The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

A lovely political endearment for our great nation, but meanwhile, as my Fair Lady would have it..what's happening on the street where you live? ( as Spots is talking about) See it's all very fine keep talking "the big picture" and quoting results and views from six blokes in The Hellfire Club poll in central London, and offering solotions to make Britain great again, but all these houses (increasingly more expensive to facilitate property developers mansions, Rolls and villas in the sun (in between them going bust and leaving all sorts of unfinished projects up in the air, tell me that isn't happening), are just projects for growth and development of bank balances for the moguls. Every week that passes, this is happening locally here in Bolton and districts, not the Metropolis. Witness Westhoughton, witness talking building a Ryder Cup venue locally and all the other planning permission battles at council level that are the daily fodder of developers. Witness the cock-up at Moses Gate and the shambolic railway situation in Bolton that have been going on almost a year. How much exactly is any of it doing to help people ( I'm talking your young, working class with families level) buy houses they can afford? ( Oh, and how may of the developers live anywhere near Bolton, or intend settling here? )What should be happening is local Government, councils etc, putting pressure on the Metropolis to realease funds from the great tax bank to sort out here and now land and the folk that live here.

My era is over, I've run my race, my axe is well ground and I have no complaints; I'm a yesteday man, but I have kids, grandkids and even three great gandchildren. Their era is today and tomorrow and it happens here not in Westminster. Local councils need the power and the funds here in the grim north, not La-La land in the sunny south. Clean up you own street before worrying about the Thames surge and whether it will rain on the royal wedding.

I realise I'm wasting my time with all this, but it's raining, so preferable to getting wet...

[BWFC_Insane]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

A lovely political endearment for our great nation, but meanwhile, as my Fair Lady would have it..what's happening on the street where you live? ( as Spots is talking about) See it's all very fine keep talking "the big picture" and quoting results and views from six blokes in The Hellfire Club poll in central London, and offering solotions to make Britain great again, but all these houses (increasingly more expensive to facilitate property developers mansions, Rolls and villas in the sun (in between them going bust and leaving all sorts of unfinished projects up in the air, tell me that isn't happening), are just projects for growth and development of bank balances for the moguls. Every week that passes, this is happening locally here in Bolton and districts, not the Metropolis. Witness Westhoughton, witness talking building a Ryder Cup venue locally and all the other planning permission battles at council level that are the daily fodder of developers. Witness the cock-up at Moses Gate and the shambolic railway situation in Bolton that have been going on almost a year. How much exactly is any of it doing to help people ( I'm talking your young, working class with families level) buy houses they can afford? ( Oh, and how may of the developers live anywhere near Bolton, or intend settling here? )What should be happening is local Government, councils etc, putting pressure on the Metropolis to realease funds from the great tax bank to sort out here and now land and the folk that live here.

My era is over, I've run my race, my axe is well ground and I have no complaints; I'm a yesteday man, but I have kids, grandkids and even three great gandchildren. Their era is today and tomorrow and it happens here not in Westminster. Local councils need the power and the funds here in the grim north, not La-La land in the sunny south. Clean up you own street before worrying about the Thames surge and whether it will rain on the royal wedding.

I realise I'm wasting my time with all this, but it's raining, so preferable to getting wet...

As ever TD I fear you are conflating a great many things and somewhat in a circular way agreeing with me.

We need to build, affordable, family homes. For people to have as homes. People who actually live in them and want to buy a house.

The situation on the railway is indeed shameful. But a separate issue and ultimately a result of the utterly disastrous decision to privatise and separate out BR. You now have promise after promise broken because the people making the promises are only after a quick buck. And the Tory governments simply do not care about Bolton. Cameron promised improvement that simply was never delivered. Quelle surprise.

The main thrust of my argument is to invest in the regions. Stop the London and South East centricness that is destroying communities elsewhere. Invest in the regions and force businesses to invest here too. Incentivise businesses to move out of the SE. And build homes for people that are affordable and can only be bought buy people who genuinely want to live in them.

You fix an awful lot by doing that and its eminently achieveable, if there was the political will. Sadly there isn't. Not with the current lot at least. They've given us a GM Mayor we neither wanted or needed and we'll be thankful or else.

[Hoboh]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

London, London, London and a few trendy little off beat places, it is not the norm but people expect to buy off the shelf, ready finished homes, not have to work over a few years at them. Fcuk me, the number who cannot mange simple gardens now should be a wake up call.
Anyway the housing shortage should not be of any concern to a high rate, champagne socialist taxpayer during your love in with Emily and her kind.

BTW, I love how you always side step any mention of old McDonald, the self admitted Marxist who goes on the streets calling for insurrection and public disorder when talking about the puppet weary old man who will just serve a purpose and never be PM.

You are either deluded or stupid or as dangerous as Top pig Napoleon (and I don't think you are stupid)!

[BWFC_Insane]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

London, London, London and a few trendy little off beat places, it is not the norm but people expect to buy off the shelf, ready finished homes, not have to work over a few years at them. Fcuk me, the number who cannot mange simple gardens now should be a wake up call.
Anyway the housing shortage should not be of any concern to a high rate, champagne socialist taxpayer during your love in with Emily and her kind.

BTW, I love how you always side step any mention of old McDonald, the self admitted Marxist who goes on the streets calling for insurrection and public disorder when talking about the puppet weary old man who will just serve a purpose and never be PM.

You are either deluded or stupid or as dangerous as Top pig Napoleon (and I don't think you are stupid)!

I'm going to ignore the histrionics in the latter part of your post.

The first bit...there are many places outside of London that its hard to buy houses. Sometimes because its crazily expensive other times because there simply aren't enough.

Especially family homes.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis on people not wanting "projects" Kirsty and Phil have essentially started every tom dick and harry off thinking they are property moguls and they should be buying a "doer upper" to invest and move up the ladder. The trouble being that only in some cases are you really adding value to your house.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

London, London, London and a few trendy little off beat places, it is not the norm but people expect to buy off the shelf, ready finished homes, not have to work over a few years at them. Fcuk me, the number who cannot mange simple gardens now should be a wake up call.
Anyway the housing shortage should not be of any concern to a high rate, champagne socialist taxpayer during your love in with Emily and her kind.

BTW, I love how you always side step any mention of old McDonald, the self admitted Marxist who goes on the streets calling for insurrection and public disorder when talking about the puppet weary old man who will just serve a purpose and never be PM.

You are either deluded or stupid or as dangerous as Top pig Napoleon (and I don't think you are stupid)!

I'm going to ignore the histrionics in the latter part of your post.

The first bit...there are many places outside of London that its hard to buy houses. Sometimes because its crazily expensive other times because there simply aren't enough.

Especially family homes.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis on people not wanting "projects" Kirsty and Phil have essentially started every tom dick and harry off thinking they are property moguls and they should be buying a "doer upper" to invest and move up the ladder. The trouble being that only in some cases are you really adding value to your house.

There is nowhere "where there aren't enough" houses. If you can't get one where you want one it's all down to you can't afford one.
The fact there are an estimated 4,000 people homeless on the streets of Britain doesn't mean we need to build 4,000 more homes, it means we need to utilise the 150,000 houses that stand empty.

[BWFC_Insane]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

London, London, London and a few trendy little off beat places, it is not the norm but people expect to buy off the shelf, ready finished homes, not have to work over a few years at them. Fcuk me, the number who cannot mange simple gardens now should be a wake up call.
Anyway the housing shortage should not be of any concern to a high rate, champagne socialist taxpayer during your love in with Emily and her kind.

BTW, I love how you always side step any mention of old McDonald, the self admitted Marxist who goes on the streets calling for insurrection and public disorder when talking about the puppet weary old man who will just serve a purpose and never be PM.

You are either deluded or stupid or as dangerous as Top pig Napoleon (and I don't think you are stupid)!

I'm going to ignore the histrionics in the latter part of your post.

The first bit...there are many places outside of London that its hard to buy houses. Sometimes because its crazily expensive other times because there simply aren't enough.

Especially family homes.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis on people not wanting "projects" Kirsty and Phil have essentially started every tom dick and harry off thinking they are property moguls and they should be buying a "doer upper" to invest and move up the ladder. The trouble being that only in some cases are you really adding value to your house.

There is nowhere "where there aren't enough" houses. If you can't get one where you want one it's all down to you can't afford one.
The fact there are an estimated 4,000 people homeless on the streets of Britain doesn't mean we need to build 4,000 more homes, it means we need to utilise the 150,000 houses that stand empty.

I mean I agree in terms of utilising the empty houses. 100%.

