|
It felt like the Labour bench was about to get up and kick Cameron to death on PMQ’s today. At least they can come together for something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I59VrgkRgNw
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:John McTernan on Thatcher. It's the "Red" part he objects to, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Anything that drives the "taxpayers have more of a right to public services" angle can gently caress off regardless of what message they're going for. It's the loving mail though isn't it? Fascists gonna fash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londoners-now-spending-two-thirds-of-average-income-on-rent-a3154141.html Had a viewing yesterday that wanted to charge £800 quid in referencing fees for a 4 bed house. As far as I can tell this isn't even that far off average. Bloody scalpers .
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/13/revealed-how-jeremy-corbyn-has-reshaped-the-labour-partyquote:The survey findings are borne out by Labour’s national figures, released to the Guardian in a break with party tradition of keeping them secret. Membership has jumped from 201,293 on 6 May last year, the day before the general election, to 388,407 on 10 January. So Mandelson just used a random number when talking about people who have left the party as a result of Corbyn winning
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Had a viewing yesterday that wanted to charge £800 quid in referencing fees for a 4 bed house. As far as I can tell this isn't even that far off average. Bloody scalpers . What annoys me the most about referencing fees (apart from the fact they exist at all - I think they're illegal in Scotland now, aren't they?) is that they generally scale with rent. As though it somehow costs more to check references for someone paying higher rent. Plus for my most recent place they charged me £400 fees and then the referencing company called me up asking me to contact my previous landlords myself and have them email the firm. If I have to collect the references myself, what the gently caress am I even paying for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Jose posted:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/13/revealed-how-jeremy-corbyn-has-reshaped-the-labour-party Who would have thought that Peter 'what loan, guv?' Mandelson would be misleading with figures?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:He was right up until the point where he blamed Corbyn. Like at any point these dipshits could stop being dysfunctional children. At any point. It's their choice, they have full agency. Tbf, the point is more that most lords are blairite shits (being appointed mostly by blair), so when Corbyn actually wants to oppose the Tories, the Labour Lords don't follow his lead and want to spite him. It's a reasonable point I believe to say Corbyn should get the lords more active in opposing the Tories, and the tone didn't seem to be directly blaming Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:What annoys me the most about referencing fees (apart from the fact they exist at all - I think they're illegal in Scotland now, aren't they?) is that they generally scale with rent. As though it somehow costs more to check references for someone paying higher rent. Plus for my most recent place they charged me £400 fees and then the referencing company called me up asking me to contact my previous landlords myself and have them email the firm. If I have to collect the references myself, what the gently caress am I even paying for? I had one letting agency actually charge me to give a reference to my new letting agency, that was pretty cheeky I thought. And this wasn't even London, they're based in Stockport.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:(apart from the fact they exist at all - I think they're illegal in Scotland now, aren't they?) Yeah since the 80s
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:If I have to collect the references myself, what the gently caress am I even paying for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
I got a reply from the BBC about my complaint!quote:Dear Mr Pork Pie Hat, In which they just cut and paste their laughable reply to the Labour party and say they're sorry they don't bother addressing any of my specific points. What a shower of shitwizards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
It's nice that they sent you a reply I doubt they have the manpower to provide a personalised response to every complainant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Funnily enough it mentions in the article that the man shouting at the strikers is unemployed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
is the issue with london real estate a demand or supply issue?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Er, that seems like a totally meaningless distinction to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:What annoys me the most about referencing fees (apart from the fact they exist at all - I think they're illegal in Scotland now, aren't they?) is that they generally scale with rent. As though it somehow costs more to check references for someone paying higher rent. Plus for my most recent place they charged me £400 fees and then the referencing company called me up asking me to contact my previous landlords myself and have them email the firm. If I have to collect the references myself, what the gently caress am I even paying for? I am pretty glad referencing fees are illegal here. What an appalling idea. Honestly, everything to do with housing in this country is so hosed. shrike82 posted:is the issue with london real estate a demand or supply issue?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:is the issue with london real estate a demand or supply issue?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
"There exist empty houses on the market, therefore there is obviously no supply problem" is one I hear quite a bit, and I'm never fully certain how to refute it. Best I've got is that most of those either aren't up to code or are in the wrong place. thespaceinvader posted:gently caress's sake Norn Iron, get with the times. Do they still ban gay marriage? A recent string of articles about changing attitudes (both social and scientific) to sex and gender leads me to believe that gay marriage will accidentally be legalised almost everywhere in my lifetime as a result of everyone's sex being made privileged information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:I got a reply from the BBC about my complaint! Exactly the same response everyone else got.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Has anyone been following Theresa May's appearance at the joint committee going over the snoopers bill? I can't seem to access any live blogs at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:"There exist empty houses on the market, therefore there is obviously no supply problem" is one I hear quite a bit, and I'm never fully certain how to refute it. Best I've got is that most of those either aren't up to code or are in the wrong place. Under-utilised stock cannot meet housing need on its own. In most cases it would be both impractical and undesirable to redistribute stock, and only draconian policies that would negatively impact existing occupiers could achieve this. Across England, there are only around 280k private homes that are empty for more than six months, and around 70k social homes. Many of these are in a state of significant disrepair, located in areas with comparatively little housing demand, or subject to ongoing legal disputes. On top of that, even if they could all be made available for occupation immediately, we need around 250k new homes each year to keep up with demand; the available stock of empty homes is only a drop in the bucket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Fans posted:It felt like the Labour bench was about to get up and kick Cameron to death on PMQ’s today. At least they can come together for something. It was pleasing to see Cameron getting barracked heavily and on the back foot at frequent times for once, but I'm still disappointed that it was happening at all. Because otherwise it would have been painfully obvious how little Cameron was actually answering. Also, lol at the moment where he said he owns his own home. Homes, Dave. Plural.