May's advisors.

[longboat]

Well to be fair it may not be a quick fix but going forward I think it could be a sound approach to rehousing. Apparently in that area, 2/3 of the empty housing stock is buy to leave, in the wider borough - 3/4.
Compulsory purchase orders are used regularly when a road get's built for example so why not buy up these buy to leaves, convert them for social use and house people in them? There's likely to be other blocks condemned now after all.

Where do you stand on buy to leave Longs? No need to reference Grenfell, just in general?

I agree, it does come across as a bit backwards when foreign investors are permitted to buy housing stock in a country for nothing more than monetary gain when there is a housing shortage in said country.
How would it be prevented though? What checks and regulations would need to be implemented that would even address the problem in any meaningful sense, and how much would that cost? Maybe more than it would do to build new accommodation, perhaps. I dunno?

You can't seriously be suggesting that the government use compulsory purchase order legislation to buy up £1M + properties in order to provide additional social housing ?
Corby might, but you, no.
I don't believe it!

 

[longboat]

He said what he believed, and thought right

I didn't know you were a man of faith, Jack.

 

[P J Thompson]

It's more than backwards when they leave them empty. Not second homes, not pied a terres...empty....as long term investments.
Johnny Osborne brought in a 15% levvy. Didn't seem to work though, it's still happening. And still inflating the cost of property. I don't have an answer to how to stop it but I do know it's got to stop.

Maybe Simon Cowell should buy up the £1M+ properties, convert them, then hand them over to the social housing stock, rather than make some awful single and expect people to buy it to provide temporary relief and have him and a load of awful pop stars do some virtue signalling?

 

[Deleted member 164349]

I didn't know you were a man of faith, Jack.

Its not religion.

I dont like Corbyn, or want him as prime minister.

But I do recognise the difference between somebody who says what he believes, and those that spout words that many lap up and believe, when they spout rhetoric not belief.

I prefer honesty, but we have been there before havent we

 

[Deleted member 164349]

It's more than backwards when they leave them empty. Not second homes, not pied a terres...empty....as long term investments.
Johnny Osborne brought in a 15% levvy. Didn't seem to work though, it's still happening. And still inflating the cost of property. I don't have an answer to how to stop it but I do know it's got to stop.

Maybe Simon Cowell should buy up the £1M+ properties, convert them, then hand them over to the social housing stock, rather than make some awful single and expect people to buy it to provide temporary relief and have him and a load of awful pop stars do some virtue signalling?

Try buying property in some other cities in the world and leave them empty as an investment.

But its ok, we are so desperate for the money, and will be even more so soon, that it will happen more not less.

It will be ok, I am sure these investors will build some more gyms for the poor to live in

 

[longboat]

It's more than backwards when they leave them empty. Not second homes, not pied a terres...empty....as long term investments.
Johnny Osborne brought in a 15% levvy. Didn't seem to work though, it's still happening. And still inflating the cost of property. I don't have an answer to how to stop it but I do know it's got to stop.

Maybe Simon Cowell should buy up the £1M+ properties, convert them, then hand them over to the social housing stock, rather than make some awful single and expect people to buy it to provide temporary relief and have him and a load of awful pop stars do some virtue signalling?

The investors don't see it as backwards though, do they? It does appear to be a very sound investment, and as long as the property prices in the capital continue to rise, people will throw money at it.
The developers are supplying a demand, that's all, and if the incentive to build these luxury apartments were to be restricted through legislative measures then they wouldn't be built in the first place.
That would have a knock on effect towards all the other industries required for the project from inception to sale.
So everyone loses.

 

[longboat]

Try buying property in some other cities in the world and leave them empty as an investment.

But its ok, we are so desperate for the money, and will be even more so soon, that it will happen more not less.

It will be ok, I am sure these investors will build some more gyms for the poor to live in

You wouldn't be saying that it's only London that's effected by property speculators, would you?

 

[Deleted member 164349]

You wouldn't be saying that it's only London that's effected by property speculators, would you?

No, but without doubt it is the leading place.

And it is what our financial system of growth is placed on, isnt it.

