Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

... and as I've said before, the entire system, from birth to death with everything in between such as school, uni, work, the media etc is designed to aid the rich and be detrimental to the least well of 70%+ of the populace. The wealth gap had reduced, but was still very evident, over the years between WW1 and Thatcher. Since then there's been a war of sorts aimed at rewidening the gap into a chasm and it's working. Is it already too late to reset? If it's not, we are pretty damned close, IMO.

I'm not against the top whatever % having a lot. What I am against is that they gained that wealth off the labour of the least well off 70%+ and started to hate the fact that many of those 70%+ had started to get, well, almost affluent. Thatcher started the reversal and it's continued ever since. It's all gone skew whiff. My first house in the UK cost 2.5 times my annual salary. My 2nd one, here in NL, in 1989, cost similar. Average house prices over here are now 502K, average wages are 48K. House prices are now 10.5 times the average wage. All by design. It has to stop. Take measures to narrow the chasm back to a gap. Not a full blown, peaceful revolution but a reset to bring some degree of fairness back.

You have said it before. You were right then and you’re right now…imo.

[MadAmster]

Wasn't sure where to put this. New thread? Here? Brexit? decided here would do...

As I put in another post that I can't find, there's been several posts on several social media platforms on the Hanta virus situation. Basically, it's the conspeorists going here we go again and "strengthening" their argument by saying Hanta means a lie, a scam in Hebrew and in Hungarian. However, facts matter and the fact is that the first hantavirus was isolated in 1978 in South Korea, around the Hantan River, and was named the Hantaan virus which has since morphed into Hantavirus. It was shown to be responsible for the outbreak during the war.

One of the posts was on a thing called threads (Instagram?) that pops up on my phone. I posted the above in reply to the conspeorist. Last time I looked, about an hour ago, my post had 5.2K likes. It's now 5.6K. My faith in my fellow humans is heading in the right direction.

[Trickytreesreds]

As usual TTR seems to swallow the BS put out by Right Wing and indeed other commentators on social media and the media, rather than actually consider what the reality is.

Given that Reforms share of the vote is 26% and not all of those will be racists moaning about immigration, many of whom ironically are from areas which have hardly been affected by immigration (like Clacton for instance).

Its clear Reform have prospered by a combination of Labours vote going to more left leaning parties and the continued squeeze on the Conservative vote, which is hardly a story of voters being fed up with lack of controls on immigration is it? It actually points to voters who aren't that fixated on immigration being fed up with labours drift to the right.

Then TTR's assertion that no government has got a handle on it, isn't true ironically of the this Labour government who have reduced legal immigration by more than half since being elected and deported over 60,000 immigrants with no legal right to remain, 50% more than the Tories managed.

Yes the "small boats" issue remains, but compared to legal migration at circa 240,000 is small and the UK still accepts far fewer asylum seekers than other countries in Europe. The small boats could be substantially reduced by having better legal system for claiming asylum, rather than the few options currently available.

There is widepsread BS being spread about what asylum seekers get in support and no real understanding what stopping immigration completely would do to the economy of the UK or indeed what economic damage Brexit has done to the UK.

I absolutely agree with you that any country needs to control immigration and handle asylum claims in a fair and transparent manner. There absolutely needs to be better enforcement of those working illegally, which is actually happening. But the notion that there are substantial number sof immigrants in the UK on benefits or toher hand outs is simply not true.

Immigration is a "dead cat", thrown out by reform to distract from the fact that the party is funded by billionaires who live overseas and pay hardly any UK taxes and that the people are being shafted by a system that protects the interests of these billionaires and they certainly aren't intrested in the lives of the dumb sods whoa re voting for them.

Your figures at times are laughable swale. I haven?t got the energy today to pull you apart on that, all I will comment on is your deportations. Most of them were voluntary with a fist full of cash. Have a google how many of the boat illegals have gone.

[Trickytreesreds]

I think Swale qualfies, using his own definition, as a good German, it was Swale himself who introduced the phrase to this discussion not me

I also think Swale is fashioning himself as one of a new breed, a left leaning Gammon - a Glammon if you will.

Meanwhile, TTR apppears to be the closest to Nostradamus that we have here

Thanks, though I predict a riot on Saturday.

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky, you can?t return calling people ?left wing planks?, then mention respect and expect people to take you seriously.

I don?t think anyone on here doesn?t believe that immigration isn?t an issue that needs addressing, some of us are just a little more thoughtful and compassionate about the problem than others.

Neither is it RUK?s obsession with immigration that makes them racist?it is the willingness - desire even - to adopt an anti Muslim stance at every opportunity, to blame everything on immigrants, to adopt the tone that the newly elected RUK Sunderland councillor did towards Nigerians etc. that makes Reform UK racist.

Personally I?m not particularly ?left wing?. A little left of centre maybe but only a little. I just can?t get wound up about the (approximately) 1.5% of the population who are here illegally. Of much more concern to me is the amount of wealth owned by a similar percentage of the upper echelons of our society. That, to me, is much more damaging to society as a whole.

Interesting, the 1.5 million illegals here, don?t concern you or wind you up, knowing they cost the country billions in many forms, cause social problems and contribute to crime and cohesion?
I think you need to take the time and think about every native victim here and what it has cost them, simply because a government can?t be bothered to control its borders.

Immigration was ticking along for years around 30k a year. Your doctors, nurses, skilled influx. No one minded. Then we committed to to an EU invasion, ( which we could have opted out of like Germany) and the poorest of east Europe flooded in.
This set in motion, your housing shortages, first stage jobs denials to school leavers, and encouraging businesses to stop investing in training and apprenticeships.
As if that wasn?t bad enough, the Tories decided in import the third world and it?s been chaos ever since. From benefits exceeding income, to radical terrorism.

Marvellous and GDP per capita fell through the floor.

[Trickytreesreds]

Meanwhile, TTR apppears to be the closest to Nostradamus that we have here

Like his predictions about Orban in Hungary, the success of the French far right and Starmer being gone within a year (made in 2024) you mean?[/QUOTE]
1. Orban ? You?ll have to remind me on that one? All I can remember is saying Orban won?t cave to the EU on immigration despite their threats. He never did. When his successor came in, Von de Lyon said with glee, now we can have Hungary back in the family and mentioned Hungary taking relocated immigrants. Errrrrm, the new guy said, no we ain?t ����
2. French far right Le Penn? You’ll have to forgive me, I thought Le Penn was winning well, until the voting rigging went on with the left? Oui/non? So much so, the mini me president is a powerless puppet.
3. Starmer would have been gone a year ago, as everything I said would happen, did. Yet Labour being Labour, are such a **** show, that even his most likely replacement committed tax fraud, to rub herself out. He’s surrounded himself with yes men and his extended year has dragged this country into the gutter.

So scoff all you want, the time line of the result wasn’t wrong, it skewed with evasion and deviousness.
Only thing I didn’t see out of this, was the mad bonkers Greens getting a foothold. We have some serious nut jobs out there voting for these. Swale calls reform voters thick. How does he class these? Or does the left wing shield on invulnerability apply to them?

[Trickytreesreds]

... and as I've said before, the entire system, from birth to death with everything in between such as school, uni, work, the media etc is designed to aid the rich and be detrimental to the least well of 70%+ of the populace. The wealth gap had reduced, but was still very evident, over the years between WW1 and Thatcher. Since then there's been a war of sorts aimed at rewidening the gap into a chasm and it's working. Is it already too late to reset? If it's not, we are pretty damned close, IMO.

I'm not against the top whatever % having a lot. What I am against is that they gained that wealth off the labour of the least well off 70%+ and started to hate the fact that many of those 70%+ had started to get, well, almost affluent. Thatcher started the reversal and it's continued ever since. It's all gone skew whiff. My first house in the UK cost 2.5 times my annual salary. My 2nd one, here in NL, in 1989, cost similar. Average house prices over here are now 502K, average wages are 48K. House prices are now 10.5 times the average wage. All by design. It has to stop. Take measures to narrow the chasm back to a gap. Not a full blown, peaceful revolution but a reset to bring some degree of fairness back.

And how exactly have house prices increased ?

[MadAmster]

And how exactly have house prices increased ?

Because people are willing to pay extortionate amounts for them.

Because, as of late 2025/early 2026, there are over 1 million homes not in permanent use across the UK. This includes roughly 542,000–600,000+ "empty homes" (vacant), with over 300,000 of those classified as "long-term empty" (empty for over six months) in England alone.

As of late 2025, over 382,000 people are estimated to be homeless in England. There are more empty dwellings than there are homeless. That seems to rule out immigrants being responsible for house prices rising.

Is it financial reasons that keep these home empty? You tell me.

Are owners keeping some of their properties empty in order to push up the prices of the ones they sell?

Do we need new houses built or do we simply change any rules preventing the current empty ones from being used?

[Geoff Parkstone]

And how exactly have house prices increased ?

A good question and one I wish I could answer or even begin to explain. But certainly demand based pressure at the lower end of the cost pyramid would have pushed prices up across the board. I would suggest much of this may have come from the aspirational proles who as MA suggested had started to get, "well, almost affluent". So demand for home ownership was increased but supply limited by not building enought new affordable housing stock.

A few other factors:

Reduced council spending on affordable rental stock;

In fact the sell off of council stock at discounts to tenants (who then sold on for a subsidised profit in some cases);

Second home purchases for higher middle income "investors" on buy to let basis getting full mortgage interest tax relief when first time home buyers could not when MIRAS was scrapped drove demand up;

Growing populations possibly at higher rate then new building growth;

Stupidly favourable tax treatment of "Holiday homes" took property away from genuine first time buyers (even worse than buy to let, but thankfully less prevalent);

Recent changes to the tax regime to remove the advantages given to private landlords is now driving them out of the rental market - pushing prices up for those who still cannot aspire to own - this may ease prices for buyers but simply shifts the burden further down the chain;

Cheap mortgages by and large over past 10-15 years. When I bought my current house in 1992 tge mortgage rate I paid was between 13 and 15% - people couldnt overspend and demand was held down - as were house prices. After 5 years my house was worth no more than I'd paid for it (in fact less) - since when mortgages have got cheaper and cheaper and house prices have generally soared;

The belief held by most people that bricks and mortar is a safe investment and cant go wrong - the lessons of negative equity were quickly forgotten. Again meaning more buyers than available housing stock.

Its too late for a solution, the "ownership good rentals bad" mantra is totally engrained in people now. But if I could resign the housing market ab initio I would totally outlaw multiple home ownership - homes are to be lived in, not to become a store of income and wealth management. Councils or even central government should invest to ensure an adequate supply of affordable rentals. Driving multiple home ownership out of the market ought to bring prices down and dampen speculation.

Housing is an instance where the existence of a secondary market harms the population and best yet, removing private rentals entirely gets rid of countless leech like estate agents

[Geoff Parkstone]

And how exactly have house prices increased ?

A good question and one I wish I could answer or even begin to explain. But certainly demand based pressure at the lower end of the cost pyramid would have pushed prices up across the board. I would suggest much of this may have come from the aspirational proles who as MA suggested had started to get, "well, almost affluent". So demand for home ownership was increased but supply limited by not building enought new affordable housing stock.

