The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Agree with this Hobes. But, it still feels like "tinkering" although I'd welcome loophole fixing. But for me, free market economic just don't work to the advantage of most people.

Trickle down? Barely happens.

Privatisation was supposed to increase investment in infrastructure. It's largely broken and requires constant subsidy and tax breaks. France heavily cut their energy bills, yet the French energy companies in the UK took more off the taxpayers.

Right to buy. Lost our housing stock, was replaced by private landlords. How's that working for first time buyers and renters?

Total UK companies profits increasing in large handfuls year on year. Wages, largely stagnant by comparison.

Break up the markets to increase competitiveness, driving down prices. Ha don't make me laugh.


The whole system is geared to making very rich people, richer, whilst convincing the majority of the electorate, they've "won" something through minor give and take tax changes. Keep them focused on shit like "Brexit, wokeism ans green agendas" and hope they don't notice...Good news for them is, it usually works..

[boltonboris]

I'd ban the Stock Exchange for any non-financial institution (this is a bit radical, but shares encourage greed and wage stagnation)
I'd ban second homes on any home outside of the postcode area of your place of residence
I'd ban more than 20% margin for landlords renting out their homes
I'd tax any business making more than £1b profit per annum, 80% tax and ensure their staff get the other 20% divided between them
I'd raise the minimum wage by 50% and offer support to small business suffering that hit, by using above windfall taxes.
I'd tax the dividends that banks make on pension bonds, to reduce the risks and put those dividend taxes back into state pensions

[Hoboh]

And I'd ban all the 'further' education except for the genuinely intelligent youth to stop the job/real world
dodgers, seemed to work pretty well until someone used it to slash the unemployment numbers.
You sure you're Bolton Boris and not Bolton Karl l

[BWFC_Insane]

And I'd ban all the 'further' education except for the genuinely intelligent youth to stop the job/real world
dodgers, seemed to work pretty well until someone used it to slash the unemployment numbers.
You sure you're Bolton Boris and not Bolton Karl l

The economy of the future (and indeed the now) needs highly educated people. We're already at a point where automation and AI can start to effectively do many of the lower grade jobs within a few years, not decades. So the idea you'd ban education is not only fascists and regressive its also monumentally stupid if you want us to be competitive in the world economy.

[TANGODANCER]

The economy of the future (and indeed the now) needs highly educated people. We're already at a point where automation and AI can start to effectively do many of the lower grade jobs within a few years, not decades. So the idea you'd ban education is not only fascists and regressive its also monumentally stupid if you want us to be competitive in the world economy.

Somehow, world economy seems less than top priority rather then local affairs right now. Our problems see to lie in the laps of so-called educated folk, politicians, top-enders, bankers, developers, investors etc, not the laps of any blue collars who it seems we need to train as fruit-pickers and delivery drivers.

Just one to consider: In its extremities, education can be a self-defeating industry. I once worked for a company who sold IT packages to the world, mainly third world countries. One day, they had learned all the lessons, expanded them and left us behind. The firm I worked for (a world leader in computerisation) no longer exists. Just a thought.

[BWFC_Insane]

The economy of the future (and indeed the now) needs highly educated people. We're already at a point where automation and AI can start to effectively do many of the lower grade jobs within a few years, not decades. So the idea you'd ban education is not only fascists and regressive its also monumentally stupid if you want us to be competitive in the world economy.

Somehow, world economy seems less than top priority rather then local affairs right now. Our problems see to lie in the laps of so-called educated folk, politicians, top-enders, bankers, developers, investors etc, not the laps of any blue collars who it seems we need to train as fruit-pickers and delivery drivers.

Just one to consider: In its extremities, education can be a self-defeating industry. I once worked for a company who sold IT packages to the world, mainly third world countries. One day, they had learned all the lessons, expanded them and left us behind. The firm I worked for (a world leader in computerisation) no longer exists. Just a thought.

