wtf has this to do with me?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Immigrants raise housing prices, but not the poor or middle class ones, or at least not significantly. They are no competition for the locals. Is Offer and demand. A poor immigrant will never be able to match the offer. Rich retired brittish in Spain in the other hand...
More Grease?
You're on the list.Poor way to react. Ground here is just as finite as it is in the UK. Yet we don’t have the same problems...and the reasons for it were actually a topic in an C1 English course I took a few years ago.
Just a small example how low key investment can solve expensive problems (if you wanted to go against private investors): https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.the.../britain-housing-crisis-solved-social-housing
Assuming you are living in Germany.
The previous German govt seemed pretty upset about the rest of the EU's reluctance to take migrants from Germany if I recall correctly. If you have all the answers and they are so obvious I wonder why it vexed you so?
You haven't got a government just yet and as I understand it that was in a large part because of political changes in voting patterns brought about on migrant-related issues, so perhaps there are some problems for some people in Germany.
My 52 years living in the UK is clearly no match for the insight you gained into how things work in the UK on your C2 English course.
I guess I should bow out.
If the events of the last couple of years have taught us anything, it's that several decades spent living in the UK does not automatically equate to bragging rights when it comes to political acumen.
If by us you mean the majority on this forum,
Brexit can't possibly happen.
Trump can't get elected as the Republican nominee.
Trump can't get elected president.
May and Merkle were both a shoe-in for re-election with an increased majority.
So events have taught us your views are on average more likely to be wrong than the average Brexit voter's dog.
My views?
It depends on what you mean by "wrong" really. I take it that you think the actual outcomes to the four events you mentioned were better for the UK, the US and the World than the outcomes most on here were hoping for?
First of all: not the reasons for the break down of coalition talks between a centrist, a left, and libertarian party. Those are inherently difficult as you can imagine, but you are not interested in deeper understanding of foreign politics, as you have just displayed with this very statement. Second of all: we do have a gouvernment. Third of all: the German gouverment certainly didn’t push for migrant distribution because of a non existent housing crisis.
Anyway: the reason I pointed out that C2 course that I gained any additional insight. The reason was that I wanted to highlight just how obvious those British problems are. So obvious that they are even teaching material for courses for non English speakers.
That's not true, I just don't give a shit about your view of UK politics. I don't think your C2 English course subject matter qualifies you as an expert in the UK housing issue and I think you are being disingenuous about the cause of Germany's current political difficulties which are related to both the rise of AFD and the effect that has had on mainstream German political parties and their willingness to sanction open border migration policies and enter government with parties which espouse or embody them.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/19/german-coalition-talks-close-to-collapse-angela-merkel
Blue tick though mate so take it as gospel.
OK so here we go:
westmonster.com whois lookup:
Eldon Insurance Services Founder: Arron Banks
Is it a trustworthy source?
feck no
Nice.
Errrrrr I meant re: the actual document which is linked in the article.
Here it is in case missed (or commented without opening the link): https://www.respectwords.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reporting-on-Migration-and-Minorities..pdf
It's a fairly big report. Can you point out the offending sections? A glance through it shows nothing that matches the tweet.
I think it's the philosophy of the EU apparently trying to influence how immigrant related news is reported. Should the EU be spending effort and money in this sort of thing. Authoritarian much?
The beginning of the report makes it clear they are guidelines. The preamble is quite short, you can read it and decide for yourself.
Would you be ok with the UK Govt or Trump issuing 'guidelines' on how specific issues be reported then?
It depends on the official weight behind them. These are guidelines which seem to be formulated by meetings among journalists, and enforced by nobody.
So yes, I am fine with that.
Going further, I think the Leveson inquiry was very necessary, and its recommendations* should be implemented.
*which go much much further than a set of guidelines, and oog into how the press can be investigated and sued.
I'd much prefer it if there was some oversight on the media to ensure the hate filled bile published by Murdoch and Dacre was forced to provide a burden of proof to their lies if not condemned and made illegal. Given the symbiotic relationship between the tories and particularly Trump and the right wing gutter press and media there's Fox all chance of that happening though.
Good pun or Fraudian Slip?
But everyone is supposed to roll over, forget their interests, and do as brexiteers please. Otherwise we're 'unreasonable', 'punishing the UK' or 'blackmailing' them.
Weird world you live in.
Edit: To be clear, I don't want to belittle the problems you raise, they are legitimate and sometimes pressing problems. However they are UK problems caused by UK governments voted in by UK citizens.
Last edited:
They do
As I said before, that wasn’t the point of bringing that course up...
And forming a Jamaica coalition was always going to be difficult migration or not. The talks actually broke down for different reasons. Not that you would know or be interested, it needs to serve your agenda.
Now you’ve shown me! I didn’t know that!
Seriously mate, look it up. We do have a gouvernment. A consequence of us having a gouvernment is that we actually have a small gouvernmental crisis atm because some minister acted against Merkels wishes...
It’s some NGO‘s report probably funded from a broad money fund that didn’t even know what the result would be. Don’t act like this is some official document.
The land is definitely finite but it's nowhere near close to actually being a problem. People just need to stop thinking this in horizontal terms. Double the people could be housed in the UK if every (residential) building would be twice as high. So maybe we need to start thinking this more vertical.
The land is definitely finite but it's nowhere near close to actually being a problem. People just need to stop thinking this in horizontal terms. Double the people could be housed in the UK if every (residential) building would be twice as high. So maybe we need to start thinking this more vertical.
That is all well and good but the problems are multifaceted. I would say the biggest issues is the complete reliance on private companies to supply housing stock. They land bank and don't want to build on more costly Brownfield sites whilst releasing Greenbelt land is hugely controversial and resisted fiercely by residents. Then you have the issues with getting things through planning, in some case it takes 40 years+!
Exactly. Housing can’t be private entirely. Although those greenbelts really are huge bullshit and are the bane of the UK housing market. Dissolving them would probably solve the problem for decades to come.
Why would we want them to pave over some of the most beautiful land in Britain?
I'm not with you on the Greenbelt issue. There is enough unused Brownfield sites in the UK to satisfy demand but due to the extra costs in preparing the land due to contamination etc private companies don't want to touch it.
There had been plans to release Greenbelt in Greater Manchester recently but I don't recall any other civic plan that faced such resistance from the public. Andy Burnham got elected as Manchester's first Mayor with a promise to put a halt to it.
Not all of it is "beautiful". And lloking between the UK, France and Germany, three countries with very similar structures, it is clear that the greenbelt directives are one of the major reasons that the UK housing market is so disproportionally expensive.
It's a question of ideology, I get that. But eithe have way cheaper housing or have greenbelts. Choose. And honestly, living in a country which doesn't have greenbelts, but rather sensible decision makers when it comes to designating land, I can assure you the countryside outside of my 500.000+ town isn't some deserted wasteland....and when I want to walk through a forest, although I live in the city center, it's a 20 minute walk away, or 4 minutes by train. Strategic gaps are the solution.
Also, looking at how the end of greenbelt would affect people already owning property, it's pretty clear why many would be against it: they want to protect their money for selfish reasons.
Edit: looking at how Britian acts towards private investors and their demands, I guess the shortage of such people might be an issue. But one that can get solved.
Last edited:
Because there's a ton more of it and giving people somewhere decent and affordable to live is more important than some pretty views for those lucky enough to already have their own home. Shades of NIMBY.
It's not only their view. It's also their money. Scarcity inflates prices, so those lucky enough to already own property are naturally against touching the green belts.
No, wrong assumption.
Most of the time - sorry , actually all of the time I did win as in voting Tory in a safe Tory seat but if I'd voted Monster Raving Loony Party it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. I didn't always get the PM at the end of the day but could not control that at all which is really my point.
Now if I voted in a french presidential election my vote actually counts no matter where I live, even abroad and in which constituency I live in.
As a rule, i don't debate Brexit policy on the forum any longer, but taking housing in isolation...
The previously posted Guardian article uses the world 'fantasy' quite frequently throughout the text, which i think is particularly apt given the writer's decision to ignore real-world realities and politics with his solutions. So to cite as some cure for our ills would be misplaced. Most of the aspiring homeowners i know, or those who have recently purchased, do not typically seek out high-density, high-rise locations with limited green space.
Strategically, i would focus on: land-banking/hoarding of planning applications (a serious issue going by the recent Budget), promotion of self-build schemes, and the regeneration towns and cities to reduce the push factors which may exist. While the departure from FoM ought to enable future governments to introduce other migration opportunities, and depending on the party hue improve the labour market, they are both medium-long term ambitions at this point. For the present, however, id' have supposed that EU citizens put the greatest strain on the rental sector as opposed to ownership. Of course with things as they are, an increasing proportion of the existing population are also vying for those very properties until such time as they can buy themselves. The extent of controls post-Brexit should depend on the numbers as well as the intended destination.
*Once again exits the echo chamber*
The previously posted Guardian article uses the world 'fantasy' quite frequently throughout the text, which i think is particularly apt given the writer's decision to ignore real-world realities and politics with his solutions. So to cite as some cure for our ills would be misplaced. Most of the aspiring homeowners i know, or those who have recently purchased, do not typically seek out high-density, high-rise locations with limited green space.
