Leaderboard

people have died children have been burnt and smoked to death People have the right to live - if they have come from 6 generations of Londoner or if they have come from the Yemen or if they are trying to set up a new life with a boyfriend that shouldn't mean there are zones they can officially live in. People have died in what appears to have been an avoidable fire. Abstract political theories on how ghetto's are actually for the benefit of the poor are not what's needed right now. Those flats wouldn't have been safer if they had been in Brick Lane, or Blackburn, or Bangor. The people in them wouldn't be safer if they lived the other side of a gate or commute 20 miles to their cleaning job. They would have been safer if the people making the costing decisions truly lived among those affected and not in their own ghetto 2 miles down the road.

This mantra really boils my piss. BUILDING MORE HOUSES IS NOT, NOT, NOT 'THE ANSWER'. The only thing it's good for is the building industry. It's happening all around where I live. Huge new estates going up on green belt land. Are they 'affordable, first time buyer' homes? Are they ****. They're 4 and 5 bedroom jobs, costing 3, 4, 5 hundred grand. There are some smaller ones, but they are still totally unaffordable by young people - they are getting bought up by buy-to-let landlords, to turn themselves a nice little profit. And the roads around here are very close to gridlock (not just at rush hour, all **** ing day). The new estates are throwing hundreds more cars into the chaos on a daily basis. It's madness. Both my daughters and their partners want to buy. They all have decent jobs, but not money enough to save a deposit, and zero chance of getting a mortgage. There are plenty of available houses that they'd buy, but they're in a poverty trap. Stop this crap about building houses, and start addressing the real problems - low paid jobs (don't get me started on zero hours contracts and internships), banks who will only lend to the already rich, lack of investment in existing properties, not enough use of brown field sites, no social housing. The system is broken, and it's about time we kicked out the bastards responsible and got our priorities right.

Ruge there are over 1,400,000 empty homes already. New build blocks of flats are bought up by the rich off plan and lay empty for years as investments. How many more should we build? Will another million fix it? This is why we now have to talk about 'affordable homes'. You know, the starter flat with one open kitchen diner and one bedroom that you can buy for £145,000 or the starter family home you can buy for just £330,000. We have to talk about affordable homes now, because a million properties are now actually just investment vehicles for the pensions of the rich. They aren't homes you're looking at when you walk around Maida Vale or Little Venice. They are high yield investment portfolio opportunities. Telling the poor to move to Cornwall as one cretin has done is just so **** offensive. How much Cornish housing stock has been bought up as second or third homes for the holiday season? I'll tell you what though, I can guarantee all those tens of thousands of investment properties have decent fire alarms. Can't risk a poor return on investment.

We have every right, do we? Who is 'we'? This is some scary shit, exactly the kind of revolutionary socialism I've always thought Corbyn was about underneath - no respect for the law or due process, just might is right. 'We'll take your stuff* because we can'. F*** that. *note, I've got no stuff worth taking so this isn't about self interest.

I know that I'm blessed living where I live. We've been down the beach today, listening to music. It's where I grew up, this beach was the place I had as a playground. But it's a town that has had its problems and its issues. There are a few sink estates not three or four miles from this beach where there are kids growing up that have never been to the beach (I know this for fact). But what is happening here is a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere. Within easy commuting distance, just 11 miles away, the Welsh government have set up shop. The BBC are building their new headquarters, the AA, Admiral Insurance, and a dozen other big companies are setting up (along with the likes of Aston Martin). The result is house price pressure. Local kids are beginning to find it hard to buy a house in this town. I certainly couldn't afford to buy the house I now live in. In fact, on the old fashioned 3+1 salary formula, we could no longer afford the first house we ever bought. At the time, it was literally the cheapest house in town. Now, it's going for more than three plus one of our salary and we are earning respectable money. So how does the kid working in Greggs get somewhere to live? Not even 'buy a house', it's not anyone's 'right' to buy a house, but rent is often more than mortgage so where is this heading? Where it's heading is people from this town, by the coast, are being forced to move from here to deprived areas. All those town with no purpose 40 miles up the valleys where the coal and the steel ran out. What jobs are up there? Almost none. So then they have to commute back down the A470 just to work in Greggs for £7.70 and to be told on Friday if they are needed for the Saturday shift. There have been two substantial housing schemes built in town in the last few years. The majority of houses in both schemes were bought up by people doing their clever little buy to let scheme. So the house builder needs a profit, then the landlord expects a return. All this with interest rates at record lows is still driving the broken market further and further in to the dirt. When the rates begin to rise, then shit gets serious for all of us. Let councils build. Charge massive premiums on second homes. Set a time limit on how long a property can go unoccupied. Tighten up on Landlords. Actually have a plan and release the money to implement it. We shouldn't accept water being a commodity that has a profit return for privateers. We also shouldn't accept having somewhere safe to live is simply down to market forces. Safe shelter is as close to a right as I can imagine.

I used to live in Cornwall. The places with cheaper property are hugely deprived, with astoundingly low paid work, where any is available, problems with drink, drugs, crime, and all the signs of despair. The last thing those places need are large influxes of more poor struggling people. I love Cornwall, it's brilliant, but I had to leave when my job finished because I couldn't get another one. I lived in Newquay, which has its own problems with low wages, house prices and all the rest, but at least is a great place for the outdoor life. Go to Redruth or Cambourne and they're just holes with no jobs and no money and no visitors to create seasonal work. but the idea of sending people to one of the poorest parts of the whole country as any kind of solution to anything, let alone somehow addressing tower blocks burning down is madness.

If the poor could just be housed in flats (shit ones, not good ones) fitted with castors (shit ones, not good ones) then we could simply push them away if ever an area became nice or touristy. Eventually, all poor people would live in low lying areas (the shit ones like Boston, not the good ones like Bath) as flats can't easily be pushed up hill (certainly not by the undeserving poor anyway, as generally they lack access to yummy mummy 4 x 4's). Then all the good views could be reserved for investment portfolio property banks and weekend retreats. We would need to ensure a rail link (a shit one, not a good one), or zip wire (shit not good) so nice people can get gig economy serfs when they need dirty jobs done. There would need to be a strict limit on the poor entering the city as they tend to get overly emotional and uppity at the drop of a hat (I say hat, obviously I mean dead neighbour). Oh also, Cornwall is nice. Top tip: for cultural integration, it's jam first cream on top in Cornwall.

See, I don't get this Four Yorkshiremen 'we had it rough' routine from anybody around my age. My wife and I both came from working class families, and did *massively* better than our parents. Why? NHS health care from birth, free education up to and including university, inspirational teachers not tied to box-ticking, well remunerated jobs, protected by trades unions, good company pension schemes - and a belief that we were worth something (unlike our prewar parents who had been basically treated as serfs). We rented for a couple of years and then were able to get a 97% mortgage on a £20,000 four-bedroomed house. We sold that for £95,000 after 13 years, and bought our current 5-bed semi for £112,000. It's currently worth about £400,000. By contrast, our kids (just as intellectually capable as we were) got stressed out at school and university to get qualifications that mean naff all, with student loan debts hanging over them. They've spent years being treated like serfs (sound familiar?) in mcjobs, can't save, can't get a mortgage. I didn't have it hard, I had it piss easy compared to them. And that's why I'm a socialist, for the sake of the next generation, not mine.

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/from-brexit-to-donald-trump-welcome-to-the-age-of-hypernormalisation-in-london-a3367326.html “If you’re in London, what you see around you is all these new buildings being built and they all look exactly alike. But what you also know about these buildings is that none of us are ever going to be able to afford to live in them. After the financial crash of 2008 there was a wave of money coming into the city that couldn’t go into the stock market, so it went into property instead. These blocks you’re actually looking at are not buildings, they’re blocks of money.” Adam Curtis. This I think is the issue - we're living in a world where we're building property in order that money has somewhere to live, not in order that people do. There are companies that own thousands of properties in London and don't really care if they're occupied or not - they make money standing empty. They're numbers on a stockmarket board owned by companies which are themselves owned largely by other companies who buy shares to make profit and don't care what the shares are in, they just need something to buy that will make number a turn into bigger number b within a financial year - and then they need somewhere for that profit to live, so they need things to buy. Money working for money in a pointless, useless, harmful, tightening loop.

Could we maybe move some of this 'you don't have a human right to live in Beverly Hills or St Tropez' rubbish to a new thread called 'Trite Observations about the Housing Market' or something? Because I'm starting to find it incredibly disrespectful to the actual people who actually died while living in their flats in Kensington this week.

May just mean he's returning to work soon after heart operation?

He failed in his own objective. Nothing made up about that. He said we had to finish top 10 and he failed

Because it's bad for the planet for starters Huge commutes also lead to a poorer quality of life, less free-time. If people didn't have to travel as far to work, they'd be happier, they'd be more productive. It's a win for everyone, except estate agents The housing market in this country is absolutely broken. It needs fixing And just because you had to do something when you were starting out doesn't actually make it the right thing for a society to be pushing its less well off people towards The I had to do it argument is one I used to hear about National Service a lot, didn't wash in that argument, doesn't wash in this one. My grandad left school at 11, he had to do it, why shouldn't I?

INCOMING!!!!

Not a lot. I've taken to hiding behind the sofa whenever we are on.

Fallon's an absolute tube and David Davies is a brexiteer maddo. I'm struggling to think of a Tory MP who would do the job who isn't an absolute whopper.

Shocked to see Bruce using the driver, Thought Bruce only played with irons considering his safety first approach when it comes to football

Why dont we like natural flows of conversation here? Thats how discussion works. Things are linked together and feed back into each other. If we started talking about computer games or strawberry jam I'd understand the 'off topic' cry more. Social injustice/justice is utterly 100% on topic in this topic and fighting for it is anything but disrespectful for the victims.

Serves the working class peasantry right for trying to live close to middle eastern royals 'London season' properties, Russian oligarchs UK bases, London Bankers boltholes and politicians penthouses and town houses. Why don't they try the council estate 20 miles away, they could get a nice little 3 bedroom terraced house surrounded by like minded individuals. Wait what? They don't want to move from the place they already live in or were born in? Well why not? That's just unreasonable. Rich people need these properties to make themselves richer. Inconsiderate peasants.

people have died You do get this don't you? You've seen the start of the thread yeah? People burned to death. People have died in a tower block and you want a conversation about shipping the poor out of town away from tourists and property investments. you've even used the phrase: Well it sure as **** is a human right not to burn to death on the 24th floor. The sum total of your response begins to read like you think the dead were at fault for living quite close to a nice area? I know you can't mean that, because I think that would be beyond the most crass view imaginable.

Hadn't even thought of the Gray brothers. That makes it even worse. It sounds dramatic but Gatland and Howley are pretty much ruining this tour for me. We won in Australia in spite of them (and because Australia were shit). I hate to say it but I'm feeling slightly jaded about the Lions. It's supposed to be about the four nations coming together but as you say, Gatland is undermining that with Wales undeservedly being the most representative nation now. Gatland is breeding resentment towards them amongst rugby fans with his bias. Moriarty (who shouldn't have been there in the first place) ruled out - surely that means an overdue call-up for Robshaw? Plus articles on WalesOnline about how the loss to Highlanders was Owen Farrell's fault and how Halfpenny would've nailed that kick. I bloody love the Lions and this is all putting a massive downer on it for me.

I value the rule of law, plain and simple. If you want to go after the kleptocrats, corrupt politicians and general filthy money London is swimming in then I'll hold your coat and cheer you on. Until then the law is the law and can't simply be tossed aside when 'we' (whoever that is) decide it's inconvenient. Edit: and to add the point that keeps being ignored, put them in hotels at the taxpayer's expense. The state doesn't need to seize private property.

Yes I do! By all means spend the money to put them up in hotels, or rental properties, until new permenent homes are found for them. Doesn't matter what it costs they deserve every support from the state. BUT, government screwing with private property rights is a really, really bad road to go down legally, ethically and economically. We are not Venezuela.

yeah, we should never sign a barcelona player ever again

Is that because it's Keith Wyness? He's banned from football for a few more weeks...

We're signing Alex Bruce. Having John Terry there is a just a way for Bruce to say that he tried to sign him but ultimately he wanted more than the £10k/week we offered him.

Stop it people !!!!

If it's true we're getting Terry then I'm happy. If there is anybody in the team that isn't pulling their weight, he'll drag them by the scruff of the neck and get them moving. I know he's a tosser in general, but he's a role model when it comes to the actual game. Also, the grief I got off all the noses at work about them signing him from right under us would make it all the sweeter.

If you zoom right in to the bushes on the left you can see 'Arry perched in his Range Rover with his window wound down, telling him how triffic he is.

Sample example of this dynamic is this Mail Online headline today: 'After being booed by Grenfell victims, Theresa May caps another dreadful day with 'inhuman' TV interview and fails to give a single straight answer after being accused of misreading public's anger' I'm not quoting the article since everything it says is in the headline, but you get the idea. Apparently this article is entitled 'Maybot Malfunction' in the paper edition. This newspaper was portraying her as the reincarnated spirit of Boadicea less than six months ago.

Joking aside, Cornwall, apart from high property prices (as @chrisp65 alludes to), due to all the holiday homes is also really struggling in terms of jobs and wages. Yes a lot of it is beautiful, but it's mostly poor and expensive.

