General Election 2015

Slum landlords didn't have the right to buy. They still own the stock. One level of indirection is irrelevant if all parties are in agreement.

I don't think we're getting anywhere here.

What you're saying is you wouldn't buy a council house if you were in the position to and people like Batmans Mum shouldn't ever be able to get themselves on the property ladder through council house discount initiatives unless they know it's being replaced. If they can't guarantee it's being replaced they should turn it down. That's all I wanted, and thats fair enough.

You are to be applauded for your deep political insight.

http://www.northern.party/

The revolution has begun ( and there's a candidate in my constituency ).

http://www.northern.party/

The revolution has begun ( and there's a candidate in my constituency ).

I can't imagine Steve Bruce is too happy with one of his better centre-halves being distracted like this as they fight relegation.

You are to be applauded for your deep political insight.

 

Not sure who that is in response to, but if me, I asked you a question and you went around the houses answering. I wanted your position on it, my insight has nowt to do with it.

you went around the houses

Puntastic

Not sure who that is in response to, but if me, I asked you a question and you went around the houses answering. I wanted your position on it, my insight has nowt to do with it.

What more of a position did you need?

Not only did you have the stuff I posted here, but also a blog piece I wrote three years ago decrying right to buy.

You had the answer all along, but have admitted you were stupid enough to need it spelling out.

Progress of a sort I suppose.

What more of a position did you need?

 

Not only did you have the stuff I posted here, but also a blog piece I wrote three years ago decrying right to buy.

 

You had the answer all along, but have admitted you were stupid enough to need it spelling out.

 

Progress of a sort I suppose.

I didn't read your piece, didn't have time. If I'd have known you'd written it, instead of it being the usual politically bias piece you tend to find attached here I may have tried to find the time. I will look at it later.

Agree one million council homes taken out of the state sector and never replaced in the 80s has been a disastrous pushing up house prices to silly levels and longer waiting lists and loss of income to councils in the 80s. Makes you wonder where poor people and those on low income will live in the future.

Agree one million council homes taken out of the state sector and never replaced in the 80s has been a disastrous pushing up house prices to silly levels and longer waiting lists and loss of income to councils in the 80s. Makes you wonder where poor people and those on low income will live in the future.

Under the M27 bridge by the River Hamble? Great views and fresh water.

Two seconds. A bit longer to type it all down. Not a bad return for the investment.

 

Let's work your hypothetical through, shall we?

 

Let's say your very poor person gets the chance to buy his or her own property at a discounted rate. Where is the rest of the money coming from?

 

I'd guess it'd be the same place it usually does, the banks.

 

In order to get the loan, the bank would need to have some level of comfort that the money can be repaid. Do you reckon they'll hand it out to your very poor example? What sort of credit rating would this person have?

I don't really see the problem. Provided that the tenant has been paying their rent promptly without any problems over an extended period, (the sort of period that would entitle them to buy their property at a discount), then it can be reasoned that they have already established a precedent of being able to pay a mortgage of the similar monthly sum.

Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced. However, if we get a repeat of the last house sell-off, it won't be, and we'll more pressure to add onto our housing crisis.

 

Don't think this will be as much of a winner last time around, though. Just doesn't affect as many people.

Agree but i was disgusting that in the 1980s council houses with discounts of up to 70 per cent so the likes of the taxpayer never got the full value of those houses so they basically got a massive free subsidies from the tax payer .

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/labour-snp-combined-share-of-seats-projected-to-hit-326

If that doesn't sway undecided voters this side of the border, nothing will.

Just saw a rather inept performance from Liz Truss (Environment Minister) on the Daily Politics.

She was boasting that, last year, the government presided over a record number of house building starts. Andrew Neil asked her how many but she didn't know. So he asked her how did she know it was a record. She replied "Eric Pickles told me".

Neil then informed her that, last year there were around 110000 starts whereas in 2006 under Labour, there were 170000 and the average under Labour was greater than their "record". She'd originally said that the record was house completions but when Neil proved her wrong she switched to house starts. She looked extremely uncomfortable and then tried again and said she meant council houses. She'd obviously had no idea of the figures and just expected everyone to believe her fiction.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/labour-snp-combined-share-of-seats-projected-to-hit-326

Scary ****.

Scary ****.

Not as scary as an overall Tory majority.

Not as scary as an overall Tory majority.

It would leave this country in a much worse state after 5 years, certainly.

Scary ****.

Labour propped up by the Scottish Nationalists would indeed be scary. But what would the SNP's position be? Would they be hypocritically brazen enough to vote with Labour on solely English matters, when they have their own Parliament to decide their own affairs, but also wish to meddle in ours?

I listened to Jeremy Vine an hour ago (I know) talking about right to buy of Housing Association properties. It was striking how widely it was condemned by ex and soon to be ex Tories. Lots of people hugely frustratred by the lack of housing availability and stories of their children struggling with insecure expensive short term rentals. This will be a big vote loser for the Conservatives. It felt like a turning point in voting intentions to me.

Labour propped up by the Scottish Nationalists would indeed be scary. But what would the SNP's position be? Would they be hypocritically brazen enough to vote with Labour on solely English matters, when they have their own Parliament to decide their own affairs, but also wish to meddle in ours?

Yes. They simply don't give a **** and want away from the UK as quickly as possible and with as much as they can grab. Doing the English over is hardly going to go down badly with their core vote, is it? If they get their way this will be the last parliament of the UK as we know it and so they have absolutely nothing to lose.

Labour propped up by the Scottish Nationalists would indeed be scary. But what would the SNP's position be? Would they be hypocritically brazen enough to vote with Labour on solely English matters, when they have their own Parliament to decide their own affairs, but also wish to meddle in ours?

Previously they've always taken the principled stand not to vote on English matters, but Sturgeons made it pretty clear they will this time.

Not as scary as an overall Tory majority.

True.

Agree but i was disgusting that in the 1980s council houses with discounts of up to 70 per cent so the likes of the taxpayer never got the full value of those houses so they basically got a massive free subsidies from the tax payer .

It wasnt just the official discount. Sometimes the valuations werent kept up to date either so they were sold too cheap. I bought a three bed non block ex council flat in Brighton in 1997. The owner paid £11,500 for it from the council in 1992 and I bought it for £63,500 five years later, nearly six times the original price but the market had barely changed in that time. The subsequent owner sold it for £360,000 a couple of years ago.

Scary ****.

Keeps the tories out so great by me.

Scary ****.

Paves the way for Boris so great by me

...

Not as scary as an overall Tory majority.

True.

Keeps the tories out so great by me.

Paves the way for Boris so great by me

Cameron has united the country!

http://www.northern.party/

The revolution has begun ( and there's a candidate in my constituency ).

The Northern Party?

Really? Should that be T'Northern Party?

Since they eat off the floor, at least they won't need tables and chairs in their parliament

The Northern Party?

 

Really? Should that be T'Northern Party?

 

Since they eat off the floor, at least they won't need tables and chairs in their parliament

You can perhaps see why some of them mightn't fancy southerners making decisions for them [emoji3]

Well reasoned arguments about Right To Buy from the head of Housing Associations

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/davidorr/right-to-buy_b_7060418.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Well reasoned arguments about Right To Buy from the head of Housing Associations

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/davidorr/right-to-buy_b_7060418.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Perfect. There's the expert explanation as to why this policy is horrific as I said this morning. And it is horrific for all those reasons.

I especially like the argument about it these houses aren't the Government's to sell anyway.

If, say, the Green Party announced a right to buy for anyone privately renting house or flat from any private landlord they'd get laughed out of town as nutcases.

"Extending right to buy is both financially illiterate and morally wrong"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html

Selling off social housing at a discount is great for those individual families who benefit, but are these really the families that are most in need of the state’s help?

 

Why should people who have already enjoyed the benefits of secure tenancies in affordable social housing now be granted extra help worth up to £102,000 (and, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds more when they later sell their property)*while millions of others get absolutely nothing?

 

First of all, many of those 1.3 million tenants - the poorest - won’t be in any position to get a mortgage to buy their home, regardless of the generous discounts, while those who are able to take advantage of the scheme are unlikely to be those in the direst need.

Off RTB and onto banks. I've just read this interesting article although I don't pretend to entirely grasp the concept. But it sounds good and seems to have a lot of educated support

http://www.positivemoney.org/2015/04/economists-saying-icelands-sovereign-money-proposal/

"Extending right to buy is both financially illiterate and morally wrong"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html

While Delldays and co get all dewy eyed about Thatchers 80s revolution the reality is this policy is a monumental fu ck you to hundreds of thousands of hardworking young (and not so young) people working hard and paying huge sums to private landlords and saving for deposits.

£70k and £100k giveaways to a handpicked selection of lucky people doesn't strike me as particularly fair to all those private renters spending years saving up but it all feels like something Maggie would have done so obviously it's brilliant.

The Northern Party?

 

Really? Should that be T'Northern Party?

That would be Yorkshire First (http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/ ), a misnomer if ever there was one, ( Yorkshire will NEVER be first ).

Since they eat off the floor, at least they won't need tables and chairs in their parliament

Why are some southern folk so disparaging about the north ? Are you jealous ?

While Delldays and co get all dewy eyed about Thatchers 80s revolution the reality is this policy is a monumental fu ck you to hundreds of thousands of hardworking young (and not so young) people working hard and paying huge sums to private landlords and saving for deposits.

 

£70k and £100k giveaways to a handpicked selection of lucky people doesn't strike me as particularly fair to all those private renters spending years saving up but it all feels like something Maggie would have done so obviously it's brilliant.

There's a simple solution to this - extend right-to-buy to all tenants, including those in the private sector. This is perfectly logical and consistent as the government is again hell-bent on giving away what it doesn't own. If we can then extend right-to-buy to company employees we've really got something.

