Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
State of the comments on this article.
Train drivers to join other rail workers on strike - BBC News
Train drivers to join other rail workers on strike - BBC News
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (230 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
Describing this as an "elitist far-left junta" is a particular 'stand-out' for me
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So. When Boris talks about a high skilled, high earning economy I guess he’s not taking about these high skilled, high earning workers because all of a sudden they’re gready wankers who deserve scorn from the general public. Mixed messages.
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
Don't expect consistency from this Government
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Easy to see the benefits of austerity when you're married to a billionaire and have little to no need for public services.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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 as long as he gets what he wants and shirking or denying responsibility at every given opportunity (definitely denying he was the father of one child and believed to be more than that).
And all of those things are very much present in his role as PM. So, yes, it is relevant.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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 do it easily, By amending their statistics to include way more variables instead of concentrating heavily the deliberately vague economic growth statistics.
While you keep pushing economic figures then people will continue to see that as the way to measure success. And thus join the endless procession of people making themselves and others miserable to try and achieve it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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 are we now saying 100% mortgage and housing benefit can go on mortgage payments (even though it wouldn't be enough to cover any mortgage payments)?
Also we saw from Thatcher's social housing sell off where this ends - those houses end up getting sold for various reasons (upkeep costs, sold by kids after person dies etc.) and like anyone else it becomes about getting the highest price regardless of the buyer, and now we have a huge amount of housing stock in the hands of buy-to-let etc companies and making the divide much bigger than it was before. We need far better control of the letting and renting market, as well as making second homes prohibitively expensive, but those are very difficult to find a viable solution for that can't be got around.
I'm all for people owning their own property rather than renting an enriching other while making themselves worse off both in terms of cashflow and assets. But there needs to be some sort of oversight to prevent those houses ending up like so many have. And for that I think it should be something like a 50:50 split ownership between council and individual, regardless of house value. Council would have more ability to ensure houses are kept in good order and work is done properly, but also protects residents who would still be able to regain capital and would also be far less likely to trash a place before they leave as it would affect their own outlay. This would allow council a veto over new owners, preventing buy to rent it, turning it into a HMO etc. It would enable families to get preference, even if they have slightly less capital (and thus help towards stopping house prices soaring) and promote community, which should have knock on effects in terms of anti-social behaviour, crime and policing costs.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Haha!
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I’m still not sure how someone receiving benefits to pay their rent is going to be in a position to get a mortgage. A return of sub prime mortgages maybe, because that ended well last time.
Last edited:
Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
If it's a 50:50 split how does that enable councils can ensure remedial work is done properly ?
Also , selling off council stock can lumber buyers with huge bills they cannot get out of if they are leaseholders, of which there are many in inner cities. For instance the installation of double glazing windows : free if you are a tenant, thousands if you are a leaseholder. You can't opt out either.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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 themselves struggling to pay their mortgage they would at least get something from the sale of their part of the house/apartment to a) pay off missed payments, b) hopefully provide something towards their next place.
It's not a foolproof idea and would need careful analysis to implement, plus it'd need other policies like more homes being built and cracking down on the letting and second homes industries to help.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It would never work
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Well, that's that idea comprehensively blown out of the water by a reasoned, logical argument.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
well it can’t
it’s really just a council house which the purchaser is paying half via a mortgage
They have to seek council approval to sell in effect will be leasehold tenants - couldn’t improve the property as half value would go to the council
The councils are appallingly slow at dealing with single simple tenancy transactions
there is no incentive to buy
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I know it might be a radical idea, but why not keep social housing stock for social housing?
100% agree. Unless there’s a surplus why would you diminish the amount of stock available ??
I’ve got no issue with people buying their council house, especially if they have lived there for a number of years and/or want to remain there after maybe getting themselves into a position where they would no longer warrant social housing. However, people should pay market value (ish) and any sale income should be reinvested into building/buying further stock
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The UK needs to get out the idea that you need to own a house, as the idea is mostly driven by the idea that you need it as an investment.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Right-to-buy is just another really poorly thought out idea that Johnson is using to distract from his multiple failings.
If we genuinely want to sort out housing then I'd start by looking at regulating the private rental market (where 9bn is housing benefit is going every year).
We might even need to move away from the obsession with ownership, in the longer term, but regardless it's ridiculous to have a 'market' where people pay as much or more in rent than they would to buy.
Here's a good analysis...
www.theguardian.com
If we genuinely want to sort out housing then I'd start by looking at regulating the private rental market (where 9bn is housing benefit is going every year).
We might even need to move away from the obsession with ownership, in the longer term, but regardless it's ridiculous to have a 'market' where people pay as much or more in rent than they would to buy.
Here's a good analysis...
Right to buy put homes in the hands of landlords. Rehashing it will do the same | Bob Kerslake
Rather than revive the policy that lost 40% of council homes to private rentals, Johnson should build more affordable housing, says Peabody housing association chair, Bob Kerslake
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. We’ve got this fixation which I understand is different to a lot of other countries. First priority should be that everyone has got a roof over their heads whether they own it or not
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Of course a higher stock of social housing would mean greater supply of rental property, meaning private rents would come down too. That in turn would mean some people would no longer do *that* as an investment, meaning they'd sell, meaning a greater supply of houses to buy, meaning those prices would come down, meaning more could afford them if aspirational and wanting to move from social housing... but instead of that stock then being gone, there'd be s lot for someone else in need.
Right-to-buy is just another really poorly thought out idea that Johnson is using to distract from his multiple failings.
If we genuinely want to sort out housing then I'd start by looking at regulating the private rental market (where 9bn is housing benefit is going every year).
We might even need to move away from the obsession with ownership, in the longer term, but regardless it's ridiculous to have a 'market' where people pay as much or more in rent than they would to buy.
Here's a good analysis...
Right to buy put homes in the hands of landlords. Rehashing it will do the same | Bob Kerslake
Rather than revive the policy that lost 40% of council homes to private rentals, Johnson should build more affordable housing, says Peabody housing association chair, Bob Kerslake
By all accounts rents are up as there’s now a shortage of rental stock available and due to changes in tax laws a few years back. There’s probably a bigger issue with second home/holiday rental properties which aren’t ever going to be fully utilised all year round and I think are now more attractive for tax purposes
The fact is we appear to not have enough housing stock. Without digging up past debates it’s why I’ve always questioned a more than relaxed immigration policy. I’m saying that understanding the benefits of net migration, especially as an ageing population. However If you have that you’ve got to have more relaxed/quicker/more encouraging planning permission, home building and public services infrastructure policies
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
This government is just unbelievably incompetent
How many billions have they threw away of tax payers money?
How many billions have they threw away of tax payers money?
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
More than they accuse Brown of losing
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as tax payers money. Not wishing to defend the Tories but the £11bn loss should in theory be a gain for people with bank deposits.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
yes that is correct it’s a headline grab but is by definition nonsense
fatso
Well-Known Member
But surely you would need to pay rent on the part of the property you didn't own, and if so how are you going to have any excess money left for upkeep?
Especially when (presumably) you've had to find an initial deposit, and mortgage interest rates are increasing.
And would you be restricted to when and to who you could eventually sell your home to? And who is going to buy half a house and be forced to pay rent to a third party for the privilege of doing so.
The whole thing just looks like a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction to me.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
We need massive land reform in this country.
Between foreign investment, landed gentry, second homes and buy to let, we’ve fucked the housing market.
I wonder if you could implement something to distinguish between investors and people wanting to live in a house? Then you could add premiums or demand first refusal or similar.
Agree massive social building is needed, both to bring prices down and also improve the general quality as most private rentals and even new builds are nothing like the size or quality of old council houses.
It’s an absolute no brainier for govt to build and run housing stock, you won’t find many better investments.
Between foreign investment, landed gentry, second homes and buy to let, we’ve fucked the housing market.
I wonder if you could implement something to distinguish between investors and people wanting to live in a house? Then you could add premiums or demand first refusal or similar.
Agree massive social building is needed, both to bring prices down and also improve the general quality as most private rentals and even new builds are nothing like the size or quality of old council houses.
It’s an absolute no brainier for govt to build and run housing stock, you won’t find many better investments.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Not for or against the idea but you could say social tenants don’t pay rent on top and when they sell either half the value goes to the council or even the renter only gets back their payments plus inflation or something.