Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Nick

A New Political Movement or Uprising?

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

The generation that votes tory bought themselves multiple houses to prey on generation rent (over 2 million uk landlords) and then can't understand why those people don't believe the economy works for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

The generation that votes tory bought themselves multiple houses to prey on generation rent (over 2 million uk landlords) and then can't understand why those people don't believe the economy works for them. 

What utter nonsense in every way. Huge numbers of UK "landlords" are incomers and not Tories at all as far as I'm aware.

 

People turned to renting because they wanted to remain employment-flexible and to be able to travel. The increase in university students helped renting become almost the norm so the many students continued on the renting route afterwards and so remained easily able to change direction for work or recreational reasons.

 

Another factor was fear. Marriage was somehow downgraded in the national psyche and with more relationship breakdowns proving ever-more costly when home ownership was involved, again, rented accommodation seemed less risky in various ways including in terms of mobility. It was also an option for the displaced partner.

 

Doubtless there are, and were, other reasons for the change as well, including the soaring cost of houses brought about by fewer houses being available to purchase  (incomer landlords being part of that problem through taking even more homes out of the buyers market). 

 

There was also the massive increase in demand brought about by our open gate policy, which remains ongoing, and the lack of affordable new homes being placed on the market  - hence the evolution now of prefabricated fast-builds which may well start to make their mark very shortly.

 

So basically, immigration has helped increased demand for the fewer available homes beyond the level of supply and the problems never been overcome since.  And that, of course, plus other factors, had the effect of increasing prices and even more so with the so many homes being rented and therefore not available for purchase.

 

It's simple supply and demand really and if the "open gates" were to close and  if more (affordable) houses were to be built (and discounted from the rental market) then house prices would stabilise and might even fall if the prefabricated options prove popular and sufficiently durable.        

 

Far from wishing to "prey" on youngsters needing to buy a home I and many others of my generation would welcome a fall in house prices and any means of helping youngsters to purchase. I live in my house, it's value is as a home not a bank. And eventually I'd hope to pass it on to my sons so they benefit too. If Corbyn - or whoever - doesn't steal the proceeds! .   

 

  

             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thracian said:

What utter nonsense in every way. Huge numbers of UK "landlords" are incomers and not Tories at all as far as I'm aware.

 

People turned to renting because they wanted to remain employment-flexible and to be able to travel. The increase in university students helped renting become almost the norm so the many students continued on the renting route afterwards and so remained easily able to change direction for work or recreational reasons.

 

Another factor was fear. Marriage was somehow downgraded in the national psyche and with more relationship breakdowns proving ever-more costly when home ownership was involved, again, rented accommodation seemed less risky in various ways including in terms of mobility. It was also an option for the displaced partner.

 

Doubtless there are, and were, other reasons for the change as well, including the soaring cost of houses brought about by fewer houses being available to purchase  (incomer landlords being part of that problem through taking even more homes out of the buyers market). 

 

There was also the massive increase in demand brought about by our open gate policy, which remains ongoing, and the lack of affordable new homes being placed on the market  - hence the evolution now of prefabricated fast-builds which may well start to make their mark very shortly.

 

So basically, immigration has helped increased demand for the fewer available homes beyond the level of supply and the problems never been overcome since.  And that, of course, plus other factors, had the effect of increasing prices and even more so with the so many homes being rented and therefore not available for purchase.

 

It's simple supply and demand really and if the "open gates" were to close and  if more (affordable) houses were to be built (and discounted from the rental market) then house prices would stabilise and might even fall if the prefabricated options prove popular and sufficiently durable.        

 

Far from wishing to "prey" on youngsters needing to buy a home I and many others of my generation would welcome a fall in house prices and any means of helping youngsters to purchase. I live in my house, it's value is as a home not a bank. And eventually I'd hope to pass it on to my sons so they benefit too. If Corbyn - or whoever - doesn't steal the proceeds! .   

 

  

             

It was Teresa May that wanted to steal the proceeds.

Right to Buy in the 1980s, where the proceeds of house sales were not available to build new social housing, is the root of this problem. One of the most short sighted political decisions of all time.

 

https://homelet.co.uk/homelet-rental-index/tenant-satisfaction-survey-oct-2015

5) Ideally, would you prefer to buy a home (either outright or via a mortgage) than to rent?

Decision Percentage of respondents
Yes, I'd prefer to buy 71%
No, I'm happy renting 14%
Don't mind either way 11%
Other (please specify) 4%

71% of respondents also stated that they’d prefer to own a property than to rent a property. Only 14% of respondents said that they wouldn’t prefer to buy as they were happy renting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rincewind said:

The ones who think they will never be in poverty vote for it indirectly for others. Those that repeat the old 'Workers and shirkers' line should think up something for themselves because it has been done to death since Tony Blair first used by the Mail and Sun. They should speak to people that work helping those in poverty. Many of those living rough are ex military. Many of those receiving benefits are in work. Those in power have little understanding of what it is like to struggle on little or no income often relying on food banks.

Dont even know why I bother to reply. It is always ridiculed and am accused of being jealous or envy.

Good reply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Thracian said:

What utter nonsense in every way. Huge numbers of UK "landlords" are incomers and not Tories at all as far as I'm aware.

 

People turned to renting because they wanted to remain employment-flexible and to be able to travel. The increase in university students helped renting become almost the norm so the many students continued on the renting route afterwards and so remained easily able to change direction for work or recreational reasons.

 

Another factor was fear. Marriage was somehow downgraded in the national psyche and with more relationship breakdowns proving ever-more costly when home ownership was involved, again, rented accommodation seemed less risky in various ways including in terms of mobility. It was also an option for the displaced partner.

 

Doubtless there are, and were, other reasons for the change as well, including the soaring cost of houses brought about by fewer houses being available to purchase  (incomer landlords being part of that problem through taking even more homes out of the buyers market). 

 

There was also the massive increase in demand brought about by our open gate policy, which remains ongoing, and the lack of affordable new homes being placed on the market  - hence the evolution now of prefabricated fast-builds which may well start to make their mark very shortly.

 

So basically, immigration has helped increased demand for the fewer available homes beyond the level of supply and the problems never been overcome since.  And that, of course, plus other factors, had the effect of increasing prices and even more so with the so many homes being rented and therefore not available for purchase.

 

It's simple supply and demand really and if the "open gates" were to close and  if more (affordable) houses were to be built (and discounted from the rental market) then house prices would stabilise and might even fall if the prefabricated options prove popular and sufficiently durable.        

 

Far from wishing to "prey" on youngsters needing to buy a home I and many others of my generation would welcome a fall in house prices and any means of helping youngsters to purchase. I live in my house, it's value is as a home not a bank. And eventually I'd hope to pass it on to my sons so they benefit too. If Corbyn - or whoever - doesn't steal the proceeds! .   

 

  

             

Nearly all of this is bullsh*t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Nearly all of this is bullsh*t

It really isnt, but it's easier to just reply with that than address the points raised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The youth get chastised by everyone for not turning up and being apathetic and when they turn up and vote they still get chastised for being naive and stupid.

 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Is it really any wonder that they voted for someone promising something different when the most vocal section of people dismissing them are Tories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....and the old get chastised for living beyond 65 in house that has gone up through no fault of their own. 

 

It's the politicians and media lauding over and welcoming higher house prices not the oldies. I've never understood this obsession with how good it is that house prices keep going up it's certainly no benefit to me and only comes something when I die, I've not planned for it to be a legacy for my kids but I really don't see why it should be used against me when I've made many sacrifices in the first place to get hold of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they used to say your monthly mortgage was a weeks wages. Anyway even when houses were fairly low my wages would not have covered it I don't think. I never really had a need to look into it. When I left work my wages was only just under £300 and that was 48 hrs. Then I had rent, rates electricity etc. I was not hard up or well off but managed. I have been criticised for taking pension credits rather than look for another, likely 48 hr £350 pw job.

Well PC was £140 then I had rent and rates reduction bringing the total over 200 opposed to doing a job I did not really enjoy getting up or coming home at 4am.

If I had met somebody I wanted to settle down with when younger then no doubt I would  have ended up with a mortgage and a house full of kids. But I believe back then only the mans wage was taken into account. Now both man woman are used or virtually no one could afford a house at todays prices. Whats the cheapest terraced? £150k -£250k? With an income of 80k needed? That is fine maybe to start with but then there are children,career changes salary reduction loss of work and possible serious illnesses to consider all can have an affect. I do not envy those forking out £500 plus a month for 40 years. I forgot to include the upkeep of the house repairs etc.

I could go on but I have ranted enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted from a barrister friend:

 

Hot on the heels of a £130 million pound election, the government sets aside £5 million for Grenfell as a result of saving £200k on a sprinkler system. Meanwhile, across town, a woman sits in her own piss for two hours as part of the government's fitness to work programme which pays >£200 million more each year to private contractors than it actually saves in benefits. Tough and expensive job ****ing over the poor, obviously.

 

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/woman-forced-to-sit-in-her-own-urine-for-two-hours-by-pip-assessor/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Quoted from a barrister friend:

 

Hot on the heels of a £130 million pound election, the government sets aside £5 million for Grenfell as a result of saving £200k on a sprinkler system. Meanwhile, across town, a woman sits in her own piss for two hours as part of the government's fitness to work programme which pays >£200 million more each year to private contractors than it actually saves in benefits. Tough and expensive job ****ing over the poor, obviously.

 

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/woman-forced-to-sit-in-her-own-urine-for-two-hours-by-pip-assessor/

Fvcking bastards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions I want answering are how much longer does this country need to be skint and its citizens endure endless austerity measures, why do we have 2 budgets a year, what's wrong with one. We must be the poorest nation in the world, how come we have to get rid of 20000 coppers and reduce the armed forces to almost nothing yet still have to pay the same amount in taxes. Is someone at the top just taking the piss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5th richest country in the world. Spending nowhere near as much on health, education or housing as others. But yet to do so will apparently bankrupt the country. 

eu8_S0HTtNOQk2IGJ6z2xdMshxuDoPLsB7OUb46CHho.png

NHS-spending-internationall-comparison-fig-1.png

800px-Total_general_government_expenditure_on_education,_2015_(%_of_GDP).png

800px-Total_general_government_expenditure_on_housing_and_community_amenities,_2015_(%_of_GDP).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

5th richest country in the world. Spending nowhere near as much on health, education or housing as others. But yet to do so will apparently bankrupt the country. 

eu8_S0HTtNOQk2IGJ6z2xdMshxuDoPLsB7OUb46CHho.png

NHS-spending-internationall-comparison-fig-1.png

800px-Total_general_government_expenditure_on_education,_2015_(%_of_GDP).png

800px-Total_general_government_expenditure_on_housing_and_community_amenities,_2015_(%_of_GDP).png

Don't worry the NHS will get an extra £55 a day soon :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

The questions I want answering are how much longer does this country need to be skint and its citizens endure endless austerity measures, why do we have 2 budgets a year, what's wrong with one. We must be the poorest nation in the world, how come we have to get rid of 20000 coppers and reduce the armed forces to almost nothing yet still have to pay the same amount in taxes. Is someone at the top just taking the piss.

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...