The tories policies are working

[trev]

So if I buy my breakfast at the same place every day then, by the same logic, if the owner decides to sell it I can realistically expect to be given a massive discount?
I don't have to look very hard to find something to blame for most of the ills afflicting this country today Adam, the majority of them can easily be traced back to thatcherism.

 

[Adam W]

Out of the last 35 years, how many have been under a conservative administration?

22, or 63%. And out of the last 17 years, 13, or 76%, were under a Labour administration.

 

[Octopus]

Out of the last 35 years, how many have been under a conservative administration?

18 by my calcs.

 

[dingledong]

So they are both equally to blame then

 

[Adam W]

So if I buy my breakfast at the same place every day then, by the same logic, if the owner decides to sell it I can realistically expect to be given a massive discount?
I don't have to look very hard to find something to blame for most of the ills afflicting this country today Adam, the majority of them can easily be traced back to thatcherism.

The point I was trying to make is if you put spin on it, ie saying they had a 'right' to buy their house under the aptly named 'right to buy' initiative, it gives it a sense of credibility, ignoring the fact that it was only called that because someone called it that.
As I said earlier, I believe social housing should be allocated based on present need, not whoever demonstrated a need at the time they applied for it and staying there for life and blocking someone who might have a greater need for it.

Using your breakfast example, no you wouldn't expect to get a discount on buying the cafe, but it might be when the new owners took over that you realise for the last 5 years you'd been getting a discount or an extra large helping in recognition of your loyalty. You could look at this pessimistically and say the withdrawal of your discount is some kind of loyalty 'punishment' - having to pay the same as everyone else even after getting a discount for so long... Like the bedroom tax.
The obvious answer is if you don't like having to pay extra for an extra rasher of bacon like everyone else does, then you can go somewhere else. You may have been going there for years, but to the new owner you're just another customer.

 

[Octopus]

22, or 63%. And out of the last 17 years, 13, or 76%, were under a Labour administration.

How do you make 22 - you can't count the current lot as Conservative, because if you do that you may as well include "new" Labour and hey presto the answer is 35.

Maybe thats the answer Trev is looking for!

 

[Adam W]

18 by my calcs.

Depends on whether you count the last 4 years of conservative led coalition.

 

[dingledong]

But without the influx of people coming here all claiming social housing therefore putting a strain on the housing then it would have been ok to stay there for life . Housing would have kept up with growth ; but when the populAtion doubles no way can new housing keep up

 

[Adam W]

How do you make 22 - you can't count the current lot as Conservative, because if you do that you may as well include "new" Labour and hey presto the answer is 35.

Maybe thats the answer Trev is looking for!

Whichever way you look at it Labour have had ample opportunity to reverse any unpopular Conservative policy.
Personally I don't think I'd count the first 11 years while Thatcher was in office because she implemented the policy, so she's hardly going to do a U turn on it, and it's doubtful that Major would have in the 7 years after, so you can only really count the last 17 years; if we're not counting the last 4 years of coalition then Labour have been in power for all of it but still didn't repeal the right to buy.

 

[Octopus]

Whichever way you look at it Labour have had ample opportunity to reverse any unpopular Conservative policy.
Personally I don't think I'd count the first 11 years while Thatcher was in office because she implemented the policy, so she's hardly going to do a U turn on it, and it's doubtful that Major would have in the 7 years after, so you can only really count the last 17 years; if we're not counting the last 4 years of coalition then Labour have been in power for all of it but still didn't repeal the right to buy.

110% correct so how any left leaning voter can blame Thatcher anymore when New Labour had their 13 years is beyond me.

 

[trev]

As I said earlier, I believe social housing should be allocated based on present need, not whoever demonstrated a need at the time they applied for it and staying there for life and blocking someone who might have a greater need for it.

Family A is allocated a house because of their need, family B at a later date needs housing. Are you saying that family A should be made homeless because family B is in greater need?
Your argument doesn't hold water because by evicting family A they are automatically on the list of those in need of priority housing

 

[Octopus]

But without the influx of people coming here all claiming social housing therefore putting a strain on the housing then it would have been ok to stay there for life . Housing would have kept up with growth ; but when the populAtion doubles no way can new housing keep up

I'm not sure this is actually fact.

My opinion is that with the population rising by more than 200,000 per year, and with home building some way below this, the sheer shortage of homes has driven prices up and caused more pressure on incomes and the ability to rent or buy a roof over your head.

If immigration hadn't risen its quite possible the housing starts may have kept pace with the needs of the UK.

what isn't in dispute is the sheer lack of building of council/social housing since about 1970

 

[Adam W]

Family A is allocated a house because of their need, family B at a later date needs housing. Are you saying that family A should be made homeless because family B is in greater need?
Your argument doesn't hold water because by evicting family A they are automatically on the list of those in need of priority housing

If family A were given a 3 bedroom house because they have 4 young children, after all the children have grown up and left home it's inappropriate for a single woman, or even a couple, to still be living in a 3 bedroom house.
Similarly if the bedrooms are occupied by children of working age, or if the woman doesn't want to move out because she considers it her home, they should be charged the market rate; if the woman charged her kids rent like a lot of parents do, she'd be making money out of the welfare system, or if you want to use uglier words she'd be 'defrauding the taxpayer'. Giving the right to buy seems like a happy medium.

 

[Octopus]

If family A were given a 3 bedroom house because they have 4 young children, after all the children have grown up and left home it's inappropriate for a single woman, or even a couple, to still be living in a 3 bedroom house.
Similarly if the bedrooms are occupied by children of working age, or if the woman doesn't want to move out because she considers it her home, they should be charged the market rate; if the woman charged her kids rent like a lot of parents do, she'd be making money out of the welfare system, or if you want to use uglier words she'd be 'defrauding the taxpayer'. Giving the right to buy seems like a happy medium.

What Councils need to do is go round and check that the residents in the houses are those that the Council have let them too.

Recently I heard a story on the radio where a family had been able to fund their "own" home off the profit they were making sub-letting their Council house - ie. family pays low rent to Council, but lets house at market rate.

Its all a shambles and IF and I say IF Gordon Brown had embarked on a massive house building splurge rather than the off balance sheet, lets commit out Grand Children to PFI deals then may be the lefties would have a point.

Lets also not forget that Gordon Browns raid on the private pension funds ruined millions of peoples retirements. Mine included.

 

[dingledong]

Most parents do not charge their children proper rent
Also most children if they could afford would not live at home with their parents

 

[Octopus]

Most parents do not charge their children proper rent
Also most children if they could afford would not live at home with their parents

Always been like that.

Eons ago when I was at home, my mum took about 25% of my take home pay, my best mates mother took about 5% of his pay!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

A friend of mine died a month or so back.
He was on disability benefits, which were stopped.
He had to get rid of his car and find a job.
Second day at work he had a heart attack.
One less sponger to support.

 

[trev]

Let's see how the right wingers justify that one.

 

[Guest77]

Let's see how the right wingers justify that one.

Yes agreed, over to Adam, Tel, Dongle and Murdoch then

 

[dingledong]

Oh come on how could anyone comment on that ? ?
Why was he on benefits in the first place?
Why was he taken of them
Was he completely taken of benefits ? ?
I can't see that but knowing how stupid some of the staff are it's possible
If a man came to me who had been on disability benefits I would be careful before giving him a job as he has been an unwell person !
And your saying the job was to blame for the heart attack ? ? ? ?