Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Danishfurniturelover]

I think you don’t know anarchism means if you want to control markets by severe taxation. Either that or spelt communism wrong.

Seriously what you are proposing is communist thinking - not socialist - I would describe myself as a socialist leaning liberal - and definitely not anarchism- do you even know what anarchism is?

But owning more then one home is about capitalism and wealth creation. Not having a go because I fall into that category. Really do not think taking away rental properties from low earners is a good thing.

 

[DTA]

Love this. It is what I believe. Always like your political posts.

he really doesn’t know what he is talking about his positions are a complete muddle.

but anarchism is interesting, certainly more so then communism.

but what we have had in this country a market economy with a socialist inspired safety net and regulations and essential services - was the best of all worlds before the Torries privatised everything slow stripping away the safety net and the protections of our own post war socialist revolution. Finally subjugating us to a decade of austerity….

and their march goes on.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I agree with all of that except no need for more housing.
With prices reduction comes increased ability to afford more space, so more will be able to live in their own, more will leave relationships they are financially trapped in, housesharing will see less people per dwelling.

And the difficult reality is the government and their peers tend to have a few rental properties. The generation who vote are also more likely to rent properties. There is an inherent bias to not build too much more, built into our political system.

 

[DTA]

But owning more then one home is about capitalism and wealth creation. Not having a go because I fall into that category. Really do not think taking away rental properties from low earners is a good thing.

there is nothing wrong with capitalism and wealth creation - but there should be a mix with socialist safety nets to protect the poorer and more vulnerable parts of society and help them to aspire to create wealth if they choose to.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

And the difficult reality is the government and their peers tend to have a few rental properties. The generation who vote are also more likely to rent properties. There is an inherent bias to not build too much more, built into our political system.

Like not building on land in Conservative areas to appease their voting base.

 

[Rorschach]

there is nothing wrong with capitalism and wealth creation - but there should be a mix with socialist safety nets to protect the poorer and more vulnerable parts of society and help them to aspire to create wealth if they choose to.

I mostly agree with this but there is an inherent problem with capitalism that if not corrected will end civilisation as we know it. Markets and trade existed for thousands of years before capitalism. Primarily captialism is defined by artificial scarcity and dependent on perpetual expansion. We've hit the end of the road here and the ever-increasing production of commodified goods for the purpose of profit (not human need) will fudge us all into oblivion.

Have a nice day.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Like not building on land in Conservative areas to appease their voting base.

It is the heart and soul of the Conservatives. They were founded to conserve the status quo and the wealthy.

Everyone knows we need more housing. Almost everyone with political influence doesn’t really want more housing, it is against their own interests.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think you don’t know anarchism means if you want to control markets by severe taxation. Either that or spelt communism wrong.

Seriously what you are proposing is communist thinking - not socialist - I would describe myself as a socialist leaning liberal - and definitely not anarchism- do you even know what anarchism is?

Practical anarchism (now that's a term) is about having a few simple things in place, that prevent power accumulation, but which also don't build states/accumulate bureaucracies.

So UBI for example - the big anarchists' dream. One simple intervention (pay everyone £18k a year, half for children), and that's it. It abolishes the power of the corporations, as everyone has permanent wealth security; but it doesn't build the state as there's no decisions/discretion/administration. But all issues over poverty, automation, mental health etc. are solved.

I'm a Noam Chomsky or Rob Newman wing anarchist.

 

[glasgowspur]

I would draw a huge distinction between a home (single house) and second/multiple properties owned.

There'd need to be time-limited safeguards redisposing of properties inherited or new couples etc., but the principle of owning for the purpose of renting it needs abolishing

You would draw, but you didn't.

 

[glasgowspur]

No strictly true, it's a loss.
If you adjust the price for inflation, then it's a break even.
The housing market has seen decades of above inflation rises - that's profit.
Of course that raises the complexity of price Vs wage inflation too.
There is no exact parity, but pinning it to the standard UK inflation measure is as close as you'll get currently.

Even with inflation running high atm house prices are still out stripping them.
Tbh that boggles my mind.

 

[scaramanga]

Thought I would comment on the Conservative proposal to sell off housing association property.

Honestly though my father benefited from it in the 80s in wood green. I am totally against such a short term measure which is done just to buy votes. Will make it harder and harder for future generations to be able to find anywhere to rent.