Equally I think when people are buying houses especially family homes there are very sensible and rational reasons why they want to live in certain areas. I don't think its reasonable for someone to demand to live in a certain estate. But I think its reasonable for people to be able to buy a house in the town where their family and friends are.

More than reasonable. And I wouldn't pay several hundreds of thousands of pounds to live somewhere I didn't want to.

[Hoboh]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

London, London, London and a few trendy little off beat places, it is not the norm but people expect to buy off the shelf, ready finished homes, not have to work over a few years at them. Fcuk me, the number who cannot mange simple gardens now should be a wake up call.
Anyway the housing shortage should not be of any concern to a high rate, champagne socialist taxpayer during your love in with Emily and her kind.

BTW, I love how you always side step any mention of old McDonald, the self admitted Marxist who goes on the streets calling for insurrection and public disorder when talking about the puppet weary old man who will just serve a purpose and never be PM.

You are either deluded or stupid or as dangerous as Top pig Napoleon (and I don't think you are stupid)!

I'm going to ignore the histrionics in the latter part of your post.

The first bit...there are many places outside of London that its hard to buy houses. Sometimes because its crazily expensive other times because there simply aren't enough.

Especially family homes.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis on people not wanting "projects" Kirsty and Phil have essentially started every tom dick and harry off thinking they are property moguls and they should be buying a "doer upper" to invest and move up the ladder. The trouble being that only in some cases are you really adding value to your house.

What a surprise!
Reckon I shouldn't feel guilty about ignoring a few other things then.

[BWFC_Insane]

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.

London, London, London and a few trendy little off beat places, it is not the norm but people expect to buy off the shelf, ready finished homes, not have to work over a few years at them. Fcuk me, the number who cannot mange simple gardens now should be a wake up call.
Anyway the housing shortage should not be of any concern to a high rate, champagne socialist taxpayer during your love in with Emily and her kind.

BTW, I love how you always side step any mention of old McDonald, the self admitted Marxist who goes on the streets calling for insurrection and public disorder when talking about the puppet weary old man who will just serve a purpose and never be PM.

You are either deluded or stupid or as dangerous as Top pig Napoleon (and I don't think you are stupid)!

I'm going to ignore the histrionics in the latter part of your post.

The first bit...there are many places outside of London that its hard to buy houses. Sometimes because its crazily expensive other times because there simply aren't enough.

Especially family homes.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis on people not wanting "projects" Kirsty and Phil have essentially started every tom dick and harry off thinking they are property moguls and they should be buying a "doer upper" to invest and move up the ladder. The trouble being that only in some cases are you really adding value to your house.

What a surprise!
Reckon I shouldn't feel guilty about ignoring a few other things then.

If you really want a response, have a read of this.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservat ... -cameron-3

"Red Ed" was a marxist for proposing this policy. A dangerous "70's throwback socialist". These were senior Tory quotes and headlines from the tabloid trash papers.

Now its a Conservative policy.

McDonnell has said that there are parts of Marxism (like any economic theory) that are worth taking and parts that aren't.

Perhaps like May has stolen "Ed's Marxist policy".

If all you're going to do is parrot sensationalist and patently nonsense Daily Fail headlines at me and report half truths, then there isn't much point continuing. If you actually want to discuss the relative merits of certain socialist economic policies then I'm all ears.

[Hoboh]

Okay then

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28876.html

Nice history of connections and friends as well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34245371

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ences-2006

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/h ... ly-9240484

You signed up to this mob?

http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/a-false-narrative/

New name same old. Please note not one link to the 'nasty Marxist hate paper' the mail, more lefty whingers winger outlets

[BWFC_Insane]

Okay then

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28876.html

Nice history of connections and friends as well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34245371

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ences-2006

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/h ... ly-9240484

You signed up to this mob?

http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/a-false-narrative/

New name same old. Please note not one link to the 'nasty Marxist hate paper' the mail, more lefty whingers winger outlets

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. I certainly don't have the time or inclination to read a long old post about internal shenanigans within momentum.

I think we all know when McDonnell comes from. We all know what he has said in the past. Is he someone I respect? Not really. Some of what he proposes I strongly believe in. Not everything.

I've not much interest in discussing any further. Lets discuss IF that Rees Mogg character ever surfaces as chancellor (or worse) as the rumours suggest. I've got hundreds of links saved up for that eventuality!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Okay then

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28876.html

Nice history of connections and friends as well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34245371

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ences-2006

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/h ... ly-9240484

You signed up to this mob?

http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/a-false-narrative/

New name same old. Please note not one link to the 'nasty Marxist hate paper' the mail, more lefty whingers winger outlets

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. I certainly don't have the time or inclination to read a long old post about internal shenanigans within momentum.

