On 20/01/2021 17:34, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/01/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:

snip

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.

Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have
one that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a
system where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with
only 43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest.

That would depend upon what you want them to be accountable for and to
whom.

If the existing system gives the accountability you want, then the
answer would be local list PR. That could be virtually indistinguishable
from the existing system. The difference would only come when allocating
seats. Each party would get the same proportion of seats in Parliament
as they got of the popular vote. That would, of course, mean that
results could not be announced until every constituency had completed
its count.

Constituencies are ranked according to the percentage of the local vote
each party got, with the highest ranking being allocated to each party
first. Safe seats would remain safe seats, but some marginal seats might
not get the same MP as they would have under the FPTP system. Instead
that seat could be awarded to a runner up. The constituencies would
still get an MP that had appeared on the local ballot.

There would probably need to be some tweaking of the basic model, to
allow for the fact that we have four nations, three of which have
national parties. However, we are not likely to get PR, as no party in
power is going to sign up to a system that would see the end of one
party majority governments.

The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the boys
with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified
more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding
the STV system.

We also have a completely unelected upper house, whose members
comprise some there by right of birth, those who hold high rank in the
clergy and the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but feel
in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the
elected side.Â* While I would like some reform I actually like the
present system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it
back for reconsideration.

I've nothing in principle against the House of Lords. I quite like the
tradition. I was simply pointing out that they, unlike the EU
Commission, they really are unelected.


--
Colin Bignell

On 21/01/2021 08:40, Radio Man wrote:
David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.



Right to vote should be linked to paying direct taxes, with a few
exceptions. Only those paying Council Tax ( actually paying it) should be
permitted to vote in Local Elections. For National elections, paying income
tax.


Hey, lets use colour of skin as another reason, perhaps gender as another.

HAM radio enthusiasts must also be banned from voting for their
fanatical and unsociable attributes.

In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/01/2021 18:49, bert wrote:
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/01/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:

snip

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few
powerful people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually
with great resistance, been subject to some reforms.
*Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might
have one* that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead,
we have a system* where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in
the Commons with only* 43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my
guest. The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs
for the boys with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result
signified more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually
understanding the STV system.

We also have a completely unelected upper* house, whose members
comprise some there by right of birth, those who* hold high rank in
the clergy and the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but
feel in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than
the elected side.* While I would like some reform I actually like the
present system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass
it back for reconsideration.
Well here's my stab at it
First we should clarify its purpose. What the HoL is supposed to do,
regardless of which flavour of government is in power, is to improve
bills, to make their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and
identify possible unintended consequences.
A totally elected house, proposed by many, could lead to a challenge
to the authority of the Commons with Peers claiming to represent
constituents but this seems to be the only alternative which gets put
on the table. Yet there does not appear to be much appetite for such
a House but nevertheless there should be some element of public choice.
I suggest the following:-
a) Size
The overall size of the HOL should be capped somewhere about 600.

Ok

b) Hereditary Peers.
Do we still want them? How many? Should they be phased out?

I think phased out.

c) Bishops
As long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented, the number of representatives (currently 12) to be
reviewed perhaps reduced to the 5 Lords Spiritual.

No, with one exception. I would accept followers of any denomination,
Santa Claus or other as long as nominated members must come from a
group that profess their atheism. Atheism is supported far more than
any mythical deity. Even ones that are agnostic don't generally align
to a religion.

d) Law Lords.
Scrap the Supreme Court and bring them back. Brexit has
shown that the SC is openly putting itself above Parliament. It is
deciding now what Parliament meant rather than what Parliament said. It
has become political as much as judicial.

I would disagree, SC pulled in the reigns of a dictatorial PM. I accept
the final result was the same but hey.

e) Elected Peers
A portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population) rounded down to the nearest integer. Devolved governments
could be involved in allocating their share geographically in their
area, They would simply be elected in order of preference. (Perhaps
with single transferable vote) Members would be elected for a fixed
term say 10 years but could then stand for re-election

This is something I find abhorrent. The idea of politics entering a
second house means it will become playground for attention. The current
strength of the HOL is that it represent experience and not pandering
to the public. We have the HOC for that.

f) Party Nominees
within 3 months of a general election each party (recognised as such
by the Electoral Commission) could nominate a group of members* in
proportion to the number of votes they received rounded down to the
nearest integer (meaning any party getting less than 1% would not get
a seat). These members would serve until three months after the next
General Election (when they could be re-nominated).

I prefer this, and most people seem happy with the names put forward.
It is rare to see negative media attention towards a proposed candidate.

g) Other Expertise
How should we control the introduction others into the Lords with a
range of experience and expertise from areas such as business, public
services, foreign affairs, entertainment, other religions sport etc.?
(Note the Honours System exists to recognise them for achievement and
contribution). With a total cap on the size of the HOL this group
would also be capped. They could be for life which would restrict new
blood coming in, for a fixed term such as 15 years, or with a
compulsory retirement age. They could be nominated by public
suggestion even voted for or selected by an appropriate committee.

I see no reason why these cannot be appointed, perhaps ones that have
worked in an advisory capacity and not aligned to any party. We could
have political and non-political appointees.

Reform along these lines would ensure we maintain an element of
tradition, introduce an element of election, keep political
appointments in line with overall party representation in the HOC and
still provide for the inclusion of specific expertise. It would also
remove the current right of party leaders to nominate whoever and as
many as they wish into the Upper House almost at random.

As I said we have enough political bickering as it is. I'm tired of the
posturing that comes with (re)election.
Constructive comments welcome.

I don't feel the HOL is as important as the HOC. They do not formulate
policy, not can they stop bills being passed. There is also the
principle that any proposal in a manifesto is accepted.

At the very worst the HOL can delay legislation, they cannot stop it.
It is effective at weeding out extreme or ill conceived laws from
knee-jerk reactions to public outcries and pointing out deficiencies.
That only happens because of the tenure of its members, it would cease
to play that role as soon as you have elected members.
Thank you for your feedback
--
bert

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it becomes
very difficult for them to go back to building housing.


--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable
rents for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent
the value of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be
what most first time buyers bought.

And a decade of Labour didn't increase the housing stock to match
demand, similarly Tories and ConDem pact.

Very difficult to reverse such things once Thatcher had sold all the
family silver and given the proceeds away.

Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling off
the family silver. And don't have kids to worry about them being able to
buy a house.

It would seem it was what the public wanted, by the voting. So no point in
crying over spilt milk now.

--
*Prepositions are not words to end sentences with *

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

On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it becomes
very difficult for them to go back to building housing.

Councils can borrow money, and could invest in housing stock if they wanted.

On 21/01/2021 14:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable
rents for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent
the value of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be
what most first time buyers bought.

And a decade of Labour didn't increase the housing stock to match
demand, similarly Tories and ConDem pact.

Very difficult to reverse such things once Thatcher had sold all the
family silver and given the proceeds away.

I still don't see how selling off houses reduced housing? At the time
there was enough housing to go round as evidence by dips in house
values. Now the situation regarding the quantity of housing and demand
for housing is very different

Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling off
the family silver. And don't have kids to worry about them being able to
buy a house.

Selling off the silver hasn't made silver disappear.

It would seem it was what the public wanted, by the voting. So no point in
crying over spilt milk now.

It doesn't stop many whingeing about the referendum.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

as a Housing Manager once said to me: "We've just got left with the rubbish
tenants"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Dave Plowman wrote:

Tim Lamb wrote:

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more.

Is that quite right?

I thought it was that local authorities had to first pay off their debts
with the proceeds, after which they could fund new housing, if they wanted?

On 21/01/2021 16:56, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Tim Lamb wrote:

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more.

Is that quite right?

I'm pretty sure receipts went straight to the Treasury.

This is one article saying this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...housing-crisis

There may be more. I never saw the necessity to offer a discount of the
magnitude offered.

I know someone who recently bought a maisonette. She had come into
inheritance money and would have moved out if there was no discount. All
she needs to do is say she's living there for the next 5 years and she's
made a substantial profit.

I thought it was that local authorities had to first pay off their debts
with the proceeds, after which they could fund new housing, if they wanted?

Found:

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/poli...y-and-prospect

which says, "However, from the outset there were restrictions on local
authorities use of receipts which largely reverted to the Treasury"

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

OK. I wasn't paying attention. Even less likely if they were homeless
with a Tory government?

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it becomes
very difficult for them to go back to building housing.

I was curious where the build money originated. Council borrowing?

I think second homes could have been more heavily taxed without losing
votes as Labour unlikely to refund it:-) My mother actually had a
holiday cottage in Southwold! The farm and farmhouse was a tenanted so I
suppose not strictly a second home.




--
Tim Lamb

nightjar wrote
Fredxx wrote
nightjar wrote

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.

Massive reforms in fact with universal suffrage.

Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have one
that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a system
where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with only
43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest.

That would depend upon what you want them to be accountable for

What they said they would do.

and to whom.

To those that elected them.

If the existing system gives the accountability you want,

It clearly doesnt or he wouldnt have said that.

then the answer would be local list PR.

Bull****. Thats even less accountable than the current FPP system.

That could be virtually indistinguishable from the existing system.

Bull**** it would.

The difference would only come when allocating seats.

More bull****.

Each party would get the same proportion of seats in Parliament as they
got of the popular vote.

And that would mean that no party would get a
majority of the seats and so they would have to
get one of the minor partys to be part of the govt
and that would mean that that minor party would
have far more say on policy than the number of
people who voted for them warrants.

And that would result in very unstable govt as we
have seen with every country that uses the PR system.

That would, of course, mean that results could not be announced until
every constituency had completed its count.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Constituencies are ranked according to the percentage of the local vote
each party got, with the highest ranking being allocated to each party
first. Safe seats would remain safe seats, but some marginal seats might
not get the same MP as they would have under the FPTP system. Instead that
seat could be awarded to a runner up. The constituencies would still get
an MP that had appeared on the local ballot.

There would probably need to be some tweaking of the basic model, to allow
for the fact that we have four nations, three of which have national
parties. However, we are not likely to get PR, as no party in power is
going to sign up to a system that would see the end of one party majority
governments.

And those who bothered to vote in the referendum
said that they didnt want the current system changed.

You get to like that or lump that too.

The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the boys
with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified
more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding the
STV system.

We also have a completely unelected upper house, whose members comprise
some there by right of birth, those who hold high rank in the clergy and
the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but feel
in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the
elected side. While I would like some reform I actually like the present
system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it back for
reconsideration.

I've nothing in principle against the House of Lords.

Hardly real democracy.

I quite like the tradition.

More fool you.

I was simply pointing out that they, unlike the EU Commission, they really
are unelected.

And for that reason it should be scrapped.

On 21/01/2021 18:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
news
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â* Fredxx wrote:
Perhaps some of voted so our children can purchase affordable houses
and
have respectable income. I suppose that could also be considered
borderline selfish.

We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable rents
for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent the
value
of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be what most
first time buyers bought.

I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction
funding, it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Yep, lack of the money to do that.

A number of acts allow LAs to borrow money for investment. Most of that
money goes to commercial/industrial property.

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 05:25:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2021 18:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
news
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Perhaps some of voted so our children can purchase affordable houses
and
have respectable income. I suppose that could also be considered
borderline selfish.

We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable
rents
for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent the
value
of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be what most
first time buyers bought.

I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Yep, lack of the money to do that.

A number of acts allow LAs to borrow money for investment.

But when council houses dont earn
enough to pay for the new house....

Most of that money goes to commercial/industrial property.

Because that usually does pay for itself.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:29:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it becomes
very difficult for them to go back to building housing.


But Labour could have changed the rules and let them keep the money, or
they could have scrapped sale altogether, but they didn't.
--
bert

In article , Fredxx
writes
On 21/01/2021 14:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable
rents for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent
the value of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be
what most first time buyers bought.

