The election 2015

clivex said:
The authorties already intervenw through planning permissions. If dublin couldnt manage that then thats their problem

I emphatically so not believe that there should be any price control. Also if you understood markets which you clearly do not, restrictions on development push up prices not the other way round
Click to expand...

On the one hand you appear to be saying the Dublin planning authorities should have refused permission for change of use of commercial sites to residential but on the other hand you say restrictions on development will push up prices. Make up your mind.
 
What are you talking about? I am not suggesting one thing or the other. I have no interest in that city

you are the one talking about use of factories and petrol stations and so on as residential property . It's clear that if there are restrictions on development then that will restrict supply which for the nth time of explaining, pushes prices up.

You are the one that seems to want it both ways. Restricted supply and prices kept low. Impossible

im not going over this again

fwiw in the uk planning restrictions are pretty tight and some would say too much so
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to think that ideological blindness makes it impossible for you and Grasshopper to answer an important and obvious question. But hope springs eternal, so let me repeat it, for the umpteenth time.

Why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn't we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms?

Why do you think it is a good thing for houses to continue indefinitely appreciating in value, and how fast a rate of appreciation do you suppose is indefinitely sustainable? Might there, even conceivably, come a point in your eyes when prices were too high?

At first all you offered by way of response was blind faith in market forces, as if the property/housing market is a kind of wind-up toy that will tick away happily without any need for intervention. Now you're starting to mention that the planning process might also have an influence. In other words, you're beginning to allow that intervention in the market is unavoidable.

Next question, but it's really the same question put in a different way: What should be the desired outcome of public intervention in the housng market?
 
So is 1/3 a fair reflection of Corbyn's true chance?

Surely one of the right wing papers are going to try and give him a hammering by revealing a skeleton in his closet?

As Clivex has aluded to with his own views on Corbyn has history.

I'll personally be surrpsied if he wins this as comfortably as predicted.
 
marble said:
So is 1/3 a fair reflection of Corbyn's true chance?

Surely one of the right wing papers are going to try and give him a hammering by revealing a skeleton in his closet?

As Clivex has aluded to with his own views on Corbyn has history.

I'll personally be surrpsied if he wins this as comfortably as predicted.
Click to expand...

they have been giving him a hammering Marb..and his price gets shorter..probably because the people voting him don't really care about the stuff they print..probably don't go near it..most folk take it all with a pinch of salt anyway these days post phone hacking...which put journo's well down the popularity scales anyway

doesn't really matter if he only just wins..a win is a win..and he is sitting as leader

its not like its a general election..where if you keep telling folk something they eventually believe it..like..let Ed in and you get Nicola...its a different job this isn't it.

he is actually getting young people on board..an area no one else is..they probably don't read the papers anyway

the other 3..might as well not even be running for all the coverage they get

they need to cut his oppo down to one candidate now..today..if they want to even get close to beating him..its brainless having 3 candidates splitting the vote between them
 
Last edited:
Could there be a game changing moment, EC1? Do each candidate not have to give a speech or something outlining policies in the next few weeks?

This Corbyn mania is too good to be true, I've got friends who like him, and I don't particular mind him getting it, but he's still worth betting against, imo.

Or am I seeing edges and angles that aren't there???
 
i wouldn't bet against him personally..as with horses..look at the oppo..its like a seller with a 100 horse in it

it seems surreal doesn't it? ..particularly when you listened to just how carefully all the labour bods came over immediately after the election..they were basically..oh we want to understand where we went wrong..we'll have to take stock for 6 months..then..bam...old JC slings the hat in..and its messed them up in a big way..not even when Foot was leader imo....they haven't been messed up before like this...even election beatings don't compare to what will happen if JC wins

its big change coming unless they do something real quick..if they can. I'd be getting two of three to drop out very quickly to even have a prayer..maybe its too late for that..who knows
 
Last edited:
As much as none of the candidates fill you with confidence. The fact this fella is now fav is baffling. Dear oh dear.
 
I reckon much of that 1/3 price is based on his polls lead and media coverage, and people steaming in because of it.

