This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  Hrolf The Ganger  28 Nov 17 10.27am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
In the context that it was brought up, because apparently its hypocritical to be left wing and live in a nicer house. Personally I don't agree, but that was the context - it was in relation to hypocracy, not whether someone should live in a council house, when they have a good income (of course they shouldn't, where ever feasible council property should about It's not the house. It's criticising the principles that allow for people to live in nice houses but still happily enjoying the benefits of them at the same time. That's not so much hypocritical as just plain stupid.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Nov 17 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's not the house. It's criticising the principles that allow for people to live in nice houses but still happily enjoying the benefits of them at the same time. That's not so much hypocritical as just plain stupid. The principles that allow for people to live in nice houses? What are they? In my experience Unions usually act to protect and promote the financial interests of members, and also provide access to mortgages to their members - which would be principles that allow people to live in nicer homes.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 28 Nov 17 10.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
In the context that it was brought up, because apparently its hypocritical to be left wing and live in a nicer house. Personally I don't agree, but that was the context - it was in relation to hypocracy, not whether someone should live in a council house, when they have a good income (of course they shouldn't, where ever feasible council property should be provision for those who cannot afford rents). Thats what i was getting at,he earned well over 100k a year. That was my point. Anyone who earns that sort of money should not deprive someone of a home.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 28 Nov 17 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
Thats what i was getting at,he earned well over 100k a year. That was my point. Anyone who earns that sort of money should not deprive someone of a home. Isn't someone who buys a house and leaves it empty doing the same thing?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Nov 17 11.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The principles that allow for people to live in nice houses? What are they? In my experience Unions usually act to protect and promote the financial interests of members, and also provide access to mortgages to their members - which would be principles that allow people to live in nicer homes. I have no problem with unions protecting the interest of their members if they are genuinely doing so. In the wider context, houses, roads, virtually everything mass produced was achieved via capitalism with all its nasty elements. Unions would not exist without it either. Condemning capitalism is condemning all the benefits we enjoy in this spoiled, easy life we all enjoy in the West.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 28 Nov 17 11.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Isn't someone who buys a house and leaves it empty doing the same thing?
Whatever is necessary to meet housing needs should be done I view housing as a basic human right.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Nov 17 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I have no problem with unions protecting the interest of their members if they are genuinely doing so. In the wider context, houses, roads, virtually everything mass produced was achieved via capitalism with all its nasty elements. Unions would not exist without it either. Condemning capitalism is condemning all the benefits we enjoy in this spoiled, easy life we all enjoy in the West. No its not, highlighting the areas in which capitalism is failing people, and where its excesses cause suffering is the right thing to do. Unions aren't necessarily anti-capitalist, but they grew out of the leftist movements that arose because of the excesses of capitalism. I don't have a problem with some capitalism, I think its reasonable system for attributing demand and value to resources. As for spoiled, easy life - Do you really think that's enjoyed by all?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Nov 17 11.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Whatever is necessary to meet housing needs should be done I view housing as a basic human right.
I kind of agree with this, I'm not sure how you could establish this fairly, as the individual(s) who own the property should be compensated. But also I don't think that foreign nationals, or companies should be allowed to own residential property unless its doing so to subsidise the rent of staff. And yes, I think accommodation should be a human right for all UK Citizens (and that only UK citizens should be allowed to own UK property, and be restricted to two properties in the UK). We need to move away from the idea of property as investments.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 28 Nov 17 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Isn't someone who buys a house and leaves it empty doing the same thing? No...because its there property not the councils,its really not that hard to understand.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 28 Nov 17 12.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
No...because its there property not the councils,its really not that hard to understand. But they are depriving someone of a home which you accuse Bob Crowe of
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 28 Nov 17 12.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
But they are depriving someone of a home which you accuse Bob Crowe of But its thier home they have paid for....not council stock...therefore it is thier property Read this carefully, Bob Crowe earnt over 100k a year,he was living in a council owned property which is massively subsidised..with me so far. He could afford to buy his own property and therefore let someone who doesn't earn the fortune he did live there.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 28 Nov 17 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
No...because its there property not the councils,its really not that hard to understand. It would no longer be their property it would become local public housing stock. The practice of sitting on empty properties and land for profit should be ended IMO. Housing for peoples's needs not for gain.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.