And a decade of Labour didn't increase the housing stock to match
demand, similarly Tories and ConDem pact.
Very difficult to reverse such things once Thatcher had sold all the
family silver and given the proceeds away.

I still don't see how selling off houses reduced housing? At the time
there was enough housing to go round as evidence by dips in house
values. Now the situation regarding the quantity of housing and demand
for housing is very different

It didn't. The problem with council housing was that family members
"inherited" the tenancy regardless of need or income so the stock never
came back into the pool. Thatcher was concerned that giving the proceeds
to councils to build more houses would simply kick the cycle off again.
Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling off
the family silver.

Spoken like a true socialist.
And don't have kids to worry about them being able to
buy a house.

Selling off the silver hasn't made silver disappear.

It would seem it was what the public wanted, by the voting. So no point in
crying over spilt milk now.

It doesn't stop many whingeing about the referendum.



--
bert

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:45:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

Of course. If you expect to pay an adult in full time work less than a
living wage you must also expect to subsidise where they live. You can't
keep down a full time job sleeping rough. Now such subsidised housing is
rather rare, the subsidy goes to private landlords via UC etc. And that
private landlord has to make a profit.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it
becomes very difficult for them to go back to building housing.

Councils can borrow money, and could invest in housing stock if they
wanted.

Government have a great deal of control over what councils can and can't
do.

--
*IF YOU TRY TO FAIL, AND SUCCEED, WHICH HAVE YOU DONE?

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Exactly the same principle as you subsidise the poor through universal
credit, etc. Just shifted around.

So you accept selling off houses to those who could afford them removed
some of those subsidies and helped keep rates down.

And prevented them being used in the future by the very people they were
built for.

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 21/01/2021 14:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable
rents for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent
the value of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be
what most first time buyers bought.

And a decade of Labour didn't increase the housing stock to match
demand, similarly Tories and ConDem pact.
Very difficult to reverse such things once Thatcher had sold all the
family silver and given the proceeds away.

I still don't see how selling off houses reduced housing? At the time
there was enough housing to go round as evidence by dips in house
values. Now the situation regarding the quantity of housing and demand
for housing is very different

It didn't. The problem with council housing was that family members
"inherited" the tenancy regardless of need or income so the stock never
came back into the pool. Thatcher was concerned that giving the proceeds
to councils to build more houses would simply kick the cycle off again.

Family of private tenants also inherited the right to carry on living
there. But I'm sure a good Tory like you would prefer them to go to the
workhouse.
Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling
off the family silver.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Very sad the way you Tories think only you are entitled to be well off.
Everyone else should be poor.

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
Exactly the same principle as you subsidise the poor through universal
credit, etc. Just shifted around.

But many council tenants were not poor, cf Bob Crowe.

Do try and keep up, bert. All 'council house' rents being subsidised ended
a very long time ago.

--
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

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

On 22/01/2021 13:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

Of course. If you expect to pay an adult in full time work less than a
living wage you must also expect to subsidise where they live.

The need for a statutory minimum wage is the criminal aspect.
Historically wages were determined by demand rather than statute.
Housing was less of a problem then too.

You can't
keep down a full time job sleeping rough. Now such subsidised housing is
rather rare, the subsidy goes to private landlords via UC etc. And that
private landlord has to make a profit.

Quite, all because of the housing shortage. I recall in the early 2000s
that if you had a house for rent you had more enquiries from estate
agents asking if you would consider selling than from prospective tenant.

Then we had the various Accession treaties courtesy of John Major and
Tony Bliar and we now get whingeing about profits Landlords make. You
really couldn't make it up.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it
becomes very difficult for them to go back to building housing.

Councils can borrow money, and could invest in housing stock if they
wanted.

Government have a great deal of control over what councils can and can't
do.

Quite, even labour controlled governments.

On 22/01/2021 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 21/01/2021 14:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable
rents for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent
the value of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be
what most first time buyers bought.

