Sir Ralph

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

Happy with the legal migration system ”Not perfect” is interesting. Most people would say it works badly. What do you think is wrong with the illegal immigration system?

Not the question I asked. I wouldn’t harass anyone. Do you agree with the way the illegal immigration system works in the UK?

Do you agree with the way the illegal immigration system works in the UK?

I’ve had a couple of replies - one the usual about income tax. This is your typical response. The second person I was told about IHT long term and reduced taxation on UK pensions. These guys are going to stay for longer but have significant funds. ill get some more feedback for you. I spoke to a couple of other people and their view was surprise at your view. Foreign Investment in real estate is also significantly smashed. They are also trying to force second home owners and property portfolio owners to sell but they have reduced the pool of buyers The more you dig the worse it gets. They are destroying the residential property market too, despite their key policy to grow the economy based on house building

I’ll ask a couple and let you know. It won’t matter as you won’t believe cause it doesn’t fit your narrative. Unfortunately it’s happened and is happening

Firstly your question was whether I know people that had left. I explained the people that I did. You then asked why they did. I don’t know the ins and outs of their business and tax structuring details other than one key reason relates to future investments abroad and driven by Labour policy. Neither am I an accountant. It wasn’t the basis of the question originally. If it matters I’ll ask and let you know. you asked for details of people I know and I gave them. I didn’t know many, if any, that had left before. You’ll say it’s rubbish and I don’t know them and I’m making it up. Course you will so what’s the point cause my experience doesn’t fit your narrative

Nobody would bother to debate you lot. You’ve got an echo chamber so off course you think everyone would agree with you. It’s the basis of an echo chamber

Mate I found the same. It’s an echo chamber. They get challenged too much and get aggressive and swear

So what you have written is fact it’s not an opinion. Delusional

Thanks for proving my point again. I’m stupid cause I don’t agree with you. It’s the usual 4 suspects replying with the usual. It’s a great echo chamber for you guys. Night night

What I said was true - if someone doesn’t agree with you then you say they are stupid. That’s an echo chamber. Thanks for proving my point

“I thought you were vaguely sensible mate, but clearly not.” Welcome to the antifa echo chamber. You are only “sensible” if you agree with them.

Enjoy your day

I wouldn’t engage buddy. There are 3-4 on here who have created their own politically one sided echo chamber. They all back each other and “heart” one another’s statements. There is no intention of learning or listening to each other

Up the Saints x

Up the Saints x

Up the saints @Farmer Saint @tdmickey3 @Gloucester Sainthave a great weekend. Life is diversity of opinion and ultimately it doesn’t matter too much. Enjoy the summer and hopefully Will Still does the business