A few other factors:

Reduced council spending on affordable rental stock;

In fact the sell off of council stock at discounts to tenants (who then sold on for a subsidised profit in some cases);

Second home purchases for higher middle income "investors" on buy to let basis getting full mortgage interest tax relief when first time home buyers could not when MIRAS was scrapped drove demand up;

Growing populations possibly at higher rate then new building growth;

Stupidly favourable tax treatment of "Holiday homes" took property away from genuine first time buyers (even worse than buy to let, but thankfully less prevalent);

Recent changes to the tax regime to remove the advantages given to private landlords is now driving them out of the rental market - pushing prices up for those who still cannot aspire to own - this may ease prices for buyers but simply shifts the burden further down the chain;

Cheap mortgages by and large over past 10-15 years. When I bought my current house in 1992 tge mortgage rate I paid was between 13 and 15% - people couldnt overspend and demand was held down - as were house prices. After 5 years my house was worth no more than I'd paid for it (in fact less) - since when mortgages have got cheaper and cheaper and house prices have generally soared;

The belief held by most people that bricks and mortar is a safe investment and cant go wrong - the lessons of negative equity were quickly forgotten. Again meaning more buyers than available housing stock.

Its too late for a solution, the "ownership good rentals bad" mantra is totally engrained in people now. But if I could resign the housing market ab initio I would totally outlaw multiple home ownership - homes are to be lived in, not to become a store of income and wealth management. Councils or even central government should invest to ensure an adequate supply of affordable rentals. Driving multiple home ownership out of the market ought to bring prices down and dampen speculation.

Housing is an instance where the existence of a secondary market harms the population and best yet, removing private rentals entirely gets rid of countless leech like estate agents

[ramAnag]

Thanks, though I predict a riot on Saturday.

Oh thanks, Nostro! Such vision. Tends to be what happens at Tommy Robinson gigs, especially with his assembled collection of anti immigrant influencers, a disgraced MP, flagsha**ers and roundabout painters all enjoying a day out on cheap lager.
Chuck in the other demonstration and 100,000 football fans all on the same day and yes?I?d say there is a chance of a bit of ?bovver?. Doubtless it?ll all be the fault of immigrants in your head.

[MadAmster]

Good description GP.

[SithHappens]

Looks like we are going to have a leadership challenge with Streeting and Rayner looking likely. Burnham looks to be getting a route into parliament as Labour MP Josh Simon's makes way for him.

Labour appear to be doing exactly what the Tories did and rather than getting behind Starmer they are imploding and going to replace him. Constant changing of PM's is not what this country needs for stability, if Labour Mps elect a new leader they deserve what happens to them, if they think the new leader will be treated any differently than Starmer has been then they don't deserve to be in government.

A united party would have more chance of defeating the media and Reform but they won't like this. Serve them right if Starmer announces a snap GE.

[ramAnag]

Looks like we are going to have a leadership challenge with Streeting and Rayner looking likely. Burnham looks to be getting a route into parliament as Labour MP Josh Simon's makes way for him.

Labour appear to be doing exactly what the Tories did and rather than getting behind Starmer they are imploding and going to replace him. Constant changing of PM's is not what this country needs for stability, if Labour Mps elect a new leader they deserve what happens to them, if they think the new leader will be treated any differently than Starmer has been then they don't deserve to be in government.

A united party would have more chance of defeating the media and Reform but they won't like this. Serve them right if Starmer announces a snap GE.

He won’t, but in every other respect I agree with you. Given the mess left after fourteen years of the Tories what do people expect within 22 months? Eventually I believe Burnham will make a good PM, but at this moment in time anyone daft enough to take on the mantle can expect a speedy end to their career.
As a nation we have become close to ungovernable, not least because of the media, the impact of the super rich and the devastation caused by Trump, but I think you’re right, Labour needs to stay united…sadly that bird may have flown.

[SithHappens]

Yet another new Reform councilor resigns after being outed as a **** star.

What awful vetting took place here, did the **** industry wouldn't want to be to look so bad by having a reform councilor in their films.

That said the **** industry and Reform do have something in common, they are both full of massive pricks.