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

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, winteriscoming said:

I know but it should be the sort of show to take the piss out of mps. Good god imo the left get an easier ride. 

Never seen Ed Milliband or Jeremy Corbyn on there then?

Posted
1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

DVqhhcdX4AAGgFs?format=jpg

 

From the comments, decent meme that, saving for future use. lol

Rather than just sticking a silly meme up, could you tell us exactly which points McDonnell makes that you disagree with and why?

Posted
1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Rather than just sticking a silly meme up, could you tell us exactly which points McDonnell makes that you disagree with and why?

Every point. 

 

Cuz racist. 

 

Happy? 

Posted
5 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Every point. 

 

Cuz racist. 

 

Happy? 

I think you're more intelligent that that tbh. Come on, I've been playing nicely recently (and have never labeled anybody racist over Brexit if that's what you're getting at), indulge me. 

I know you don't like McDonnell or Labour. And admitting they might have a point in some areas is not an acceptance that they should be leading the country.

What does he say in that clip that you fundamentally disagree with and why?

Posted

Was sceptical about these polls but Tories actually made gains this week in council elections. 

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is as divisive as ever.

Seriously though, I kind of hope we do get a second referendum. Because I think we would win it and put it to bed for 30+ years.

Edited by Strokes
Posted
19 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Seriously though, I kind of hope we do get a second referendum. Because I think we would win it and put it to bed for 30+ years.

If we have a second referendum and Leave wins we'll then be told it's time for a third referendum at the end of transition or something similar.

 

Look at the history of these things with the EU, the establishment have got their way for so long over these things they can't accept it when they don't. 

 

As an aside, delighted to see Marr just admitting the British media don't seem to talk about splits in the EU enough while discussing the newspapers whilst focusing on every split in our own country.

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Penny Mordaunt damn IoI

 

 

The kinder, gentler politics. 

 

Think she's alright personally, seen far worse in parliament than her.

Screenshot_2018-02-11-10-08-20.png

Edited by MattP
Posted

Really don't get this, McDonnell is recommending buy to let mortgage model as a way to finance UK infrastructure and utilities, then he cites same thing as inflaming house prices and causing housing crisis?

 

Glad someone has finally mentioned his assumption he can borrow at the same rate is probably bollocks.

Posted

 

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

The kinder, gentler politics. 

 

Think she's alright personally, seen far worse in parliament than her.

It’s a bit from deuce bigalow when he sees a giantess haha way not to get a pop culture reference

Posted
1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

It’s a bit from deuce bigalow when he sees a giantess haha way not to get a pop culture reference

I've never been so glad not to have seen Deuce Bigalow!

Posted
19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Really don't get this, McDonnell is recommending buy to let mortgage model as a way to finance UK infrastructure and utilities, then he cites same thing as inflaming house prices and causing housing crisis?

 

Glad someone has finally mentioned his assumption he can borrow at the same rate is probably bollocks.

Not building more houses with the profits is what had been problematic. Using the profits would increase housing stock and decrease the demand/supply equation 

Posted
2 hours ago, MattP said:

This is as divisive as ever.

 

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

No it isn’t :ph34r:

 

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Seriously though, I kind of hope we do get a second referendum. Because I think we would win it and put it to bed for 30+ years.

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

If we have a second referendum and Leave wins we'll then be told it's time for a third referendum at the end of transition or something similar.

 

Look at the history of these things with the EU, the establishment have got their way for so long over these things they can't accept it when they don't. 

 

As an aside, delighted to see Marr just admitting the British media don't seem to talk about splits in the EU enough while discussing the newspapers whilst focusing on every split in our own country.

My view on this is that the government has to govern for the 100% that Brexit affects.

Realistically this means leaving with a soft Brexit. Remainers don't want to leave. A lot of leavers want a very hard Brexit. The middle ground has to be the only possibility of uniting the country.

 

As for a second referendum, I think if the deal is hard then the people should get the final say. We can argue about the after effects but ultimately it's a punt and so a second leave victory (though I think you'd have to have two questions 1- accept the deal yes or no and 2- if no to q1 leave or remain) would I think at least stop the continued bickering for a while. At least until the economy crumbled.

