Loz

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Turning to the wine trade again, do I take it that > my argument there has been accepted as that line > of thought has gone without response. The latest comment you made was: "Stuff the French and their wine. There's plenty good wine made outside France Australia, RSA, Chile, USA etc. We could take more Spanish and Italian just as long as it is not FRENCH." You really think people are going to accept that? You really think that is a negotiating tactic a sane trade negotiator would attempt?

Gove - sneaky nutter. Leadsome - scary nutter. It's come to a disturbing point where Theresa May is the emerging as the sane one.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have to say I do believe BTL owners are a blocker at the lower end of the market, and I've heard > quite a few of them use the one about having their mortgage paid off for them. Maybe they're cliches > because they're true. Sorry, RPC, but having been there and done that, it's not. Maybe for a very few, but not for the many.

.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely there are good arguments for and against BTL. It's not about hate. That's true, but the ridiculous levels of hate aimed at landlords is pretty unpleasant. Usually by people who have no idea of the details, finances and risks of renting out houses, but feel they can trot out tired, misinformed cliches like 'paying off their mortgage', 'greedy landlords', 'free house' and 'causing the housing crisis'.

Yep - just read the small print at the bottom... The Green Party may use the information you?ve given to contact you. By providing your data to us, you are consenting to us making contact with you in the future by email. You can always opt out of communications at any time by contacting us. Personally, I think petitions like this are more than just a little devious. Especially as you are not given a check box to immediately opt-out.

SLad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The free ride I'm talking about is having the > equity in my property paid off for me without my > paying tax on the money I make on the enterprise. What Jeremy said - you only get relief on interest costs, not equity pay downs. I'm surprised, given your level on knowledge on this subject, you don't know this.

A petition? Really? What is that going to achieve? Wouldn't it be easier just for someone in the Greens to pick up the phone and ring the other party leaders? What exactly is the point of a petition? "Oooh and we have a few 10's of thousand people who have signed a petition, so you have to accept our offer". On the other hand, it's probably like the useless Amnesty petitions, which are a dishonest excuse to increase their mailing list. Expect a lot of spam and money requests.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This may or may not benefit tenants, but it's not directly about tenants' rights. Framing it as > tentants' rights seems disingenuous. Yep, I agree with that as well.

Possibly the worst thought out measure in a long time. It will have one of the following two effects: 1) Will push up rents. Not via landlord's whim - anyone who has rented out a property knows that it just doesn't work that way. But by lowering the rental housing stock in an already overheated market. And in a way that won't actually lower selling prices by any significant amount. 2) Will push rental properties into the hands of the corporate landlords, which will lead a few number of players to have a more concentrated hold on the UK rental market. It's stupid as well because it only affects non-corporate landlords whose total earnings are in the 40% and above tax bracket, so it is not fairly applied. Also, in no other business are you not allowed to claim interest costs against revenue, so why restrict it here? Of course, it will falsely raise the hopes of all the people who are caught in the housing crisis, but will then actually make things worse for them. But, hey, 52% of people voted for Brexit on a bunch of crap promises that will end up making life worse for them, so this is really only an extension of that lemming-like behaviour. Full disclosure: I used to be a one-property landlord, but sold up recently.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Loz Wrote: > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > The problem you face with that strategy, GG, is that - AFAIK - each of the 27 EU countries has a > > > veto on whatever trade deal is settled. And, as we know, you have to do the trade deal with the EU > > > - not each individual country. > > > > Sorry Loz, but effectively the EU doesnt work quite like that in reality. The EU Commission is > > the most powerful entity there and they are effectively controlled by the innerr clique of 6 > > ie France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands , Belgium and Luxembrg. Out of this 6, France and Germany > > hold the clout. If Merker doesnt want it, then it doesnt get through. The other 22 are just marginal > > players > > > This is so stupid I can't even be bothered to argue with it. My thoughts exactly. I think we've actually found someone more obstinate in the face of the most obvious facts than Foxy! I see GG didn't bother to read the FullFacts link I gave to him/her in the "Farage resigns" thread, which would have given him/her a bit more understanding of the EU. And he/she is still claiming "the EU Commission is the most powerful entity" - doubly amusing since Merkel isn't on the Commission, she's on the Council. GG doesn't understand the different EU entities; doesn't understand the veto; doesn't understand qualified/weighted majorities.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just one of my favorite singer songwriters of all time.. > Standing for Peace and agaist War .. against > Racism for the last 40+ years and still doing it.. > Arlo and Pete Seeger - Environmental Activist, > Anti-War Activist I reckon they would have all voted Remain, eh Foxy? (PS and yes, I do remember Guthrie and Pete Seeger, though mainly because my oldest sister loved them.)