Strategically, i would focus on: land-banking/hoarding of planning applications (a serious issue going by the recent Budget), promotion of self-build schemes, and the regeneration towns and cities to reduce the push factors which may exist. While the departure from FoM ought to enable future governments to introduce other migration opportunities, and depending on the party hue improve the labour market, they are both medium-long term ambitions at this point. For the present, however, id' have supposed that EU citizens put the greatest strain on the rental sector as opposed to ownership. Of course with things as they are, an increasing proportion of the existing population are also vying for those very properties until such time as they can buy themselves. The extent of controls post-Brexit should depend on the numbers as well as the intended destination.
*Once again exits the echo chamber*
Last edited:
I see you're trying this one again, you even tried it with me , hilarious, because you live in the UK you know everything that goes on and people who don't live there haven't got a clue.
Taking this line of reasoning you haven't got a clue what is going on in Brussels or Strasbourg or anywhere further than the bottom of your road , because if you live in Guildford for example how the hell do you know what it's like to live in Sunderland.
The main reason we don't have enough housing is because a) the government didn't invest enough into building new homes and b) the government made it extremely attractive to buy homes to let out. It has very little do so with some small percentage of the countries land being protected.
Inflate ego showing once again! You're a clown really aren't you?
I've not avoided any points you are the one ignoring reality.
I referred back to 1999 because you asked me!
Paul the Wolf said: ↑
Why do keep referring to 1999
Because that was a potential watershed time for the EU to clean house and reset its democratic credentials, just after the whole Santer Commission (of unelected Commissioners ) was forced to resign because of corruption, specifically around Mrs Cresson and her cronies activities and some incompetence in others that followed in trying to cover it up; however because of the gravy-train effect and the impending millennium celebrations it chose not to do so, in its own arrogance believing it could weather the storm and carry on regardless, which in fairness it has bumbled on... so far!
Having once worked for the EU and seen first hand its weaknesses in terms of democracy, in terms of preventing fraud, in terms of its tendency towards ''grandstanding' projects rather than projects which really do help people then in my mind and for many others the EU proved it cannot be reformed from within and hence sealed its own death warrant. Since then it has appointed idiots like Juncker and has gathered speed towards self destruction, on tracks it built itself, but has consistently failed to re-route. For a time the UK has acted as a 'brake', unintendedly I admit, but now the brake will be removed and the train can go full speed ahead on to the buffers... hopefully we won't still be on-board.
The one hope for the EU was perhaps with the 'pesky' British (opt outs, rebates etc.) all gone, Merkel and Macron, could through force of 'big stick wielding' change the direction away from the buffers, dragging, if necessary, the other states with them. However Macron still has a job to do in France and poor Angela in Germany is not looking much safer than Theresa in the UK, so things don't look to good, especially if the cliff edge scenario becomes a reality!
This is my sole reason for wanting the UK out of the EU, I recognise that amongst bexiteers I am probably in the minority, that many voted leave because of immigration and because previous UK governments had been too stupid to address the matter properly. I would love to see a truly democratic (and as far as humanly possible incorruptible) Europe, in terms of trade and security and environmental matters, and indeed people encouraged to move between the various member states, but with controls exercised by the host nation, not forced from above. This however I have come to realise is impossible whilst the EU survives in its present form, since its clear we (UK) cannot change its destination and date with the buffers, then we have to get off the train... whatever it costs!
The quote I gave was taken directly from the link you provided, below
https://europa.eu/european-union/ab...n-commission_en#how_does_the_commission_work?
You could either move to his constituency and then vote him out, or visit his constituency at election time and campaign against him, neither are highly likely I admit, but this is hypothetical situation (as I understand it you are domiciled in France?) so in that sense it is possible, because he was voted in originally as an MP.
'Hence once more into the breach'... Commissioners are not voted in, they are selected!
Last edited:
On the greenfield / brownfield thing, one quite interesting idea is to accept that the internet is slowly killing the high street and rather than watch it die a slow death it could be put out of its misery and then a large amount of retail property could be converted into affordable homes for sale or council houses in town centres. Leave behind local / convenience stores and a few other selected shops if a convincing case can be made, otherwise 90% of them can go. Then to make sure nobody gets left behind invest in superfast broadband across the country and make sure every single home has access to the internet so people can shop online.
Obviously highly disruptive and unlikely to be universally popular, but radical and forward looking.
Obviously highly disruptive and unlikely to be universally popular, but radical and forward looking.
A lot of people, especially the young, rely on those retail and service jobs.