Unless you have other info of course

 

[P J Thompson]

The investors don't see it as backwards though, do they? It does appear to be a very sound investment, and as long as the property prices in the capital continue to rise, people will throw money at it.
The developers are supplying a demand, that's all, and if the incentive to build these luxury apartments were to be restricted through legislative measures then they wouldn't be built in the first place.
That would have a knock on effect towards all the other industries required for the project from inception to sale.
So everyone loses.

It's not just new developments that are being taken out of the housing supply (and subsequently helping to inflate housing costs) this way, it's existing housing.

You appear to be suggesting that we have to let new luxury developments be put up in already crowded areas (like K &C) that will be left empty (with all of the negative effects of that) in order that various involved industries can earn a buck.
That seems to be your view, if so, may I suggest you think about it a while?

 

[joinerjohn1]

In theory I agree with that. The MPs are elected to represent their constituents after all. But it's a party political system and you elect party political candidates. A range of views exist within the parties of course but if you join a party you're probably pretty onside with the core of that party's views aren't you. So I think I'd be inclined to take your reasoning further and disband the parties completely

There have been votes in the House of Commons where the party whip system has not been used (the so called "free vote", whereby members can vote freely without fear of any comeback from the party they represent) Why not disband the whip system, as is presently used 99% of the time??

 

[P J Thompson]

Go for it but if you get them to do it I think you'll find that not a lot changes, for the reason I already gave

 

[fillyboy]

So you just decided to randomly throw it into the thread

Moral is an odd word to use. I'm sure many BNP would say the had good Christian based morals and that many SWP would say summat similar.
What they share is an authoritarian outlook and politik. And an authoritarian outlook takes you to the social structures of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.
Though to be fair, the BNP are higher on the authoritarian axis than the SWP.

The image wasn't actually inserted that randomly, my post immediately preceding it referred to the demonstrations in London and how the 'demonstrators' were clearly bussed in and supplied with placards showing 'socialist worker logos' at the top. As an afterthought, I googled Grenfell demonstrators and that came up, I confess I did absolutely no research as to whether or not that picture was taken immediately after or if it was taken from a library. It's a bit like a news story where an Aston Martin is involved in a serious road accident, the newspaper prints a picture of an Aston Martin, and somewhere in the country, a man in an anorak sits down and takes the time to draft a strong letter of complaint to the newspaper pointing out that their picture of an Aston Martin was not the specific vehicle involved in the accident. It's very astute of the man in the anorak to pick up on this, and in some ways commendable, in some ways, very sad.
As for Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, I've really no Idea what their opinion was on combustible cladding or how they even came into the discussion, although if it makes you feel better, I'm sure they would have approved of it.
But seriously PJ, take the anorak off, chill out and debate without thinking anyone with a counter argument is a far right conspiracy theorist.

 

[P J Thompson]

 

[Deleted member 164349]

There have been votes in the House of Commons where the party whip system has not been used (the so called "free vote", whereby members can vote freely without fear of any comeback from the party they represent) Why not disband the whip system, as is presently used 99% of the time??

Great idea, but it has a few problems.

People (mostly) always vote the same way/party regardless of the manifesto/policies and put little thought into other options. As an example, when was the last time you didn't vote Tory? (You don't have to justify it on here, just ask yourself). Even though you always state how anti Tory NHS policy you are. 1 of the biggest reasons to consider how to vote, though no doubt you convinced yourself Brexit was more important.

And if that is the case, then surely the general public want their party to toe the party line, so that suggests the party whip is actually wanted.

The real issue is to get the public to actually understand what their local MP really wants and to persuade him/her at local level. People generally vote for the leader of the party, not their local MP. Either by voting for or against, or to support independant MP's. If there were enough Independants elected, then they could become the make or break of any hung Parliament.

Personally I think we are in a period of time where hung Parliaments are going to get more likely, not less.

Floating voters (labelled asweak by the press) are actually those that think about how they vote, and I would love to see their proportion increase.

I guess that most on here always vote the same way. Probably because their Dad did, or I am doing well so I am no longer Labour, or I own property so I am Tory etc. Feel free to disagree, but I don't think I am wrong. Certainly not with the people I know and work around.

