To think Brexit has damaged the country's mental health?

[KennDodd]

I know it's damaged mine but my job was under threat (colleagues lost their jobs instead) because of Brexit so not surprising. I think Brexit has caused huge stress, anxiety and anger in the country. David Cameron should be ashamed.

"Google is your friend here"

Oh, the last resort of those who cannot back up their claims.

And I have explained to you clearly how Labour party oilily works - it is NOT a decision of JmcD - here is a full reference, but, hey, let's not get fact and evidence get in the way, eh?

www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/about/policy-process

"oilily" = policy, obvs.

If John McDonnell is talking about it, I think that it can be taken that this is the way Labour policy will go.

I am well aware that it is not yet policy and I very much hope it will never be. It is a proposal by the Shadow Chancellor. That's scary enough. I was answering the question about why I was so scared of a Labour Government - even more than of Brexit (which is also bloody scary). The fact that a policy like that could even be proposed is enough to mean I would never, never vote Labour again, regardless of their stance on Brexit.

I don't understand your point Cittadina. We both agree that it's a proposal by John McDonald (you don't dispute that do you?) and we both agree that it is not yet Labour policy.

Oops - I need to get his name right. John McDonnell

historysock

I shall be wiping my bum on a remaindered (no pun intended) copy when the loo rolls run out.

If John McDonnell is talking about it, I think that it can be taken that this is the way Labour policy will go

How do you work that out? have no idea how Labour policy is formed?

The tory idea on raising the state retirement age to 75 is far far more damaging to people's mental health plus will effect everyone, it comes into force, it will mean i will retire at 69 instead of 67, which in itself is much too old.

So for example - one of my houses. Bought 25 years ago for £60,000. Now worth say £400,000. I could be forced to sell. Supposing house prices remain stable (they won't). It would probably be 'valued at say £350,000 (the shadow chancellor already said that the valuation wouldn't necessarily be at market rate). On which I would have to give a discount of 110,000. So I would get £240,000. I would then pay 40 percent capital gains on £180,000. So in total I would end up with around £170,000 on a house worth £400,000. And that's assuming house prices remain stable. In reality there would be such a rush to sell (the most obvious thing to do for any LLs with less equity) that house prices would plummet. I'd be lucky to end up with £100,000.

Well, plus all the rent you've accepted over the years, which in the case of many BTL landlords is the method via which they pay off the mortgage. So, in that scenario, you would basically have made £100,000+ out of thin air just because you were in a position to get a BTL mortgage and the poor sap actually paying it off wasn't.

I'd be astonished if this actually became Labour policy, still less law, but as a person who's paid thousands in rent over the years, it sounds pretty fair to me.

Genuine question, how can it be fair to force someone to sell a property they don’t want to sell? If this policy came into effect, is this really what would happen? It seems unbelievable to me and is surely a huge vote loser?

Yanbu living with this permanent state of conflict and uncertainty would negatively impact anyone who didn't stand to gain financially from it.

It's like a horrible drawn out divorce and we're caught in the crossfire. It's as though one parent asked us "you do want to live with me, don't you?" and we sort of said "yes" but we were too naive to really understand the question or the implications. Awful business.

Genuine question, how can it be fair to force someone to sell a property they don’t want to sell? If this policy came into effect, is this really what would happen? It seems unbelievable to me and is surely a huge vote loser?

Govt's can do whatever they want. Look at Cyprus where the govt just "took" a percentage of everyone's bank balance on a particular day without notice. There were people who only had a large sum of money in the bank momentarily, i.e. money to buy a property the next day, who had a chunk taken off them meaning they couldn't buy. How fair was that? Did the EU stop it happening - no, despite the ECJ etc.

If Labour perceive their target voter doesn't have multiple properties, they won't care about losing votes they wouldn't have got anyway.

@RuffleCrow Brilliant (yet depressing) analogy.

@EagleVisionSquirrelWork Yes I have certainly been lucky. I can't deny that. It's been a very good business. I've been shrewd, but a hell of a lot of luck was involved too.

If I ever realise the capital gain then the government will get a huge chunk of it, and that's fair enough.

It is though my income and my pension. I opted out of a career fairly young and never bothered with a pension because I got into this. Without the income the money will run out eventually, I will no longer be a tax payer, I may have to rely on the state for help and I won't be able to fund my own care. You are within your rights to think that as I've been lucky in the past it's what I deserve. And I am within my rights to be worried about the prospect of it.

And yes Cyprus is a very good example of this sort of thing.

Anyway this thread is about the unsettling nature of Brexit. There is another thread on the right to buy thing - I never intended to get into a big debate of it on here.

It is just that it feels like being caught between a rock and a hard place with the Tories v Labour. I just hope the Lib Dems don't have any dreadful policies that I'm not aware of as then there would be no refuge in any party.

What you deserve catneuterer? Planning to live off the State if capitalism fails you? Surely not.

Thank you for a measured response @thecatneuterer.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying it's 'what you deserve' in any vindictive way, but neither do I think it's much of a moral outrage in the context of the colossal unevenness of wealth that gives rise to such a possibility, that's all. And I believe it's the eternal hope that one might one day end up being landord rather than tenant, metaphorically speaking, that keeps many of the working class voting Tory, however badly it always turns out for them. I think such a scheme is vanishingly unlikely to materialise anyway, so you can probably stop worrying.

Sorry to derail your thread, OP. I think we're pretty unanimous in thinking YANBU.

How do you work that out? have no idea how Labour policy is formed?
Seeing as I was an active member of the Labour Party for most of my adult life, I think I am aware of how policy is formed, thank you. And I know that, if one of the leaders of a party publicly express their support for a policy, that's the way the party will go.

I was interested to read from Corbyn’s TUC speech that the only organisations the Labour Party will take back into public ownership are rail, water, national grid and the postal service.

This is hardly the stuff of revolution. There is well-established public support for at least the first two, and there has been for years.

And I know that, if one of the leaders of a party publicly express their support for a policy, that's the way the party will go

Really? i don't think so.
So why is Labour supporting renewing Trident? completely at odds with Corbyns view.
Or Watsons desire for a pV/revoke, he hasn't got that!