• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

The new government – good accomplishments and bad?

ASCPFC said:
They are representing no one except themselves and deserve no respect or support from anyone half decent. I suspect even their most ardent supporters are only supporting them to save face - or for personal gain. Personal gain is almost understandable: any support of this non entity for policy or other reasons is ludicrous and bordering on insanity.
Click to expand...
Fence-sitter!
 
Rudi Hedman said:
Is he in the upper or lower sixth? Forget the subject he’s referring to. Is this the future? Being governed by spotty youngsters?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1844090817000112554
Click to expand...
He also does not understand the subject matter.

For every rogue landlord there are innumerable good ones providing good homes.

Meanwhile, what of rogue tenants? Move in, pay deposit, pay nothing else. The landlord will need to spend £tens of thousands on legal fees to evict with a court system so grossly under-resourced that one court has said it will take an estimated 17 weeks to respond to a letter.

Do you think the number of rogue tenants will increase or decrease after no fault eviction is gone?

And if you were a potential landlord faced with such risk, would you let?
 
Really this is what that well-known leftie Winston Churchill thought of landlordism:-

"Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people. Many of the most important are effected at the cost of the municipality and of the ratepayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare; he contributes nothing even to the process from which his own enrichment is derived." [source]

And the tory bible 'Wealth of Nations' Adam Smith?

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed".

There is actually, an end product with capitalism, but not with landlordism only unearned profits it is really economic parasitism.

😎
 
steeleye20 said:
Really this is what that well-known leftie Winston Churchill thought of landlordism:-

"Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people. Many of the most important are effected at the cost of the municipality and of the ratepayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare; he contributes nothing even to the process from which his own enrichment is derived." [source]

And the tory bible 'Wealth of Nations' Adam Smith?

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed".

There is actually, an end product with capitalism, but not with landlordism only unearned profits it is really economic parasitism.

😎
Click to expand...
Quotes for a different age.

Unearned? Really? They spent rather a lot on the properties let with rental a return on that capital investment.

And would councils and other social housing landlords also infringe your delicate sensibilities when it comes to renting property?

Otherwise, it would seem that you favour residential occupation through universal ownership. As such, would you describe yourself as a Thatcherite?
 
Apropos the performance of this Government, the sheer suddenness of the 'Fall from grace' is astounding.
Over-bearing self-righteousness, double standards and individual failures have demonstrated their spectacular unpreparedness for high office.They are struggling with the complexities of being in Government.
 
silvertop said:
Quotes for a different age.

Unearned? Really? They spent rather a lot on the properties let with rental a return on that capital investment.

And would councils and other social housing landlords also infringe your delicate sensibilities when it comes to renting property?

Otherwise, it would seem that you favour residential occupation through universal ownership. As such, would you describe yourself as a Thatcherite?
Click to expand...
'All property is theft'.

🙂
 
steeleye20 said:
There is actually, an end product with capitalism, but not with landlordism only unearned profits it is really economic parasitism.

😎
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And what this proposed bill will do is see loads of landlords, along with potential ones, decide its just not worth it.....

And the housing crisis gets worse and worse. This is the point. No-fault evictions transformed the residential lettings market. Took the sting out of it. But now? It is merely about grabbing headlines and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny beyond that.

There are all kinds of measures that would have more of an impact (for example imposing huge penalties on social housing providers for having properties left empty for years) along with additional taxes on holiday homes in rural areas to fund the building of new homes for locals but this particular proposal is just insanity. Makes the problem WORSE.
 
Jacey said:
Actions of Rayner,Starmer ,and Co,are laughable,we're they not so serious as regards our ever increasing fragile economy:



www.telegraph.co.uk

P&O Ferries owner pulls £1bn UK investment after Rayner attack

Dubai company chief withdraws from investment summit after Deputy PM’s criticism of employment practices
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
The level of national self harm for the next five years is only just starting to become clear.

What did people expect with this inept shower, the previous Govt were generally poor and this lot will be way worse IMO.
 
ASCPFC said:
Anyone reckon Shamima Begum has been brought back on the quiet? Press warned off. Probably in a private jet with Lammy. Just guessing but it dawned on me this morning that it's exactly what would happen now.
Click to expand...
Stay where she is or spend a flight with that balloon animal? Tough choice.
 
Jacey said:
Actions of Rayner,Starmer ,and Co,are laughable,we're they not so serious as regards our ever increasing fragile economy:



www.telegraph.co.uk

P&O Ferries owner pulls £1bn UK investment after Rayner attack

Dubai company chief withdraws from investment summit after Deputy PM’s criticism of employment practices
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Labour shooting themselves in the foot again. P&O owners sacked hundreds of staff breaking employment law. I will not defend that behaviour and Labour went to town against the Tory government at the time and quite rightly in my opinion, a terrible employer.

So the Transport Secretary has been rebuked by Starmer for only saying what the party said at the time. So which is it Starmer?

I fully understand any government saying we are not interested in doing business with a bad employer so why are you rebuking your own minister or do you now think P&O are fit and proper if so why have you changed your mind. Free ferry tickets?
 
Badger11 said:
Labour shooting themselves in the foot again. P&O owners sacked hundreds of staff breaking employment law. I will not defend that behaviour and Labour went to town against the Tory government at the time and quite rightly in my opinion, a terrible employer.

So the Transport Secretary has been rebuked by Starmer for only saying what the party said at the time. So which is it Starmer?

I fully understand any government saying we are not interested in doing business with a bad employer so why are you rebuking your own minister or do you now think P&O are fit and proper if so why have you changed your mind. Free ferry tickets?
Click to expand...
P&O did not break ther law at the time, they exploited a loophole which is quite a different thing.

www.theguardian.com

New UK laws to stop repeat of P&O mass sackings scandal go before parliament

Labour clamps down on poor working conditions at sea with laws on collective dismissal and minimum wage on cross-Channel ferries
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top