Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

George Clarke’s Council House Scandal Channel 4


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I was talking about people who don't work at all so your question is not relevant.  How one values different people who work is tricky but not relevant.

Honesty, self respect etc, hope that in the long term working will be a good idea, realization that if we all do it, it will destroy the economy.  I am amazed that it was not obvious.

You say they don't work.....my question is how is work valued?.......is work only something someone gets paid for?.....be it from an employer, a customer pays you, or the state pays you.....perhaps a pension company pays them......lots of jobs including caring jobs in the home take a lot of hard work to do....what about all those that work hard in the community for no pay.....are they working?

Artists, cooks, musicians etc: so many work doing something they love......who pays them?......is working only something someone does to help make monetary profits for others?.....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, winkie said:

..is working only something someone does to help make monetary profits for others?.....?

Obviously not as the Doctors would not be working.  However bringing up your own children is not something that should be rewarded by others, it is not like we live in a half empty country.

Do you think @Mancunian284 was wrong to say?

Quote

 I could never afford to live in London (not that I’d want to these days) so how come it’s seen as fair that a newly arrived Polish single mother gets housed there for free?  At my expense.

I would say that it is seen as fair because many people think it is fair (often those with nice homes).

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Obviously not as the Doctors would not be working.  However bringing up your own children is not something that should be rewarded by others, it is not like we live in a half empty country.

Do you think @Mancunian284 was wrong to say?

I would say that it is seen as fair because many people think it is fair (often those with nice homes).

So why are we paying childminders when often we can do a better job ourselves.....nice to have a choice would you not say......many parents would love to look after their children for the first five years, they simply are unable to do it......that choice of good and rewarding work has been removed from them.

Like I say we should have a system where you first have to contribute into it before you are entitled to get anything out of it......might have made some people think twice before they moved to another place unable to support themselves.....that was our governments policy.....you can't blame people for milking it.

I do not agree with the genrefication of places to throw out or force those out seen as a less a person or got less to offer, so that others can benefit, into other places that already have enough people they are trying to support......healthy places are made from a mixture of all types of people....the wealthiest places are best able to help those that need help.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife could stay at home with the kids. 

Okay so I've never had or needed a mortgage myself, put it was totally normal for a family to be able to afford a good standard of living in the 60s/70s on only the one salary. 

And top rate income tax was 90% back then! 

Imagine the government taking three quarters of your money and you still being able to afford a decent detached place on what was left on only one income! That was the norm. 

1980s changed it. Housing stopped being a basic necessity and started to be a commodity. The same with free time actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, winkie said:

So why are we paying childminders when often we can do a better job ourselves.....nice to have a choice would you not say......many parents would love to look after their children for the first five years, they simply are unable to do it......that choice of good and rewarding work has been removed from them.

Like I say we should have a system where you first have to contribute into it before you are entitled to get anything out of it......might have made some people think twice before they moved to another place unable to support themselves.....that was our governments policy.....you can't blame people for milking it.

I do not agree with the genrefication of places to throw out or force those out seen as a less a person or got less to offer, so that others can benefit, into other places that already have enough people they are trying to support......healthy places are made from a mixture of all types of people....the wealthiest places are best able to help those that need help.?

Is that yes or no?  To this question 

Do you think @Mancunian284 was wrong to say?

 

Quote

 I could never afford to live in London (not that I’d want to these days) so how come it’s seen as fair that a newly arrived Polish single mother gets housed there for free?  At my expense.

I would say that it is seen as fair because many people think it is fair (often those with nice homes).

Please say either a) she was wrong because ...  or b) she was right.

 

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, byron78 said:

My wife could stay at home with the kids. 

Okay so I've never had or needed a mortgage myself, put it was totally normal for a family to be able to afford a good standard of living in the 60s/70s on only the one salary. 

And top rate income tax was 90% back then! 

Imagine the government taking three quarters of your money and you still being able to afford a decent detached place on what was left on only one income! That was the norm. 

1980s changed it. Housing stopped being a basic necessity and started to be a commodity. The same with free time actually. 