My neighbour has been involved in local politics for 20+ years, even he's been asking me what price Corbyn is and he never bets.

He really is a clear cut winner, or as Frankel alludes to, something is baffling.
 
EC1 said:
its due to the voting method..plus all the coverage he's getting compared to the others
Click to expand...

Well it will even itself out won't it ec1, the media are objective people, when they see a perceived bias they'll correct themselves I reckon.
 
not seeing that..if Corbyn farts its on the news...and he is whipping up young people's interest..he looks different to other politicians to young people...he actually shows interest in them..an unusual experienece for young people compared to what they think of politicians in general..and to young folk..Labour & tory look virtually the same animal.

when you consider how many people don't vote in general elections..consider then that a large % are young folk..living with mum and dad:)..this guy looks appealing to them..even if what he promises isn't achieveable..he has captured their imagination like no other politician in recent times.

Labour are in deep sh1t imo..and ..a lot of it is their own doing
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
I'm starting to think that ideological blindness makes it impossible for you and Grasshopper to answer an important and obvious question. But hope springs eternal, so let me repeat it, for the umpteenth time.

Why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn't we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms?

Why do you think it is a good thing for houses to continue indefinitely appreciating in value, and how fast a rate of appreciation do you suppose is indefinitely sustainable? Might there, even conceivably, come a point in your eyes when prices were too high?

At first all you offered by way of response was blind faith in market forces, as if the property/housing market is a kind of wind-up toy that will tick away happily without any need for intervention. Now you're starting to mention that the planning process might also have an influence. In other words, you're beginning to allow that intervention in the market is unavoidable.

Next question, but it's really the same question put in a different way: What should be the desired outcome of public intervention in the housng market?
Click to expand...

you simply don't read the responses. I will say it one more time . If prices are "too high" then it's pretty obvious what will happen isn't it? The market will dry up and prices fall Isn't that. What happens time after time? early 90s? Ffs

what is "too high anyway? IF people are paying too much of their income how come, as I stated before, new car registrations are at near record highs and foreign trips are at an actual high? The two biggest indicators of discretionary spending .

How come purchasers can get the credit when rules are tighter than for many years? How come repossesions are barely an issue? 98.5 % of mortgages are not more than three months in areers



Planning process is not intervetion. It is part and parcel and on going. It's not new. The only way to possibly stabilise prices is to allow at lot more building which I belive should happen anyway.

You dismt even grasp that restricted planning pushes up,prices because it will flatten supply. That's gcse stuff

prices appreciate as wealth increases which even in slow times it generally does. Isn't that obvious? There will be peaks an troughs within the overall model but that's the pattern

and domt come out with patronising crap about idealogical blindness . None of the above would be disputed by any economist. The only obsession here is the idea that government intervetion for the sake of it is somehow a good thing
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The other stupidity is referring to the a "blind faith" in market forces. How dim is that when it's pretty clear that if prices have and continue to fluctuate then the market is at play.

you wouldn't think its would be necessary to link something as basic as this but the ladybird book of finance is not online

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...mber-mortgages-home-buyers-falls-16-year.htmlhttp://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...s-16-year.html
Click to expand...

The headline of the article you link to says the following: London property market running out of steam as number of mortgages for home buyers falls 16% in a year


  • Fall coincides with tougher mortgage lending checks
  • Reduces demand from buyers and could bring prices lower
  • Fall despite cheapest ever loans and inflation-beating wage rises


It goes to confirm everything I've been saying on this thread. My first intervention was to say "I don't agree with all of EC1's argument but I think he has a point where property prices are concerned. The Irish central bank introduced new lending restrictions a few months ago which are having a very noticeable impact on Irish housing prices. It will be interesting to see if the impact is lasting or merely a blip". Now you've been good enough to link to an article saying that a similar thing is happening in London.

Clearly the UK authorities agree with the Irish that one of the lessons to be learned from the crash is that the housing market can't be left to its own devices. And it should be obvious why that is.
 
