Off Topic Politics Thread

[Libby]

**** 'em. They thought they were untouchable and would get a slap on the wrist and many found it funny seeing people's anger. Guessing they're not laughing so hard now.

I think the sentence is too harsh but only in comparison to other crimes so you could make the argument that others are too lenient.

It's certainly a good deterrent though; I'd wager that half the people who go to these things don't even consider that prison time is a possibility. And serious time at that.

I sympathise with the cause but they're going about it the wrong way as the aim should be to get the public on your side rather than against you.

Not gonna lie if I had missed the birth of my child or saying goodbye to a dying relative due to them I'd quite happily set the ****s on fire.

 

[......loading......]

Yes, it was Badger but I expected a greater response from others on here who are usually quite vocal about environmental issues. As there wasn't it made me wonder if they were unsympathetic to JSO because of the disruption they have caused to ordinary people rather than politicians. My impression is that many of the general public feel they have got their just deserts.

Most appropriate spelling mistake ever?

 

[Ronnie Hotdog (MLsfc)]

**** 'em. They thought they were untouchable and would get a slap on the wrist and many found it funny seeing people's anger. Guessing they're not laughing so hard now.

I think the sentence is too harsh but only in comparison to other crimes so you could make the argument that others are too lenient.

It's certainly a good deterrent though; I'd wager that half the people who go to these things don't even consider that prison time is a possibility. And serious time at that.

I sympathise with the cause but they're going about it the wrong way as the aim should be to get the public on your side rather than against you.

Not gonna lie if I had missed the birth of my child or saying goodbye to a dying relative due to them I'd quite happily set the ****s on fire.

Not just the thousands of individual lives they impact either. They were estimated to have cost the met police over £1m in wasted time and resource, who knows what the knock on of that sort of waste in our police force could be. Economic cost was about £750k too.

Hopefully this puts other idiots off.

 

[Puck]

1. I think some governments try harder than others. There are some clear routes money could be brought in. I also think we need to make internet sales companies pay tax at the point of sale and not on profit.
2. The bit in bold is not vague. We have to spend on our people if we want to empower them to make money. Investment is crucial for growth.
3. This is a total myth. House prices won't fall until you have enough houses for everyone to live in - and at that point we should just be happy everyone has a home. If you are suggesting that the minority of people in this country with a comfortable nest-egg are being propped up by a landlord culture keeping everyone else pretty much in servitude, I think you are very much mistaken. Artificially inflated house prices don't help anyone.

1. Every government says this. I've no doubt some try harder than others but it's very hard because the UK tax code is hugely complicated. It's thousands of pages and millions of words long. You could aim to simplify it but that's not easy either. Again, previous governments have said they'll do this and have actually ended up making the code significantly longer. I'm not sure how much income it would raise but a tax on internet sales might push people back into "real world" shopping, which I'd quite like to see.
2. "prioritising social care, education, the NHS and police" was vague. You've now clarified. You want to spend more on them. How much more? Will you cut spending elsewhere? If so where? If not where does the extra money come from? Over the last few years we've had the highest tax burden since the 1940s and record levels of borrowing so clearly huge sums of money are already being spent. Personally I think many of the problems with the police and education in particular are about the way things are done rather than the amount of money spent on those services.
3. Well that isn't exactly true. Property prices do fall at times for a variety of reasons, although not usually over the very long term. The availability of mortgages and interest rates are two obvious reasons why this happens. House prices fell during the early 1990s and again in the period following the 2008 financial crash. Another more recent and quite unusual example was that during covid the bottom fell out of the market for flats specifically because everybody wanted outdoor space. I'm not saying anything about a "landlord culture", I'm saying a fall in house prices could cause serious problems for people with mortgages. When house prices fell in the 90s negative equity was a real issue for many people.

But I'm confused as to what exactly your point is here. You've said we don't need house prices high, that you think house prices are artificially inflated and that doesn't benefit anyone and that you want to address that. So presumably you want house prices to be lower? But then when I say falling house prices would negatively affect a lot of people with mortgages you also say you don't think house prices will fall? So I'm not sure what point you're making here.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

She’ll do just fine

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Gregm1988]

She’ll do just fine

You must log in or register to see media

The wild thing to me is how many undecided people there still seem to be. Most recently poll flips Trump’s 2 point lead over Biden into a 2 point lead for Harris. Albeit it’s the first one. But it’s 44-42. So 14% are either undecided or not voting for either. I don’t really see 14% going for RFK or Stein combined. So that is still a hefty portion of people apparently on the fence. Which given how polarised American politics is is something I struggle to understand

 

[......loading......]

