+ Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results

Page 21 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 1616

Thread: O/T - general election 2019

  1. #401
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by howdydoo View Post
    Twisting words.

    You misinterpreted Animals comments and came up with a silly account of Britain today vs Victorian Britain.
    What??

  2. #402
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Exiletyke View Post
    Do you think WCM when you're talking to wendun that it seems like you're talking to Kerr
    Strange sensation but Kerr will be having his early bird meal at his local Harvester, so just my imagination I guess
    Exiletyke, I don't go on other team's sites but if I did I hope I would behave respectfully. You are obviously a pr*ck if you are suggesting Wendun and Kerr are the same person. I doubt that many posters on here have had more arguments than Kerr and me. But sometimes I agree with him. I realise that pathetic pr*cks like the Tweedle gang and your good self can only understand this in terms of being the same person. Why the f*ck do you come on here? Is Barnsley so boring?

  3. #403
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,157
    Quote Originally Posted by wendun View Post
    Exiletyke, I don't go on other team's sites but if I did I hope I would behave respectfully. You are obviously a pr*ck if you are suggesting Wendun and Kerr are the same person. I doubt that many posters on here have had more arguments than Kerr and me. But sometimes I agree with him. I realise that pathetic pr*cks like the Tweedle gang and your good self can only understand this in terms of being the same person. Why the f*ck do you come on here? Is Barnsley so boring?
    Don't recall using your sort of language wendun & you call that respectful do you?
    What's disrespectful ?
    I asked if it seems like you're talking to Kerr?
    I think thou doth protest too much

  4. #404
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,569
    Why are some people resorting to such unsavoury language?

    I has the misfortune of sitting next to someone on Saturday who used the most foul and abusive language towards the ref and lino I've ever heard at a football match. It was relentless and he was actually screaming in a high pitched voice he was that angry.
    There were two young girls in front of me aged about 14 and 15 who looked like sisters with their Mum. Both kept looking at this idiot and with extreme distress on their faces after some of the words he was using.

    Totally unecessary and a complete enbarrassment to be associated with our club.
    WEst stand near the away fans and if that was anyone on this board please think before using language like that

  5. #405
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,108
    Surprised neither main party has proposed slashing the foreign aid budget (crazy to be giving money to China and India). Would solve a lot of our problems in one fell swoop.

  6. #406
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,157
    Quote Originally Posted by wendun View Post
    Exiletyke,
    Why the f*ck do you come on here? Is Barnsley so boring?
    I have always had a soft spot for the Millers
    In fact I have posted on here [some time ago] that my very first match I attendeded around late 50's early 60's was Barnsley v Rotherham in what was then the County Cup [pre season]
    & I consequently always look out for Rotherham's results & wish them all the best
    May be a poor reason in your book but there you go

  7. #407
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,115
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    I think that the price of housing was also significantly affected by the willingness of banks to lend up to 5 x the amount of buyer's wages as well as allowing them to continue to repay into their 70s. Bank's were very happy to hand out even risky mortgages as they know that if it defaults, they can simply take hold of the property. Relatively easy money and without any regulation, there was no reason for owners, obviously encouraged by the financial services industry (agents, advisers, banks) to not take advantage of this easy money creation scheme. Supply and demand is an important factor, but with some regulation, might not have been the wealth grab that emerged, that hugely disadvantages millions of youngsters today.
    Your post and, in particular, the claim of a 'wealth grab' is sadly typical of the anti-business narrative that appears to currently drive Labour. It's also wrong

    Higher earning multiple mortgages were a response to rising house prices, not the cause of them. That was solely down to supply failing to keep up with demand. As for allowing people to take mortgages that would not be repaid into the borrower's 70s, what are you suggesting? That lenders practice age discrimination? That would be illegal after the Equality Act came into force.

  8. #408
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,115
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    Kerr just to tidy a few things up.

    My reply was to Animal. The comment 'Victorian Britain' was to let him know my reply was linking to his post which he signed off 'This is 2019 not Victorian Britain' - my agreement was to the comments he made in that post.* So jump in by all means but please get the context right.

    Having missed the point of my meaning 'Victorian Britain', pretty much all of what you say home ownership and house price inflation*has no relevance to my post.* We can have a different debate based on your post by all means.* I was commenting on rents for former council houses (and specically that now these are in private ownership tenants pay inflated commercial rates - I know commerial rates are based on the price of housing; my contention is that rents would not have gone up at commercial rates if council houses had remained in state ownership).

    You either didnt grasp what I said or deliberately spun it to suit your take on history. I know my writing is not great but please lets have a debate on what intended to say and not on what you think I meant.
    Well I have to admit to now not having a clue what you meant when you said I agree with [animal] totally on 2019 Victorian Britain... It’s an odd thing to say if you were not in agreement with him ‘totally on 2019 Victorian Britain’ and were actually talking about the rest of his post and not that specific comment.

