Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Council Houses


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 15,977 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 12:51 AM

Ipswich have built their first new council houses in a generation.  For me, that's a sign that at least some parts of the Labour party are working properly...  I'd be removing right-to-buy on them though, that's one area where I'd be happy to live with the consequences of people grumbling that they missed out on.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,422 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 06:14 AM

30 council houses in Methven, the first in 25 years.

 

Right to buy suspended by Perth an Kinross Council, to be abolished by Scottish Governmrnt in the near future.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#3 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,010 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 09:03 AM

Right to buy, along with other Thatcherite policies to pump prime the owner occupier housing market, are the main reasons for our current housing crisis. The only remedy is to build more social housing and to adopt a housing model akin to that of continental European nations.

#4 Bigal02

Bigal02
  • Coach
  • 115 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:12 AM

My Tory friends say that Thatcher saved Britain.  I reply that I read that North Sea Oil came fully on-line to the tune of £300 billion.  Add the revenues from the sales of Gas, Electricity, water and BT (the family silver).  Put that all together and you've got a fund to beat the miners and shut the pits.

 

We've ended up with no gain from the oil, and our utilities owned by foreign companies!

 

I've also read that the USA, the most capitalistic country in the world will not allow foreign companies own a majority share of what they consider essential utilities.


  • Trojan horse likes this

#5 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,265 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:13 AM

I'm in favour of the principle of right-to-buy. The problem with the original Thatcher scheme was that the councils had to hand the sale-fee over to her government, leaving the councils with no money to re-invest.

 

Otherwise, decent hardworking tenants just hang about until they can afford to buy somewhere else. In the meantime, they won't do even minor maintenance on their properties.

The council is then left with an overly-large proportion of tenants who won't work and/or don't pay their rent.   Eventually , decent  tenants who can't afford to buy are driven by their bad neighbourhood/neighbours to move out to privately-rented property. In large conurbations, the councils end up with ghetto estates, no income and a vastly increased maintenance/repair programme.

 

In Bradford, we've ended up with estates that are perceived as "good" or "bad". We've got one estate where taxis are refusing to enter and another where longstanding tenants are keen to leave because of the large number of gypsy residents.

 

Certainly in Wales, longstanding tenants could buy either their own house or another vacant council house ... that's what my parents did.

Thus, though it wasn't their case, if you wanted to buy a house on a "better" estate, you could just wait until one became vacant.

 

In fairness to Bradford council, I am advised that it is trying to promote mixed-occupancy developments of affordable-home properties. However, I would think that the bad council estates will continue to get worse and the good council estates will continue to get better for the forseeable future.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#6 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,175 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:38 AM

In my view,  this is one for housing associations, properly constituted and financed for the long term, independent of govt of any flavour, with an ability to buy properties on the open market and engage in small  brownfield in-fill developments.

 

Councils must not build houses. Its too contentious an issue and can lead to all sorts of unsavory social engineering as in Westminster, Tower Hamlets, Sheffield, Manchester etc. Also vulnerable to changes in govt etc.

 

Of course, what they do in the Soviet Socialist People's Paradise of Scotland is up to them - they 've a great record in social housing!!.  Anyway, they'll be off on their own any day now, fortunately.


Edited by JohnM, 18 December 2013 - 10:39 AM.


#7 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,712 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 03:02 PM

Given the volume and size of former public houses standing empty and unlikely to ever open there doors again, would it not be worth looking to covert these into social housing before the fabric of the building detriates to a point that the only option is to knock them down and let a private housebuilder build the most profitable houses they can get away with on the land?


  • Kenilworth Tiger likes this

On Friday 28th March I'm taking part in the Wigan Streetsleep, raising money for The Brick charity who try to ensure nobody in Wigan finding themselves homeless spends a 2nd night on the streets and providing help and support via a foodbank.  Every penny counts so if you can spare anything at all its much appreciated - this link will take you to my sponsorship page thanks.


#8 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,602 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 03:49 PM

My Tory friends say that Thatcher saved Britain.  I reply that I read that North Sea Oil came fully on-line to the tune of £300 billion.  Add the revenues from the sales of Gas, Electricity, water and BT (the family silver).  Put that all together and you've got a fund to beat the miners and shut the pits.

 

We've ended up with no gain from the oil, and our utilities owned by foreign companies!

 

I've also read that the USA, the most capitalistic country in the world will not allow foreign companies own a majority share of what they consider essential utilities.

No gain?

 

Hardly.

 

I'm not going to say that Thatcher's "victory" wasn't a very high cost but to say that there was no gain is absurd.

 

When she came in, we were struggling to pay the bills, inflation had sky-rocketed and our GDP per capita was well below the likes of France and Belgium. These days French people come to England to look for work.

 

The "family silver" was worth nothing to the state, it lost money, even if it had been given away free, it would have been an improvement.

 

edit: and before anyone brings it up, she was fortunate about the North Sea oil coming on-line. Imagine what the 80s would have been like without it!


Edited by Northern Sol, 18 December 2013 - 03:53 PM.


#9 Bigal02

Bigal02
  • Coach
  • 115 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 12:31 AM

The forces lose money! The NHS loses money!  The governance of the county loses money! How much profit do they make?   Let's give them away too.  If France or some other country can supply cheaper defence, then that's the way to go.

 

Personally, I  think that essential services should be (I'm going to use the 'N' word here), nationalised.  Services, by their very nature, shouldn't be profit making.  Look what a spiffing job the privatised banks did.  Bad management is bad management, regardless of who owns the business.


  • WearyRhino likes this

#10 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,602 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 02:12 AM

The forces lose money! The NHS loses money!  The governance of the county loses money! How much profit do they make?   Let's give them away too.  If France or some other country can supply cheaper defence, then that's the way to go.

 

Personally, I  think that essential services should be (I'm going to use the 'N' word here), nationalised.  Services, by their very nature, shouldn't be profit making.  Look what a spiffing job the privatised banks did.  Bad management is bad management, regardless of who owns the business.

Defence and the NHS are services that don't charge and could only ever "lose" money under such circumstances. Certainly if it was possible for them to be free but also make a profit, I wouldn't be against it, would you?

 

Gas, water, phones, electricity, telephones etc are things you expect to pay for. Unless you are suggesting that we scrap the whole concept of "gas bill" and just give it away free then I really don't see how they are comparable.

 

I don't care whether EDF is French or not. Could you tell me exactly why it matters? If we are going down the "national security" line, I would remind you that FRance is a NATO country and we have already agreed on mutual defence with them.



#11 Bigal02

Bigal02
  • Coach
  • 115 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 09:25 AM

After privatisation, the gas in Morecambe Bay gas field was sold cheaply to France to make a quick profit for investors. We are now importing gas and paying more for it.

 

I didn't say, nor intimate, that the gas, water etc. should be free.  I stress again it is only my opinion, but I think essential utilities, water, gas and electricity should be under government control and not left to the vagaries of the market.  Rail fares are capped.  Do you think they should be allowed to charge what they like? 

 

I hoped that by writing "France or some other country", you would realise I was using the ever reliable France (who left NATO in 1966 and only re-joined in 2009),as an example,


  • WearyRhino likes this

#12 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,810 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:38 AM

Strange how during WW2 everything was essentially nationalised and not left to the much more "efficient" free market!!

Surely some entrepreneur would have floated a few Spitfires on the market to see how they went!

It would have been a real stick in the eye for the centralised nazis!!
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#13 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,175 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 11:51 AM

Its a point of view. However, things were not that good for the population in general during the war ( no, I wasn't there - missed it by nearly a year).  IIRC, the Spitfire was designed before the war, first flight 1936 manufactured by a commercial company to meet a spec issued by the Air Ministry. I think L'Ange will be able to enlarge on that.



#14 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 14,702 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:01 PM

No gain?

 

Hardly.

 

I'm not going to say that Thatcher's "victory" wasn't a very high cost but to say that there was no gain is absurd.

 

When she came in, we were struggling to pay the bills, inflation had sky-rocketed and our GDP per capita was well below the likes of France and Belgium. These days French people come to England to look for work.

 

The "family silver" was worth nothing to the state, it lost money, even if it had been given away free, it would have been an improvement.

 

edit: and before anyone brings it up, she was fortunate about the North Sea oil coming on-line. Imagine what the 80s would have been like without it!

No inflation was down to 8% when she came in, and funnily enough it was about the same level when she left office. It certainly skyrocketed during the early seventies,but that was down to a. Anthony Barber the demon printer and b. and inconclusive election result in February 1974, so that the incoming Labour government didn't tackle the problem in time.  Thatcher said all we had to do was diminish Union power and all our problems would be over.  Well the Unions are weaker than they have ever been and wages are declining, thus the standard of living of most people in this country is declining, most of this is down to successive governments of both colours following Thatcherite policies. God help us!


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#15 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 14,702 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:09 PM

Its a point of view. However, things were not that good for the population in general during the war ( no, I wasn't there - missed it by nearly a year).  IIRC, the Spitfire was designed before the war, first flight 1936 manufactured by a commercial company to meet a spec issued by the Air Ministry. I think L'Ange will be able to enlarge on that.

But aircraft production (along with production of everything else) was government controlled in WWII.  Food supplies were rationed, but most people got better nutrition in this period than at any time before or since.

People will stick to slogans  "free enterprise is best" is very misleading.  In the canal age it was free enterprise that produced two non compatible (commercially anyway) canal systems in the South/Midlands and the North. In the railway age it was free enterprise that produced two separate railway gauges, it was free enterprise that produce VHS and Betamax, 45rpm & 33rpm records, cassettes and 8 track stereo.  That's what free enterprise does, and in any such competition, those who back the wrong horse end up paying double.  Free enterprise may work - occasionally - what doesn't work is slavishly following a slogan.


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#16 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,175 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 09:45 AM

No quite like that, though was it. Better nutrition?  Hardly, and  in any case,  why debut the phrase  " Free enterprise is best" ?  Where did that come from?



#17 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,077 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 03:14 PM

No quite like that, though was it. Better nutrition?  Hardly, and  in any case,  why debut the phrase  " Free enterprise is best" ?  Where did that come from?

Better nutrition?  Hardly

 

It is a matter of record that for many their health improved during rationing of WWII:

 

The results—kept secret until after the war—gave the government confidence that if necessary food could be distributed equally to all, including high-value war workers, without causing widespread health problems. Britons' actual wartime diet was never as severe as in the Cambridge study because imports from America successfully avoided the U-boats,[15] but rationing improved the health of British people; infant mortality declined and life expectancy rose, discounting deaths caused by hostilities. This was because it ensured that everyone had access to a varied diet with enough vitamins.

 

 

From: http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#18 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,175 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 06:24 PM

you told me not to trust Wikipedia.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users