Search results

That is because of the problems with parking etc. which was designed in to try and make people use public transport. Now it's been accepted that that often isn't feasible for various reason and a private vehicle is pretty much necessary for many. Provide the parking and car ownership would...

But then who does own all the houses instead? Unless every single house is owned by the state it just increases the wealth divide. I agree the obsession with house prices and increasing value of property is ridiculous and is a mindset we need to work away from, but that isn't going to happen...

More stock on the market, but only designed to benefit a very small number. I very much doubt your mate driving aim was to provide the housing to people and more to make a very tidy profit out of it. Would it be impossible to build, or just that they wouldn't get as high a return as they wanted...

That's the beauty of it being through social housing/local government, because the incentive is not on a profit motive for the person/company co-owning, but to ensure accommodation for people. So the other half is retained by social housing, but the co-owner is not charged for that half (or a...

At least you added reasoning this time. And I agree to a point with what you say - it's not a fully formed solution and there are bureaucratic obstacles that would need to be worked around, not least the amount of time it takes public bodies to deal with housing issues. But it works towards a...

Well, that's that idea comprehensively blown out of the water by a reasoned, logical argument.

As the person/family would only need a 50% mortgage, their mortgage payments would be half that of a normal mortgage. Which would give them more to spend on upkeep, which again half of which would be paid for by the council, reducing the outlay somewhat. But the main thing is that is they found...

Given the potential food crisis and how much of that comes from the region this may well end up affecting us a lot. As for a settlement, any deal to surrender land will just embolden Putin, he will send his 'separatists' further in and displace the local population until such time as apparently...

What do you think happens if we don't plow money into that war? Putin gets control of a huge amount of agricultural land and supply, which he can then weaponise by cutting the amount sent to other nation and/or to feed his own people. So prices here could well be worse than they are now. Or do...

Negotiating peace is a two-way thing. And Putin seems to be clear that Ukraine under Russian control is the only thing he will accept. If he gets that he then just invades the next place and do we just keep on negotiating peace by giving him what he wants as he expands further and further...

Putin is clearly trying to goad the west into conflict. I'm certain the man is very seriously ill, possibly terminally.

You can tell it's the thoughts of a person with a privileged background for whom this has never been an issue. People on benefits can't afford to heat and eat, but now they're going to be able to afford a mortgage? Except if they have the money for a deposit then they won't get benefits... Or...

It comes across very poorly, aminly because it's a spokesperson for a group who value financial gain and power over pretty much all else. I'm all for the point of having far more ways of measuring success, as different people want different things. If thy want this to actually happen they can...

Amazing how they don't think this management is necessary and doctors and nurses can do it until it reaches Whitehall. Then they most definitely need a penpusher with absolutely no previous history of working in the medical sector running everything.

Well, sort of. Except it's probably a good indicator of your nature, behaviour and therefore suitability to be in a position of power. In his case, being unable to maintain any semblance of self-control or thinking beyond that moment resulting in rash decision making, not caring about others...

Easy to see the benefits of austerity when you're married to a billionaire and have little to no need for public services.

Not a fan of banning stuff as it seems to have the opposite effect - people are more interested in it because it's illicit. I've always felt if you want kids to be eat more healthily just ban them from eating fruit and veg! Then there's the aspect of lost tax revenue but increased policing...

Is that how clubs are getting round FFP noawadays - benefit in kind?

Am I reading this right, because I don't get the logic. I didn't accept less money when the club was struggling, so I deserve more now? If the extension means he's on less money than a lot of the others, even though he is a leader on the pitch, while I understand his frustration if the options...

Fixed