46 minutes ago, DandV said:

"First safe place" is obviously the closest places to the conflict, so the most vulnerable to the conflict spreading even if they have nill involvement in stirring the pot, stoking the fire, and actually providing the fuel, the armaments, in the conflict. 

It is grossly immoral, and irresponsible to facilitate off shore conflicts, and then refuse any responsibility for the casualties.

This moral dissonance is not lost on the victims and is large contributor to radicalisation. Something we pay for. 

 

 

Exactly this. 

 

Now, we've had two of the usual nonsense responses by Farage's disciples - (1) how come they're all young men (2) how come they didn't stop in the first safe place 

Number 3 is usually "why don't you house these immigrants if you care so much"

These people are so predictable. Fortunately the tide is turning, I always believed in the British public.

9 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You kind of miss the point. At the moment there is all of this fuss over immigrants but as our population demographics change towards more retirees and less workers, we are going to need those immigrants. Even Reform and Restore admit the problem (under their breath) because both parties want to promote an increase in the native birth rate even though those born now wont be entering the employment market for a decade and a half at least (perhaps we should revert to employing children?). The fact is that we don't want to be 'giving' our immigrant to China because we need them ourselves (or else the NHS will simply collapse).

 

As a post further above indicates, it is very much a diversionary approach from the true parasites in this country, which would be the billionaires. If we have an economy that is barely growing and yet the wealth of these parasites continues to rise, who do you think are the one's losing out? They are desperate to find a scapegoat (immigrants) otherwise when people realise just how much they are screwing us over it might be the time for flaming torches and pitchforks 

Whilst here in Wales we have stopped medical university courses due to no jobs for them so why do the NHS need immigration 

Not all jobs, or vacancies in the NHS are for doctors. In fact most are not. https://www.stepintothenhs.nhs.uk/careers

There is social care too, which is now largely done by people not born in the UK. In years to come, it might be an immigrant with the job of wiping your bum. Unless you'd prefer a robot? 

1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Not all jobs, or vacancies in the NHS are for doctors. In fact most are not. https://www.stepintothenhs.nhs.uk/careers

There is social care too, which is now largely done by people not born in the UK. In years to come, it might be an immigrant with the job of wiping your bum. Unless you'd prefer a robot? 

Well at least it would be a white robot... 😉 

 

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Well at least it would be a white robot... 😉 

 

But built in China. 

 

Or is that Bot built in China?

 

Stoke on Trent would make robots out of china. 

8 hours ago, Ange said:

 

Now, we've had two of the usual nonsense responses by Farage's disciples - (1) how come they're all young men (2) how come they didn't stop in the first safe place 

Number 3 is usually "why don't you house these immigrants if you care so much"

These people are so predictable. Fortunately the tide is turning, I always believed in the British public.

Ange, interested on your views on housing the immigrants... do you agree with current policy/whats occuring or what else would you like to see happening?

44 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

Ange, interested on your views on housing the immigrants... do you agree with current policy/whats occuring or what else would you like to see happening?

 

I suspect Ange, like myself, would like to see a massive increase in the building of council (I really do mean council, not Housing Association) homes, so the bottom drops out of the private rental market. Even if there was some way to find the money, labour, and materials, it won't happen because vested interests would put a stop to it one way or another. It would also help if the major developers were forced to build simple two and three bedroom semis and terraces, rather than 4 plus bedroom mansions. That would help everyone needing affordable housing, not just the immigrants. It would not hurt to force empty office blocks to be turned into decent flats.

5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suspect Ange, like myself, would like to see a massive increase in the building of council (I really do mean council, not Housing Association) homes, so the bottom drops out of the private rental market. Even if there was some way to find the money, labour, and materials, it won't happen because vested interests would put a stop to it one way or another. It would also help if the major developers were forced to build simple two and three bedroom semis and terraces, rather than 4 plus bedroom mansions. That would help everyone needing affordable housing, not just the immigrants. It would not hurt to force empty office blocks to be turned into decent flats.

Thanks Tony

 

so currently we have a broken system of dealing with the numbers/applications etc.... is it right to keep accepting the numbers, or is it best to halt until we have the capacity and processes to deal with them?  Which is more humane?

1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Stoke on Trent would make robots out of china.

 

That might come in handy when the robot uprising inevitably begins,

7 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suspect Ange, like myself, would like to see a massive increase in the building of council (I really do mean council, not Housing Association) homes, so the bottom drops out of the private rental market. Even if there was some way to find the money, labour, and materials, it won't happen because vested interests would put a stop to it one way or another. It would also help if the major developers were forced to build simple two and three bedroom semis and terraces, rather than 4 plus bedroom mansions. That would help everyone needing affordable housing, not just the immigrants. It would not hurt to force empty office blocks to be turned into decent flats.