The reason things are so bad right now is partly because we've had a long period of people being sold on localism and nationalism (the same people wanging on about turning old people into fruit pickers so none of the nasty foreigners have to do it). But it doesn't work. We can't just rewind the clock. We need to be competitive in the future of global industries - which will be things like battery manufacturing, Green R&D, renewable energy, etc...

You won't achieve that by pretending we can go back to the 1950's. If we aren't at the forefront of the future other countries will be and what will we be left with? Nothing.

The people who have sold the idea that we can go back to the 1950's are the ones now with no clue how to fix the very problems they have created. Stop listening to them. We have a great future but it can't be how it was 80 years ago. It will be different.

[Prufrock]

You're all Cnuts.

(Or, being accurate, the subjects of Cnut, but then the 'joke' wouldn't work)

[TANGODANCER]

You won't achieve that by pretending we can go back to the 1950's. If we aren't at the forefront of the future other countries will be and what will we be left with? Nothing.

The people who have sold the idea that we can go back to the 1950's are the ones now with no clue how to fix the very problems they have created. Stop listening to them. We have a great future but it can't be how it was 80 years ago. It will be different.

Maybe it's just me, but so far I haven't actually come across anybody doing that? The 1950's were the start of today; a country recovering from a newly-ended world war and the wreckage of German bombs that all but wiped us out. From those humble times Britain recovered and you look at the mess we're in now and want to have a dig at what exactly? 1950? Our problems are here and now and created by today's world; we put the gas masks and egg-powder away a long time ago. Less you think I exaggerate, I was born in September 1939, just two week after war was declared and kids at school used chalk and blackboards..It was a long time ago.....

[BWFC_Insane]

You won't achieve that by pretending we can go back to the 1950's. If we aren't at the forefront of the future other countries will be and what will we be left with? Nothing.

The people who have sold the idea that we can go back to the 1950's are the ones now with no clue how to fix the very problems they have created. Stop listening to them. We have a great future but it can't be how it was 80 years ago. It will be different.

Maybe it's just me, but so far I haven't actually come across anybody doing that? The 1950's were the start of today; a country recovering from a newly-ended world war and the wreckage of German bombs that all but wiped us out. From those humble times Britain recovered and you look at the mess we're in now and want to have a dig at what exactly? 1950? Our problems are here and now and created by today's world; we put the gas masks and egg-powder away a long time ago. Less you think I exaggerate, I was born in September 1939, just two week after war was declared and kids at school used chalk and blackboards..It was a long time ago.....

Right so if we want to have a better economy that helps people and supports people we need to be at the forefront of the global future. Which means high levels of education, loads of investment in R&D and new technology, build our own renewable energy sector etc….

That means we need high skill levels and a workforce fit for the future. We are competing with countries already who get this.

And the problems we have locally are because simply put we are not doing this….

[Hoboh]

And I'd ban all the 'further' education except for the genuinely intelligent youth to stop the job/real world
dodgers, seemed to work pretty well until someone used it to slash the unemployment numbers.
You sure you're Bolton Boris and not Bolton Karl l

The economy of the future (and indeed the now) needs highly educated people. We're already at a point where automation and AI can start to effectively do many of the lower grade jobs within a few years, not decades. So the idea you'd ban education is not only fascists and regressive its also monumentally stupid if you want us to be competitive in the world economy.

Trouble is mate, you DON'T get highly educated people, with the exception of the few out of our rotten education system, only the brainwashed Road blockers or Bell ends who want to stop farmers looking after animals who would die out or suffer a lot lot more if that's the case.

[BWFC_Insane]

And I'd ban all the 'further' education except for the genuinely intelligent youth to stop the job/real world
dodgers, seemed to work pretty well until someone used it to slash the unemployment numbers.
You sure you're Bolton Boris and not Bolton Karl l

The economy of the future (and indeed the now) needs highly educated people. We're already at a point where automation and AI can start to effectively do many of the lower grade jobs within a few years, not decades. So the idea you'd ban education is not only fascists and regressive its also monumentally stupid if you want us to be competitive in the world economy.