Doodlebug_Dee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But worry not, when you or your elderly parents or grandparent need help in the > street, I shalt be trying to ascertain how you voted before I offer to help if in need of > assistance. I'm really hoping you didn't actually mean to write that.

The problem you face with that strategy, GG, is that - AFAIK - each of the 27 EU countries has a veto on whatever trade deal is settled. And, as we know, you have to do the trade deal with the EU - not each individual country.

Seen on Facebook today: How about we don't leave the EU, but tell Leave voters we have? They believed all the other lies, after all.

OK, 'complete Tory' is a bit harsh, but whilst she now calls for 70% tax rates, she previously used to complain about paying 40%. The government at the time was, of course, Labour. There's also been quite a few questions about the limited companies she keeps nearly ?4mn in.

aerie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > What doesn't make sense about them? Because you disagree with her doesn't mean her comments make > > no sense, they seem pretty straight forward. > > > Otta : in the first place I did not know KK was female. Erm... so what? > Secondly, I did not say I disagreed. This was self evident as I did say that KK's 7.11am > post made no sense - to me. Then skipped off to work and thought no more about it. So was not > ignoring you, but oblivious to your question. Actually, you called them 'disagreeable comments'. You say they are disagreeable, but you don't disagree with them? Yeah, right.

Yeah, but which do you want more - a better balance of payments, or cheap wine?

When Charlotte Church was raking in money hand over fist, she was a complete Tory. Now money is harder to come by, she's a full-on Corbynista.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > I haven't seen a return on any of these factual > > rebuttals of the "faceless bureaucrats" and > > "unelected dictators" shtick. Anywhere. Yet people > > hold onto their beliefs. > > > > What I take away from this, and from the > > referendum, is that there is a large section of > > the population who are mentally incapable of > > processing simple information, but are very > > certain of their beliefs. > > > I've asked a couple of times on here, but the ones > I've seen using this kind of language (Foxy & > dogger) just ignore the question or the basis for > it > > Then I read in this week's New Scientist an article on belief and fact, which very much talks > of the fact/belief emotion > > It seems that facts get in the way of the emotion driven belief Actually, that Horizon programme last week covered this as well in that it touched on 'confirmation bias' (amongst other biases). T'was very good and worth catching up on iPlayer (though it was a repeat from 2014, anyway)

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Leering: look or gaze in a lascivious or unpleasant way. Which is not the aggressive "following people down the street and yelling at them" you tried to argue. > I think it is relevant to point out that displaying certain types of behaviour can lead into others I think you are heading back to the 'all men are potential rapists' argument again. It's like that horrible 'male gaze' crap attitude from the 70's and 80's (and, sadly, beyond).

But, GG, negotiations don't go like that. The Germans know what their car industry is worth and will negotiate a deal for one or two of our exports that come to a similar value. We'll end up with a deal with Germany for their cars and, say, our steel. Maybe the French will barter some part of trade for wine (though French wine is generally more expensive anyway and all wine in general is subject to relatively large taxes at the lower end of the market.) But we still won't have access to the single market.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If my wife were coming home alone from the pub late at night and two men started following her saying > "get your tits out" I'd encourage her to run like hell and call the police. Nice strawman. We're talking about 'leering', which is a lot different to your analogy. Originally the point was a forum post asking women of a certain description to contact the poster. You've had to ramp things up to an extreme to try and prove your point. Can't you stick to the subject?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well yes (though it's many a year since any have leered at me, I'm sure) but (and I realise I'm > going to damn myself in perpetuity as politically correct etc to some on here, but oh well) men > don't generally have to worry that the leering has the potential to turn into something more > threatening, do they? Yes, because all men are potential rapists, aren't they?!?! Jesus wept. I thought we'd got past that crap. Hello? 1970's? I think I've found one of your attitudes here. Would you like to collect it?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who is Nora Batty, Theresa May? ... or Harriet Harman. Actually, definitely Harriet Harman.