ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

How will you vote?

Postal workers discussion forum. Discuss the day to day life in a Blue Shirt.

Who will you vote for on June 8th

Conservative
122
23%
Labour
283
54%
Lib Dem
15
3%
SNP
36
7%
Green
6
1%
UKIP
21
4%
Other inc No Vote
37
7%
 
Total votes: 520

jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by jetblack »

fishtank wrote:Every action has consequences, if those consequences mean the council wastes money fighting legal cases it can't possibly win leaving less money to actually help those in need those become the "moral considerations".
I see what you mean now - but I think you are over blowing the legal costs issue. A Govt. can do what it wants under the umbrella of the national interest.

I thought, from previous posts, that the "moral" arguement was that of the infringement of private property rights, which in this case is clearly absurd.
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
fishtank
Posts: 19732
Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 17:22
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by fishtank »

jetblack wrote:A Govt. can do what it wants under the umbrella of the national interest...
Are you Theresa May?
Parliament makes the laws and the legal system tests those laws, that's very important if you believe in democracy. At no point should a government "do what it wants" without fear of legal scrutiny...in the "national interest" or under any other excuse.
good times, bad times you know I've had my share
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by jetblack »

I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but what you are actually saying is this :- the local council/Govt. can't do whats necessary in these emergency circumstances because if they did they would be challenged legally by wealthy vested interests - and they can't afford for this to happen.

If that doesn't, in a nutshell, encapsulate all that is wrong with the UK of 2017, then I don't know what does. Basic humanity and compassion has to take a back seat to the desires and "rights" of the property owning wealthy.

The council have now admitted that not all the homeless will be able to be rehomed in their own borough/locality.
That, for me, is a national disgrace and a scandal.
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
Tman
Posts: 4121
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

How will you vote?

Post by Tman »

Then you're as dumb in your logic as those currently shouting and screaming at empty council offices on TV.
Still, rent-a-mob should be there soon enough, ready for a jolly evening of burning and looting...
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by jetblack »

"Unite is to donate £100,000 to the Red Cross London fire relief appeal set up to assist people affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The union has dozens of members living in the tower, some of whom have lost their lives. It also announced it would be providing legal assistance to the residents to ensure they are able to pursue the inquiry it says is now urgently needed.

The general secretary, Len McCluskey, said:

We must get answers as to how this happened and action to ensure that this never happens again.

Unite itself is grieving at the loss of our members who lived in that tower. We are volunteering on the ground in an effort to offer the community every assistance during this traumatic time.

We will not rest until the full truth of what has gone is uncovered and we will not be allowing the shameful cuts to legal aid to prevent that truth from being exposed. Unite is sending lawyers to the community and has set up a freephone number for anyone needing legal assistance
."

:Applause :Applause

Could we, the CWU, help out here also ?
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
stan_lers
Posts: 136
Joined: 04 Nov 2014, 21:52
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by stan_lers »

jetblack wrote:This is what a country looks like when there is no-one steering the ship - when the deregulation of markets (combined with a "government" subservience to the global elite) takes precedence over the life chances and health and safety of ordinary citizens - when the profit motive is put above the greater public welfare. The empty properties in Kensington aren't (currently) peoples homes - they are safe haven investment vehicles. For the leader of the council to tell us that it might take several years to permanently rehome the victims of Grenfell Tower, and even then it might be outwith the borough, when there are 1400 properties stood empty on his own patch is unforgivable.
Everything in this country is about making money, and persuading people that it's for the best. Cameron said in 2012 that he wanted to slash regulations so that businesses can flourish. People wanted to leave the EU because of all their regulations and 'red tape'. That 'red tape' says flats should have sprinklers and shouldn't catch fire within 30 minutes. Scrap that red tape and landlords can save £5000 on a £10m refurb. Around £50 per life lost so they can squeeze every last penny out of their tenants. Landlords rent out buildings that no one would should have to live in, let alone pay into the pocket of a landlord for the privilege.

I don't really agree with requisitioning people's homes, but more should be done to combat houses being left empty. We have a housing crisis while hundreds of thousands of houses sit empty and no one wants to do a thing about it. People are priced out of the town they grew up in, a massive problem in London as well as coastal towns, for what is basically a high-interest savings account. There are plenty of ways of tackling that, like a land value tax, but it will never happen because landlords, despite being leeches on society, wont allow it.

Churchill said it best over 100 years ago. Landlords (with some exceptions) and people sitting on un-used land/property are scum:

"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by jetblack »

stan_lers wrote:
I don't really agree with requisitioning people's homes
No - neither do I. But we aren't talking about peoples homes. We are talking about a Russian oligarch preserving his wealth via UK housing stock while he suns it up in St.Barths.

Lets put it like this - if there were a food shortage, whilst at the same time loaves of bread were being stockpiled in secure safe deposit boxes as an investment by the well fed 1%, then I would have absolutely zero compunction in "requisitioning" those loaves of bread.

Fishtank says - "But you can't do that - those loaves of bread don't belong to you - that would be stealing, and stealing is just plain wrong. And its against the law"
Jetblack says - " People are starving while there is food being withheld for profit - the people decide the law and what is just."

Make up your own mind.

Completely agree with the rest of your post though.
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
postslippete
Posts: 4104
Joined: 14 Jul 2014, 16:27
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by postslippete »

jetblack wrote:
stan_lers wrote:
I don't really agree with requisitioning people's homes
No - neither do I. But we aren't talking about peoples homes. We are talking about a Russian oligarch preserving his wealth via UK housing stock while he suns it up in St.Barths.

Lets put it like this - if there were a food shortage, whilst at the same time loaves of bread were being stockpiled in secure safe deposit boxes as an investment by the well fed 1%, then I would have absolutely zero compunction in "requisitioning" those loaves of bread.

Fishtank says - "But you can't do that - those loaves of bread don't belong to you - that would be stealing, and stealing is just plain wrong. And its against the law"
Jetblack says - " People are starving while there is food being withheld for profit - the people decide the law and what is just."

Make up your own mind.

Completely agree with the rest of your post though.

And postslippete says - "Before I break down and rye, I loaf you."
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
postslippete
Posts: 4104
Joined: 14 Jul 2014, 16:27
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by postslippete »

But its no loafing matter, if you pardon the bun.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
fishtank
Posts: 19732
Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 17:22
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by fishtank »

No - neither do I. But we aren't talking about peoples homes. We are talking about a Russian oligarch preserving his wealth via UK housing stock while he suns it up in St.Barths.
No we're not.
That's a handy construct to focus anger but there are two flaws, first of all it isn't really true, the vast majority of unoccupied residential property in London is owned by companies not individuals, that doesn't make the situation any better for Londoners looking for an affordable home but it does make it far more difficult from a legal point of view. The second flaw is that even if it was true you can't make laws that only apply to Russian oligarchs.

Rather than wasting time on things that can't and won't happen Labour should be looking at the incentives for ridiculous property investment in the capital, look at CG tax on property that lies empty from one sale to another, look at how companies avoid tax altogether by transferring property portfolios in bulk, forget the mansions of Russian oligarchs and question why the council itself has a huge bank of brown belt land and £300 million of reserves, it doesn't take a genius to put those two things together and come up with a long term solution.
good times, bad times you know I've had my share
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by jetblack »

fishtank wrote:
No - neither do I. But we aren't talking about peoples homes. We are talking about a Russian oligarch preserving his wealth via UK housing stock while he suns it up in St.Barths.
.....the vast majority of unoccupied residential property in London is owned by companies not individuals..
OK - edit;
No - neither do I. But we aren't talking about peoples homes. We are talking about a Russian oligarch preserving his wealth via shell UK incorporated limited companies holding UK housing stock while he suns it up in St.Barths.

fishtank wrote: Labour should be looking at the incentives for ridiculous property investment in the capital, look at CG tax on property that lies empty from one sale to another, look at how companies avoid tax altogether by transferring property portfolios in bulk...question why the council itself has a huge bank of brown belt land and £300 million of reserves
Completely agree. Meanwhile tonight people are sleeping on church floors.
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
Tman
Posts: 4121
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

How will you vote?

Post by Tman »

Yep, what a ridiculous situation.
I mean, any council worthy of the name would have a whole bank of empty houses just waiting for a situation like this, and be able to move several hundred families into in an instant.
After all, the richest council in the richest city in the UK and they don't have hundreds of local authority homes held in reserve?

What were they thinking? :roll:

Jet's logic is on a par with the "protestors" attempting to storm Kensington civic offices "demanding answers" and "justice" before the building has even cooled off enough to safely enter let alone give an accurate death toll or probable cause of the fire.. :crazy:

Keep up the pressure though, as that nice Mr Corbyn said you'll get to live in the "rich peoples'" homes yet...
baldrick
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 5038
Joined: 13 Sep 2007, 23:37
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by baldrick »

stan_lers wrote:Churchill said it best over 100 years ago. Landlords (with some exceptions) and people sitting on un-used land/property are scum:

"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
And 72 Conservative MPs are private landlords.
bustedflush
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 1493
Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 11:19
Gender: Male

How will you vote?

Post by bustedflush »

baldrick wrote:
stan_lers wrote:Churchill said it best over 100 years ago. Landlords (with some exceptions) and people sitting on un-used land/property are scum:

"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
And 72 Conservative MPs are private landlords.
Forgot to tell the whole story did you? (Graudina 'newspaper')

"According to Guardian research, almost a third of MPs are now letting out their houses or flats, with 196 declaring rental income on the official register of interests this year. The majority of those are earning more than £10,000 a year from the property, topping up their basic MP’s annual salary of £67,060.

The Conservative party has the highest number of landlord MPs at 128, meaning 39% of Tory MPs are landlords, compared with 26% of Scottish National party MPs and 22% from Labour.

The research reveals a much higher proportion of MPs are landlords than the general adult population, in which just 2% are estimated to be renting out homes."
Tman
Posts: 4121
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

How will you vote?

Post by Tman »

baldrick wrote:
stan_lers wrote:Churchill said it best over 100 years ago. Landlords (with some exceptions) and people sitting on un-used land/property are scum:

And 72 Conservative MPs are private landlords.
This is where you always fail. You let your bias be a foundation of your argument.
Alter the location of the fire and the alleged political persuasion of those "landlords" and see if you're quite so keen to appropriate property.
It's all merely academic anyway as it's not going to happen.