the snap general election thread

lovinituk

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

Even if you were forced to lay people off, surely their well-being would be of concern to you - I know it would worry me sick - perhaps that's why I never went into business

Yes, you're right, perhaps I didn't word it very well. Of course I would be concerned about the individuals. What I was alluding to was that I wouldn't feel as though it was my fault that it had come to that situation.

lovinituk

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Hard to say, mainly on the first bit.

Assuming the deal with the Divil is done, so the Tories get their working majority of 9 (2 plus the empty Sinn Fein seats) and that all other members want to overturn them, it depends on how good they are at getting every single one of those MPs into the commons and through the vote compared to how good the various others are at doing the same.

It doesn't take too many people over-indulging at lunchtime in the subsidised bar to swing that either way. Or a nasty summer flue bug, or any number of other hings that might result in less than 10% voting.

Assuming they don't get the speech passed, the same applies for Labour except that there are a hell of a lot of Tories with exceedingly slim majorities who might just decide that a few years on the opposition benches is preferable to finding a real job.

In fact, Party HQ might even decide that tactically they'd rather have a minority Labour government to potentially screw things up than go back to the people and, just possibly, risk a Foot magnitude wipe-out of their own with the current mood.

Makes sense. Thank you.

Joe_Horner

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

No mention I think of John Major's concern over the Tories 'liason' with the DUP. Never been a fan of Major, but today I thought he spoke a lot of sense.

Funnily enough, he's one of the (very) few recent Tories who might have actually got my vote. If he'd stuck around after '97 I could well have ticked the Tory box in 2001.

Although, the revelations of an affair with Ms Salmonella did change my opinion slightly...

hallmark

masterwilde wrote: »

the conservatives are not happy at present and its rumoured that enough of them might vote against anything May does

"its rumoured" haha.

Patent nonsense spread by Corbyn's desperate Momentum lot. Although feel free to back it up with some provenence.

bobbymotors

Joe_Horner wrote: »

When it comes to necessities - I assume you accept that a habitable roof over your head is a necessity in a civilised society - the market can only act fairly if supply is sufficient to meet the basic standards. The market can then operate freely and fairly for "upgrades"

But if supply at a basic quality doesn't meet demand then those with the supply become free to extort. The UK rental market is not only at a point where supply at a basic quality doesn't meet demand, it's kept that way (to some extent) by developers intentionally withholding property to limit supply.

The situation is then compounded by the duty placed on local authorities and housing associations to base their rents on the local "market price" which means that, by artificially inflating the cos of an essential commodity, the "free market" can force those who should be in a position to provide balance to follow suit.

Yes it is a neccesity: but there are too few houses and too many people at the moment.

MOST landlords do not extort though...they rent at market price...and it is always the case that a rental property priced too high will not rent out. It won't, that's how markets work.

The market will level out over time, because markets always do. When something is in short supply, it will become more plentiful as the supply increases or demand is curtailed due to the high price demanded. It's exactly the reason why house prices are so high: demand from suppliers of accommodation, ie Landlords.

However, at some point, which may well already have been reached, supply outstrips demand and the price falls. There are many BTL landlords that believe BTL was a one way road to riches and have paid too much for property. Do I feel sorry for them? Not a bit, I'm old enough and wise enough to know there is no one way road to riches.

On the other hand, do I feel sorry for someone that can't pay their rent? Well, in truth, yes I do, but I still believe it's correct that a landlord can evict them and get a return from a new tenant on the money that they risked by buying the property.

The market will balance - even maybe go the other way - at some point: that's what markets do. But in the meantime, rents are high people are struggling. That's life.

Arklight

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Or dear labour

UKIP have no purpose any more

SNP can get back in their little single issue box which affects a minority of the UK

A great move by May IMO

Will give the tories the majority they need to crack on with sorting the defecit and managing Brexit (whether support it or not it needs doing)

So funny that since this bunch of complete cobblers was posted, the Tories on the forum are still pontificating as if they have even the faintest idea what's going on.

I'm glad they all appear to have stopped giving out betting tips anyway.

BobQ

hallmark wrote: »

"its rumoured" haha.

Patent nonsense spread by Corbyn's desperate Momentum lot. Although feel free to back it up with some provenence.

Of course you have "some provenance" that it was Momentum? Not just spreading unsubstantiated rumour?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

lovinituk wrote: »

Why should I? As I said I work bloody hard and am directly responsible for tens of thousands of pounds of tax going to the government. Why should it cost me more personally if corporation tax went up?

Indeed.

It would be a bit like the objector here being asked to pay for the right to work for their employer - do I hear someone say "Oh now I get it."?

buglawton

Chrysalis wrote: »

Yeah I perhaps dont know all the reasons, I just know its not working.



It can be bucked which is why some things get regulated.

e.g. voice lines from BT are regulated.
water is regulated
it looks like electric/gas is soon to be regulated

When something is deemed as essential then it can be regulated, or state controlled.

So what happens to the supply and demand if we add say 1 million council built homes to the rental market, would you still consider it fair?

If things carry on as they are then we heading for a mess, something will give at some point basically when the amount of people made homeless gets too large to be kept out of the news.
Various countries already regulate rent as well.

You have incorrectly attributed Bobymotors post to me! I'd appreciate it corrected.

BobQ

hallmark wrote: »

Yay! You've stated it perfectly :T:T:T:T

That's why we'll have a Conservative Minority Government.

Glad you're so on board with it.

In the present circumstances any form of Government will find it difficult to do much good fir the economy but will probably take the blame for anything which goes wrong the longer things go on.

May's alleged statement that austerity is over is a good indication of her predicament. She will forget all she said previously and do some spending. JC would do the same in reverse.