Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Why should my taxes be used to build houses for people I don't want here? I know I have no option but I'm just wondering.
I would rather affordable housing was build rather than the Bekingham Palaces that seem to be the standard fare of developers today outside of cities. Only one of my three kids have managed to buy their own homes and that was after moving to Cardiff.Why should my taxes be used to build houses for people I don't want here? I know I have no option but I'm just wondering.
Because otherwise they would be homeless.Why should my taxes be used to build houses for people I don't want here? I know I have no option but I'm just wondering.
They can go home, I really don't care.Because otherwise they would be homeless.
You'd probably care a bit more if you noticed the number of immigrants working e.g. for the NHS at every level; about 20%.They can go home, I really don't care.
Council house building also gave us the joys of pre-cast reinforced concrete, high rise, streets in the sky, estates built to low quality standards on the edge of towns with poor links etc. Many now demolished as failing structurally or fundamentally flawed design and execution.Surely a contradiction in terms?
You've got it completely upside down. Council house building was highly successful but Thatcherite ideologues said private sector could do it better. Private sector failed completely and left us with a housing crisis.
New Labour did even worse and de-regulated mortgage lending limits.
https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/
If you smell crackling it's crashedWouldn’t that be a good thing to see. Oh something pink just flew past my window
Thatcher bought votes plain and simple no other agenda there was a report written pre the policy which concluded at the time council house tenants 2:1 voted labour, owner occupiers 2:1 torySurely a contradiction in terms?
You've got it completely upside down. Council house building was highly successful but Thatcherite ideologues said private sector could do it better. Private sector failed completely and left us with a housing crisis.
New Labour did even worse and de-regulated mortgage lending limits.
https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/
Private enterprise has failed to provide the necessary. Why do you think this is?Council house building also gave us the joys of pre-cast reinforced concrete, high rise, streets in the sky, estates built to low quality standards on the edge of towns with poor links etc. Many now demolished as failing structurally or fundamentally flawed design and execution.
Pre-fabs were actually a good idea to meet a short term need, but still in use 30+ years later.
Many parts of the country with the greatest levels of social deprivation and poverty are in areas where council house building dominated. Whether due to the folk that live there, or design and location of the developments limiting access to jobs, infrastructure etc is debatable.
But to assert that council housing was highly successful is a nonsense. It met a short term need post war for slum clearance and housing for those displaced by conflict. At best a judgement would now rate that which was achieved as very variable - some excellent, a lot woeful.
Only becuase our governments over the years have made it that way. 300,000 + immigrants working in the NHS? We imported four times that last year.You'd probably care a bit more if you noticed the number of immigrants working e.g. for the NHS at every level; about 20%.
They are desperately needed there and elsewhere.
Nah, just go private and get a better service.You'd probably care a bit more if you noticed the number of immigrants working e.g. for the NHS at every level; about 20%.
They are desperately needed there and elsewhere.
Yeah but given 635,000 died in the UK last year I think we need the numbers to fill vacancies.Only becuase our governments over the years have made it that way. 300,000 + immigrants working in the NHS? We imported four times that last year.
Better food, better accommodation, shorter waits, same doctors. Just paying to jump the queue, really.Nah, just go private and get a better service.
It's been going on for thousands of years. You are a descendent of immigrants yourself; could be one, ten, fifty generations backImmigration may be a short term expedient to deliver vital services, but long term unsustainable.
Yes, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.The demands of a population need to be balanced with resources available -
Well yes we need a larger workforce to support our ever improving standard of living. Unfortunately slavery is out of fashion and these workers have to be treated like normal human beings, though the right try to do this on the cheap. Ditto their attitude to the indigenous working population - as near to slavery as society will allow.over the last two decades, housebuilding has barely kept pace with population increases. Hence little improvement to housing stock quality, reduced prices or rents, availability of social or private rentals.
The UK has a demographic challenge - reproduction rates are below replacement levels, and medical science is extending life span. The result - ever fewer workers supporting an aging and increasing population - immigration fills the gaps.
Nothing new here - it has been the same problem since the start of the industrial revolution. The whole purpose of increasing productivity is to get more things done with fewer people.There is no consensus in understanding how UK society may evolve with the introduction of AI and other changes, and no coherent plan to balance demand for labour with supply:
Why when we have AI etc doing their work? Doesn't make sense, surely we should lower retirement age. That's the whole point of increased productivity: it means we need to do less work, at every level, from housework to the heights of industry.
- increase pension age materially
Should be treated the same as everybody else
- those unable to work to get the same benefits as those below pension age
What for? We don't need the extra work - you've made that point yourself.
- incentivise work post pension age - allow tax free earnings up to (say) £10k pa to encourage part time working, greater incentives to defer pension
What for if there are no jobs? Better to let them retire gracefully.
- those not in work not job hunting - training, career advice, back to work schemes, withdrawal of benefits etc
Absolutely agree.I welcome a society with a mix of ethnic, racial, religious backgrounds etc - its all adds to diversity of culture, ideas, etc etc. What is not acceptable is the unsustainable without a plan. Heads in sand and denial is not a solution - however uncomfortable the solution may be.
You've said this so, so many times before. So let's assume you can wave a magic wand and take all their money and divide it equally amongst the population of the world. What are you going to do with your £1.36? Or are you suggesting that we just divide up all their money between those in the UK ?.......
Actually the answer is very simple. Take a look at the lists of mega rich billionaires for starters.
1 Where did you get your figure from? Can you show us the calculation?You've said this so, so many times before. So let's assume you can wave a magic wand and take all their money and divide it equally amongst the population of the world. What are you going to do with your £1.36? Or are you suggesting that we just divide up all their money between those in the UK ?
Enter your email address to join: