LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

And, as I've said before, it doesn't really help the people it's intended to in any case, as the rental market effectively hoovers that up in higher rental values, as the owners of rental properties en masse have more power in the market than renters. The parallel effect is seen when VAT is dropped on specific products (eg sniatary towels): 80% of the drop works its way through to increased profit margin, with just a marginal reduction for the purchasers.

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Jezyboy

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Is the simple explanation not something along the lines about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Housing benefit in particular seems a quick and easy response to an issue that would take much longer to sort out properly.

Then maybe a slightly less nice explanation, which is that they felt people who are more dependent on the state are more likely to vote Labour...

shirley_basso

Council houses solve both those problems, don't they?

Build houses, collect rent - gov't is landlord and can set prices - potentially undermining the "greedy" private landlords.

Also - like MOTs, the gov't can price control certain products, if it chooses.

briantrumpet

shirley_basso said:

Council houses solve both those problems, don't they?

Build houses, collect rent - gov't is landlord and can set prices - potentially undermining the "greedy" private landlords.

Also - like MOTs, the gov't can price control certain products, if it chooses.

I suppose it's vaguely like my support of Nationwide BS - as a mutual, it can serve as a brake on abuse of the market by over-dominant commercial banks, by providing an alternative model based on serving the interests of the members rather than shareholders, who will tend to take a shorter-term position.

surrey_commuter

So everybody knows we are talking about circa £20bn a year

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

So everybody knows we are talking about circa £20bn a year

Rather puts the 'we can't afford to build social housing' argument into perspective.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

So everybody knows we are talking about circa £20bn a year

Rather puts the 'we can't afford to build social housing' argument into perspective.

Tories can't afford it *politically*.

Whether labour can, probably not either.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

I agree with this and my knowledge on housing development is nearly non existent but isn't the major issue building housing that people can afford? How much social housing, housing under £150k do we need, and what are the realistic chances of even a small % of this being developed to meet needs? Genuine question on my part.

The basic economics of it as things stand is that a £200k house is going to (realistically) need a 15-20% deposit, throw in another £5k for legal and other costs and then a mortgage at circa £1200-1300 a month and it is simply unobtainable for the vast majority.

We are in a housing crisis that has gone well over the tipping point. Unless we get good quality, cheaper housing, and borrowers being able to purchase with less than say £10k as an initial cash outlay, the whole system will never be corrected surely?

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

rjsterry

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

I agree with this and my knowledge on housing development is nearly non existent but isn't the major issue building housing that people can afford? How much social housing, housing under £150k do we need, and what are the realistic chances of even a small % of this being developed to meet needs? Genuine question on my part.

The basic economics of it as things stand is that a £200k house is going to (realistically) need a 15-20% deposit, throw in another £5k for legal and other costs and then a mortgage at circa £1200-1300 a month and it is simply unobtainable for the vast majority.

We are in a housing crisis that has gone well over the tipping point. Unless we get good quality, cheaper housing, and borrowers being able to purchase with less than say £10k as an initial cash outlay, the whole system will never be corrected surely?

You don't sell social housing, you let it.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

Yes and a lot of those in London gave rise to millionaires. Thanks Thatch.

Problem is that the housing need is still there and filled by private landlords to whom rent control doesn't apply, or housing associations, which are fine except there aren't enough of them.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

Yes and a lot of those in London gave rise to millionaires. Thanks Thatch.

Problem is that the housing need is still there and filled by private landlords to whom rent control doesn't apply, or housing associations, which are fine except there aren't enough of them.

That is far from the only problem with HAs.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

You don't sell social housing, you let it.

Sorry, incorrect terminology. I meant more affordable housing aimed at people on lower incomes.

It is still valid question though, the people that need housing cannot afford it in the main as cheaper housing is not being built and they are priced out of much of the existing housing stock (unless someone has statistics to prove me wrong).

This is the major housing problem, what is the plan to address it from Central govt, LA's and property developers? It does not seem there is one?

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

Jezyboy

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

The problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of assets to sell off at below market rate.

shirley_basso

The problem with selling affordable housing is that the gov't doesn't seem to be very good at controlling who it's sold onto, enforcing sub-let controls and controlling the price. So the below market value purchase price almost immediately turns into equity for the new owner who can then sell it at market value, which then immediately reduces the supply of affordable housing.

Even those on help to buy / deposit guarantee schemes can quite easily get out of repaying the government their share of the deposit / value uplift on sale.

wallace_and_gromit

briantrumpet said:

I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

A couple of thoughts sprint to mind here:

The Abbey National demutalised in 1989, with Santander only taking over 25 years later.

Selling the shares rather than holding them to benefit from future dividends was your choice not something that was forced on you.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

Yes and a lot of those in London gave rise to millionaires. Thanks Thatch.

Problem is that the housing need is still there and filled by private landlords to whom rent control doesn't apply, or housing associations, which are fine except there aren't enough of them.

That goes hand in hand with what I was trying/failing to say.

wallace_and_gromit

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

The problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of assets to sell off at below market rate.

True, but an odd comment in response to a post primarily about Building Societies which were privately owned, by their members.

Though as an aside, the history of the ex-Building Societies suggests that demutualisation was some sort of bizarre cult-like mass suicide.

briantrumpet

wallace_and_gromit said:

briantrumpet said:

I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

A couple of thoughts sprint to mind here:

The Abbey National demutalised in 1989, with Santander only taking over 25 years later.

Selling the shares rather than holding them to benefit from future dividends was your choice not something that was forced on you.

Oh yes, I know I took the shilling. No coercement necessary. Well, and I couldn't be bothered with negotiating with whether I had to declare foreign earnings. I missed the top of the market at £1400.

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

The problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of assets to sell off at below market rate.

if you include the pension liabilities then they got a very good price

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

The problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of assets to sell off at below market rate.

if you include the pension liabilities then they got a very good price

The assumptions pretty much the entire West made about pensions from the 1950s-80s would be a scandal if it wasn't such a universal miscalculation.

briantrumpet

wallace_and_gromit said:

The Abbey National demutalised in 1989, with Santander only taking over 25 years later.

Apparenty actually 21 years, but even so £100-worth of shares at demutualisation in 1989 to £1400 once it had Santandered (I think I cashed them in two or three years later, IIRC) was a useful boost.

When I signed up for Nationwide, I know I signed away any rights to a windfall should it be demutualised, with any distribution going to charity.

orraloon

I retain a pre the demutualisation fervour period 'cashbuilder' account with Nationwide, used to be an actual passbook back in the day, zero activity for n+ years, earned a princely sub £1 in interest last year. But as it has had £100+ balance for all this time, it is a shareholder ticket should that demutualisation vibe ever become attractive again to da management.

briantrumpet

orraloon said:

I retain a pre the demutualisation fervour period 'cashbuilder' account with Nationwide, used to be an actual passbook back in the day, zero activity for n+ years, earned a princely sub £1 in interest last year. But as it has had £100+ balance for all this time, it is a shareholder ticket should that demutualisation vibe ever become attractive again to da management.

I suspect you 'legacy' NW account holders are vastly outnumbered by us latecomers (I think I've been with them 'just' 20-25 years now), so a vote might not go your way...