Discussion
H
They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
VolvoT5 said:
Conservatives are borrowing cash at a vast rate as well and although they claim to want to slow the rate faster than other parties they want to do it off the backs of poorest and still have big giveaways for a lucky few (i.e. right to buy).
Utter codswallop. They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
Cobnapint said:
Utter codswallop.
They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
He should stop reading the Daily MirrorThey are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
Cobnapint said:
Utter codswallop.
They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
No, they are helping the few that are lucky enough to be in housing association properties and can afford to buy. The ones that exercise the right to buy will not by any stretch be the poorest. It does nothing for people who aren't lucky enough to be in a housing association property but are instead stuck with insecure short-term tenancies in the private sector. They claim they will replace these sold houses with like for like new ones but that never happened in previous schemes, so there is a strong chance future generations of poor people will then have even less access to secure social housing... especially in nicer areas where the houses will sell off quicker. They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
It will cost a small fortune to implement this policy, why not just build new homes directy?
There is also the issue of how can it be legally/morally right to force a non-government organisation to sell their assets against their will....... is government really entitled to do that?
This policy does nothing to tackle lack of supply or excessive demand. It is simply a very expensive electoral bribe.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Saturday 18th April 21:03
VolvoT5 said:
No, they are helping the few that are lucky enough to be in housing association properties and can afford to buy. The ones that exercise the right to buy will not by any stretch be the poorest. It does nothing for people who aren't lucky enough to be in a housing association property but are instead stuck with insecure short-term tenancies in the private sector. They claim they will replace these sold houses with like for like new ones but that never happened in previous schemes, so there is a strong chance future generations of poor people will then have even less access to secure social housing... especially in nicer areas where the houses will sell off quicker.
It will cost a small fortune to implement this policy, why not just build new homes directy?
There is also the issue of how can it be legally/morally right to force a non-government organisation to sell their assets against their will....... is government really entitled to do that?
This policy does nothing to tackle lack of supply or excessive demand. It is simply a very expensive electoral bribe.
where do you think they got these "assets" from?It will cost a small fortune to implement this policy, why not just build new homes directy?
There is also the issue of how can it be legally/morally right to force a non-government organisation to sell their assets against their will....... is government really entitled to do that?
This policy does nothing to tackle lack of supply or excessive demand. It is simply a very expensive electoral bribe.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Saturday 18th April 21:03
Why do socialist always believe that the state of poverty is down to luck.
It is not down to luck, it is down to poor decisions and in some instances a failure to apply oneself.
This constant reference to 'the lucky'. it is not luck it is hard work, doing the right thing and making the correct choices when faced with decisions that have long term consequences.
It is not down to luck, it is down to poor decisions and in some instances a failure to apply oneself.
This constant reference to 'the lucky'. it is not luck it is hard work, doing the right thing and making the correct choices when faced with decisions that have long term consequences.
Gargamel said:
Why do socialist always believe that the state of poverty is down to luck.
It is not down to luck, it is down to poor decisions and in some instances a failure to apply oneself.
This constant reference to 'the lucky'. it is not luck it is hard work, doing the right thing and making the correct choices when faced with c that have long term consequences.
While not disagreeing with your thrust, I have to point out the likes of Paris Hilton or Tamara Ecclestone as benefitting from great luck.It is not down to luck, it is down to poor decisions and in some instances a failure to apply oneself.
This constant reference to 'the lucky'. it is not luck it is hard work, doing the right thing and making the correct choices when faced with c that have long term consequences.
NicD said:
Gargamel said:
Why do socialist always believe that the state of poverty is down to luck.
It is not down to luck, it is down to poor decisions and in some instances a failure to apply oneself.
This constant reference to 'the lucky'. it is not luck it is hard work, doing the right thing and making the correct choices when faced with c that have long term consequences.
While not disagreeing with your thrust, I have to point out the likes of Paris Hilton or Tamara Ecclestone as benefitting from great luck.It is not down to luck, it is down to poor decisions and in some instances a failure to apply oneself.
This constant reference to 'the lucky'. it is not luck it is hard work, doing the right thing and making the correct choices when faced with c that have long term consequences.
While there will always be individuals born into the poker of life with a duff set of cards who should get our support, the point being made about bad decisions is a good one. It's not somebody else's fault, but there are votes to be had in pretending it is by demonising people who generally make better decisions.
steveT350C said:
Im sure this must have already been posted, but Ed is clearly struggling, and failing miserably, to coordinate his facial muscles to produce anything remotely resembling a genuine smile...
Are they playing a game, who can get Ed in the most opposition colours, we have Lib Dem and UKIP in that one. mph1977 said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
I would rather stick pins in my dick than let Miliband and his lefty loonies anywhere near 10 Downing street.
also, it's fundamentally the same team as the dying days of the last Labour Maladminstration ... the ones who'd 'abolished boom and bust' don't ya know 
VolvoT5 said:
mybrainhurts said:
I'd risk a little bet that, no, he'd rather have a Party that boosts the economy than one that crashes it. Every time. Without fail. It's a Labour tradition, it'll never end.
Conservatives are borrowing cash at a vast rate as well and although they claim to want to slow the rate faster than other parties they want to do it off the backs of poorest and still have big giveaways for a lucky few (i.e. right to buy). They also completely agreed with Labour spending plans right up until the financial crash with things went totally tits up. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust either party to balance the books of a corner shop. But I just couldn't bring myself to vote Conservative after seeing with my own eyes what IDS has done with PIP disability benefit. Appalling the way they treat the genuinely needy, I don't pay tax to see my friends and neighbours treated like scum when they need help the most.
Then again couldn't bring myself to vote Labour either.... but I don't think Miliband would be a disaster if he did get in. The greens are too loony left; literally like student union politics, Bennett is embarrassing. .
But please let me ask you a few questions.
Who pays for the NHS, schools, the benefits system, The armed forces, The police, roads
everything in fact, that allows a country / society to operate.
It is not the government, they are only the collectors of the finance needed to run the county. It is not the public services, they make nothing. It is not benefits claimants, they only take from the system, and put little or nothing into it.
So all the elements that allow a society to operate are paid for by those who work, at making things, or provide services that others (particularly other countries, are willing to pay for) Collectively this is known as the UK economy.
Labour have a track record of trashing the UK economy EVERY single time they get into power. Without a strong economy there can be no viable NHS, schools, armed forces, police, etc.
The Tories have a track record of repairing the damage done to the economy by labour
(sometimes not too efficiently) and of course they will have to spend more to do this.
As stated elsewhere if you moved into a new house, you would generally just have normal every day living expenses to pay out, But if you moved into a house that had been completely trashed by the previous occupants, as labour repeatedly trashed the UK economy (remember they left a note saying all the money was gone when they were turfed out in 2010), you would not only have your normal living expenses to pay, but would have to find extra cash, to make that house liveable again on top.
Without a strong economy, we cannot have all the sub benefits it provides such as the NHS, our schools, the armed forces, good infrastructure etc.
So if you want a government that will ultimately destroy the NHS, schools, and the country as a whole, you must vote for the government that has a track record of destroying the economy....Labour.
If you want a government that will try to avoid destroying the economy you must vote Tory
because it is on the economy that EVERYTHING else (The NHS, schools, armed forces and the countries infrastructure depends)
Du1point8 said:
VolvoT5 said:
mybrainhurts said:
I'd risk a little bet that, no, he'd rather have a Party that boosts the economy than one that crashes it. Every time. Without fail. It's a Labour tradition, it'll never end.
Conservatives are borrowing cash at a vast rate as well and although they claim to want to slow the rate faster than other parties they want to do it off the backs of poorest and still have big giveaways for a lucky few (i.e. right to buy). They also completely agreed with Labour spending plans right up until the financial crash with things went totally tits up. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust either party to balance the books of a corner shop. But I just couldn't bring myself to vote Conservative after seeing with my own eyes what IDS has done with PIP disability benefit. Appalling the way they treat the genuinely needy, I don't pay tax to see my friends and neighbours treated like scum when they need help the most.
Then again couldn't bring myself to vote Labour either.... but I don't think Miliband would be a disaster if he did get in. The greens are too loony left; literally like student union politics, Bennett is embarrassing. .
Never mentioned and yet always brought up by pro labour people, explain why it was never on the books until Tories took it on?