I don't see why this process, as described in your own words, should be viewed anything but cynically. The process is, you say, 'framed to interest industry' because 'media, politicians and individuals' don't care. I dispute this. I'm absolutely certain that most people don't know what a CDM regulation is (and I'm happy to admit to being one of them) but I know that people and politicians care whether they can live in a house that's safe or not. You mistake a lack of interest in industry jargon for a lack of interest in the subject generally. As @snowychap has said, the context for this discussion is the Great Repeal Bill in which people like yourself are going to be given enormous power as huge changes will be enacted with little scrutiny via secondary legislation. The idea that lobbyists and Conservative politicians will not take the opportunity to creatively remake and reword and redefine regulations during this process in a manner that suits them strikes me as very naive. Lobbyists might wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and tell themselves that what they are lobbying for that day is in the national interest - and they might even mean it - but I'm happier when important changes are scrutinised by our elected representatives first. Finally, on the topic of 'what EU regulation do you believe should be changed' - I don't know. It's not necessary to my further discussion in this thread to have read every EU rule about housebuilding. This stuff is obviously your job; it isn't mine. I have a full-time job, and I don't have the time or inclination to read through EU legislation in my limited hours of free time. But this thread is for general discussion of the politics of exiting the EU, and I was making in my last post, and will continue to make, a basic point: we should be suspicious of people in the Conservative party who want to roll back regulation without scrutiny, because doing so can have profound effects and because these people are planning to create a legislative process in which many changes can be enacted without sufficient scrutiny. These people have made their priorities clear over many years, and their priorities (less environmental protection, less food safety, less worker protection, more regulations 'framed to interest industry') are not those shared by many people on this thread. By demanding that people tell you what they feel about individual regulations, you seem to hope to narrow down the number of people who are allowed to discuss the topic to yourself only. But it's not necessary to be an expert to see a bad deal. I can't make a great soup, but if I go to a restaurant and order one and there's a turd floating in it, you better believe I'm sending it back to the kitchen.

...and then Manchester United will....and then Ronaldo will sign a new contract with Real Madrid with a nice big pay rise.

and the pin would indicate he's a bit of a prick...Terry?

I really think this shows your lack of comprehension of the discussion you entered. It is not a 'building industry' thread. You appear to want to talk about the minutiae of building industry regulations and policy and continue to litter your posts with comments about 'CDM regulations' and other such stuff that you, obviously, know a great deal more about than I do (something I've said on more than one occasion) and probably more than all but a few reading this board. I can understand that this is where you feel most comfortable, where you can display your expert knowledge and I am in little doubt that this is of importance when discussing policy and advising policy-makers. What we are in is the EU thread where one of the most important things, aside from Brexit negotiations, is the process of transition for laws and regulations after we actually leave. It is therefore important to talk about this process which is supposed to be revolving around the Great Repeal Bill. I think it's very important that people talk about this process. It is much more important to talk about it and the generalities that perhaps can be taken from the specifics that you have valuably brought up about your particular industry because the population is concerned with more than just the building industry and because the same process is likely going to be applying across the board. To be clear, I don't have an issue with people who are experts in a field being consulted - I am not Gove. Policy makers must absolutely hear opinion from those people but they ought to have consideration for everyone and not just these people and their interests or demands when formulating policy. My problem is with this Great Repeal Bill process and how it may well be used as a means of stripping away all sorts of regulation without proper parliamentary oversight and under a false claim (from government) of the lock stock transposition of EU law (where directly applicable) in to UK law.

If it makes you feel better they were on stage for nearly 3 hours and even threw in Pink Floyd ( wish you were here) ,a Who song (the seeker ) and Soundgarden (black hole sun )for good measure. the sound was a bit muffled to start with but the gig got better and better the longer it went on ...November Rain and Coma were standouts for me Axl's voice has gone a little but you know what , as an overall package it was a bloody good concert

Can you please list every individual that owns these properties and also link how each is as you describe in your second paragraph?

An arrow through the heart would indicate a player who has fallen out with his club... C.Ronaldo?

I have always called it the League Cup and will continue to do so. I have lost track of the number of sponsors that have changed the name of this trophy that have come and gone over the years. But I agree that the Carabao Cup pips the Milk Cup for me for this particular competition.

If rumours of the replacement call-ups are true then Gatland is a **** dick. I understand the argument about geography but that shouldn't matter. As Eddie Jones says, pick on merit over location. Lions caps (regardless of whether they are mid-week or not) should not just be handed out. We're going to get tuned by the ABs but I genuinely think we could be competitive if it wasn't for Gatland and Howley. I thought picking Leigh Halfpenny (with by far the worst stats of any tier 1 full-back) was bad enough but Cory Hill over Joe Launchbury is another level.

How far back are we going? The Normans, the Vikings? Saxons? Romans? You appear to be saying property rights are meaningless, or only applicable to people deemed deserving of them - by whom you don't mention, although I doubt that group of decision makers believe the same rules would apply to them. That's communism, not just common ownership of the means of production but no private property either. There's no value in repeating the same thing over and over so I'll leave it with it's all well and good to change the law, but it's not okay to simply abandon it as many people here are calling for.

yep, they should do this the right way they should maybe form a residents' committee and go through the correct channels for years, petitioning the landlord to install life saving features

Brew stout!

You seem to be far more outraged by people's reactions to the fire than by the tragedy itself.