Proudhon would be proud of Cameron.

The whole point of right to buy, is you get the people who can afford a mortgage into a mortgage. Take the cash from the house sale to build a new council house. And house someone who needs social housing.

Sadly we have to incentivize the movement onto a mortgage but as long as new social housing is built, it sounds good to me.

The whole point of right to buy, is you get the people who can afford a mortgage into a mortgage. Take the cash from the house sale to build a new council house. And house someone who needs social housing.

 

Sadly we have to incentivize the movement onto a mortgage but as long as new social housing is built, it sounds good to me.

These aren't council houses, they are housing association stock we are talking about.

I reckon, just maybe, go and have a read up on Right To Buy as you've not a scooby.

They are houses used to horse people on lower than the market rate. It makes no odds if they are run by the Council or housing associations. People who can afford better should be moved out of the social housing system.

It's noted where the money will come from to ensure the housing associations get the market rate for any of their list housing stock... Or do we just keep people on waiting lists for houses.

They are houses used to horse people on lower than the market rate. It makes no odds if they are run by the Council or housing associations. People who can afford better should be moved out of the social housing system.

 

It's noted where the money will come from to ensure the housing associations get the market rate for any of their list housing stock... Or do we just keep people on waiting lists for houses.

Oh dear.

I'd stick to your fanboi thread nipper, this is all a bit too much for you.

They are houses used to horse people on lower than the market rate. It makes no odds if they are run by the Council or housing associations. People who can afford better should be moved out of the social housing system.

 

It's noted where the money will come from to ensure the housing associations get the market rate for any of their list housing stock... Or do we just keep people on waiting lists for houses.

This from the link I posted earlier

"Apparently, the Conservative Party believes it can raise £17.5billion to support this policy. Over the course of one parliament, that is enough money for housing associations to build over a million new homes for shared ownership. That is a million households getting a foot on the housing ladder and a million new homes built. That, to me, is aspiration and ambition."

So we should believe that once you're in a council house or housing property association house you should stay there and pay under the market rate for ever? Leaving councils and housing associations to pick up the tab for upkeep and repairs when those houses and that money should go to the people who actually need the housing instead?

They are houses used to horse people on lower than the market rate. It makes no odds if they are run by the Council or housing associations. People who can afford better should be moved out of the social housing system.

 

It's noted where the money will come from to ensure the housing associations get the market rate for any of their list housing stock... Or do we just keep people on waiting lists for houses.

From the link BTF posted earlier regarding Housing Associations :

"To dispose of these assets to individuals is contrary to their legal objectives. To force housing associations to do so would require new law. That would be a law where the government tells a private social enterprise what it can and can't do with the assets it owns." This proposal is just a headline grabbing muddle.

So we should believe that once you're in a council house or housing property association house you should stay there and pay under the market rate for ever? Leaving councils and housing associations to pick up the tab for upkeep and repairs when those houses and that money should go to the people who actually need the housing instead?

The ratio of council houses sold to new ones built is about 11 to 1 so let's not pretend this scheme is about building houses for people who need them.

And fascinating use of the phrase "market rate" in support of a plan to flog houses with up to a £107k discount. What market rate is that then?

I think the issue under discussion, Nolan, is that IF you CAN raise ~£18B, why not just build the one million new houses that this could fund?

Why offer what from some angles appears to be a bribe to HA tenants?

Raise the cash, build loads of affordable houses. All is good.

Supply and demand then would suggest that house prices would fall, as would demand for private rented properties, Landlords would then not get the same levels of capital and rental return, and would likely dispose of the investment and move the cash into something with a better return.

And that is why it will never be part of Conservative policy to truly address the issue of social housing.

From the link BTF posted earlier regarding Housing Associations :

"To dispose of these assets to individuals is contrary to their legal objectives. To force housing associations to do so would require new law. That would be a law where the government tells a private social enterprise what it can and can't do with the assets it owns." This proposal is just a headline grabbing muddle.

except legal precedent has them as "public authorities"

http://hrlc.org.au/r-weaver-v-london-and-quadrant-housing-trust-2008-ewhc-1377-admin-24-june-2008/

The ratio of council houses sold to new ones built is about 11 to 1 so let's not pretend this scheme is about building houses for people who need them.

 

And fascinating use of the phrase "market rate" in support of a plan to flog houses with up to a £107k discount. What market rate is that then?

well to work out a discount, I presume you need to know a market value to apply that discount too.

So we should believe that once you're in a council house or housing property association house you should stay there and pay under the market rate for ever? Leaving councils and housing associations to pick up the tab for upkeep and repairs when those houses and that money should go to the people who actually need the housing instead?

But they are not the government's to sell....You understand? This is a moronic scheme, as moronic as the other one bantered about at the minute (you know, putting badges on people with mental health issues)....Really, if this country votes in this bunch of burlington club old boys who have not a clue about the working classes then...well, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

 

 

Why are some southern folk so disparaging about the north ? Are you jealous ?

It is sung at virtually every home game played against a northern team.