The Masked Tulip

Doom And Gloom On Newnsight Now

98 posts in this topic

Same as Alistair Darling then?

:)

To name but one.

This generation of Boomer radicals (both in the political and Media class) have caused profound long term damage to this country and the Generations that followed them.

Most of them are Traitors in the truest sense of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really thinking of Europe. Though if Greece defaulted I'd be interested to see what options were there after the aftermath.

Neither do I, I take the attitude "If somewhere else is better move there" (if you can!) :D to be honest in the UK at least I think the whole "EU will fail" thing is hyped up to draw attention away from the UK's position, Greece may well default publicly rather than by other means but the world will still revolve, life will go on and something will be worked out which will be dull and boring as usual, and the UK and US will also default by the back door, with QE etc., as a matter of fact I think a round of defaults world wide would at least reset the economies and let people start spending again, preferable to years of hardship for the majority.

Whenever this is mentioned you get "but pension funds would fail" but from what people are saying we are there already

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvSJY3Xiwdg

Edited by madpenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To name but one.

This generation of Boomer radicals (both in the political and Media class) have caused profound long term damage to this country and the Generations that followed them.

Most of them are Traitors in the truest sense of the word.

That's funny, because I would say a bigger bunch of traitors consists of every boomer who bought a council house at a knock down price and then went on to profit massively from their good luck. Helping to inflate the biggest bubble in global history while making sure they killed everything useful about the country as they did so. Then there are the middleclass "radicals" who kept voting Blair in, and flag waving over each and every one of his crimes. Or the Chicago hypnotized Tories who thought stripping every strategic asset and selling it to the highest bidder was a good idea. A few media luvvies seem so far down the traitor food chain.

So many traitors to choose from so little time.

That said I do like Kirsty's Big Black Hole. See attached image.

Screenshot.png

post-33096-0-48944100-1331729092_thumb.png

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny, because I would say a bigger bunch of traitors consists of every boomer who bought a council house at a knock down price and then went on to profit massively from their good luck. Helping to inflate the biggest bubble in global history while making sure they killed everything useful about the country as they did so.

Don't be ridiculous - if life actually deals you a good hand for once you'd be mental not to accept your good fortune and capitalise on it.

The long term problem with the council house sales was that councils weren't allowed to replace sold-off stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be ridiculous - if life actually deals you a good hand for once you'd be mental not to accept your good fortune and capitalise on it.

The long term problem with the council house sales was that councils weren't allowed to replace sold-off stock.

Rubbish. Everyone who bought a council house knew that the money was not going back to rebuild new houses. That was made clear from the start of the policy. So every purchaser could quite realistically "capitalise on [a good hand]" but it was obvious at the time from the opposition to the policy that plenty of people understood the damage that was being inflicted. People had to ignore the other side of the debate and bravely soldier on capitalising on their good luck. The whole policy was flawed, not just where the money went.

It was beggar thy neighbor writ large.

It had nothing to do with "extending home ownership." Effectively people in social housing already had the option to become owners, low rents enabling saving a deposit. If they wanted it badly enough. The policy was in fact the biggest political bribe in history. And millions of short sighted council tenants were tripping over themselves to "take advantage" of their good luck. The funny thing is many of them are now the same Daily Mail readers who moan about the state of the country while simultaneously trying to justify their own part in creating the problems we are now in. Like you just did.

Your logic is the justification looters use during rioting. Who ate all the pies? Turns out it was mainly the boomers.

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish. Everyone who bought a council house knew that the money was not going back to rebuild new houses. That was made clear from the start of the policy. So every purchaser could quite realistically "capitalise on [a good hand]" but it was obvious at the time from the opposition to the policy that plenty of people understood the damage that was being inflicted. People had to ignore the other side of the debate and bravely soldier on capitalising on their good luck. The whole policy was flawed, not just where the money went.

Problem is, the politicians involved could easily have made the policy to involve building more council houses.

Very hard to refuse a large pile of cash, no strings attached..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, the politicians involved could easily have made the policy to involve building more council houses.

Very hard to refuse a large pile of cash, no strings attached..

I do accept that. People, politicians, all have a generous amount of blame to shoulder. There were people, indeed there still are people who didn't and won't buy their houses because they understood what was going on and chose not to contribute to the brewing sh1tstorm. Some of whom are now being demonized as widows in big council houses who should be forced to move because they did us all a small favor years ago not being greedy sods. Time to post this again;

Should make a link to this video in my signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do accept that. People, politicians, all have a generous amount of blame to shoulder. There were people, indeed there still are people who didn't and won't buy their houses because they understood what was going on and chose not to contribute to the brewing sh1tstorm. Some of whom are now being demonized as widows in big council houses who should be forced to move because they did us all a small favor years ago not being greedy sods. Time to post this again;

Should make a link to this video in my signature.

If you rely on the state to provide you with a house, a job, free health care and free education

Then you will never have any control over any aspect of your life.

What the state giveth the state can taketh away

particularly when it is bankrupt.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you rely on the state to provide you with a house, a job, free health care and free education

Then you will never have any control over any aspect of your life.

What the state giveth the state can taketh away

particularly when it is bankrupt.

:blink:

Pithy, but it wasn't a bankrupt state that did the asset stripping. It was one group of ideologues who thought they knew better and decided to impose policies that are as fundamentally Utopian and flawed as anything the socialists have to offer. The state bashers never seem to grasp the fact that a plural state works NOT because it's the best solution to organizing people but because it's the least worst solution. Someone (can't remember who) said you don't judge the Monarchy by the power they have but by the power they deny to others. Modern states can be described in the same terms. Their strength comes from the power they deny to single groups. A lesson every government has willfully ignored for the past thirty years.

Instead of rational government we've had thirty years of deluded numpties foisting half backed Chicago school economics on everyone by force. Laissez-fair was a disaster in the 19th century and because a lot of very well educated stupid people thought they knew better we've had to learn all over again that dog-sh1t tastes bad. And now the faithful are desperately trying to rewrite history to put the blame on the state. Witness Iraq, the current and ongoing experiment Chicago School economics.

People have far too many conflicting perceived needs for any one system of ideology ever to be applicable in a practical manner. So the least worst approach is a system that minimizes the damage that such an ocean of conflicting wants and desires and perceived needs can create if it's left unchecked. The State is imperfect and that is exactly what we need. It goes wrong when it gets hijacked by ideologues and utopian thinkers who are utterly convinced their new holy writ is the single best answer and set about imposing it come what may. Extremists come in many forms and are to be avoided at all costs.

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pithy, but it wasn't a bankrupt state that did the asset stripping. It was one group of ideologues who thought they knew better and decided to impose policies that are as fundamentally Utopian and flawed as anything the socialists have to offer. The state bashers never seem to grasp the fact that a plural state works NOT because it's the best solution to organizing people but because it's the least worst solution. Someone (can't remember who) said you don't judge the Monarchy by the power they have but by the power they deny to others. Modern states can be described in the same terms. Their strength comes from the power they deny to single groups. A lesson every government has willfully ignored for the past thirty years.

Instead of rational government we've had thirty years of deluded numpties foisting half backed Chicago school economics on everyone by force. Laissez-fair was a disaster in the 19th century and because a lot of very well educated stupid people thought they knew better we've had to learn all over again that dog-sh1t tastes bad. And now the faithful are desperately trying to rewrite history to put the blame on the state. Witness Iraq, the current and ongoing experiment Chicago School economics.

People have far too many conflicting perceived needs for any one system of ideology ever to be applicable in a practical manner. So the least worst approach is a system that minimizes the damage that such an ocean of conflicting wants and desires and perceived needs can create if it's left unchecked. The State is imperfect and that is exactly what we need. It goes wrong when it gets hijacked by ideologues and utopian thinkers who are utterly convinced their new holy writ is the single best answer and set about imposing it come what may. Extremists come in many forms and are to be avoided at all costs.

That would all be very nice if it wasn't the cost of the big state social welfare model that had actually bankrupted the west.

Banks don't have any money - they just hold vast amounts of debt

And the vast majority of this debt is government debt.

When the state accounts for more than 50% of the economy and pays millions of people to do nothing while providing them with free housing, healthcare and education it seems a bit far fetched to blame the inevitable collapse on anything other than the obvious cause.

Anyway the truth will be revealed eventually because reality can only be ignored for so long.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would all be very nice if it wasn't the cost of the big state social welfare model that had actually bankrupted the west.

Banks don't have any money - they just hold vast amounts of debt

And the vast majority of this debt is government debt.

When the state accounts for more than 50% of the economy and pays millions of people to do nothing while providing them with free housing, healthcare and education it seems a bit far fetched to blame the inevitable collapse on anything other than the obvious cause.

Anyway the truth will be revealed eventually because reality can only be ignored for so long.

:)

The private sector has played a huge part in driving up the benefit bill via the mechanism of privatizing the housing supply. This led to run away housing costs, and that in turn, amongst many other things, led to a large increase in housing benefit.

The truth as you describe it is being revealed, an almost unregulated free market in housing finance has driven up the cost of one of the key needs in life, shelter. That has had a massive knock on effect on wages, and contributed to the need for the recent bank bailouts.

As for the state providing people with free housing, that is completely wrong. Social housing was never free, there's the small matter of rent. Which amazingly in the world of state "unreality" eventually amortized the cost of building the housing stock. Social housing was also reserved for workers, which is the key point. Until the ideologues got their hands on it that is.

It was the Labour party that created the mass ghettos of the unemployable by changing the housing act so that various definitions of "neediness" became the priority criteria for housing. Before this change to the housing act you had to have some non-benefits means of paying the rent. i.e. work. You also had to be a good tenant. After the change it was simple for the Conservatives to flog it off cheap. Both parties engaged in the exact opposite of what was needed.

There are also good examples that basically prove that social housing works if it is protected from the sweaty hands of the political and economic manipulators. The Peabody and Guiness Trusts. Same model as council housing but protected from being used as a political football. They still function in the same way that State social housing used to.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Peabody_Trust

http://en.wikipedia..../Guinness_Trust

I know that I seem to be contradicting myself by citing essentially private examples, my point is that Guinness and Peabody were free of political opportunism and ideological manipulation. It wasn't the state model that failed but the politicians that used it for their own ends that caused the failure.

The model could easily be adjusted to protect it from politics while using the economies of scale that a the state can supply. The housing act worked, and can work again but needs to be rebalanced towards supporting the productive part of the economy. Working people. And changes to the act could then be protected by something like a Parliamentary super-majority to stop a repeat of the same abuses for political expediency and/or dogma.

Low rents give people a chance to save a deposit to buy their own place while at the same time covering the cost of construction over the lifetime of the building and acting as a balance to private sector rents.

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The private sector has played a huge part in driving up the benefit bill via the mechanism of privatizing the housing supply. This led to run away housing costs, and that in turn, amongst many other things, led to a large increase in housing benefit.

The truth as you describe it is being revealed, an almost unregulated free market in housing finance has driven up the cost of one of the key needs in life, shelter. That has had a massive knock on effect on wages, and contributed to the need for the recent bank bailouts.

As for the state providing people with free housing, that is completely wrong. Social housing was never free, there's the small matter of rent. Which amazingly in the world of state "unreality" eventually amortized the cost of building the housing stock. Social housing was also reserved for workers, which is the key point. Until the ideologues got their hands on it that is.

It was the Labour party that created the mass ghettos of the unemployable by changing the housing act so that various definitions of "neediness" became the priority criteria for housing. Before this change to the housing act you had to have some non-benefits means of paying the rent. i.e. work. You also had to be a good tenant. After the change it was simple for the Conservatives to flog it off cheap. Both parties engaged in the exact opposite of what was needed.

There are also good examples that basically prove that social housing works if it is protected from the sweaty hands of the political and economic manipulators. The Peabody and Guiness Trusts. Same model as council housing but protected from being used as a political football. They still function in the same way that State social housing used to.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Peabody_Trust

http://en.wikipedia..../Guinness_Trust

I know that I seem to be contradicting myself by citing essentially private examples, my point is that Guinness and Peabody were free of political opportunism and ideological manipulation. It wasn't the state model that failed but the politicians that used it for their own ends that caused the failure.

The model could easily be adjusted to protect it from politics while using the economies of scale that a the state can supply. The housing act worked, and can work again but needs to be rebalanced towards supporting the productive part of the economy. Working people. And changes to the act could then be protected by something like a Parliamentary super-majority to stop a repeat of the same abuses for political expediency and/or dogma.

Low rents give people a chance to save a deposit to buy their own place while at the same time covering the cost of construction over the lifetime of the building and acting as a balance to private sector rents.

Cracking exchange betwen you both so far.

I've highlighted one sentence which perhaps belies your predudice, if I may put it like that. There was an illusion (albeit a very poor one) of necessary regulation via the FSA, but I don't think any 'free marketeer', such as myself, would be comfortable to accept that "If Brown couldn't make it work, no-one could have", as is often the implication. It seems as though there are many, Brown included, who are content to allow the train to runaway, just to show how bad trains are, which allows them to push for their Utopian controls to prevent them leaving the station at all.

It says a lot to me, that several years into a crisis brought about by fraudulent behaviour, that very few if any individuals have been sent down. Not so much a free market as the willful destruction of others' wealth, with impunity. More like the Mafia than the market.

edit clarity.

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cracking exchange betwen you both so far.

I've highlighted one sentence which perhaps belies your predudice, if I may put it like that. There was an illusion (albeit a very poor one) of necessary regulation via the FSA, but I don't think any 'free marketeer', such as myself, would be comfortable to accept that "If Brown couldn't make it work, no-one could have", as is often the implication. It seems as though there are many, Brown included, who are content to allow the train to runaway, just to show how bad trains are, which allows them to push for their Utopian controls.

It says a lot to me, that several years into a crisis brought about by fraudulent behavior, that very few if any individuals have been sent down. Not so much a free market as the willful destruction of others' wealth.

You might be right about my prejudice, it's always hard to spot those things in one's self. Although I could have worded that better. What I'm struggling to say is that there are extremes on both sides of the argument and they tend not to be based on evidence but more on theoretical and unrealistic expectations of behavior.

As for Brown letting the train run away as a means to an end, it's an interesting idea and it would be a sort of socialist flip side to the idea that Margaret Thatcher let Scargill and other Union leaders cause havoc so she could break the power of the Unions. To be honest I don't think Brown is smart enough, his moment came when the banks were crumbling but instead of an en masse nationalization of the banks Including the bank of England he behaved like someone desperately trying to save the system. But I also don't think that makes him an example of a free marketeer, just an opportunist seeking to stay in power.

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right about my prejudice, it's always hard to spot those things in one's self. Although I could have worded that better. What I'm struggling to say is that there are extremes on both sides of the argument and they tend not to be based on evidence but more theoretical and unrealistic expectations of behavior.

As for Brown letting the train run away as a means to an ends, it's an interesting idea and it would be a sort of socialist flip side to the idea that Margaret Thatcher let Scargill and other Union leaders cause havoc so she could break the power of the Unions. To be honest I don't think Brown is smart enough, his moment came when the banks were crumbling but instead of an en masse nationalization of the banks Including the bank of England he behaved like someone desperately trying to save the system. But I also don't think that makes him an example of a free marketeer, just an opportunist seeking to stay in power.

Yes, I'm not convinced about Brown's intellectual nous either. I suspect he more or less felt he was onto a good thing, convinced himself he had the Midas touch(oh, the irony) and by the time things were getting out of control had neither the intellectual honesty, nor capability, to reign the situation in and used the 'it started in America' mantra as a means to forward opportunist policies with an election looming, as you say.

Regarding Lady Thatcher, I am by no means a fan of much of what she did, but regarding the miners I'm not sure it is quite as cut and dried as is often made out. The miners were slow to recognise that they were destroying their own industry. Thatcher saw what happened to Heath, so seemed unlikely that she would relent. That said, her Government barely needed an invitation to pursue such action.

Much of Thatcher's privatisations and other policies, not least regarding council housing, were poorly thought through/executed, even if a kernal of good thinking was behind them (perhaps like the FSA).

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm not convinced about Brown's intellectual nous either. I suspect he more or less felt he was onto a good thing, convinced himself he had the Midas touch(oh, the irony) and by the time things were getting out of control had neither the intellectual honesty, nor capability, to reign the situation in and used the 'it started in America' mantra as a means to forward opportunist policies, as you say.

Regarding Lady Thatcher, I am by no means a fan of much of what she did, but regarding the miners I'm not sure it is quite as cut and dried as is often made out. The miners were slow to recognise that they were destroying their own industry. Thatcher saw what happened to Heath, so seemed unlikely that she would relent. That said, her Government barely needed an invitation to pursue such action.

Much of Thatcher's privatisations and other policies, not least regarding council housing, were poorly thought through/executed, even if a kernal of good thinking was behind them (perhaps like the FSA).

I agree completely, I didn't mean to sound as if I was engaging in Thatcher-bashing. I wasn't a fan but I recognize she had limited options in terms of dealing with the Unions. Especially the NUM under Scargill. My comparison with Brown wasn't a good one.

She had little choice whereas Brown was just clueless.

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely, I didn't mean to sound as if I was engaging in Thatcher-bashing. I wasn't a fan but I recognize she had limited options in terms of dealing with the Unions. Especially the NUM under Scargill.

I didn't read it like that at all, just wrote what I thought. Interesting stuff indeed, cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely, I didn't mean to sound as if I was engaging in Thatcher-bashing. I wasn't a fan but I recognize she had limited options in terms of dealing with the Unions. Especially the NUM under Scargill. My comparison with Brown wasn't a good one.

She had little choice whereas Brown was just clueless.

My impression with Brown is the 'Recent Convert' fallacy. Basically, old school tories might have talked about deregulating the city, but at least they knew the kind of chancers who worked there, having been to school with them. Whereas Brown and other new labourites seemed to actually believe that they'd regulate themselves (a la Alan Greenspan)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The private sector has played a huge part in driving up the benefit bill via the mechanism of privatizing the housing supply. This led to run away housing costs, and that in turn, amongst many other things, led to a large increase in housing benefit.

The truth as you describe it is being revealed, an almost unregulated free market in housing finance has driven up the cost of one of the key needs in life, shelter. That has had a massive knock on effect on wages, and contributed to the need for the recent bank bailouts.

As for the state providing people with free housing, that is completely wrong. Social housing was never free, there's the small matter of rent. Which amazingly in the world of state "unreality" eventually amortized the cost of building the housing stock. Social housing was also reserved for workers, which is the key point. Until the ideologues got their hands on it that is.

It was the Labour party that created the mass ghettos of the unemployable by changing the housing act so that various definitions of "neediness" became the priority criteria for housing. Before this change to the housing act you had to have some non-benefits means of paying the rent. i.e. work. You also had to be a good tenant. After the change it was simple for the Conservatives to flog it off cheap. Both parties engaged in the exact opposite of what was needed.

There are also good examples that basically prove that social housing works if it is protected from the sweaty hands of the political and economic manipulators. The Peabody and Guiness Trusts. Same model as council housing but protected from being used as a political football. They still function in the same way that State social housing used to.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Peabody_Trust

http://en.wikipedia..../Guinness_Trust

I know that I seem to be contradicting myself by citing essentially private examples, my point is that Guinness and Peabody were free of political opportunism and ideological manipulation. It wasn't the state model that failed but the politicians that used it for their own ends that caused the failure.

The model could easily be adjusted to protect it from politics while using the economies of scale that a the state can supply. The housing act worked, and can work again but needs to be rebalanced towards supporting the productive part of the economy. Working people. And changes to the act could then be protected by something like a Parliamentary super-majority to stop a repeat of the same abuses for political expediency and/or dogma.

Low rents give people a chance to save a deposit to buy their own place while at the same time covering the cost of construction over the lifetime of the building and acting as a balance to private sector rents.

You say that the private sector has driven up the benefit bill by privatising housing supply but then surely this begs the question as to how anyone could afford to rent a home prior to the first council houses being built around 1900.

The irony is that the main factor driving up rents in the private sector is housing benefit itself.

This has resulted in the situation where only people getting housing benefit can afford to live in central London and people who work there have to commute in because they cannot afford to live there.

You have also ignored the effect of demand for housing pushing up rents and this is due to historically unprecedented levels of immigration which occurred under New Labour.

On the supply side - if planning laws were relaxed the price of land would fall and the private sector would build millions of homes that people could afford and would want to buy.

At the end of the day, Billions of humans over millions of years managed to provide a home for themselves before social housing was invented.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression with Brown is the 'Recent Convert' fallacy. Basically, old school tories might have talked about deregulating the city, but at least they knew the kind of chancers who worked there, having been to school with them. Whereas Brown and other new labourites seemed to actually believe that they'd regulate themselves (a la Alan Greenspan)

Do you genuinely believe that they didn't know what they were doing?

You need money to buy votes and they didn't care where it came from or if the cost of their 13 year spending spree took the next 40 years to pay back.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maitliss just made a complete **** of Ed Balls on NN.

Kept drawing him in then, nuking him. He didnt learn.

Didnt see the next IED in the Maitliss road.

What a total muppet.

Completely unstitched on live TV.

About ten minutes in on tomorrows iPlayer.

Worth a watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish. Everyone who bought a council house knew that the money was not going back to rebuild new houses. That was made clear from the start of the policy. So every purchaser could quite realistically "capitalise on [a good hand]" but it was obvious at the time from the opposition to the policy that plenty of people understood the damage that was being inflicted. People had to ignore the other side of the debate and bravely soldier on capitalising on their good luck. The whole policy was flawed, not just where the money went.

It was beggar thy neighbor writ large.

It had nothing to do with "extending home ownership." Effectively people in social housing already had the option to become owners, low rents enabling saving a deposit. If they wanted it badly enough. The policy was in fact the biggest political bribe in history. And millions of short sighted council tenants were tripping over themselves to "take advantage" of their good luck. The funny thing is many of them are now the same Daily Mail readers who moan about the state of the country while simultaneously trying to justify their own part in creating the problems we are now in. Like you just did.

Your logic is the justification looters use during rioting. Who ate all the pies? Turns out it was mainly the boomers.

Aaah - so it just comes down to 'blaming the boomers'. Should have guessed.

ANYONE when given a windfall like being able to buy the house they had been renting for years at a knock down price is going to take it, they'd be a fool not to. Even the supposedly virtuous 'post boomer' generation.

Get it into your head - you have not been disenfranchised by a uniquely greedy and amoral generation of 'boomers'. Human nature ran it's course resulting in a boom (one of many throughout history) which benefited people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately for you and a lot of other people you weren't. That's what's known as 'bad luck', not some sort of organised disenfranchisement by the previous generation. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaah - so it just comes down to 'blaming the boomers'. Should have guessed.

ANYONE when given a windfall like being able to buy the house they had been renting for years at a knock down price is going to take it, they'd be a fool not to. Even the supposedly virtuous 'post boomer' generation.

Get it into your head - you have not been disenfranchised by a uniquely greedy and amoral generation of 'boomers'. Human nature ran it's course resulting in a boom (one of many throughout history) which benefited people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately for you and a lot of other people you weren't. That's what's known as 'bad luck', not some sort of organised disenfranchisement by the previous generation. :rolleyes:

The idea that this is somehow "good luck" and just the fates aligning with nebulous fluctuations in an undefinable economic cycle is nonsense. The crisis we are living in has actors, actions, events creating cause and effect. All of which are quite easy to comprehend. That your argument is so weak is given away by the fact you have to resort to trying to put words in my mouth. I never said it was an organized conspiracy, it was a group of people who couldn't see past their own greed and took the bribe being offered by another group wanting to be re-elected.

This is not I hasten to add the entire problem. But an important part of it.

If you want to fix a problem you have to understand the root causes. In the airline business if a plane comes down the thing is picked over meticulously until the cause is established, that sort of diligence seems to be an inconvenience in your world.

I don't really blame the boomers. My remark about them was flippant. Whereas your justification, as I said before and which you've repeated, is the same as that used by looters.

As you're so keen on repeating yourself I'll do the same, there are people who didn't buy their council houses who aren't, as you would like to claim, stupid. In fact it was short sighted and stupid thinking that drove those buying.

As for the number of years people had been renting, so what? The contracts were entered into freely. It was a house to rent. Were the conditions of the contracts not clear when they signed the tenancies? A rented house for life or as long as you want, with a few minor rules attached isn't good enough for some. How about we extend the right to buy then to long term private tenants surely the type of housing isn't relevant to a right to buy?

Maybe we should adopt this philosophy in all walks of life. Lost a load of dough betting on the horses? Maybe we could have a government scheme to pay you back 50% of your losses in gold bars.

The right to buy doesn't just punish the next generation it traps people who never lived in council housing and never wanted to live in it. The mechanism contributes to rising house prices across the board. Some, in the short term, will benefit from this, but in the long term as prices rise more and more people are priced out. Starting at the bottom and working it's way up. My argument is that we had a system that worked reasonably well until it was hijacked by ideologues. Then another set of ideologues in the form of New Labour poured fuel on the fire with their relaxation of lending requirements.

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the random posts. I was having trouble getting them to appear so I tried a few times and nothing happened then as if by magic they started to appear.

Edited by Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.