Last edited:
the housing market has been left to its own devices to the point that anyone on minimum wage and above can't even join the ladder..they can't afford to save for a deposit..as they spend all money just on existing. so straight away thats a decent % of people who will never own their own home..add in the next tier above who are still never going to get the deposit together. The minimum wage is HALF the national average wage. Thats a lot of people removed from buying houses.

a housing market that excludes so many people..isn't really healthy is it?..well obviously if someone is comfy themselves its easy to just dismiss them i suppose.

the rich/poor divide in this country will go through roof over the next 10 years whilst tories are in..possibly 20 years.

i can see people having kids who will probably never leave home..bloody hell..imagine having 4 kids all around 40 year old living with ya..oh my
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
I'm starting to think that ideological blindness makes it impossible for you and Grasshopper to answer an important and obvious question.

Why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn't we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms?

Why do you think it is a good thing for houses to continue indefinitely appreciating in value, and how fast a rate of appreciation do you suppose is indefinitely sustainable? Might there, even conceivably, come a point in your eyes when prices were too high?
Click to expand...

Arthur, Ideology is for students, wafflers and tall, thin, Eurocrats 😜. I deal in the day-to-day practicalities of existence.

If it was a good thing for property not to accrue in value, it surely would have happened by now. My belief is that a price-cap/jerrymandered-limit would benefit the few at the expense of the many, as I stated in an earlier post......the one which tried to weigh-up the pros-and-cons, rather than indulge in navel-gazing "what ifs", but which appears to have been conveniently ignored for the purposes of your own post above.

I also see the 2008 crash for what it was - an anomaly, that is a bad place to legislate from.

Beyond that, I generally don't have anything more to add to this discussion, other than to state that I'm naturally horrified to be on the same side of the debate as our hero from Richmond.....but in this single case, I believe he is correct (though an admittedly a horrible, rude, cu*nt whilst he goes about being right. 😎
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
I actually do do believe that as when the Palestinians were given just about everything they demanded at Oslo but worked away, certain factions actually don't want power. They prefer the victim hood and supposed moral high ground of protest and mugs cannot read into that that this is imply because they know that in heart of hearts they are frankly useless nutters
Click to expand...

I think there's a grain of truth in this, albeit I wouldn't ascribe to victimhood. I do feel however that deep down they know their policies can't ride the wave in the new world order without an alternative bloc.

I note incidentally that Yvette Cooper has finally decided to attack Corbyn instead of Liz Kendall for not having children

And as we argue about the national housing crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33539816

David Cameron wants a national debate about aggressive seagull behaviour!

Honestly, what has it come to :lol:
 
Last edited:
I think one aspect of this that is frankly pretty disgusting is the underhand and cowardly nature of the far left. Whatever you think of ukip, they did have the guts to form their own party and stand and be counted. Sure there are virtual ukip members in the conservatives but the fact is that the far left cannot gain support unless they effectively take over another party. They are filth

how milliband and brown could not see that the voting was ripe for entryism is beyond me. Perhaps it was not unintentional?

i also think the right wing press are sitting tight. Nothing would please the tories more than his election and there is a strong hint in the times today that the Tories have some real ammunition on his links with the ira.
 
Warbler said:
I think there's a grain of truth in this, albeit I wouldn't ascribe to victimhood. I do feel however that deep down they know their policies can't ride the wave in the new world order without an alternative bloc.

I note incidentally that Yvette Cooper has finally decided to attack Corbyn instead of Liz Kendall for not having children

And as we argue about the national housing crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33539816

David Cameron wants a national debate about aggressive seagull behaviour!

Honestly, what has it come to :lol:
Click to expand...

The policies will not work full stop

clause 4 for instance. Even if it hinted a, will immediately halt new investment in the uk and lead to contingency plans by existing enterprises to relocate. If not that then the highest corporation tax in Europe will do the trick. And furthermore, who at a smaller level would want to start or grow a business in such an environment? He's already made his antipathy to business at all levels very clear

All all this will lead to extensive job losses and hugely decreased tax revenues

but that's ok because he's going to bump up public sector pay.
 
Capital will always go where they think they can make money Clive. I remember similar siren voices about Hong Kong falling under Chinese control and the British government making all sorts of contingency for the expected flood of investment back home that never happened. Similar thing happened (or didn't) in South Africa too. Most of them were rubbing their hands with glee instead. Cameron is leading trade missions to China every quarter at the moment, and they'll be dumping even more stuff now that they've devalued. Leftist government's are quite capable of making concessions and turning a blind eye when it suits them. If some people want to leave, then all they'll succeed in doing is allowing their competitors to take a bigger share of the market. The bigger trigger to any relocation is more likely to be tax, but just how much the senior decision makers pay at the moment would be a moot point anyway

I don't have a probelm with renationalising one of the energy companies with the view to running something more akin to a no frills provider, or Aldi for sake of another parallel. We've seen budget providers prosper in numerous industries but because energy runs as a cartel with a regulator that's been captured, it hasn't been extended into this no go zone. If they're as inefficient as you believe they will be, then clearly they'll be too expensive and no one will switch to them, so the existing competition has nothing to worry about, in fact they should welcome it as they'll be net beneficiaries (unless of course they aren't inefficient).

I wouldn't worry, the Tories would only reprivatise it so think of the windfall that would generate for the voters in give away shares. Actually, that's probably Corbyn's best chance.

Vote for Jezza, we'll nationalise everything. Then vote for Georgie and he'll privatise everything
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
he'll never see power to be part of implementing anything Clive
Click to expand...
Never say Never, EC. :D
Who's to say if "austerity" continues ad infinitum, if the tories continue their assault on the poor, if unemployment among the young increases, if the European debt crisis isn't resolved, that a left-wing party might achieve power?
Who would have forecast four years a Marxist party in Greece (Syriza) winning the election. Look at the advance of Podemos in Spain
 
icebreaker said:
Never say Never, EC. :D
Who's to say if "austerity" continues ad infinitum, if the tories continue their assault on the poor, if unemployment among the young increases, if the European debt crisis isn't resolved, that a left-wing party might achieve power?
Who would have forecast four years a Marxist party in Greece (Syriza) winning the election. Look at the advance of Podemos in Spain
Click to expand...

Kinnock wouldn't be regarded as left as Corbyn ..but he was left.... but even he couldn't win power when Thatcher was in...and times were hard during her reign for many people.

To me..having lived through Tory rule before..i cannot see someone like Corbyn even coming close to taking power from them. On top of that..you have the fact that Labour will split in a similar way to gang of four if he gets it..you just feel the change coming. He could end up leading a lot smaller party than we currently see. If that happens..and its a strong possibility he has a bit better chance than UKIP or the Lib Dems of having a party big enough to ever gain power..even if he has a lot of support.

In my time ..the left....even not far left ...have consistently failed to win power..Foot..Kinnock...Miliband. Not only failed..but failed badly. How many more examples do we need?..the rest of Labour Party know that very well...and thats why if this goes his way something major will happen within the labour party. I would say that todays party are even more likely to split than when the gang of 4 p1ssed off.

Labour were all set for a time of looking at what they needed to be after the election..this is their worst nightmare at a time when they needed to reassess their strategy. I would imagine if the Tories had tried to dream up a way of shoving a spanner in Labour's works..even they couldn't have thought something up as effective as Corbyn.

Its too extreme..its all very nice talking about what he wants to do but i haven't seen how he is going to do what he wants to do..its off the top of the head idealism that may grab the young and the hard left but won't appeal to the masses.

Just wait if he gets it..Tories will start from day one with the scare tactics...thats how they won the last election. They study the weakness..then paint the worse case scenario..they then use threats for a long period of time about what will happen if such as Corbyn gets power..they just had one real tactic with Miliband..the SNP will pull his strings.

The tories..are so much smarter than Labour. Labour are so naive..this leader election alone shows that..last night they were talking to Tom watson on Beeb news..he said that he didn't haven't a problem with it..after all people wouldn't stoop so low as to register if they weren't genuine..is he real?? This morning i heard that one of UKIP's party bods had actually registerd for one. How daft do you have to be to have a leadership election in this manner..daft as brushes imo
 
Last edited:
Back
Top