Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Why can't house-building firms use brownfield sites to build more houses on, instead of damaging the countryside landscape often as it does now?

There is a big push and many brownfield sites are being used. The big issue is that people don't want to live in the city and the cost to build outweighs the value of the property at the end.

 

If we are talking about Leicester specifically, I think this would improve if the transport situation was better. Inner city housing rarely comes with suitable parking and the assumption is that the people living there won't own a car, unfortunately Leicester is a difficult place to live without one.

[kenny]

29 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

There wouldn't be any tenants other than those in social housing. 

 

When I'm Grand High President of the Universe, all landlords will be forced to hand over the keys to their tenants and get proper fvcking jobs the massive spongers. 

 

Nobody should be a "landlord" it's not fvcking 1450.

We don't really make much money on our rental property.

 

I would probably sell it to our tenants for market value if they wanted it, but they choose to rent and are happy that I pay for any repairs, so im not sure they would take me up on the offer.

[Innovindil]

In this no renting no landlords utopia wtf happens to student accommodation and holiday rentals? I like my regular holiday rental. 

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

In this no renting no landlords utopia wtf happens to student accommodation and holiday rentals? I like my regular holiday rental. 

You'd have to buy your holiday rental property for the week, and then sell it on to the next people. Ditto the students, but they would have longer, obviously. 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

You'd have to buy your holiday rental property for the week, and then sell it on to the next people. Ditto the students, but they would have longer, obviously. 

Tbf with how much I love the seaside I really should just bite the bullet and buy a static or some such. Saw a nice 2 bed log cabin for £60k by the sea which would do nicely I think. 

[Finnegan]

Christ I've rustled a few jimmies with this one haven't I. 

 

What do I win for having an actually unpopular opinion!?*

 

 

(*only unpopular with you feudal bourgeoisie filth mind.)

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Christ I've rustled a few jimmies with this one haven't I. 

 

What do I win for having an actually unpopular opinion!?*

 

 

(*only unpopular with you feudal bourgeoisie filth mind.)

As El Presidente Finnegano in your egalitarian paradise, any such prize is considered property of the state and awarding anything to you would basically be theft.

[AjcW]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

Christ I've rustled a few jimmies with this one haven't I. 

 

What do I win for having an actually unpopular opinion!?*

 

 

(*only unpopular with you feudal bourgeoisie filth mind.)

I’ve seen a similar argument on Twitter, it’s very very easy to argue against the “ban all landlords” set as often they only have one imagine in their head when they think “landlord” and within about 5 minutes… as you’ve seen here, it’s can be quite easily broken down. 
 

I’d say if you directed it at the specific section of landlords that cause the problem you’d have a very very popular opinion, I’m actually not even sure your existing one is unpopular, I’m aware I’m privileged to be able to own and rent out somewhere, but as one of the posters above said, I make nothing on it (in fact a year and a half in I’m considerably out of pocket 😂) it simply pays the mortgage in the same way I would if I lived in it myself! 

 

Landlords as a business, and foreign wealth buying up empty properties for somewhere to store money… that’s what El Presidents Finn needs to sort  

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Christ I've rustled a few jimmies with this one haven't I. 

 

What do I win for having an actually unpopular opinion!?*

 

 

(*only unpopular with you feudal bourgeoisie filth mind.)

I was in support of the idea. 

 

Tory b*stards have screwed me so much in tax its not really worth doing anymore.

[brucey]

I've moved 8 times in the last 10 years, with at least another 1 more before I even start looking at buying. All my worldly possessions are in tatty reused cardboard boxes 

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

As El Presidente Finnegano in your egalitarian paradise, any such prize is considered property of the state and awarding anything to you would basically be theft.

 

As El Presidente I AM the state, thus its all my property anyway. Including you. 

 

Given I can't steal from myself, you'll be winding your neck in or getting against the wall.

 

Checkmate, peasant. 

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, AjcW said:

I’ve seen a similar argument on Twitter, it’s very very easy to argue against the “ban all landlords” set as often they only have one imagine in their head when they think “landlord” and within about 5 minutes… as you’ve seen here, it’s can be quite easily broken down. 
 

I’d say if you directed it at the specific section of landlords that cause the problem you’d have a very very popular opinion, I’m actually not even sure your existing one is unpopular, I’m aware I’m privileged to be able to own and rent out somewhere, but as one of the posters above said, I make nothing on it (in fact a year and a half in I’m considerably out of pocket 😂) it simply pays the mortgage in the same way I would if I lived in it myself! 

 

Landlords as a business, and foreign wealth buying up empty properties for somewhere to store money… that’s what El Presidents Finn needs to sort  

 

I mean, look, when people start referring to themselves as El Presidente Finnegano and calling for complete wealth redistribution then you need to respect there's obviously a certain amount of tongue in cheek hyperbole going on. I think some of you are expecting me to have genuine answers to questions I'm obviously not qualified to answer. 

 

But at the same time, we do have a housing crisis that's gotten absolutely wildly out of control. 

 

As millenials, what we need to pay to get a foot on the property ladder now as a percentage of our average wage compared to what our parents, let alone their parents, did is absurd. And it's trending in a direction that makes things insurmountably terrifying for the prospects of Gen Z. 

 

It's an issue that desperately needs to be tackled and career landlords hoarding significant numbers of homes is a part of that. 

 

"Fvck you, I've got mine" really isn't going to be a sustainable attitude forever. 

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean, look, when people start referring to themselves as El Presidente Finnegano and calling for complete wealth redistribution then you need to respect there's obviously a certain amount of tongue in cheek hyperbole going on. I think some of you are expecting me to have genuine answers to questions I'm obviously not qualified to answer. 

 

But at the same time, we do have a housing crisis that's gotten absolutely wildly out of control. 

 

As millenials, what we need to pay to get a foot on the property ladder now as a percentage of our average wage compared to what our parents, let alone their parents, did is absurd. And it's trending in a direction that makes things insurmountably terrifying for the prospects of Gen Z. 

 

It's an issue that desperately needs to be tackled and career landlords hoarding significant numbers of homes is a part of that. 

 

"Fvck you, I've got mine" really isn't going to be a sustainable attitude forever. 

The council could start imposing that new builds can only be sold to owner occupiers as part of the planning conditions.

 

They may ultimately be sold to an investor, but it stops cash investors snapping up the popular 2-3 bed properties on cheaper estates. This does drive up the prices on 2 bed houses to the point where they nearly cost the same as a 3 bed house.

 

It wouldn't resolve all issues but it would help.

 

The other thing would be to improve the law to protect the good tenants and the good landlords. Currently landlords get very little protection from bad tenants and bad landlords seem to be able to get away with treating tenants poorly. It may break the business models of the 'stereotypical' bad landlord if they were suitably fined or property seized if they couldn't provide accommodation within the regulations.

 

 

[orangecity23]

The housing market is clearly completely fecked, I have massive sympathy for any of the poor feckers growing up today, at least I've paid off all my student loans, and have a saved up pile of cash that should let me get on the ladder sometime soon at a push. The current young mob are getting stiffed for 40K+ student debt for starters, graduating into a job market that will have **** all wage growth thanks to "recovery" from the pandemic (not that we ever had much of a "recovery" from 2008 financial crisis for the average pleb). The problem is everything is run for banks, and they demand growth forever, and the only growth they'll accept is pumped up house prices until the end of time. Look at the house prices post 2008 - an entire global recession solely caused by banks overexposing themselves to inflated house prices and people's inability to afford their mortgages in the USA. Solution? print a ****load of money, cob it at banks, then reinflate house prices again. I saw a graph of prices in this country over the last 10+ years - didn't even go down after 2008, just a minor horizontal blip, swiftly 'corrected' back to 10% annual growth. The only lever governments of either variety in this country use on our pigging economy is the one to inflate house prices - pandemic started 2 years ago, first thing they did was make it so even though everyone else wasn't allowed in someone's home, there was an exception for estate agents, then ditched stamp duty and superheated the fecking market.

 

It will be a cold day in hell before the "housing" crisis is ever resolved in this country, our politicians would sooner have the entire population slaving away to an early death in dead end jobs, or starving to death in the street whilst the entire productive economy of manufacturing, services or retail shuts up shop before they dared touch anything that might even slow down the rise of a house price, let alone lower it.

