the day after the deadline: can the union survive brexit and other deep questions

i'm perhaps 65% sure the examples are jokes?

of course secretly I'm hoping they're not but there's no way

the tone of his intro is the giveaway

daisley's an arsehole (obviously) but he's quite Online

jesus christ the comments section

the goggles, they do nothing

The examples are a spoof but the digital toolkit appears to be something delivered in deadly earnest.

luv2live in 2018 where tories are convinced that the eldritch power of memes will entrance the malleable minds of young voters, as if a picture of squidward with some text about trickle-down economics on top can magically convince the kids that their futures are not gonna be an endless grind of precarious jobs and dwindling opportunities so that chief execs can afford to build ever-higher flood defences around their country mansions

As I think I said at the Brighton conference upthread, the Tories are behind with under 47s, not sure if this digital toolkit will appeal across the board, from 18 to 47.

http://s2.b3ta.com/host/creative/46786/1516031093/WallofGammon.jpg

Never knew there were so many varieties of Billy sausage

(apparently the picklock phrasing is "wall of gammon")

when some idiot in Iran's nuke delivers it's devastating air burst over Yorkshire, there will be the biggest ever concentration of yummy bacon butty aroma over places like Skipton and Harrogate.

... you missed out Barnsley

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/139/590x/BBC-Question-Time-892611.jpg

"By a majority of 85%, the people of Barnsley and Doncaster voted “Shexit”. In a twin-town referendum..."

Can we get shut of two turds for the price of one, bargain!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/citiscape-croydon-2m-recladding-bill-prompted-grenfell-disaster

http://modernnotion.com/wp-content/uploads/guillotine.jpg

Landlords, the ultimate subhuman vermin.

jesus fucking christ

guillotines are too good for these unbelievable shitheads

MAKE GENERAL REPAIRS ON ALL OF YOUR HOUSES

FOR EACH HOUSE PAY FUCK ALL

FOR EACH HOTEL PAY FUCK ALL

I suggest Sajid Javid is not really an effective housing minister and a more strident approach is needed. Chairman Mao could do a job here.

Tchenguiz used to own the building I work in and managed to sell it to someone substantially worse, somehow.

tb unusually fttl the leaseholder is rarely responsible for repairs to ex council properties and these are owner-occupied buildings, rather than landlord-rented accommodation. Particularly in rapidly gentrifying areas of London, if you buy ex-council you are usually going in to it with the understanding that you can get stuck with massive repair bills.

did you mean freeholder?

Sorry, yes.

"tb unusually fttl"

fucking counter-revolutionary:p

np was just confused for a second - if the freeholder isn't responsible for repairs then they basically just get to charge ground rent with no drawbacks at all?

As I understand it that's what freehold means yes

that's a very risky investment.

I thought normally the freeholder was responsible for structural repairs to the building but am probably wrong, I don't know very much about owning property tbh. Fucking feudal bullshit system.

Hopefully it'll be torn down soon enough.

it's alright we've a load of very reform minded cross-party landlord MPs who are listening to your concerns and will vote accordingly.

yes i don't follow SV's point either: if they're owner-occupied aren't the owner-occupiers the freeholders? and hence they've been stuck with these bills because that what freeehold means? who is else is going to pay for them?

except i don't get this bit either, are surveyors excluded from ex-council purchases? (i mean obviously low-end surveyors might not have known to check re this particular aspect)

They own the lease, they don’t own the freehold. These are not rented flats.

The freeholder does sometimes need to contribute towards repairs and will be responsible for insurance to cover catastrophic damage, etc, but if your leasehold says you’re responsible for general repairs and you can’t show that there has been massive negligence on the part of the freeholder in conducting previous repairs, it’s basically part of the risk of owning part of a shared building, aiui.

The freeholder has the land/ building. A leaseholder buys the lease on the property for an extended period of time - hundred years or so usually? - but the freeholder retains certain rights including charges to the leaseholder iirc. It's insane, it's absolutely feudal

Yep. 5ere are worse abuses than this on a lot of new builds but it’s still completely ridiculous.

