The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[davek]

Poor the Call me Dave....

Voters walked out of a Tory campaign event – leaving flailing David Cameron red faced as he defended Conservative cuts.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-left-red-faced-voters-5532730

That's funny, I dont remember that being covered by the lefty BBC. A 45 minute session in the middle of an election campaign when the Tory leader was given tough questions and had many in the audience turn their backs and walk out not being covered? I'd have though that newsworthy, wouldn't you? I reckon if it'd have happened to any other party leader in this election it'd have been splashed across the media for days and used as evidence of unpopularity.

 

[davek]

Dave can you just go along with the BBC left wing cliche please mate, I've read about that since I was old enough to read in the papers controlled by benevolent billionaires and heard it from various Tory politicians on a regular basis. That way everyone knows where they are and feels safe.

....the matrix can not be allowed to malfunction...the matrix can not be allowed to malfunction...the matrix can not be allowed to malfunction....

 

[Clint Planet]

You are absolutely right.

On the whole HAs are charities, run by people who know what they're on about. Charities generally exist because of a specific need. In this case to put roofs over the heads of people who otherwise can't afford one. The benefits to the country in terms of savings made on the social care, welfare and health bills are enormous.

Now, as charities there are so many potential problems ahead if the scheme was ever to be introduced. Often, the HAs do not own their housing stock outright. They are paying mortgages on them and servicing debt. If they sell their assets below market price (a practice illegal for charities btw) they will not have the capital for purchasing 14 more properties, or whatever the ridiculous figure stated earlier in the thread was. Now I can hear the supporters of this scheme saying that the HAs will receive full market value as it is subsidised by government. This is by no means the same as maximising the potential in their assets. If any of us wanted to sell up, we would choose to do so at a time that suits us.

They are unlikely to receive the same amount of external financial support that they receive now. Why would any one who gave to a charity because they believed in what the charity was doing continue to do so if the rules changed? I might be wrong on this but I doubt it. It is pretty much a certainty that those HAs benefiting from low rates on their lending are unlikely to see that continue

To be able to purchase new properties HAs would have to wait until after any sale, they can't just go out and buy properties in case a sale of one of their own might occur. There is no guarantee any suitable properties will become available, meaning the HAs would have to spread geographically to find new ones. New developments aren't always an option due to planning restrictions, lengthy consultation periods etc.

All these factors mean that HAs will become more expensive to run. Rents will have to rise, pushing rental values up across all markets. This means that the poorest tenants in social housing will require more support from government through housing benefit. Tenants of all landlords will simply have to pay more, often squeezing their living standards further still.

This plan is idiotic. We are still feeling the effects through the housing mess we are in now from the time Thatcher implemented it.

Excellent post.

 

[Clint Planet]

The high end social housing will be out of the reach of many social tenants. They will end up in the hands of developers/private landlords through one method or another.

Nailed on.

 

[daylightrobber]

Nailed on.

Social cleansing fella. Good for all of us.

 

[Clint Planet]

Social cleansing fella. Good for all of us.

Rachman: The Second Coming

 

[Clint Planet]

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-shame-the-coalition-in-one-chart--lJf2ksLoyZ

 

[Blue 1]

Rachman: The Second Coming

Third. We already had Nicholas Van Wotsizface.

 

[Seanjd]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/michael-gove-rules-out-ukip-deal

Funny, in 2010...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...on-2010-Tories-rule-out-Lib-Dem-alliance.html

 

[Seanjd]

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-shame-the-coalition-in-one-chart--lJf2ksLoyZ

It's incredible. As I've posted many times here, if there is just 1 reason to see the end of this vicious government, this is it.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Maybe I'm just looking at it from my own experience with lots of my children's families not able to buy, being low income, refugees or immigrants, and I don't know much about the ways of housing associations at all, but I will repeat that local authorities will always need social housing, particularly in a place like London with all its influxes of refugees and economic migrants, and selling social housing will thus create a potential problem (even if it doesn't materialise right away).

Do you think there should be social housing?

As I mentioned above though, selling houses to their existing tenants won't change the waiting list situation whatsoever. If the houses weren't sold then the tenants would presumably stay in them, so there would be no new houses for those on the waiting list, and no new capital available to build new houses.

Whether I think there should be housing is irrelevent really, I'm just trying to look at the policies as rationally as possible.

A question back at you though. Do you think those in social housing should stay in social housing for their entire life? Is a big part of why welfare exists to get someone back on their own two feet?

You are absolutely right.

On the whole HAs are charities, run by people who know what they're on about. Charities generally exist because of a specific need. In this case to put roofs over the heads of people who otherwise can't afford one. The benefits to the country in terms of savings made on the social care, welfare and health bills are enormous.

Now, as charities there are so many potential problems ahead if the scheme was ever to be introduced. Often, the HAs do not own their housing stock outright. They are paying mortgages on them and servicing debt. If they sell their assets below market price (a practice illegal for charities btw) they will not have the capital for purchasing 14 more properties, or whatever the ridiculous figure stated earlier in the thread was.

That isn't what the policy says at all. It says that the discount will apply to the tenant, with the shortfall paid to the HA so they don't lose out.

Even if they didn't though, the government's own website says that the discount starts at 35%, so using my example from earlier, if 20 people chose to buy at that rate, then the HA would have enough money to buy 13 new houses at full value. I'm not seeing how that's an outlandish claim to make. Could you explain?

I fully understand what you're saying about the length of time it takes to buy/build new homes. I will say again however, if those 20 people did not choose to buy their council home, they would still be living in it, so not only would the HA face the same problems they do now with regards to finding new properties, but they'd have a whole lot less capital with which to do it.

 

[Clint Planet]

It's incredible. As I've posted many times here, if there is just 1 reason to see the end of this vicious government, this is it.

A national scandal, in my view. But then this is what happens when the most vulnerable are set up as scrounging bogeymen whilst the rich dip their bread. Is this what we have become? I thought we were better than this.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

You are absolutely right.

On the whole HAs are charities, run by people who know what they're on about. Charities generally exist because of a specific need. In this case to put roofs over the heads of people who otherwise can't afford one. The benefits to the country in terms of savings made on the social care, welfare and health bills are enormous.

Now, as charities there are so many potential problems ahead if the scheme was ever to be introduced. Often, the HAs do not own their housing stock outright. They are paying mortgages on them and servicing debt. If they sell their assets below market price (a practice illegal for charities btw) they will not have the capital for purchasing 14 more properties, or whatever the ridiculous figure stated earlier in the thread was. Now I can hear the supporters of this scheme saying that the HAs will receive full market value as it is subsidised by government. This is by no means the same as maximising the potential in their assets. If any of us wanted to sell up, we would choose to do so at a time that suits us.

They are unlikely to receive the same amount of external financial support that they receive now. Why would any one who gave to a charity because they believed in what the charity was doing continue to do so if the rules changed? I might be wrong on this but I doubt it. It is pretty much a certainty that those HAs benefiting from low rates on their lending are unlikely to see that continue

To be able to purchase new properties HAs would have to wait until after any sale, they can't just go out and buy properties in case a sale of one of their own might occur. There is no guarantee any suitable properties will become available, meaning the HAs would have to spread geographically to find new ones. New developments aren't always an option due to planning restrictions, lengthy consultation periods etc.

All these factors mean that HAs will become more expensive to run. Rents will have to rise, pushing rental values up across all markets. This means that the poorest tenants in social housing will require more support from government through housing benefit. Tenants of all landlords will simply have to pay more, often squeezing their living standards further still.

This plan is idiotic. We are still feeling the effects through the housing mess we are in now from the time Thatcher implemented it.

You know the Thatcher right to buy was the biggest government asset sell off in the history of the country, bigger than any privatisation deal done by them for British Gas, BT etc.

And it was all done to get votes and stay in power, which is exactly what it's about this time, desperate to cling to power they role out one of Maggie's trump cards, let's just get them out FFS.

 

[daylightrobber]

As I mentioned above though, selling houses to their existing tenants won't change the waiting list situation whatsoever. If the houses weren't sold then the tenants would presumably stay in them, so there would be no new houses for those on the waiting list, and no new capital available to build new houses.

Whether I think there should be housing is irrelevent really, I'm just trying to look at the policies as rationally as possible.

A question back at you though. Do you think those in social housing should stay in social housing for their entire life? Is a big part of why welfare exists to get someone back on their own two feet?



That isn't what the policy says at all. It says that the discount will apply to the tenant, with the shortfall paid to the HA so they don't lose out.

Even if they didn't though, the government's own website says that the discount starts at 35%, so using my example from earlier, if 20 people chose to buy at that rate, then the HA would have enough money to buy 13 new houses at full value. I'm not seeing how that's an outlandish claim to make. Could you explain?

I fully understand what you're saying about the length of time it takes to buy/build new homes. I will say again however, if those 20 people did not choose to buy their council home, they would still be living in it, so not only would the HA face the same problems they do now with regards to finding new properties, but they'd have a whole lot less capital with which to do it.

It states that the shortfall will be made up from the sales of LA housing. HAs will be left short make no mistake.

 

[bring the ghost on]

The most telling quote regarding the rise of the food banks was when Cameron tried to spin a positive light on it by saying it was the 'big society' (remember that?) in action. Appalling.