glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Whoever, if they are chums with The Royal Family and part of what would be called "The Landed Gentry"
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Whoever, if they are chums with The Royal Family and part of what would be called "The Landed Gentry"
Nope, it's the TV that count and all of them bar GBNews are very left leaning and vomit inducingly pro-remain.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I would also add non news programs so documentaries etc and most of those are a certain view. I actually even stopped watching countrywise because one particular presenter (the ginger one) brought politics into every segment.
A show like that should rarely touch on politics. He was worse then Gary Lineker for giving his views.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
You think the Guardian is left wing? When right at the moment is main headline is campaigning against a modest reinstatement of some basic workers' right that Truss and co. ditched?
Employment rights reforms ‘could cost UK businesses £5bn a year’
Government analysis says low-paid workers will benefit most, with some shift workers earning an extra £600 a year
Every politically active person thinks the media is biased against their own side. All the right-wingers claim the BBC, Sky and Channel 4 are left-wing and biased against Tories/whatever Farage is calling the latest extension of his ego.
I again go back to the fact that the biggest source of the negative media coverage around Corbyn was Corbyn himself.
I mean, just for example, don't you think that if any other high-profile politician decided to comment favourably on an anti-semitic artwork on social media that there would be a commensurate level of s***-storm.to the one surrounding Corbyn when he did it?
It was Corbyn himself that created the negative media coverage.
That's not to say that there are media out there that are pretty much against everything that Corbyn stands for. But similarly, Boris Johnson got an absolute tonne of s*** from the press. They dug up and reported pretty much any piece of dirt they could find on him. Johnson's supporters to this day think there was a big conspiracy backed by the media to oust him. I think the truth is similar to Corbyn: he ousted himself due to the things he did.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Yes I doYou think the Guardian is left wing? When right at the moment is main headline is campaigning against a modest reinstatement of some basic workers' right that Truss and co. ditched?
Employment rights reforms ‘could cost UK businesses £5bn a year’
Government analysis says low-paid workers will benefit most, with some shift workers earning an extra £600 a yearwww.theguardian.com
Face is a waste of a great pair of tits though.
I'm trying to think how left-wing you have to be to view The Guardian as not being left-wing? Look, The Guardian are very left-wing, but they're also a broadsheet and will report on any officially released government analysis, in a relatively unbiased manner, and I'm not sure this reporting is about The Guardian being against employment reforms. I think they're just reporting on the possible negative consequences of these particular proposed employment reforms. After all, if you have more employment rights, but that means employers can no longer afford to employ as many people, is it un-left-wing thing to question whether they're the right suite of reforms?You think the Guardian is left wing? When right at the moment is main headline is campaigning against a modest reinstatement of some basic workers' right that Truss and co. ditched?
Employment rights reforms ‘could cost UK businesses £5bn a year’
Government analysis says low-paid workers will benefit most, with some shift workers earning an extra £600 a year
Last edited:
Muttley
Noé Pamarot
I would like to add a perception to what's written above on buy-to-let landlords. There seems to be a perception that these guys and gals are milking it. Unfortunately, it's just not true anymore.
To set a context, to engage in the buy to let market you now need a massive deposit in the first place. Whatever your normal stamp duty would be on your property purchase, you then have to pay an addition 3%. Finally, between 2016 and 2021, including your mortgage payment in your tax return was eliminated. In other words you couldn't include that as a cost, so your declared profit was much, much higher. This profit is then loaded into your PAYE calculation so if you're earning above £50k, then it's all at 40% tax. If you're lucky enough to be higher then as you hit the £100k threshold you lose your personal allowance of £12.5 for every pound earned.
What then happened was interest rates went up, meaning all the buy-to-let mortgages went up. A lot of them are interest only. It was the interest rates that drove the monthly rental rates up, not the landlords as they are barely breaking even. The only other way you could make money was house prices increasing. That has slowed to flat to negative in most places. Even if there is profit, there is capital gains tax.
Basically, the prior government implemented a very smart and progressive strategy to put the brakes on the buy-to-let market. It was a cash cow to the rich prior to 2015. It is anything but that now to the hard working private individuals who used to make the buy-to-let move.
This all means that if you had access to say, £100k, now the last thing you would do is invest in another property. Instead, you would leverage your carry forward calculation and load it into your pension pot as they're growing way faster than anything you can get from property. Also if you've got less than 50% equity in your buy to let property you're probably thinking of selling up and moving your money into another part of your portfolio. It's just not a great investment anymore. Those days are over, especially if you've got a mortgage on your own house and are suffering the higher monthly payments due to the interest rates.
What we now need is the new government to address the companies that have property portfolios, as the private individuals are already dealt with.
To set a context, to engage in the buy to let market you now need a massive deposit in the first place. Whatever your normal stamp duty would be on your property purchase, you then have to pay an addition 3%. Finally, between 2016 and 2021, including your mortgage payment in your tax return was eliminated. In other words you couldn't include that as a cost, so your declared profit was much, much higher. This profit is then loaded into your PAYE calculation so if you're earning above £50k, then it's all at 40% tax. If you're lucky enough to be higher then as you hit the £100k threshold you lose your personal allowance of £12.5 for every pound earned.
What then happened was interest rates went up, meaning all the buy-to-let mortgages went up. A lot of them are interest only. It was the interest rates that drove the monthly rental rates up, not the landlords as they are barely breaking even. The only other way you could make money was house prices increasing. That has slowed to flat to negative in most places. Even if there is profit, there is capital gains tax.
Basically, the prior government implemented a very smart and progressive strategy to put the brakes on the buy-to-let market. It was a cash cow to the rich prior to 2015. It is anything but that now to the hard working private individuals who used to make the buy-to-let move.
This all means that if you had access to say, £100k, now the last thing you would do is invest in another property. Instead, you would leverage your carry forward calculation and load it into your pension pot as they're growing way faster than anything you can get from property. Also if you've got less than 50% equity in your buy to let property you're probably thinking of selling up and moving your money into another part of your portfolio. It's just not a great investment anymore. Those days are over, especially if you've got a mortgage on your own house and are suffering the higher monthly payments due to the interest rates.
What we now need is the new government to address the companies that have property portfolios, as the private individuals are already dealt with.
Are the MSM pro-Israel or happy go along with Israel's view of the middle east?
I think most media report facts around Israel and in a relatively neutral way:
- Israeli settlement expansion amd settler violence is widely reported on for example.
But the whole Israel/Palestine issue is a tough one. It's not black and white and it's not easy to report on.
My view as I've articulated in this thread is that there has to be some kind of two-state solution. There will have to be unpalatable compromises on both sides. Israel will have to accept the voice of the political wing of Hamas if there is to be peace just as we eventually has to accept Sinn Fein as a legitimate political entity.
The israeli lobby in the US will have to agree to push for peace over their own political aims just like the Irish republican lobby in the US had to stop goading and funding the IRA.
Palestinian hardliners will also have to accept Israel's right to exist and Iran (and Russia) will have to agree to stop their own side of the **** stiring.
I even have some sympathy with the Israelis over some of the press coverage of their offensive in Gaza.
The problem with an attempt to apply international law on rules of engagement to Israel in this situation is that these rules of engagement are written for when two conventional military forces go at each other in a conventional war. Israel aren't fighting a conventional enemy: Hamas are drawn from, live and work among and are largely completely indistinguishable from the civilian population of Gaza.
There are no Hamas military bases or barracks or other military targets for Israel to neatly target while avoiding civilian casualties. And you then add in the fact that tonnes of Palestinian civilians or gangs poured into the breach behind the Hamas offensive and took part in the violence and raping - part of rhe problem with the hostage negotiations has always been that Hamas don't actually have half the hostages and don't know where the f*** they are.
I personally think Hamas (and Iran) lost control of the situation and never intended to poke the bear to the extent that they did. Certainly. provoking the level of response seen by Israel has seen most of those responsible for planning the attack killed, something I really don't think they were planning on.
Thr point is that Israel are fighting Hamas, who are pretty much indistinguishable from the civilian population. And they're also fighting the civilian population too.
If an Israeli tank and infantry column is moving down a street in Gaza and starts taking fire from nearby apartment blocks, standard military doctrine is to total the building the fire is coming from with artillery, heavy weaponry or an airstrike.
An offensive in Gaza was always going to be a bloodbath in respect of civilian casualties. Context is that Israel has been held back on the leash for years despite having to endure constant rocket and missile strikes taken out by the partly western funded defence systems. They've been told to ignore and live with it as a condition of western support. The west clearly agreed with them that this situation was no longer tolerable after the attacks.
The fact that I'm sure there has been actual and deliberate breaches of international law by Israeli troops and some absolutely disgusting rhetoric by hardiness in their government, doesn't change the fact that Hamas have become an intolerable menace for Israel or that you could go in to Gaza with the absolute best intentions at all times to avoid civilian casualties and comply with international law and you'd still end up with a deathtoll close to the one we have now.
I think you've hit on a point there in that the property investment boom really happened due to the post-financial crash interest rate environment, which left traditional savings and investments options with trash returns and cheap credit and a property market that could only recover upwards in terms of value being the sensible investment choice between 2008 to circa 2018.
Combination of property market reforms and interest rates being returned to historic norms make property investment less attractive.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Classy
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Hiya,
Going to offer answers within the quoted block below...the forum is messing with me so this might be across two or three replies...
I think the point about unrealistic expectations in the workplace (added with the low rates of pay) is absolutely correct. As a society we have totally lost control not only of the work/life balance, but of what the purpose of life is. Many have bought the myth of trickle down economics/'if you work hard you can also be wealthy', indeed, the disproportionate value placed on 'wealth' versus quality of life is (for me) the single biggest destructive force in western society. In moulding society to have an appetite for such 'dreams' people lost sight of the importance of our education, housing, and social services underpinning the quality of our society. Where I won't get drawn is on how migrant workers operate in the current system. Your experiences are yours/I cannot comment, but what I don't think is helpful is if observations like that become 'stereotypes'. In a sense, it is the same as saying that all young white Englishmen are lazy right-wingers i.e. inaccurate and unhelpful to the greater issues, which are that our current economic system fudges a lot of people for the benefit of a select few whilst offering some shiney trappings which suggest life is better than ever.
Noted.
You'll have to define what problem you feel I'm amplifying?
Not sure (again) which argument you're referring to.
This is the closest the democrats have been to having a clue how to beat 'opposition' like this. The main issue with Trump is that he (and the far right Christian extremists) have been sewing the seeds of disinformation and influence for 8 years. What he did with the supreme court was a game changer. What he did by encouraging Jan 6th was a game changer. It is not as simple anymore. There is a current society so weaned on narcissim and fear that he is an easy reflection/set of answers for many. Plus he rings the immigration bell as the main issue, a leaf out of Hitler's book.
Assumptions are dangerous things @SkipRat . You'd be wise not to assume how I do, or don't, ingest my information on Farage. I disagree that he's a 'blithering idiot', in fact I have long considered him the true catalyst for the wave of populists who have found favour throughout the world. With some help I should add...but idiot? Not even. He cracked the code. He realized that if he distilled his messages into the sort of soundbites which could be served to the left and right at the same time, he'd be able to move mountains for his paymasters/agenda. In fact my single biggest problem with Farage is that he is a soulless trumper who actually stands for nothing beyond his own self-interests. You might level that claim at most politicians, but I think Farage takes things to a whole new level. There is little doubt in my mind that his Brexit shove was what convinced Bannon of the playbook for Trump in 2016.
Going to offer answers within the quoted block below...the forum is messing with me so this might be across two or three replies...
I think the point about unrealistic expectations in the workplace (added with the low rates of pay) is absolutely correct. As a society we have totally lost control not only of the work/life balance, but of what the purpose of life is. Many have bought the myth of trickle down economics/'if you work hard you can also be wealthy', indeed, the disproportionate value placed on 'wealth' versus quality of life is (for me) the single biggest destructive force in western society. In moulding society to have an appetite for such 'dreams' people lost sight of the importance of our education, housing, and social services underpinning the quality of our society. Where I won't get drawn is on how migrant workers operate in the current system. Your experiences are yours/I cannot comment, but what I don't think is helpful is if observations like that become 'stereotypes'. In a sense, it is the same as saying that all young white Englishmen are lazy right-wingers i.e. inaccurate and unhelpful to the greater issues, which are that our current economic system fudges a lot of people for the benefit of a select few whilst offering some shiney trappings which suggest life is better than ever.
Noted.
You'll have to define what problem you feel I'm amplifying?
Not sure (again) which argument you're referring to.
This is the closest the democrats have been to having a clue how to beat 'opposition' like this. The main issue with Trump is that he (and the far right Christian extremists) have been sewing the seeds of disinformation and influence for 8 years. What he did with the supreme court was a game changer. What he did by encouraging Jan 6th was a game changer. It is not as simple anymore. There is a current society so weaned on narcissim and fear that he is an easy reflection/set of answers for many. Plus he rings the immigration bell as the main issue, a leaf out of Hitler's book.
Assumptions are dangerous things @SkipRat . You'd be wise not to assume how I do, or don't, ingest my information on Farage. I disagree that he's a 'blithering idiot', in fact I have long considered him the true catalyst for the wave of populists who have found favour throughout the world. With some help I should add...but idiot? Not even. He cracked the code. He realized that if he distilled his messages into the sort of soundbites which could be served to the left and right at the same time, he'd be able to move mountains for his paymasters/agenda. In fact my single biggest problem with Farage is that he is a soulless trumper who actually stands for nothing beyond his own self-interests. You might level that claim at most politicians, but I think Farage takes things to a whole new level. There is little doubt in my mind that his Brexit shove was what convinced Bannon of the playbook for Trump in 2016.
Muttley
Noé Pamarot
I think it was also multiple government negligence of putting the right policies in place. In the old model, the maths meant you could genuinely take the money out of your own mortgage, buy a second property...then a third.....then a fourth....etc. As I said above, it was a cash cow as you had the tenants paying for the landlords to get rich. You also had massively increasing property prices. So it felt like entrepreneurship in a capitalist environment. It really wasn't. It was just bad planning by consecutive governments of different persuasions.
I'm glad they fixed it in the end, but fear it will take an entire generation before we see the benefits of the policy changes.
The other interesting data point is that there are 700,000 empty properties in the UK. Perhaps there is a government policy or incentive that can manage these back into circulation, and help with another part of this equation. I know they changed the council tax to penalise empty properties in the last few years.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
@SkipRat ...second part
So again I don't necessarily disagree. I said at the time that in the US, the biggest issue was that Clinton did not give proper ear-time to the concerns of a Trump-drifting group. Disenfranchising them was absurd. Similarly, I think Cameron is a true villain for sacricifing doing his fudging job and instead calling a referendum instead of rolling his sleeves up and doing some work with regards to the EU/getting better deals, etc. He arrogantly assumed he could see of Farage with that referendum and got it royally wrong. So yes, I agree with what you're saying there. The hardest part (for me looking on) was the realisation that many of the disenfranchised are direct victims/first gen descendants of Thatcherism; in short, people I have stood with forever. What saddened me was how Farage managed to re-centre the issues around race and immigration primarily, versus economics and ecnomic realities for a swathe of people regardless of where they'd come from.