Posted
20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Not building more houses with the profits is what had been problematic. Using the profits would increase housing stock and decrease the demand/supply equation 

Why do you assume prices will stay so high you'll make a profit? 

 

Market forces could be your biggest enemy and you don't appear to even considering it.

 

Let alone the possibility of such capital flight after you've implemented the nationalisation plans and the knock on that would have for pensions.

Posted
8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why do you assume prices will stay so high you'll make a profit? 

 

Market forces could be your biggest enemy and you don't appear to even considering it.

 

Let alone the possibility of such capital flight after you've implemented the nationalisation plans and the knock on that would have for pensions.

 

You wouldn’t selling council houses with a huge discount. But had they stayed public stock with rental money coming in over an additional 30/40 years, even with maintenance costs to consider, there should have been sufficient crumbs left over to build some more.

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why do you assume prices will stay so high you'll make a profit? 

 

Market forces could be your biggest enemy and you don't appear to even considering it.

 

Let alone the possibility of such capital flight after you've implemented the nationalisation plans and the knock on that would have for pensions.

I'm simply assuming you'd sell for at least the cost to build, not some mega profit.

 

When it's Brexit you talk about the establishment fighting against the change which is, in your opinion, needed.

 

The same establishment will fight against a government that wants to redistribute wealth and power. The wealthy and powerful don't want to give up the system's inbuilt inequalities. The question is whether redistributive policy is correct. In my opinion it is and the evidence is all around us. 

Edited by Guest
Posted
1 hour ago, toddybad said:

I'm simply assuming you'd sell for at least the cost to build, not some mega profit.

 

When it's Brexit you talk about the establishment fighting against the change which is, in your opinion, needed.

 

The same establishment will fight against a government that wants to redistribute wealth and power. The wealthy and powerful don't want to give up the system's inbuilt inequalities. The question is whether redistributive policy is correct. In my opinion it is and the evidence is all around us. 

So where is the original cost of building coming from?

 

I'm all for wealth redistribution if it's going to work, I'm not in favour of it if it makes everyone poorer, don't see the point of that. Look at France under Hollande to see the example of fiscal policy making based on ideology rather than logic. At the minute you are supporting a potential government who openly admit they'll plan for capital flight, will borrow unrealistic amounts and the shadow chancellor can't even tell us whether the deficit is going up or down - it isn't even serious.

 

One thing that annoys me about society is how so many people who want to pay more in tax don't voluntarily give some of their own wealth away, shouldn't need a government to do it.

Posted
21 minutes ago, MattP said:

So where is the original cost of building coming from?

 

I'm all for wealth redistribution if it's going to work, I'm not in favour of it if it makes everyone poorer, don't see the point of that. Look at France under Hollande to see the example of fiscal policy making based on ideology rather than logic. At the minute you are supporting a potential government who openly admit they'll plan for capital flight, will borrow unrealistic amounts and the shadow chancellor can't even tell us whether the deficit is going up or down - it isn't even serious.

 

One thing that annoys me about society is how so many people who want to pay more in tax don't voluntarily give some of their own wealth away, shouldn't need a government to do it.

People obsessed with what they pay in tax annoy me.

 

Of course they're planning. As I've said, there could be an initial bump - as there will with Brexit - because the establishment doesn't want change. But actually the cbi etc, whilst still not happy that nationalisation of some industries will happen, are starting to sound like they're getting used to the idea things need to change. Ultimately business doesn't live in a bubble.

 

You would borrow the initial amount to build the first tranche of houses. This is better than cost neutral as you have an asset that is worth more than you spent building it. You can rent and bring in income and sell to realise capital to build again. It would be self sufficient.

 

As for unrealistic borrowing, my point for months has been that if you invest in the right areas the cost of borrowing is outweighed by the benefits of your investment. I'm happy to discuss whether specific investments are wise - that's a different question - but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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