 

TLDR - seriously considering a vote for El Presidente Finnegano. And Leicester is the perfect place to start the revolution, the CIA will have a difficult time trying to send an amphibious invasion of armed estate agents down the grand union canal, we can just shut one fo the locks.

[AjcW]

Whilst I'm here....

 

I like JK Rowling and have no reason to want her to be destroyed like the vast majority of twitter seem to.... 

 

Half the 'upset' ***** wouldn't have had anywhere near as good a childhood if it wasn't for her  

[Fox in the North]

3 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Couples should only be allowed to have a maximum of two children, to deter the risk of an ever-increasing population and climate change.

I agree with this sentiment on a different tangent. My wife and I foster my nephews (two aged 3 years and 10 months old), because my sister cannot care for them (unfortunately she has harmed them too albeit unintentionally). She is severely autistic and has many other mental difficulties. She really shouldn’t have any more for the following reasons:

 

1) She has had the privilege of giving birth and try to be a mother

2) It’s draining for her to keep having a child taken away. Even if she improved (extremely unlikely), she will always be a liability and she could lapse at any time

3) As much as my wife and I love the boys it’s not fair on them to be taken away from their birth mum

4) It’s not fair on us as we want to have our own kids (not been able to yet), but circumstances have meant we’ve no option but to deal with the initial problem at hand 

5) It’s not fair on the system as these children are a burden on the system. Again as much as we love the boys, my sister should not have had them as it was obvious she could not care for them. Any future children will likely end up adopted as there are no other family members who could jump into the breach.

 

Unfortunately my sister did have a coil fitted out, but she somehow managed to pull it out herself?!?! Ideally she ought to be sterilised as it is sadly inevitable she will

try to have more children that she can’t keep, but unfortunately human rights dictate this is unfair.

 

Again inevitably my wife and I will be put in a position where we will asked if we can take another of her babies on. I truly dread that day as at some point we will have to say “no” and I don’t know how I can face the other boys, saying we took them on but not their siblings. 
 

Anyway rant over 

Edited 6 January 2022 by Fox in the North

[Milo]

4 hours ago, Daggers said:

I know I shouldn't get involved in political discussions, I try to avoid any comment but in this case I let myself down again with the tone of my post. I'm sorry. It won't happen again (probably/possibly/hopefully).

No need to apologise, mate.

 

  

[Footballwipe]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

I do like the idea of building less houses and just using the ones we've got. I keep seeing estates pop up next to roads that are already an absolute nightmare. Take your god damned houses and throw them in the sea. 

 

I'm glad renting is an option otherwise I'd be sleeping on a sofa somewhere becoming more and more unwelcome by the day

 

What do you mean by "using the ones we've got?" There are, apparently, 268,385 homes in the UK classed as empty. To accommodate the population and birth rate of people in the UK, estimates say we need to build 340,000 PER YEAR until 2031. That's swallowed up all of your empty properties in the first year, with another 80k to build. The constant argument of "use what we've got" would be fine if it actually went some way to actually solving the issue when it's like trying to Unibond a hole in a dam.

 

I absolutely agree that tacking developments on to villages is not always good, especially if there's no move to ensure facilities are in position. It's why large-scale developments that are 3-4,000 in size work. Demands can be made of the building; Doctors, schools, road networks, shops, community building. But these developments are also fiercely opposed.

 

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Why can't house-building firms use brownfield sites to build more houses on, instead of damaging the countryside landscape often as it does now?

Because those sites are in the most part already privately owned by non-housebuilders. There's this big move to get councils to build on brownfield, but they cannot force housebuilding companies to A) buy the land or B) force the landowner to sell to someone who will build on it. It's probably easier also to sling a few ££ to a farmer or landowner of a greenfield site and build, whereas some brownfield sites can be a nightmare to clear and make safe for houses.

 

You can be absolutely sure that the residents living near the lovely disused brownfield site would be up in arms if such an application was made, too. Remember, even if brownfield is logical, nimbys are everywhere.

 

Also, in terms of "damaging the countryside landscape as it does now" is interesting. Braunstone Town and Braunstone was greenfield until the 1930's. Leicester Forest East was a load of green until the 1980s, and there's plenty more examples of greenfield that was developed. Should those developments have not gone up, or are we worried about it now because it's when we're around? Population is growing and people need to live. We have no choice but to build and the main thing we should be focusing on is ensuring sustainable, large scale developments that can function largely by themselves. If that means greenfield then so be it.

[Foxdiamond]

38 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean, look, when people start referring to themselves as El Presidente Finnegano and calling for complete wealth redistribution then you need to respect there's obviously a certain amount of tongue in cheek hyperbole going on. I think some of you are expecting me to have genuine answers to questions I'm obviously not qualified to answer. 

 

But at the same time, we do have a housing crisis that's gotten absolutely wildly out of control. 

 

As millenials, what we need to pay to get a foot on the property ladder now as a percentage of our average wage compared to what our parents, let alone their parents, did is absurd. And it's trending in a direction that makes things insurmountably terrifying for the prospects of Gen Z. 

 

It's an issue that desperately needs to be tackled and career landlords hoarding significant numbers of homes is a part of that. 

 

"Fvck you, I've got mine" really isn't going to be a sustainable attitude forever. 

We need more social housing that is for decent working people at a fair rent. Surely the covid crisis has shown that there are millions of people working in less well paid jobs that are still vital to society. For example supermarket workers and care workers. For too long  social housing has been stigmatised. Homes are for living in and not for making money. The lot of the ordinary worker was transformed for the better after ww2 and social housing was a keen reason. All started to go wrong when Thatcher sold most of the stock. She bought the votes of those that bought at a discount but now the younger generations are forced to rent at a cost that many can't afford even in decent jobs. 

[Daggers]

44 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean, look, when people start referring to themselves as El Presidente Finnegano and calling for complete wealth redistribution then you need to respect there's obviously a certain amount of tongue in cheek hyperbole going on. I think some of you are expecting me to have genuine answers to questions I'm obviously not qualified to answer. 

I’m an ideas guy, I can solve this.

 

Maybe students who did well each week at school could be awarded a bag of cement or some breeze blocks or something every time they recited a times table or demonstrated understanding of homophones? Start in Reception and by the time they get to GCSEs they’d almost have everything needed for their own house. Then, pass 5+ exams, get a plot of land to build the house on.

 

Therefore, every child gets a home with the condition they can never sell it. Not only would this raise standards in school - what kid wouldn’t get fired up about building their own detached property on top of an old refuse site - but homelessness would be cured in a shot. It would also make the feckless little shits think more carefully about the future. If they didn’t focus on their KS3 SATs they’d end up with a house without a toilet. Bad report during work placement week - no fecking stairs for you sonny.

 

Those who pass fewer than 5 GCSEs can swap their building materials for a 4-person tent.

 

Flawless.

[Daggers]

Obviously, my plan doesn’t cover people who’ve left school. Let them die out from Covids or boredom from being on hold while trying to cancel their Sky subscription.

 

Or, award them building materials for doing adult things properly like good parking, using their fecking indicators, not being a dick to minimum wage employees, wearing a mask, getting vaccinated or having a sensible haircut.

[Nalis]

On balance, I dont think any generation will ever have it as good as boomers.

 

Interest rates of 15%+ on mortgages in the 80s sound unthinkable to this Millennial though!

Edited 6 January 2022 by Nalis

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

On balance, I dont think any generation will ever have it as good as boomers.

 

Interest rates of 15%+ on mortgages in the 80s sound unthinkable to this Millennial though!

Free education, dentistry, prescriptions, final salary pensions, early retirement, massive property value profits, etc...and then they all voted to take it away from their kids. All the Boomers owned/almost owned their properties by the time the high interest rates kicked in.

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Free education, dentistry, prescriptions, final salary pensions, early retirement, massive property value profits, etc...and then they all voted to take it away from their kids. All the Boomers owned/almost owned their properties by the time the high interest rates kicked in.

This boomer did not vote for this. Not true we all were/are property owners. Certainly not all early retirees either. Did not all go into higher education but straight into full time work at 15 or 16. It seems there are always invisible people in society. Some of us doing our best to support our kids and grandchildren. Not all living in luxury or taking cruises all the time

[Wymsey]

MattP was a decent poster and, despite his political beliefs/suspect trolling, he shouldn't have been banned from this forum.