Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: This is rich....


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: This is rich.... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: This is rich.... - 9/20/2013 5:31:00 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

He's literate old boy. Strictly a New Statesman and Private Eye man, I'm told.


And a dab hand at the Times crossword, as I understand.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 2:28:11 AM   
thezeppo


Posts: 441
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, I aint your usual Yank, I am half norwegian and half english which is to say all norwegian, and can sarcas with the best of you imperialists. Ask Moonhead, or Polite or Peon.


If you are half English, it must be the northern half.

Some people on benefits get a housing allowance. This means the rent is covered and applies to anyone renting accomodation. AFAIK Home owners on benefit get the interest only portion of the mortgage covered.

The Conservatives had the whizz of an idea only rich boys can have. Why dont we get people getting housing benefit to pay rent themselves for any unused room. Not only would this wheeze reduce the benefit cost (BTW most of that is spent on the elderly) Then we could force all those with an extra room to move to downsize, freeing up more social/rentable housing. the probelm being there isnt any downsized (One bedroom) social housing to downsize to.

The whole idea was a sop to the right wing of the conservative/labour/liberal/UKIP party. What sickens me is several well known politicians have used expenses, paid for the taxpayer, to fund second homes, by means of dubious rule bending, then rented out these second homes at exhobitant rates.

What this country needs, and has done for years, is more affordable social housing for low income families.





We don't say nutsuckers or asswipe up here either PS, it must be a Norwegian thing

I couldn't agree more with the rest of what you say though. I would dearly love to see the total cost of the implementation of these cost-cutting measures versus the savings they have produced.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 2:32:36 AM   
thezeppo


Posts: 441
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, I aint your usual Yank, I am half norwegian and half english which is to say all norwegian, and can sarcas with the best of you imperialists. Ask Moonhead, or Polite or Peon.


But can you be sarcastic gangnam style?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 3:04:30 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		Hey it could have been worse. I am thinking this was a close call because if I correctly remember recent history, the EU turned down I think a 1% transaction tax on investment banking, futures and stocks etc. I mean we all know you can't tax those 'job creators' who create no jobs at all.

...we just know that would have been the downfall of Europe. Better to stick to the poor who are of no real consequence anyway.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 3:47:57 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Zeppo, I get the impression that the only results modern politicians are looking for, are votes.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 8:50:02 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
usually incorrectly.



They don't get it right often enough for such a generous description.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 8:54:59 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

What this country needs, and has done for years, is more affordable social housing for low income families.


Maybe selling off most of the council housing during the '80s was a bad move, then?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 8:59:51 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		A liberal-socialist-labour goes postal on a Tory. That is English Politik in action, right here, ladies and gentlemen, they are wrestling in the mud, and won't get a speck of filth on them.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 9:47:41 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

What this country needs, and has done for years, is more affordable social housing for low income families.



Reminds me of a saying we have here. "Sold my soul to the company store."




_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 9:53:09 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Zeppo, I get the impression that the only results modern politicians are looking for, are votes.


Is that a comment on the UK's pol's or a Captain Obvious comment on US pol's?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: This is rich.... - 9/21/2013 9:56:29 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I dont see it cutting costs as much as getting revenue. That's a very Tory outlook. Have you sold off all your forests now, and scratching for a few loose thrupendie bits from the skint?


Mostly.

But there's hope that there'll be a lot of thrupendie bits to be had from the povs.

Heaven fucking forbid we go after the bonuses of the people who actually got us into this shitty mess after all. I mean, what would that do to donations to the Conservative party <shudders>

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 4:26:06 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

What this country needs, and has done for years, is more affordable social housing for low income families.


Maybe selling off most of the council housing during the '80s was a bad move, then?


In hindsight yes, at the time no. It gave everyone the chance to buy.

Labour should have revesed it but did nothing, I blame both parties for todays mess.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 5:19:46 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

What this country needs, and has done for years, is more affordable social housing for low income families.


Maybe selling off most of the council housing during the '80s was a bad move, then?


In hindsight yes, at the time no. It gave everyone the chance to buy.

Labour should have revesed it but did nothing, I blame both parties for todays mess.

Reversed it how? The money from the sales was long gone by the time they were voted back in in '97.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 11:38:48 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Zeppo, I get the impression that the only results modern politicians are looking for, are votes.


Is that a comment on the UK's pol's or a Captain Obvious comment on US pol's?



Sadly for all of us.....both.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 11:51:02 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Reversed it how? The money from the sales was long gone by the time they were voted back in in '97.


Reversed as in halted. Labour did little with halting the sale of social housing as Brown saw what Maggie saw, a source of income. half of any money was reurned to the local council.

Historically speaking it was a Labour policy, introduced later by the Conservative leader of the GLC, Horace Cutler. In Thatchers second election labour said it would stop council house sales but soon dropped the idea. Once Labour got into power in 1997 they restricted the discounts but only in areas with acute housing shortages, for the rest it was business as normal.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 12:01:31 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		I fear that could be an official version. The sale of council property act was passed in 1980, so anything prior to that was not an item of government policy. Before 1980, it was necessary to jump through hoops and get council approval, which put a lot of people off, and was actively discouraged a lot of time. That was the whole point of the act and why Hesseltine was braying about it heralding a bright new dawn for proles to get mortgaged up to the hilt, was it not?

(Kinnock did give up on opposing that one in '87 when he was failing to turn himself into a proto Blair, though.)

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 1:21:11 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I fear that could be an official version. The sale of council property act was passed in 1980, so anything prior to that was not an item of government policy. Before 1980, it was necessary to jump through hoops and get council approval, which put a lot of people off, and was actively discouraged a lot of time. That was the whole point of the act and why Hesseltine was braying about it heralding a bright new dawn for proles to get mortgaged up to the hilt, was it not?

(Kinnock did give up on opposing that one in '87 when he was failing to turn himself into a proto Blair, though.)


Granted it wasnt easy to buy council homes before Thatcher, the increase was mostly due to the discounts though. Thatcher got her ideas from Cutler.

Human greed also caused some problems during the property boom of the 80s.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 2:24:50 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		The fact that a huge chunk of the former council properties was bought up by absentee landlords, you mean? Yeah, that didn't help the situation any.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: This is rich.... - 9/22/2013 4:46:43 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The fact that a huge chunk of the former council properties was bought up by absentee landlords, you mean? Yeah, that didn't help the situation any.


Have you a link.... my memory of the time was people buying the place they lived in and selling up for huge profits very quickly.

I dont recall absentee landlords being able to buy any council properties unless they lived in them.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: This is rich.... - 9/23/2013 5:52:04 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		When the properties were sold on, a lot ended up in the hands of landlords.
This is, unfortunately from a comic, but a decent piece of journalism for the Mirror.
A more reputable source: the New Statesman agrees...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: This is rich.... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094