Separate Moan Thread About The Election

I wonder which is the bigger problem: people fiddling the benefits system, or, tax avoidance by the wealthy.
I suppose your answer probably depends on what colour you are politically.

 

Although they all go on about building more houses, to bring the price down, it ain't going to happen as the house builders will just sit on the land and wait for years as they do, until prices rise again.
The only way to do it is build council houses but they never want to do that as there is no profit to be made.
Half the people who are in council housing don't pay full rent.

As to layabouts we have a few around here, in their 40s and never had a job, but just sign on each month.

Nothi6is clear cut and there is no single solution as far as I can tell.

When I worked it was mostly for people who had more money than me, some were the super rich some were just comfortable, without them I would have been unemployed, so bringing everyone one down doesn't seem right to me,we need to bring people up.

 

No contest, @Punkdoc. Tax avoidance has damaged society beyond measure.

@Fat Controller, I don't think a massive building prog would work unless you stop the new dwellings getting into the hands of the wealthy. I personally would like to see ...

1) a complete ban on people who live full-time overseas owning residential property here
2) a complete ban on companies, particularly asset managing firms wherever registered, owning residential property here
3) every residential property in full time use as a home, ie occupied for more than 10 months of the yr


That would free up a lot of mansions in London (which is not much use, except in that it would bring prices down generally) but also huge numbers of smaller properties in places like Reading where whole blocks of flats are owned by foreign interests.

 

And here lies one of the problems, to tap into the wealth created by rising house prices, you need to be able sell your property at the going rate, then purchase a more cheaper affordable home some where else. So, do those who have a home that they foresee selling in the future want to see house prices fall, do they want to see large developments with more affordable homes built in their back yard. Home ownership in the younger age group has been in decline for a long time, some reports say it peaked in the 1970's, yet ownership in the 65 age group is on the up.

Developers are wanting to build 208 new homes in the town near me, with plans for a further 160 plus more, these ones would then fall into our parish. There is at least 10 banners in the dyke opposing the new developments, saying "grow more food, not homes, 208 students = 208 pot holes" etc etc. As I am the vice chairman on the parish council, the crack on those who are putting up these banners and are opposing the new development all have one thing in common, it's the older age group. It's a case of, yes we need more affordable homes but not in our backyard.

 

Rayner is No2 to Starmer at present. What's to say she couldn't replace him? Then we'll have Corbyn in drag leading the Labour Party.

 

But that can happen with any party. The Truss economic "plan" (I use the word loosely) was far right by anyone's book.

 

Starmer is dodgy, doesn't give the impression he is in control, maybe he is, but he doesn't come over as a real leader.

Having read what I have I will be voting Reform, its only a protest vote because they cant win but I'm fed up with Rishy wasy politics, and Starmer seems to be in the same mould.

I cant vote Green because they just cost us money and want us walking everywhere, and I always thought Boris was a comedian but the Lid Dem bloke appears to be nuts.

 

We have an Independent candidate who has previously stood for the Patra party (bring back corporal punishment in schools and that kind of nonsense). I don't think he has ever managed more than 200 votes, but still he persists.

 

Good for him.

 

From 1997 to 2017 the UK population grew by 13% the number of people living on their own increased by 16%, in that time, the 45 year old plus age group living alone had increased by 53%. By 2040, it is projected that 10.7 million people will account for single occupancy properties. No quick fix to a housing crisis as there as so many factors to take into account.

 

You could incentivise the elderly to downsize to free up some family homes. That requires quality 1 or 2 bed properties for them to move to, of course, not retirement flats with tiny rooms and massive service charges.

 

They never build bungalows anymore, that would be a start, we have a 60s built estate around here that has lots of bungalows, they are mostly owned by the oldies.

Prices are astronomical.

 

I said I wouldn’t post again but here I am.

Some of the comments here are saying no one will ever do this or that yet some of the points you raise are the very things Labour is talking about and intending to address. It seems clear many posting haven’t looked past headlines in biased news reporting. You might feel better if you actually looked, with an open mind, at what they are saying. No doubt some things will take longer than others and there will be missteps along the way but the intention is there to improve housing, individual security, living wages, NHS waiting times, corporate accountability etc.

There are a lot of negative comments about Starmer, I went to hear him set his stall out to become leader and he was a perfectly normal person, open & answering questions without hesitation. He was the DPP , he’s clever & he can organise. He might not be everyone’s cup of tea, he is portrayed as bland by some, but do we need another showman with no substance, another PM with his own brand or a bad Thatcher impersonator? Hardworking, clever, decent & getting on with improving people’s lives and prospects is what I want in a PM, I’ll pass on yet another Eton schoolboy.