Maybe that's going to be her negotiating strategy with the EU27.
"Give us a good deal or we'll nuke you."
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
"Give us a good deal or we'll nuke you."
The end of the world as we know it maybe (not to underplay the massive loss of life, etc.) not the end of the world.
So instead of passing on my hard earned family money and family home to my children you think I should give it to you? uhuh... I see why you'd think that is a great Labour policy.
The end of *our* world.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not a cockroach
In the event of all-out nuclear war, the planet won't be habitable by humans anymore.Personally I don't think the government should take any money from any family when they die.
this is the real issue we need to slowly de link houses from the economy, over several decades. in the mean time they should allow cheap housing like tiny house craze which is happening in other countries.
Slowly affordable housing should be a right not a commodity , that however doesn't mean dream homes super cheap, it just means the bottom end of the market really should cost peanuts.
No but equally i dont see why your children are reliant on your inheritance to keep them off benefits. That has got to be wrong.
May has completely lost the plot. She's not debating Corbyn tonight because:
- Because she debates him anyway at PMQs - Well, she takes potshots at him and gives out vapid soundbites instead of answers
- Because she’s more interested in meeting members of the public - Such as all those carefully stage managed meetings so far? The one time she actually met the public she got torn a new one and the whole thing went viral
- Because debates are a bit pointless - I'll agree with her on that one, assuming she means the 7 person format
- Because she is too busy preparing for Brexit - But not too busy that she can't call a General Election...
The end of *our* world.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not a cockroach
That isn't likely to be true - most of the extreme nuclear winter and large scale fallout models are based on big old dirty nukes and 100% hitting areas where you'd have massive burn off. These days for instance targets the Soviets marked for 2-3x ~3MT nukes would be hit by ~200-300KT warheads with the same incapacitation effect but far less stratospheric injection of pollutants, much smaller fireball/pressure wave and so on reducing how widespread fires, etc. would be, far more utilised in airburst rather than groundburst configuration which reduces fallout to a much more localised effect and so on.
Call it good practice for the EU negotiations ahead. You just know she'll be trying to sell some **** deal as totally amazing a few years down the line
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
I saw a facebook post earlier and ive not verefied this.. but apparently the small business owner complaining about paying £10 minimum wage on last nights debate...this guy:
Well company check.... not exactly small business
https://companycheck.co.uk/director/908467388/MANEET--KAPOOR/financials
Well company check.... not exactly small business
https://companycheck.co.uk/director/908467388/MANEET--KAPOOR/financials
However, we don't want to build houses that in normal times nobody would want. By that I mean shoe boxes. There should still be minimum standards for space, lighting, thermal efficiency, etc.
I agree that there should be housing for every budget, with the above caveat in mind.
Inheritance is only an issue because we have a non-functional housing market, and because we have employers paying sub-standard wages, to the point where the state has to intervene with top-up benefits.
Failing a short, sharp shock (a housing crash), then we need to address the demand side first.
In the current situation, where prices can only rise, demand tends to infinite, because people are treating housing like stocks and shares. Even if you don't intend anybody to live in a property, speculating on the increase in value can pay off.
And it should be obvious, that if you have two vacant properties, and two potential owner-occupiers ready to buy, that the demand and subsequently the price is increased by allowing a 3rd party (BTL landlord or speculator) to buy one or both of them. What could have been three home owners can become one + two tenants. And by helping house prices to rise, the BTL landlord can then justify increasing rents too! So not only does he ensure more people find home ownership out of their reach, they end up paying ever increasing sums - over 50% of earnings in many cases now - to the landlord. Win/win for them.
I don't see any way to fix this without reducing demand first.
Even if we could build enough houses - and it's blindingly obvious now no party can; not Labour, not the Tories - demand is effectively insatiable. And it's not to do with immigration or over-population, but speculation and treating houses as investment vehicles.
I can tell you right now that down here we're building thousands and thousands of new houses over the next few years (7 thousand in my area alone by 2030). You can't drive 5 minutes in any direction here in Cornwall without see a new housing estate going up. But probably less than 50% of these are being bought by owner occupiers. On new housing estates you can simply tally up all the signs saying "TO LET", and see it for yourself.
Fix demand. Kill property speculation. Kill BTL. It's the only way to be sure. For starters we can get rid of foreign speculators buying up property. Why should we let so much rent money leave the country and find its way to Russian billionaires, Asian investors, etc? It's all so very wrong.
disagree tiny houses movement in other countries is there to stay, plenty of people don't want to be tied to a mortgage because of planning regs and nor should be be. So no, there should be a category with much less restrictions.
Forgive me for not being very reassured by that
Like you said, the effects would be devastating and billions would likely die.I stand by my statement that only a madman would give the order for a nuclear first strike (esp against another nuclear power). I'm not even sure if Jim Jong is deranged enough (maybe he is...?)
So whilst May might say she would (talk is cheap), I would hope it's just a bluff.
Actually I would say he is.I saw a facebook post earlier and ive not verefied this.. but apparently the small business owner complaining about paying £10 minimum wage on last nights debate...this guy:
Well company check.... not exactly small business
https://companycheck.co.uk/director/908467388/MANEET--KAPOOR/financials
There's an obvious reason for tiny houses in Japan, where space is exhausted.
Which other European countries have seen the same trend as here, towards smaller and smaller houses?
Soldato
I wouldn't vote for someone who would push the button. These nukes aren't like Hiroshima. One could potentially ruin most of the planet.
who said anything abut European, America has seen a massive uptake in tiny houses and there is no running out of space there. Do you know what the tiny house movement is? these wouldn't even be built by government.
But europe also has something else we don't, In Europe you can live in mobile accommodation on land you own, we have no such right in the uk. Which if we had similar right it would actually allow tiny house movement in the UK.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
Ive always wondered something like this. But then questioned how it could work. I agree that it should be something like that. The people who were voting brexit to fix the housing market... wasnt there a huge increase in foreigners purchasing house prices because the currency exchange rate was in their favor.
Could they enforce someone to have had someone permanently living in the UK for a year before allowing them to purchase? Or even just having a British Passport / UK residence card.
I remember reading about one of the Scandinavian countries only allowing citizens to purchase one house. Cant remember which country or if its true.
- Status