Jeremy Corbyn

[delboy1983]

Corby has finally confirmed that he's nuts.
How can a man with an aspiration to become a prime minister burn his bridges with the USA and Israel and choose a time when the world's to cameras are rolling to make an hysterical speech like something you'd hear from a Marxist revolutionary politician in Bolivia or somewhere. He looked truly bonkers and who'd vote for him knowing that he can no longer speak to any major country and be taken seriously.
I thought he was going to shout " Yankees go home" or "power to the people" or something .

Is he a spy,if so his cover is blown !!

[Darkyboy]

Well he's doing his best to stir up hatred against those that disagree. On his hitlist are the Jews, the US (until they elect a President that he deems acceptable), those on the right in British politics (he says far-right, but there isn't a far-right). I'm sure that list will increase as time goes by. Whether it's all to destabilise the country on behalf of a foreign power, or to bring about a revolution (yes, he is that far-removed from reality) who can say. But some of the lunatics that follow him seem to think that intimidation and violence are justified against the "enemy".

[birdie]

He wants to be PM but hasn't the first clue about how to behave like one. He may not like Trump as a person, he isn't alone in that, but Trump is the President of the USA and, as such, he would have to work with him, and boycotting the State Banquet wasn't the action of someone who could, in a few short months, be PM.
If Trump is to be believed when he says that Corbyn asked for a meeting either today, after he'd been to the anti Trump rally I presume, or tomorrow, then it just shows what a twerp he is. How on earth does he expect someone who he has snubbed not to snub him back is beyond me.

[Royal24s]

Yeah, he's buggered it up , but apparently there's a vacancy for a new leader in the UK Change Party. Oh no, just remembered he refused to meet with them .

[Royal24s]

Well he's doing his best to stir up hatred against those that disagree. On his hitlist are the Jews, the US (until they elect a President that he deems acceptable), those on the right in British politics (he says far-right, but there isn't a far-right). I'm sure that list will increase as time goes by. Whether it's all to destabilise the country on behalf of a foreign power, or to bring about a revolution (yes, he is that far-removed from reality) who can say. But some of the lunatics that follow him seem to think that intimidation and violence are justified against the "enemy".

Yeah, but in fairness he's always been very open minded about meeting up with the PLO, Hammas and the IRA. That's socialism I suppose .

[Steve Hunt]

The aim is to "discourage the use of homes as financial assets.

What the fuck is wrong with that?

Given that Brown destroyed our pension industry & interest rates have been at a historical low for over a decade, property is about the only thing anyone can invest in these days.

[Jon Gout]

Probably so that some people are less likely to own eight homes while others are trapped in a cycle of renting?

[Steve Hunt]

Probably so that some people are less likely to own eight homes while others are trapped in a cycle of renting?

In which case, some differentiation would be helpful.

If you own 8 homes, I'd suggest that the chances are that would be the main source of your income. You would therefore be taxed accordingly, either as an individual or if the properties were managed under the umbrella of a company. Either way, the state would derive tax from you via these properties.

Likewise if, like me, your witnessed Gordon Brown plunder your pension scheme, you may have decided to invest in additional property for income in your old age. You do realise that any income derived from my properties is taxed accordingly?

As for being trapped in a cycle of renting, I have two teenage daughters and fully appreciate the difficulties they face. Difficulties that were massively exacerbated by Blair's reckless Eastern Europe open door immigration policy.

[Jon Gout]

In which case, some differentiation would be helpful.

If you own 8 homes, I'd suggest that the chances are that would be the main source of your income.

I think the idea of the report is to suggest that someone's main source of income probably shouldn't basically be not allowing others to own property, or at least making it far less easy than it is now.

It's basically like a pyramid scheme. People look down on those quite rightly, since they involve someone sourcing their income at the expense of other people sourcing theirs. Why is property any different?

Exploring new systems to tackle problems caused in the past seems like a positive thing to me. There's no solution found in finger pointing or carrying on the way things are. Blaming Blair for increased immigration or Brown for plundering your pension won't increase the likeliness of your daughters owning their own houses.

[Steve Hunt]

Blaming Blair for increased immigration or Brown for plundering your pension won't increase the likeliness of your daughters owning their own houses.

No it won't. But that doesn't mean that either point isn't true. Because they are.

I will help them out as much as I can, but what will get my daughters on the property ladder is making sacrifices, saving hard and a lot of bloody hard work.

You know, just as it was for our generation & our parents generation.

[Jon Gout]

Yes, back when most home owners owned only one, they cost hardly anything, and mortgages were handed out to anyone who asked. Back when people could buy a house at the age of 19 with just a few bob for a deposit instead of having to pay extortionate rents to multiple property owners while trying to scrape together a deposit until they're in their 30s. Everyone would prefer that, but we're not in a position where it's going to suddenly happen again without major changes to how things work. I know both points are true, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them instead of working out ways of tackling them. A defeatist attitude never solves a problem.

[AlcoholBrazil]

House prices are beyond the reach of those in menial low-skilled jobs ,even if they saved their entire working life.
I can see multi-generational mortgages of 80 years or more , which can be transferred to children to finish paying off.

[paolo]

this commie shower single handedly killed the labour party

shagged abbott

fuck knows what else he's muffed

is anti jew

can't do fuck all for his disjointed party

yet fin ds the time to do his anto trump shit

devoid of all common sense, must be controlled

[Steve Hunt]

Yes, back when most home owners owned only one, they cost hardly anything, and mortgages were handed out to anyone who asked. Back when people could buy a house at the age of 19 with just a few bob for a deposit instead of having to pay extortionate rents to multiple property owners while trying to scrape together a deposit until they're in their 30s. Everyone would prefer that, but we're not in a position where it's going to suddenly happen again without major changes to how things work. I know both points are true, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them instead of working out ways of tackling them. A defeatest attitude never solves a problem.

This problem is caused by a number of factors, Jon

- Population increase outstripping housing supply
- The creation of a large low wage rate sector
- Interest rates being almost zero for a decade, people therefore turning to income from property for a better rate of return
- The destruction of our pension industry. people therefore turning to income from property for a future income in old age
- Graduates coming out of university with £50k debts
- Lack of new housing

Successive governments (of both parties) are largely responsible for the factors listed above. The result now is that market forces have created an over inflated property market. As it happens, the market is slowing down, but property is still barely affordable for first time buyers.

Now we have a situation where it is very difficult for any government to redress the balance. The horse has bolted when it comes to population growth. All governments love big business and globalism, so they aren't going to rock the boat when it comes to the low wage economy. Interest rates are dictated by external forces.

They could make pensions attractive again & a proper investment for old age
They could sort out the student fee fiasco
They could build more houses - preferably on the brown belt.

But will they? I wouldn't bet on it.

[Vespa]

We also have an economy centralised in the South East.