Politics

[Rayvin 5176]

22 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

McDonnel wants to let private tenants have the right to  buy their homes. I rent a cottage out and it's basically my pension. I obviously lean to the left but am fucked if I'm voting for that. 

 

So what do you propose we do? I'm not an advocate of this policy but we have a situation where if you haven't bought a house by the age of 39, you probably never will. Less than 50% of young people will ever be able to afford to. What about their futures and pensions? Ah right yeah, they work until they die.

 

Eventually wealth HAS to be redistributed in a less ridiculous way or we will get full on social collapse.

[Rayvin 5176]

16 minutes ago, zerosum said:

I think if McDonnel was gone the party might get a bit more support, even with Corbyn. He’s bad news imo 

 

I don't have a very high opinion of him either, but given long enough with the Tories and Brexit causing an absolute clusterfuck, people might well go for it.

[ewerk 30266]

I’ll be honest, I never had PL down as a slumlord.

[PaddockLad 17079]

16 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

So what do you propose we do? I'm not an advocate of this policy but we have a situation where if you haven't bought a house by the age of 39, you probably never will. Less than 50% of young people will ever be able to afford to. What about their futures and pensions? Ah right yeah, they work until they die.

 

Eventually wealth HAS to be redistributed in a less ridiculous way or we will get full on social collapse.

 

Tighter regulation of large scale property portfolios yes. Don't penalise me because my line of work is very often sub conttracting, insecure and manual though. They need to win the likes of me over. They won't with this, and they need to be in power to change anything. 

[PaddockLad 17079]

10 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I’ll be honest, I never had PL down as a slumlord.

 

 

 

[Rayvin 5176]

1 minute ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Tighter regulation of large scale property portfolios yes. Don't penalise me because my line of work is very often sub conttracting, insecure and manual though. They need to win the likes of me over. They won't with this, and they need to be in power to change anything. 

 

Well, maybe they could do that then? Put the policy in place against people who have more than 2 homes.

[PaddockLad 17079]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Well, maybe they could do that then? Put the policy in place against people who have more than 2 homes.

 

Depends on the level of income that they’re getting. If it’s enough for the enterprise to be the main source of income then yes. Mine isn’t, I don’t even break even. But it’s not there for that. It’s there for my retirement. It’s in a rural backwater and it’s let to a tenant farmer who’s nephews I was at school with and are still mates, 

[Renton 21306]

40 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Maybe? And if Corbyn was his Deputy Leader and constantly undermining him, he'd want him gone. I'm not taking Corbyn's side here since for one thing he doesn't appear to have been involved since he has no power to do anything about Watson anyway and for another thing he actually seems to have encouraged everyone to drop it before the news even hit this morning - but from a purely pragmatic point of view, can you imagine another political party where the Deputy Leader spends so much time taking up contrary positions to the main party policy?

 

The situation seems to be that a large chunk of the membership have wanted Watson out for ages but couldn't get the 20% of PLP MPs to back a vote on him, and the NEC finally felt it had enough support to try for it by eliminating the role, the only way members could actually have a say in it. It failed, losing the vote, and Corbyn subsequently intervened to tell them to back off. Gosh, how frightfully Stalinesque. Venezuela must be more democratically normal than I thought.

 

I mean Watson's Brexit position is referendum then election. Labour's is election then referendum. Would it really have been so hard for him to just fucking side with the party? He's the Deputy Leader ffs.

 

 

 

 

Or alternatively you could say that Watson speaks for the PLP and is a moderating force within the leadership?

 

I'm fucking sick of this grass roots Momentum shit. It's the same type of shit that led to the Brexit referendum, popularist bollocks. No way to run a party, as is being proven by Labour and the Conservatives right now. 

[zerosum 234]

33 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

So what do you propose we do? I'm not an advocate of this policy but we have a situation where if you haven't bought a house by the age of 39, you probably never will. Less than 50% of young people will ever be able to afford to. What about their futures and pensions? Ah right yeah, they work until they die.

 

Eventually wealth HAS to be redistributed in a less ridiculous way or we will get full on social collapse.

 

Wow. Are you saying .. if you had worked your bollocks off at a young age, pumped some spare funds, or even risked the very roof over your head to get a 2nd or 3rd property.. went through the years of headaches you face as a landlord, the ups and downs of interest rates, property prices, and laws which put all rights with shitty tennants.. then someone comes along as says by the way .. fuck you. we are having this. you’d be ok with your wealth being “distributed “?

[Renton 21306]

1 minute ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Depends on the level of income that they’re getting. If it’s enough for the enterprise to be the main source of income then yes. Mine isn’t, I don’t even break even. But it’s not there for that. It’s there for my retirement. It’s in a rural backwater and it’s let to a tenant farmer who’s nephews I was at school with and are still mates, 

 

If you literally want to move back there and live there in retirement, then I entirely sympathise. If you mean you want to hold out on it and sell it to fund your retirement, then a bit less so imo, because you could have invested your capital elsewhere and freed up a property for someone else. Whilst I get what you're saying, putting the boot on the other foot and thinking about the millions of tenants with no security, I can see both sides.  It must be a nightmare renting with a family in tow. 

[zerosum 234]

Sorry Rayvin I’m in a bad mood today 

[NJS 4371]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Or alternatively you could say that Watson speaks for the PLP and is a moderating force within the leadership?

 

I'm fucking sick of this grass roots Momentum shit. It's the same type of shit that led to the Brexit referendum, popularist bollocks. No way to run a party, as is being proven by Labour and the Conservatives right now. 

The alternative being domination by 250 individuals a good portion of whom are appointees from the NL era. 

 

Labour was always criticised for being run by union barons casting block votes - Milliband put control in the hand of members just like the other parties - you just don't like those members. 

[Renton 21306]

1 minute ago, zerosum said:

 

Wow. Are you saying .. if you had worked your bollocks off at a young age, pumped some spare funds, or even risked the very roof over your head to get a 2nd or 3rd property.. went through the years of headaches you face as a landlord, the ups and downs of interest rates, property prices, and laws which put all rights with shitty tennants.. then someone comes along as says by the way .. fuck you. we are having this. you’d be ok with your wealth being “distributed “?

 

I think the idea is they are bought for market value, after the tenant has lived there for many years. That's not wealth redistribution, is providing people with security. 

[Renton 21306]

Just now, NJS said:

The alternative being domination by 250 individuals a good portion of whom are appointees from the NL era. 

 

Labour was always criticised for being run by union barons casting block votes - Milliband put control in the hand of members just like the other parties - you just don't like those members. 

 

Just now, NJS said:

The alternative being domination by 250 individuals a good portion of whom are appointees from the NL era. 

 

Labour was always criticised for being run by union barons casting block votes - Milliband put control in the hand of members just like the other parties - you just don't like those members. 

 

Most weren't members until he did it. Long term members I know have given up and been replaced by people who have done fuck all for Labour. We're seeing how that's playing out now, Labour behind the LDs in some polls. Great. 

[PaddockLad 17079]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

If you literally want to move back there and live there in retirement, then I entirely sympathise. If you mean you want to hold out on it and sell it to fund your retirement, then a bit less so imo, because you could have invested your capital elsewhere and freed up a property for someone else. Whilst I get what you're saying, putting the boot on the other foot and thinking about the millions of tenants with no security, I can see both sides.  It must be a nightmare renting with a family in tow. 

 

With the current Mrs PL there’s more chance of flying to the moon on Shergar than living on the edge of the Cheviot hills

 

It’s in the village where I grew up but both my folks have died in the last year so selling it has crossed my mind more than once. It’s what to invest it into is the question...bricks & mortar is up & down and always will be but long term you can’t really go wrong over 30 years. Am open to suggestions though..

[zerosum 234]

10 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I think the idea is they are bought for market value, after the tenant has lived there for many years. That's not wealth redistribution, is providing people with security. 

 

Its losing the option to carry that wealth down your family for your kids 

[Alex 34846]

5 minutes ago, zerosum said:

 

Its losing the option to carry that wealth down your family for your kids 

How is it? If you get the market value of the property. 

[Renton 21306]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

How is it? If you get the market value of the property. 

 As well as still having the family home. If we're talking about wealth redistribution, which I certainly support, then the first thing I want to target is inheritance anyway, before income tax. If you're comfortable with the idea of leaving your kids a portfolio of buy to let rent properties, I'd suggest you vote tory  

[Renton 21306]

17 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

With the current Mrs PL there’s more chance of flying to the moon on Shergar than living on the edge of the Cheviot hills

 

It’s in the village where I grew up but both my folks have died in the last year so selling it has crossed my mind more than once. It’s what to invest it into is the question...bricks & mortar is up & down and always will be but long term you can’t really go wrong over 30 years. Am open to suggestions though..