I think outside of London in domestic properties it's much less common nowadays. Seem to recall my dad telling me that after a few years of them buying the house I grew up in they were sold the freehold by the builders at an additional fee.

xps presumably the owner-occupiers are leaseholders and normally pay for building repairs through building insurance and/or fees to the management company, except this is a way larger sum than any normal management company charge, and the insurance is I guess not paying up because there hasn't actually been a fire yet

don't think the freeholder is responsible for any repairs in my building, or anything of actual benefit to the residents/leaseholders, but can still come in to the building and do whatever they like to it with no warning, or just have nothing to do with it except raking off ever increasing amounts of ground rent

(ours is one of this guy's companies: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/29/leasehold-tycoon-man-whose-firms-control-40000-uk-homes - we were told we'd have the chance to buy it out after n years but, surprise, that isn't actually stated in the contract and no chance now that guy's bought them all off the original developers)

Xp

Yep, it’s relatively rare on houses now though a lot of big estate builds (Barrett, etc), seem to have been put up specifically to extort buyers over the long term on service charges,

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/29/leasehold-tycoon-man-whose-firms-control-40000-uk-homes

brb gonna draft a new section on the next Labour manifesto.

This is the sort of thing, unlike, say, Big Ben's chimes ringing a lot less for a few years, that the Prime Minister, whoever they may be, needs to immediately condemn and make a priority to prevent.

*waits*

I'm sure the real problem with the housing market is local authorities not being allowed to make enough dodgy PFI deals

at times like this I need to check my council house privilege.

ok yeah, i'm unmuddled now, sorry for the derail

and totally cosining any heads-on-poles action

Fire wardens are patrolling constantly at a cost of £4,000 a week, which the company is also planning to pass on to leaseholders.

oh you motherfuckers

the fact that there's not even any gesture of goodwill from the freeholder, no meeting halfway, no initiative taken whatsoever just staunch refusal to acknowledge any responsibility.. how do you even look yourself in the eye never mind i know they're landlords but still

It's not like people like this Tuttiet guy accidentally gather a lot of freeholds while they're trying to provide people with an important service. It's knowing, legal extortion.

I mean if Javid is calling you the unacceptable face of capitalism

obviously the gulf between legality and justice is what we've been talking about here, but i really think that "i'm sorry that's just what the law says" is going to be a tough line for the govt to walk here -- homeowners are core mail readers, soon-and-inevitably-to-be-homeowners are the secret tory strategy to sirensong youth back one their side, where's the upside in letting this stand?

(obviously there's an upside for all the MPs who are also landllords)

If they’re landlords then they’d be responsible for the repairs. I don’t know how many are major landowners / freeholders but I suspect it’s more common in the Lords than the Commons.

aiui (which is not enormously) owning freeholds isn’t massively profitable in itself. Service charges can be high but they’re only meant to cover the cost of upkeep and repairs. You make your money through ground rent (which is usually quite low) and selling extensions to leases. It’s not a huge revenue generating thing but it is (or has been) a very safe way for the wealthy to park millions of Pounds. idk if the government really wants to rock that boat.

The bigger issue is that if you stick to the principle that the freeholder is responsible for repairs, you will probably end up with councils and housing authorities, who have retained freeholds but sold leases, having to pay huge amounts of money on behalf of people who have turned massive profits on ex-LA properties.

what i was getting at -- while obviously missing that significant upside for them -- is that i don't see how this plays well at all with the normal homeowners -- it dramatises their worst anxieties (that the promised security of this status is become a terrible trap (serve em right says calzino), so maybe what i should have said is the govt just can't win here

which isn't necessarily very comforting in itself: i know i have to watch my the-hidden-conflict-is-the-SILVER-LINING tendencies

I honestly wouldn't be so unnecessarily harsh, Mark. I have said before that when London joins Doggerland under the North Sea... etc. But I genuinely feel sorry for people with the problems discussed above, hence the comment "checking my council house privilege" where I'm currently insulated from this kind of worrying skullfuckery.

haha sorry, i read that as sarcastic -- apologies for monstering you :)