Harris is trying exceptionally hard (for the Dems) to listen to concerns. But the scene has been set. She's playing catch-up with hard-baked extreme opinions and a total lack of middle-ground discussion. Essentially, everybody is right, everybody is wrong, and nobody wants to discuss anything.
I am familiar with him.
The reason you end up being met with such assumptions is because you present your opinions in a very aggressive way and tend to outwardly call everyone who does not agree a variety of phrases which amount to them being macarons. If that is your opinion then so be it, but I'd suggest it is probably unreasonable to expect rational reactions to heated rhetoric.
I personally am always open to any data I produce being challenged; that is part of healthy debate and discussion. All data derives from a contextual root, and the nature of that context/root is important to define and be understood IMO.
If I thought you were simply a racist I wouldn't have bothered with the reply I initially gave, or with this one.
I think most people want criminals arrested or deported if appropriate. I am not sure how we place 'value' on what people bring to the table TBH, especially when we are all part of an economy where people demand the most they can get for the cheapest price, and instant convenience. We need to address the greater obstacles IMO, and personally, it is my opinion that immigration is far lower down the table than the real issues of economic and educational inequality which affect a large majority of people. That's simply my opinion. I suspect we disgree on that specific element.
I think (again) this is economic. A few fatter cats found a system which could squeeze the most out of the people for (potentially)the least expenditure. I am sure that comment will raise a few eyebrows, stats will be rolled out, etc. But I wholly maintain that the aggressive nature with which our industry and state services were decimated by Thatcherism has led to where we are. Again the arguments will rage on -Thatcher simply saw what was coming- but as with everything there is a middle ground between seeing a world where privitisation is in the immediate future versus aggressively (and wholesale) selling out the industrial working class and hyper-acclerating the service economy/financial sector. It was like internal regime change with no 'marshall plan' so to speak. And it fudged several generations.
I will say this. I believe that anyone who chooses that sort of passage is a desperate person in one way or another. I think there are certainly issues, but they are not issues which if sorted are going to be a panacea to the current issues society faces. In fact, for me, every time this becomes the main focus of our 'broken Britain' it takes away from the root problems we have and allows them to continue. There are MANY problems IMO, and the common denominator is that they are all economic in nature and band across several sectors of society. For me, to focus simply on immigration and migrants is unhelpful and distracting.
Unfortunately you are being proven partially correct in some spaces, simply because people are sick and tired of not having their concerns heard, discussed or addressed. It is absolutely true that we cannot currently have the conversations which are probably necessary because the polarization is rampant. In order for any positive change to occur in the next decade, we need to find places of societal amnesty where discussions about hot topics such as immigration can be had without them seeing stakeholders labelled wholly as 'one' thing or 'another'.
I am not sure how we get there. Personally, my approach has always been to try and listen to everyone/discuss where discussion is possible. I have friends across the spectrum. There are only opinions I hold no time or space for in my life. Racists and homophobes.
Perhaps we can continue to exchange views from time to time. In the course of two exchanges I think we've established we agree on several things. Perhaps that shows a path forward in general...
So again I don't necessarily disagree. I said at the time that in the US, the biggest issue was that Clinton did not give proper ear-time to the concerns of a Trump-drifting group. Disenfranchising them was absurd. Similarly, I think Cameron is a true villain for sacricifing doing his fudging job and instead calling a referendum instead of rolling his sleeves up and doing some work with regards to the EU/getting better deals, etc. He arrogantly assumed he could see of Farage with that referendum and got it royally wrong. So yes, I agree with what you're saying there. The hardest part (for me looking on) was the realisation that many of the disenfranchised are direct victims/first gen descendants of Thatcherism; in short, people I have stood with forever. What saddened me was how Farage managed to re-centre the issues around race and immigration primarily, versus economics and ecnomic realities for a swathe of people regardless of where they'd come from.
Harris is trying exceptionally hard (for the Dems) to listen to concerns. But the scene has been set. She's playing catch-up with hard-baked extreme opinions and a total lack of middle-ground discussion. Essentially, everybody is right, everybody is wrong, and nobody wants to discuss anything.