 

Investing in retirement is shit at the moment,  I agree. I will probably downsize to release capital, appreciate thas not always an option either though. There's no easy answers. 

[zerosum 234]

32 minutes ago, Alex said:

How is it? If you get the market value of the property. 

 

Errr property goes up in value, rental income goes up over time. Maybe people could have a couple of grand a month rental income in retirement, while owning an asset that increases in value, then your kids get that comfortable cash buffer, until maybe they sell it on a future property price spike (if it ever happens again ha).. 

 

Nice having that choice taken away from a plan.., free society huh 

[Renton 21306]

7 minutes ago, zerosum said:

 

Errr property goes up in value, rental income goes up over time. Maybe people could have a couple of grand a month rental income in retirement, while owning an asset that increases in value, then your kids get that comfortable cash buffer, until maybe they sell it on a future property price spike (if it ever happens again ha).. 

 

Nice having that choice taken away from a plan.., free society huh 

 

I guess it depends on whether you believe in an equitable society or if you prefer the Thatcherite ideology where only family matters? 

[Rayvin 5176]

1 hour ago, zerosum said:

 

Wow. Are you saying .. if you had worked your bollocks off at a young age, pumped some spare funds, or even risked the very roof over your head to get a 2nd or 3rd property.. went through the years of headaches you face as a landlord, the ups and downs of interest rates, property prices, and laws which put all rights with shitty tennants.. then someone comes along as says by the way .. fuck you. we are having this. you’d be ok with your wealth being “distributed “?

 

Are you saying that the same opportunities are available to younger people as they were to older people? I mean, I shouldn't have to pay the pensions of people who retire at 65 when I will probably be working until 78 (or more likely the day I die) - and yet I have no choice.

 

I mean seriously, I recall in the early 2000s my parents bought a house for around £90k and then 5 years later sold it for £200k immediately paying off their entire mortgage. If that kind of benefit occurs in my lifetime as an adult I'll be absolutely amazed. That generation were lucky as sin to live through the era they did, a Labour era I'll stress, while all my generation has had is years of 'drawbridge pulling up' Tory bollocks.

 

In answer to your question - if I had worked hard through my young age, as I have, and put spare funds away, as I have, and bought property with the money - and then was told later in life when I'm comfortable and without financial concern that someone was going to buy the house I was renting out at some kind of agreed upon rate that would enable them to have a better life and had the net positive effect that society wouldn't literally tear itself apart further down the line, then yeah I probably would be ok with it as long as it was being done in a fair and equitable way. I would expect them to start at the very top of society and work down - you know, the ones who haven't actually worked all that hard but were born into their wealth and network based privilege.

[Rayvin 5176]

1 hour ago, zerosum said:

Sorry Rayvin I’m in a bad mood today 

 

Feel free to challenge me robustly

 

I get worked up about this issue more than most tbh.

[Alex 34846]

19 minutes ago, zerosum said:

 

Errr property goes up in value, rental income goes up over time. Maybe people could have a couple of grand a month rental income in retirement, while owning an asset that increases in value, then your kids get that comfortable cash buffer, until maybe they sell it on a future property price spike (if it ever happens again ha).. 

 

Nice having that choice taken away from a plan.., free society huh 

Err, prices continuing to increase at a rate above inflation is, apart from being very damaging to many people in society, ultimately unsustainable. It might not be you who gets bitten on the arse by it, it might not be your kids (although I can’t see something not having to give before too long) but, if not, it’ll probably be theirs. I don’t mean to have a go at you as an individual but it simply can’t be allowed to continue if you want future generations (including your own family) to be able to buy their own place. Otherwise at some point nearly everyone will be renting from a very small group of very wealthy individuals. 

[Alex 34846]

1 hour ago, NJS said:

The alternative being domination by 250 individuals a good portion of whom are appointees from the NL era. 

 

Labour was always criticised for being run by union barons casting block votes - Milliband put control in the hand of members just like the other parties - you just don't like those members. 

I don’t like them either, since they’re basically continuing to facilitate (not just any but) this fucking Tory government