    If it’s the case that it was just animal being silly then fair enough.

    You were talking about many things other than council house rents, but I’m happy to address the point that you make. Your contention that council rents would not have gone up at commercial rates if council houses had remained in state ownership is pure speculation. Assuming that you are right, however, what you are actually saying is that you believe that the tenants of those house would have had their housing costs subsidised by the state in the form of a discount on commercial rents. That’s hardly fair on tenants in private rented accommodation who receive no such support from the taxpayer is it?

    Of course, people on low incomes receive state support with housing costs – in the form of housing and other benefits - irrespective of whether they are in Local Authority or private rented accommodation.

    The bottom line is that housing costs have increased because insufficient houses have been built to match the growth in the number of households.

  9. #409
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,115
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    Oh, PS my chum. I should have said rent, utilities and other basic costs (just to be clear like insurance, tv licence, water rate, council tax - anything Ive missed ?).

    You're going down the pedantic route of our chum the Barnsley nitpicker - lol.
    If you post about 'rent and utility bills', I think it entirely reasonable for me to assume that you mean 'rent and utility bills'. You can’t seriously be arguing otherwise?

  10. #410
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,115
    Quote Originally Posted by wendun View Post
    Kerr, one small point. As you say the Lancaster firms were mainly in wallpapers, fabrics and floor covering. I am not at all certain that in these sectors UK production was uncompetitive. The problem was that the decisions to close were irreversible, plant sold off and skills base quickly lost. So far as I know there are no significant manufacturing jobs now in the Lancaster area and the major employers are the NHS and the University. A friend who was a chemist at Storeys now drives a bus.
    I don’t know anything about the wallpaper and floor coverings industries, but there were a number of factors at play in the second half of the twentieth century including a drive to consolidate production – merging and centralising in order to try to achieve economies of scale, for example. Such industries are also very susceptible to changing fashions. The fabric industry was under pressure from competition from lower cost economies

    It’s certainly true that once an industry has gone, it is hard for it to be reinstated. That’s one of the reasons I am so worried about a Labour government. It’s easy to say that it will just be for five years as a new generation of the electorate learn the lessons of the past, but the damage that their anti business policies do will last for much longer.

  11. #411
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    Your post and, in particular, the claim of a 'wealth grab' is sadly typical of the anti-business narrative that appears to currently drive Labour. It's also wrong

    Higher earning multiple mortgages were a response to rising house prices, not the cause of them. That was solely down to supply failing to keep up with demand. As for allowing people to take mortgages that would not be repaid into the borrower's 70s, what are you suggesting? That lenders practice age discrimination? That would be illegal after the Equality Act came into force.
    Again, you report the situation as inevitable, that there was no alternative, nothing we could do to prevent the situation that now leads to millions of people unable to enjoy the basic security that we elders enjoy.

    I'm suggesting that people should not have been allowed to take out mortgages beyond the scope of what they could afford to repay and repayments lasting longer than when they were, in normal circumstances, expected to retire and live on a pension. Isn't that just common sense? Would it have been so awful to deny this elasticity to people who were always going to struggle to repay their mortgage, or at least be tied to it well into retirement when we have simply created a situation where many young people simply don't have the slightest chance of such security even though they have good jobs? Seems hugely stacked in favour of us baby boomers again.

  12. #412
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,157
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    Your post and, in particular, the claim of a 'wealth grab' is sadly typical of the anti-business narrative that appears to currently drive Labour. It's also wrong

    Higher earning multiple mortgages were a response to rising house prices, not the cause of them. That was solely down to supply failing to keep up with demand. As for allowing people to take mortgages that would not be repaid into the borrower's 70s, what are you suggesting? That lenders practice age discrimination? That would be illegal after the Equality Act came into force.
    What a silly comment
    Of course lenders practice age discrimination or are you saying that a lender would allow anyone to take out a mortgage at say 75 years of age?

  13. #413
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    14,507
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    Again, you report the situation as inevitable, that there was no alternative, nothing we could do to prevent the situation that now leads to millions of people unable to enjoy the basic security that we elders enjoy.

    I'm suggesting that people should not have been allowed to take out mortgages beyond the scope of what they could afford to repay and repayments lasting longer than when they were, in normal circumstances, expected to retire and live on a pension. Isn't that just common sense? Would it have been so awful to deny this elasticity to people who were always going to struggle to repay their mortgage, or at least be tied to it well into retirement when we have simply created a situation where many young people simply don't have the slightest chance of such security even though they have good jobs? Seems hugely stacked in favour of us baby boomers again.
    We are of course back to the winners and losers narrative that have engulfed us since 1979 .

    The Thatcher years were possibly a 50 / 50 split across the UK as to who won and who lost .

    As times rolled on the winners as a percentage seem to be dropping significantly and it's fair to say that we are entering a period where our kids won't be as wealthy as we are .

    The winners are becoming more wealthy and this is the thing , wealthy enough at the very top end to command massive influence and power to keep things as they are thank you very much .

    If trickle down economics worked then our kids would be as wealthy as we are at a minimum but as we know that is the biggest con trick ever played .

    Back to basics Raging , house prices need a one off correction by building more social housing , seems pretty straightforward to me .

  14. #414
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by flourbasher View Post
    Why are some people resorting to such unsavoury language?

    I has the misfortune of sitting next to someone on Saturday who used the most foul and abusive language towards the ref and lino I've ever heard at a football match. It was relentless and he was actually screaming in a high pitched voice he was that angry.
    There were two young girls in front of me aged about 14 and 15 who looked like sisters with their Mum. Both kept looking at this idiot and with extreme distress on their faces after some of the words he was using.

    Totally unecessary and a complete enbarrassment to be associated with our club.
    WEst stand near the away fans and if that was anyone on this board please think before using language like that
    You could always contact the club fb. You can do it anonymously, can't remember the number, you just need the seat number and leave the rest to the club.

  15. #415
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,089

    Wink

    .It's looking like the best Labour can do is achieve a minority Government .
    Meanwhile Nigel Farage insists the claims he made about the Tories offering jobs to some of his Brexit Party candidates is " fact " and also says Politics is " corrupted ".....lol.

    Jennifer Arcuri sounds like a woman scorned because Boris won't answer her phone calls or cuts her off and won't speak to her...lol

    Politics eh.......
    Last edited by CASPER-64-FRANK; 17-11-2019 at 11:07 PM.

  16. #416
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    If you post about 'rent and utility bills', I think it entirely reasonable for me to assume that you mean 'rent and utility bills'. You can’t seriously be arguing otherwise?
    Yes agree. It was misleading and and error om my my part.

  17. #417
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,115
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    Again, you report the situation as inevitable, that there was no alternative, nothing we could do to prevent the situation that now leads to millions of people unable to enjoy the basic security that we elders enjoy.

    I'm suggesting that people should not have been allowed to take out mortgages beyond the scope of what they could afford to repay and repayments lasting longer than when they were, in normal circumstances, expected to retire and live on a pension. Isn't that just common sense? Would it have been so awful to deny this elasticity to people who were always going to struggle to repay their mortgage, or at least be tied to it well into retirement when we have simply created a situation where many young people simply don't have the slightest chance of such security even though they have good jobs? Seems hugely stacked in favour of us baby boomers again.
    My posts have been entirely silent upon whether the current situation was inevitable. I was merely pointing out that it has nothing to do with lenders offering higher multiples and longer terms on mortgages.

    I’m not sure that there was ever a significant amount of reckless lending and borrowing in the UK mortgage market and the risk of it happening has been greatly reduced by the imposition of affordability rules by the FSC. My point was and is that higher multiples and longer terms were a response to rising house prices and not the cause.

  18. #418
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,115
    Quote Originally Posted by animallittle3 View Post
    We are of course back to the winners and losers narrative that have engulfed us since 1979 .

    The Thatcher years were possibly a 50 / 50 split across the UK as to who won and who lost .

    As times rolled on the winners as a percentage seem to be dropping significantly and it's fair to say that we are entering a period where our kids won't be as wealthy as we are .

    The winners are becoming more wealthy and this is the thing , wealthy enough at the very top end to command massive influence and power to keep things as they are thank you very much .

    If trickle down economics worked then our kids would be as wealthy as we are at a minimum but as we know that is the biggest con trick ever played .

    Back to basics Raging , house prices need a one off correction by building more social housing , seems pretty straightforward to me .
    There has always been a 'winners and losers narrative'. It's called human nature. If you want to see real inequalities in wealth and power, you generally need to look no further than the Socialist states that have grown up and then generally collapsed in misery for all the during the last century. Orwell was right.

    Every generation meets different opportunities and challenges. It’s undoubtedly true that our generation has had it pretty good from a financial perspective. A couple of years ago, you yourself told Tykes Mad that you were sitting on wealth with which you intend to retire to Spain. As a good Socialist, shouldn’t you be voluntarily redistributing that to those in need, or is it the case that you are a standard Socialist and believe that it is only other people’s wealth that should be redistributed?

    I’m not convinced that creating new council estates is the answer to our current problems or that saddling future generations with vast amounts of interest payments on additional government borrowing is something that they will thank us for.
    Last edited by KerrAvon; 18-11-2019 at 07:11 AM.

  19. #419
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,115
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    Yes agree. It was misleading and and error om my my part.
    No worries.

  20. #420
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,569
    Quote Originally Posted by CASPER-64-FRANK View Post
    You could always contact the club fb. You can do it anonymously, can't remember the number, you just need the seat number and leave the rest to the club.
    Thanks for the advice Casps and noted.
    I wish I had said something to him at the time. Can,t carry on like that with women and kids around

Page 21 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •