Labour's Non Dom strategy - A good move ???

First topic message reminder :

Mansion Tax and now this Non Dom move.............Certainly is opening up dividing lines...................Obviously the opposition to it will play the card of these 1% guys will leave the Country etc etc..........Fat chance..

Duncan Bannatyne of Dragon's Den has already commended Miliband......Saying "it's got my vote".......I remember he had a spat with James Caan another Dragon over his status !!! Not so long back...I think it was a major reason Caan left the show...

Putting aside the crap that this will cost jobs............

I think it's a smart move !!...As Blair said yesterday If anything will cost jobs it will be coming out of Europe..

Labour is playing the populist card.............."We are on your side...."..

Let's see what happens..

Part of the issue here is people confusing 'affordable' housing with 'social' (i.e. council) housing.

If you want private housing to become more 'affordable' then you can only do it one way - increase supply.  Can't do that without massive planning system reforms and, arguably, a reduction in the onerous requirement to provide on-site social/council housing.

Not arguing it will solve the pricing issue tophat, but it will give those on low incomes an opportunity to get housing. My missus' granddad had a council house in the days when such things were available and actually built to last. He has been in it nigh on 60 + years. Has always worked but has been able to bring up a family and had some sort of life, and give his kids a decent life style without being absolutely annihiliated by a ridiculously unafforable mortgage, as would be the case for a low income family trying to purchase a house nowadays.

ShahenshahG wrote:The problem with that is rowley that building affordable housing usually means crap materials. Was looking at properties and you could tell that the doors were flimsy. The handles were delicate. The water system was prone to leaking into the wall and the most useless pumping system ever devised by man had replaced the simple sinkhole and spent most of the time flooding the houses . This makes them age quicker and the maintenance costs pile up which makes it less affordable in the long run and less incentive to make more. What is needed is a massive investment to build robust housing  and a lot of it. There just wasn't the money for it in this term. Labour really should be held responsible for that.

Shah is talking sense !!

You okay Shah ??

I always talk sense Truss. But usually it only makes sense to me

Rowley wrote:Not arguing it will solve the pricing issue tophat, but it will give those on low incomes an opportunity to get housing. My missus' granddad had a council house in the days when such things were available and actually built to last. He has been in it nigh on 60 + years. Has always worked but has been able to bring up a family and had some sort of life, and give his kids a decent life style without being absolutely annihiliated by a ridiculously unafforable mortgage, as would be the case for a low income family trying to purchase a house nowadays.

Who foots the cost of building new housing to give away for free?

Therein lies the issue toppy, as I said in my previous post this is an area that has been ignored, underfunded and basically cocked up for successive governments going back decades, as such to reverse it now costs an amount we almost certainly can't afford. However, the longer it gets ignored the more the cost increases, eventually someone has to bite the bullet and even if it is gradually start to address and reverse the years of neglect.

If you want me to make specific suggestions as to how to fund it though a fast train and a missile system we will never use would be a good place to start.

ShahenshahG wrote:I always talk sense Truss.  But usually it only makes sense to me

Rather have a lefty making no sense..............Than a sneering righty trying to make sense....

Maybe you use should use more smileys.......

For some it helps hide the weakness of their arguments..

I don't think they should be free. I think the government should act as a private landlord and lower their prices so others have to follow suit. Have backed off nationalisation of any industry but the government must have some hand in the most crucial industries such as energy house public transport. Not enough to dominate but enough that it keeps people honest. set a reasonable threshold of profit only for those industries and offer grants for innovative design/ideas. Again the investment is massive but something needs to be done.

I agree with the SNP...............Trident can go......HS2 disaster can go...........Cut overseas aid...

and you'll have money for other things..........

What do you need trident for ????...

I can never understand why so many social houses have untended gardens. It is not as if they work all day.....

Na tophat always has at least a partial point with regards to policies but he does kind of look at it from a right wing view that skews it a little too much for me. I think both things can be incorporated with a little more effort and a lot of guts it doesn't have to be the right way or the left way.

For example I can see his desire for small government but I don't agree with it. I think we could have a much cheaper and efficient government by tweaking John lewis method of business and instilling it in departments. So still a capatlist philosophy but within a socialist philosophy too. This means that a large amount of waste and wasters are eliminated because the incentives are there. You get quality of service and self maintenance because who is going to tolerate nepotism or shirker when each penny could go in your pocket instead of in the bin or to someone who doesn't contribute. I've been playing around with figures and haven't quite managed to justify it yet. But I'm a firm believer that a big government doesnt have to be an inefficient government.

ShahenshahG wrote:Na tophat always has at least a partial point with regards to policies but he does kind of look at it from a right wing view that skews it a little too much for me. I think both things can be incorporated with a little more effort and a lot of guts it doesn't have to be the right way or the left way.

For example I can see his desire for small government but I don't agree with it. I think we could have a much cheaper and efficient government by tweaking John lewis method of business and instilling it in departments. So still a capatlist philosophy but within a socialist philosophy too. This means that a large amount of waste and wasters are eliminated because the incentives are there. You get quality of service and self maintenance because who is going to tolerate nepotism or shirker when each penny could go in your pocket instead of in the bin or to someone who doesn't contribute. I've been playing around with figures and haven't quite managed to justify it yet. But I'm a firm believer that a big government doesnt have to be an inefficient government.

You're the middle one off gogglebox aren't you?

seanmichaels wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Na tophat always has at least a partial point with regards to policies but he does kind of look at it from a right wing view that skews it a little too much for me. I think both things can be incorporated with a little more effort and a lot of guts it doesn't have to be the right way or the left way.

For example I can see his desire for small government but I don't agree with it. I think we could have a much cheaper and efficient government by tweaking John lewis method of business and instilling it in departments. So still a capatlist philosophy but within a socialist philosophy too. This means that a large amount of waste and wasters are eliminated because the incentives are there. You get quality of service and self maintenance because who is going to tolerate nepotism or shirker when each penny could go in your pocket instead of in the bin or to someone who doesn't contribute. I've been playing around with figures and haven't quite managed to justify it yet. But I'm a firm believer that a big government doesnt have to be an inefficient government.

You're the middle one off gogglebox aren't you?

Someone give this guy some attention.........He might go away..

seanmichaels wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Na tophat always has at least a partial point with regards to policies but he does kind of look at it from a right wing view that skews it a little too much for me. I think both things can be incorporated with a little more effort and a lot of guts it doesn't have to be the right way or the left way.

For example I can see his desire for small government but I don't agree with it. I think we could have a much cheaper and efficient government by tweaking John lewis method of business and instilling it in departments. So still a capatlist philosophy but within a socialist philosophy too. This means that a large amount of waste and wasters are eliminated because the incentives are there. You get quality of service and self maintenance because who is going to tolerate nepotism or shirker when each penny could go in your pocket instead of in the bin or to someone who doesn't contribute. I've been playing around with figures and haven't quite managed to justify it yet. But I'm a firm believer that a big government doesnt have to be an inefficient government.

You're the middle one off gogglebox aren't you?

I wish I was because then I wouldn't be posting from guantanamo

speaks sense that chap.

[quote="TRUSSMAN66"]..Trident can go.../quote]

Trident baffles me, spending that much on a weapons system even those buying it acknowledge we are almost certainly never going to use. Also we are allies with America, who have the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet, if you're best mate with the hardest kid in school you don't need to any good at fighting.

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:..Trident can go.../quote]

Trident baffles me, spending that much on a weapons system even those buying it acknowledge we are almost certainly never going to use. Also we are allies with America, who have the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet, if you're best mate with the hardest kid in school you don't need to any good at fighting.

Just let Putin roll across the Baltic states.....

Does us having trident prevent that?

Rowley wrote:Does us having trident prevent that?

I think having a funded and effective NATO provides a deterrant. Is Trident part of that? Probably. There is quite a lot in the news about it at the moment. Russians are taking the pi55 because they know how weak the organisation has become.

Genuinely don't see a need for it, think it is a cold war relic completely inappropriate for the security threats we face at the minute. Honestly think half of the reason we have it is so we can still pretend we are big players on the world stage, like we were in the days of the empire, it's an ego boost, a very expensive version of a sports car for all intents and purposes.

Rowley wrote:Genuinely don't see a need for it, think it is a cold war relic completely inappropriate for the security threats we face at the minute. Honestly think half of the reason we have it is so we can still pretend we are big players on the world stage, like we were in the days of the empire, it's an ego boost, a very expensive version of a sports car for all intents and purposes.

If they built that airport in the Thames I'd take 2 ships instead of 4.

Rowley wrote:Genuinely don't see a need for it, think it is a cold war relic completely inappropriate for the security threats we face at the minute. Honestly think half of the reason we have it is so we can still pretend we are big players on the world stage, like we were in the days of the empire, it's an ego boost, a very expensive version of a sports car for all intents and purposes.

There was some chap on the TV t’other day rattling on about our military. The main thrust of his argument was that we should borrow billions and spend billions more on our military just in case Argentina re-invade the Falklands and Spain decide to invade Gibraltar. I kid you not.

Because both those countries have the cash and military might to go on a land grab.

If you define the housing crisis as not enough people being able to afford to buy a home, then relax planning, offer regen incentives etc and get more built.

