General Election 2015

[Nolan]

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?

 

because you don't simply pay for the housing, there is a continuing cost for upkeep that needs to be involved. The higher the amount of social housing, the higher the yearly cost of upkeep.

[Hockey_saint]

Also, what I mentioned....Mental, literally mental.

 

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/04/conservative-chamali-fernando-wristbands-mentally-ill/

[Nolan]

Also, what I mentioned....Mental, literally mental.

 

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/04/conservative-chamali-fernando-wristbands-mentally-ill/

 

shocking... http://www.laurenshope.com/

[CB Fry]

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

 

A discount would be below market rate though, right? Kind of what the word discount means.

[Batman]

Also, what I mentioned....Mental, literally mental.

 

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/04/conservative-chamali-fernando-wristbands-mentally-ill/

 

They all say moronic things

Dianne abbot regularly talks utter horse Shyte that can be quite offensive

[Hockey_saint]

They all say moronic things

Dianne abbot regularly talks utter horse Shyte that can be quite offensive

 

They do...This is true.

[pap]

shocking... http://www.laurenshope.com/

 

A marketed product that people choose to buy, worn discreetly on their person is an entirely different proposal from a potentially mandatory and definitely visible means of identification.

 

Edited 14 April, 2015 by pap

[Wes Tender]

Also, what I mentioned....Mental, literally mental.

 

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/04/conservative-chamali-fernando-wristbands-mentally-ill/

 

This is just one Tory candidate making a proposal which she says has been misrepresented. As far as I'm aware, it is not a pledge in the Tory manifesto, much as I'm sure that the likes of you would like to make out that it is. I'm sure that you're in good company with many of the knee-jerk brigade who responded in the comments after the article. However, there does seem to be a lone voice among those comments, one who is a bit more thoughtful about some positive aspects of certain scenarios that this young lady was maybe thinking about when she made the suggestion.

 

I need to put my five bobs worth in here. For the record I will tell you I am a socialist and abhor the tories and their policies but in this case I think there is a bit of a false storm brewing and a lot of distortion.

 

She is a barrister which means she uses the legal definition of what mental illness is. Most people associate mental illness with the likes of schizophrenia or ocd or depression. But that is simply not true. In legal terms mental illness is ANYTHING that impairs a persons mental abilities and includes things like dementia and other disabilities which affect executive reasoning and awareness.

 

I don’t think this was meant maliciously (and I don’t support tory policies at all) but I happen to agree in part with wrist bands or medalert bracelets.

 

I am guardian (court appointed) for my mother who has secondary progressive M.S with severe mental and cognitive impairment including full blown dementia.

 

I got a medalert bracelet made for my mother. It has her name, illness and her blood type, my phone number on it and also her NHS number. Just incase she should ever get out of the house and something happens.

 

I also took steps to ensure all of her wishes were on file with the NHS. So I have to agree with wristbands for safety reasons when a person is unable to communicate properly and is unaware of danger etc.

 

I don’t think she meant this comment out of malice but instead out of a very real need to be able to identify those with severe mental impairment for their own safety.

 

The same as a diabetic wearing a tag to show he is diabetic or someone with HIV having one to warn doctors and nurses that they are hiv positive in the event of an accident.

 

People who don’t look after someone with severe mental and cognitive difficulties simply cannot understand the challenges faced by carers who do. They also do not understand the emense problems caused if a person say gets out of the house and is injured and the NHS and police have no way of identifying that person.

 

Having access to that information immediately could very well save a persons life. It would be worth finding out how many people have died because the NHS could not adequately contact nor identify a person and contact their families for more information on their illness.

[Wes Tender]

A marketed product that people choose to buy, worn discreetly on their person is an entirely different proposal from a potentially mandatory and definitely visible means of identification.

 

 

Show me where there is any indicaation at all that this is Conservative policy, let alone intended to be mandatory or visible.

