The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Durham Toffee]

They're not. And the policy doesn't work, because there aren't enough smaller properties to go round.

The policy has widely been acknowledged as a complete mess which has caused a gret deal of unnecessary misery, and not solved any of the problems it set out to.

You mean it's red tape?

Surely not!?

 

[The Cowboy]

They're not.

Sorry, I meant should, not would.

I don't know how it's being implemented, but there it's nothing wrong with the concept.

 

[Blue 1]

Sorry, I meant should, not would.

I don't know how it's being implemented, but there it's nothing wrong with the concept.

No, I agree there's nothing wrong with the concept itself, but the fact is that in practice it is totally unworkable.

 

[The Esk]

The unwritten consequences of a right to buy to housing association tennants is a long term increase in rents and a continuation of social engineering policies.

Why is this? As social housing disappears off the housing stock it will (assuming it is replaced) be replaced by "affordable" housing. The Government definition of "affordable" housing is 80% of market rent. So the consequences in expensive housing areas are dire particularly in light of the "benefits cap".

On the surface it looks like an election give-away, scratch deeper and you will realise the policy has far deeper consequences for society.

 

[Blue 1]

You mean it's red tape?

Surely not!?

No, it's not red tape. It's a physical impossibility.

 

[Durham Toffee]

No, it's not red tape. It's a physical impossibility.

When have government's let that inhibit them?

 

[roydo]

Sturgeon has been on 5 Live for the last hour. She is very very impressive.

Reckon if she had led the Nats last year, Scotland may well be independent now.

She has non of the smugness that put people off Salmond.

 

[daylightrobber]

They're not. And the policy doesn't work, because there aren't enough smaller properties to go round.

The policy has widely been acknowledged as a complete mess which has caused a gret deal of unnecessary misery, and not solved any of the problems it set out to.

There is also the fact that it is potentially causing costly problems into the future.

If families are removed from their communities they are, as I stated earlier, removed from their support networks. For example, if they have had to move a significant distance, they can no longer rely on grandparents to look after the kids whilst going out to work (That's if they've been lucky enough to find employment elsewhere. After all the cost of travelling to the old place makes keeping the old job impossible).

As the grandparents get older, the families are now living too far apart for their kids to look after them in old age, thus bumping up the costs of social care for the elderly.

 

[chewee]

So the best Cameron has to offer is a rehash of a Thatcher policy that in the long term did more harm than good. Conservative by name and nature, one thing the tory party can never claim to be is progressive.

Very interested to see how they explain the £20 billion black hole in spending. It's all getting abit weird, isn't unaccounted for spending supposed to be done by Labour!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There is also the fact that it is potentially causing costly problems into the future.

If families are removed from their communities they are, as I stated earlier, removed from their support networks. For example, if they have had to move a significant distance, they can no longer rely on grandparents to look after the kids whilst going out to work (That's if they've been lucky enough to find employment elsewhere. After all the cost of travelling to the old place makes keeping the old job impossible).

As the grandparents get older, the families are now living too far apart for their kids to look after them in old age, thus bumping up the costs of social care for the elderly.

That's an inevitability for many though isn't it? How many people are fortunate enough to work in the place they grew up? I dare say that most people living in London do so away from their families. The in-laws live 800 miles away for instance. Sometimes life doesn't make things ideal for you.

 

[Blue 1]

It's funny, the Labour party leading their manifesto launch claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility, and the Tories launching theirs claiming to be the party of the working man.

It's all a bloody game, innit.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

The unwritten consequences of a right to buy to housing association tennants is a long term increase in rents and a continuation of social engineering policies.

Why is this? As social housing disappears off the housing stock it will (assuming it is replaced) be replaced by "affordable" housing. The Government definition of "affordable" housing is 80% of market rent. So the consequences in expensive housing areas are dire particularly in light of the "benefits cap".

On the surface it looks like an election give-away, scratch deeper and you will realise the policy has far deeper consequences for society.

Absolutely, we haven't recovered from the last time when Maggie did it, and she set it in stone the money raised from sales could not be spent building more houses, what kind of lunacy was that, there lays the mess the buying and renting market is still in today.

The National Housing Federation, the body that represents the Housing Associations has just come out and said that launching this right to buy is the wrong solution to our housing crisis, and will put the cost onto the tax payer of atleast 5.8bn, top priority must go to building homes not selling them.

It's the most blatant policy to buy votes and screw the consequences that has been seen in this Election, typical Tory move when they fear they may lose power.

 

[daylightrobber]

That's an inevitability for many though isn't it? How many people are fortunate enough to work in the place they grew up? I dare say that most people living in London do so away from their families. The in-laws live 800 miles away for instance. Sometimes life doesn't make things ideal for you.

But I thought that the Conservatives wanted to allow us as individuals to make our own choices!

It doesn't make things ideal for the families and it doesn't make things ideal for the state.

 

[Blue 1]

David Cameron talking about the size of a fish he caught:

 

[The Esk]

That's an inevitability for many though isn't it? How many people are fortunate enough to work in the place they grew up? I dare say that most people living in London do so away from their families. The in-laws live 800 miles away for instance. Sometimes life doesn't make things ideal for you.

Whilst the above is true for many Bruce, and is often driven by economic necessity (as it was for me in the 80's), albeit with an element of choice, it does not make it right that the consequences of a particular policy have far reaching human, social and economic costs at the individual level, and consequently increase the costs of health care and social care through the destruction of family and close neighbour support groups built up over many years.

Remember the consequences of mass re-housing in the 60's?