Jump to content

The Scottish Independence referendum

pap

By pap,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Foreign money has radically changed the London property market. It's a basic supply and demand situation. Sheiks and oligarchs might not be hoovering up low cost housing in London (is there any?), but they are investing heavily in office space, property in decent areas and business.

 

On the property front, they've been chasing prime locations in desirable areas. This pushes professionals into traditionally poorer areas, so while the poor may not be competing with sheiks and barons, they are competing with relatively well paid professionals who are chasing cheaper rents.

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/04/gentrification-london

 

It has a huge bearing, ta. Just not as direct as it needs to be for your mind to grasp it.

 

No it doesn't! And the article you link to says precisely the opposite - you really must read it. For example:

 

Is this a problem? It is tempting to think so. There is nothing gentrifiers dislike more than other gentrifiers, especially much richer ones. But on the other hand, the shift reflects genuine social progress. Trendiness alone has not driven change. Twenty years ago, few middle-class people wanted to live in places like Hackney, because crime rates were high, congestion legion, pollution choking and the schools utterly appalling. All of those things have improved enormously. And an influx of middle-class people has probably helped entrench the changes. Not all existing residents benefit because some have to rent in the private sector, and rents are up. But most are shielded: either because they own, or because they live in subsidised social housing.

 

This is typical of your incoherence. You make a point, someone challenges it, so you slide onto another completely separate (and just as tenuous) point.

 

So to try and introduce some clarity here, super prime buyers from Russia and Arabia (and China and the US and Europe and....) are (a) not buying poor people's houses; and (b) are not gentrifying other parts of London.

 

Gentrifiers have been around since forever in London (Notting Hill was once cheap as chips) and are far from simply those displaced from around the King's Road. They're often outliers of various kinds (artists, bohos, school catchment chasers, etc., etc.) And as the article actually says if you'd read, can often have a beneficial social effect.

 

Mushing up gentrifiers, the poor and super-prime buyers in one sweeping generalisation is beyond nonsense.

 

So for the last time: it is government policies that have redistributed wealth from poor to rich that have caused the exodus of the poor (low-paid and unemployed) from London. Rich foreigners buying office space (what?!) and Mayfair mansions (which have ALWAYS been out of reach to us mortals) have no effect on the poor.

 

If there was ever a catalyst for change, this would be it.

 

If it were me, I'd move the capital and force the issue.

 

And back we go to simpleton economics, and the knee-jerk proposition that if you make London poorer you'll make the rest of the country richer. Given the vast subsidies flowing from London to the rest of the UK, the hobbling of London will impoverish the rest of the UK: lose/lose.

 

I'll leave it there, because this isn't the thread for it.

 

Looking forward to a YES vote tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No it doesn't! And the article you link to says precisely the opposite - you really must read it. For example:

 

This is typical of your incoherence. You make a point, someone challenges it, so you slide onto another completely separate (and just as tenuous) point.

 

York it is, then. Try not to breathe in too much of that sixties asbestos. We all worry, y'know.

 

So to try and introduce some clarity here, super prime buyers from Russia and Arabia (and China and the US and Europe and....) are (a) not buying poor people's houses; and (b) are not gentrifying other parts of London.

 

Gentrifiers have been around since forever in London (Notting Hill was once cheap as chips) and are far from simply those displaced from around the King's Road. They're often outliers of various kinds (artists, bohos, school catchment chasers, etc., etc.) And as the article actually says if you'd read, can often have a beneficial social effect.

 

Mushing up gentrifiers, the poor and super-prime buyers in one sweeping generalisation is beyond nonsense.

 

So for the last time: it is government policies that have redistributed wealth from poor to rich that have caused the exodus of the poor (low-paid and unemployed) from London. Rich foreigners buying office space (what?!) and Mayfair mansions (which have ALWAYS been out of reach to us mortals) have no effect on the poor.

 

Yeah, right. Foreign investors ploughing billions into property prices has no effect on the rest of the city.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/01/foreign-investment-london-property

 

And back we go to simpleton economics, and the knee-jerk proposition that if you make London poorer you'll make the rest of the country richer. Given the vast subsidies flowing from London to the rest of the UK, the hobbling of London will impoverish the rest of the UK: lose/lose.

 

I'll leave it there, because this isn't the thread for it.

 

Looking forward to a YES vote tonight.

 

It's not simpleton economics, or defunding London. It's deciding the most appropriate place to have the capital. I'd prefer to see London do the New York thing, and remain the financial centre, leaving somewhere like Manchester as the government capital.

 

Just stop thinking for others, Verbal. You can barely manage it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
Totally unscientific poll at work.

 

Asked 120 L2 & L3 Business or IT students what momentous event was happening today.

 

Only 52 mention the referendum.

 

Of those 52, when asked whether Scotland should become independent, 35 said yes, 12 said no and 5 don't care.

 

Of staff, when asked the question that is on the ballot paper. 44 said yes and 16 said no.

What are L2 & L3 Business/IT students?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
They're buying shítloads of property, driving costs of property up.

 

Dovetailed with the Tory "we won't pay more than £400 p.w. HB", the poor are being driven out of London.

 

I love to educate, as you know - I thank you for this opportunity :)

 

 

 

Not really. The economy is configured to run on debt. Huge democratic deficit, both in the way we "choose" our head of state and elect our Parliamentarians. 70% of all land being in the hands of 200,000 people, while families live in shít while waiting a decade for social housing. National industries defunded, made to look shít, and sold off to private industries at a knock-down price. It's set up for the rich.

 

:lol: You do crack me up. You said the poor were being washed out of London to make room for Russian Oligarchs and Arab Sheikhs, that isn't happening, as everyone knows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Completely. I love the way we can only pick our head of state from one family, the way that millions of voters are disenfranchised.

 

Recently, I've been most encouraged at washing the poor out of London. Gotta make room for those Russian oligarchs and Arab sheiks.

 

This quote isn't dripping in sarcasm at all.

 

:lol: You do crack me up. You said the poor were being washed out of London to make room for Russian Oligarchs and Arab Sheikhs, that isn't happening, as everyone knows.

 

Unfortunately, neither is this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
So you don't believe in your original point and were only being sarcastic. Fair enough.

 

I actually do think it's a factor. I also climbed down a bit when Verbal put in his second post of the day. That could have been an interesting springboard for discussion, but it was not to be.

 

I'll speak to you tomoz when he's put in another post you can subsist off :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
I actually do think it's a factor. I also climbed down a bit when Verbal put in his second post of the day. That could have been an interesting springboard for discussion, but it was not to be.

 

I'll speak to you tomoz when he's put in another post you can subsist off :)

Yeah mine and Verbal's post are always off the same page :lol: You get found out for bullsh*t.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yeah mine and Verbal's post are always off the same page :lol: You get found out for bullsh*t.

 

Whatever mate.

 

I'm just glad you're over that whole "asking-the-same-questions-like-a-three-year-old-child-might" phase.

 

Anything is an improvement, even getting called a bullshítter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just been reading a Q and A blog that Salmond/SNP did online

 

sounds great what they propose

 

Very low corporation tax

lower taxes all round

free child care

increased spending on education

increased spending on health

increased spending for the elderly

Spending on a new defence force

guaranteed membership in the EU immediately

review of restrictions on cannabis

guaranteed no border restrictions with rUK

absolute currency union other wise will not pay back National Debt

scottish nationals (after 2016) will still get full use of british embassies around the world

 

 

Pap, your kind of place ;)

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just been reading a Q and A blog that Salmond/SNP did online

 

sounds great what they propose

 

Very low corporation tax

lower taxes all round

free child care

increased spending on education

increased spending on health

increased spending for the elderly

Spending on a new defence force

guaranteed membership in the EU immediately

review of restrictions on cannabis

guaranteed no border restrictions with rUK

absolute currency union other wise will not pay back National Debt

scottish nationals (after 2016) will still get full use of british embassies around the world

 

 

Pap, your kind of place ;)

 

Ferkin eldorado mate, then again so are 1968 hippy communities on the Larzac plateau. Tend goats and stuff and spend their days hang gliding apart from when they have a RV at Pole Emploi (job centre to you). Unfortunately 20 years down the line someone has to pay for it, which is why the French Economy is totally in the crapper. The Scottish should beware, Hollande got elected by spouting exactly the sort of bolloaks above and now we"re in dire straits because of it.

Edited by Window Cleaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just been reading a Q and A blog that Salmond/SNP did online

 

sounds great what they propose

 

Very low corporation tax

lower taxes all round

free child care

increased spending on education

increased spending on health

increased spending for the elderly

Spending on a new defence force

guaranteed membership in the EU immediately

review of restrictions on cannabis

guaranteed no border restrictions with rUK

absolute currency union other wise will not pay back National Debt

scottish nationals (after 2016) will still get full use of british embassies around the world

 

 

Pap, your kind of place ;)

 

Not so sure about the EU lark, but sounds good anyway :)

 

No no, If you want it you've got to pay for it all by yourself. If you want your fellow workers to pay for your grand schemes of social re-engineering then you need to become a socialist politician, I'm afraid. :)

 

You don't have to be a socialist to do social engineering. Just ask anyone that's been to a food bank, had an ATOS test, been forced to work for nowt, can't get part time hours because someone is forced to work for nowt, the parents who'll see their kids die in future because they don't have health insurance.

 

Just sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted

Isnt there some sort of implication if they dont contribute to the national debt ?

 

I read somewhere if we disagree to a currency union and they do not repay the debt then it could affect their credit rating ?

 

Besides surely they will need to fund there own pension pot, I hope to god we as a nation arent going to pay for scottish national pensions, aswell as a complete withdrawal of any welfare liabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scotty

scotty

Posted
Posted
Isnt there some sort of implication if they dont contribute to the national debt ?

 

I read somewhere if we disagree to a currency union and they do not repay the debt then it could affect their credit rating ?

 

Besides surely they will need to fund there own pension pot, I hope to god we as a nation arent going to pay for scottish national pensions, aswell as a complete withdrawal of any welfare liabilities.

 

The pensions are less of a problem than their welfare costs, I would guess. And yes, the debt issue if they didn't get a deal on sterling would be that their new national currency would have to be backed by a government whose first economic action was to default on a national debt. Which would obviously be a massive disincentive to potential lenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
What, like central banks? Wonga?

 

Seriously, if money for nothing is your problem, there are more deserving targets for your ire.

 

It all depends where the money comes from. In the case of central banks, BofE etc, they get it by printing money. This just causes inflation which devalues savings. Effectively it's stealing money from people's life-savings in order to pay off national debt, or give to undeserving causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
It all depends where the money comes from. In the case of central banks, BofE etc, they get it by printing money. This just causes inflation which devalues savings. Effectively it's stealing money from people's life-savings in order to pay off national debt, or give to undeserving causes.

 

If people didn't hoard **** loads of the stuff in their bank accounts we wouldn't have to print new ones.

 

At least the dole scroungers put their notes back into the system by buying fags n stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
If people didn't hoard **** loads of the stuff in their bank accounts we wouldn't have to print new ones.

 

At least the dole scroungers put their notes back into the system by buying fags n stuff.

 

Who's hoarding? The savings ratio has fallen drastically since 1992 and has only risen slightly during the recession, not surprisingly. Anyway, if people don't save the banks don't have the money to lend to businesses and housebuyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
Who's hoarding? The savings ratio has fallen drastically since 1992 and has only risen slightly during the recession, not surprisingly. Anyway, if people don't save the banks don't have the money to lend to businesses and housebuyers.

 

Yeah of course, I just don't get the big issue with dole scroungers. Sure they are lazy c*nts but they have little quality of life and at least their cash gets pumped back into the economy unlike some rich banker ***t who squirrels it all away in some offshore account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

I have to say there are a lot of deluded yes voters and campaigners up here . I had to dismiss one a couple of years ago . A knob then and still a knob today

Anyway tonight I'm in my local amongst decent and sensible folk who are on either of the political equation . And I'm pleased to say we have total respect for each other's views . I'm assured the yes voters can't stand salmond and spurgeon . And if it is a yes vote we are likely to have a leader from a neutral or Labour Party or liberal But definately not the krankies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...