UK General Election 2015

[edh]

Zod said:

Remind me who funds the housing associations.

Banks? AFAIK they borrow against future rental income

Aside from the possibly illegal appropriation of assets, It's a massive bribe to a small number of lucky people who already have secure housing. Surely they would be better off aiming cash at swing voters living in marginal constituencies?

IFS say that there's a £30bn hole in the Tories' plans - that'll be all the unfunded spending commitments they have just made then...

[Zod]

edh said:

Zod said:

Remind me who funds the housing associations.

Banks? AFAIK they borrow against future rental income

Aside from the possibly illegal appropriation of assets, It's a massive bribe to a small number of lucky people who already have secure housing. Surely they would be better off aiming cash at swing voters living in marginal constituencies?

IFS say that there's a £30bn hole in the Tories' plans - that'll be all the unfunded spending commitments they have just made then...

They are principally funded by government but also borrow from banks and the bond market.

Love your selective quoting from the IFS.

IFS said:

The Conservatives ‘have not been completely explicit about exactly what level of borrowing they would want to achieve’ and nor have the SNP, Labour has ‘provided disappointingly little information on what they would borrow’.

Given Labour claim to have costed everything, but have given no information about what they will cut or how much they will raise from tax increases and when, they have no credibility.

[rover 623gsi]

housing associations are NOT funded by the government - I know, I work for one.

[Garvin]

Guam said:

Garvin said:

I don't get all this Marxist blather. HA sells home to long term tenant at discount. HA is compensated using taxpayers' money. HA builds more housing to rent using the money because that is their business. On a one for one basis the stock of social housing is maintained in equilibrium but the overall number of homes increases.

Now some may not like taxpayers money being used in this way but why is it so different from the government or local authority using taxpayers' money to build social housing? Indeed the new house uses less taxpayers' money than previously as the buying tenant has provided the balance.

Simple no third party owner involved, if you are a supporter of state ownership and nationalisation you may see nothing wrong with the state taking over assets they dont own and handing them over to the "deserving" bear in mind this arose due to denials that the Tory party had moved left!

I thought the problem was not enough social housing. This scheme replaces a social house with a tenant that is highly unlikely to move and replaces it with a social house that is available for another family. Yes, the existing tenants who get to buy their house on the cheap are subsidised by the taxpayer. But the primary problem is the lack of available social housing that this scheme helps to alleviate. It's not perfect but then again, the old council house scheme had people renting at low rates i.e. effectively subsidised by the taxpayer. It is not so very different and makes more housing stock available.

[Scuffers]

Guam said:

Wikki says

"Housing associations borrow money to pay for new homes and improvements. After the Housing Act 1988, the proportion of the cost of new homes met by capital grant was scaled back by the Government, so borrowing became the primary source of funding for investment. Much of this was simply borrowed from banks and building societies, but after the late-2000s financial crisis these institutions ceased to offer long-term loans, so developing associations are increasingly turning to corporate bonds to raise funds for expansion.[6]"

that ^^^

it also fails to cover all the housing trusts that effectively brought out the council housing (using commercial loans to pay for it).

(Worked on a couple of transfers, it was not peanuts money, one cheque I saw was more than half the annual budget of a pretty big MBC).

[Zod]

rover 623gsi said:

housing associations are NOT funded by the government - I know, I work for one.

So what does the Homes and Communities Agency do?

[rover 623gsi]

the HCA provides grants towards the building of some developments. So, if you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that the govt provides some of funds towards some of the building of new HA properties. The amount of funding provided by the HCA has also fallen year on year since 2010 and will continue to do so. The govt (through the HCA) does not provide all of the funding for any development and there are plenty of housing association developments that the govt does not fund at all.

[Zod]

If you'd like me to be really pedantic, I'd say that government is indeed the principal funder of HAs. Most of their income comes from rents and the last estimate I saw was that 70%+ of that rent is paid through Housing Benefit.

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

Greg66 said:

Esseesse said:

What about Lab/Con?

Zero chance, barring a world war breaking out on 8 May.

How about another round of financial instability?

Strange as it sounds, but I don't think that would be nearly calamitous enough.

You have to bear in mind the capacity for a *massive* loss of Labour voters if Labour were to get into bed with the Cons, and vice versa. The downside of a grand coalition for each partner is potentially huge.

In a financial meltdown each major party has (had) a completely different idea of how to deal with the problem. In the case of war, economic considerations drop down the list of priorities in favour of a single objective: defeat the enemy.

[Esseesse]

Greg66 said:

Esseesse said:

Greg66 said:

Esseesse said:

What about Lab/Con?

Zero chance, barring a world war breaking out on 8 May.

How about another round of financial instability?

Strange as it sounds, but I don't think that would be nearly calamitous enough.

You have to bear in mind the capacity for a *massive* loss of Labour voters if Labour were to get into bed with the Cons, and vice versa. The downside of a grand coalition for each partner is potentially huge.

In a financial meltdown each major party has (had) a completely different idea of how to deal with the problem. In the case of war, economic considerations drop down the list of priorities in favour of a single objective: defeat the enemy.

Indeed, I am aware of the potential massive loss of votes.

What happens if nobody wants to be in government on the terms that they have on offer? Can the Queen force something? Immediate 2nd GE?

[rover 623gsi]

Zod said:

If you'd like me to be really pedantic, I'd say that government is indeed the principal funder of HAs. Most of their income comes from rents and the last estimate I saw was that 70%+ of that rent is paid through Housing Benefit.

and what about all the private landlords whose tenants receiving housing benefit? Perhaps they should be classed as govt funded too - and be forced to give their tenants the right to buy?

[Zod]

rover 623gsi said:

Zod said:

If you'd like me to be really pedantic, I'd say that government is indeed the principal funder of HAs. Most of their income comes from rents and the last estimate I saw was that 70%+ of that rent is paid through Housing Benefit.

and what about all the private landlords whose tenants receiving housing benefit? Perhaps they should be classed as govt funded too - and be forced to give their tenants the right to buy?

That might rather discourage private landlords.

[edh]

Zod said:

That might rather discourage private landlords.

Ah but surely they would be compensated and could build another house?

[anonymous-user]

Symbolica said:

HoHoHo said:

pingu393 said:

Zod said:

orrect: they have absolutely no idea.

That was brilliant. Why haven't we seen it splashed all over the place?

Because the BBC et al are predominantly left wing

Well the interview took place on the BBC's Daily Politics yesterday. And was repeated AGAIN on the programme today - and Labour STILL hadn't bothered to come up with an answer.

For a bit of balance, similar issues were raised on today's programme and both the Labour AND the Tory representatives came across as utter fking idiots.

It's almost as if they're having a competition to see who can be the most unelectable.

[Don]

Guam said:

Sorry that's like saying in the world of the blind the one eyed man is king.

When the rest of the world is in the sewer, being in the bowl may be an improvement but it doesn't mean you are out of the st

I agree that our economy is troubled. But we are so better off than many. Some of that could be good fortune, some of it is British businesses being ingenious and coming up with new ways to make things better, cheaper faster and some if it is the economic environment being managed slightly better than some other countries.

The lot we've had in for the last five years could have been so, so much worse.

I am glad I am not French, for example, and every sympathy with the ordinary French folk but then, you can indeed say, they did it to themselves...

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

Indeed, I am aware of the potential massive loss of votes.

What happens if nobody wants to be in government on the terms that they have on offer? Can the Queen force something? Immediate 2nd GE?

Dunno: all uncharted waters. At a guess, if no alliances formal or otherwise can be formed, the largest minority party will go the Queen and offer to form a Govt. That will last as long as it takes to lose a no confidence motion, and then the Fixed Term Parliament Act opens the door to GE #2.

But as I've speculated here before, the political calculation may favour deferring the passing of a no confidence motion so that the governing party gets well and truly tarred with the "lame duck arrogant enough to believe it could run the country" brush first. There's a big political downside to the opposition playing that game though, so who know what might happen.

[Zod]

edh said:

Zod said:

That might rather discourage private landlords.

Ah but surely they would be compensated and could build another house?

That might prove rather a complicated scheme to administer and most private landlords don't build houses.

[DJRC]

Shush Zod, it sounds brilliant to me! With the compensation I'm effectively give full value for my house and I can build another which I'm free to flog from which In the current market I would make significant profit.

Sign me up!

[anonymous-user]

Guam said:

Sorry that's like saying in the world of the blind the one eyed man is king.

When the rest of the world is in the sewer, being in the bowl may be an improvement but it doesn't mean you are out of the st

fk me. You sound like the sort of person who'd be whining about the appalling conditions whilst sat in one of the Titanic's lifeboats.

[FiF]

It also demonstrates just how broken the relationship now is between politicians and the people whose votes they seek. Too scared to speak to them in the street. Not interested enough to entertain the people asking questions on their behalf. But if you are not careful, you screen out the votes, as well as the voters.