Sir Ralph

I don’t recall Ipswich having a decent chance either, other than at the end with the header. Good point at this stage of the season

1. I’m not a liar - never admitted to it. Your opinion is I’ve been caught out cause you don’t agree. Poor form to stoop that low. 2. On this lounge forum I’ve been called various names, including a c£&@. I don’t recall ever resort to such chat. Poor form. 3. Im not going to explain what I do in real estate. If you couldn’t work out from earlier when I explained to some of your friends the basics of foreign investment in real estate, then me explaining it further is pointless. You think I got that from chat GPT? Your friends have taken the Michael out of me for even asking what they do and the relevance. I’ve given much more information about my background (and to be fair you have) than the rest of the contributors on here. 4. I believe that most contributors on this page have socialist views and don’t have any basic idea about business or how the capitalist system works (ps the world is based upon it). All too embarrassed to admit you’re socialist so you fudge the answer - saying that’s an old school view on life is frankly shirking the answer. To me that means you have socialist views as any true capitalist would be happy to admit what they are. 5. When the inner circle is debated or challenged for a certain period you tend to get abusive and try to take the piss. A few of you continue to engage sensibly but the rest are unable to. I’ve seen it with other people, other than me, that have engaged with different views. They eventually get called irrational or stupid. Hence I realised it’s an echo chamber. No real forum does that. 6. Good night. I’ll revisit this in a year and let’s see what happens. Hopefully Labour will turn the economy around but I doubt they will. If they do I will genuinely come back and admit I was wrong. I would be delighted if that happens. If they don’t I look forward to more excuses from the echo chamber. In the meantime UTS and I wish you well.

Incorrect - I’ve never lied never do. It’s poor form. Don’t make stuff up.

It’s funny that people never realise they are one - echo chamber (16). Lads you never all agree with one another and back each other at all. Convince yourselves as much as you like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

Good lad egg. Good luck in all your future endeavours.

Well done chaps - reverting to name calling says a lot. I’ve never done that. Stay classy comrades x

People that don’t want to admit being capitalist or socialists tend to be socialists - they just can’t admit it to themselves unfortunately cause it’s a bit embarrassing

I appreciate you’re asking a legitimate question but the lounge forum is the equivalent of a few guys (none of which who will tell their background or whether they are capitalists or socialists - I suspect the latter). It’s an echo chamber. Again I appreciate the genuine question but I’m out. Enjoy convincing each other that labour are going to do well. I’ll be back next year and look forward to discussing with further evidence - hopefully I’ll be wrong, but I doubt it

You can’t answer it - I’ve never ever met a non exec who wouldn’t say they are a capitalist. Says it all. Not one of you will admit to being capitalist- socialist echo chamber. Good luck chaps. I’m sure labour will potentially grow they economy

Don’t make me laugh - the tax justice website - read up about them. This is just laughable.

But I have given you a load. I’ve experienced it. I could debate the point if you knew or worked with people who may move as you might experience it or otherwise. Whelk - what do you do? Why will nobody explain their jobs. Also if I quoted the Daily Mail you would laugh. This guy is a one man band socialist working out of his bedroom. If this is the scope of research data you guys are relying on that looks desperate., in my opinion.

This is what you pulled out the bag? I’ll be very polite and say this has limited value as evidence. https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/about/ He advises the TUC - not a left wing at all. He probably thinks the Venezuelan Government is progressive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Murphy_(tax_campaigner) Can I ask what you do for a living?

Bearing in mind non Dom’s bring in many multiples of income tax, capital gains tax and NI contributions, compared to your average UK resident, regardless of how much tax you think they should be paying, I don’t understand your eagerness for them to leave. Your only reason is that there will be more properties on the market. They will tend to own properties in high value areas in London and other areas. Again your position on non Dom’s leaving and flooding the market with new property to assist Joe Public isn’t likely at all - it will just mean expensive properties for others at possibly lower values. Would you say you are a capitalist in your general economic position? No capitalist or entrepreneur I have met would take this view. They all have a drive to make money and be successful - some on here would call this selfish (naively in my opinion) but it drives jobs and the economy. If you aren’t, that’s fine, at least we understand one another’s principles with regards to mindset.

https://www.devere-group.com/uk-should-be-wooing-the-wealthy-warns-devere-ceo/ https://www.businessinsider.com/rich-used-to-flock-to-the-uk-now-theyre-fleeing-2025-6 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jul/07/non-doms-labour-super-rich-leaving-the-uk This is before the IHT changes that are going to made in the Autumn to offset the fact that the Labour Party cannot address welfare reform, among other matters. The message to me is clear - don’t invest, don’t save, don’t be responsible- this is creating a bad business culture of low growth and government dependence, both in terms of dependence on welfare and a bloated / unproductive public sector. I have spoken to investors, asset holders, business owners etc across different sector over the past months and NOT ONE has had a positive response to Labours overall economic policies. Like I said before I liked the sound of some of their policies initially but I struggle to understand why you defend them so vehemently now. Are the people you are speaking to saying that there economic policies are doing a good job and encouraging investment? As a matter of principle would you say you are a capitalist? I think a number on here aren’t capitalist but more socialist in their views which means the positions of principle result in us never agreeing.

Ok well I didn’t vote for brexit. I doubt anyone with a business view would, in the same way I would be surprised if a majority of business people voted labour. So you agree at least that it has had a negative impact, albeit less than my experience. You think I’m making it up and that’s fine. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you aren’t but are probably in a location or sector where you haven’t seen this.

So you’re saying that labours policies have had no impact on wealthy people leaving the country? Is that what you really believe? Has it had a net positive effect then?

Ok let’s say I’m making it all up. Which I’m not. They are in real estate, finance and insurance mainly just to correct you. I said I’m not a tax expert but I know these people that left and they didn’t get into any details other than referencing IHT as a key driver. Are you saying that isn’t true? Also they are friends - so we talk about life and life decisions. I’m surprised you don’t know anyone at all that has left as the vast majority of people in business in London do if you have any sort of credentials. I find that “very, very funny”. If you’re experience is certain levels of business then I understand your experience but that’s ok. Also most very wealthy people I know never let on how much they earn, who they know or anything like that. You have done all voluntarily which indicates to me otherwise. I only responded when asked. I think it’s absolutely bizarre you defend labours policies as an alleged business man. We both don’t believe each other so let’s leave it there. https://www.ft.com/content/a3fc89ea-6e9a-4795-9d42-e555551d0a0f https://news.sky.com/story/why-rachel-reeves-may-want-to-rethink-one-of-her-pivotal-policies-13408251

Fair point if the right checks and balances are in place through the legal routes I understand

What do you do @egg Respectfully I would like to reiterate the two key points: 1. The delivery of affordable housing is linked to private house building that was delivered in some cases through foreign investment. In high value areas this is often the way in which historically key workers, for example, can access housing. 2. Your complaint is about foreign investment resulting in a lack of affordability- in fact it’s a lack of house building matching population growth, rather than an increase in housing. This has been documented to the nth degree in many places. This is why the current government is trying to promote what you would call a housing “boom”, albeit isn’t going to achieve it. One of those reasons is a lack of private, including foreign, interest and investment in the UK housing market due to government economic policies. Your complaint maybe about the regeneration of areas where large scale new developments have come forward, in many places to revitalise areas, which are often in need to social and physical support. This often increases the cost of housing in these areas. However that funding comes from many sources and regeneration is something the Labour government is in fact very keen to see. @egg @tdmickey3 and @whelk I note you all have similar views - I can promise you that private investment and wealth tends to have on balance a positive impact for the country. Thats just my view as a capitalist

Sorry i respectfully don’t agree. The foreign investment meant the houses were built in the first place. The backers were foreign investment otherwise they probably wouldn’t have been built or not at the rate they were. Why would an increase in housing provision reduce the affordability? Alternatively you would have less housing without foreign investment - you aren’t saying that would have meant prices reduced?

This is a complex issue and there are pros and cons. I wouldn’t say I have the complete answer to address it but in my view you need to differentiate between legitimate refugees and others - that is what is attracting some less legitimate applicants. Unfortunately there are too many incentives at the moment so I would remove some of the incentives. As part of this you may need to leave the ECHR or lobby for its terms to change. I think all governments are currently trying to solve the issue with one arm tied behind their backs. There is a notable impact on local authority expenditure (not for the accommodation itself) which means that resources for other services are reallocated rather than going to existing sectors - eg social care.

I didn’t criticise the current government- I think the conservatives didn’t have a handle and they are playing politics on it. I don’t think labour will be successful either as I think they will need a more radical approach to solve it.

Firstly thanks for engaging. I respectfully disagree- foreign investment resulted in a significant boom in housing in the noughties and after the 2008 recession. With that it helped the delivery of affordable housing and also a lot of jobs which the Treasury benefitted from. Without investment, including foreign investment, affordable housing doesn’t get built at the same level or rate. That’s what’s happening now. So private and foreign investment in housing increases supply (thereby improving affordability) and allows the delivery of affordable housing alongside it. The issue of affordability has been a lack of house building to keep up with population growth so you could argue more foreign investment would have helped

What do you do Whelk? I appreciate my terminology was crude but maybe engage with the point being made. Tell me why you disagree as that’s the bigger point - I’m intrigued. Tell me the positive or negative impact that Labour has had on property investment and housing delivery (one of their key policies) in the UK? Im genuinely trying to engage with you on this so I would be keen to understand the point you are trying to make.

Appreciate the considered response. To start with I agree with some of the basic and principle points about stopping boats crossing and reducing incentives. Do you believe they are mainly genuine asylum seekers? I will add that the Conservatives weren’t much better this is more a point about the numbers - which hopefully you would agree aren’t manipulated by gives an idea of the scale of the issue. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e1xkwd74wo