news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

Starmer has been consistent that his main aim is to get the Labour Party into power, that’s essentially is number 1 goal and all the other pledges are really secondary to that. If he can keep Labour into position and some of those pledges (which he hasn’t had the chance to enact anyway) fall away then so be it. 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Starmer has been consistent that his main aim is to get the Labour Party into power, that’s essentially is number 1 goal and all the other pledges are really secondary to that. If he can keep Labour into position and some of those pledges (which he hasn’t had the chance to enact anyway) fall away then so be it. 

Some of that stuff is really quite important though . But do see the reasons . Just quite interesting reading the thread from the start and that was one of the things that came up and yeah things have changed . Hopefully the NHS isn’t the one that falls away 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Some of that stuff is really quite important though . But do see the reasons . Just quite interesting reading the thread from the start and that was one of the things that came up and yeah things have changed . Hopefully the NHS isn’t the one that falls away 

Some of the stuff is still in there just in different forms. I don’t think his pledges matter, it’s all about what’s in the next Labour manifesto and so far the policies we do know sounds promising.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Some of the stuff is still in there just in different forms. I don’t think his pledges matter, it’s all about what’s in the next Labour manifesto and so far the policies we do know sounds promising.

We will see . I guess .

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

We will see . I guess .

Will Only work if moderation is consistent and the mods will act against their mates and the mods are told the rules to enforce themwnd users to abide by them.

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

Will Only work if moderation is consistent and the mods will act against their mates and the mods are told the rules to enforce themwnd users to abide by them.

Not sure what you are replying to there but yes 

[steviewevie]

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

[steviewevie]

Just now, steviewevie said:

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

they have the fiscal rules get out of jail card...always qualify with fiscal rules...which we don't know..

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

This is why Labour are so careful because even when they do it gets torn apart. It sounds like they do regret the funding for the policy and I can see why. However this is the 3rd time recently we’ve seen articles like this and then it gets denied. 

[steviewevie]

 

[Crazyfool01]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

From what I can gather the source is currently the scum … will wait and see 

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

From what I can gather the source is currently the scum … will wait and see 

It‘s already been rubbished. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

Railways, buses, and utility provision all make sense to me to be nationalised. They naturally have a monopoly anyway because of the infrastructure requirements so the general public can't ever get the "benefits" of privatisation/capitalism for them.

Might make sense but doesn't work out like that. I used to work for nationalised electric. Govt nicked the profits exactly same as private owners do -and money allocated for investment got taken to pay other govt spending ( same as always happend with British rail). Only works well when Govt is flush with money. Renationalising will cause govt to be short of money for other things. Because the money to buy back Will be govt debt.

[Neil]

Someone Will be along to rewrite history very soon.

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

they have the fiscal rules get out of jail card...always qualify with fiscal rules...which we don't know..

Labour's fiscal rules were published in the mid 00s weren't they? It's just the thing of they were a made up set of concepts designed to show "you can trust Labour with the economy". I get why Labour are reluctant to do anything that goes beyond them and the borrowing restrictions outlined, but national, international, and governmental understanding of economics has changed in 20 years. It now feels as arbitrary as and relevant as talking about the Earldom of Wessex.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Might make sense but doesn't work out like that. I used to work for nationalised electric. Govt nicked the profits exactly same as private owners do -and money allocated for investment got taken to pay other govt spending ( same as always happend with British rail). Only works well when Govt is flush with money. Renationalising will cause govt to be short of money for other things. Because the money to buy back Will be govt debt.

I'm not denying that nationalised infrastructure and monopolies aren't open to corruption, abuse, and government mismanagement. I'm just saying that if you have a natural monopoly, members of the public don't ever see benefits of privatisation.

[mattiloy]

6 hours ago, cellar said:

I think he said property value was £90k when bought, and £240/£260k now. 

But if the deposit (£20k) was all he ever paid himself, then it is a better ROI than you'd get from any fund that I can think of, even with the cost of the loan (I assume about £25k on average over the last 20 years). 

But that is kind of the sh*tty part of BTL, and what sets it apart from other types of investments, is that you're using someone else's money to invest for you. Even if that £90k house suddenly dropped to £40k, and the above assumption is true, its still 100% profit in real terms for the landlord, and the renters money has absorbed the £50k shock. (Actually realised this isn't true as forgot to factor in the cost of the loan - but still, its only a £5k loss compared to what would have been a £75k loss).

So s&p 500 has delivered about 10% annual growth in the same period. This gives 240k off the initial 20k investment without any additional contribution.

So roughly equivalent (if the claim that rent has only covered mortgage repayments is to be believed). Less maintenance costs, time and energy, and the fact that again, you’re holding all your dough in one illiquid asset at a time when the price of that asset is at best going to stagnate in the next decade, and worse case devalue (and be a big faff to sell, possibly with additional taxes) - there is a clear winner.

Edited January 19, 2024 by mattiloy

[mattiloy]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

About f**king time. Not sure if the crumbs dropping from the table are so sparse that I’m imagining it, but I want to believe that it sounds like there is emotion in his voice here. Like its what he really thought all along. One can only hope. That being one of the world’s biggest c**ts is just an act and behind it lies a heart of gold, as his supporters would have us believe. I guess we’ll find out .

Edited January 19, 2024 by mattiloy

[Neil]

34 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm not denying that nationalised infrastructure and monopolies aren't open to corruption, abuse, and government mismanagement. I'm just saying that if you have a natural monopoly, members of the public don't ever see benefits of privatisation.

I'm pointing out that the supposed benefits of nationalisation tend to be lied about or misrepresented.

Smart members of the public always knew there weren't benefits from privatisation.the only one was the tory bribe same as selling off council houses.

[mattiloy]

4 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Railways, buses, and utility provision all make sense to me to be nationalised. They naturally have a monopoly anyway because of the infrastructure requirements so the general public can't ever get the "benefits" of privatisation/capitalism for them.

Yes. Thats the thing.

If you buy a bic pen, and you get home and within 2 minutes of writing your bic pen bursts, you have both the right of refund and the choice to buy a different pen next time.

If you’re commuting and your northern rail train arrives 20 minutes late you get neither refund nor can you take a different train tomorrow.

Requiring the building of a whole new competing infrastructure, the barriers to entry are enormous and could only ever be paid for by the govt, as indeed the existing infrastructure was. So its a permanent monopoly. The normal market mechanism of consumer choice -> efficiency is broken. So the choice is only do we run this monopoly for profit, or for the public good.

Even if you set it up as a solely profit seeking company but owned by the state, whilst it would be as sh*t as it is today, at least the dividends would go back to the treasury. As it is, its both sh*t, and all the profits it makes end up in the pockets of shareholders. In many cases these are overseas nationalised companies. So your excess fares are directly subsidising the low fares in Germany for instance (arriva).

Edited January 19, 2024 by mattiloy

[cellar]

37 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

So s&p 500 has delivered about 10% annual growth in the same period. This gives 240k off the initial 20k investment without any additional contribution.

I would personally prefer investing in funds, but I don't think this is correct. Will do the maths properly later on, but off the top of my head it's not even anywhere near 200k.

[mattiloy]

17 minutes ago, cellar said:

I would personally prefer investing in funds, but I don't think this is correct. Will do the maths properly later on, but off the top of my head it's not even anywhere near 200k.

It is. I googled and found the last 20 years s&p 500 growth rate at 10.6% interest compounded annually. Stick 20k initial with zero additional contributions into a compound interest calculator on a 25 year term and see what you get.

Edited January 19, 2024 by mattiloy

[mattiloy]

The thing is. As an asset class, the housing market has benefitted enormously from low interest rates the last few decades. But so has the stock market. And unlike a house funds are low maintenance and diversified. If you’re unlucky, your house can literally fall down. Its honestly a no brainer.

Edited January 19, 2024 by mattiloy