Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Fox92]

13 hours ago, StanSP said:

There's a Liverpool fan on another forum I'm on who is angry they've waited 30 years and now can't celebrate properly if they win, so instead of taking the win after 3 decades, he'd rather the season gets voided and have no title win  

 Tbf though they'd probably fancy their chances whenever the next new season is. Them and Man City will be ahead of everyone else again no doubt.

[Webbo]

Well that was ironic 

Edited 16 May 2020 by Webbo

[Nalis]

The housing market is fvcked as it gets more and more difficult to get on the property ladder for each passing generation.

 

But hoping that house prices fall is unfair on the generation in their 30s / early 40s who struggled to get on the property ladder in the first place just to get into negative equity.

[Bayfox]

23 minutes ago, Nalis said:

The housing market is fvcked as it gets more and more difficult to get on the property ladder for each passing generation.

 

But hoping that house prices fall is unfair on the generation in their 30s / early 40s who struggled to get on the property ladder in the first place just to get into negative equity.

It's a right bastard. I worry for my kids, they are gonna need a huge deposit and seriously decent jobs if the market remains as it has been.

 

However me and the wife have no luck what so ever with houses and mortgages, we took a fixed rate on our 1st place for 5 years and the market collapsed meaning we spent years over paying. But as it was our 1st house we needed to know the Bill's, we couldn't risk a rise in rates and our costs going up.

 

We stayed 11 years and barely made 7k profit.

 

We have been in our new build 5 years now, overpaying where we can and put 60k deposit down. With the market increasing we had got to point where there was 50% equity, meaning our LTV when renewing this year would have helped secure a much better deal. But I'm guessing theres a good chance the value of our home tumbles in the next few months.

 

Hopefully not to a point with negative equity, but knowing we had room to manoeuvre was nice. Now I'm stuck struggling with work and having to rely on the wife paying the Bill's.

 

Unless a 1st time buyer now who may well pick up a bargain, or an investor who can pick up some deals for rentals, I wouldn't want to consider moving at the moment as know one really knows the impact this is gonna have.

[Izzy]

My MIL died last year and left the house to the wife and her 2 brothers. There’s still a mortgage on it which the three of them are paying between them each month. It was on the market for £380k at Xmas and they’ve just been offered £320k for it this week. The estate agent has advised them to sell saying it’s unlikely they’ll get a better offer. I guess it’s a buyer’s market if you’ve got the cash.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Bayfox said:

It's a right bastard. I worry for my kids, they are gonna need a huge deposit and seriously decent jobs if the market remains as it has been.

 

However me and the wife have no luck what so ever with houses and mortgages, we took a fixed rate on our 1st place for 5 years and the market collapsed meaning we spent years over paying. But as it was our 1st house we needed to know the Bill's, we couldn't risk a rise in rates and our costs going up.

 

We stayed 11 years and barely made 7k profit.

 

We have been in our new build 5 years now, overpaying where we can and put 60k deposit down. With the market increasing we had got to point where there was 50% equity, meaning our LTV when renewing this year would have helped secure a much better deal. But I'm guessing theres a good chance the value of our home tumbles in the next few months.

 

Hopefully not to a point with negative equity, but knowing we had room to manoeuvre was nice. Now I'm stuck struggling with work and having to rely on the wife paying the Bill's.

 

Unless a 1st time buyer now who may well pick up a bargain, or an investor who can pick up some deals for rentals, I wouldn't want to consider moving at the moment as know one really knows the impact this is gonna have.

I’m holding firm and hoping for a big drop in price and then a sharp increase.

We bought our new build last year and used help to buy as it was basically a free loan for 5 years and decided we would save to pay it off rather than over pay on our mortgage.

Well the repayment is based on the value of your house, so if it plummets I could hit that and wait for it to pick up again.

[StanSP]

9 minutes ago, Izzy said:

My MIL died last year and left the house to the wife and her 2 brothers. There’s still a mortgage on it which the three of them are paying between them each month. It was on the market for £380k at Xmas and they’ve just been offered £320k for it this week. The estate agent has advised them to sell saying it’s unlikely they’ll get a better offer. I guess it’s a buyer’s market if you’ve got the cash.

Depends how much each sibling wants the money too? Or how desperately/urgently they need it? 

 

Obviously don't know what they all do for work but if they've come in to some financial difficulty, a healthy windfall by selling may help them be financially safe in the next few years?

[Izzy]

58 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Depends how much each sibling wants the money too? Or how desperately/urgently they need it? 

 

Obviously don't know what they all do for work but if they've come in to some financial difficulty, a healthy windfall by selling may help them be financially safe in the next few years?

This is the problem really.

One brother is skint so wants to sell at any price, the other has a few quid so is in no rush and wants to hold out for top dollar, and the wife is too sentimental because its the family home and she can’t bear to see it sold. 
Bloody families eh!

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

My MIL died last year and left the house to the wife and her 2 brothers. There’s still a mortgage on it which the three of them are paying between them each month. It was on the market for £380k at Xmas and they’ve just been offered £320k for it this week. The estate agent has advised them to sell saying it’s unlikely they’ll get a better offer. I guess it’s a buyer’s market if you’ve got the cash.

£60k off seems like taking the piss. I wouldn't sell on principle, but then again it's not my money.

[Izzy]

32 minutes ago, Webbo said:

£60k off seems like taking the piss. I wouldn't sell on principle, but then again it's not my money.

I agree but I’ve learnt over the years to keep my gob shut when it comes to the wife’s family matters 

[Webbo]

Snoop Dog's Just Eat advert is great. 

[Rain King]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Snoop Dog's Just Eat advert is great. 

Haha, was looking for the grinds my gears thread as it's horrendous.

[Guest MattP]

23 hours ago, Bilo said:

21 is daft, but 25 is insanity. I've known colleagues graduate from university, train as teachers and rise to middle management by that age while getting married and buying a home.

 

All of this without a democratic voice is nonsense and, by a bizarre coincidence, more or less exclusively touted by those whose politics are unpopular with the under-30s. 

I was being a bit naughty with 25, but we did democracy very well in Britain with 21 - lots of elections, huge turnouts, many changes of party and it seemed to produce good governance.

 

Second point is spot on though - all those who want it lowered or it to go higher now seem to do so as that benefits the political demographic they seek. We even had a green politician one year go on the DP and say we should give votes to five year olds.

[Bilo]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I was being a bit naughty with 25, but we did democracy very well in Britain with 21 - lots of elections, huge turnouts, many changes of party and it seemed to produce good governance.

 

Second point is spot on though - all those who want it lowered or it to go higher now seem to do so as that benefits the political demographic they seek. We even had a green politician one year go on the DP and say we should give votes to five year olds.

It doesn't surprise me, though the 'votes at 16' campaign seems to have died a death.

 

Some of the nutters you see on both sides are incredible; I remember one Tory councillor on social media advocating the age of franchise being raised to 'at least 30, if not older' and a Momentum activist wanting it to be capped at 75. 

[LiberalFox]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

I was being a bit naughty with 25, but we did democracy very well in Britain with 21 - lots of elections, huge turnouts, many changes of party and it seemed to produce good governance.

 

Second point is spot on though - all those who want it lowered or it to go higher now seem to do so as that benefits the political demographic they seek. We even had a green politician one year go on the DP and say we should give votes to five year olds.

Was even better before we let women vote 

[LiberalFox]

Votes for 16 may not be popular (and therefore belongs here!) right now but I still support it, though I don't care for yet another debate over it. 

[Dahnsouff]

7 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Votes for 16 may not be popular (and therefore belongs here!) right now but I still support it, though I don't care for yet another debate over it. 

If I promise not to respond, would you tell me your reasons why you support it? 

[LiberalFox]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

If I promise not to respond, would you tell me your reasons why you support it? 

Alright I'll try quickly, a lot of the reason why I don't want a debate is merely I don't want to make a rubbish argument! (and I don't have the time)

 

So essentially my support comes from two things.

 

1) That I think people should have the right to vote unless there is good reason that they shouldn't so my mind approaches the issue more from "people who are 16 years old are capable of making rational decisions so why would allowing them to vote be a bad thing" vs the more widely held "why should we lower the voting age, prove to me why it would be better"

 

Essentially, the right to vote and play a part in shaping the society you are a part, were a part of and will be a part of is fundamentally a good thing for an individual and has benefits for society as a whole and should therefore be promoted. 

 

2) My own memory and experiences of being 16-18 and denied the vote. It would have been the 2005 election and I'd have voted for the Conservative party. I went to a state grammar school in the south east.

 

Essentially I had a "centre-right" outlook based partly on my ambitions at the time (my view of what the future should be) and my opinions of the Labour government of the time. My secondary school had started as the smallest grammar in the borough (which was part of the attraction) but had nearly doubled in size by the time I was in 6th form because the south was still rapidly expanding (Blair's government did **** all to restore North/South balance) but the Blair government had outlawed the building of new grammar schools to satisfy the political cravings of its supporters, yet there was no plan or desire to actually convert the parts of the country still using selection.

 

Locally the schools were popular (at least in so far as politically active people weren't going to get them scrapped through local politics) and there was a need to build new schools in line with the existing ratios of selective/non -selective but the central government had decided no this should be banned.

 

I could go on for a while, moving on to the obvious meddling in how schools were allowed to teach and just clearly how running things from central government is in my opinion terrible, and trying to force a particular social structure on people despite the Labour party being run by people who often send their kids to independent schools but also not actually having a tangible plan to even implement those policies in the real world. 

 

Now had I voted for the Conservatives it would have changed absolutely nothing, it was a safe as houses Conservative seat and still is, even in '97 it didn't come particularly close to going red. But from the point of view of looking back and thinking would I have been making an informed enough choice to be entitled to vote? Yes I think I was. I think my motivation was perfectly reasonable and not less valid than many of the votes that were and will be cast by older people in any election. My primary motivations being dislike at the governing style of the incumbent government and wanting to vote for the party that I felt represented my aspirations. Now you could say my views were hugely focused on the school experience and that is true, but that was my daily life and it's an important part of anyone's daily life up until a certain age, so I don't think it matters less than the views of someone at a different stage of life.

 

Funny thing is that after voting Lib Dem in 2010 (that choice can be essentially explained as: went to uni > encountered "young Conservatives" > found that the Lib Dems catered to my beliefs and were actual human beings) and then being turned off by the tuition fee broken promise and shifting to the left (sort of?) I eventually settled on the idea that the Lib Dems were still the best ideological fit and were just being a bit shit so ended up voting Lib Dem in 2015 and then joining the party and maybe at some point I'll get a bit more actively involved with the campaigns (no way in hell I'd want to be an actual politician  ).  Also the Conservatives seem to have completely abandoned any notion of standing for less central control or even representative democracy and the last Tory I actually liked has ended up joining the Lib Dems (Sam Gyimah). So unless something dramatic happens I can say which party I'll be voting for going forward anyway.

 

We've also had votes at 16 used for the Scottish Independence referendum and the feedback was positive (I'd actually argue you'd need to be a bit older to make that choice properly because you aren't merely being polled on your opinion of current government vs your ideals but being asked to assess the viability of full independence and its real consequences). Nonetheless the argument was that 16 year olds had a stake in the future of their nation and were making informed decisions, again it's hard to assess the capability of even adults to make an informed decision and sometimes democracy is as much about consent as decision making.

 

Think I've written enough on this topic 

[Stadt]

At 16 I was a raging neo-liberal and sometimes actively disliked people for their politics. I would have said I was more politically aware than most of my peers then too. Obviously highly anecdotal but I think that you’re not enough of a critical thinker (you could say that about most adults as well in fairness) at 18 and nor are you very self-aware typically.

[ozleicester]

If you want to reduce the number of voters you need to stop all of the fkin idiots aged over 70.

Nothing like people who supposedly support choice and freedom trying their best to take it away.

Edited 17 May 2020 by ozleicester

[Dahnsouff]

Age is a blunt, but the only readily available metric, to set as the watermark for eligibility to vote. People mature mentally as well as physically at various rates. So one guys 14 is another girls 18, one guys 22 is another guys 16, etc. They are numbers only, they are just consequential ones for the individual involved.

As long as there needs to be a threshold, and there does, the number will always be somewhat arbitrary, and 18 is as good as 16, and vice versa.

[ozleicester]

It is just a FVCKIN cafe... it is NOT that exciting.

[twoleftfeet]

I had a discussion at work on Friday with a colleague who also had to attend the office because not all IT issues ca be solved remotely. That we are better off working from home and that some who are furloughed are probably better off too, when you take into account the cost of working i.e travel, tea/coffee and lunch.

[Nalis]

10 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

I had a discussion at work on Friday with a colleague who also had to attend the office because not all IT issues ca be solved remotely. That we are better off working from home and that some who are furloughed are probably better off too, when you take into account the cost of working i.e travel, tea/coffee and lunch.

Yeah its true for some. I'm about 500 quid a month better off at the minute due to not spending money on lunches / pubs / restaurants / holidays but in the second half of the year its likely my wage and hours will drop for at least a 3-6 month period by a decent percentage so that extra saving will simply go to subsidising myself at that stage.

[Webbo]

My daughter is working from home atm. For a start she was using my computer, until they provided her with one. She's using my WiFi, my electricity, my property. I say to her, only half jokingly, that her firm ought to pay me something for using my facilities. I do actually think I've got a point.