Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Tories are wrong to fear that Corbyn could become Prime Mi

124»

Comments

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    By that logic why not stop all housing benefit and let's have a couple of million homeless? Obviously, there'd be a couple of million empty homes too but think of the savings!
    love the maths - so well thought out and presented
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    On topic, lest we forget the SNP voted to oust a Labour government and usher in 18 years of Tory rule

    Agreed, and I do not believe they could stand being labelled 'the party that kept the Tories in power'. Lab and LDems would have a field day!
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    By that logic why not stop all housing benefit and let's have a couple of million homeless? Obviously, there'd be a couple of million empty homes too but think of the savings!
    love the maths - so well thought out and presented
    I am sure JRM has got someone working on the precise figures.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    On topic, lest we forget the SNP voted to oust a Labour government and usher in 18 years of Tory rule

    Agreed, and I do not believe they could stand being labelled 'the party that kept the Tories in power'. Lab and LDems would have a field day!
    On current polls it will be the SNP keeping Labour in power
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited January 2018
    HYUFD said:

    On topic, lest we forget the SNP voted to oust a Labour government and usher in 18 years of Tory rule

    Agreed, and I do not believe they could stand being labelled 'the party that kept the Tories in power'. Lab and LDems would have a field day!
    On current polls it will be the SNP keeping Labour in power
    ... which they could sell to their supporters in a way they never could if it were the Tories being kept in power.
  • brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037
    Scott_P said:
    Popcorn time!! Tories tearing themselves part over Europe. Same old record...
  • murali_s said:

    Scott_P said:
    Popcorn time!! Tories tearing themselves part over Europe. Same old record...
    And labour
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
    So just leave the homeless rotting on the streets then Big_G?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    kle4 said:

    chloe said:

    What May has failed to do is bring the two sides together and now the party is in open revolt. It is as if the 48% who voted remain don’t matter and can be ignored. If it was the other way round and remain had narrowly won and ignored the Brexiteers I bet the ulta Brexiteers would be unhappy. There is surely a deal that can be done with the EU that can satisfy most people.

    It has to be done one way or another but on this huge issue both main parties are seriously fractured
    There is no middle ground - Brexit was a binary decision. You either implement it or you don't. That is what May has discovered - however much you waffle you can't ignore that reality. Leaving the EU and staying tied into its rules is not only against the referendum result but pointless. It has none of the advantages of Brexit and all the disadvantages and therefore only pleases the remainers (in part).

    There are only two realistic positions - hard Brexit (eg WTO or Canada plus services) or EEA. There is no logic in anything else. May needed to realise this and pick a side. She can't, so she will be out of office in very short order.
    But no one else can that would get through the HOC. Hard Brexit will not happen
    What matters is what the Hard Brexiteers will do if that is so. It was a guarantee the hard ones would not be happy, but it depends how much they cry about it.
    There are not enough in number
    I agree there aren't enough Hard Brexiteers to defeat a soft Brexit deal in the HoC but there are enough Hard Brexiteer Tories to trigger a leadership election...

    Therein lies TM's challenge (literally!).
    And I expect Tory members and activists - who elect the leader if given the chance - want a hard Brexit. As do the DUP as long as they get a special exemption re the Irish border.

    If May stands down or is removed and someone is elected by members who wants a more robust hard Brexit style deal then Tory MPs will have some thinking to do.
  • HYUFD said:

    On topic, lest we forget the SNP voted to oust a Labour government and usher in 18 years of Tory rule

    Agreed, and I do not believe they could stand being labelled 'the party that kept the Tories in power'. Lab and LDems would have a field day!
    On current polls it will be the SNP keeping Labour in power
    ... which they could sell to their supporters in a way they never could if it were the Tories being kept in power.
    You really know little about the dynamics between the SNP and labour in Scotland. Having lived in Scotland and the borders and have family in the NE the SNP will not help labour
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    By that logic why not stop all housing benefit and let's have a couple of million homeless? Obviously, there'd be a couple of million empty homes too but think of the savings!
    love the maths - so well thought out and presented
    I am sure JRM has got someone working on the precise figures.
    I look forward to seeing them too
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    On topic, lest we forget the SNP voted to oust a Labour government and usher in 18 years of Tory rule

    Agreed, and I do not believe they could stand being labelled 'the party that kept the Tories in power'. Lab and LDems would have a field day!
    On current polls it will be the SNP keeping Labour in power
    ... which they could sell to their supporters in a way they never could if it were the Tories being kept in power.
    The Tories could sell it to their supporters easily too, short of a Tory majority or another Tory-DUP deal a Labour and SNP deal is probably the Tories best result, especially if the Tories win most seats
  • brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
    So just leave the homeless rotting on the streets then Big_G?
    That is not fair Ben. Of course not, the government have already committed to 1.5 billion to the problem and their are lots of local authority schemes presently being rolled out with a target to half the homeless by 2022
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
    It's already happening - want a nice flat with a riverside view in Greenwich? Loads of councils are doing it.

    It's an investment - and they hope the asset will rise it value. And they don't have to pay huge market rents to house families - they house them.

    Presumably your solution is to carry on p*****ng £30 Bn a year up the wall on paying housing benefit to buy to let landlords which is just money down the drain with nothing to show for it at to end. This way they own an asset which appreciates in value - they hope.

    There are a million or more low income families -'and some not so low - living in state owned or funded housing in London. Would you evict them?

    http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2017/11/27/greenwich-council-spend-46-5-million-buying-homes-off-the-open-market/
  • brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
    It's already happening - want a nice flat with a riverside view in Greenwich? Loads of councils are doing it.

    It's an investment - and they hope the asset will rise it value. And they don't have to pay huge market rents to house families - they house them.

    Presumably your solution is to carry on p*****ng £30 Bn a year up the wall on paying housing benefit to buy to let landlords which is just money down the drain with nothing to show for it at to end. This way they own an asset which appreciates in value - they hope.

    There are a million or more low income families -'and some not so low - living in state owned or funded housing in London. Would you evict them?

    http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2017/11/27/greenwich-council-spend-46-5-million-buying-homes-off-the-open-market/


    So you are saying that London LA are speculating on property values while subsidising low rents for their tenants
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    It’ll be worth every penny.

    I saw a study a while back that found a significant proportion of the homeless were ex military/have mental health issues.

    I think Corbyn honouring the military covenant is great.

    Gavin Williamson take note.
    It only works if you back it all up with a lot of support services. And there is nothing about any of that in Corbyn's attempted populist guff of today.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Scott_P said:
    So what? They can’t stop the legislation from passing. Support for independence is diminishing.

    This is a non-story.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    chloe said:

    What May has failed to do is bring the two sides together and now the party is in open revolt. It is as if the 48% who voted remain don’t matter and can be ignored. If it was the other way round and remain had narrowly won and ignored the Brexiteers I bet the ulta Brexiteers would be unhappy. There is surely a deal that can be done with the EU that can satisfy most people.

    It has to be done one way or another but on this huge issue both main parties are seriously fractured
    There is no middle ground - Brexit was a binary decision. You either implement it or you don't. That is what May has discovered - however much you waffle you can't ignore that reality. Leaving the EU and staying tied into its rules is not only against the referendum result but pointless. It has none of the advantages of Brexit and all the disadvantages and therefore only pleases the remainers (in part).

    There are only two realistic positions - hard Brexit (eg WTO or Canada plus services) or EEA. There is no logic in anything else. May needed to realise this and pick a side. She can't, so she will be out of office in very short order.
    But no one else can that would get through the HOC. Hard Brexit will not happen
    What matters is what the Hard Brexiteers will do if that is so. It was a guarantee the hard ones would not be happy, but it depends how much they cry about it.
    There are not enough in number
    Not enough for what? They can certainly cause all manner of trouble for the Tories. They presumably know they do not have the numbers to implement the hardest of hard visions, no more than Clarke and company can turn back the clock and prevent Brexit (if that is to happen, it would be off the back of something far more than a few Tory rebels), but if they believe enough, and several would appear to, they would not be above holing the Tory boat below the waterline, intentionally or not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    So what? They can’t stop the legislation from passing. Support for independence is diminishing.

    This is a non-story.
    Unionists should never take such a cavalier approach to independence however, not after how close they have already come once, though I certainly hope you are right.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2018


    'So you are saying that London LA are speculating on property values while subsidising low rents for their tenants'

    A large proportion of our current housing stock exists because local and central government 'speculated' in the housing market by building housing. It was called council housing and it was generally far superior in quality than most of the cheap rubbish being thrown up today by developers.

    Because owning an asset longer term is generally cheaper than renting as you actually have something to show for your money rather than nearly £30bn a year being p****d up the wall on housing benefit as we have been doing for 15 years or more.

