Jump to content

The Politics Thread 2019


Day

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
24 minutes ago, Curtains said:

How much will the rent be on these new ones. 

I know the answer to this one. Less than full market rent if it's owned by a social landlord.

There is a shortage of materials but investing in building will give the industry producing the raw materials scope to invest. That would be great for anyone working in that area, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I know the answer to this one. Less than full market rent if it's owned by a social landlord.

There is a shortage of materials but investing in building will give the industry producing the raw materials scope to invest. That would be great for anyone working in that area, surely?

Yes in theory 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I know the answer to this one. Less than full market rent if it's owned by a social landlord.

There is a shortage of materials but investing in building will give the industry producing the raw materials scope to invest. That would be great for anyone working in that area, surely?

House building has to be one of the easiest ways to boost the economy going. You hire the builder, who hires the subbies, who buy the bricks, so the subbies uses his wages to take his wife out for a meal and the restaurant owner buys fresh produce to cook, pays the waiter, who spends it on a new video game, and so on. The building merchant, electrician, plumber, van hire company, steel toe cap boot manufacturer and everyone else gets in on the action.

It moves so much money through the system, which is why all parties are focusing on it, as opposed to something like quantitative easing where you print a load of money that banks put into long term investment funds and the money isn't seen for five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

House building has to be one of the easiest ways to boost the economy going. You hire the builder, who hires the subbies, who buy the bricks, so the subbies uses his wages to take his wife out for a meal and the restaurant owner buys fresh produce to cook, pays the waiter, who spends it on a new video game, and so on. The building merchant, electrician, plumber, van hire company, steel toe cap boot manufacturer and everyone else gets in on the action.

It moves so much money through the system, which is why all parties are focusing on it, as opposed to something like quantitative easing where you print a load of money that banks put into long term investment funds and the money isn't seen for five years.

Quantitative easing .

Now that was a Consequence of the crash right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

House building has to be one of the easiest ways to boost the economy going. You hire the builder, who hires the subbies, who buy the bricks, so the subbies uses his wages to take his wife out for a meal and the restaurant owner buys fresh produce to cook, pays the waiter, who spends it on a new video game, and so on. The building merchant, electrician, plumber, van hire company, steel toe cap boot manufacturer and everyone else gets in on the action.

It moves so much money through the system, which is why all parties are focusing on it, as opposed to something like quantitative easing where you print a load of money that banks put into long term investment funds and the money isn't seen for five years.

That's the multiplier effect and it would be true if we had enough workers in the building trade to build the houses that all parties are promising.

In reality we'll have to import hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who will likely send much of that money back home and the benefit is lost or at least hugely diluted.

Training native workers will take time, so I can't see any of the parties achieveing anything like their objective in their first term.

John McDonnell was saying this morning that Labour will need to talk to councils and get them to start building ASAP. Trouble is, those councils have very little or no recent in-house experience of building on anything like this scale. Again, this will take a long time to get the infrastructure in place.

Whoever wins, I don't expect much to really change in the first 2 years, They're all being unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

A lot of Labout policies are for an ideal world but unfortunately we dont, and never will, live in that place.

So we shouldn't even try?

I don't understand this lack of ambition

I know that a lot of Labour policies are idealistic and unrealistic - but they are aspirationally sound. So what's the problem with trying to implement 100% and only achieving 50% of it. You've still achieved 50% more than you would have if you had just not bothered even trying

What bad stuff happened in people's childhoods to leave them with such cynicism?

I've never understood the attitude of "That'll never work so we shouldn't even try - we should stick with what we have now, even though I know what we have now is rubbish"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

That's the multiplier effect and it would be true if we had enough workers in the building trade to build the houses that all parties are promising.

In reality we'll have to import hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who will likely send much of that money back home and the benefit is lost or at least hugely diluted.

Training native workers will take time, so I can't see any of the parties achieveing anything like their objective in their first term.

John McDonnell was saying this morning that Labour will need to talk to councils and get them to start building ASAP. Trouble is, those councils have very little or no recent in-house experience of building on anything like this scale. Again, this will take a long time to get the infrastructure in place.

Whoever wins, I don't expect much to really change in the first 2 years, They're all being unrealistic.

It won't be easy but there's nowt wrong with aiming high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SchtivePesley said:

So we shouldn't even try?

I don't understand this lack of ambition

I know that a lot of Labour policies are idealistic and unrealistic - but they are aspirationally sound. So what's the problem with trying to implement 100% and only achieving 50% of it. You've still achieved 50% more than you would have if you had just not bothered even trying

What bad stuff happened in people's childhoods to leave them with such cynicism?

I've never understood the attitude of "That'll never work so we shouldn't even try - we should stick with what we have now, even though I know what we have now is rubbish"

Governments do try. 
 

Labour Under Corbin doesn’t have some sort of utopia 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

It won't be easy but there's nowt wrong with aiming high.

I agree but they're all claiming they can go from pretty much a standing start to never-before-seen levels of house building.

I just want politicians of all sides to be realistic and honest with us as to what they actually will be able to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Need loads more homes but I think we need to build up up up and pair it with proper infrastructure and places to live. Not just crappy housing estates on the side of dual carriageways..

Or even motorways. Anyone seen those house just before Bristol on M4. Or ones on M5 south of Bristol? Scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...