No more immigrants.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

No more immigrants.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 59 of 85 < 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 >

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.36pm
Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.29pm Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.14pm Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels. It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure. But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f*ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats fed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them. Why ? Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.* Sickens me to my stomach. A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better). Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has. Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts..... It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense. I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless. I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect. 600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis... Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ? If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment' It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street. Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm) Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull. While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong. These people have bought the properties with their own money. the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing. Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems. And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time. So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed. In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions). So just to summerise .......where the f* are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot. Schools housing healthcare housing. Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent. We live in a nation riddled with selfish cscs who put money before people. People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour. The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so. Wheres the money going to come from. The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many. Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?** Cheers - Tom If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''. What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages? Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant. Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to) Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant? Tom You read plenty in the media about bad landlords who do not provide a service commensurate with the rent. Of course I'm not saying the vast majority of landlords are dodgy. As for the empty properties, why keep a property empty? Hardly helping the national cause is it? Also, as an aside, many think that those on housing benefit get the money first. They don't it goes directly to the landlord. Would it be naive to think that some landlords may collude to drive up the 'market' rental price? To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.36pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.29pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.14pm

Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....

It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.

600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?

If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.

Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)

Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.

The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''.
What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages?

Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant.

Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to)

Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant?

Tom

You read plenty in the media about bad landlords who do not provide a service commensurate with the rent.

Of course I'm not saying the vast majority of landlords are dodgy.

As for the empty properties, why keep a property empty?

Hardly helping the national cause is it?

Also, as an aside, many think that those on housing benefit get the money first. They don't it goes directly to the landlord.
Would it be naive to think that some landlords may collude to drive up the 'market' rental price?

To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.39pm
Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.36pm To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc That's why there should be a hefty 'empty house' charge. A bit like the 'bedroom tax' that so many on here support. (Cue the "it's not a tax" responses)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.39pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.36pm

To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc

That's why there should be a hefty 'empty house' charge. A bit like the 'bedroom tax' that so many on here support.

(Cue the "it's not a tax" responses)

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.47pm
The name of the game Nick is to gain as much rent as possible so yes in a way this is true. Ultimately though the market (like any other market) is driven by supply and demand with the main determining factor being the 300k+ foreigners arriving year on year which naturally pushes the prices higher and higher each year. You may not like this answer but as a landlord I can categorically tell you that that is the truth Nick – more and more people arriving and not enough stock to go round means rents will just keep going up for the foreseeable future. The country’s immigration policy – not landlords are pushing up the rents. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.47pm

The name of the game Nick is to gain as much rent as possible so yes in a way this is true. Ultimately though the market (like any other market) is driven by supply and demand with the main determining factor being the 300k+ foreigners arriving year on year which naturally pushes the prices higher and higher each year. You may not like this answer but as a landlord I can categorically tell you that that is the truth Nick – more and more people arriving and not enough stock to go round means rents will just keep going up for the foreseeable future. The country’s immigration policy – not landlords are pushing up the rents.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.48pm
Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.39pm Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.36pm To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc That's why there should be a hefty 'empty house' charge. A bit like the 'bedroom tax' that so many on here support. (Cue the "it's not a tax" responses) In principle I would agree with this "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.48pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.39pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.36pm

To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc

That's why there should be a hefty 'empty house' charge. A bit like the 'bedroom tax' that so many on here support.

(Cue the "it's not a tax" responses)