    Councils are being forced to sell properties via right to buy - but poor people still need housing. They are often capital rich these days but revenue poor. So they are putting their capital receipts to good use - to cut revenue spending long term.

    What is your answer - let low income Londoners (many of whom work) all sleep rough and carry on throwing away £30bn a year in housing benefit with nothing to show for it or export them up north (who will collect the rubbish and clean the streets then)? Cos that current policy has worked well so far hasn't it?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    kle4 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    So what? They can’t stop the legislation from passing. Support for independence is diminishing.

    This is a non-story.
    Unionists should never take such a cavalier approach to independence however, not after how close they have already come once, though I certainly hope you are right.
    I went up to Scotland to campaign for the Union. I don’t think you can reasonably accuse me of being cavalier on Scottish independence.

    The SNP thrive on attention and pushing the boundaries of the constitution. I don’t think they should get away with either.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited January 2018

    brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
    So just leave the homeless rotting on the streets then Big_G?
    That is not fair Ben. Of course not, the government have already committed to 1.5 billion to the problem and their are lots of local authority schemes presently being rolled out with a target to half the homeless by 2022
    I apologise Big_G but your stance does seem a little heartless to me.

    In the towns and cities I visit regularly the rise in rough sleepers over the past few years has been really noticeable - and the official stats support that view. You rail at the £1.8bn cost of Corbyn's proposal but then tell me the Government are spending £1.5bn anyway. What are they going to spend it on if not housing?

    It shocks me that in the 5th richest country in the world, so many people seem to have no option but to sleep rough.

    PS TSE's point about many rough sleepers being ex-service people is true - a friend of mine is on the board of a charity supporting homeless ex-services people and whilst they do all they can there are far too many for them to help.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Will we get an announcement tomorrow that Brady has 48 signatures?
  • brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000

    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?

    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.


    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
    So just leave the homeless rotting on the streets then Big_G?
    That is not fair Ben. Of course not, the government have already committed to 1.5 billion to the problem and their are lots of local authority schemes presently being rolled out with a target to half the homeless by 2022
    I apologise Big_G but your stance does seem a little heartless to me.

    In the towns and cities I visit regularly the rise in rough sleepers over the past few years has been really noticeable - and the official stats support that view. You rail at the £1.8bn cost of Corbyn's proposal but then tell me the Government are spending £1.5bn anyway. What are they going to spend it on if not housing?

    It shocks me that in the 5th richest country in the world, so many people seem to have no option but to sleep rough.

    PS TSE's point about many rough sleepers being ex-service people is true - a friend of mine is on the board of a charity supporting homeless ex-services people and whilst they do all they can there are far too many for them to help.
    Homelessness is a serious problem throughout the west. Vancouver is experiencing a nightmare of a problem but it is multi faceted and needs a lot more than Corbyn's ill thought through idea. The issue with drug and alcohol abuse is immense together with the breakdown of relationships.

    If funds were put into refuges where the various social services needed were available then that is money welll spent. Corbyn's idea of buyng luxury properties is just populist nonsense

  • GIN1138 said:

    Will we get an announcement tomorrow that Brady has 48 signatures?

    No
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    GIN1138 said:

    Will we get an announcement tomorrow that Brady has 48 signatures?

    No
    I'm not sure.

    Theresa was always going to be fine as long as she honoured Brexit but now she's in the midst of betraying Brexit I think the Brexiteers will pull the plug...
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    If you had just bought one of those £500k flats in a so-called luxury development, would you be happy for comrade Corbyn to requisition 20 of them and give them to drug addicted Romanian tramps? You would be spitting as many feathers as anyone else!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited January 2018

    FF43 said:



    I think May is OK on that. In fact it strengthens her position. The "transition" is take it or leave it. There's nothing to discuss. There is no way on earth we can leave it. It means total collapse of our trading system in twelve months time. Anyone who challenges May on that will be seen as extreme as Robespierre.

    You obviously work on the basis that if you make a grand and melodramatic statement ('total collapse of our trading system') then it absolves you of actually making an argument.

    A move to WTO rules in 12 months will be disruptive, due to the lack of preparation, but still manageable. As I have said repeatedly, we already trade on WTO terms so all customs need to do is increase their ability to manage volume. It is not in any way uncharted territory.

