***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
=============================================================
Carrying on from where Vol 1 finished.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 9 Dec 19 at 12:53
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50497288
Is out, seems very ambitious spending wise.
|
>> Is out, seems very ambitious spending wise.
It is. Ambition on scale of Attlee. Just what UK needs IMHO. Particularly pleased to see commitment to grow Social Housing.
|
But once you've given a council house to someone, it's gone.
So if you build 50,000 council homes you can solve 50,000 currently exisiting problems and then you're done. Never mind if there's more than that, and never mind if more occur next year.
OK, it's bet than a slap, but it doesn't sound like a good approach to me.
A retired person voting for this kind of expenditure is similar to the position of an awful lot of Brexit voters. The fact that it suits you should not be enough.
|
>> But once you've given a council house to someone, it's gone.
>>
>> So if you build 50,000 council homes you can solve 50,000 currently exisiting problems and
>> then you're done. Never mind if there's more than that, and never mind if more
>> occur next year.
>>
isn't that a bit like stating there is no point giving to charity because it solves only some of the issues but not all of them?
You have to start somewhere.
The big mistake was selling council houses for a pittance in the 80s and not allowing the councils to build more.
|
>> isn't that a bit like stating there is no point giving to charity because it solves only some of the issues but not all of them?
No, it is a matter of understanding that resources are finite, the need is not, so maximum value is essential.
>> You have to start somewhere.
So find one poor person and give them the entire £bn budget.
Or do you perhaps think that impact matters?
|
So if you build 50,000 council homes you can solve 50,000 currently exisiting problems and
>> then you're done. Never mind if there's more than that, and never mind if more
>> occur next year.
>>
>>
>>
The plan is to build 100000 a year by 2024 (?) And no doubt continue beyond that. I'm not sure it's achievable though. There was only 170000 houses built last year. If which councils built 6000.
|
John McDonnell was interviewed on the Andrew Neil programme Thursday(?) going on about how many houses Labour were going to build.
Neil asked him how many the Labour controlled government in Wales had built last year. Council house (not the right term I know) building being devolved. McDonnell after a lot of bluster, still wouldn't answer.
As McDonnell refused to answer, Neil told him. 59.
59.
The Welsh Labour government built 59 (fiftynine) council houses in Wales last year.
I can't be the only person that saw that?
Edit
A link
tinyurl.com/thblfur
Last edited by: Duncan on Sat 23 Nov 19 at 22:36
|
>> A retired person voting for this kind of expenditure is similar to the position of
>> an awful lot of Brexit voters. The fact that it suits you should not be
>> enough.
As Zippy points out Council houses sold in eighties were never replaced.
The issue right now is too few homes, or at least too few in right places together with affordability.
What are the alternatives to a return to social provision?
Median net household income here is around £25k. Rent for 3 bed home is £854/month (in an area where allowance for those on benefit - LHA - is capped at £624.
|
How about limited time, say 5 year, tenancy, subject to proper review to see if someone still "qualifies". And not passing them down.
(I've no idea if either of these already apply)
|
"The issue right now is too few homes"
The issue right now is too many people.
|
>> The issue right now is too many people.
>>
Do you have a solution for this “problem” then Haywain?
|
"Do you have a solution for this “problem” then Haywain?"
Population increase is caused by immigration/too high a birthrate. Even you can surely understand that.
The main reason why politicians lie is because people don't want to be told the truth.
|
>> Population increase is caused by immigration/too high a birthrate. Even you can surely understand that.
No need for rudeness - frownie is mine.
The UK birthrate is less than 2 per woman:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49192445
So that's got diddley to do with it.
Successful economies, or at least those that meet some criteria for success, draw in migrant labour. It's not just a UK problem is it?
Taking, as any sensible and pragmatic manager does, start point as 'we are where we are' how do we solve the UK's housing problem?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 24 Nov 19 at 10:42
|
"No need for rudeness - frownie is mine. "
If you look at the quote, you will see that I was replying to CG. You seem to be looking for something to be offended about.
|
>>how do we solve the UK's housing problem?
The problem is that typically a council house solves one problem ever, and then it is gone from the resource pool forever.
And whilst a time-based review/reassessment system is one way to address that I can see the Daily Mail headlines now;
"Man thrown out of council house for getting a job".
Council houses are just an emotionally easy sell.
|
A lot of people used council housing as a stepping stone. My parents were an example. Lived in a tiny 1.5 up and 1.5 down for a few years, then got a council house and lived there for 7 years, then became owner-occupiers.
Times have changed of course. Apart from an overall housing shortage post-war, there were millions of 'slums', back-to-backs with no room for internal sanitation, such as one up and one downs with a 'cellarhead' kitchen. I remember visiting those (and as a four year old falling backwards down the cellar steps of one).
But-the public sector could build houses that are needed. Developers build whatever makes the most profit, for obvious reasons. Most proposed 'affordable' houses never get built, they are often in the first planning application but later revisions swerve into a plan with a much smaller proportion of them. Why planning departments accept this I don't know, but it's probably because they get at least some houses built.
Then there are areas where simply nothing is affordable. Locally a developer bought a 20 metre wide plot with a 1970s detached house on it, demolished the house and built a terrace of three tiny houses - for sale at £500,000 each.
|
>> But-the public sector could build houses that are needed.
Where is the money coming from?
>> Developers build whatever makes the most
>> profit, for obvious reasons.
Because the occupier pays full value for them.
|
>> Where is the money coming from?
Borrowing has been dirt cheap since 2008. If we'd started then repayments now would be starting to seriously impinge in capital.
Borrowing for capital projects is still silly cheap.
|
>> The problem is that typically a council house solves one problem ever, and then it
>> is gone from the resource pool forever.
>>
>> And whilst a time-based review/reassessment system is one way to address that I can see
>> the Daily Mail headlines now;
I think they've moved that way in last few years, Flexible tenancies are an alternative to traditional secure type; restrictions on duration of tenure no right to transfer tenancy etc.
www.gov.uk/council-housing/types-of-tenancy
I'm certainly aware of having dealt with people on introductory tenancies.
Problem with restrictions like that is risk that, after five years, the options are no better than now - unattainable mortgage or unaffordable private lets.
You've shot down one suggestion.
What do you think solution is?
|
Yes but do you have an answer to the current population level which you see an issue? The fact is we do not have enough decent housing for the current population. I think this is undisputed.
We can either build more housing or reduce the population. As you seem to favour the latter please explain how this can be done.
|
"We can either build more housing or reduce the population. As you seem to favour the latter please explain how this can be done."
Alas, you do not even recognise the basis for the problem. Bringing in more people, building more houses, and laying more concrete at a time when the waters are rising is not a long-term solution to anything.
Stand back and open your eyes; even Jeremy Clarkson is now contemplating the possibility of climate change.
|
|
You are still not answering the question. How do you propose reducing the number of people in the UK?
|
"You are still not answering the question. How do you propose reducing the number of people in the UK?"
Have you recognised the basis of the problem yet, or are you still intent on covering the country with houses?
|
You appear to be trying to be bdeliberately obtuse. I will make it as simple for you as I can
Problem. We have insufficient housing for current population.
Possible solutions:
A We build more houses
B. We somehow reduce the population
C. We continue as we are with parts of population living in inadequate housing
You clearly favour option B but are unable or unwilling to explain how this can be done. Perhaps you might give a clear response.
|
"You clearly favour option B but are unable or unwilling to explain how this can be done. "
You have already said that the rate of reproduction is reducing so, if the population is increasing by a faster rate than houses can be built, then the only alternative is to reduce the numbers coming in.
Increasing population/climate change is a problem for the planet, not just for this country.
populationmatters.org
|
You have already said that the rate of reproduction is reducing so, if the population
>> is increasing by a faster rate than houses can be built, then the only alternative
>> is to reduce the numbers coming in.
>>
>> Increasing population/climate change is a problem for the planet, not just for this country.
>> populationmatters.org
>>
>>
>>
So you don't know, that's fine. Bit easier though if you just say that.
|
>> You have already said that the rate of reproduction is reducing so, if the population
>> is increasing by a faster rate than houses can be built, then the only alternative
>> is to reduce the numbers coming
Once more you evade answering the question. We are not talking about future immigration. We are talking about the here and now. How do you propose to reduce the current population and alleviate the housing shortage? You say it is the solution. Spell it out.
|
D. More people live in each house
E. We only own one house each, the one we live in.
|
>> D. More people live in each house
>> E. We only own one house each, the one we live in.
>>
D would only be possible if housing allocation is to be managed by the State. Presumably you envisage having to register your spare room with the housing authority and be allocated lodgers which you had to accept. Not going to work is it?
E would be quite a severe limitation on our right to spend our money as we see fit. It would possibly have an effect in a few areas popular with second home owners but wouldn’t be nationally significant. The property desirable As a second home is almost by its nature not in areas where work is available.
|
>> Problem. We have insufficient housing for current population.
>>
>> Possible solutions:
>>
>> A We build more houses
Think outside the box ? ;-)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-50508590/how-an-ethiopian-built-a-three-bedroom-home-in-a-truck
|
>> Think outside the box ? ;-)
>>
Looking at the height and width I doubt that could really be called a home IN a truck :-)
There are some weird opinions in this recent group of posts, I wonder how many posters actually live or have lived in council housing, not too many I suspect, as for some of the "immigration is the source of all evil" type of thing, words fail me so I'm not even going to try.
|
>>how many posters actually live or have lived in council housing, not too many I suspect,
I have. A fair chunk of my family have in fact. The area when
Re on eof my Uncles and his family lived is no longer council and many years later my sister bought one of the houses . It was always a pleasant area.
There's nothing wrong with council housing in any way, beyond the fact that the world has changed and it's not a very good solution anymore.
We were not talking about living in them, where you need some experience to comment, we were talking about council houses as a solution.
|
>> We were not talking about living in them, where you need some experience to comment,
>> we were talking about council houses as a solution.
Just to be clear the term I used initially was Social Housing.
That could be provided by Councils but equally well by Housing Associations or some other model.
|
Much of my greater family have been in, and still in council housing. Married to a nurse, as you would expect a large part of our social circle is NHS and/or Emergency services related, A fair proportion of them have or have had key worker* housing, there is much more of it about than you would think, certainly in surrey.
*proportion of key worker housing is provided by housing associations. Its a well used concept that works well here.
|
|
genuine question, how are housing foundations funded, I have always assumed them to be a sort of outsourced public housing (whether district / cpunty / regional / national)?
|
>> genuine question, how are housing foundations funded, I have always assumed them to be a
>> sort of outsourced public housing (whether district / cpunty / regional / national)?
Housing Associations are now main provider of new build Social Housing in England.
Wikipedia is a good primer and link to further reading.
|
Yes, yes, very clever and also totally irrelevant.
One has to return to the actual problem and understand what problem one is trying to solve.
If it is that Family A would really like a home in a house like Family B have worked for, then by all means give them a house. (however you choose to finance it).
If it is that Family A need accommodation and don't currently have it, then whilst giving them a house may be a great solution for them, it doesn't help anyone else.
And, like all sensible people, Family A will spend within their disposable income. How will they now leave the provided house? Obviously some use it as a springboard, but most do not.
Consequently any hope of retrieving and reusing a house is, in the real world, unlikely and rare.
Current unemployment in the UK is 3.8%. I just looked. And that is in reality far too low. What it also means is that pretty much anybody who can work and wants to work has got a job. I'm sure you all know some wounded exception, but they are the exception.
