Yes, it's about wealth redistribution and ensuring money is spent not hoarded or tied up in inflated property.
What you're essentially accepting is that some subsidies are OK while others aren't, and politicians decide.

Capping rent would redistribute future income, but would destroy the value tied up in inflated property - for both homeowners and landlords, not redistribute it. It would also screw the millions who are living by the "my property is my pension mantra" probably due to distrust of the financial system.

Of course any progressive government will invest in housing, energy and transport, where those industries benefit communities and are publicly owned, controlled and accountable

This doesn't sounds like an issue to me.

To be honest, I have very little problem screwing this group over.

There are lots of ways to invest for retirement without hogging property that could be a home for a first time buyer.

Hopefully the recent tax changes in this area were the thin end of the wedge.

Fair point, but I doubt they're the rich that Tom intends should pay for all this stuff.

Lolll

Has anyone read Tim Shipman's book 'All out War: The full story of how Brexit sank Britain's political class'?

Hearing very good things about it but I've got a pile of books to get through before I even consider my next Amazon purchases.

I listened to it on audiobook unabridged. It was very, very interesting and engaging.

As written, it mostly shows the leave campaign punking the stay campaign, tho Farage was a loose cannon.

Would recommend.

Takes quite a lot for me to do indignation but this one manages it:

It doesn't surprise me there are idiotic journalists out there, it does surprise me that stuff like that gets through edits though. How is that possible?

The Times too. That would be a bit much for even the Daily Mail, but it getting into a broadsheet is mental. That being said, it's been taken down and he's been ****canned.

He's a holocaust denier, probably shouldn't have been working there long before now.

Because Murdoch doesn't like the BBC.

That may be true, but no idea why that's relevant. Are you saying Murdoch hates the BBC so much that he asks his editors to allow anti-semitic writing so he can then fire his staff and make his own paper look bad. Yeah, that'll show the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40791216

Perhaps WASPI should consider a name change, really doesn't sound like they're against state pension inequality. Some poor journalism too there, convenient to leave out the word 'income' before poverty.

Women against state pension inequality is fairly specific. Clutching at straws here jecross, this is clearly unfair and penalises the poorest for the sake of a paltry 5b a year.

Guardian on housing post grenfell

The only surefire way of bringing down [house] prices is to increase supply. That means confronting greedy developers who hoard land, release homes slowly and build only the most expensive ones; being bold about admitting that house prices will have to fall; and returning to local authorities the powers they need for volume housebuilding.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...o-more-excuses

The change to women's state pension age is entirely to achieve state pension inequality. How is that clutching at straws?

I understand that they are unhappy at way it's being done, rather than that it is being done, but the name doesn't say that.

Do you think it shouldn't be done?

Also while the article says that, the study doesn't say that at all - you should read it more clearly. They have no idea what assets the people in the study have, and they have said "we find no evidence that increasing the state pension age increases the probability of women reporting being deprived of important material items, at least for the items observed in our data. This potentially suggests that they have smoothed their consumption, and avoided increased levels of material deprivation, despite the large reduction in income caused by the reform."

Sorry, equality not inequality.

Leo Varadkar just put the cat amongst the pigeons (mainly with his Belfast visit as nothing has changed regarding brexit).

There'll be no border and it's up the the tory bastards to provide solutions that suit all (they're going to have to find a way to concede on all points regarding the border lol).

And for bonus points he rubbed the DUP bigots noses right in it with his visit to gay pride in Belfast this weekend.

In other news, all right minded people want to finally deal with bonfires and all that goes with them....the hate crimes and damage to the environment sorted once and for all. Motion put forward by SF and supported by all bar the unionists.. Lo****ingl.

I think you're misreading the situation a bit. This is more good than bad for the tory bastards when it comes to the negotiations. It forces the EU to come up with solutions because the UK hasn't really got any, and absent a solution there will be a border.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40819687

Also, this is an amusing article with a very serious side because this stuff matters so much http://www.politico.eu/article/unite...h-cant-see-it/. It reflects the real problem for the EU who's negotiating strategy is based on the UK being rational when it may be the case that the UK isn't capable of doing anything rational

(the article start's with the idea this might be some clever strategy but that's so far fetched we can largely ignore it. The trouble for the EU is that the incompetent strategy is very close to the clever one).

Your apostrophes put me on tilt.

you're

No.