1. Every government says this. I've no doubt some try harder than others but it's very hard because the UK tax code is hugely complicated. It's thousands of pages and millions of words long. You could aim to simplify it but that's not easy either. Again, previous governments have said they'll do this and have actually ended up making the code significantly longer. I'm not sure how much income it would raise but a tax on internet sales might push people back into "real world" shopping, which I'd quite like to see.
2. "prioritising social care, education, the NHS and police" was vague. You've now clarified. You want to spend more on them. How much more? Will you cut spending elsewhere? If so where? If not where does the extra money come from? Over the last few years we've had the highest tax burden since the 1940s and record levels of borrowing so clearly huge sums of money are already being spent. Personally I think many of the problems with the police and education in particular are about the way things are done rather than the amount of money spent on those services.
3. Well that isn't exactly true. Property prices do fall at times for a variety of reasons, although not usually over the very long term. The availability of mortgages and interest rates are two obvious reasons why this happens. House prices fell during the early 1990s and again in the period following the 2008 financial crash. Another more recent and quite unusual example was that during covid the bottom fell out of the market for flats specifically because everybody wanted outdoor space. I'm not saying anything about a "landlord culture", I'm saying a fall in house prices could cause serious problems for people with mortgages. When house prices fell in the 90s negative equity was a real issue for many people.

But I'm confused as to what exactly your point is here. You've said we don't need house prices high, that you think house prices are artificially inflated and that doesn't benefit anyone and that you want to address that. So presumably you want house prices to be lower? But then when I say falling house prices would negatively affect a lot of people with mortgages you also say you don't think house prices will fall? So I'm not sure what point you're making here.

The house price "crash" of 2009/2010 was 15%. Let's say all house prices "crashed" by this amount - and for the first time in history stayed down.

In the UK 6% of people between 35-44 own their own home. In younger age groups the number is ridiculously small. That is actually ****ing criminal in a society that does nothing to protect the rights of renters. In a society where approximately 96% of people under 44 are renting, rents should be capped and capped hard.

So, where is all the home ownership? Well, if you are retired and no longer contributing to society, then you are probably sitting on vast wealth. 81% of elderly people over 75 own their own home. Ages 65-74: 76% own their home outright.

So, what does this tell anyone with the remotest social conscience? Home ownership is a trap designed to ensure the nation's wealth sits with certain people.

The most glaringly obvious thing is the absolute hypocrisy of anyone saying people need their homes to keep their value. The biggest drop in my lifetime was 15%. 15% of wealth lost.

Currently 96% of people between 18 and 44 are losing upwards of 50% of their wealth EVERY month to the corrupt system of home ownership and the obscene rental market.

So, yeah, if I could, I would build ten million homes and decimate the market.

 

[......loading......]

Nobody discussing Starmer removing the whip from 7 MPs for voting against the government in asking for the removal of the 2 child cap on child benefits?

 

[Gregm1988]

Nobody discussing Starmer removing the whip from 7 MPs for voting against the government in asking for the removal of the 2 child cap on child benefits?

It’s only just happened. Not everyone jumps on here as soon as a political story breaks unless it’s a huge one. And removing the whip from MPs for voting against the government and the manifesto they campaigned on only a few weeks ago isn’t really news. Talk earlier this week is that Labour are considering removing it. But they won’t be bounced into it by an SNP amendment. That’s just politics I’m afraid. If it happens they will want the credit

 

[Puck]

The house price "crash" of 2009/2010 was 15%. Let's say all house prices "crashed" by this amount - and for the first time in history stayed down.

In the UK 6% of people between 35-44 own their own home. In younger age groups the number is ridiculously small. That is actually ****ing criminal in a society that does nothing to protect the rights of renters. In a society where approximately 96% of people under 44 are renting, rents should be capped and capped hard.

So, where is all the home ownership? Well, if you are retired and no longer contributing to society, then you are probably sitting on vast wealth. 81% of elderly people over 75 own their own home. Ages 65-74: 76% own their home outright.

So, what does this tell anyone with the remotest social conscience? Home ownership is a trap designed to ensure the nation's wealth sits with certain people.

The most glaringly obvious thing is the absolute hypocrisy of anyone saying people need their homes to keep their value. The biggest drop in my lifetime was 15%. 15% of wealth lost.

Currently 96% of people between 18 and 44 are losing upwards of 50% of their wealth EVERY month to the corrupt system of home ownership and the obscene rental market.

So, yeah, if I could, I would build ten million homes and decimate the market.

Well of course more older people own their houses outright. It's always taken decades to pay off a mortgage, why would that be remotely surprising? But those stats are plainly rubbish. It's more expensive to buy property now but it simply isn't true that anything like 96% of people under 44 are renting, and certainly not privately. Aside from anything else I'm fairly sure the number of people in that age bracket living with their parents is well over 4%.

Aside from that, the problem with all this is that if someone has worked hard, acted responsibly, scraped together a deposit and and bought a house or flat with a 95% mortgage and then their property suddenly loses 15% of its value then they're ****ed. But I guess them's the breaks. Got screw over those kulaks.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

Most appropriate spelling mistake ever?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/just-deserts-meaning-etymology_uk_661e5415e4b0d633765777a1

 

[LincolnSaint]

The house price "crash" of 2009/2010 was 15%. Let's say all house prices "crashed" by this amount - and for the first time in history stayed down.

In the UK 6% of people between 35-44 own their own home. In younger age groups the number is ridiculously small. That is actually ****ing criminal in a society that does nothing to protect the rights of renters. In a society where approximately 96% of people under 44 are renting, rents should be capped and capped hard.

So, where is all the home ownership? Well, if you are retired and no longer contributing to society, then you are probably sitting on vast wealth. 81% of elderly people over 75 own their own home. Ages 65-74: 76% own their home outright.

So, what does this tell anyone with the remotest social conscience? Home ownership is a trap designed to ensure the nation's wealth sits with certain people.

The most glaringly obvious thing is the absolute hypocrisy of anyone saying people need their homes to keep their value. The biggest drop in my lifetime was 15%. 15% of wealth lost.

Currently 96% of people between 18 and 44 are losing upwards of 50% of their wealth EVERY month to the corrupt system of home ownership and the obscene rental market.

So, yeah, if I could, I would build ten million homes and decimate the market.

Loading for PM

 

[Archers Road]

She’ll do just fine

You must log in or register to see media

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.

 

[......loading......]

Well of course more older people own their houses outright. It's always taken decades to pay off a mortgage, why would that be remotely surprising? But those stats are plainly rubbish. It's more expensive to buy property now but it simply isn't true that anything like 96% of people under 44 are renting, and certainly not privately. Aside from anything else I'm fairly sure the number of people in that age bracket living with their parents is well over 4%.

Aside from that, the problem with all this is that if someone has worked hard, acted responsibly, scraped together a deposit and and bought a house or flat with a 95% mortgage and then their property suddenly loses 15% of its value then they're ****ed. But I guess them's the breaks. Got screw over those kulaks.

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.

 

[......loading......]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/just-deserts-meaning-etymology_uk_661e5415e4b0d633765777a1

You learn something every day!

 

[San Tejón]

The house price "crash" of 2009/2010 was 15%. Let's say all house prices "crashed" by this amount - and for the first time in history stayed down.

In the UK 6% of people between 35-44 own their own home. In younger age groups the number is ridiculously small. That is actually ****ing criminal in a society that does nothing to protect the rights of renters. In a society where approximately 96% of people under 44 are renting, rents should be capped and capped hard.

So, where is all the home ownership? Well, if you are retired and no longer contributing to society, then you are probably sitting on vast wealth. 81% of elderly people over 75 own their own home. Ages 65-74: 76% own their home outright.

So, what does this tell anyone with the remotest social conscience? Home ownership is a trap designed to ensure the nation's wealth sits with certain people.

The most glaringly obvious thing is the absolute hypocrisy of anyone saying people need their homes to keep their value. The biggest drop in my lifetime was 15%. 15% of wealth lost.

Currently 96% of people between 18 and 44 are losing upwards of 50% of their wealth EVERY month to the corrupt system of home ownership and the obscene rental market.

So, yeah, if I could, I would build ten million homes and decimate the market.

I said, possibly a year or so ago, that if a government genuinely wanted to address the housing shortage they would have to upset homeowners and risk being voted out at the next election because of stagnant house prices.
It’s obvious that there is a need to build affordable housing and I hope Starmer has the balls to kick start the building process.
I agree that there is an absolute need to control rents, especially when there are so many renters chasing so few available properties. If I am correct there is something like 17 people chasing every available rental property, which allows landlords to inflate the rent to whatever the successful renters are able to afford.
If a property has been specifically bought for rental purposes, then it should be strictly controlled, both in terms of rent and quality.
I caught a bit of the Kuenssberg “I love the Tories” show from Sunday, in which she was having a go at Rachel Reeves and criticising the Labour Party for essentially setting out their plans to make it easier to build new housing. Kuenssberg was essentially appealing to the NIMBY communities in an attempt to discredit and stop Labour from achieving what is needed. Then I read today that she’s getting more than £325k for basically promoting the Tory party on the BBC. Makes my piss boil.

 

[......loading......]

I said, possibly a year or so ago, that if a government genuinely wanted to address the housing shortage they would have to upset homeowners and risk being voted out at the next election because of stagnant house prices.
It’s obvious that there is a need to build affordable housing and I hope Starmer has the balls to kick start the building process.
I agree that there is an absolute need to control rents, especially when there are so many renters chasing so few available properties. If I am correct there is something like 17 people chasing every available rental property, which allows landlords to inflate the rent to whatever the successful renters are able to afford.
If a property has been specifically bought for rental purposes, then it should be strictly controlled, both in terms of rent and quality.
I caught a bit of the Kuenssberg “I love the Tories” show from Sunday, in which she was having a go at Rachel Reeves and criticising the Labour Party for essentially setting out their plans to make it easier to build new housing. Kuenssberg was essentially appealing to the NIMBY communities in an attempt to discredit and stop Labour from achieving what is needed. Then I read today that she’s getting more than £325k for basically promoting the Tory party on the BBC. Makes my piss boil.

Buy-to-let is not morally grey. It is evil. It was a vessel for wealth transfer from those who have little to those who have much. Why are millions of people paying the mortgage for people who are richer than they are? Repugnant.

 

[San Tejón]

Nobody discussing Starmer removing the whip from 7 MPs for voting against the government in asking for the removal of the 2 child cap on child benefits?

I saw that this morning and feel that it is unnecessary to suspend the whip.
It’s not as if their voting for the amendment made any difference, although I understand that the government has to be able to balance the books before committing to the changes.

 

[San Tejón]

Energy firms set to announce half year profits this week. Centrica is forecast to declare almost £1 billion!
Meanwhile I received my electric bill yesterday, for June 17-July 15. I expected it to be about €70-€80, because I have been heavily using air conditioning and fans.
It was €45.
Nationalisation of the utilities is needed for the UK, unless the new power company Starmer has spoken about creating can reduce prices across the board.


Five Energy Giants That Raked In £240billion During The Fuel Bills Crisis Are To Announce Another Round Of Bumper Profits


News Reporter

FIVE energy giants that raked in £240billion during the fuel bills crisis are to announce another round of bumper profits.

Campaigners branded the payouts “obscene” and made fresh demands for a proper windfall tax on firms.

One company, British Gas owner Centrica, is forecast to reveal half-year profits of just under £1billion on Thursday. Others due to release results this week are Scottish Power owner Iberdrola, Norwegian energy heavyweight Equinor, France’s EDF and power station operator Drax.

Campaign group Warm This Winter – which has dubbed this “Profiteers Week” – calculated the £240bn figure, which it claims the firms raked in over the past three years. During that time millions of people were struggling with high bills.

The payouts cover group-wide profits, so not just the UK.

Warm This Winter’s Fiona Waters said: “Frankly, it is just obscene. It’s hard to grasp the mind-boggling sums involved. That is why we have to bring back fairness and introduce a proper tax on all companies profiteering in the energy sector while six million people in the UK are living in fuel poverty, facing a stark choice between heating and eating.”

End Fuel Poverty Coalition co-ordinator Simon Francis added: “These figures show there is plenty of money in our broken energy system.

“But rather than this being used to help people struggling in cold, damp homes and with the record cost of energy, the cash is being used to line the pockets of energy firms.”

In winter 2021/22, Ofgem’s energy cap stood at an average £1,277 a year but hit £1,690 this spring. It was £1,568 at the start of July.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

The house price "crash" of 2009/2010 was 15%. Let's say all house prices "crashed" by this amount - and for the first time in history stayed down.

In the UK 6% of people between 35-44 own their own home. In younger age groups the number is ridiculously small. That is actually ****ing criminal in a society that does nothing to protect the rights of renters. In a society where approximately 96% of people under 44 are renting, rents should be capped and capped hard.

So, where is all the home ownership? Well, if you are retired and no longer contributing to society, then you are probably sitting on vast wealth. 81% of elderly people over 75 own their own home. Ages 65-74: 76% own their home outright.

So, what does this tell anyone with the remotest social conscience? Home ownership is a trap designed to ensure the nation's wealth sits with certain people.

The most glaringly obvious thing is the absolute hypocrisy of anyone saying people need their homes to keep their value. The biggest drop in my lifetime was 15%. 15% of wealth lost.

Currently 96% of people between 18 and 44 are losing upwards of 50% of their wealth EVERY month to the corrupt system of home ownership and the obscene rental market.

So, yeah, if I could, I would build ten million homes and decimate the market.

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.