I have zero sympathy for anybody who simply doesn't want to work, they can sleep in the gutter for all I care and we need to do our best to stop them taking up resources which others deserve.
So, why can unemployed people who wish to be employed not get a job? And why can employed people not obtain accommodation?
Because presumably that's the two problems we have, and to conflate them is probably a mistake. Certainly they require different solutions.
I separate entirely people who *cannot* work. That is a whole different care system, though my definition is somewhat more pragmatic than the wounded souls is so many left wing councils.
More jobs is surely a factor of growing commercial operations (not something the Labour idiots can be trusted with) and growing NHS, Police, and other state run organisations (not something the Conservative idiots can be trusted with.
Clearly certain employment injustices and contract anomalies need to be dealt with. Minimum hours per month, for one. Perhaps employer penalties for low hours contract. Within reason, one doesn't want to damage genuine part time work.
And so much more around job creation. And worthwhile job creation at that.
Then there is accommodation affordability. - more affordable housing and much heavier taxation on unoccupied homes and multiple home ownership.
[sorry, loads more to say, been called away. Later...........................]
|
>> Clearly certain employment injustices and contract anomalies need to be dealt with. Minimum hours per
>> month, for one. Perhaps employer penalties for low hours contract. Within reason, one doesn't want
>> to damage genuine part time work.
>>
>> And so much more around job creation. And worthwhile job creation at that.
Lots of stuff in your post to debate but above is nub. Tax credits and easing of some employer costs may have had unintended consequence of creating a sweet spot for jobs that are not full time.
Bottom line is decent and affordable homes for people earning in lower centiles of median wage.
Historically Social Housing filled that gap.
What are alternatives?
Do we subsidise the housing directly or via state topping up wages for low earners?
|
Bring back the pre-fab.
It will speed up provision, cost a damn sight less, require less subsidy of rents, and incentivise people to use them as a stepping stone.
Former council houses such as the one I lived in, built to the late 60's Parker-Morris standards, are now among the more desirable houses of their type in many areas. Private housing of the same era did not always meet these standards, and the council houses frequently had bigger gardens. Perhaps this explains why so many people wanted to hang on to them.
|
I don't pretend to know the answer, but I'm b***** sure that neither the Conservatives nor Labour hold the answer, nor are they prepared to step one inch outside their normal tired, tried, tested and frequently failed approaches.
>> Lots of stuff in your post to debate but above is nub. Tax credits and
>> easing of some employer costs may have had unintended consequence of creating a sweet
>> spot for jobs that are not full time.
Not full time is ok - plannable part time for example. Perhaps even flexible hour totals within boundaries. All potentially useful for everybody. But such a contract should have both a minimum number of hours and a maximum. Minimum to avoid ridiculous hardship and maximum to avoid replacing full time workers [who have benefits and protections] with such contracts.
I'd also like to see some kind of faster reacting control system. Some kind of workers council or arbitration system perhaps or some such, that would review a contact and determine whether or not it was *fair*. And lack of fairness should be an acceptable decision, even where the contract was legal. Where the employee or employer accepted the arbiter's decision or went to court over it, knowing that if they were against the arbitration decision then they were on a sticky wicket. Union members and company owners (amongst others) would be disqualified from being on the panel.
>> Bottom line is decent and affordable homes for people earning in lower centiles of median
>> wage.
>> Historically Social Housing filled that gap.
I'm not sure it did. It was just a shield against media or public attention. Still, whether it did or not it wouldn't now.
>> Do we subsidise the housing directly or via state topping up wages for low earners?
I prefer a massive increase in the minimum wage to address one part, and then measures to stunt the housing market for the other - Nasty taxes on the margin between purchase price and sales price perhaps. [and I mean 'margin' not 'profit']. That's a measure that wouldn't affect first time buyers for example.
We also need to reconsider corporation tax. It needs not to be based purely on profit but needs to account for revenue also. There ought to be a minimum %age of revenue to be paid in tax above a certain threshold irrespective of profit margin. [I can't resist throwing in that that would be considerably easier if we were part of the EU. Sorry].
It needs thinking about, but surely we know by now that the same old s***, be it Labour s*** or Conservative s***, just isn't the way to go.
For sure I know that I am not comfortable with either.
|
|
Even though I agree that much has changed in the last generation or two, i still think there is a place for public provision of low cost rented housing as part of the solution, especially for immigrants and increased mobility of 18-30 workers
Last edited by: commerdriver on Mon 25 Nov 19 at 11:50
|
" I wonder how many posters actually live or have lived in council housing, not too many I suspect,"
Whilst I would not claim to be an expert on either prefabs or council houses, I was born and brought up in a council prefab, and that's where I spent my first 16 years. We moved into a newly built council house as the old prefab estate was demolished.
|
>> How do you propose reducing the number of people in the UK?
>>
Quite difficult, I suggest. First you need to have an electorate that agrees with that idea. Secondly, a government that wishes, and has the political motivation to reduce the population.
I think that in practice reducing the population would be very difficult, it would be quite hard enough to hold the population constant.
But, let us say we are going to try.
We would need a series of incentives to couples to have no more than one, or at the most two children. Financial inducements to stop at one. Massive penalties for couples having more than two children.
How draconian do you want to get? What would be acceptable to the electorate?
China struggled and, I think, gave up, so what chance have we got? However I do believe that long term, this is going to be a major problem for the world.
|
>>
>> China struggled and, I think, gave up, so what chance have we got? However I
>> do believe that long term, this is going to be a major problem for the
>> world.
>>
It is, and it is never going to be solved because people want to have their cake and eat it. Increased economic prosperity increases our carbon footprint and shortens the time the planet will be habitable for the human race. Yet people who urge us all to P in the wind by not leaving our fridge door open still want their internet (Carbon footprint equivalent to the aircraft industry), their iphones and Alexas, transport that can get from one end of the country to the other in hours and all the other trappings of a comfortable life.
