On 11/02/2018 19:14, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:46:58 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/02/2018 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
On 11/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
And we still had union bosses on over £100k living in council houses
subsidised by nurses and teachers.

Bless. And they were the only well off living in council houses, then?

But then the likes of you don't want anyone living in a council house to
ever do well. Goes against everything you believe.

Those who 'do well' and live in a council house, hopefully can afford to
buy.

I have zero objection to anyone being allowed to buy the council house
they live in, if and when their circumstances change. At a true market
value, and that money going towards building more.


Social Mobility etc. The left don't like Social Mobility as, once
people graft and succeed, they tend to see through the politics of the
left. Oh, there are the Claret Lefties who spout their politics, like
the pigs in Animal Farm but most people see through them.

Condescending twaddle. And just what is expected from the selfish right
wing. At one time the Tories did at least give lip service to wanting to
improve the lots of all in this country. Now it is just personal greed.

Its not, one of the greatest mechanisms for social mobility was Grammar
Schools. Social mobility has declined in recent decades.

No. Independent research shows that Grammar school do not help social
mobility.

Please provide this independent research.

The greatest greed comes from those who want cheap labour.

True.

But the answer was simple. Charge those who can afford it a true economic
rate for their council house. Which is what happened. If they decide
they'd rather live somewhere else, that house is then available for
others. But the income from it, if not, can go towards building more.


If that was done, the screams of anguish would be heard on Mars.

It was done many years ago.

I support social housing etc (sadly we don't have true council housing
in most areas, if any these days). There will invariably be those who
need homes but can't afford to buy and they should have access to decent
homes etc. A decent, responsible, society should ensure such homes are
available.

We've not had that society for many a year. Hence my point.

There never has been, nor will there be.

There could be.

It's human nature to be selfish. It's best to accept and use this to
good effect rather than crush opportunity.

However, but allowing those houses to be filled with people who can more
than afford to buy etc is simply an abuse of the system- unless they pay
an economic rent. I don't care what their politics are.

Be very interesting to know the percentage of council tenants who can well
afford to buy their own house.

It would, but the uncertainty of work and the benefit system encourage
renting.

True. Although there are many reasons that discourage renting.

The only one I can think of is having an asset.

But of course it it was 0.00001% there
would still be plenty who would spew out righteous indignation and want
the whole thing changed. Ie, exactly what Thatcher did in the main many
years ago. Resulting in the existing housing mess for all. At least in
part.

Given the number of years of socialist government under Bliar, no blame
can ever be attributed to Thatcher for the current issues.

Bliar was not a socialist. Thatcher can be blamed for many current
issues.

He represented the (viable) most left wing socialist party at the time
when he was in power.

Thatcher did many good things too. She highlighted and was voted in when
others, who were unelected, thought they should be running the country
(into the ground).