Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 2019 General Election

Estate agents are not responsible for house prices

Just back from the pub?
Between buy to let and estate agents, the pair are mostly responsible for the mess. The Thatcher government started the ball rolling, but that set of bastards are kicking it.
 
You want to allow sales of council homes, one of only two ways to turn spending into investment?
The only other way is making a profit on rentals, but I would argue rentals should be break even plus a little put aside for improvements and repair, but no more.
Low rental costs would be really nasty hit on greedy landlords and their ever rising rents as easy availability of cheap rents would kill their ability to keep their own prices high.
I would not allow Thatcher style selling off for any reason, and only break even rents, thus that's spending, not investment.
Ignoring your complete ignorance of council housing revenue (iirc only about 30% goes back to the LA for repairs and renewals, you can have cheap rents and a return) isn't ending right to by on labour's crap manifesto and wasn't under any of the previous sensible socialists?
 
And - is it true that Labour are pledging a 200% tax on second homes?

Seems like something you could look up for yourself.

But if they are, so what? Second homes are a blight on rural areas, simultaneously driving up prices for local folk while reducing the number of actual residents to support businesses, send their kids to schools etc. An increased contribution to the local authority in view of that is a pretty small price to pay, and no cunt with two houses can claim they can't afford it.
 
Last edited:
Who’s paying for it all

This is what the tories always use to attack affordable housing and other social needs. Using private builders with strict rules means they make a profit, we get affordable housing, but public spending is massively reduced.
 
the biggest impact will be the BTL market- lots of people highly levereged on the basis that their 3 or 4 % yield will be enough to cover their running costs with the bonus of a constantly rising asset value as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Chuck in the few who have think they have beaten the system by ( usually ropey and not going to be able to withstand scrutiny) trust structures -They will be the first the blame the communists for stealing their pension pot.
 
Three separate things through the door from the limp dems today

They are making an effort to beat labour to second place here again...
 
danny la rouge said:
I’m reading a history of India at the moment. John Keay. It’s a good read. Surprisingly engaging writing style, despite the often esoteric primary sources.

That Chola dynasty, eh?

That book looks like it's going to be vastly more fascinating than the General Ejection!** :cool: :)

** ;) for somewhat older GE veterans ;) :p , who've also read certain books about India :D
 
Haven't had a leaflet or a door knock at all yet except a non glossy, b&w leaflet from the indy Jim Hakewell, a veteran Conservative local politician and councillor. I haven't bothered to find out why he's gone rogue, remain tory maybe. Not that it matters either way, it'll be Hollobone back in again as usual unless he falls down some very steep stairs or chokes on his food. Fingers crossed.
 
This is what the tories always use to attack affordable housing and other social needs. Using private builders with strict rules means they make a profit, we get affordable housing, but public spending is massively reduced.
So where do the private builders get their finance from? Oh, they borrow money, at interest, a higher interest rate than the state, or a local authority or housing association backed by the state, would pay. Why do you want the spending to be private rather than public? Why do you want very rich people to be given a profit? That's not very sensible.

Building housing using the public purse really is the easiest and best way to do it. The state/housing association/council take out a 30-year loan to pay for it (borrowing from, for instance, pension companies, which snap up such secure govt loans - so people's private pensions can get paid - but you could equally simply print the money, no reason at all not to). The loan is paid back by the rents. And at the end of 30 years the state/housing association/council owns the housing outright with the loan paid off. People get work building the housing on decent terms. People get a good place to live at an affordable and secure rent. Everyone wins, except the rich private financiers.

And before you start on some badly informed rant, the above is exactly how social housing was built in the past.
 
Last edited:
There is no doubt that voting for the Tories is voting for 'more of the same'. Labour should confidently get that across to people, that there is a real choice available. A much better alternative.

Whilst the Brexit Party support has swung behind the Tories, as nobody is surprised about; Labour can appeal on a broader prospectus to undecided potential voters over the next few weeks.
 
And property and home debt was protected thoroughly.

Though I feel we have long reached the point where the defict between homes needed and homes actually in existence is such that there is no possible way to reduce housing costs to manageable levels. There just aren't enough empty properties.

Socialist campaign for labour to seize all assets of the DWP and any newspapers calling the disabled scroungers would be a start. but this country is full of the most toothless communists in existence they are literally jizzing over the DWP being renamed. Pathetic.
 
Who’s paying for it all?

And - is it true that Labour are pledging a 200% tax on second homes?
How does that work then? If I had a 2nd house, say worth £100k, would I pay £200k in tax? A one off ? or every year?

It's almost like a made up figure
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ax^
Back
Top Bottom