Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Doom And Gloom On Newnsight Now


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#91 Joan of The Tower

Joan of The Tower

    HPC Shoeboxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,851 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:49 PM

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.


Look out Dave, you will soon be handing the keys back mate.



The knimbies who say "No" demand..... a sacrifice!
Arthur: Knimbies of No, we are but simple hardworking families who seek affordable housing on the scrubland beyond these woods.
Knimbies of No: No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!
Bedevere: Please stop opposing our reasonable demands!
Knimby of No: We shall say "No" to you... if you do not appease us.
Arthur: Well what is it you want?
Knimby of No: We will allow you to build your precious high density shoeboxes, so long as you do not move so much as....

(pregnant pause)

A SHRUBBERY!!!!


#92 fluffy666

fluffy666

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,187 posts
  • Location:Bath-ish

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:12 PM

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)

#93 Game_Over

Game_Over

    I live on HPC!

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • Location:North of Watford

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:22 PM

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.

:)

#94 Game_Over

Game_Over

    I live on HPC!

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • Location:North of Watford

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:27 PM

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:

#95 shindigger

shindigger

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,362 posts
  • Location:The Acceptance Stage

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:49 PM

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.
If you want a cheaper house, vote Labour in 2015.

#96 Sour Mash

Sour Mash

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,867 posts
  • Location:rwxrwxr-x

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:40 PM

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:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

#97 Guest_Control_*

Guest_Control_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 March 2012 - 02:20 PM

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, 18 March 2012 - 04:44 PM.


#98 Guest_Control_*

Guest_Control_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 March 2012 - 03:45 PM

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, 18 March 2012 - 04:35 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users