    And, of course, you imply that it would result in the 'total collapse' of the UK trading system whilst the EU will just carry on as before. Even though they are the ones with the huge trade surplus. Unlikely. If there is damage from a 'crash out' it would be evenly spread, so if you think the EU are prepared to take this risk ('take it or leave it') then clearly they don't think that it will be all that damaging either.

    The problem is not the transition deal - it is the fact that the EU are not going to agree anything on a trade deal this side of the A50 agreement. Therefore those who are actually analysing the situation (eg JRM) realise that the transition will be for nothing - we will be in exactly the same situation in 2 years time with another cliff edge approaching but not 40bn poorer. So logically it probably makes sense to take the pain now and keep the money.
    You're right in your analysis that the "transition" simply moves the cliff edge out by twenty months. I may have been slightly hyperbolic about the impossibility of rejecting the transition. But not much. The transition is going ahead as is.

    Mrs May is in a predicament. She can't tell her warring factions the truth. Brexit can't be stopped ; neither can it be delivered.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited January 2018
    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.
  • HHemmelig said:

    brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    If you had just bought one of those £500k flats in a so-called luxury development, would you be happy for comrade Corbyn to requisition 20 of them and give them to drug addicted Romanian tramps? You would be spitting as many feathers as anyone else!
    Labour back tracking tonight. The homeless will now be accelerated up the Housing Association queue
  • Barnesian said:

    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.

    Well if we do not leave Corbyn's nationalisation and state aid policies are in the bin
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Barnesian said:

    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.

    Tremendous value. Hope PBers keep topping up. DYOR!
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840


    I was specifically referring to the age sitting MP's die at in reference to their background (as very much a side point to the main point I was making)

    If you really believe there is a significant different in the background of Labour MPs as opposed to Tory MPs, then I think you are wrong.

    Maybe 30 years ago. But not now.
    In reference to the ones who died, so we aren't talking 40 year olds here, yes.

    If we are talking the average MP then no, but we weren't, we were talking about MPs who died, who generally are a lot older and generally started their career a long time ago.

    Maybe even longer than say... 30 years ago.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2018
    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.

    Tremendous value. Hope PBers keep topping up. DYOR!
    I think the likelihood BF voids that market is quite high.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    You guys are over thinking it. The next election will be a narrow win for the most anti Brexit party. Probably Labour but possibly the Tories. Either one could be led by Jimmy Savile exhumed and re-animated in a Dalek body à la Davros for all the difference it will make.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2018
    HHemmelig said:

    brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    If you had just bought one of those £500k flats in a so-called luxury development, would you be happy for comrade Corbyn to requisition 20 of them and give them to drug addicted Romanian tramps? You would be spitting as many feathers as anyone else!
    Kensington and Chelsea council have bought flats in a plush development in the borough worth millions to house Grenfell survivors. If you had spent £2m on a flat - maybe using £2m you inherited from Your gran - would you be happy to see others living there rent free? Or maybe you might think they need a home too?

    That is the nature of London - I am afraid. You could be paying down a £500k mortgage near me to live next door to Anjem Choudhary's family who will be staying there rent free while their hate preacher dad is in jail. Life isn't fair - but you will own your property one day and those drug addicted tra,ps won't.

    Try Godalming or Saffron Walden if you want to avoid poor people!
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2018
    This is why you pay yer license fee;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

    Top notch analysis.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    John_M said:

    Charles said:

    Just heard on Radio 4 that Rees Mogg invented the term BINO last week? Am sure it’s been used on here for ages?

    I think our very own @SouthamObserver coined it.
    @Morris_Dancer used it on August 17 2016 and from context it had been coined prior. http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1231931/#Comment_1231931

    The term is an obvious derivation of RINO, a term many of us are familiar with for many years now. For JRM to be credited with the coinage last week is ludicrous. I assume he does not claim it personally.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Pong said:

    This is why you pay yer license fee;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

    Top notch analysis.

    Possibly, but we already knew it was due to a bulge in 35-45yrolds voting Labour, not 18-28s. Although it's nice to see it explicitly stated, thank you.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Pong said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.

    Tremendous value. Hope PBers keep topping up. DYOR!
    I think the likelihood BF voids that market is quite high.
    I'm more than happy to accept that the UK will leave in 2019, but I can easily see it being delayed by a few days/weeks for some stupid reason. So not sure what to do with this.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    viewcode said:

    Pong said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.