 

Perhaps the BBC's report of this candidate's reasoning will help you.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32299433

[buctootim]

because you don't simply pay for the housing, there is a continuing cost for upkeep that needs to be involved. The higher the amount of social housing, the higher the yearly cost of upkeep.

 

If only there was a way to find money to maintain the houses once they were built. Some kind of regular income for the Housing Association or council. Almost like, um, rent.

[whelk]

[solentstars]

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 nolans out of his depth and should stick to his make believe world of the market,yes the same market which caused the deepest recession since the 30,s. its a bribe for some voters has most people will not be able to get a mortgage and money stolen from my pocket as a taxpayer as it was in the 1980s. if they want to buy there house let them pay the market rate.

[saint si]

I'm a bit surprised to see people characterising right-to-buy as stealing from the taxpayer, in order to give to those living in council houses.

 

It's practically the very definition of wealth redistribution.

[Batman]

I'm a bit surprised to see people characterising right-to-buy as stealing from the taxpayer, in order to give to those living in council houses.

 

It's practically the very definition of wealth redistribution.

 

The mob are going to rip you apart for this!!!

[CB Fry]

I'm a bit surprised to see people characterising right-to-buy as stealing from the taxpayer, in order to give to those living in council houses.

 

It's practically the very definition of wealth redistribution.

Clearly it isn't "practically the very definition of wealth redistribution" but Delldays liked it so well done to you both.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'm a bit surprised to see people characterising right-to-buy as stealing from the taxpayer, in order to give to those living in council houses.

 

It's practically the very definition of wealth redistribution.

 

Reduce benefits - Conservatives criticised.

Give poor people free money - Conservatives criticised.

 

No win.

 

Not exactly wealth redistribution though, it's not a Robin Hood situation.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just out of interest, instead of finding new brownfield sites to build properties on, why don't we make use of the huge number of empty office blocks - renovations of properties would be much cheaper and would increase the housing stock massively. It has been done recently in my local area by private companies (estate agents) and its regenerated the areas as well as providing housing.

[pap]

Reduce benefits - Conservatives criticised.

Give poor people free money - Conservatives criticised.

 

No win.

 

Not exactly wealth redistribution though, it's not a Robin Hood situation.

 

I love this. I really do.

 

We have 35 years of evidence pertaining to the effects of right to buy, including knowing that a third of all sold off council estate properties are now in the hands of private landlords. We know that it wasn't the poorest who benefited from the scheme, despite Jamie's implicit claim that his parents bought their council house on benefits

 

And yet, we get this. An argument so simplistic and reductive that it sounds like UJ has been told to say it by a bigger boy, who had to explain it to UJ in terms simple enough to be able to convey.

 

The best thing is, it's actually all UJ

 

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I love this. I really do.

 

We have 35 years of evidence pertaining to the effects of right to buy, including knowing that a third of all sold off council estate properties are now in the hands of private landlords. We know that it wasn't the poorest who benefited from the scheme, despite Jamie's implicit claim that his parents bought their council house on benefits

 

And yet, we get this. An argument so simplistic and reductive that it sounds like UJ has been told to say it by a bigger boy, who had to explain it to UJ in terms simple enough to be able to convey.

 

The best thing is, it's actually all UJ

 

 

God you're so easy to wind up, you need to calm down love :lol:

 

I don't actually think it's a particularly good idea UNLESS they are replacing all the properties (and actually building more - we are short).

 

I have to say though, surely the fact that only 1/3 of properties are in the hands of private landlords is a bit low, I would have thought by the outrage on here it would be much, much higher.

[Batman]

God you're so easy to wind up, you need to calm down love :lol:

 

I don't actually think it's a particularly good idea UNLESS they are replacing all the properties (and actually building more - we are short).

 

we will always be short when the population increases by 100's of thousands every year

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I love this. I really do.

