The big Coronavirus thread

mully79

Who can afford to pay back a £50k loan after 5 years with right to buy. Essentially just forces many families to sell the house. If they’re lucky and house prices are rising they come out with enough equity to buy a house properly.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

pangolin

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58186032

Covid: Germany fears thousands got saline, not vaccine from nurse

Authorities in north Germany have asked more than 8,000 people to get repeat Covid vaccinations because a nurse is suspected of having injected saline instead of vaccine in many cases.

Whoops. I wonder how you end up being a nurse, but also so skeptical of this specific vaccine. Or does she think all vaccines are evil plots? Bizarre.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

pblakeney

The government sold off the houses at a loss to save on maintenance costs and keep to their budgets. It was typical short term solution to a long term problem.

Edit - Actually, not at a loss as rent had covered that. But much, much less than market value.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

The government sold off the houses at a loss to save on maintenance costs and keep to their budgets. It was typical short term solution to a long term problem.

Edit - Actually, not at a loss as rent had covered that. But much, much less than market value.

Won lots of votes

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

Jezyboy

While I admire the sentiment, given even swing seats often have gaps over a hundred votes, I think I'd be voting tory if the alternative was the battery acid.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

The original idea was a far more modest discount. The exact valuation of the property is down to the local authority, so those 70% discounts have almost nothing to do with Thatcher and are just LA admin incompetence. One example was in Tower Hamlets in the late 90s, so about as Red as it gets.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

The government sold off the houses at a loss to save on maintenance costs and keep to their budgets. It was typical short term solution to a long term problem.

Edit - Actually, not at a loss as rent had covered that. But much, much less than market value.

Won lots of votes

That too. And get people tied to mortgages so they have to work, and pay income tax. Smart ones would have bought, paid it off and stayed put.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

Are you saying that a lot of d1ckless people hate the Tories?

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

Are you saying that a lot of d1ckless people hate the Tories?

Fortunately until recently there has been a Labour party to vote for. And the battery is really hard to reach on a BMW.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

Are you saying that a lot of d1ckless people hate the Tories?

I think most of them prefer the term "women".

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

Are you saying that a lot of d1ckless people hate the Tories?

I think most of them prefer the term "women".

I was referring more to FA's example above.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

Are you saying that a lot of d1ckless people hate the Tories?

Fortunately until recently there has been a Labour party to vote for. And the battery is really hard to reach on a BMW.

I suppose I had a hand in recent-ish events on that front

Surely a BMW makes you more of a natural tory voter?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Almost 18 months after my partner then I got Covid, the only others I knew locally who had it or precautionarily isolating were literally a handful of work colleagues from March to November last year.

In the last week, 25 are now isolating at work (~25% of daily workforce), while my partner's mum/sis/BIL are now isolating awaiting expected positive PCR results.

Thought I'd maybe caught it again myself around last weekend, but two negative rapid flow tests and seeing my tonsils covered in grey patches means I've caught my first bug since late Feb... Just in time to scupper plans again to go and see my mum and sis for the first time in 13 months.

[VM] I don't believe it! [/VM]

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.

Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.

It’s a funny one.

I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.

Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.

What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?

Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.

Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo land

Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?

I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?

Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.

It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.

Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.

HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlords

You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.

What's your argument? No welfare state?

That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.

Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?

There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.

Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.

Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.

Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.

If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.

I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.

That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.

Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.

FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.

So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.

I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.

They sold them at huge discounts so I'm not sure how great a cash generator it was.

Cake today is fine if you have a hole in your 1980 budget. They sold lots of national assets in a mad rush that it really would be nice to own now.

Have you actually seen the prices properties were sold for? It's chicken feed.

Yup. And lots of people made a lot of money having bought their house. And after the houses were sold the government wasn't paying for maintenance or rent.

I think you are closer to the mark there. Who wouldn't vote for someone that gave them a huge handout? Many were sold at a 70% discount.

Authorities still have maintenance responsibility for the thousands of leasehold properties they have sold, but they can at least charge the leaseholders a realistic service charge.

There's a reason I would rather dip my penis in battery acid than vote Tory. It was growing up under Thatcher, then suffering from subsequent generations of hero-worshioing feckless school boys trying to emulate what they inexplicably thought were good ideas.

Are you saying that a lot of d1ckless people hate the Tories?

Fortunately until recently there has been a Labour party to vote for. And the battery is really hard to reach on a BMW.

I suppose I had a hand in recent-ish events on that front

Surely a BMW makes you more of a natural tory voter?

Possibly. But I seem to be rare in being able to see beyond the end of my own nose.

If it helps I am against all of the Corbynite simpletons, just as I am against the stupid costly freebies that the likes of the SNP hand out. But I'm much more against the "bogeyman" politics that the Tories have always espoused. Used to be dolies and people who weren't really disabled in their droves, now it's foreigners. Probably always was foreigners. Probably still is dolies.

kingstongraham

Wouldn't a Jag be more of a Tory car? Less European, more old man.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Wouldn't a Jag be more of a Tory car? Less European, more old man.

My wife has an ePace.

We are stereotype busting communists.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Wouldn't a Jag be more of a Tory car? Less European, more old man.

John Prescott would argue otherwise. Twice.
Then punch you in the face for suggesting it. 😉

rick_chasey

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

Almost 18 months after my partner then I got Covid, the only others I knew locally who had it or precautionarily isolating were literally a handful of work colleagues from March to November last year.

In the last week, 25 are now isolating at work (~25% of daily workforce), while my partner's mum/sis/BIL are now isolating awaiting expected positive PCR results.

Thought I'd maybe caught it again myself around last weekend, but two negative rapid flow tests and seeing my tonsils covered in grey patches means I've caught my first bug since late Feb... Just in time to scupper plans again to go and see my mum and sis for the first time in 13 months.

[VM] I don't believe it! [/VM]

Good luck and enjoy seeing your family.

Let’s hope Stevo doesn’t call you d!Cole’s for being careful (though obviously don’t give them your other illness)

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Wouldn't a Jag be more of a Tory car? Less European, more old man.

John Prescott would argue otherwise. Twice.
Then punch you in the face for suggesting it. 😉

He's definitely an old man.

Two jabs is a pretty good nickname for the current situation though.

Jezyboy

Are BMWs the cars of the poor-er old age pensioners? I must have missed this.

kingstongraham

Jezyboy said:

Are BMWs the cars of the poor-er old age pensioners? I must have missed this.

You think Tories are all rich?

kingstongraham

Anyway, it's great that the numbers went down when schools broke up, hope they don't keep going up from a still quite high base now the opening has started to have an effect.

For an idea of how much impact the vaccine has for us, just look at parts of the USA and especially Iran over the next few weeks where delta has gone wild.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

rick_chasey said:

Good luck and enjoy seeing your family.

I've cancelled seeing my mum and sis because of my throat infection, was supposed to have travelled up to Prestatyn yesterday, mainly because my sis doesn't cope well with throat infections these days.

Might be able to squeeze a shortened visit in a few weeks time, otherwise I need to wait until October. But it's a lot of train travelling fatigue during three days between work shifts from not not sunny Southampton.

womack

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

rick_chasey said:

Good luck and enjoy seeing your family.

I've cancelled seeing my mum and sis because of my throat infection, was supposed to have travelled up to Prestatyn yesterday, mainly because my sis doesn't cope well with throat infections these days.

I could have popped in to see them if I had known, had an early start (6.30) Rhyl and back ride this morning.

Weather wise you have missed some nice sun but blowing hard as usual.

No sign of Carol Vorderman!