Everything is for sale with this lot and their short term outlook disgusts me.

That doesn't make much sense.

If 1000 people need govt homes and we only have 500 then 500 can't find homes. If we then sell the 500 who have them their own homes, we're still 500 short.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Like not building on land in Conservative areas to appease their voting base.

That's really happening round my way

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

That doesn't make much sense.

If 1000 people need govt homes and we only have 500 then 500 can't find homes. If we then sell the 500 who have them their own homes, we're still 500 short.

The houses will be sold off and then push out those on lower incomes who can not afford them. I have been lucky(worked hard as well) I just think things have gone to far. I don't like this policy by the government.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The houses will be sold off and then push out those on lower incomes who can not afford them. I have been lucky(worked hard as well) I just think things have gone to far. I don't like this policy by the government.

Yet we - like the political classes - tend to let it go because we own property. Can’t beat them join them? If the nation was run by people who were all renting their accommodation, things would change rapidly!

Why does @Gutter Boy drink Green Tea? Because all proper tea is theft.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Yet we - like the political classes - tend to let it go because we own property. Can’t beat them join them? If the nation was run by people who were all renting their accommodation, things would change rapidly!

Why does @Gutter Boy drink Green Tea? Because all property is theft.

I'm actually for home ownership. I would just make it more accessible and stop accumulation of it beyond need.

 

[monkeybarry]

This is what I was getting at on my posts on the subject. It is cynical and not done for the greater good but it might just work.

I was voting Labour at the next election unless the was a policy of going back in the EU. But I might just vote for them even if they did.

Would like to see more long term planning from our government.

I think we are that point where a Labour vote will be the only way forwards if you want politics that at least aim to serve the country, even if they fall short sometimes.
I'm not convinced many of the current Labour set up can hit the ground running - they've been in opposition and fighting narcissistic politics for so long, both internally and externally - but it won't be worse than the Tories.
Labour with a minority propped up by the SNP will probably quite a decent position.

 

[monkeybarry]

But owning more then one home is about capitalism and wealth creation. Not having a go because I fall into that category. Really do not think taking away rental properties from low earners is a good thing.

I disagree with the commoditisation of housing full stop.
But once the Pandora's box of buy to let was opened, you can't brick it.
The solution-
I. Remove S21 no fault evictions. Except for when selling the property. No sale possible within first 5 years of a Tennant being in place.
II. Set a statutory right for minimum two year tennancies - activatable by the Tennant after the signing of the initial assured shorthold tennancy agreement.
III. Give Tennant's the right to buy after two-three years of tenancy with 50%-75% of the money they've paid in rent taken off the asking price.

 

[DTA]

I mostly agree with this but there is an inherent problem with capitalism that if not corrected will end civilisation as we know it. Markets and trade existed for thousands of years before capitalism. Primarily captialism is defined by artificial scarcity and dependent on perpetual expansion. We've hit the end of the road here and the ever-increasing production of commodified goods for the purpose of profit (not human need) will fudge us all into oblivion.

Have a nice day.

that’s why I’m not and never have been a fan of unrestricted capitalism, there needs to be some regulations and protections. A mixed capitalist/socialist system with environmental leanings which is socially liberal seems the right balance for me… and it’s very possible

 

[scaramanga]

The houses will be sold off and then push out those on lower incomes who can not afford them. I have been lucky(worked hard as well) I just think things have gone to far. I don't like this policy by the government.

The right to buy scheme was only available to those living in the houses for a number of years. It only became cheap if the tenant had lived the for a decade or so, I seem to recall.

 

[glasgowspur]

I disagree with the commoditisation of housing full stop.
But once the Pandora's box of buy to let was opened, you can't brick it.
The solution-
I. Remove S21 no fault evictions. Except for when selling the property. No sale possible within first 5 years of a Tennant being in place.
II. Set a statutory right for minimum two year tennancies - activatable by the Tennant after the signing of the initial assured shorthold tennancy agreement.
III. Give Tennant's the right to buy after two-three years of tenancy with 50%-75% of the money they've paid in rent taken off the asking price.

I don't think buy to let is a totally bad idea, it was the combination of right to buy and buy to let allowing some to make a killing that pushed the market in a direction it should never have been allowed to go.