Then when they had splashed the cash from that around, to create the ILLUSION that labour was working (anyone can make it `look' like they are doing OK if the money they are splashing around, is someone else's which they have stolen) Gormless sold of the UK gold reserves at an all time low price, so that he could continue the ILLUSION that labour was working for as long as possible. Labour know only how to take money, not how to make money. Consequently labour left the uk in a dire position to weather the financial hardships that followed the 2008 global recession.
History has shown us time and again, that labour cannot be trusted with the UK`s economy
Without a strong economy, we can have nothing else, No NHS, No decent schools, No armed forces. No Police, No public services, no decent infrastructure etc. A vote for labour is a vote to ultimately destroy all the things, and the UK as a whole.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Spot on. Labour have proved EVERY time they get into No 10, that they are totally incompetent at running the UK`s finances. Even the last time they were in, Gormless Clowns first act as chancellor was to raid the private pensions of millions of ordinary working people.
Then when they had splashed the cash from that around, to create the ILLUSION that labour was working (anyone can make it `look' like they are doing OK if the money they are splashing around, is someone else's which they have stolen) Gormless sold of the UK gold reserves at an all time low price, so that he could continue the ILLUSION that labour was working for as long as possible. Labour know only how to take money, not how to make money. Consequently labour left the uk in a dire position to weather the financial hardships that followed the 2008 global recession.
History has shown us time and again, that labour cannot be trusted with the UK`s economy
Without a strong economy, we can have nothing else, No NHS, No decent schools, No armed forces. No Police, No public services, no decent infrastructure etc. A vote for labour is a vote to ultimately destroy all the things, and the UK as a whole.
Don't forget when that Willie Winkie did the great Gold sell off. Mark of a genius. Thanks for that!Then when they had splashed the cash from that around, to create the ILLUSION that labour was working (anyone can make it `look' like they are doing OK if the money they are splashing around, is someone else's which they have stolen) Gormless sold of the UK gold reserves at an all time low price, so that he could continue the ILLUSION that labour was working for as long as possible. Labour know only how to take money, not how to make money. Consequently labour left the uk in a dire position to weather the financial hardships that followed the 2008 global recession.
History has shown us time and again, that labour cannot be trusted with the UK`s economy
Without a strong economy, we can have nothing else, No NHS, No decent schools, No armed forces. No Police, No public services, no decent infrastructure etc. A vote for labour is a vote to ultimately destroy all the things, and the UK as a whole.
I equate Labour to the give a man a fish quote.
Labour give people fish and they are hungry the next day.
Tories teach people how to fish so that they can do it themselves.
Labour then go round all the fisherman, claim they are rich, take half their fish in tax, to give to those that refuse to help themselves.
If everyone could be taught to fish, rather than wait to be fed the UK would be a better place, unfortunately Labour don't know how to teach people to fish, so instead they take off those that do to buy the votes of those that don't.
(obviously there are those out there that need to be given fish as they are in some way disabled and can't do it themselves)
Labour give people fish and they are hungry the next day.
Tories teach people how to fish so that they can do it themselves.
Labour then go round all the fisherman, claim they are rich, take half their fish in tax, to give to those that refuse to help themselves.
If everyone could be taught to fish, rather than wait to be fed the UK would be a better place, unfortunately Labour don't know how to teach people to fish, so instead they take off those that do to buy the votes of those that don't.
(obviously there are those out there that need to be given fish as they are in some way disabled and can't do it themselves)
VolvoT5 said:
Cobnapint said:
Utter codswallop.
They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
No, they are helping the few that are lucky enough to be in housing association properties and can afford to buy. The ones that exercise the right to buy will not by any stretch be the poorest. It does nothing for people who aren't lucky enough to be in a housing association property but are instead stuck with insecure short-term tenancies in the private sector. They claim they will replace these sold houses with like for like new ones but that never happened in previous schemes, so there is a strong chance future generations of poor people will then have even less access to secure social housing... especially in nicer areas where the houses will sell off quicker. They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
It will cost a small fortune to implement this policy, why not just build new homes directy?
There is also the issue of how can it be legally/morally right to force a non-government organisation to sell their assets against their will....... is government really entitled to do that?
This policy does nothing to tackle lack of supply or excessive demand. It is simply a very expensive electoral bribe.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Saturday 18th April 21:03
Imagine a bunch of houses built in the SE over the last couple of decades. Many houses now in areas where, even though they are social housing projects, are worth multiples of when they were built.
If there is no right to buy at all, you have a massive mountain of equity that cannot be unlocked and used to invest in new housing stock. Sure, HAs can borrow against the stock up to a level that the rent roll can support, but the idea of never selling a council house that the market has determined is now worth £300k+ seems daft. Seems a no brainer to sell the high value stock in expensive area and invest in building new stock in one of the many up & coming, brownfield areas in London. Given building costs are, what £1000/m2 for social housing, it seems plausible that selling the high priced stock could easily fund a 1:1 or 2:1 replenishment strategy.
johnfm said:
VolvoT5 said:
Cobnapint said:
Utter codswallop.
They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
No, they are helping the few that are lucky enough to be in housing association properties and can afford to buy. The ones that exercise the right to buy will not by any stretch be the poorest. It does nothing for people who aren't lucky enough to be in a housing association property but are instead stuck with insecure short-term tenancies in the private sector. They claim they will replace these sold houses with like for like new ones but that never happened in previous schemes, so there is a strong chance future generations of poor people will then have even less access to secure social housing... especially in nicer areas where the houses will sell off quicker. They are HELPING the poorest get on the housing ladder by letting them buy their house at a discount. Would you rather every family rent for the rest of their lives and have nothing to show for it at the end of it?
They also have a 'help to buy' scheme which helps the poorest buy their first home.
This is being done on the back of the rest of us - the lucky few who pay lots of tax.
Of course, they could always follow the Labour party's example, and get rid of the 10p rate of tax to help ensure the poorest NEVER get out of their rented property, whether they aspire to or not. Consigning them to a life of renting, some of which would be probably paid for by benefits.
It will cost a small fortune to implement this policy, why not just build new homes directy?
There is also the issue of how can it be legally/morally right to force a non-government organisation to sell their assets against their will....... is government really entitled to do that?
This policy does nothing to tackle lack of supply or excessive demand. It is simply a very expensive electoral bribe.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Saturday 18th April 21:03
Imagine a bunch of houses built in the SE over the last couple of decades. Many houses now in areas where, even though they are social housing projects, are worth multiples of when they were built.
If there is no right to buy at all, you have a massive mountain of equity that cannot be unlocked and used to invest in new housing stock. Sure, HAs can borrow against the stock up to a level that the rent roll can support, but the idea of never selling a council house that the market has determined is now worth £300k+ seems daft. Seems a no brainer to sell the high value stock in expensive area and invest in building new stock in one of the many up & coming, brownfield areas in London. Given building costs are, what £1000/m2 for social housing, it seems plausible that selling the high priced stock could easily fund a 1:1 or 2:1 replenishment strategy.
johnfm said:
Seems a no brainer to sell the high value stock in expensive area and invest in building new stock in one of the many up & coming, brownfield areas in London. Given building costs are, what £1000/m2 for social housing, it seems plausible that selling the high priced stock could easily fund a 1:1 or 2:1 replenishment strategy.
Will the replacement of stock really happen?In 2011 the government increased the discounts available to council tenants and at the time Housing Minister Grant Shapps said:
"But we are also determined to maintain the number of affordable homes for rent - so for the first time, every additional home that is sold will be replaced by a new affordable home on a one-for-one basis. The new homes for affordable rent will help get the nation building again, and help councils meet housing need"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/revitalised-rig...
Yet according to Shelter (yes I know they have a dog in this fight but facts are facts):
"But since the commitment was made 26,184 social rented homes have been sold through Right to Buy across England and only 2,712 replacement homes either started or bought. The ratio of replacement has been ten homes sold for every one replaced, nowhere near one-to-one.
Of course it can take a bit of time to build a home, so we should expect a bit of lag in the statistics; but it’s important to remember here that we’re talking about housing starts, when work begins onsite, rather than housing completions – when the home is finished."
http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/03/right-to-buy-on...
The replenishment strategy did not work before so why will it work now?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff