whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

That goes for most things whats new ?

What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

exactly so the numbers of council houses were reduced,

But nothing came to a grinding halt.

which is one of the reasons we have a housing shortage.

Nope. The number of houses didnt change, all
that changed was who actually owned them.

Irrelevant to the fact the Maggie allowed vast numbers
of people to buy the council house they were renting.

Yes and now there are less councils houses for rent.

Doesnt matter, those who where renting them are
still in them and are looking after them much better
than they did when they were renting them.

Doesn;t matter as they are now owned by them and
not the council who now can not rent them out again

Irrelevant to any housing shortage.

so how they treat the homes is irrelivent.

Like hell it is. The council doesnt have to keep repairing them.

That is complete and utter bull****. If that was true
there would be a desperate shortage of people for
those with jobs in London and there isnt.

So why are we so short of medical staff ?

Because not enough of the locals are prepare to put in
the years of study required to be allowed to do those jobs.

Plenty of people about willing to become MPs for the next 4 years,

No years of study required to do that job.

perhaps you should ask them why they don;t want to become nurses.

No point, its obvious.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...her-four-years

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 22 May 2016 07:40:31 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Friday, 20 May 2016 16:30:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

The main idea was to get rid of as much local authority housing as
possible. Selling it to the tenants just a clever way of masking this.
Plenty of the Turnips of this world were very jealous of those who had
a
decent council house.


********.
Have you never noticed the number of BMWs and Audis parked on the
verges/gardens of council houses?
These people can clealry afford to buy a house and should be thrown out.

The thing is the cars are so cheap to buy on a monthley outlay you can
have 2 or 3 for just one months rent on a flat in london.
And with the traffic in london you'll spend more time on the car than in
you flat ;-)

Wouldnt it be better to spend time in the car instead of
on it given how soggy and frigid that island of yours is ?

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

Clue? Her reason was selling off council houses to the incumbent at a
knocked down price bought their vote at no cost to her.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 23 May 2016 19:52:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

That goes for most things whats new ?

What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

That's wasnt; much of a clue as everyone knew that if you offer a place for sale cheap enough someone will buy it, add a really big discount and it's bloody obvious.




So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

exactly so the numbers of council houses were reduced,

But nothing came to a grinding halt.

if you're not building council hoses then that is a grinding halt as previously council hoses were being brought.


which is one of the reasons we have a housing shortage.

Nope. The number of houses didnt change, all
that changed was who actually owned them.

so the number of affordable properties for sale or rent went down not up.



so how they treat the homes is irrelivent.

Like hell it is. The council doesnt have to keep repairing them.

But it didn;t which is why some didn't want their council house.


Plenty of people about willing to become MPs for the next 4 years,

No years of study required to do that job.

yes I know, strange then how it's relatively highelym paid for a job that doesn;t need any offical cert to prove you can do teh job. Even you could do it.


perhaps you should ask them why they don;t want to become nurses.

No point, its obvious.

Yes the monies better, you don;t need to be educated, there;s no exams or skill tests of any sort and beign a compulise liar is a key advantage.

On Monday, 23 May 2016 20:14:11 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 22 May 2016 07:40:31 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Friday, 20 May 2016 16:30:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

On 24/05/2016 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

Clue? Her reason was selling off council houses to the incumbent at a
knocked down price bought their vote at no cost to her.


It took maintenance off the council and reduced the borrowing the
councils were running up.
That's also the reason why the councils couldn't build more as they had
borrowed too much.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 24/05/2016 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

Clue? Her reason was selling off council houses to the incumbent at a
knocked down price bought their vote at no cost to her.


It took maintenance off the council and reduced the borrowing the
councils were running up.
That's also the reason why the councils couldn't build more as they had
borrowed too much.

No - the councils were not allowed to build any more houses. The money
raised was put into a separate account.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 24/05/2016 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

Clue? Her reason was selling off council houses to the incumbent at a
knocked down price bought their vote at no cost to her.


It took maintenance off the council and reduced the borrowing the
councils were running up.

So why sell at a large discount?

That's also the reason why the councils couldn't build more as they had
borrowed too much.

Far better to give housing benefit which goes to private landlords, then?

A real win win. For Thatcher, obviously.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

Clue? Her reason was selling off council houses to the incumbent
at a knocked down price bought their vote at no cost to her.

It actually got her **** all votes and her electoral
prospects were pretty dismal until the Falklands
and ****wits like Scargill ensured that she was free
to stay until she ****ed her own cabinet colleagues
off enough to get the bums rush over the poll tax.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

That goes for most things whats new ?

What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

That's wasnt; much of a clue as everyone knew that if
you offer a place for sale cheap enough someone will
buy it, add a really big discount and it's bloody obvious.

That wasnt what she had a clue about, it was actually doing it.

So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

exactly so the numbers of council houses were reduced,

But nothing came to a grinding halt.

if you're not building council hoses then that is a grinding halt

The claim was ONE DAY, stupid.

as previously council hoses were being brought.

which is one of the reasons we have a housing shortage.

Nope. The number of houses didnt change, all
that changed was who actually owned them.

so the number of affordable properties
for sale or rent went down not up.

You're slithering on that affordable.

so how they treat the homes is irrelivent.

Like hell it is. The council doesnt have to keep repairing them.

But it didn;t

BULL****.

which is why some didn't want their council house.

Plenty of people about willing to become MPs for the next 4 years,

No years of study required to do that job.

yes I know, strange then how it's relatively highelym paid for a job
that doesn;t need any offical cert to prove you can do teh job.

Just as true of actors, sports fools, spivs and con men, prostitutes, etc
etc etc.

perhaps you should ask them why they don;t want to become nurses.

No point, its obvious.

Yes the monies better, you don;t need to be educated, there;s no exams
or skill tests of any sort and beign a compulise liar is a key advantage.

But your job is on the line every 5 years.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 May 2016 20:14:11 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 22 May 2016 07:40:31 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Friday, 20 May 2016 16:30:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Of course it is with those who still live in that particular
house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the
point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

The main idea was to get rid of as much local authority housing as
possible. Selling it to the tenants just a clever way of masking
this.
Plenty of the Turnips of this world were very jealous of those who
had
a
decent council house.


********.
Have you never noticed the number of BMWs and Audis parked on the
verges/gardens of council houses?
These people can clealry afford to buy a house and should be thrown
out.

The thing is the cars are so cheap to buy on a monthley outlay you can
have 2 or 3 for just one months rent on a flat in london.
And with the traffic in london you'll spend more time on the car than
in
you flat ;-)

Wouldnt it be better to spend time in the car instead of
on it given how soggy and frigid that island of yours is ?

where would the car be ?

Ask yourself, you wrote that ****, presumably when completely blotto.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What was new was that Maggie had enough of a clue to flog council
houses off to those who were living in them and wanted to buy them.

Clue? Her reason was selling off council houses to the incumbent
at a knocked down price bought their vote at no cost to her.

It took maintenance off the council and reduced
the borrowing the councils were running up.

So why sell at a large discount?

So those who weren't getting paid more than
working class wages could afford to buy them.

That's also the reason why the councils couldn't
build more as they had borrowed too much.

Far better to give housing benefit which goes to private landlords, then?

Maggie didn’t believe in the govt getting involved in building and renting
out houses.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Far better to give housing benefit which goes to private landlords,
then?

Maggie didn’t believe in the govt getting involved in building and
renting out houses.

The government didn't do this, cretin. Local authority.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Far better to give housing benefit which goes to private landlords,
then?

Maggie didn't believe in the govt getting
involved in building and renting out houses.

The government didn't do this, cretin. Local authority.

Part of govt, ****wit.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 19:32:48 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house..

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message news:17d31418-6e02-4

you know **** all as usual, there was two seprate prorams on the TV last
night about concil housing.

Yes

not in work Romanian with five kids and wife turns up at Hounslow council
demanding they house him, which they did.





-

On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:59:19 +0100, Mark wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:17d31418-6e02-4

you know **** all as usual, there was two seprate prorams on the TV last
night about concil housing.

Yes

not in work Romanian with five kids and wife turns up at Hounslow
council demanding they house him, which they did.

Oh, well. There we go. It was on TV. It must be right.

FFS.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 15:59:21 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message news:17d31418-6e02-4

you know **** all as usual, there was two seprate prorams on the TV last
night about concil housing.

Yes

not in work Romanian with five kids and wife turns up at Hounslow council
demanding they house him, which they did.

yes and when they asked him what work he could do he said "any, I can do any job" unlike those in the UK who seem to need certs and crap to prove they can do a particular job.
Maybe this is what peole mean when they all say we need them as health workers.

Maybe he can cycle 60 miles a day for £30, I know there's loads of jobs he can do, and if he does them then that job was mopst liley previously done by someone else.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 16:00:29 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:59:19 +0100, Mark wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:17d31418-6e02-4

you know **** all as usual, there was two seprate prorams on the TV last
night about concil housing.

Yes

not in work Romanian with five kids and wife turns up at Hounslow
council demanding they house him, which they did.

Oh, well. There we go. It was on TV. It must be right.

FFS.

Yes FFS far beter than some chickenwing**** making up ****.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:59:19 +0100, Mark wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:17d31418-6e02-4

you know **** all as usual, there was two seprate prorams on the TV last
night about concil housing.

Yes

not in work Romanian with five kids and wife turns up at Hounslow
council demanding they house him, which they did.

Oh, well. There we go. It was on TV. It must be right.

FFS.


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/h...-council-house




link to Ofcom so you can complain about inaccurate, misleading racially
biased program

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/compla...io-complaints/

Pratt.