On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:11:21 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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.

WTF is that going to achieve?? We need to be thinking about ways to thin
out the population, not foster future growth in it!



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:07:18 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:
snip

We need to be thinking about ways to thin
out the population ..

snip

Ah, now the truth is out!

Cheers, T i m

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.

Most socialists call it twaddle because they rather it wasn't true.

The greatest greed comes from those who want cheap labour.

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.

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.

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.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:33:36 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:06:55 +0000, Mark wrote:

--snip--

The crash did start in the US but Brown's deregulation certsinly
contributed to the problems here.

George Osborne said in public that there was still too much regulation. You can
blame him too.

Oh. I do.


--
insert witty sig here

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:11:21 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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.

WTF is that going to achieve?? We need to be thinking about ways to thin
out the population, not foster future growth in it!

Is that what's known as lateral thinking? Nothing whatsoever to do with
the point?

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

--
insert witty sig here

On 11/02/18 19:14, Mark wrote:
No. Independent research shows that Grammar school do not help social
mobility.

You really are a hoot.

Of course they do and did.

Of course there is no such thing as independent reaearch these days.

Just people paid to come up with whatver they are paid to come up with.

Like you perhaps?




--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't have a problem with them getting a discount if they (their family)
have to continue to live in the property and can't churn it for a windfall
profit.

the 3 years restriction on re-sale has a zero missing off the end, IMHO

tim

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:


[Snip]

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

A housing manager in Kent said to at the time: "we've got left with the
rubbish tenants"

that's what happens when you dumb down social housing to less than 5% of the
population, however you get there

tim

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:40:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Is that what's known as lateral thinking? Nothing whatsoever to do with
the point?

Come along, Dave. You must know perfectly well that the population will
simply expand to fill all the available housing, just like adding new
lanes to motorways just attracts more traffic.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:40:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Is that what's known as lateral thinking? Nothing whatsoever to do with
the point?

Come along, Dave. You must know perfectly well that the population will
simply expand to fill all the available housing, just like adding new
lanes to motorways just attracts more traffic.

Come along whatever your name is. You must know perfectly well that
the population will simply contract to match all the available
housing, just like adding removing lanes from motorways, just
restricts more traffic.

If you come here to work and can't live anywhere, you go home.

Cheers, T i m

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).

On 11/02/2018 19:56, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* Brian Reay wrote:
On 11/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* 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.

I don't have a problem with them getting a discount if they (their
family) have to continue to live in the property and can't churn it for
a windfall profit.

I do, the discounts were eye watering. There was no need for 50+%
discounts. 10% would have been more than sufficient.

the 3 years restriction on re-sale has a zero missing off the end, IMHO

I know someone who bought their father's house. It was a very good
investment.

On 11/02/2018 22:19, Fredxx wrote:

I know someone who bought their father's house. It was a very good
investment.

My father bought his house.
As it was a Smiths house the only mortgage he could get was from the
council.
The only reason to buy it was the mortgage was half the rent.

Having lived in the house for over fifty years the rent would have paid
for it many times over.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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.

I'm not sure they ever did. And I went to one.
Sure there was a social mix as bright kids came from all over the town.
But the vast majority were from middle class families. And probably the
same but reversed in the secondary modern schools.
Rich but thick kids went to private schools. Then as now.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

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

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 01:57:34 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/02/2018 00:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
It's an obscenity that houses can be snapped up by those with access
to funds then rented out at ridiculous sums to those with almost
nothing.

The obscenity is there is a shortage, encouraging speculators. They know
there is no will to build any more, despite the hot air. Its a major
reason for Brexit.

Nothing to do with Brexit. Tory policy. Sell off all the social housing
you can at a discount, to those who can afford to buy.

Are you suggesting that these houses disappear, and can no longer house
families? Are they all knocked down?

Yes they do, a 3-4 bed family house really does disapear when you convert it to 3-4 small flats.


I'm sure they're in the same place as before and housing the same
families, just wondering why this makes any difference to housing demand?

It ain't rocket science.

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 13:58:46 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 09/02/18 23:59, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/02/2018 21:36, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Migrants are not the problem, once again they are being used as a
scapegoat for tha failiures of government.

They are only a problem in terms of housing demand due to their numbers.
Are you in denial the UK population has increased by 3m over the past 10
years?

7.6 million between 1998 and 2017 (ONS data) of which net immigration
was 4.5 million from a starting point of 58.5 million.

13% increase in 20 years.

Of course that affected house prices, put massive pressure on the NHS
and other infrastructure - anyone who says otherwise would have to be
quite deluded.

Odd that all the shops and so on seemed to cope perfectly well with this
extra population.

What do you mean by coped with ?

Unless you have queues for them round your way - like
some failed state.

Every otger shop is an estate agent, bookies, takewaya or poundshop.

Maybe you're confused when you see an amusment arcade and you see a few people in there shoving their cash into slots you think it really is las vagas, because of a string of flashing lights.


Any government not realising extra population means extra spending on the
infrastructure comes as no surprise, though.

and when you have politicians saying that they can't live in London on salaries of less than £60k and that's when they get a free houses, free food and free travel......

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 15:35:28 UTC, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 01:16:56 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:34:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
It's an obscenity that houses can be snapped up by those with access
to funds then rented out at ridiculous sums to those with almost
nothing.

The obscenity is there is a shortage, encouraging speculators. They know
there is no will to build any more, despite the hot air. Its a major
reason for Brexit.

Nothing to do with Brexit. Tory policy. Sell off all the social housing
you can at a discount, to those who can afford to buy. Then the up and
coming poor have to rent in the private sector, putting the profits into
Tory pockets. Including any housing benefit. You just know it makes sense.
To a moron.

Thank God. Sometimes I feel that the entire country has lost sight of
the Blasted obvious.

What will be interesting is when we do "take control", there will
still be a large number of the population who are going to be far far
worse off than now. If the None British have all left, the only
scapegoats are going to be the unemployed and unemployment will be on
the whim of the employer.

We are about to hand every aspect of the UK's future to a shower who's
only guiding philosophy is greed and self interest.

Incidentally, like it or not, there will be no need or purpose for the
NHS.

With Britains defence increasingly moving toward technology, why keep
a population healthy and supporting troops when the button pushers are
doing the fighting?

Of course it's all scaremongering to the Brexiteers, but there are
Brexiteers that are too thick to see what's happening and Brexiteers
that are going to do very well indeed from the mess.

Neither would welcome debate on the subject.

AB

Drivel.
Houses sold still exist. They don't disappear.

yes they do.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:17:29 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

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.

There's masses out there. GIYF.

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.

Not everyone and not all the time.

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

How can selfishness be "used for good effect"?

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.

There are others. For example, much rental accomodation is not well
maintained. Also there's the short-term nature of rental
accomodation. The landlord can give notice to vacate the premises on
a whim. This happened to me on more than one occasion in the past.

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.

The Blair government's policies were not left-wing.

--
insert witty sig here

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:19:19 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/02/2018 19:56, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* Brian Reay wrote:
On 11/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* 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.

I don't have a problem with them getting a discount if they (their
family) have to continue to live in the property and can't churn it for
a windfall profit.

I do, the discounts were eye watering. There was no need for 50+%
discounts. 10% would have been more than sufficient.

I guess it depends on how long they were living there. Long-term
tenants could have paid for it many times over.

the 3 years restriction on re-sale has a zero missing off the end, IMHO

I know someone who bought their father's house. It was a very good
investment.

Houses should be for living in. One of the big problems is people
consider them an "investment".

--
insert witty sig here

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 03:20:35 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

--snip--

and when you have politicians saying that they can't live in London on salaries of less than £60k and that's when they get a free houses, free food and free travel......

If they believe they cannot live off less then £60K why do they expect
most people to live of vastly less than this?

--
insert witty sig here

On 12/02/18 12:41, Mark wrote:
No. Independent research shows that Grammar school do not help social
mobility.
Please provide this independent research.
There's masses out there. GIYF.

Oh dear, proof by assertion and no links

Typical LeftyMind

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Odd that all the shops and so on seemed to cope perfectly well with
this extra population.

What do you mean by coped with ?

Unless you have queues for them round your way - like
some failed state.

Doesn't that answer your question?

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

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

On 12/02/2018 12:41, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:17:29 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

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.

There's masses out there. GIYF.

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.

Not everyone and not all the time.

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

How can selfishness be "used for good effect"?

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.

There are others. For example, much rental accomodation is not well
maintained. Also there's the short-term nature of rental
accomodation. The landlord can give notice to vacate the premises on
a whim. This happened to me on more than one occasion in the past.

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.

The Blair government's policies were not left-wing.

They were most left wing party at the time. They were left of centre by
Labour's very nature.

On 12/02/2018 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/18 12:41, Mark wrote:
No.Â* Independent research shows that Grammar school do not help social
mobility.
Please provide this independent research.
There's masses out there.Â* GIYF.

Oh dear, proof by assertion and no links

Typical LeftyMind

There is no evidence.

There is correlation, going by dates, of when Grammar schools were
culled and when social mobility declined but that's not the issue here.

Mark has made claim he cannot substantiate.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:07:22 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/02/2018 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/18 12:41, Mark wrote:
No.Â* Independent research shows that Grammar school do not help social
mobility.
Please provide this independent research.
There's masses out there.Â* GIYF.

Oh dear, proof by assertion and no links

Typical LeftyMind

There is no evidence.

There is correlation, going by dates, of when Grammar schools were
culled and when social mobility declined but that's not the issue here.

Mark has made claim he cannot substantiate.

No. You can't be bothered to find out for yourself.

Here's some links:
https://fullfact.org/education/gramm...hats-evidence/
https://epi.org.uk/report/grammar-sc...ial-mobility/#
https://www.centreforsocialjustice.o...ool-Report.pdf

--
insert witty sig here

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
The Blair government's policies were not left-wing.

They were most left wing party at the time. They were left of centre by
Labour's very nature.

This from an extreme right wing point of view?

Be nice to have some facts about the Blair government's 'left wing'
policies.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
There is correlation, going by dates, of when Grammar schools were
culled and when social mobility declined but that's not the issue here.

I'd love a definition of 'social mobility' Sounds to be one of those buzz
words scattered around by wannabe 'experts'.

--
*A hangover is the wrath of grapes.

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

On Monday, 12 February 2018 13:39:57 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Odd that all the shops and so on seemed to cope perfectly well with
this extra population.

What do you mean by coped with ?

Unless you have queues for them round your way - like
some failed state.

Doesn't that answer your question?

No,


woolworths , BHS, and even marks & spencer.
Thosed making the profits are poundshops, takeaways, bookies and estate agents, so work it out.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 13:39:57 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Odd that all the shops and so on seemed to cope perfectly well with
this extra population.

What do you mean by coped with ?

Unless you have queues for them round your way - like
some failed state.

Doesn't that answer your question?

No,


woolworths , BHS, and even marks & spencer.

They had problems because of too many customers?

Or were you just replying to a point you thought had been made?


Thosed making the profits
are poundshops, takeaways, bookies and estate agents, so work it out.

Perhaps they are - from you.

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control

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

On 12/02/18 14:24, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:07:22 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/02/2018 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/18 12:41, Mark wrote:
No.Â* Independent research shows that Grammar school do not help social
mobility.
Please provide this independent research.
There's masses out there.Â* GIYF.

Oh dear, proof by assertion and no links

Typical LeftyMind

There is no evidence.

There is correlation, going by dates, of when Grammar schools were
culled and when social mobility declined but that's not the issue here.

Mark has made claim he cannot substantiate.

No. You can't be bothered to find out for yourself.

Here's some links:
https://fullfact.org/education/gramm...hats-evidence/
https://epi.org.uk/report/grammar-sc...ial-mobility/#
https://www.centreforsocialjustice.o...ool-Report.pdf

WE asked for evidenmce, not Left wing spin


--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On Monday, 12 February 2018 16:36:44 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 13:39:57 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Odd that all the shops and so on seemed to cope perfectly well with
this extra population.

What do you mean by coped with ?

Unless you have queues for them round your way - like
some failed state.

Doesn't that answer your question?

No,


woolworths , BHS, and even marks & spencer.

They had problems because of too many customers?

I made the point which you lost.

Having 100s of extra people in poor areas doesn't do much other than increase poverty for the poor in and around those areas, meaning cash 4 gold and pawn brokers and loans shops open up.

Yopu cna have 1000s customers but if they haven't the money to spend, they'll spend what little they do have on take-aways and quick fix solutions to help their lives sucgh as betting shops and poundlands for a retail fix.

I assume you know that the bookies make most money from the most deprived areas.



Or were you just replying to a point you thought had been made?

I;d made it you never understood it.

It does take while for some to recongnise what's going on around them but you need to actually look around, we have a 98P shop.


Thosed making the profits
are poundshops, takeaways, bookies and estate agents, so work it out.

Perhaps they are - from you.

Nearly had my first take-awy of 2018, but it was a bit cold so just went home instead.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They had problems because of too many customers?

I made the point which you lost.

Having 100s of extra people in poor areas doesn't do much other than
increase poverty for the poor in and around those areas, meaning cash 4
gold and pawn brokers and loans shops open up.

And? Which in your mind equates to other shops not being able to keep up
with demand?

--
*My dog can lick anyone

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

Mark wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:19:19 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/02/2018 19:56, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't have a problem with them getting a discount if they (their
family) have to continue to live in the property and can't churn it for
a windfall profit.

I do, the discounts were eye watering. There was no need for 50+%
discounts. 10% would have been more than sufficient.

I guess it depends on how long they were living there. Long-term
tenants could have paid for it many times over.

How come when a private tenant pays enought rent to buy a buy-to-let
flat "many times over" no-one thinks it should entitle the tenant to
take the buy-to-let landlord's windfall capital asset away from him?
(Well, except me anyway.)


the 3 years restriction on re-sale has a zero missing off the end, IMHO

I know someone who bought their father's house. It was a very good
investment.

Houses should be for living in. One of the big problems is people
consider them an "investment".


--

Roger Hayter

On Monday, 12 February 2018 18:56:50 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They had problems because of too many customers?

I made the point which you lost.

Having 100s of extra people in poor areas doesn't do much other than
increase poverty for the poor in and around those areas, meaning cash 4
gold and pawn brokers and loans shops open up.

And?

Is this a sign of a thriving economy is this is what was planned by the EU ?

Which in your mind equates to other shops not being able to keep up
with demand?

Demand for what exactly one pound items ?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 18:56:50 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They had problems because of too many customers?

I made the point which you lost.

Having 100s of extra people in poor areas doesn't do much other than
increase poverty for the poor in and around those areas, meaning
cash 4 gold and pawn brokers and loans shops open up.

And?

Is this a sign of a thriving economy is this is what was planned by the
EU ?

It's you who seem to have translated having an adequate infrastructure
into a thriving economy, not me.

Which in your mind equates to other shops not being able to keep up
with demand?

Demand for what exactly one pound items ?

Anyone who thinks pound shops always provide good value is mad. Same as
those who waste their money in a betting shop.

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

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

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 13:51:01 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 18:56:50 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They had problems because of too many customers?

I made the point which you lost.

Having 100s of extra people in poor areas doesn't do much other than
increase poverty for the poor in and around those areas, meaning
cash 4 gold and pawn brokers and loans shops open up.

And?

Is this a sign of a thriving economy is this is what was planned by the
EU ?

It's you who seem to have translated having an adequate infrastructure
into a thriving economy, not me.

What do you mean by a thriving economy ?
The USA has a thriving economy under trump doesn't it.



Which in your mind equates to other shops not being able to keep up
with demand?

Demand for what exactly one pound items ?

Anyone who thinks pound shops always provide good value is mad. Same as
those who waste their money in a betting shop.

So how come they are thriving ?
These sort of things always thrive in a poor econmy same with going to the cinema all these sort of things thrive as wages are squeezed you'll find the same with drugs and alochol all these things have a greater uptake as people get poorer.