And a decade of Labour didn't increase the housing stock to match
demand, similarly Tories and ConDem pact.
Very difficult to reverse such things once Thatcher had sold all the
family silver and given the proceeds away.

I still don't see how selling off houses reduced housing? At the time
there was enough housing to go round as evidence by dips in house
values. Now the situation regarding the quantity of housing and demand
for housing is very different

It didn't. The problem with council housing was that family members
"inherited" the tenancy regardless of need or income so the stock never
came back into the pool. Thatcher was concerned that giving the proceeds
to councils to build more houses would simply kick the cycle off again.

Family of private tenants also inherited the right to carry on living
there. But I'm sure a good Tory like you would prefer them to go to the
workhouse.
Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling
off the family silver.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Very sad the way you Tories think only you are entitled to be well off.
Everyone else should be poor.

Quite where the well heeled wanted cheap labour from Eastern Europe or
retired so it no longer mattered.

On 22/01/2021 13:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Exactly the same principle as you subsidise the poor through universal
credit, etc. Just shifted around.

So you accept selling off houses to those who could afford them removed
some of those subsidies and helped keep rates down.

And prevented them being used in the future by the very people they were
built for.

The houses were still there and available for all. There is housing
benefit for those that can't afford the rent.

Council and HA housing is still available for the most vulnerable.

For those that can rent themselves the market is more diversee, with
more properties being available for let than ever before.

Part buy schemes are also now more widely available.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 22/01/2021 13:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

Of course. If you expect to pay an adult in full time work less than a
living wage you must also expect to subsidise where they live.

The need for a statutory minimum wage is the criminal aspect.
Historically wages were determined by demand rather than statute.
Housing was less of a problem then too.

And in many cases, housing went with the job. Not too good if you lost
that job for whatever reason. A way of making employees tow the line
regardless.

You can't keep down a full time job sleeping rough. Now such
subsidised housing is rather rare, the subsidy goes to private
landlords via UC etc. And that private landlord has to make a profit.

Quite, all because of the housing shortage. I recall in the early 2000s
that if you had a house for rent you had more enquiries from estate
agents asking if you would consider selling than from prospective tenant.

There isn't a housing shortage everywhere. If jobs get concentrated in one
part of the country people migrate there leaving empty houses behind.

Then we had the various Accession treaties courtesy of John Major and
Tony Bliar and we now get whingeing about profits Landlords make. You
really couldn't make it up.

I can't justify the desire by some to make a profit out of everything. As
a mantra.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Council and HA housing is still available for the most vulnerable.

Glad you are so confident of that. Now try getting out more. When it is
allowed.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Council and HA housing is still available for the most vulnerable.

Glad you are so confident of that. Now try getting out more. When it is
allowed.

It certainly is round here.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 22/01/2021 16:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 22/01/2021 13:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

Of course. If you expect to pay an adult in full time work less than a
living wage you must also expect to subsidise where they live.

The need for a statutory minimum wage is the criminal aspect.
Historically wages were determined by demand rather than statute.
Housing was less of a problem then too.

And in many cases, housing went with the job. Not too good if you lost
that job for whatever reason. A way of making employees tow the line
regardless.

You can't keep down a full time job sleeping rough. Now such
subsidised housing is rather rare, the subsidy goes to private
landlords via UC etc. And that private landlord has to make a profit.

Quite, all because of the housing shortage. I recall in the early 2000s
that if you had a house for rent you had more enquiries from estate
agents asking if you would consider selling than from prospective tenant.

There isn't a housing shortage everywhere. If jobs get concentrated in one
part of the country people migrate there leaving empty houses behind.

Quite, perhaps the retired should be forced to live there rather than
blocking housing for those who do. As they wouldn't have to endure a 2
hour drive to a job.

As an aside I have often wondered by business rates weren't made a
stronger function of local house prices, to encourage businesses with a
keen eye on costs relocate. Also stamp duty is a further cost of job
relocation.
Then we had the various Accession treaties courtesy of John Major and
Tony Bliar and we now get whingeing about profits Landlords make. You
really couldn't make it up.

I can't justify the desire by some to make a profit out of everything. As
a mantra.

Your desire for many landlords was to stay in the EU to bolster housing
demand as well as provide a cheap source of labour.

On 22/01/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Council and HA housing is still available for the most vulnerable.

Glad you are so confident of that. Now try getting out more. When it is
allowed.

See how long it takes an 80 year old, who is being evicted from her
house, to get LA accommodation.

I'm not the one who needs to get out more. You seem to be out of touch
of what really happens to people most would class as vulnerable.

On 22/01/2021 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:


Spoken like a true socialist.

Very sad the way you Tories think only you are entitled to be well off.
Everyone else should be poor.


That's not the point he was making. I think he was referring to the
hypocrisy of those who opposed council sales on principle but
nevertheless benefited by buying their own council house - or those who
oppose private education for everyone else but have their own kids
privately educated. Do as I say . . .
--
Cheers,
Roger

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/2021 13:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction
funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

Of course. If you expect to pay an adult in full time work less than a
living wage you must also expect to subsidise where they live.

The need for a statutory minimum wage is the criminal aspect. Historically
wages were determined by demand rather than statute.

Housing was less of a problem then too.

Thats bull**** with the slums.

You can't
keep down a full time job sleeping rough. Now such subsidised housing is
rather rare, the subsidy goes to private landlords via UC etc. And that
private landlord has to make a profit.

Quite, all because of the housing shortage. I recall in the early 2000s
that if you had a house for rent you had more enquiries from estate agents
asking if you would consider selling than from prospective tenant.

Then we had the various Accession treaties courtesy of John Major and Tony
Bliar and we now get whingeing about profits Landlords make. You really
couldn't make it up.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it
becomes very difficult for them to go back to building housing.

Councils can borrow money, and could invest in housing stock if they
wanted.

Government have a great deal of control over what councils can and can't
do.

Quite, even labour controlled governments.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/2021 13:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Exactly the same principle as you subsidise the poor through universal
credit, etc. Just shifted around.

So you accept selling off houses to those who could afford them removed
some of those subsidies and helped keep rates down.

And prevented them being used in the future by the very people they were
built for.

The houses were still there

Yes

and available for all.

Nope.

There is housing benefit for those that can't afford the rent.

Which doesnt necessarily prove the rent the landlord requires.

Council and HA housing is still available for the most vulnerable.

But its less clear that there is enough of that.

For those that can rent themselves the market is more diversee, with more
properties being available for let than ever before.

Part buy schemes are also now more widely available.

On 22/01/2021 17:51, Roger Mills wrote:
On 22/01/2021 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* bert wrote:


Spoken like a true socialist.

Very sad the way you Tories think only you are entitled to be well off.
Everyone else should be poor.


That's not the point he was making. I think he was referring to the
hypocrisy of those who opposed council sales on principle but
nevertheless benefited by buying their own council house - or those who
oppose private education for everyone else but have their own kids
privately educated. Do as I say .Â* .Â* .

You miss the point. Socialism is about what you say and how you feel.
How you act simply doesn't enter into it.

You are treading on the face of the working class as an act
of solidarity.

--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 13:25:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 13:29:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Your desire for many landlords was to stay in the EU to bolster housing
demand as well as provide a cheap source of labour.

Just wait and see what happens to the country when there is no longer a
source of labour from elsewhere.

--
*What do you call a dinosaur with an extensive vocabulary? A thesaurus.*

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 22/01/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Council and HA housing is still available for the most vulnerable.

Glad you are so confident of that. Now try getting out more. When it is
allowed.

See how long it takes an 80 year old, who is being evicted from her
house, to get LA accommodation.

I'm not the one who needs to get out more. You seem to be out of touch
of what really happens to people most would class as vulnerable.

We likely have a very different notion as to who is vulnerable.

And not all 80 year olds are vulnerable. Unless you class the POTUS as
vulnerable and in need of state help. ;-)

--
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

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