 

[Deleted member 164349]

I disagree, it's nothing more than populist rhetoric imo.

Some comments for you to consider if you suggest Corbyn was just posturing over the tower tragedy.


The Sunday Times quotes the Labour MP, Ian Austin, saying: "Isn't it a good job we've got charities... when Britain's richest council can't sort out its mess."

The Sunday Mirror hails the Duke of Cambridge, who is pictured comforting a survivor, whose husband remains missing, as the "Prince of Compassion".

The Sunday People praises him for abandoning Royal protocol, a warmth it contrasts with Theresa May's response.

The prime minister is "fighting for her political life on two fronts," according to the Mail on Sunday.

Not only has she delivered what it calls a "mea culpa" over her handling of the blaze, but the paper says she also faces a rebellion from her MPs over Brexit.

It says up to a dozen MPs are ready to demand a vote of no confidence.

Writing in the paper, Adam Boulton says when the Queen is our chief consoler, you know the PM is lost.

The Sunday Telegraph says Mrs May has a new nickname, "the caretaker prime minister".




Strong and stable, my backside. As has been pointed out so many times

 

[longboat]

It's not just new developments that are being taken out of the housing supply (and subsequently helping to inflate housing costs) this way, it's existing housing.

You appear to be suggesting that we have to let new luxury developments be put up in already crowded areas (like K &C) that will be left empty (with all of the negative effects of that) in order that various involved industries can earn a buck.
That seems to be your view, if so, may I suggest you think about it a while?

I'm not suggesting that these developments 'have' to be build at all.
They are built though, and doing so does help the economy.

 

[longboat]

Some comments for you to consider if you suggest Corbyn was just posturing over the tower tragedy.


The Sunday Times quotes the Labour MP, Ian Austin, saying: "Isn't it a good job we've got charities... when Britain's richest council can't sort out its mess."

The Sunday Mirror hails the Duke of Cambridge, who is pictured comforting a survivor, whose husband remains missing, as the "Prince of Compassion".

The Sunday People praises him for abandoning Royal protocol, a warmth it contrasts with Theresa May's response.

The prime minister is "fighting for her political life on two fronts," according to the Mail on Sunday.

Not only has she delivered what it calls a "mea culpa" over her handling of the blaze, but the paper says she also faces a rebellion from her MPs over Brexit.

It says up to a dozen MPs are ready to demand a vote of no confidence.

Writing in the paper, Adam Boulton says when the Queen is our chief consoler, you know the PM is lost.

The Sunday Telegraph says Mrs May has a new nickname, "the caretaker prime minister".




Strong and stable, my backside. As has been pointed out so many times

What has any of that got to do with what Corby said?

 

[Deleted member 164349]

I'm not suggesting that these developments 'have' to be build at all.
They are built though, and doing so does help the economy.

Helps the economy?

Do you mean the wealth of a few, or the average person? Or are you going to try to say it is the same thing?

The country has been crying out for lower housing costs and more social housing. Both of which would help the real economy more.

 

[Deleted member 164349]

What has any of that got to do with what Corby said?

If you don't understand, then it will be impossible to explain.

But its about rhetoric, your comment trying to **** off Corbyn. A man we both don't like or want as PM. But he spoke honestly. A point I recognise.

 

[Deleted member 164349]

And another comment from Corbyn that you can dissect all you like. But tell me he is wrong, lieing, or making it sound too easy.

You will also read that he defended May as a person over this crisis. The very person that was deliberately telling the country how bad Corbyn was during the election. Tell me he is not at least a man of honour. Puts your Strong and stable party to real shame.




Mr Corbyn questioned why it had taken so long for the authorities to help the victims.

"Every day at Heathrow, planes get delayed. Hundreds of people get stranded at airports all over the world," he said.

"Hotels are found for them immediately, they are sorted out. Four-hundred-or-so people, still most of them have not got somewhere decent, safe or secure to stay in.

"Somehow or other, it seems to be beyond the wit of the public services to deal with the crisis facing a relatively small number of people in a country of 65 million."



Wouldn't be anything to do with social status or lack of wealth, would it ?