I am familiar with him.
The reason you end up being met with such assumptions is because you present your opinions in a very aggressive way and tend to outwardly call everyone who does not agree a variety of phrases which amount to them being macarons. If that is your opinion then so be it, but I'd suggest it is probably unreasonable to expect rational reactions to heated rhetoric.
I personally am always open to any data I produce being challenged; that is part of healthy debate and discussion. All data derives from a contextual root, and the nature of that context/root is important to define and be understood IMO.
If I thought you were simply a racist I wouldn't have bothered with the reply I initially gave, or with this one.
I think most people want criminals arrested or deported if appropriate. I am not sure how we place 'value' on what people bring to the table TBH, especially when we are all part of an economy where people demand the most they can get for the cheapest price, and instant convenience. We need to address the greater obstacles IMO, and personally, it is my opinion that immigration is far lower down the table than the real issues of economic and educational inequality which affect a large majority of people. That's simply my opinion. I suspect we disgree on that specific element.
I think (again) this is economic. A few fatter cats found a system which could squeeze the most out of the people for (potentially)the least expenditure. I am sure that comment will raise a few eyebrows, stats will be rolled out, etc. But I wholly maintain that the aggressive nature with which our industry and state services were decimated by Thatcherism has led to where we are. Again the arguments will rage on -Thatcher simply saw what was coming- but as with everything there is a middle ground between seeing a world where privitisation is in the immediate future versus aggressively (and wholesale) selling out the industrial working class and hyper-acclerating the service economy/financial sector. It was like internal regime change with no 'marshall plan' so to speak. And it fudged several generations.
I will say this. I believe that anyone who chooses that sort of passage is a desperate person in one way or another. I think there are certainly issues, but they are not issues which if sorted are going to be a panacea to the current issues society faces. In fact, for me, every time this becomes the main focus of our 'broken Britain' it takes away from the root problems we have and allows them to continue. There are MANY problems IMO, and the common denominator is that they are all economic in nature and band across several sectors of society. For me, to focus simply on immigration and migrants is unhelpful and distracting.
Unfortunately you are being proven partially correct in some spaces, simply because people are sick and tired of not having their concerns heard, discussed or addressed. It is absolutely true that we cannot currently have the conversations which are probably necessary because the polarization is rampant. In order for any positive change to occur in the next decade, we need to find places of societal amnesty where discussions about hot topics such as immigration can be had without them seeing stakeholders labelled wholly as 'one' thing or 'another'.
I am not sure how we get there. Personally, my approach has always been to try and listen to everyone/discuss where discussion is possible. I have friends across the spectrum. There are only opinions I hold no time or space for in my life. Racists and homophobes.
Perhaps we can continue to exchange views from time to time. In the course of two exchanges I think we've established we agree on several things. Perhaps that shows a path forward in general...
Crab.C.Nesbitt
Bobby Mimms
lol pro remain?? When they’ve allowed the likes of farage and rice a platform to spout their unmitigated gonads completely unchallenged throughout the brexit referendum and long after brexit was revealed to be a complete and utter failure?
Got to disagree with that.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
@thfcsteff
Some genuine nuggets of absolute truth in there, bravo.
Some genuine nuggets of absolute truth in there, bravo.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Cheers mate, your words are always both appreciated and a vital part of the discussions which keep us all on this forum.
Arent you just reflecting your own biased view on a news outlet and labelling them. I mean your opinion that brexit has been a complete and utter failure is subjective and many don't hold that view. Whether something is a success or failure depends on what your view of success or failure looked like. If you simply didn't want your country to be in the EU then it's been a resounding success.
So isn't what you are doing in saying that to not show bias a TV channel should "cancel" those whose views you disagree with and not have them on to spout them an extreme form of bias in itself? I welcome all views being aired. It allows you to get all views on a subject and avoids echo chambers