[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:58 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

How do you propose reducing rent, given that:

a) rent is set in response to market conditions and the basic laws of supply and demand;
b) London is a desirable place to live (God knows why);
b) many landlords have mortgages and simply cannot afford to reduce the amount of rent they charge.

Limit the rent that can be charged on accommodation bring back fair rents
Build houses which are affordable social houses


introduce policies which share national resources etc out of London and the SE. Things like putting the national football stadium in Birmingham would have been an idea

Allow La,s to charge full council tax on holiday homes let them be taxed additionally if they are occupied for less than 42 weeks of the year

Ensure that landlords are declaring all their income and increase the repayments on mortgages for rent

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:44 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

How do you propose reducing rent, given that:

a) rent is set in response to market conditions and the basic laws of supply and demand;
b) London is a desirable place to live (God knows why);
b) many landlords have mortgages and simply cannot afford to reduce the amount of rent they charge.

Introduce uncle cod'ead's simple method of building new truly affordable homes. This will have the effect of:

a) Over supply will reduce rents
b) this can even work in London
c) fook 'em, they got into it thinking it would only go one way. Once they go bust, that means even more affordable properties available

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:36 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

How do you propose reducing rent, given that:

a) rent is set in response to market conditions and the basic laws of supply and demand;
b) London is a desirable place to live (God knows why);
b) many landlords have mortgages and simply cannot afford to reduce the amount of rent they charge.

You do this extraordinary thing called rent caps, which has obviously slaughtered the sector in many other countries.

Not.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:38 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

... Things like putting the national football stadium in Birmingham would have been an idea...

You make some really valid points – and then ruin it with this.

London is, whether you like it not, the capital city.

Get over it.

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:20 pm  

Mintball wrote:

You make some really valid points – and then ruin it with this.

London is, whether you like it not, the capital city.

Get over it.

Or expand Manchester Airport instead of Heathrow 3 or a new airport in kent

Or shared the Olympic venues more equitably around the country rather than London and the SE such as the aquatic centre or the white water centre. Again by building them in london that is where those centres now exist and mean that attractions are all now in London
or spend more money on infrastructure in the North
etc etc

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:44 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Or expand Manchester Airport instead of Heathrow 3 or a new airport in kent

Or shared the Olympic venues more equitably around the country rather than London and the SE such as the aquatic centre or the white water centre. Again by building them in london that is where those centres now exist and mean that attractions are all now in London
or spend more money on infrastructure in the North
etc etc

The Olympics are always in a city rather than a country. Fact.

Events took place outside London. Fact.

London is still the capital city. Fact.

I live here and am not even some massive fan of the place –º I most certainly don't want to spend the rest of my life here – but the fact remains that it is the capital.

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:01 pm  

Mintball wrote:

The Olympics are always in a city rather than a country. Fact.

Events took place outside London. Fact.

London is still the capital city. Fact.

I live here and am not even some massive fan of the place –º I most certainly don't want to spend the rest of my life here – but the fact remains that it is the capital.

You obviously decided to ignore the phrase LONDON AND THE SE. FACT

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:15 pm  

I agree with DG's general point that there needs far more investment in infrastructure and projects outside London, but also agree with Mintball re Wembley and the Olympics.

For instance transport spending is ridiculously higher in London than most other places. £2,700 per head in London compared to £201 per head in Yorks & Humber, £134 in the North West and just £5 per head in the North East.

Now I don't mind London getting the lions share of investment, it's the capital city and is vital to the country, but there has been continual high investment (in all sorts of areas, not just public money) in London and a lack of it in other areas, especially the north.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:22 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Or expand Manchester Airport instead of Heathrow 3 or a new airport in kent

But no one wants to fly to Manchester or via Manchester.

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:25 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

But no one wants to fly to Manchester or via Manchester.

Really people who live in the North Of England want to travel to London to fly anywhere!