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Playing catch up from pages back, but Oberleutnant posted:"CATCH UP YOU SCROUNGING oval office". Is one of most  things I've seen in ages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Theresa May is coming up with some disingenuous bullshit at the committee hearing on the draft IP Bill:quote:Q: What are your plans for encryption? You see, the Government thinks encryption is important, and they don't want a key or backdoor into encrypted communications; they want that responsibility to lie with tech companies. They still want to weaken encryption, they just want to be able to point the finger at tech companies if it happens. "It was Facebook that read your encrypted WhatsApp chat, not us!" they'll say. This will also be handy when they need to blame something other than their psychotic foreign policies for the next terrorist attack; "well we would have been able to stop it, but unaccountable technology companies refused to weaken encryption that only nonces and terrorists use."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Also, lol at the moment where he said he owns his own home. This of course being the same dickhead who was all sad that his surviving kids may never own their own homes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:is the issue with london real estate a demand or supply issue? I don't think capitalist theory allows for a problem of too much demand - demand is a great thing under that system, because it allows for more profits to be made by meeting it. Indeed capitalism is fundamentally predicated (at least in theory) on the idea of finding where demand exceeds supply and making up the shortfall. That is why critiques have to come from different angles, such as the leftist one that this highlights how and why infinite growth is unsustainable and/or inapplicable at least some of the time, or that it can cause active harm (such as during acute shortages which are not in fact being met by increased supply for one reason or another), or the environmental one that says the considerations are different and relate to environmental issues, not economic ones, to give two examples. Renaissance Robot posted:"There exist empty houses on the market, therefore there is obviously no supply problem" is one I hear quite a bit, and I'm never fully certain how to refute it. Best I've got is that most of those either aren't up to code or are in the wrong place. Those are both valid points, but on top of that not every house is suitable for every prospective tenant or buyer. You wouldn't stick an old retired nan in a big four bedroom thing, it's daft. That said it's true that there is no real supply problem because the solution is very simple; seize all unused properties and house people in them. Also hang all the landlords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:This of course being the same dickhead who was all sad that his surviving kids may never own their own homes. That's because he plans to outlive them all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:They get with the times if it weren't for the old white men. This is unfair, Arlene Foster is a white woman and said if abortion was legal in cases of rape, women would cry rape and innocent men would be arrested, she's now First Minister.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:He was right up until the point where he blamed Corbyn. Like at any point these dipshits could stop being dysfunctional children. At any point. It's their choice, they have full agency. While I don't doubt that the Labour Lords are not exactly a bastion of support for Corbyn, Farron's clearly just stirring in a clumsy pitch to Labour voters. There's also the elephant he declines to mention: the Tories' plans to reduce the power of the House of Lords. The Labour lords have to be very careful, not appearing to be "interfering in the democratic process" or whatever euphemistic fig leaf the Government spin machine has been, is, and will spit out (despite the irony that a proposal to extend the franchise could even be spun that way). It's a difficult position, and possibly ultimately irrelevant if the Government can force through their plans, but it's a matter of picking public battles, and I don't think votes for 16 and 17 year olds would be an especially resonant or rousing last stand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:"There exist empty houses on the market, therefore there is obviously no supply problem" is one I hear quite a bit, and I'm never fully certain how to refute it. Best I've got is that most of those either aren't up to code or are in the wrong place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
In case anyone missed it, the source behind the latest Telegraph hit piece on Corbyn was 'a former shadow cabinet minister'. Corbyn sacked the right people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Speaking of no water. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a6808386.html quote:A report from Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has accused Ofwat, the water regulator, of “consistently overestimating” water companies’ financing and tax costs when setting price limits. As a result, water companies made gains of at least £1.2bn over the past five years from bills being significantly higher than necessary. I've seem spectacular bellends arguing "Company making profits isn't a problem" like people have any choice whatsoever when it comes to who they buy water from, or as if Water was some special luxury you don't really need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Fans posted:Speaking of no water. There was a brief period, I believe, where you had masses of competitive water supply infrastructure tangled all over the place and armies of men were employed to physically go and change the plumbing from one company's source to another when you swapped supplier. Possibly similar for leccy and gas. I may have imagined all of this! Halcyon days indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
You can change supplier for electric and gas, but not for water. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/cut-water-bills
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
I'm talking about in the 19th century btw
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Fans posted:That's because he plans to outlive them all. He's already got the NHS for one. What does he plan to get to kill in trade for the others? Renfield posted:You can change supplier for electric and gas, but not for water. I'm in the middle of setting up a supplier change for water at work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I'm talking about in the 19th century btw so only for the rich then
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I'm in the middle of setting up a supplier change for water at work. Domestic users can't, and non-domestic users can if they use more than 5 million liters a year, otherwise you're stuck
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Jose posted:so only for the rich then Well I think the suppliers employed the people to do it so in theory for anybody who could afford utilities could have their choice of supplier. I don't know much about the historical availability of utilities, but in my experience the vastly wealthy in the 19th century had their own private generators and fresh water supplies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:45
|
|