Providing you don't consider the 'crisis' the ability to give benefit scrounging wasters a free house/flat, then you can scrap social housing quotas too. If a developer buys a site for £10 and wants to make £2m profit, let him spread that profit requirement across 10 private houses rather than the 6 or 7 he gets presently = low price aspirations/requirements and more affordable homes for private purchasers.

The crisis isn't the ability to give benefit scrounging wasters a free house/flat, it's the fact that minimum wage workers in this country can't afford their own houses, single parents (mums and dads) can't afford their gaff along with many others (nurses for one.)

Derbymanc wrote:The crisis isn't the ability to give benefit scrounging wasters a free house/flat, it's the fact that minimum wage workers in this country can't afford their own houses, single parents (mums and dads) can't afford their gaff along with many others (nurses for one.)

Right wing mantra ....

Everyone without a job is a scrounger...
Alcoholics don't stop because they like drinking......
Blue collar workers should be grateful for being given work and shouldn't have any rights..
Fat people lack discipline...

Believe me I've been listening to it for it 27 years..

I blame the parents......

Anyone who needs assistance or is not completely self sufficient is a benefit scrounging waster in top hat's world.

Why should someone on minimum wage 'deserve' their own property?

Do you view home ownership as a right not a privilege then??

Rowley wrote:Anyone who needs assistance or is not completely self sufficient is a benefit scrounging waster in top hat's world.

I blame the parents..

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why should someone on minimum wage 'deserve' their own property?

Do you view home ownership as a right not a privilege then??

No I don't but not everyone who doesn't own their own home or is in social housing is a scrounging waster which is what you implied Toppy.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why should someone on minimum wage 'deserve' their own property?

Do you view home ownership as a right not a privilege then??

No I don't view it as a right, but by the same token I don't believe being in a low income job and having few prospects to ever change that, be it through intellectual reasons or a disability should forever consign you to live with your mum and dad forever.

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why should someone on minimum wage 'deserve' their own property?

Do you view home ownership as a right not a privilege then??

No I don't view it as a right, but by the same token I don't believe being in a low income job and having few prospects to ever change that, be it through intellectual reasons or a disability should forever consign you to live with your mum and dad forever.

I'll bet most of the people on the minimum wage work harder than this muppet....

Like I said I blame the parents..

I just don't generally like the demonisation of the under privilidged that seems to be something of a national pass time now. I work with a girl, who is genuinely one of the hardest working people I know, but with the best will in the world is not the brightest, as such, whilst she earns a fair wage for her job she does not earn anything like a lot. Her husband has been diagnosed with a serious, potentially terminal illness so virtually cannot work, the lack of financial assistance available to them is scandalous and they genuinely struggle financially.

Nobody is arguing there are not people who do abuse the benefits system, but for as long as we continue with a narrative of "scroungers, layabouts and drunks" etc we perpetuate a system that lets down countless deserving people.

Maybe society should operate along the lines of boxing. We used to have the Upper, Middle and Working classes. Why not increase the number of "divisons" to avoid lumping everyone in the same boat? Instead of being Toppy's "scrounger", we could have Rowley's girl re-classed as "upper working class" (basically the WBU)

My wife seems to believe she's middle class. She's not and until she learns to correctly pronounce "Grosvenor" nor is she likely to be, in my book

Rowley wrote:I just don't generally like the demonisation of the under privilidged that seems to be something of a national pass time now. I work with a girl, who is genuinely one of the hardest working people I know, but with the best will in the world is not the brightest, as such, whilst she earns a fair wage for her job she does not earn anything like a lot. Her husband has been diagnosed with a serious, potentially terminal illness so virtually cannot work, the lack of financial assistance available to them is scandalous and they genuinely struggle financially.

Nobody is arguing there are not people who do abuse the benefits system, but for as long as we continue with a narrative of "scroungers, layabouts and drunks" etc we perpetuate a system that lets down countless deserving people.

Absolutely................Have no time for people that don't want to work that can..........

But everyone out of work seems to be chucked in that pot.

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why should someone on minimum wage 'deserve' their own property?

Do you view home ownership as a right not a privilege then??

No I don't view it as a right, but by the same token I don't believe being in a low income job and having few prospects to ever change that, be it through intellectual reasons or a disability should forever consign you to live with your mum and dad forever.

Fine, so provide them something on a rental basis closing to their affordability level. That doesn't have any relevance to the 'housing crisis' in terms of affordability of buying one's own home though.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why should someone on minimum wage 'deserve' their own property?

Do you view home ownership as a right not a privilege then??

No I don't view it as a right, but by the same token I don't believe being in a low income job and having few prospects to ever change that, be it through intellectual reasons or a disability should forever consign you to live with your mum and dad forever.

I'll bet most of the people on the minimum wage work harder than this muppet....

