Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
......loading...... said:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. At this moment in history more people are being robbed on a monthly basis by landlordism than would lose money if the housing market failed.

i just find it sad that anyone thinks some people’s financial security justifies anyone living at their parents’ house at 40. Which seems to be your version.
Click to expand...



I find the argument for the supply side in housing predictable but perhaps misplaced given the UK has more dwellings per capita than much of Europe and the USA. Having read recent reports that I find hard to contradict stating "its strange logic is that speculative developers would build homes in order to devalue them: that they would somehow act against their own interests by producing enough surplus homes to bring down the average price of land and housing. That would be surprisingly philanthropic behaviour.[1]" Certainly I do not believe that, unfortunately, those with the greatest need will benefit. Previous builds in my area including millionaires houses and luxury care homes do not back this up.

This is an interesting solution: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...lution-to-uk-housing-crisis#comment-166945673
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading......
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
I would like to ask where you got your stats? I dont disagree with the sentiment, but 46% of people 35-44 live in a house they have a mortgage on. 8% own it out right


https://www.finder.com/uk/mortgages/home-ownership-statistics

Percentage of home owners in the UK by age
More than three-quarters (77%) of those aged 65 and over are home owners in England, compared to around a third (35%) of those aged 16 to 34. Meanwhile, more than half (56%) of those aged 35 to 49 are home owners, and 7 in 10 50- to 64-year-olds (69%) are home owners.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't do my research late at night. That said, my stats only exaggerated the issue. The issue is still there.

Even home owners - long term - would benefit from a massive housing building campaign. We currently have people forced into buying homes on excessive mortgages for inflated fees who will never pay them off and fear a drop in the market as it will "destroy them". Well, this is still trap thinking. We need a society where you don't HAVE to buy. Right now, everyone I know who rents is paying two or three times as much as people paying off a mortgage - and getting nothing back.

Whereas, if we built 5 million more homes and banned multiple ownership, we would see prices drop to something more affordable for EVERYONE. More importantly, we need to cap rents and make people feel richer so they can spend.

A fact which is correct: Wages have risen 50% since 2000. Rents have quadrupled. People don't feel poorer. They ARE poorer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: San Tejón and thereisonlyoneno7
OddRiverOakWizards said:
I find the argument for the supply side in housing predictable but perhaps misplaced given the UK has more dwellings per capita than much of Europe and the USA. Having read recent reports that I find hard to contradict stating "its strange logic is that speculative developers would build homes in order to devalue them: that they would somehow act against their own interests by producing enough surplus homes to bring down the average price of land and housing. That would be surprisingly philanthropic behaviour.[1]" Certainly I do not believe that, unfortunately, those with the greatest need will benefit. Previous builds in my area including millionaires houses and luxury care homes do not back this up.

This is an interesting solution: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...lution-to-uk-housing-crisis#comment-166945673
Click to expand...
Absolutely with you about landlordism. I just think no government will be brave enough to do anything about it.
 
......loading...... said:
I shouldn't do my research late at night. That said, my stats only exaggerated the issue. The issue is still there.

Even home owners - long term - would benefit from a massive housing building campaign. We currently have people forced into buying homes on excessive mortgages for inflated fees who will never pay them off and fear a drop in the market as it will "destroy them". Well, this is still trap thinking. We need a society where you don't HAVE to buy. Right now, everyone I know who rents is paying two or three times as much as people paying off a mortgage - and getting nothing back.

Whereas, if we built 5 million more homes and banned multiple ownership, we would see prices drop to something more affordable for EVERYONE. More importantly, we need to cap rents and make people feel richer so they can spend.

A fact which is correct: Wages have risen 50% since 2000. Rents have quadrupled. People don't feel poorer. They ARE poorer.
Click to expand...

The bolded bit IMO hits the nail on the head. Why do we HAVE to own our own property? With proper rental rules that protect the renter from price rises and eviction, then what is the issue. As you say, some people are now taking out 30 year (plus) mortgages, so will effectively never own their own home, so what is the difference from renting.

I think in some parts of Europe, this is the norm, people rent. But there are controls in place to protect the renter over the landlord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading......
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
The bolded bit IMO hits the nail on the head. Why do we HAVE to own our own property? With proper rental rules that protect the renter from price rises and eviction, then what is the issue. As you say, some people are now taking out 30 year (plus) mortgages, so will effectively never own their own home, so what is the difference from renting.

I think in some parts of Europe, this is the norm, people rent. But there are controls in place to protect the renter over the landlord.
Click to expand...
Last time I was looking for a new rental place I got annoyed and started looking in Munich and Berlin. You could get bigger, nicer places, cheaper than you could in Southampton. Germany is not perfect but it has always had controlled rents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
Me and my landlord have a decent relationship.

He understands that I'm aware that the property isn't up to standard in terms of energy certificates etc. and he also knows I will mention this every time there's any hint of a rent increase.

The result is a win-win for us both. He doesn't need to spend loads of money on the property and I have a rent amount which is 40-ish % lower than the going rate for the size and area.
 
Archers Road said:
I don’t know much about her, nor if I’m honest do I know that much about US politics. But after watching her address last night, I’d be surprised if she wasn’t the next President. Having a passionate, eloquent, relatively young and energetic candidate up against Trump seals his fate I think.
Click to expand...
Here’s the full speech. She is a truly inspiring orator and it took me back to Obama’s first presidential campaign. I can’t wait to see her head to head in a debate with the Orange Turd.

https://www.youtube.com/live/R9ABnQI_Pms?si=-qDcsFPbqTkTecvA

(Not sure why it won’t embed, hopefully the link works)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saints_Alive, Archers Road and thereisonlyoneno7
ChilcoSaint said:
Here’s the full speech. She is a truly inspiring orator and it took me back to Obama’s first presidential campaign. I can’t wait to see her head to head in a debate with the Orange Turd.

https://www.youtube.com/live/R9ABnQI_Pms?si=-qDcsFPbqTkTecvA

(Not sure why it won’t embed, hopefully the link works)
Click to expand...
It’s odd that this didn’t really come across during the 2020 primaries. I guess some people struggle with certain aspects of politics more than others
 
ChilcoSaint said:
Sorry, not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...
She did not come across as a truly inspiring orator and there was absolutely no way you could utter her name in the same sentence as Obama unless you were talking about race. She flopped in that primary majestically. Had pretty much no chance

So this seems like a big change but perhaps it’s like how Starmer was an awkward campaigner but one he became prime minister he seemed much more comfortable in that role
 
Gregm1988 said:
She did not come across as a truly inspiring orator and there was absolutely no way you could utter her name in the same sentence as Obama unless you were talking about race. She flopped in that primary majestically. Had pretty much no chance

So this seems like a big change but perhaps it’s like how Starmer was an awkward campaigner but one he became prime minister he seemed much more comfortable in that role
Click to expand...
I get what you mean, and my Obama reference was based solely on her confidence and hard-hitting imagery in that video. You may well have a point, in that now she is out of Biden’s shadow she can call the shots and lead the campaign based on her record as well as taking some of the credit for Biden’s successes.
 
A solution to multiple ownership. Double stamp duty for each house over the first. Hence, if you buy a second house as a form of pension, the stamp duty is doubled. Buy a third and it's four times, buy a fourth and it's eight times... etc. Sooner or later simple mathematics kicks in and you don't get landlords owning massive property empires.

Also give HMRC "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" powers to stop people setting up shell companies and other financial chicanery to try and get round this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LincolnSaint, San Tejón, ChilcoSaint and 2 others
saintrichie123 said:
The clock is ticking for Thames water….
You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...
What are the implications of it collapsing? Would it be a normal administration where the creditors get pennies in the pound? And is that the point where nationalising it becomes an option? Because it’s politically unviable for the government to take on their debts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back