 

We have 35 years of evidence pertaining to the effects of right to buy, including knowing that a third of all sold off council estate properties are now in the hands of private landlords. We know that it wasn't the poorest who benefited from the scheme, despite Jamie's implicit claim that his parents bought their council house on benefits

 

And yet, we get this. An argument so simplistic and reductive that it sounds like UJ has been told to say it by a bigger boy, who had to explain it to UJ in terms simple enough to be able to convey.

 

The best thing is, it's actually all UJ

 

 

Your positioned has changed Pap since yesterday when you said "Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced".

 

Only a third of former council houses are now in private landlord hands - two thirds are not then and what if you take Robbie Fowler out of the equation

 

I would agree with your original stance though. As long as they are replaced it should be celebrated that so many people are going to be set free to be given a chance to get on. It seems to be that the people moaning most already own their houses.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Your positioned has changed Pap since yesterday when you said "Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced".

 

Only a third of former council houses are now in private landlord hands - two thirds are not then and what if you take Robbie Fowler out of the equation

 

I would agree with your original stance though. As long as they are replaced it should be celebrated that so many people are going to be set free to be given a chance to get on. It seems to be that the people moaning most already own their houses.

 

Apart from Pap. He can afford to buy his Mum's council house outright, but not buy his own house in Liverpool.

[Wes Tender]

Apart from Pap. He can afford to buy his Mum's council house outright, but not buy his own house in Liverpool.

 

I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on what Pap would do with his own mother when he had given the money to her to buy her property and then taken over the deeds after three years. He insinuates that he could then sell the property and trouser the profit gained by the discounted purchase price, so either she's out on the street, or living with Pap.

[pap]

Apart from Pap. He can afford to buy his Mum's council house outright, but not buy his own house in Liverpool.

 

I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on what Pap would do with his own mother when he had given the money to her to buy her property and then taken over the deeds after three years. He insinuates that he could then sell the property and trouser the profit gained by the discounted purchase price, so either she's out on the street, or living with Pap.

 

Ha.

 

I do enough for my family. Worst angle of attack you could have tried.

 

Says it all for your collective political acumen that this very poor invention is all you have.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Ha.

 

I do enough for my family. Worst angle of attack you could have tried.

 

Says it all for your collective political acumen that this very poor invention is all you have.

 

I'm not attacking what you do for your family. What I don't understand is how you say you can afford to buy your Mum her council house but can't afford to buy your own. Just doesn't make any sense to me, so perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Batman]

Ha.

 

I do enough for my family. Worst angle of attack you could have tried.

 

Says it all for your collective political acumen that this very poor invention is all you have.

it's ok for you to make remarks about other families though...

[pap]

I'm not attacking what you do for your family. What I don't understand is how you say you can afford to buy your Mum her council house but can't afford to buy your own. Just doesn't make any sense to me, so perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

Where did I say I couldn't afford my own?

 

I think you'll find I said we'd be buying another place when both the girls have left for Uni. That is less of a cost thing and more of a "where the f**k will we be" question.

 

Do we need to swap out "Unbelievable" for "Liar"?

[pap]

it's ok for you to make remarks about other families though...

 

It's not a case of it being ok or not.

 

I am truly not arsed.

 

If you are upset, I'd suggest not using your family as components of your argument when discussing this issue. You've shown yourself to be lying on one level here, mush. You say they were lifted out of state handouts on the back of this policy alone. I don't see how that's possible.

[Wes Tender]

Ha.

 

I do enough for my family. Worst angle of attack you could have tried.

 

Says it all for your collective political acumen that this very poor invention is all you have.

 

So the scenario that you painted about buying your mother's council house and selling it at a profit was just so much guff. You could do it but wouldn't. But we have to be concerned about all the other people who would be unfeeling enough to do that, people who don't care for their parents, is that it?

 

And you feel entitled to be miffed at this angle of attack, but perfectly fine about levelling something similar against Batman's family. Hypocrite.

[Wes Tender]

It's not a case of it being ok or not.

 

I am truly not arsed.

 

If you are upset, I'd suggest not using your family as components of your argument when discussing this issue. You've shown yourself to be lying on one level here, mush. You say they were lifted out of state handouts on the back of this policy alone. I don't see how that's possible.

 

But you used your mother as an example, a component of your argument and your response shows that you got ratty as a result, mush.

[pap]

So the scenario that you painted about buying your mother's council house and selling it at a profit was just so much guff. You could do it but wouldn't. But we have to be concerned about all the other people who would be unfeeling enough to do that, people who don't care for their parents, is that it?

 

And you feel entitled to be miffed at this angle of attack, but perfectly fine about levelling something similar against Batman's family. Hypocrite.

 

I loved your interpretation of that post, btw. Worst case scenario Wes. Suggesting that I'd chuck the old dear onto the street? A fascinating insight into the way your mind fails to work.

 

Like Jeff, you're having to lie to make your point against me.

 

Mum would be proud

[hypochondriac]

As none of you know each other on here, isn't the use of "mum" just the equivalent of a "yo mamma" joke shouted at a stranger from across the road? Not sure why everyone is getting so riled about it...

[Special K]

Just out of interest, instead of finding new brownfield sites to build properties on, why don't we make use of the huge number of empty office blocks - renovations of properties would be much cheaper and would increase the housing stock massively. It has been done recently in my local area by private companies (estate agents) and its regenerated the areas as well as providing housing.

 

The Coalition relaxed the planning laws on converting vacant offices to residential accommodation a few years ago, but the uptake was quite low as, generally, only flats and maybe ground floor maisonettes can realistically be built. There is more of a demand for traditional 3 up, 2 downs and not 1 and 2 bed flats in most areas. Not all, granted, but there are generally enough new build flats from private developers to service the demand. This made propositions to developers less attractive, as returns would be much lower. It also had the wholly unexpected (not) result of suddenly raising the landlords expected value of the existing office block and accompanying land - that wasn't an obvious one at all, no way - putting off a number of interested developers.

 

On a wider note, there are two main reasons the country is not building what is required, either in terms of number of units or type of units. First is finance availability - still difficult, even for HA's (who will find their ability to borrow even more reduced after the announcement yesterday) and secondly is the archaic, convoluted, expensive and obstructive planning approval system we have in this country. Simply, it is not fit for purpose and not able to serve the demands of the Country. IMHO, if the political message during this election was one of overhauling the planning system, it would make far more sense than simply flogging off a few HA units for a discount as a quick vote winner.

[Wes Tender]

I loved your interpretation of that post, btw. Worst case scenario Wes. Suggesting that I'd chuck the old dear onto the street? A fascinating insight into the way your mind fails to work.

 

Like Jeff, you're having to lie to make your point against me.

 

Mum would be proud

 

I said that if you went through with your plan to buy your mother's house, wait three years, then transfer the deeds into your name, sell the property and trouser the profit, that it would raise the question as to where your mother would then live. Unless you can present me with a third solution, it seems plain that she would either have to find some other accomodation, or to live with you or another family member. If she went to live elsewhere, she would be paying rent, wouldn't she?

 

So instead of huffing and puffing, do let us know what your solution to your mother's accomodation would be, and really what the point was in you raising this ruse of buying her Council property. Because as it stands, it is complete and utter nonsense.

[pap]

As none of you know each other on here, isn't the use of "mum" just the equivalent of a "yo mamma" joke shouted at a stranger from across the road? Not sure why everyone is getting so riled about it...

 

I'm not riled at all. I just find the area of attack amusing.

 

Batman introduced his parents to this debate long before this thread ever got started, but here he states that his mum was lifted out of state support by the Housing Act of 1980. Let's hear how. He said it. Let him back it up. How did she get a mortgage with no job, for example?

[pap]

I said that if you went through with your plan to buy your mother's house, wait three years, then transfer the deeds into your name, sell the property and trouser the profit, that it would raise the question as to where your mother would then live. Unless you can present me with a third solution, it seems plain that she would either have to find some other accomodation, or to live with you or another family member. If she went to live elsewhere, she would be paying rent, wouldn't she?

 

So instead of huffing and puffing, do let us know what your solution to your mother's accomodation would be, and really what the point was in you raising this ruse of buying her Council property. Because as it stands, it is complete and utter nonsense.

 

Of course I do. Indirectly. Not hard, although I can see why you're having trouble making the leaps. It's ok, I have plenty of experience in explaining things to the less able.

 

1) I give the old dear money to buy house

2) She buys house

3) Wait three years

4) Deeds transferred to me.

 

Funnily enough, that was the exact same strategy the slum landlords used when hoovering up the homes of the working class so they could rent them back out at three times the cost, funded for by the taxpayer.

 

There you go, liar Wes.

 

I've quoted my post so you don't have to lie about it.

 

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I kick my mum out and trouser the profit.

[badgerx16]

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/

 

.

 

For the purposes of the Human Rights Act;

"On this basis, LQHT was a public authority in relation to both the grant and termination of a tenancy", however " For example, LQHT was a privately formed body, was governed by its own rules, managed its own housing stock, shared no board members with a relevant public body and had limited or no statutory powers", and "LQHT intends to appeal this aspect of the decision, and therefore confirmation of the trend towards a broader definition of public authority may come from an appellate court. In the meantime the area remains, in the words of the Court in Weaver, not ‘altogether easy to resolve". So not yet legally resolved.

 

As the article I quoted was written by the head of the Housing Associations governing body, I suspect he knows their true legal status.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Where did I say I couldn't afford my own?

 

I think you'll find I said we'd be buying another place when both the girls have left for Uni. That is less of a cost thing and more of a "where the f**k will we be" question.

 

Do we need to swap out "Unbelievable" for "Liar"?

 

Buying another place? Don't you rent though? Or are you an unscrupulous landlord?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The Coalition relaxed the planning laws on converting vacant offices to residential accommodation a few years ago, but the uptake was quite low as, generally, only flats and maybe ground floor maisonettes can realistically be built. There is more of a demand for traditional 3 up, 2 downs and not 1 and 2 bed flats in most areas. Not all, granted, but there are generally enough new build flats from private developers to service the demand. This made propositions to developers less attractive, as returns would be much lower. It also had the wholly unexpected (not) result of suddenly raising the landlords expected value of the existing office block and accompanying land - that wasn't an obvious one at all, no way - putting off a number of interested developers.

 

On a wider note, there are two main reasons the country is not building what is required, either in terms of number of units or type of units. First is finance availability - still difficult, even for HA's (who will find their ability to borrow even more reduced after the announcement yesterday) and secondly is the archaic, convoluted, expensive and obstructive planning approval system we have in this country. Simply, it is not fit for purpose and not able to serve the demands of the Country. IMHO, if the political message during this election was one of overhauling the planning system, it would make far more sense than simply flogging off a few HA units for a discount as a quick vote winner.

 

Damn straight on the planning. My dad was building a small estate of houses in Hordle, but the Planning office and Section 106 payments (he was building 3 houses) made the site unprofitable and he ended up selling at a big loss.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I loved your interpretation of that post, btw. Worst case scenario Wes. Suggesting that I'd chuck the old dear onto the street? A fascinating insight into the way your mind fails to work.

 

Like Jeff, you're having to lie to make your point against me.

 

Mum would be proud

 

I'm not lying, I'm just reading your posts and trying to decipher the inconsistencies in them. It's pretty difficult, as it seems as contradictory as your lefty, selfless, high horse view of life when compared to your "I pay enough tax" nimbyism.

[Wes Tender]

There you go, liar Wes.

 

I've quoted my post so you don't have to lie about it.

 

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I kick my mum out and trouser the profit.

There you are, as obtuse and obfusticating as usual in order to avoid answering the question.

 

Have a look at the last line you wrote.

Funnily enough, that was the exact same strategy the slum landlords used when hoovering up the homes of the working class so they could rent them back out at three times the cost, funded for by the taxpayer.

 

Now please do answer my question regarding what would become of your mother under the scenario whereby you followed the hypothetical course that you have outlined above and rented out or sold her property.

 

Unless you're going to answer the question of what would become of her under that scenario, then that last line is totally superfluous to your argument. So it appears that it is you who is telling porkies.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not lying, I'm just reading your posts and trying to decipher the inconsistencies in them. It's pretty difficult, as it seems as contradictory as your lefty, selfless, high horse view of life when compared to your "I pay enough tax" nimbyism.

 

His example has been proven to be nonsense and he's wriggling and having to resort to name-calling in a vain effort to try and justify his position.

[View From The Top]

What I don't get, and I hope someone can enlighten me, is why the major house builders seem to only build 3, 4 & 5 bed houses on the new estates. Quite often around here they are only 4/5 bed developments, priced insanely high, which then seemed to be heavily discounted before they shift.

 

The place is crying out for fair priced starter homes but they just don't seem to be being built.

[pap]

There you are, as obtuse and obfusticating as usual in order to avoid answering the question.

 

Have a look at the last line you wrote.

 

 

Now please do answer my question regarding what would become of your mother under the scenario whereby you followed the hypothetical course that you have outlined above and rented out or sold her property.

 

Unless you're going to answer the question of what would become of her under that scenario, then that last line is totally superfluous to your argument. So it appears that it is you who is telling porkies.

I was explaining how the three year limit is not a safeguard.

 

For the record though, if I did ever buy the old dear's gaffe, she'd get to live there in perpetuity and the house would go to my siblings afterward.

 

Not as sensational as your take, but it is not as fictional either.

[Batman]

What I don't get, and I hope someone can enlighten me, is why the major house builders seem to only build 3, 4 & 5 bed houses on the new estates. Quite often around here they are only 4/5 bed developments, priced insanely high, which then seemed to be heavily discounted before they shift.

 

The place is crying out for fair priced starter homes but they just don't seem to be being built.

 

loads of 2 bed houses being built around here...absolutely loads. More so than 3 beds

nearly all of them require 5% deposit too

Edited 15 April, 2015 by Batman

[View From The Top]

His example has been proven to be nonsense and he's wriggling and having to resort to name-calling in a vain effort to try and justify his position.

 

F**king hell gents, Pap, despite is rambling at times, has never said anything about kicking his mum out just simply laid out a scenario where he could buy his mums house and take ownership after 3 years, that's all.

 

Stop being so f**king pathetic.

[View From The Top]

loads of 2 bed houses being built around here...absolutely loads. More so than 3 beds

nearly all of them require 5% deposit too

 

None round us. Another big estate being built and all 3/4/5 bed.

[pap]

F**king hell gents, Pap, despite is rambling at times, has never said anything about kicking his mum out just simply laid out a scenario where he could buy his mums house and take ownership after 3 years, that's all.

 

Stop being so f**king pathetic.

 

Thank you, VFTT.

 

[View From The Top]

loads of 2 bed houses being built around here...absolutely loads. More so than 3 beds

nearly all of them require 5% deposit too

 

I wonder how they decide what to build where?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What I don't get, and I hope someone can enlighten me, is why the major house builders seem to only build 3, 4 & 5 bed houses on the new estates. Quite often around here they are only 4/5 bed developments, priced insanely high, which then seemed to be heavily discounted before they shift.

 

The place is crying out for fair priced starter homes but they just don't seem to be being built.

 

We seem to have a fair amount of 2 beds built where I am, but then 3 bed homes start around the £550k so guess that's to offer more 'affordable' homes...Not that anything is affordable.