Trouble is mate, you DON'T get highly educated people, with the exception of the few out of our rotten education system, only the brainwashed Road blockers or Bell ends who want to stop farmers looking after animals who would die out or suffer a lot lot more if that's the case.

Trouble is mate, that’s just absolute rubbish!

I realise the next culture war is to attack the educated but it’s absolute horseshit of the highest order.

Not everyone needs to go to university but right now we don’t have many other good ways of developing the skills base we need. Employees aren’t doing it and FE is underfunded.

Stereotyping a generation isn’t going to help you either.

[Worthy4England]

Good of Farage to admit Brexit has failed. Can he now leave the country as he promised to do? After all we were going to Brexit in a day over a cup of tea and progress to the sunlit uplands.

Of course no blame in this attaches to him, Richard Tice, Aaron Banks and the like. It's all those arch remainers like Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Rees-Mogg etc. I particularly like the areas he's specifically picked out to highlight the failure, many of which had fcuk all to do with the EU in the first place.

Most expensive con, I've seen in my lifetime, at the expense of the electorate and to the benefit of a few very rich people.

[Worthy4England]

Oh and just for a bit of balance. Every time Labour open their traps on housebuilding, they lose potential votes. Part of the reason (I mean there were plenty to go at) the Tory's lost lots of votes in the South, is because some fcuker wants to concrete everywhere (usually whilst trying to display their green agenda credentials) and it's getting fuller by the spade full.

We've had re-introduction of dumb targets, now Starmer is on about relaxing green-belt controls. Absolutely crazy, shit. All these will do is make landowners and developers much richer and not solve the overall problem, which is that we can't build houses the people who need them, can afford. So they are bought by "asset owners" and locked behind financial instruments which means the person "buying" the house will more than likely never own it, so they won't benefit from the asset - someone else will.

Fcuked in the head.

[BWFC_Insane]

Oh and just for a bit of balance. Every time Labour open their traps on housebuilding, they lose potential votes. Part of the reason (I mean there were plenty to go at) the Tory's lost lots of votes in the South, is because some fcuker wants to concrete everywhere (usually whilst trying to display their green agenda credentials) and it's getting fuller by the spade full.

We've had re-introduction of dumb targets, now Starmer is on about relaxing green-belt controls. Absolutely crazy, shit. All these will do is make landowners and developers much richer and not solve the overall problem, which is that we can't build houses the people who need them, can afford. So they are bought by "asset owners" and locked behind financial instruments which means the person "buying" the house will more than likely never own it, so they won't benefit from the asset - someone else will.

Fcuked in the head.

I disagree. Supply has to be sorted - we have a housing crisis and the only fix - is to build more OR to ship people out of their houses into camps at some point.

Its one of those NIMBY things that is always going to be unpopular locally but everyone knows its needed. But NIMBY.

And they are talking about handing the power to Local Authorities which is a good move - and to stop it being 'executive housing' that is built.

We've discussed this before but ultimately until the supply is fixed nobody has a solution. And the clear issue is that in the current situation developers ARE restricting supply inflating demand and raising prices - that's their tactic. If you stop that - then you do create the situation for MORE AFFORDABLE houses to be built.

[Worthy4England]

This could not be more wrong (Edit: about NIMBYISM), if you got Lisa Nandy to write it, for you, and it's absolutely not NIMBY. Let's use an actual example for reference, maybe the one where Nandy represents, but still doesn't understand it. Some of these figures might be slightly out of date as Places for Everyone is releasing updates by the week.

Wigan Council, need to build some houses over the next 15 years. To calculate how many they need using the "official mechanism", we have to use ONS stats from 2014 (because the 2016, 18 and 20 versions of the same stats said they needed fewer). ONS stats say they need roughly 14,500 new houses over the period.