I think we all know when McDonnell comes from. We all know what he has said in the past. Is he someone I respect? Not really. Some of what he proposes I strongly believe in. Not everything.

I've not much interest in discussing any further. Lets discuss IF that Rees Mogg character ever surfaces as chancellor (or worse) as the rumours suggest. I've got hundreds of links saved up for that eventuality!

Has anyone actually espoused Jacob Rees-Mogg on here?
*cups hand to ear, and hears silence*
No, I thought not, so why threaten to post hundreds of links about him???

[TANGODANCER]

Transport secretary? Chris Grayling is getting a right old slating from Andrew Adonis in today's Mirror (read it up at the hospital waiting for the wife) over his 2 billion handout? to rail magnates Branson and Souter. Not pulling any punches there...

[BWFC_Insane]

Transport secretary? Chris Grayling is getting a right old slating from Andrew Adonis in today's Mirror (read it up at the hospital waiting for the wife) over his 2 billion handout? to rail magnates Branson and Souter. Not pulling any punches there...

I liked the headline.

No doubt a job for Grayling has been secured after his political career. A highly paid consultant. A snip for £2Bn.

Privatisation of the railways, has been a complete and utter failure. I don't think re-nationalising them NOW is necessarily a realistic solution. Nor a cost effective one.

But it has been a failure. And completely and utterly busts open the myth about a more efficient private sector introducing competition being better for our public services.

[boltonboris]

I'm not pro-nationalisation by any stretch, but Railways and similarly with Broadband - Tax payers pay for the infrastructure only for large companies to sell the product back to you at exorbitant rates. It stinks

[Hoboh]

Transport secretary? Chris Grayling is getting a right old slating from Andrew Adonis in today's Mirror (read it up at the hospital waiting for the wife) over his 2 billion handout? to rail magnates Branson and Souter. Not pulling any punches there...

I liked the headline.

No doubt a job for Grayling has been secured after his political career. A highly paid consultant. A snip for £2Bn.

Privatisation of the railways, has been a complete and utter failure. I don't think re-nationalising them NOW is necessarily a realistic solution. Nor a cost effective one.

But it has been a failure. And completely and utterly busts open the myth about a more efficient private sector introducing competition being better for our public services.

Shock horror hoboh in agreement with BWFCi

I would add that power, water, along with railways are 'in the national interests' and should never have been privatised.
I'd go one step further and say busses and education fall into this category as well, nothing wrong with public services tendering out to private companies for supply, providing the quotes are genuine competitive ones, which in the case of the NHS does not seem to be.

[BWFC_Insane]

Transport secretary? Chris Grayling is getting a right old slating from Andrew Adonis in today's Mirror (read it up at the hospital waiting for the wife) over his 2 billion handout? to rail magnates Branson and Souter. Not pulling any punches there...

I liked the headline.

No doubt a job for Grayling has been secured after his political career. A highly paid consultant. A snip for £2Bn.

Privatisation of the railways, has been a complete and utter failure. I don't think re-nationalising them NOW is necessarily a realistic solution. Nor a cost effective one.

But it has been a failure. And completely and utterly busts open the myth about a more efficient private sector introducing competition being better for our public services.

Shock horror hoboh in agreement with BWFCi

I would add that power, water, along with railways are 'in the national interests' and should never have been privatised.
I'd go one step further and say busses and education fall into this category as well, nothing wrong with public services tendering out to private companies for supply, providing the quotes are genuine competitive ones, which in the case of the NHS does not seem to be.

The problem with private contracts is that inevitably it costs more. Its a politically motivated ideology to take employment out of the public service and into the private sector. It is fundamentally flawed and does not in any way produce the results the ideology proposes it will.

What effectively happens is people who've worked in the public sector for a long time are shunted into a private provider on worse terms and conditions and can be more easily got rid of, have their hours reduced or their pay capped. Theoretically then its a great idea....except the contracts build in profit, profit drives standards downwards and the once fantastic staff either leave or are so disillusioned they become less than fantastic. I've seen it happen from the sidelines many times.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

None of you get it. It doesn't matter if it's privitised or public ownership it's still 'private' companies that provide.
The Great Nationalization of our railways that produced British Railways was just an amalgamation of private companies.
When NASA built the biggest rocket that has ever existed - Saturn V, that placed men on the moon - it was a private company, McDonnel-Douglas, that actually built the fxcking things.
And the NHS relies entirely, that is 100%, utterly and totally completely, without a single exception, on private companies not only to supply, but to develop all the drugs they use, and the instruments in theatre, and the buildings they inhabit.
It's a joke to believe that nationalisation really means what you think it seems to mean. As another example, take the Post Office/Royal Mail they never ever produced their own stamps. And the Royal Mint have never ever printed their own banknotes - it was all done by a private company - De La Rue.
Nationalisation is a fxcking myth.

[BWFC_Insane]

None of you get it. It doesn't matter if it's privitised or public ownership it's still 'private' companies that provide.
The Great Nationalization of our railways that produced British Railways was just an amalgamation of private companies.
When NASA built the biggest rocket that has ever existed - Saturn V, that placed men on the moon - it was a private company, McDonnel-Douglas, that actually built the fxcking things.
And the NHS relies entirely, that is 100%, utterly and totally completely, without a single exception, on private companies not only to supply, but to develop all the drugs they use, and the instruments in theatre, and the buildings they inhabit.
It's a joke to believe that nationalisation really means what you think it seems to mean. As another example, take the Post Office/Royal Mail they never ever produced their own stamps. And the Royal Mint have never ever printed their own banknotes - it was all done by a private company - De La Rue.
Nationalisation is a fxcking myth.

That is all entirely tangential to public services being run for public benefit rather than profit.

Of course there is always going to be contracts between public services and the private sector. The NHS doesn't have to build every single piece of equipment it uses. That is just ridiculous.

But the NHS should be run on the basis of providing the best public, free at the point of delivery health service it possibly can IMHO. And not on the basis of minimising cost and maximising profit.

The private sector is best at making stuff and selling it in volume cheaply. The public sector is best at providing a service that revolves around individual or group needs rather than the bottom line.

There is an easy distinction.

A unified nationalised rail service meant that (in theory) decisions could be taken as to what the best service that could be offered to passengers was. The mess of a system we have now means that such considerations are incredibly low down the scale.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

None of you get it. It doesn't matter if it's privitised or public ownership it's still 'private' companies that provide.
The Great Nationalization of our railways that produced British Railways was just an amalgamation of private companies.
When NASA built the biggest rocket that has ever existed - Saturn V, that placed men on the moon - it was a private company, McDonnel-Douglas, that actually built the fxcking things.
And the NHS relies entirely, that is 100%, utterly and totally completely, without a single exception, on private companies not only to supply, but to develop all the drugs they use, and the instruments in theatre, and the buildings they inhabit.
It's a joke to believe that nationalisation really means what you think it seems to mean. As another example, take the Post Office/Royal Mail they never ever produced their own stamps. And the Royal Mint have never ever printed their own banknotes - it was all done by a private company - De La Rue.
Nationalisation is a fxcking myth.

That is all entirely tangential to public services being run for public benefit rather than profit.

Of course there is always going to be contracts between public services and the private sector. The NHS doesn't have to build every single piece of equipment it uses. That is just ridiculous.

But the NHS should be run on the basis of providing the best public, free at the point of delivery health service it possibly can IMHO. And not on the basis of minimising cost and maximising profit.

The private sector is best at making stuff and selling it in volume cheaply. The public sector is best at providing a service that revolves around individual or group needs rather than the bottom line.

There is an easy distinction.

A unified nationalised rail service meant that (in theory) decisions could be taken as to what the best service that could be offered to passengers was. The mess of a system we have now means that such considerations are incredibly low down the scale.

How can I put this. I've worked for over a quarter of a century in the railway industry. You are talking bollocks, sir.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...and before you ramble on about "a unified national rail service" I'd just like to remind you in case you'd forgotten (actually that's code for you never knew in the first place), the insurmountable problems of third rail systems in the south being incompatible with overhead electrification systems in the north being incompatible with heritage systems in the midlands which can accommodate neither third rail or overhead electrification. And we haven't even started on the incompatibility with Scottish and Welsh routes. And that's all from an infrastructure perspective that takes no account of the problems with routes and timetables and ticketing.
Nationalisation isn't an answer, not if you want efficiency. All Nationalisation will do is bring us back to the inefficient behemoth that was BR - at taxpayer's expense.