    Tremendous value. Hope PBers keep topping up. DYOR!
    I think the likelihood BF voids that market is quite high.
    I'm more than happy to accept that the UK will leave in 2019, but I can easily see it being delayed by a few days/weeks for some stupid reason. So not sure what to do with this.

    I would have thought the chances of a short delay - as in four to eight weeks - are quite high. Given the large number of corporate and governmental structures that currently lean on the EU to some extent, then - even assuming a transition period - there will need to be certainty that they are all consistent.

    (Otherwise PWC will be making out like bandits on advising firms of how to take advantage of hastily written law on avoiding double taxation, for example. And tax is just one example: regulation of medicines, rules of origin, etc etc etc.)


  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pong said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.

    Tremendous value. Hope PBers keep topping up. DYOR!
    I think the likelihood BF voids that market is quite high.
    I'm more than happy to accept that the UK will leave in 2019, but I can easily see it being delayed by a few days/weeks for some stupid reason. So not sure what to do with this.

    I would have thought the chances of a short delay - as in four to eight weeks - are quite high. Given the large number of corporate and governmental structures that currently lean on the EU to some extent, then - even assuming a transition period - there will need to be certainty that they are all consistent.

    (Otherwise PWC will be making out like bandits on advising firms of how to take advantage of hastily written law on avoiding double taxation, for example. And tax is just one example: regulation of medicines, rules of origin, etc etc etc.)


    You may be right. I'm getting a bit worried that we are leaving things rather late, and speculation about deposing May or a 2018 GE is not helping matters. We really do not have time to f**k around now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pong said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Last price matched on Betfair that UK will leave the EU by 29 March 2019 is 2.92.

    48 hours ago it was 2.40.

    Tremendous value. Hope PBers keep topping up. DYOR!
    I think the likelihood BF voids that market is quite high.
    I'm more than happy to accept that the UK will leave in 2019, but I can easily see it being delayed by a few days/weeks for some stupid reason. So not sure what to do with this.

    I would have thought the chances of a short delay - as in four to eight weeks - are quite high. Given the large number of corporate and governmental structures that currently lean on the EU to some extent, then - even assuming a transition period - there will need to be certainty that they are all consistent.

    (Otherwise PWC will be making out like bandits on advising firms of how to take advantage of hastily written law on avoiding double taxation, for example. And tax is just one example: regulation of medicines, rules of origin, etc etc etc.)


    You may be right. I'm getting a bit worried that we are leaving things rather late, and speculation about deposing May or a 2018 GE is not helping matters. We really do not have time to f**k around now.
    Gordon Bennett!!!! Leaving things a bit late!! We're fiddling while Rome burns! It was patently obvious during the campaign that no-one had the slightest idea what would ACTUALLY happen if we were daft enough to vote leave and it's equally obvious that the DExEU still doesn't, although t some of the staff...... not the SoS...... might be getting a bit better idea now.
    And, as you rightly say, messing about with who does what is inviting, at best Customs Posts at Calais and long queues at Palma Airport!
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238

    brendan16 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sky have just costed Corbyns 8,000 house purchase for the homeless at 1.8 billion but no worries someone else will pay

    So not much more than the deal Theresa did with the DUP to keep her in power when she lost Cameron’s majority, is how the public will see it.
    And the Housing Benefit on 8000 houses, mainly in London?
    And the fairness when hard working families cannot afford to live in London but the homeless in London will be given their home and the tax payers, lots of whom are the same hard working families, pay their tax towards the cost
    What we are talking about here is the compulsory purchase or requisition of empty homes that are housing NO ONE.

    It is rumoured that up to half of recently built new build flats are sitting unsold as there aren't enough people willing or who can afford to spend £500K on a One bed flat in Bow! We can't afford housing simply going to waste and being hoarded by speculators.

    The current arrangements are not working for rough sleepers, the homeless or ordinary working families.
    I am sure if you told the population that luxury homes in London are to be compulsory purchased and given to the homeless at the tax payers expense they would raise a glass to the idea
    So just leave the homeless rotting on the streets then Big_G?
    That is not fair Ben. Of course not, the government have already committed to 1.5 billion to the problem and their are lots of local authority schemes presently being rolled out with a target to half the homeless by 2022
    That's a lot of saws.
  • VinnyVinny Posts: 48
    Even without having a majority, Labour can form a government. Dont forget that the Conservatives will have the supportb of the Northern Irish, while Labour everyone else, including the SNP, Greens, LiDems. Its better for Labour than your analysis suggests
This discussion has been closed.