In principle I would agree with this

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 07 Sep 15 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.29pm Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.14pm Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels. It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure. But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f*ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats fed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them. Why ? Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.* Sickens me to my stomach. A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better). Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has. Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts..... It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense. I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless. I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect. 600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis... Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ? If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment' It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street. Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm) Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull. While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong. These people have bought the properties with their own money. the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing. Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems. And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time. So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed. In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions). So just to summerise .......where the f* are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot. Schools housing healthcare housing. Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent. We live in a nation riddled with selfish cscs who put money before people. People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour. The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so. Wheres the money going to come from. The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many. Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'? Cheers - Tom If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''. What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages? Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant. Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to) Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant? Tom You read plenty in the media about bad landlords who do not provide a service commensurate with the rent. Of course I'm not saying the vast majority of landlords are dodgy. As for the empty properties, why keep a property empty? Hardly helping the national cause is it? Also, as an aside, many think that those on housing benefit get the money first. They don't it goes directly to the landlord. Would it be naive to think that some landlords may collude to drive up the 'market' rental price?** Thats an awful lot of colluding nick....Market forces , personally I think the amount of housing benifit is way way to high. If you cannot afford to live somewhere...move somewhere cheaper. Way it up whats cheaper lower rent or commuting fares to your place of work(if they work). always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 07 Sep 15 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.29pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.14pm

Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....

600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?

Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant.

Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to)

Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant?

Tom

You read plenty in the media about bad landlords who do not provide a service commensurate with the rent.

Of course I'm not saying the vast majority of landlords are dodgy.

As for the empty properties, why keep a property empty?

Hardly helping the national cause is it?

Also, as an aside, many think that those on housing benefit get the money first. They don't it goes directly to the landlord.
Would it be naive to think that some landlords may collude to drive up the 'market' rental price?

Thats an awful lot of colluding nick....Market forces , personally I think the amount of housing benifit is way way to high.
If you cannot afford to live somewhere...move somewhere cheaper.
Way it up whats cheaper lower rent or commuting fares to your place of work(if they work).

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.51pm
Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.47pm The name of the game Nick is to gain as much rent as possible so yes in a way this is true. Ultimately though the market (like any other market) is driven by supply and demand with the main determining factor being the 300k+ foreigners arriving year on year which naturally pushes the prices higher and higher each year. You may not like this answer but as a landlord I can categorically tell you that that is the truth Nick – more and more people arriving and not enough stock to go round means rents will just keep going up for the foreseeable future. The country’s immigration policy – not landlords are pushing up the rents. But isn't deliberately keeping houses empty also pushing up prices too due to the reduced stock.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.51pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.47pm

But isn't deliberately keeping houses empty also pushing up prices too due to the reduced stock.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.55pm
Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 7.51pm 1. Thats an awful lot of colluding nick....Market forces , personally I think the amount of housing benifit is way way to high. 2. If you cannot afford to live somewhere...move somewhere cheaper. Way it up whats cheaper lower rent or commuting fares to your place of work(if they work). 1.Collusion on a local level can drive up prices. 2. Economic migration within the UK is ok, but not across borders. Fair enough.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.55pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 7.51pm

1. Thats an awful lot of colluding nick....Market forces , personally I think the amount of housing benifit is way way to high.
2. If you cannot afford to live somewhere...move somewhere cheaper.
Way it up whats cheaper lower rent or commuting fares to your place of work(if they work).

1.Collusion on a local level can drive up prices.

2. Economic migration within the UK is ok, but not across borders. Fair enough.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.57pm
Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.51pm Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.47pm The name of the game Nick is to gain as much rent as possible so yes in a way this is true. Ultimately though the market (like any other market) is driven by supply and demand with the main determining factor being the 300k+ foreigners arriving year on year which naturally pushes the prices higher and higher each year. You may not like this answer but as a landlord I can categorically tell you that that is the truth Nick – more and more people arriving and not enough stock to go round means rents will just keep going up for the foreseeable future. The country’s immigration policy – not landlords are pushing up the rents. But isn't deliberately keeping houses empty also pushing up prices too due to the reduced stock. No landlord would keep a property deliberately empty Nick. Void periods are a landlords nightmare. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.57pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.51pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.47pm

But isn't deliberately keeping houses empty also pushing up prices too due to the reduced stock.

No landlord would keep a property deliberately empty Nick.
Void periods are a landlords nightmare.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 07 Sep 15 7.59pm
Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.55pm Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 7.51pm 1. Thats an awful lot of colluding nick....Market forces , personally I think the amount of housing benifit is way way to high. 2. If you cannot afford to live somewhere...move somewhere cheaper. Way it up whats cheaper lower rent or commuting fares to your place of work(if they work). 1.Collusion on a local level can drive up prices. 2. Economic migration within the UK is ok, but not across borders. Fair enough. Yeah if its the population of said country moving within its own borders to find work,yeah whats wrong with that. People have been doing it for years,half my teachers in the seventies were either Scottish or Northern. Don't really see your point on that one. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 07 Sep 15 7.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.55pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 7.51pm

1.Collusion on a local level can drive up prices.

2. Economic migration within the UK is ok, but not across borders. Fair enough.

Yeah if its the population of said country moving within its own borders to find work,yeah whats wrong with that.
People have been doing it for years,half my teachers in the seventies were either Scottish or Northern.

Don't really see your point on that one.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 07 Sep 15 8.01pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 07 Sep 2015 5.47pm Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.44pm Yer totally wrong on Corbyn. What makes you think that? It's it just the under belly of the left coming out? Loads of new Labour will leave and vote Tory. There isn't enough actual socialists in England to fill Milton Keynes let alone win an election. Corbyn is unpopular on: The EU Immigration Nuclear weapons Foreign policy......wants to negotiate away the Falklands Period...he is a first class idiot in my opinion....will keep Labour down the pecking order for year and years to come! Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.
Alert a moderator to this post

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 07 Sep 15 8.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 07 Sep 2015 5.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.44pm

Yer totally wrong on Corbyn.

What makes you think that?

It's it just the under belly of the left coming out?

Loads of new Labour will leave and vote Tory. There isn't enough actual socialists in England to fill Milton Keynes let alone win an election.

Corbyn is unpopular on:

The EU
Immigration
Nuclear weapons
Foreign policy......wants to negotiate away the Falklands

Period...he is a first class idiot in my opinion....will keep Labour down the pecking order for year and years to come!

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 07 Sep 15 8.10pm
Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.47pm The name of the game Nick is to gain as much rent as possible so yes in a way this is true. Ultimately though the market (like any other market) is driven by supply and demand with the main determining factor being the 300k+ foreigners arriving year on year which naturally pushes the prices higher and higher each year. You may not like this answer but as a landlord I can categorically tell you that that is the truth Nick – more and more people arriving and not enough stock to go round means rents will just keep going up for the foreseeable future. The country’s immigration policy – not landlords are pushing up the rents. Point proved...............regardless of where the funds come from. Time to move forward together.
Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX-

Alphabettispaghetti 07 Sep 15 8.10pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.47pm

The name of the game Nick is to gain as much rent as possible so yes in a way this is true. Ultimately though the market (like any other market) is driven by supply and demand with the main determining factor being the 300k+ foreigners arriving year on year which naturally pushes the prices higher and higher each year. You may not like this answer but as a landlord I can categorically tell you that that is the truth Nick – more and more people arriving and not enough stock to go round means rents will just keep going up for the foreseeable future. The country’s immigration policy – not landlords are pushing up the rents.

Point proved...............regardless of where the funds come from.

Time to move forward together.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 07 Sep 15 8.13pm
Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.39pm Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.36pm To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc That's why there should be a hefty 'empty house' charge. A bit like the 'bedroom tax' that so many on here support. (Cue the "it's not a tax" responses) Nick, I would be obliged if you could answer my questions about how Corbyn has costed his rent plans. Before you appear to ignore them and pick a fight over the Bedroom Tax that you have instigated. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 07 Sep 15 8.13pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.39pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.36pm

To be fair Nick - I don’t think any landlord would wish to keep a residential property empty. Would not make any sense. Probably more applicable to holiday homes/second homes etc

That's why there should be a hefty 'empty house' charge. A bit like the 'bedroom tax' that so many on here support.

(Cue the "it's not a tax" responses)

Nick, I would be obliged if you could answer my questions about how Corbyn has costed his rent plans.

Before you appear to ignore them and pick a fight over the Bedroom Tax that you have instigated.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 59 of 85 < 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

No more immigrants.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors