In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
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 . . .

I'm not against the sale of council houses in priciple. Making them
available at well below the true value, a different matter. And not
allowing the proceeds to be used to build more, disgraceful.

--
*Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.*

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

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

There always will be, even post BRexit, you watch.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 03:41:41 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

03:41??? So you've been up and trolling for OVER TWO HOURS already, you sick
subnormal degenerate swine! tsk

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

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

Wages will go up esp for the low paid. Then they won't vote Labour
(except for the overpaid luvvies at the BBC).
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

But that was the point, they weren't going to be available for those who
needed them.
--
bert

In article , charles
writes
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.

+1
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

You have no argument at all.

You show the blinkered socialist view. No room for alternative
solutions.
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.

Labour needs the poor to vote for them, that's why they keep them poor
and on benefits.
--
bert

In article , Roger Mills
writes
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 . . .
quite
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
Hypothetical question. I don't believe in the socialist benefit
culture.

Ah - right. I then hope you refuse any NHS treatment and of course the
OAP.


I've paid rather a lot in during my lifetime as insurance and not taken
a great deal out.

But you talk about benefit culture?

That generally means you think you are entitled to what you've paid for.
Everyone else being scroungers.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
Do try and keep up, Bert. Those luvvies are not BBC employees. The BBC
simply has to pay the going rate. And if they lose audience, it suggests
the BBC can't afford the best.

Oh no they were (wrongly) advised by the BBC to be self employed to
avoid tax and NI.

Perhaps you'd let us all know those in front of the microphone or camera
are full time BBC staff? Rather than on a fixed term contract?

They are supposedly the best. The BBC sets the rate.

BTW, it would be a very unusual radio programme that used autocue.

BT can't you hold more than one idea in your head at any one time?

Bit difficult when you jump around so much. Your jealously of others seems
to have affected your reason.

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

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

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Hypothetical question. I don't believe in the socialist benefit
culture.

Ah - right. I then hope you refuse any NHS treatment and of course the
OAP.


I've paid rather a lot in during my lifetime as insurance and not taken
a great deal out.

But you talk about benefit culture?

That generally means you think you are entitled to what you've paid for.
Everyone else being scroungers.

Fort he record I am happy with the welfare state as a safety net fort
hose of working age and to provide for those above or below working age.
and have contributed to that all my life. However you were implying that
working v benefits should be a lifestyle choice which I disagree with.
No-one is owed a living.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Do try and keep up, Bert. Those luvvies are not BBC employees. The BBC
simply has to pay the going rate. And if they lose audience, it suggests
the BBC can't afford the best.

Oh no they were (wrongly) advised by the BBC to be self employed to
avoid tax and NI.

Perhaps you'd let us all know those in front of the microphone or camera
are full time BBC staff? Rather than on a fixed term contract?
Just another tax fiddle by the BBC.


They are supposedly the best. The BBC sets the rate.

BTW, it would be a very unusual radio programme that used autocue.

BT can't you hold more than one idea in your head at any one time?

Bit difficult when you jump around so much. Your jealously of others seems
to have affected your reason.

I admire those who go out into a competitive market and do well. I
dislike those who hide behind cartels and monopolies.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Hypothetical question. I don't believe in the socialist benefit
culture.

Ah - right. I then hope you refuse any NHS treatment and of course the
OAP.


I've paid rather a lot in during my lifetime as insurance and not taken
a great deal out.

But you talk about benefit culture?

That generally means you think you are entitled to what you've paid for.
Everyone else being scroungers.

Fort he record I am happy with the welfare state as a safety net fort
hose of working age and to provide for those above or below working age.
and have contributed to that all my life. However you were implying that
working v benefits should be a lifestyle choice which I disagree with.
No-one is owed a living.

Typical. Comments on a point he hopes has been made rather than the one
that was.

There are lots of jobs around many won't do for any likely increase in the
rate for them. And if you reduce the work force - as you want to - there
will be even fewer wanting to do those sort of jobs.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

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

On 27/01/2021 21:06, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â* bert wrote:
Hypothetical question. I don't believe in the socialist benefit
culture.

Ah - right. I then hope you refuse any NHS treatment and of course the
OAP.


I've paid rather a lot in during my lifetime as insurance and not taken
a great deal out.

But you talk about benefit culture?

That generally means you think you are entitled to what you've paid for.
Everyone else being scroungers.

Fort he record I am happy with the welfare state as a safety net fort
hose of working age and to provide for those above or below working age.
and have contributed to that all my life. However you were implying that
working v benefits should be a lifestyle choice which I disagree with.

Means testing creates that life-style choice. As soon as you spend your
day working for no money, or sometimes less, it tends to focus such choices.

No-one is owed a living.

Maybe not, but if we create a system incorporting means testing, the
choice of lifestyle becomes inherent.

For many the national minimum wage is a mockery of how much you actually
end up with in your pocket working vs benefits.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Hypothetical question. I don't believe in the socialist benefit
culture.

Ah - right. I then hope you refuse any NHS treatment and of course the
OAP.


I've paid rather a lot in during my lifetime as insurance and not taken
a great deal out.

But you talk about benefit culture?

That generally means you think you are entitled to what you've paid for.
Everyone else being scroungers.

Fort he record I am happy with the welfare state as a safety net fort
hose of working age and to provide for those above or below working age.
and have contributed to that all my life. However you were implying that
working v benefits should be a lifestyle choice which I disagree with.
No-one is owed a living.

Typical. Comments on a point he hopes has been made rather than the one
that was.

That was precisely the point you made.
There are lots of jobs around many won't do for any likely increase in the
rate for them. And if you reduce the work force - as you want to - there
will be even fewer wanting to do those sort of jobs.

And you make it again.
--
bert

On 23/01/2021 12:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


There is always a source of labour from elsewhere, witness the amount of
immigrants wishing to enter the UK.

In article ,
Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 23/01/2021 12:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


There is always a source of labour from elsewhere, witness the amount of
immigrants wishing to enter the UK.

And I thought one of the main reasons many voted Brexit was to reduce
immigration?

Mainly the likes of Bert who think they get a house, smart phone and flat
screen TV etc for free the second they set foot on our soil.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

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

On 27/01/2021 21:09, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â* bert wrote:
Do try and keep up, Bert. Those luvvies are not BBC employees. The BBC
simply has to pay the going rate. And if they lose audience, it
suggests
the BBC can't afford the best.

Oh no they were (wrongly) advised by the BBC to be self employed to
avoid tax and NI.

Perhaps you'd let us all know those in front of the microphone or camera
are full time BBC staff? Rather than on a fixed term contract?

Just another tax fiddle by the BBC.

Hardly a fiddle, more an example of where unearned income is taxed at a
lower rate than earned. Where payments reflect the flexibility of the
contractor and the down-time of an employee.

Have you always worked as an employee?

They are supposedly the best. The BBC sets the rate.

BTW, it would be a very unusual radio programme that used autocue.

BT can't you hold more than one idea in your head at any one time?

Bit difficult when you jump around so much. Your jealously of others
seems
to have affected your reason.


I admire those who go out into a competitive market and do well. I
dislike those who hide behind cartels and monopolies.

There are quite a few of those, solicitors, barristers, doctors,
architects, electricians, plumbers to name a few.

On 28/01/2021 16:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 23/01/2021 12:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


There is always a source of labour from elsewhere, witness the amount of
immigrants wishing to enter the UK.

And I thought one of the main reasons many voted Brexit was to reduce
immigration?

I think it has:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...ers-in-the-uk/

Although migration from outside the EU has been creeping up, probably
from a more level playing field of opportunity.

Those are the most recent figures I can find and I would expect less EU
immigration post January 2021.

Mainly the likes of Bert who think they get a house, smart phone and flat
screen TV etc for free the second they set foot on our soil.

I sincerely doubt Bert thinks that. If he does then I would accept he is
a fool.

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Do try and keep up, Bert. Those luvvies are not BBC employees. The
BBC simply has to pay the going rate. And if they lose audience, it
suggests the BBC can't afford the best.

Oh no they were (wrongly) advised by the BBC to be self employed to
avoid tax and NI.

Perhaps you'd let us all know those in front of the microphone or
camera are full time BBC staff? Rather than on a fixed term contract?
Just another tax fiddle by the BBC.


They are supposedly the best. The BBC sets the rate.

BTW, it would be a very unusual radio programme that used autocue.

BT can't you hold more than one idea in your head at any one time?

Bit difficult when you jump around so much. Your jealously of others seems
to have affected your reason.

I admire those who go out into a competitive market and do well. I
dislike those who hide behind cartels and monopolies.

Then you must love all those in front of the microphone and camera. There
is very little which is more competitive.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

On 21/01/2021 02:46 pm, 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.

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

What money would councils used to build council houses in an alternative
reality where the RTB hadn't existed?

Whatever it was, the RTB rules didn't apply to it.

On 21/01/2021 04:00 pm, charles wrote:

Fredxx wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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"

That is a general view within the social housing sector.

On 22/01/2021 01:37 pm, 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. 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.

And quite right too.

All powers possessed by local authorities, statutory authorities and
QUANGOs were granted by, and exist at the pleasure of, Parliament.

Councils don't have some sort of inalienable right to even exist, let
alone do as they like.

On 22/01/2021 04:08 pm, Fredxx wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* 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.

Up to a point.

At the turn of the twentieth century, a vast majority of households
rented their homes (90% or more) and there were hardly any council
properties. That started to change by 1920. Nowadays, around two-thirds
of homes are owner-occupied with the rest split between market renting
and subsidised renting (the availability of housing benefit being a
separate issue).

All those grid pattern streets you see in any British town or city were
built speculatively by private enterprise for rent. They were built to
the standards then seen as desirable and though much of the stock was
ageing by 1900, current expected standards had changed and recognisable
modern facilities were by then the norm for new-build houses, whether
for rent or purchase. Even older houses weren't always substandard. When
I was a small boy, the family lived in a large (rented) Georgian house
in what is now referred to as the "Knowledge Quarter" of Liverpool. The
house had a garden (of sorts), two kitchens and two bathrooms. It was
eventually demolished simply because the re-purposed use of the land (as
part of a professorial car-park within the science faculty of the city's
ever-expanding university) was somehow seen as preferable. Otherwise,
people could still be living in that house today, when it would be
around 200 years old.

One of the stumbling blocks for improvement (and to some extent, repair)
of the older and substandard stock was that rents were not always
sufficient to finance them. This was addressed to some extent by the
availability of local authority grants to help with the installation of
bathrooms, better kitchens, inside toilets, etc. But a frequent response
from local authorities on application was something along the lines:
"Nowt doin'. We'll be CP-ing and demolishing that street in 19xx".

Part buy schemes are also now more widely available.

I'm never sure about their target market.

In article , JNugent
writes
On 22/01/2021 01:37 pm, 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. 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.

And quite right too.

All powers possessed by local authorities, statutory authorities and
QUANGOs were granted by, and exist at the pleasure of, Parliament.

Unfortunately they didn't quite think that through with devolution.
Councils don't have some sort of inalienable right to even exist, let
alone do as they like.

--
bert

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:54:57 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


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

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:48:39 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

Found another lonely senile twit who will gladly take your baits, you lonely
sociopathic senile troll? G

--
Senile Rodent about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

On 11/03/2021 09:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

So what money were council houses originally built with?

After the war, the war rebuilding money.

What was that?

Assisting those who had been bombed out etc
and part of that was more council houses.

Where did it come from?

Treasury.

The Treasury *still* dispenses massive largesse every year in the
form of grants to housing associations.

But not for building more council houses since Maggie
started selling them off and stopped councils from spending
the revenue from the selloffs on new council houses.

There is a disconnect between those two ideas.

Nope.

The suggestion that the reason why councils don't build many council
properties is that they aren't allowed to use the revenue from council
house sales is a ludicrous argument.

It is a fact that Maggie wouldnt let councils spend the money they
got from selling council houses on building more council houses.

I am aware of that. If you sold your house, would you expect the
mortgage on it to be kept running?

Of course you wouldn't. Everyone would expect you to pay it off with (at
least part of) the proceeds of sale. Whether that debt lay with the
council or the Treasury is unimportant. the point is that the money
isn't for spending until the account is debt-free.

It could never have been a source of capital for building council
houses in the first place.

Never said it was. But it does explain why they
didnt build more when some were sold to
their tenants when Maggie encouraged that.

I (and plenty of others) have explained that.

When councils and the Treasury are debt free, that'll be the time to
spend the proceeds of sales. In the meantime, they should be used to
reduce debt.

Before the war, the slum clearances money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house#History

Again, from the taxpayer?

Thats all it can ever come from.

Apparently not, because there are those who insist that the money
raised from private buyers of council property (the former tenants)
should be used too (instead of using it to reduce public debt).

Those are still taxpayers.

Sophistry.

And councils had to buy "slum" housing from its owners. It wasn't
free. Almost, but not quite.

Sure, but we are discussing who paid for the replacements of those
slums with council housing.

Has that source of capital been stopped up?

Not stopped up so much as no longer needed given that
there are far fewer slums that need to be cleared now.

If so, when?

When the massive slum clearance programs ceased.

And if so, why?

Because the slums had been cleared.

Especially when housing associations are *still* building?

Thats an alternative to council houses that the govt now prefers to fund.

Possibly because they have a better reputation for maintenance and
management than councils have.

But HA tenants don't have the right to buy, which is disgraceful.

It obviously has nothing to do with the sales of council property or
the proceeds therefrom.

Corse it does when Maggie didnt allow councils to spend
what they collected from the sale of council houses to the
tenants of those house on new council houses.

Explained already.

JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

So what money were council houses originally built with?

After the war, the war rebuilding money.

What was that?

Assisting those who had been bombed out etc
and part of that was more council houses.

Where did it come from?

Treasury.

The Treasury *still* dispenses massive largesse every year in the form
of grants to housing associations.

But not for building more council houses since Maggie
started selling them off and stopped councils from spending
the revenue from the selloffs on new council houses.

There is a disconnect between those two ideas.

Nope.

The suggestion that the reason why councils don't build many council
properties is that they aren't allowed to use the revenue from council
house sales is a ludicrous argument.

It is a fact that Maggie wouldnt let councils spend the money they
got from selling council houses on building more council houses.

I am aware of that.

If you sold your house, would you expect the mortgage on it to be kept
running?

Irrelevant to how council house building is funded.
They were never funded by mortgages written by
treasury with the council being the mortgagee.

Of course you wouldn't. Everyone would expect you to pay it off with (at
least part of) the proceeds of sale. Whether that debt lay with the
council or the Treasury is unimportant.

There was never a repayable debt with Treasury with council house funding.

the point is that the money isn't for spending until the account is
debt-free.

There was never a repayable debt with Treasury with council house funding.

It could never have been a source of capital for building council houses
in the first place.

Never said it was. But it does explain why they
didnt build more when some were sold to
their tenants when Maggie encouraged that.

I (and plenty of others) have explained that.

Nope.

When councils and the Treasury are debt free, that'll be the time to spend
the proceeds of sales. In the meantime, they should be used to reduce
debt.

There was never a debt with treasury with council houses.

And irrelevant to why treasury no longer
funds the building of new council houses.

Before the war, the slum clearances money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house#History

Again, from the taxpayer?

Thats all it can ever come from.

Apparently not, because there are those who insist that the money raised
from private buyers of council property (the former tenants) should be
used too (instead of using it to reduce public debt).

Those are still taxpayers.

Sophistry.

Fact actually.

And councils had to buy "slum" housing from its owners. It wasn't
free. Almost, but not quite.

Sure, but we are discussing who paid for the replacements of those
slums with council housing.

Has that source of capital been stopped up?

Not stopped up so much as no longer needed given that
there are far fewer slums that need to be cleared now.

If so, when?

When the massive slum clearance programs ceased.

And if so, why?

Because the slums had been cleared.

Especially when housing associations are *still* building?

Thats an alternative to council houses that the govt now prefers to
fund.

Possibly because they have a better reputation for maintenance and
management than councils have.

Much more likely just a change of fashion like with the change
to public/private combination for funding infrastructure and
nationalisation which is now very out of fashion except with
fools like Corbyn and with how university and college fees etc.

But HA tenants don't have the right to buy, which is disgraceful.

It obviously has nothing to do with the sales of council property or the
proceeds therefrom.

Corse it does when Maggie didnt allow councils to spend
what they collected from the sale of council houses to the
tenants of those house on new council houses.

Explained already.

Nope, yours is a claim, which is wrong, and not an explanation.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:30:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 12/03/2021 06:30 am, Rod Speed wrote:
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

So what money were council houses originally built with?

After the war, the war rebuilding money.

What was that?

Assisting those who had been bombed out etc
and part of that was more council houses.

Where did it come from?

Treasury.

The Treasury *still* dispenses massive largesse every year in the
form of grants to housing associations.

But not for building more council houses since Maggie
started selling them off and stopped councils from spending
the revenue from the selloffs on new council houses.

There is a disconnect between those two ideas.

Nope.

The suggestion that the reason why councils don't build many council
properties is that they aren't allowed to use the revenue from
council house sales is a ludicrous argument.

It is a fact that Maggie wouldnt let councils spend the money they
got from selling council houses on building more council houses.

I am aware of that.

If you sold your house, would you expect the mortgage on it to be kept
running?

Irrelevant to how council house building is funded.

Wrong.

Council house building is "funded" (a weasel word meaning "paid for") by
people like me, by the simple process of incurring debt on which *I*
(and people like me) each have to pay part of the interest.

It is plainly in our interest to have that debt extinguished as soon as
possible, and that means when capital becomes available on the sale of
the property.

They were never funded by mortgages written by
treasury with the council being the mortgagee.

They were still paid for (not "funded") by loans raised upon the backs
of taxpayers.

Of course you wouldn't. Everyone would expect you to pay it off with
(at least part of) the proceeds of sale. Whether that debt lay with
the council or the Treasury is unimportant.

There was never a repayable debt with Treasury with council house funding.

Wrong.

the point is that the money isn't for spending until the account is
debt-free.

There was never a repayable debt with Treasury with council house funding.

Wrong again. There is *huge* public debt.

It could never have been a source of capital for building council
houses in the first place.

Never said it was. But it does explain why they
didnt build more when some were sold to
their tenants when Maggie encouraged that.

I (and plenty of others) have explained that.

Nope.

When councils and the Treasury are debt free, that'll be the time to
spend the proceeds of sales. In the meantime, they should be used to
reduce debt.

There was never a debt with treasury with council houses.

How many times are you going to repeat that falsehood?

And irrelevant to why treasury no longer
funds the building of new council houses.

Before the war, the slum clearances money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house#History

Again, from the taxpayer?

Thats all it can ever come from.

Apparently not, because there are those who insist that the money
raised from private buyers of council property (the former tenants)
should be used too (instead of using it to reduce public debt).

Those are still taxpayers.

Sophistry.

Fact actually.

Sophistry is usually a truth dressed up so as to be interpreted as
something it is not. That's what the word means. Your statement was
sophistry.

And councils had to buy "slum" housing from its owners. It wasn't
free. Almost, but not quite.

Sure, but we are discussing who paid for the replacements of those
slums with council housing.

Has that source of capital been stopped up?

Not stopped up so much as no longer needed given that
there are far fewer slums that need to be cleared now.

If so, when?

When the massive slum clearance programs ceased.

And if so, why?

Because the slums had been cleared.

Especially when housing associations are *still* building?

Thats an alternative to council houses that the govt now prefers to
fund.

Possibly because they have a better reputation for maintenance and
management than councils have.

Much more likely just a change of fashion like with the change
to public/private combination for funding infrastructure and
nationalisation which is now very out of fashion except with
fools like Corbyn and with how university and college fees etc.

But HA tenants don't have the right to buy, which is disgraceful.

It obviously has nothing to do with the sales of council property or
the proceeds therefrom.

Corse it does when Maggie didnt allow councils to spend
what they collected from the sale of council houses to the
tenants of those house on new council houses.

Explained already.

Nope, yours is a claim, which is wrong, and not an explanation.

JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

So what money were council houses originally built with?

After the war, the war rebuilding money.

What was that?

Assisting those who had been bombed out etc
and part of that was more council houses.

Where did it come from?

Treasury.

The Treasury *still* dispenses massive largesse every year in the
form of grants to housing associations.

But not for building more council houses since Maggie
started selling them off and stopped councils from spending
the revenue from the selloffs on new council houses.

There is a disconnect between those two ideas.

Nope.

The suggestion that the reason why councils don't build many council
properties is that they aren't allowed to use the revenue from council
house sales is a ludicrous argument.

It is a fact that Maggie wouldnt let councils spend the money they
got from selling council houses on building more council houses.

I am aware of that.

If you sold your house, would you expect the mortgage on it to be kept
running?

Irrelevant to how council house building is funded.

Wrong.

We'll see...

Council house building is "funded" (a weasel word meaning "paid for") by
people like me, by the simple process of incurring debt on which *I* (and
people like me) each have to pay part of the interest.

But doesnt involve any element of mortgage that needs
to be paid off if the property is sold to the current tenant.

It is plainly in our interest to have that debt extinguished as soon as
possible,

Not if you believe and many do, that council
houses that are sold to the existing tenants
should be replaced with new council housing
so there is a continuing stock of council
housing for those who need council houses.

And I dont include parasites like Corbyn in that.

and that means when capital becomes available on the sale of the property.

See above.

They were never funded by mortgages written by
treasury with the council being the mortgagee.

They were still paid for (not "funded") by loans raised upon the backs of
taxpayers.

Not necessarily in times of no deficit. In those
times they are funded by taxation revenue.

Of course you wouldn't. Everyone would expect you to pay it off with (at
least part of) the proceeds of sale. Whether that debt lay with the
council or the Treasury is unimportant.

There was never a repayable debt with Treasury with council house
funding.

Wrong.

Nope.

the point is that the money isn't for spending until the account is
debt-free.

There was never a repayable debt with Treasury with council house
funding.

Wrong again. There is *huge* public debt.

But that doesnt need to be repaid if you believe
and many do, that council houses that are sold to
the existing tenants should be replaced with new
council housing so there is a continuing stock of
council housing for those who need council houses.

It could never have been a source of capital for building council
houses in the first place.

Never said it was. But it does explain why they
didnt build more when some were sold to
their tenants when Maggie encouraged that.

I (and plenty of others) have explained that.

Nope.

When councils and the Treasury are debt free, that'll be the time to
spend the proceeds of sales. In the meantime, they should be used to
reduce debt.

There was never a debt with treasury with council houses.

How many times are you going to repeat that falsehood?

For as often as you keep running your erroneous line.

And irrelevant to why treasury no longer
funds the building of new council houses.

Before the war, the slum clearances money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house#History

Again, from the taxpayer?

Thats all it can ever come from.

Apparently not, because there are those who insist that the money
raised from private buyers of council property (the former tenants)
should be used too (instead of using it to reduce public debt).

Those are still taxpayers.

Sophistry.

Fact actually.

Sophistry is usually a truth dressed up so as to be interpreted as
something it is not. That's what the word means. Your statement was
sophistry.

Nope, fact, actually.

And councils had to buy "slum" housing from its owners. It wasn't
free. Almost, but not quite.

Sure, but we are discussing who paid for the replacements of those
slums with council housing.

Has that source of capital been stopped up?

Not stopped up so much as no longer needed given that
there are far fewer slums that need to be cleared now.

If so, when?

When the massive slum clearance programs ceased.

And if so, why?

Because the slums had been cleared.

Especially when housing associations are *still* building?

Thats an alternative to council houses that the govt now prefers to
fund.

Possibly because they have a better reputation for maintenance and
management than councils have.

Much more likely just a change of fashion like with the change
to public/private combination for funding infrastructure and
nationalisation which is now very out of fashion except with
fools like Corbyn and with how university and college fees etc.

But HA tenants don't have the right to buy, which is disgraceful.

It obviously has nothing to do with the sales of council property or
the proceeds therefrom.

Corse it does when Maggie didnt allow councils to spend
what they collected from the sale of council houses to the
tenants of those house on new council houses.

Explained already.

Nope, yours is a claim, which is wrong, and not an explanation.