Don't forget you got tax relief on your mortgage, something that JRM apparently wants to bring back.

The government didn't take 3/4 of your money either.  But agree overall with your sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, byron78 said:

My wife could stay at home with the kids. 

Okay so I've never had or needed a mortgage myself, put it was totally normal for a family to be able to afford a good standard of living in the 60s/70s on only the one salary. 

And top rate income tax was 90% back then! 

Imagine the government taking three quarters of your money and you still being able to afford a decent detached place on what was left on only one income! That was the norm. 

1980s changed it. Housing stopped being a basic necessity and started to be a commodity. The same with free time actually. 

Having dealt UK manufacturing a devastating blow from which it's still not recovered your Tory friends abandoned their sado-monetarist faith in 1984 and abruptly changed direction (without ever admitting it, naturally) and lo the era of credit liberalisation was begun. Fortunately for Thatcher the unearned and undeserved benison of North Sea oil + gas was then flowing ashore in sufficient quantity to keep >3 million people unemployed otherwise she may never have got away with it. The economy soon came a cropper with Lawson's MIRA bubble, confirming that the Tories were still as useless with money as they always had been, but by then the City of London's sinister eminence had been restored and the Great British public was now so delirious with the promise of easy credit that it seemed the good times would never end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of balance.

0rykrwG.png

xg1QQMQ.pngjFtqTVQ.png399rUqv.png

 

 

Before anyone mentions Glass-Steagall and 'overpowering global forces' lets not forget the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was passed in mid November '99,  after UK house prices had risen 33% in two years!. and as for overpowering global forces...JU3ZSWn.jpg

Turns out they were entirely optional and Germany decided not to get involved.

 

And before anyone starts with the no true Scotsman fallacy and that Bliars lot were closet tories, here is the reason why Labour did this and why Labour have always done this.  Anything that reduces the number of homeowners in favour of renters is electorally bad for the Tories and good for Labour.LQpsfSO.jpg

and just look at how effective Labour were at suppressing owner-occupier house-building in the aftermath of WWII (In a country with a desperate housing shortage) and how fast it shot up after they were run out of office - with no reduction in social house building.

HOMES FOR HEROES! (to rent from the council because God forbid they use their demob money to actually own a home eh?)

QHWCAQX.jpg

 

Labours new wheeze (other than bringing back self-assessed liar loans for landlords) is a national land bank from which councils and housing-associations (ie. more landlords) will be able to buy land for rental housing at agricultural prices. Builders of housing for owner-occupiers will still have to pay fifty or more times that of course and expect that premium to increase enormously once the councils who set that premium via the state development monopoly no longer have to pay it themselves. 

Jeremy Corbyn must be another of those 'Red tories' because he will usher in another golden age for the BTL landlords.

 

Edited by Oki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kzb said:

Don't forget you got tax relief on your mortgage, something that JRM apparently wants to bring back.

The government didn't take 3/4 of your money either.  But agree overall with your sentiment.

Took 3/4 of mine! Probably less for the proles admittedly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Having dealt UK manufacturing a devastating blow from which it's still not recovered your Tory friends abandoned their sado-monetarist faith in 1984 and abruptly changed direction (without ever admitting it, naturally) and lo the era of credit liberalisation was begun. Fortunately for Thatcher the unearned and undeserved benison of North Sea oil + gas was then flowing ashore in sufficient quantity to keep >3 million people unemployed otherwise she may never have got away with it. The economy soon came a cropper with Lawson's MIRA bubble, confirming that the Tories were still as useless with money as they always had been, but by then the City of London's sinister eminence had been restored and the Great British public was now so delirious with the promise of easy credit that it seemed the good times would never end.

No no no. 

You're off script. 

The credit boom and bust was all Gordon Brown's fault. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Having dealt UK manufacturing a devastating blow from which it's still not recovered your Tory friends abandoned their sado-monetarist faith in 1984 and abruptly changed direction (without ever admitting it, naturally) and lo the era of credit liberalisation was begun. Fortunately for Thatcher the unearned and undeserved benison of North Sea oil + gas was then flowing ashore in sufficient quantity to keep >3 million people unemployed otherwise she may never have got away with it. The economy soon came a cropper with Lawson's MIRA bubble, confirming that the Tories were still as useless with money as they always had been, but by then the City of London's sinister eminence had been restored and the Great British public was now so delirious with the promise of easy credit that it seemed the good times would never end.

This really needs saying over and over and yet what was it "The lady's not for turning!" But did, just like Ted Heath in fact.

I guess if you "own" the press you can get away with this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Oki said:

In the interest of balance.

0rykrwG.png

xg1QQMQ.pngjFtqTVQ.png399rUqv.png

 

 

Before anyone mentions Glass-Steagall and 'overpowering global forces' lets not forget the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was passed in mid November '99,  after UK house prices had risen 33% in two years!. and as for overpowering global forces...JU3ZSWn.jpg

Turns out they were entirely optional and Germany decided not to get involved.

 

And before anyone starts with the no true Scotsman fallacy and that Bliars lot were closet tories, here is the reason why Labour did this and why Labour have always done this.  Anything that reduces the number of homeowners in favour of renters is electorally bad for the Tories and good for Labour.LQpsfSO.jpg

and just look at how effective Labour were at suppressing owner-occupier house-building in the aftermath of WWII (In a country with a desperate housing shortage) and how fast it shot up after they were run out of office - with no reduction in social house building.

HOMES FOR HEROES! (to rent from the council because God forbid they use their demob money to actually own a home eh?)

QHWCAQX.jpg

 

Labours new wheeze (other than bringing back self-assessed liar loans for landlords) is a national land bank from which councils and housing-associations (ie. more landlords) will be able to buy land for rental housing at agricultural prices. Builders of housing for owner-occupiers will still have to pay fifty or more times that of course and expect that premium to increase enormously once the councils who set that premium via the state development monopoly no longer have to pay it themselves. 

Jeremy Corbyn must be another of those 'Red tories' because he will usher in another golden age for the BTL landlords.

 

I'd fully agree that New Labour shoulder a heavy share of the blame for this mess, but the rest of your post is just so much rubbish.

Lets say Labours housing development corporations bought land at agricultural prices, and built houses for half the cost of current build costs as a result.   The consequence of that is private sector rents would be massively undercut and it'd be an absolute no brainer for everyone to opt for council housing.

What effect do you think that would have on house prices?   On BTL landlords?  And on what private sector house builders would be willing to pay for land, given that the more they paid the better the value that council housing would represent in comparison?

If done in large enough scale council housing would set a floor for house prices and rents, that would pin down private sector rents and house prices to the same level.   It'd wipe the rentiers out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, APerson said:

I agree labour did that - however new labour was a continuation of what the tory's were up to.

Ultimately central banking and the powers behind the government did it.

Thatcher's greatest achievement was New Labour. 

Saw the neo-lib project through nicely. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/08/2019 at 09:26, SoldTooSoon said:

Anybody see George Clarke’s documentary on Channel 4?

I particularly agreed with the point he made about once people have secure affordable housing, it provides a solid base to build non-chaotic, manageable, meaningful lives.

 

Until they want to move.

Don't get me wrong, a secure tenancy is like gold dust in this day and age but once you have it, you become very reluctant to give it away. It may not be impossible to move in the social rented sector but it can be quite difficult when having to rely on mutual exchange. Such that you can start to feel trapped and less socially mobile.

Similar arguments could be put forward about home ownership but at least with that you have the possibiliy of more freedom further down the line.

Personally I would prefer something in between. Perhaps something along the lines of cohousing, where tenants have ownership and much more of a say, rather than just being dictated to by the council as to what they can and can't do.

Edited by spacedin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about those that have lived in their roomy council homes in nice areas close to family and where they work low paid, paid rents for many years say 40 years plus, probably at the time when right to buy in the 80s would have been about £30k could not get the funding at the time to buy, kids to bring up...now because of low wage and age buying is still out of the question even with discount....kids left home, empty rooms = bedroom tax.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, winkie said:

What about those that have lived in their roomy council homes in nice areas close to family and where they work low paid, paid rents for many years say 40 years plus, probably at the time when right to buy in the 80s would have been about £30k could not get the funding at the time to buy, kids to bring up...now because of low wage and age buying is still out of the question even with discount....kids left home, empty rooms = bedroom tax.?