This is then uplifted by affordability ratios, that effectively say if you don't build enough, build more. So we get a series of uplifts (so we're already in the realms of more houses than we need - that's the response to Developers controlling supply). This uplifts the total by 915 over the period. So let's call it 15,500 for cash.

Wigan produces it's SHLAA (their identified land assessments) - it shows that they have a 15 year supply identified. It's 17,996. So a good couple of thousand higher than the number they actually need. But some sites might be a little tricky, so developers can't maximise profits, especially if brown-belt clean up is needed.

The evidence produced by GMCA at the recent hearings shows they don't need green-belt sites. They state this in their own document. So why do we find ourselves pitching for them in the overarching development plan? Well because they're much easier to maximise profits on.

So do we need greenbelt, no.

If we use greenbelt, they typical retail for a small box is well in excess of £290,000 - for a very small one. This figure is supplied by the developers as part of their evidence base. Median house prices in Wigan are between £105-£130k (2018 latest figures). So how exactly are houses largely over £300k going to solve the problem.

Let's move on to homelessness...Wigan count some 10,000ish people as needing a new home. Around 70% of them already have one, it just needs investment and repairs. They have 4,365 vacant dwellings in Wigan. Which more than cover the number of people who actually need homes.

It's not sloganised nimbyism. It's just plain wrong.

The land supply exists. Developers should be building on it. They're not.

[BWFC_Insane]

Brownfield development is more expensive. Often for a variety of complex reasons. It also isn’t necessarily someone would choose to live. But that doesn’t matter so long as young people can get shoved in a box….

The point Labour make that green belt land is not all equal is a good one. It isn’t. The fact is a lot of green belt is not rolling countryside or nature reserves but massive wasteland that is ideal for development and lower cost development.

We need policies to make the houses affordable.

But over the next 50 years climate change is also likely to render parts of our housing stock uninhabitable or at least not re marketable meaning again the land pressures will come.

As ever the options are not building on every patch of the countryside vs offering boxes for the generations behind us. It’s something in between.

But the argument we don’t need more supply simply doesn’t wash with me. We do. We need other things alongside it.

[Worthy4England]

I'm happy to see your demonstration of why we need more supply in some sort of mathematics rather than unquantified generalization. I won't because it doesn't exist. Building £300k houses in a location where the average job pays £10.42 an hour, is not the answer. And they're typically what gets put on green belt sites.

Not every outlooked property is Wigan's SHLAA is a "box" - the ones that aren't are likely not affordable to a first time buyer. For example, a flat on one of the sites probably about 2 miles away from me, the selling price of a 55 sq m flat on it is over £200 grand (published numbers from the developers). That's quite an expensive box. If I move up to a less boxy terrace, they're 368 grand. The build costs are £60k and £115k respectively. Semi, £541k. Detached, £580k. They don't put "affordable boxes" on greenbelt land. That's part of the point being made.

I'm still laughing at the point you make about climate change and the notion that building (carbon intensive process) over open land is some sort of answer. GMCA have been rolling back on their Carbon commitments relating to Places for Everyone at a rate of knots, because the inspectors said to them "Really?"

We do need policies that make houses affordable, but trying to increase supply isn't it the answer and there's plenty of evidence (a word you like but doesn't sit well with your world-view on this). There's a decent starter for 10 in the Guardian (see I even picked a paper that isn't the Daily Mail)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ing-crisis

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm happy to see your demonstration of why we need more supply in some sort of mathematics rather than unquantified generalization. I won't because it doesn't exist. Building £300k houses in a location where the average job pays £10.42 an hour, is not the answer. And they're typically what gets put on green belt sites.

Not every outlooked property is Wigan's SHLAA is a "box" - the ones that aren't are likely not affordable to a first time buyer. For example, a flat on one of the sites probably about 2 miles away from me, the selling price of a 55 sq m flat on it is over £200 grand (published numbers from the developers). That's quite an expensive box. If I move up to a less boxy terrace, they're 368 grand. The build costs are £60k and £115k respectively. Semi, £541k. Detached, £580k. They don't put "affordable boxes" on greenbelt land. That's part of the point being made.

I'm still laughing at the point you make about climate change and the notion that building (carbon intensive process) over open land is some sort of answer. GMCA have been rolling back on their Carbon commitments relating to Places for Everyone at a rate of knots, because the inspectors said to them "Really?"

We do need policies that make houses affordable, but trying to increase supply isn't it the answer and there's plenty of evidence (a word you like but doesn't sit well with your world-view on this). There's a decent starter for 10 in the Guardian (see I even picked a paper that isn't the Daily Mail)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ing-crisis

It be delighted with the suggestions from the linked article. There are in the academic space a set of contrasting views on whether we need more house building, intervention leading to price deflation or a mixture.

I think it’s a mix. LSE a few years back worked out that if you build on transport connected green belt only you can build 2M more homes. But that needs to be in conjunction with changes to mortgages and social housing policy.

However, the article you linked makes good points. I’m all for policies that slash house prices.

[Worthy4England]

Honest mate, I have two adult children aged between 20 and 30. If I thought there was the remotest chance that building on greenbelt would help them somehow get a them a house (boxy or otherwise ), it would get my support. Here's what happens.

Developer promises 25% affordable housing and infrastructure, at viability assessment time. They've managed to extend the use of the word affordable to include, many categories most of which the occupier will never own the property. Affordable for rent is the majority shareholder here - but then the occupier will never own it. The next largest is where they buy a share in the property at a mortgage they can afford, this also needs to "never owning it," although for the proportion they do own, they obviously see a return if house prices go up. These folks would be hit by a fall in house prices.

They developers then reduce their commitments where the person could actually own an entire house at a price they could afford (the market determines what the house price is) and their commitments to infrastructure after the event, to reduce both anywhere possible. Their huge retained legal teams are excellent at this. The developers at the same time as pleading poverty then announce record profits.

The houses on greenbelt are often owned by institutional investment/foreign investment or comparatively rich people who already have their own house or it didn't matter anyhow, because it increases their asset investment. Obviously there will also be some folks that have taken a "small(ish) upgrade" because they've moved out of an old property.

[BWFC_Insane]

Honest mate, I have two adult children aged between 20 and 30. If I thought there was the remotest chance that building on greenbelt would help them somehow get a them a house (boxy or otherwise ), it would get my support. Here's what happens.

Developer promises 25% affordable housing and infrastructure, at viability assessment time. They've managed to extend the use of the word affordable to include, many categories most of which the occupier will never own the property. Affordable for rent is the majority shareholder here - but then the occupier will never own it. The next largest is where they buy a share in the property at a mortgage they can afford, this also needs to "never owning it," although for the proportion they do own, they obviously see a return if house prices go up. These folks would be hit by a fall in house prices.

They developers then reduce their commitments where the person could actually own an entire house at a price they could afford (the market determines what the house price is) and their commitments to infrastructure after the event, to reduce both anywhere possible. Their huge retained legal teams are excellent at this. The developers at the same time as pleading poverty then announce record profits.

The houses on greenbelt are often owned by institutional investment/foreign investment or comparatively rich people who already have their own house or it didn't matter anyhow, because it increases their asset investment. Obviously there will also be some folks that have taken a "small(ish) upgrade" because they've moved out of an old property.

Yeah but that doesn’t have to happen - we can build social housing and change mortgage rules and land designations to encourage the developments to a) only be for first time buyers - that can be a stipulation of planning and in doing so drive down the cost with mortgage support.

The bottom line is that if it’s uncontrolled building I agree. If it’s controlled via proper reform of the mortgage market and management of the planning process then I think it can help.

The other factor is we are sitting on a timebomb where large portions of our existing housing stock simply can’t (within reasonable budget and timeframe) be converted to zero or low emmissions properties. When new gas boilers can’t be fitted we have literally millions of properties that will become uninhabitable when their boiler breaks.