Like I said I blame the parents..

Either construct a argument that actually stacks up or stop being such a dumb c.unt

Rowley wrote:I just don't generally like the demonisation of the under privilidged that seems to be something of a national pass time now.

Sits right along side the demonisation of anyone that earns above average salary pretty much.

Success is seen as a perversion or disease by some (jealous/bitter) folk. Like someone should be embarrassed and ashamed that they've done alright for themselves.

I think you'll find the demonisation goes more the other way Toppy.

More affordable housing is needed, renting and buying but just because someone needs to take social/council housing, it doesn't make them a drain on society as a whole. Think that's where people got a bit narked with your statement.

Think we all agree that this right to buy scheme doesn't help things at all.

As to Rowleys point on what could be done, someone pointed out a while back (on some programme about benefits) that if you offer more competetive contracts to build houses, construction firms would need to hire more people creating some more jobs etc etc.

Derbymanc wrote:I think you'll find the demonisation goes more the other way Toppy.

More affordable housing is needed, renting and buying but just because someone needs to take social/council housing, it doesn't make them a drain on society as a whole. Think that's where people got a bit narked with your statement.

Think we all agree that this right to buy scheme doesn't help things at all.

As to Rowleys point on what could be done, someone pointed out a while back (on some programme about benefits) that if you offer more competetive contracts to build houses, construction firms would need to hire more people creating some more jobs etc etc.

Disagree. Don't think there's a problem in the world that hasn't been blamed on 'bankers' (used as a totally generic and underfined tag of hate) in the last 5 years or so. Especially galling when those being demonised foot the majority of the country's tax bill, not soley suck money out of the economy.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Sits right along side the demonisation of anyone that earns above average salary pretty much.

It’s not really a fair or sensible comparison though. If you demonise those with the least in society what can be the policies introduced on the back of this, they would be such things as a reduction in benefits, heating allowances, access or availability to social/subsidised housing. The consequences of this could be that those barely surviving are pushed into real poverty where they have an inability to feed themselves, clothe themselves or their children or live in accommodation that is secure, warm and adequate.

If we demonise the extremely wealthy what policies can this lead to, higher taxation for high earners, the closure of aggressive tax avoidance schemes or non dom statuses. What are the consequences of this, the extremely wealthy becomes slightly less extremely wealthy.

The consequences of the two are hardly comparable in terms of risks really are they.

Unfortunately a lot of people need to take money out of the system due to low wages, high rents, rising food prices, ridiculous energy prices and so on and so forth.

The low paid in this country have become the scapegoats for anyone with a job that doesn't require assistance. Anyone that doesn't own their own house is a scrounger, someone that can't find a job is a scrounger etc etc.

And your still wrong btw, demonisation is very much geared against those benefit scrounging tax money wasting dossers. Look into it a bit more and you'll see that benefits cheats account for a lot less money than you think.


Have a read of this Toppy http://cheezburger.com/8477090816 although it's taken from America it did make me have a think and shifted my stance on benefits a bit. Would be interested to hear what you think about it too.

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Sits right along side the demonisation of anyone that earns above average salary pretty much.

It’s not really a fair or sensible comparison though. If you demonise those with the least in society what can be the policies introduced on the back of this, they would be such things as a reduction in benefits, heating allowances, access or availability to social/subsidised housing. The consequences of this could be that those barely surviving are pushed into real poverty where they have an inability to feed themselves, clothe themselves or their children or live in accommodation that is secure, warm and adequate.

If we demonise the extremely wealthy what policies can this lead to, higher taxation for high earners, the closure of aggressive tax avoidance schemes or non dom statuses. What are the consequences of this, the extremely wealthy becomes slightly less extremely wealthy.

The consequences of the two are hardly comparable in terms of risks really are they.

Great, demonise and attack those who are actually putting something in, more than paying their way, not those shirking responsibility and draining the economy. Completely disincentivise hard work & success. Sounds like great economic policy, sure that'll work out well.

You mean like the big companies like starbucks and amazon paying their taxes???? Or all those tax loopholes for the rich???

Can you explain what you mean by those shirking responsibility and draining the economy too, as I get the feeling your using it as a blanket statement for all of those using benefits?

Shirking responsibility, your ability to emphasise really knows no bounds.

Rowley wrote:Shirking responsibility, your ability to emphasise really knows no bounds.

All unemployed are scum...........
Alcoholics like drinking.........
Fat people lack discipline.....
Minimum wagers should learn to work harder.......
Bankers are great............Subprime was the government's fault...

Wonder why the Tories aren't romping home..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Great, demonise and attack those who are actually putting something in,

Should also add I was not suggesting we demonise either, was pointing out that comparing the two is pretty ridiculous