Exactly. If that's the kind of life you want then a secure tenancy is great. However, what exactly does this really do for social mobility? It's nice to live close to family but it's not much of an aspiration, especially if there's hardly any decent work in the area. 

Those who are willing to upsticks and move to further their career should be rewarded, or rather they should be afforded the same tenancy rights as those who are happy to be a shelf stacker at their local Tesco all their lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, spacedin said:


Exactly. If that's the kind of life you want then a secure tenancy is great. However, what exactly does this really do for social mobility? It's nice to live close to family but it's not much of an aspiration, especially if there's hardly any decent work in the area. 

Those who are willing to upsticks and move to further their career should be rewarded, or rather they should be afforded the same tenancy rights as those who are happy to be a shelf stacker at their local Tesco all their lives. 

....have known 'shelf stackers' or similar low paid but doing a job that needs doing who did buy their council house.....moved to a cheaper (nicer) area and collect high rents from the ex council they used to rent from, guaranteed income in excess of £1000 per month.....nice little earner.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, winkie said:

....have known 'shelf stackers' or similar low paid but doing a job that needs doing who did buy their council house.....moved to a cheaper (nicer) area and collect high rents from the ex council they used to rent from, guaranteed income in excess of £1000 per month.....nice little earner.;)

It's a funny one RTB, as it clearly can help to boost social mobility and enable people to escape living in really deprived areas but at the same time it tends to make areas more deprived. I mean, if that guy sells his old place, which he really should instead of profiting from his fortune each month, the poor sod who's having to rent that former council flat may be a lowly shelfstacker too. 
 

But yes, it's easy to see how RTB can make people upwardly mobile, give them options in the future and make them less dependent on benefits. It's just unfortunate that council housing tends to attract people who can't manage their finances properly. I'm a little biased as I speak as someone who lives in a council flat and has the RTB. If only the discount weren't used as a deposit, this would prevent those who can't manage their finances properly from buying. I'm convinced a lot of the stock would never have been sold off had this rule been put in place. A discussion for another day perhaps. 

Edited by spacedin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, spacedin said:

It's a funny one RTB, as it clearly can help to boost social mobility and enable people to escape living in really deprived areas but at the same time it tends to make areas more deprived. I mean, if that guy sells his old place, which he really should instead of profiting from his fortune each month, the poor sod who's having to rent that former council flat may be a lowly shelfstacker too. 
 

But yes, it's easy to see how RTB can make people upwardly mobile, give them options in the future and make them less dependent on benefits. It's just unfortunate that council housing tends to attract people who can't manage their finances properly. I'm a little biased as I speak as someone who lives in a council flat and has the RTB. If only the discount weren't used as a deposit, this would prevent those who can't manage their finances properly from buying. I'm convinced a lot of the stock would never have been sold off had this rule been put in place. A discussion for another day perhaps. 

RTB was sooooo shortermisum.....buying votes of the day, many did very well out of it, more than you would imagine... if they acted and acted fast.....the long-term losers were the councils (tax payers) who are now paying high rents to owners of the homes they used to own and collect rents on.....;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, spacedin said:

Until they want to move.

Don't get me wrong, a secure tenancy is like gold dust in this day and age but once you have it, you become very reluctant to give it away. It may not be impossible to move in the social rented sector but it can be quite difficult when having to rely on mutual exchange. Such that you can start to feel trapped and less socially mobile.

Similar arguments could be put forward about home ownership but at least with that you have the possibiliy of more freedom further down the line.

Personally I would prefer something in between. Perhaps something along the lines of cohousing, where tenants have ownership and much more of a say, rather than just being dictated to by the council as to what they can and can't do.

If its a choice between being able to move around and pay £1.2k rent, or be fixed in a secure council tenancy and pay £400 rent for a better quality property maintained by the council - its a no brainer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.