if there's sufficient money in it for the developers. If you artificially create a mass of low-income consumers (as happened between 1997 and 2010), you inevitably eat up the existing stock and give no economic incentive for the market to create more homes - because those consumers cannot pay the sums needed to make the deal profitable. The state then becomes the only party capable of breaking this impasse and it - in a society where property rights are enshrined in law - must still dance to the market's tune.

[Burney]

Of course, the whole issue could be solved at a stroke by releasing Green Belt land for building. If May weren't such a Nimby, of course...

Speaking as someone who lives in the green belt, I'd generally prefer not to have the dregs of Enfield vomited into my nice, semi-rural area in order to fück it up, thanks.

[Sir C]

Speaking as someone who lives in the green belt, I'd generally prefer not to have the dregs of Enfield vomited into my nice, semi-rural area in order to fück it up, thanks.

Speaking as someone who would be delighted to sell up to a developer and spend the rest of my life sitting on a beach laughing hysterically, I'm sympathetic to your issues, but only a little.

[Burney]

Speaking as someone who would be delighted to sell up to a developer and spend the rest of my life sitting on a beach laughing hysterically, I'm sympathetic to your issues, but only a little.

Yes, but your place is essentially an enclave of civilisation and decency in a sea of pikeys. Selling it off to developers would do little to negatively affect the ambience of St Paul's Cray.

[redgunamo]

Of course. As I said, nice work if you can get it.

Does the stock get replaced though? i don't think so.

You could have it if you wanted though, but you don't. All the rest is just some sort of virtue-signalling malarkey.

Decisions have consequences :shrug:

[Pokster]

Yes, but your place is essentially an enclave of civilisation and decency in a sea of pikeys. Selling it off to developers would do little to negatively affect the ambience of St Paul's Cray.

So are you saying Sir C lives in a mansion surrounded by low life scum? He needs some of R's hounds to keep him safe

[Sir C]

So are you saying Sir C lives in a mansion surrounded by low life scum? He needs some of R's hounds to keep him safe

I have African gentlemen who patrol the perimeter and keep us safe in our beds, p.

[Pokster]

I have African gentlemen who patrol the perimeter and keep us safe in our beds, p.

Are this the ones that West Ham didn't want

[Burney]

So are you saying Sir C lives in a mansion surrounded by low life scum? He needs some of R's hounds to keep him safe

:nod: He essentially lives in a metaphor.

[redgunamo]

So are you saying Sir C lives in a mansion surrounded by low life scum? He needs some of R's hounds to keep him safe

Right. And one or two good hunting rifles.

[Ash]

You could have it if you wanted though, but you don't. All the rest is just some sort of virtue-signalling malarkey.

Decisions have consequences :shrug:

I'm fairly sure I don't have access to local authority property. Nor am I trying to signal any virtue imo. Just discussing housing stock. :shrug:

[Ash]

The stock gets replaced if there's sufficient money in it for the developers. If you artificially create a mass of low-income consumers (as happened between 1997 and 2010), you inevitably eat up the existing stock and give no economic incentive for the market to create more homes - because those consumers cannot pay the sums needed to make the deal profitable. The state then becomes the only party capable of breaking this impasse and it - in a society where property rights are enshrined in law - must still dance to the market's tune.

I agree with you about the effects of immigration on the market but if I was neo-liberal like my Bulgarian friend, for example, who thinks that there should be a completely free market in labour, and that the market should decide when people stop moving to this country (when it is worse than Bulgaria, for example), then I would suggest that you accept market realities and not interfere with it by imposing socialist immigration controls.

Another state-interference in free markets is the prevention of building on the green belt by middle-class nimbys. :nod: :-)

You see, this free market mularkey has it limits, wouldn't you agree?

[redgunamo]

I'm fairly sure I don't have access to local authority property. Nor am I trying to signal any virtue imo. Just discussing housing stock. :shrug:

But everything is connected to everything else, as the man said.

[Ash]

But everything is connected to everything else, as the man said.

Yeah. It's Wenger's fault.

[Burney]

I agree with you about the effects of immigration on the market but if I was neo-liberal like my Bulgarian friend, for example, who thinks that there should be a completely free market in labour, and that the market should decide when people stop moving to this country (when it is worse than Bulgaria, for example), then I would suggest that you accept market realities and not interfere with it by imposing socialist immigration controls.

Another state-interference in free markets is the prevention of building on the green belt by middle-class nimbys. :nod: :-)

You see, this free market mularkey has it limits, wouldn't you agree?

NIMBYism isn't state interference, though. It's usually based on the use of existing laws to protect the rights of existing property owners. You might as well argue that copyright is an infringement of the free market.

I agree that the green belt is a restriction of the free market, but without it, the whole of the south east of England would essentially be a London-lite sprawl. However, I don't remember arguing in favour of an unregulated free market.

[redgunamo]

NIMBYism isn't state interference, though. It's usually based on the use of existing laws to protect the rights of existing property owners. You might as well argue that copyright is an infringement of the free market.

I agree that the green belt is a restriction of the free market, but without it, the whole of the south east of England would essentially be a London-lite sprawl. However, I don't remember arguing in favour of an unregulated free market.

Hold on. Isn't that the very definition of NIMBYism?

[Burney]

Hold on. Isn't that the very definition of NIMBYism?

Errrr...yes. That's what I was doing. Defining NIMBYism.

[redgunamo]

Errrr...yes. That's what I was doing. Defining NIMBYism.

I'm confused :-(

"..existing laws to protect the rights of existing property owners." Hardly hounds and hunting rifles protecting the homestead, is it.

[redgunamo]

Are this the ones that West Ham didn't want

Especially as they're not even that cheap anymore #P-EA