Agreed with one HUGE caviat. We must first and foremost house everyone who is already here, many of who have been years waiting and I mean everybody. Peeps must get well pissed off seeing people rock up unnanounced many with hidden identities that end up in accommodation. Of course not everyone wants this. 

11 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Agreed with one HUGE caviat. We must first and foremost house everyone who is already here, many of who have been years waiting and I mean everybody. Peeps must get well pissed off seeing people rock up unnanounced many with hidden identities that end up in accommodation. Of course not everyone wants this. 

A massive increase in social housing at affordable rent, rather than for profit even. 

 

14 minutes ago, alias said:

 

That might come in handy when the robot uprising inevitably begins,

A smashing idea. 

18 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

Thanks Tony

 

so currently we have a broken system of dealing with the numbers/applications etc.... is it right to keep accepting the numbers, or is it best to halt until we have the capacity and processes to deal with them?  Which is more humane?

How would you halt the numbers? Successive governments have been trying that for decades. The people arriving, over which they have minimal control happens before an application for asylum is made. The other way round would be to put more resources into the processing applications phase. The bit governments have direct and near immediate control over. That way, they are either sent back, or earning a living and paying tax quicker. 

23 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

A massive increase in social housing at affordable rent, rather than for profit even. 

 

A smashing idea. 

How would you halt the numbers? Successive governments have been trying that for decades. The people arriving, over which they have minimal control happens before an application for asylum is made. The other way round would be to put more resources into the processing applications phase. The bit governments have direct and near immediate control over. That way, they are either sent back, or earning a living and paying tax quicker. 

Halting the numbers is easy and has been proved to work in the past -- sink the boats, machine-gun the occupants either before or after they're in the water.

 

Problem solved -- they sure wouldn't come back again, and neither would any new immigrant scum. Job done... 🙂 

 

Though it has to be pointed out that the usually-Fascist dictators who employed such tactics often came to a sticky end, as did their supporters... 😞 

Edited August 13Aug 13 by IanD

55 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suspect Ange, like myself, would like to see a massive increase in the building of council (I really do mean council, not Housing Association) homes, so the bottom drops out of the private rental market. Even if there was some way to find the money, labour, and materials, it won't happen because vested interests would put a stop to it one way or another. It would also help if the major developers were forced to build simple two and three bedroom semis and terraces, rather than 4 plus bedroom mansions. That would help everyone needing affordable housing, not just the immigrants. It would not hurt to force empty office blocks to be turned into decent flats.

Massively agree with you on this one. Relying on the Private Sector to supply social housing simply doesn't work (as the last 4 decades have conclusively proven). It isn't in the interests of them to flood the market with cheap homes, there is less profit in a cheaper home and to flood the market with cheaper homes would crash house prices, neither of which the private housebuilder would like to see. What they want is to do is continue to build 'Superior Homes' that give them a higher return. They are not there for your benefit, my benefit, or the benefit of society as a whole, they are there exclusively for the benefit of their shareholders.

 

It could be done, after all Woking Council were permitted to spaff away £2billion 'investing' in the commercial property market (now with their fingers roundly burnt), how much better would it have been to invest that money in the residential housing market. We managed to build thousands of council houses just after the war when we were massively in debt to the US, so the argument that "We don't have the money" really doesn't wash. The money could be found if they tried (it is an investment in something that gives a return) what is lacking is the will to do so.

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

Though it has to be pointed out that the usually-Fascist dictators who employed such tactics often came to a sticky end, as did their supporters... 😞

That's the thing about getting rid of all those pesky human rights laws. You feel great because now the authorities can crack down on the untermensch. You experience the rush from righteous wrath being visited by proxy upon those who richly deserve it. Unfortunately, next week, the authorities are wielding it on you, because you are in the way and they can. Now there are no protections you can use. There is a very good, purely selfish argument for keeping human rights laws, without having to invoke any namby pamby feelings and empathy arguments, valid though those are. 

11 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

It could be done, after all Woking Council were permitted to spaff away £2billion 'investing' in the commercial property market (now with their fingers roundly burnt), how much better would it have been to invest that money in the residential housing market.

 

Which tends to have steady long term returns because people need housing and not being subject to the vagaries of the commercial sector such as those caused by COVID (Working from home), home shopping and so on. 

 

I think linking planning consent to the need to pay council tax/business rates would help facilitate getting building completed faster. Say, zero for the first year after outline planning permission, increasing by 20% a year unlimited until firm planning permission is granted, then the same procedure until the building is fully occupied, all based on what would be payable on the properties if built. If flat developers found they were faced with 200% of council tax minus what any resident are paying and looking at 210% next year it might make sense for them to let at a lower rate, just to fill the development. 

12 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Which tends to have steady long term returns because people need housing and not being subject to the vagaries of the commercial sector such as those caused by COVID (Working from home), home shopping and so on. 

 

I think linking planning consent to the need to pay council tax/business rates would help facilitate getting building completed faster. Say, zero for the first year after outline planning permission, increasing by 20% a year unlimited until firm planning permission is granted, then the same procedure until the building is fully occupied, all based on what would be payable on the properties if built. If flat developers found they were faced with 200% of council tax minus what any resident are paying and looking at 210% next year it might make sense for them to let at a lower rate, just to fill the development. 

Anything that encourages/forces more building of lower-cost housing by any means possible has to be a winner for Joe Public.

 

The problem is that it's also a loser for the private sector housebuilders and their shareholders, and they have much more influence on Government policy (lobbying, party funding, dire threats to leave the UK...) than Joe Public does... 😞 

Edited August 13Aug 13 by IanD

3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suspect Ange, like myself, would like to see a massive increase in the building of council (I really do mean council, not Housing Association) homes, so the bottom drops out of the private rental market. Even if there was some way to find the money, labour, and materials, it won't happen because vested interests would put a stop to it one way or another. It would also help if the major developers were forced to build simple two and three bedroom semis and terraces, rather than 4 plus bedroom mansions. That would help everyone needing affordable housing, not just the immigrants. It would not hurt to force empty office blocks to be turned into decent flats.

If developers built more bungalows, old people would move out of their family homes thus freeing up more family houses.

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

If developers built more bungalows, old people would move out of their family homes thus freeing up more family houses.

The problem with bungalows is that they cost more (land and construction costs) for a given floor area than a multi-story house, which in turn costs more than a block of flats -- and also lower density (people per m2) is going the wrong way given the shortage of building land in the UK.

4 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Agreed with one HUGE caviat. We must first and foremost house everyone who is already here, many of who have been years waiting and I mean everybody. Peeps must get well pissed off seeing people rock up unnanounced many with hidden identities that end up in accommodation. Of course not everyone wants this. 

How about we stop all state pensions (is it three you collect?) until everyone is housed, in order to pay for it?

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

If developers built more bungalows, old people would move out of their family homes thus freeing up more family houses.

definately more bungalows and also incentives to downsize.... why would somone on their own in a 3 bed house downsize to a bungalow and pay £20k for the priviledge in various fees/taxes?  we are in this position, although two of us in a house thats too big.....

2 hours ago, Tacet said:

How about we stop all state pensions (is it three you collect?) until everyone is housed, in order to pay for it?

I do not see anyone getting three state pensions I get one as per usual. I get a job pension and a private pension as I worked my arse off and contributed to both from feb 1971 to august 2021, if more people tried work over fifty year periods then the country would be in a much better place 👍 

2 hours ago, robtheplod said:

definately more bungalows and also incentives to downsize.... why would somone on their own in a 3 bed house downsize to a bungalow and pay £20k for the priviledge in various fees/taxes?  we are in this position, although two of us in a house thats too big.....

Bungalows don't make sense given cost and density, when what is needed (given land shortages) is denser cheaper housing.

 

IIRC one of the proposals is to remove the "tax on moving" (stamp duty) to encourage mobility/downsizing and maybe also council tax (regressive) and replace this with a per-year land/value tax like many countries use. This would also be more progressive, those with big/expensive properties would pay more than now (a lot more for *very* big ones!), those with smaller/cheaper ones would pay the same as now or less.

 

Hmm, I wonder where the objections to that are going to come from? 😉 

Edited August 13Aug 13 by IanD

2 hours ago, robtheplod said:

definately more bungalows and also incentives to downsize.... why would somone on their own in a 3 bed house downsize to a bungalow and pay £20k for the priviledge in various fees/taxes?  we are in this position, although two of us in a house thats too big.....

We just massively downsized, its like being back on a boat 🤣 and you are right, its cost us many thousands in dead money

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Bungalows don't make sense given cost and density, when what is needed (given land shortages) is denser cheaper housing.

 

IIRC one of the proposals is to remove the "tax on moving" (stamp duty) to encourage mobility/downsizing and maybe also council tax (regressive) and replace this with a per-year land/value tax like many countries use. This would also be more progressive, those with big/expensive properties would pay more than now (a lot more for *very* big ones!), those with smaller/cheaper ones would pay the same as now or less.

 

Hmm, I wonder where the objections to that are going to come from? 😉 

I think I'd be happy with that mainly because it would exert a slight downward pressure on property values, which is what is sorely needed. Instead of bragging about how much their property has gone up in value (and therefore liable for more tax) they might try and talk down the value. It might even encourage the building of smaller properties, which is what is needed, rather than these 'Superior Homes' that generate the most profit for housebuilders but doesn't do much for the housing shortage.