It doesn't bother me because I'm too old to be effected and we have no offspring, but those who are should face up to the fact that any solution is going to be extremely painful (For everybody, not just someone whose car uses more petrol than yours) and many of the things that are now regarded as basic human rights are going to have to go. And that includes the right to reproduce at will.
|
>>And that includes the right to reproduce at will.
We have of course already got a 'two child' rule in benefits. With exceptions for multiple births and rape there's no extra Tax Credits or Universal Credit for 3rd or subsequent children born on after 06-04-17. Part of Osborne's shirkers v workers schtikk for headlines in the Mail.
It also affects those in low paid work, those who have illness visited up on them and women who's husbands have left them holding the babies.....
|
All that is completely irrelevant to the problem. Births outnumber deaths by 2.5 to 1 worldwide and as there is no such thing as a carbon neutral human being (Or anywhere near it) we are heading towards the end of our time as a species unless we take measures which, at least for the moment, most people find unpalatable.
How benefits are shared out and when we retire will one day be a worry so low down they won't matter.
|
The ironic thing is of course that we need more younger people to support an increasingly large ageing non economically active population. That can only happen by an increase birth rate or a sensible immigration policy.
|
>> The ironic thing is of course that we need more younger people to support an
increasingly large ageing non economically active population. That can only happen by an increase birth rate or a sensible immigration policy.
>>
>>
>>
It's a vicious circle. If we insist on retiring while we are still fit to work that problem will continue to grow, and if you think an increased birth rate or a more relaxed immigration policy is the answer then I think you are blind to seriousness of climate change.
|
" If we insist on retiring while we are still fit to work that problem will continue to grow, "
On top of this we have many retirees flying off on multiple holidays per annum as a way of getting rid of their accumulated wealth. Hypocrisy is not only rife in the socialists, it is in the greenies as well.
And we haven't even started on the amount of waste that we produce.
Whilst CG and others prefer to turn their backs on the problems facing humanity, I fear that RoR is absolutely right in his forecasts.
|
>> On top of this we have many retirees flying off on multiple holidays per annum
>> as a way of getting rid of their accumulated wealth. Hypocrisy is not only rife
>> in the socialists, it is in the greenies as well.
>>
>> And we haven't even started on the amount of waste that we produce.
>>
>> Whilst CG and others prefer to turn their backs on the problems facing humanity, I
>> fear that RoR is absolutely right in his forecasts.
>>
So what is the solution?
|
>> On top of this we have many retirees flying off on multiple holidays per annum
>> as a way of getting rid of their accumulated wealth. Hypocrisy is not only rife
>> in the socialists, it is in the greenies as well.
How dare you accuse me of being a greeny
|
"How dare you accuse me of being a greeny"
You have your moments Zeddo but, no, I don't think you're that daft.
|
>>...........a more relaxed immigration policy is the answer then I think you are blind to seriousness of climate change.
Not quite seeing the link between immigration and climate change.
|
"Not quite seeing the link between immigration and climate change."
We are an overcrowded little island on an overcrowded little planet and I don't think that shifting people around is the answer. I happen to strongly suspect a link between human activity and climate change - the more folk, the greater the effect.
And, of course, the more people there are, the more waste we are going to have to bury.
|
>> "Not quite seeing the link between immigration and climate change."
>>
>> We are an overcrowded little island on an overcrowded little planet and I don't think
>> that shifting people around is the answer. I happen to strongly suspect a link between
>> human activity and climate change - the more folk, the greater the effect.
>>
>> And, of course, the more people there are, the more waste we are going to
>> have to bury.
As we have already gone over the safe climate change population limit, a few (tens, hundreds of?) million need to be topped. Who or where do you suggest we start?
|
Nobody has mentioned the "easier divorce" argument. Our (my) parent's generation, at least generally speaking, didn't get divorced very easily. Today, couples seem to split at the drop of a hat.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing itself, that's a different argument, but every split requires two properties rather than one. Some will "go home to mum and dad", but lots now need another house, council of otherwise.
I'm sure there must be some numbers with the effects published somewhere.
|
>> As we have already gone over the safe climate change population limit, a few (tens,
>> hundreds of?) million need to be topped. Who or where do you suggest we start?
>>
I would think we follow the example of the eskimos who simply left the old and unproductive members of the tribe behind when they moved on in winter. Perhaps your pension and central heating should stop working the winter after you retire.
|
>Perhaps your pension and central heating should stop working the winter after you retire.
And we stop providing any social housing whatsoever and let natural selection take it's course. Problem solved.
We should start a "Policy Research Group" CGN.
|
For an overcrowded planet and global warning, unless you think there are aliens amongst us, then immigration is irrelevant.
Nonetheless, if you believe that the population needs to decrease can I strongly request that you lead by example.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 24 Nov 19 at 17:45
|
"For an overcrowded planet and global warning, unless you think there are aliens amongst us, then immigration is irrelevant."
As areas become uninhabitable - and not just for climate-change reasons, do you think that people will stay put, or do you think they might pile into other places?
|
>> >>
>>
>> Not quite seeing the link between immigration and climate change.
>>
People mostly emigrate for a better economic future, becoming large scale consumers of recourses
and producers of Co2 just like the rest of us. The countries they leave behind always seem to re-populate to make up the numbers, increasing the overall population of the planet.
Anyway, I'd like to know what solutions to the problem those who want to retain something even remotely resembling our current mode of living come up with.
|
>> >> Is out, seems very ambitious spending wise.
>>
>> It is. Ambition on scale of Attlee. Just what UK needs IMHO. Particularly pleased to
>> see commitment to grow Social Housing.
>>
But will it get him into number 10?
|
>> But will it get him into number 10?
Almost certainly not.
1. JC and Labour are terrible at making their case, despite the threadbare opposition story.
2. Corbyn is an unattractive leader and the dominant populist media has smeared him in particular to the extent that Labour should have binned him after the last election which they lost despite the Tories' incompetent campaign.
|
>> 2. Corbyn is an unattractive leader and the dominant populist media has smeared him in
>> particular to the extent that Labour should have binned him after the last election which
>> they lost despite the Tories' incompetent campaign.
I think it would have been difficult then when he was seen as having played a blinder to come back from poll ratings worse than now to May's loss of majority.
He should though have gone when May and Cable stood down saying it was time for new blood all around.
|
>> >> Is out, seems very ambitious spending wise.
>>
>> It is. Ambition on scale of Attlee. Just what UK needs IMHO. Particularly pleased to
>> see commitment to grow Social Housing.
Where is the money coming from? This is not 1946, this is not a self contained economy as it was then, there is little "means of production" in the UK, distribution is globally controlled, as is exchange
The utilities, threatened with nationalisation have already incorporated themselves outside the UK, meaning that full compensation for asset seizure will need to be paid. Thats going to cripple labours ability to pay for anything.
In short Corbyn thinks he can do lots of stuff, but he does not have the tools, the global clout or the money to do it.
|
>> Where is the money coming from?
As above, borrowing right now is dirt cheap.
|
>> >> Where is the money coming from?
>>
>> As above, borrowing right now is dirt cheap.
Only if the market gives you a good credit rating, borrowing to nationalise will ensure your credit rating goes down the pan, and the pound is valueless.
And as the borrowing is long term, it wont always be at todays rates. As I said, JC has no idea about global finance.
Plus todays rates are not ten years time rates, it still has to be repaid, a fact the Labour party has always missed.
|
Brrr, Brrr, click.
"Hello, is that Citizens Advice? I need some help. We're in debt to almost our yearly family income and borrowing more every day just to make ends meet. We've promised our kids loads of expensive presents for Christmas and also want to upgrade to fibre broadband. What should we do?"
"Hello. Yes this is Citizens Advice. Well, borrowing right now is dirt cheap so go for it. Just put your kids names down as guarantors."
Click.
Last edited by: Kevin on Sun 24 Nov 19 at 23:23
|
>> Ah, the PFI Xmas model.
>>
A reasonable concept, scandalously misused by politicians
|
>> >> Ah, the PFI Xmas model.
>> >>
>> A reasonable concept, scandalously misused by politicians
Not really, as is evidenced by the massive ongoing costs of hospitals that were paid for years ago.
You really have to believe in the market-driven efficiency of private enterprise to think that outsourcing hospitals to people who use far more expensive capital and debt, then add a tidy profit and a risk premium, is going to cost less than the government running it as carp as they might be. Of course they never thought it would cost less, only make it look as if they were staying within borrowing limits when they weren't.
And of course that competition disappears once the contract is awarded. And anybody in construction and related services will tell you that you really start to make money providing services outside the contract.
PFI contractors have already had a nice bonus too from reduced corporation tax rates and are eagerly anticipating more to come.
|
>> You really have to believe in the market-driven efficiency of private enterprise to think that
>> outsourcing hospitals to people who use far more expensive capital and debt, then add a
>> tidy profit and a risk premium, is going to cost less than the government running
>> it as carp as they might be.
To do that you have to disregard that government or local authority have absolutely no record in delivering anything on time, or to anything resembling budget, have performed very very badly at subcontractor management, and have endemic levels of waste and inefficiency in operation.
ALA Crossrail.
|
Anyone that still needs convincing PFI is bad news should read this:
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/748/748.pdf
For those without the time or inclination, Page 18 Para 45 sums it up.
"PFI financing costs more than government financing because the state can
borrow at a cheaper rate than the private sector. While we are confident that PFI costs
more than conventional procurement, neither we nor the National Audit Office nor
the Public Accounts Committee can find any evidence of the benefits the Government
claims for it. It is unacceptable that almost 30 years after the first PFI projects were
initiated, the Treasury cannot produce an evidence base to support its claims that PFI
is worthwhile for any reason apart from the fact that it takes debt off balance sheet."
|
>> And as the borrowing is long term, it wont always be at todays rates.
Government issues bonds. The rate is the rate. Yields are up a bit from August, when 10 year money was cheaper than 2 year, but the 10yr yield is still 0.7%. 50 years is 1.2%.
I don't know what the limit is in terms of how much issuing the market will bear at these rates but if it is for something with a prospect of a pay back it could be quite successful. The reason returns are so low is that investors are reluctant to invest any more in almost everything else.
The Tories are also basing promises on issuing more debt, and they propose lower taxes. Both parties say they will take advantage of low rates. The borrowing requirement might not be so different.
When Javid talks about the flood of private capital following Brexit, my blood runs cold. He doesn't mean private capital for private enterprise, he means private capital to fund public services. This is how they sell the NHS and other public services, not by selling it lock stock and barrel but by allowing their cronies to provide an increasing proportion of services. The profit potential for them is vast and will be paid by us, leading to a higher PSBR in the future - just like PFI, which, to be fair, New Labour exploited also after the Tories 'invented' it.
|
For the first time since the seventies I will be voting Labour. I have no faith in Boris, his only concern is for Boris. However nutty some of Labour's policies are they will be reeled in by practicalities and their promise of a second referendum is theonly way I can see us getting out of the current unsolvable Brexit mess.
Plus if they do compensate those who lost out on the rise of the female pension age then Chez O'Reliant will benefit.
|
> promise of a second referendum
>> is theonly way I can see us getting out of the current unsolvable Brexit mess.
It wont, that ship has sailed, the only option left is what "out" looks like.
|
|
Jeremy Corbyn wants The Evils of the British Empire included in future. What else do posters think should be added? I suggest The Evils of Communism and The Destruction of British Culture by the Normans.
|
|
Its history, everyone is always trying to rewrite it.
|
|
You can't ignore the past, but on the other hand you've got to educate for the future, the present is trapped in between...expect politician of education if Labour win
|
We need a system where education and the curriculum are kept at arm's length from politicians.
Gove did a huge amount of damage by micromanagement of curriculum.
|
Emotional intelligence.
When to put an apostrophe in its, the difference between whose and who's, their there and they're, I and me, he and him, she and her, we and us, them and they. This will take all of half an hour and will enable the pupil to avoid being perceived as thick/untrainable immediately anybody sees their social media pages.
How to think (not what to think), and avoiding groupthink.
How to spot fake news, bent politicians, and demagoguery.
Where to find the truth.
How not to be groomed - by paedophiles, drug dealers, car salesmen and Conservatives for example.
Hanging a door, changing a wheel, basic plumbing, first aid and other skills that people usually leave school without.
Basic hygiene.
I'm sure I'll think of a few more.
|
>> When to put an apostrophe in its, the difference between whose and who's, their there
>> and they're, I and me, he and him, she and her, we and us, them
>> and they.
Of and from, loose and lose, licence and license, less and fewer, drone on and oh!
|
>> Jeremy Corbyn wants The Evils of the British Empire included in future.
I cannot find the original document (Labour's Race and Faith Manifesto) but I'll be it's more nuanced than Telegraph would have us believe. The Empire, it's doing and legacy are hardly matters of burnished achievement.
|
>> >> Jeremy Corbyn wants The Evils of the British Empire included in future.
>>
>> I cannot find the original document (Labour's Race and Faith Manifesto) but I'll be it's
>> more nuanced than Telegraph would have us believe. The Empire, it's doing and legacy are
>> hardly matters of burnished achievement.
But by the standards of the time, it was more or less the norm for colonial powers to behave. You dont need to rewrite it, or add a modern day slant, the morals in place at the time of reading does that for you.
|
|
'Civilisation' which is far from complete anyway might yet go into full reverse. Humans are just gangs of monkeys and not very nice ones.
|
|
Political parties in charge of the education curriculum. How could that possibly go wrong?
|
Standard BBC s***.....
www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50564965
"Jeremy Corbyn has declined to apologise to the British Jewish community"
Totally wrong. He did not decline to do so. He didn't apologise, but he didn't decline to do so.
Quite a different point.
And in any case, apologising for something is admitting that it's true, which he most certainly would be foolish to do.
|
>> And in any case, apologising for something is admitting that it's true, which he most
>> certainly would be foolish to do.
>>
He didn't handle the question particularly well, I can see why they went with that headline. He was pretty awkward and clumsy with his words which does give rise to the idea he is dodging something.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 27 Nov 19 at 02:14
|
And ever quick to copy a good idea....
www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50561043
|
>> And ever quick to copy a good idea....
>>
>> www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50561043
It's not exactly knee jerk, issue has been in news for months. Baroness Warsi has been on case for years.
|
What's your point?
It's a band wagon, and people are looking to jump on it.
Are you aware of how substantially different your attitude is depending on which party is being criticised? In. Every. Way.
|
>> Are you aware of how substantially different your attitude is depending on which party is
>> being criticised? In. Every. Way.
People have been picking up Islamophobia in the Conservative party for several years with some pretty egregious examples. As I mentioned, Saida Warsi has been in vanguard pointing it out.
It's neither new nor a bandwagon.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 26 Nov 19 at 20:12
|
To save beggaring about with edits it's abundantly clear that some Jewish members of the Labour party have been subject to anti-Semitic remarks from fellow members.
It's a hell of a leap from there to idea that Labour is an existential threat to UK Jews.
|
|
I watched the JC interview tonight, Andrew Neil had him on the ropes on several occasions. He looked ok when talking about things like poverty, schools etc but when he was pushed hard on things like brexit, spending plans and anti semitism he looked rattled to me. I don't think it was quite the car crash interview people were saying but it won't do him much good and I doubt he's happy with his performance.
|
>It's a hell of a leap from there to idea that Labour is an existential threat to UK Jews.
You are in F'ing denial Bromp.
Labour activists and supporters were out in force on social (sic) media earlier today attacking the Chief Rabbi with silly accusations of him being a Mossad agent amongst other slurs. Followed afterwards by furious deletion of posts when they were picked up by a right wing political site and Momentum twigged that flooding the tags with diversionary posts might work better than confirming what everyone already knows.
More nasty posts tonight after the Andrew Neil interview.
|
>> Labour activists and supporters were out in force on social (sic) media earlier today attacking
>> the Chief Rabbi with silly accusations of him being a Mossad agent amongst other slurs.
>> Followed afterwards by furious deletion of posts when they were picked up by a right
>> wing political site and Momentum twigged that flooding the tags with diversionary posts might work
>> better than confirming what everyone already knows.
That there is a significant number of antisemites in the momentum group is a given, the deeply left wing of any party are wedded to this "shylock" control of the money mantra.
That the Chief Rabbi is acting politically is also a given, the MOSSAD statement is clearly rubbish, but there is little doubt he has some affiliation with the state of Israel and hence deeply hostile to Corbyns support of the Palestinians. There is no chance of an existential threat to UK jews, and it was a deeply inflammatory thing to say. Religious leaders should not meddle in the democratic process in this manner and doing so provides ammunition to anti semites.
Corbyn is not guilty of being an anti semite, he is however guilty of being a terribly weak leader, demonstrated by his inability and lack of control over the anti semite agenda from both sides.
If any Jew in the UK thinks they are discriminated against, they should try being a Muslim. Then they would get some idea of hostility.
|
Perhaps you missed my question....
"Are you aware of how substantially different your attitude is depending on which party is being criticised?"
|
Despite many examples of anti-Semitic behaviour that I have experienced and posted here and in other places some people do not understand how the culture within the Labour party has enabled and encouraged others to be open in their anti-Semitism.
Corbyn and Seumas Milne have a real issue with Jews, who they see as colonialists, ethnic cleansers and racists. The only Jews they like are those that agree with their world view and are ashamed of their ancestry. This would be about 1% of those who identify as Jews or less and only identify when they wish to harm the community or have a pop at Israel, usually conflating the actions of the government with the views of all Israelis, when nothing could be further from tne truth.
Hence the majority of Jews do view Labour as damaging to the very existence of the community in the UK, as they will always be seen as the enemy, the fifth column and standing for everything the Stalinist left dislike.
As I am not a member of the Tory party I cannot on anti-islamic behaviour in it, but it seems to me that open racism of any ethnic minority is the preserve of the right. It is open, obvious and you know who your enemies are. The ultra right wing of eastern Europe and increasingly in radical parties in western Europe.. The left is far more subtle and far more dangerous as you don't realise until it is too late what they are trying the achieve.
Did anyone watch the debate between Corbyn and Johnson? I didn't but was told that when asked about Prince Andrew, Johnson referred to his criminal friend as Jeffrey Epsteen whereas Corbyn referred to him as Epshtine. He deliberately made the name sound more Jewish. No reason to do so other than anti-Semitism.
|
|
Must admit I thought it was Epstein, seeing as that's how it's spelt. It didn't occur to me that pronunciation of that name could be anti-semitic.
|
>>Corbyn and Seumas Milne have a real issue with Jews
Garbage. And your conspiracy theories are laughable.
I don't believe that Corbyn has any issue with any religion. It just suits a certain world view to believe he does. that says considerably more about you than it does him.
>>have a real issue with Jews, who they see as colonialists, ethnic cleansers and racists.
Totally unreasonable, I see nothing to suggest that Jews are ethnic cleansers.
|
>>>>>Totally unreasonable, I see nothing to suggest that Jews are ethnic cleansers.
I'm very glad you do. But at a meeting between those two and the leaders of the Jewish community earlier this year, that is exactly what they said.
|
>> I'm very glad you do. But at a meeting between those two and the leaders
>> of the Jewish community earlier this year, that is exactly what they said.
Is there a report or transcript that demonstrates them saying exactly that about Jews (as opposed to the State of Israel)?
Another Labour candidate, Safia Ali in Falkirk, has been stood down after alleged anti semitic remarks in one of her Twitter accounts. No publication though seems to have printedeven an oblique hint as to what she actually said.
Given her reported history of standing under other banners in past it's astonishing she was selected. Select in haste/repent at leisure is exactly what gave us Fiona Onasanya and Jared O'Mara in the 17/19 Parliament.
Meanwhile yet another candidate as felt obliged to apologise for her 'anti-semitic remark' which comprised likening Israel to 'an abused child that grew into an abusive adult'.
If that's all she said then why on earth is she apologising rather than pursuing a vigorous defence of fair comment?
|
>> Totally unreasonable, I see nothing to suggest that Jews are ethnic cleansers.
There is though a seriously sustainable case that the Netanyahu government has been guilty of ethnic cleansing.
|
>>>> There is though a seriously sustainable case that the Netanyahu government has been guilty of ethnic cleansing <<<<<
If you really believe that, you need to review the position statements of the Taliban, Hizbollah, Hamas and Fatah. They literally want to drive all the Jews into the sea. The Middle East would to be a Christian and Jew free zone, if those organisations had their way.
At least the Gulf states have realised that making jaw jaw is better than war war.
|
>> If you really believe that, you need to review the position statements of the Taliban,
>> Hizbollah, Hamas and Fatah.
That's 'whataboutery'; it doesn't refute the case against Israel and its government.
|
>I don't believe that Corbyn has any issue with any religion.
Corbyn presented his 'Race and Faith' manifesto accompanied on the platform by at least two supporters who have previously posted antisemitic comments on social media. On top of that it appears that there are 10 Labour PPCs who appear to have done similar.
He either doesn't care or both he and his PR team are incredibly stupid.
|
>> He either doesn't care or both he and his PR team are incredibly stupid.
I think thats what I said, tho i kindly labeled it as bad leadership
|
>> Corbyn presented his 'Race and Faith' manifesto accompanied on the platform by at least two
>> supporters who have previously posted antisemitic comments on social media
Who were those people and what were the comments?
Not saying it's made up but given the tendency to conflate anti Israeli views with anti-Semitism it would be helpful to have sight of the facts.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 28 Nov 19 at 08:12
|
>Who were those people and what were the comments?
Can't find the actual article I read which only named two people and didn't go into any specifics of what they had posted but a quick google brings up this which actually mentions three people. It's the DM.
tinyurl.com/uy3s22k
|
>> Johnson referred to his criminal friend as Jeffrey Epsteen whereas Corbyn referred to him as Epshtine. He deliberately made the name sound more Jewish. No reason to do so other than anti-Semitism.
Eh?
Spielberg = Speelberg
Weinstein = Winestine
Epstein = Epstine
No reason at all other than anti-semitism other that it's the correct pronunciation....
|
So far the Andrew Neil Interviews have been a success - Nicola & Jeremy both floored by the preparation of Andrew Neil & his journalism skills - car crash for both SNP & Labour.
Neither party leader was equipped with the knowledge of "real life of voters" and how their policies on various points in their manifesto are fatally flawed.
Andrew Neil 2 v Party Leaders 0
more to come
|
Occasionally I watch a few minutes of breakfast TV whilst shovelling down a bowl of porridge, and today on ITV some presenter, whose name escapes me, asked someone in the Labour hierarchy, I’ve no idea who he was, about last nights JC interview. Apparently he didn’t watch it which I find strange. If I was an MP I’d certainly watch my party leader being interviewed. Or see it on catch up at the first opportunity.
I didn’t watch it either. I was supporting my local pub which is in administration ( hardly surprising after the new owners screwed it up 2 years ago and alienated the vast majority of locals who were regular drinkers there)
|
>> If I was an MP I’d certainly watch
>> my party leader being interviewed. Or see it on catch up at the first opportunity.
I'd agree about using catch up, at least to see the key bits. However many candidates would have been out at campaign or hustings during live broadcast. Just been chatting with a colleague who lives in a Lab/Con marginal who had been to hustings in his village yesterday. I don't suppose that event was only one of it's type in Bedford during the campaign.
Our Tory candidate, effectively the Member designate, has a meeting in our village on Sunday. Given his utter uselessness when I wrote to him earlier this year and his utter humiliation in front of a Select Committee while a Minister I have zero confidence in him.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 27 Nov 19 at 10:40
|
If only!
Now seems BJ has decided against taking the hot seat... I wonder why?
Chicken.
*this is in reply to FB, my comment seems to have jumped down the page.
Last edited by: Rudedog on Wed 27 Nov 19 at 20:00
|
>>Now seems BJ has decided against taking the hot seat
Pity - would actually watch that one with popcorn at hand.
|
>> Corbyn referred to him as Epshtine. He deliberately made the name sound more Jewish. No
>> reason to do so other than anti-Semitism.
Absolute complete paranoid rubbish. Cry wolf statements like this do the anti semitism cause no good at all,
|
>> "Are you aware of how substantially different your attitude is depending on which party is
>> being criticised?"
I did the 'sleep on it' thing before responding to this.
I'm pretty sure all the regulars here know that I am 'of the left' and might view things through that prism. It's also fair to say my current and previous profession my lead me to a particular viewpoint.
That is a given. PLenty of others here seem to view world down a rolled up copy of the Telegraph :-P
The Tory party's Islamophobia expressed as member comments on social media and attitudes in local parties is well documented. Just today their candidate for Lincoln has been in news for a history of re-posting stuff from 'Tommy Robinson' and Katy Hopkins.
It's not new and is not 'whatboutery' following yesterday's news. The party has promised to investigate and to deal with offenders.
But only after the election.
|
Vandals have some obvious fun with sign for man called Buckland
warning, naughty word in photo
metro.co.uk/2019/11/26/vandals-obvious-fun-sign-man-called-buckland-11219945/
Mr Buckland, 51, said online: ‘I have been made aware of the vandalism of my election poster which has appeared on Wootton Bassett Road and will be reporting it to the police.’
Hopefully he'll be charged with wasting police time.
|
Aren't both those links pointing to the same thing?
Or have I not been paying attention. Once again!
|
>> Aren't both those links pointing to the same thing?
Yep. Identical links.
|
|
...Anyone fancy a game of "where's Wally?" with Jacob Rees Mogg as the target?
|
>> ...Anyone fancy a game of "where's Wally?" with Jacob Rees Mogg as the target?
>>
Probably being kept out of the way in the same place as diane abbott.
|
>Probably being kept out of the way in the same place as diane abbott.
They both downloaded my "Slapper" app. It reads the user's brainwaves when it detects they are about to open their mouth and slaps them around the back of the head if it will be stupid. They're probably unconscious.
|
Dominic Raab in danger of losing seat to Lib Dems, poll suggests.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/30/poll-finds-dominic-raab-risks-losing-seat-to-lib-dems
Raab had a massive 23,298 majority at the last election
I have had about three LD leaflets delivered to my house every week recently so they are really going for it.
I was not very amused to find on the hall mat a card with
SWMBOs given name in bold 20+font followed by
"Do you want five more years of confusion and delay?"
It was from the Conservatives and fortunately SWMBO would not read it.
In any case SWMBO is no longer capable of postal voting so that is one lost vote.
|
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7742689/HARRY-COLE-happens-Boris-Johnson-loses-seat-secret-plan-counter-scenario.html
The Mogg has been spotted. and....
"Oh Lord! What happens if Boris Johnson loses his seat?:
The secret plan to counter the potentially career ending scenario
It would be the ultimate nightmare before Christmas for Boris Johnson – to win the Election but lose his Uxbridge constituency.
So it comes as no surprise to hear that secret plans are in place to counter this potentially career-ending scenario.
The Prime Minister’s majority slumped to 5,000 in 2017 and the West London seat is now being heavily bombarded by marauding Labour and Momentum activists, praying for the ultimate political decapitation.
First Secretary of State Dominic Raab would represent Mr Johnson and No 10 in the Commons. Whips believe they could have the whole sordid process wrapped up by early January at the latest – however embarrassing it may look"
Plan X if Raab looses his seat ?
|
>>I have had about three LD leaflets delivered to my house every week recently so they are really going for it.
>>
Today's offering printed on BLUE paper. In big bold " an important message from ....the Conservative MP ( 1987-2010)
On the other side of the A4, a page of small text ...ending Vote for the LD candidate X.
|
>> Today's offering printed on BLUE paper. In big bold " an important message from ....the
>> Conservative MP ( 1987-2010)
>> On the other side of the A4, a page of small text ...ending Vote for
>> the LD candidate X.
Have you had the rather scurrilous leaflet from Kyle Taylor, the Advance Together candidate?
Very nasty about the nice Mr Raab. Going on about Harry Dunn's parents and their grievance with the Foreign sec.
|
>Have you had the rather scurrilous leaflet from Kyle Taylor, the Advance Together candidate?
All three parties are being a bit naughty with their campaigning. They are printing leaflets designed to look exactly like local newspapers with identical colouring and fonts. The fact that it is a campaign leaflet is hidden in tiny text that most folks would need a magnifying glass to read.
www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/18076317.taking-stand-fake-newspapers/
Advance Together appears to all intents and purposes to be a fake political party set up to circumvent election spending rules.
|
>>I have had about three LD leaflets delivered to my house every week recently so they are really going for it.
>>
Today's offering printed on BLUE paper. In big bold " an important message from ....the Conservative MP ( 1987-2010)
On the other side of the A4, a page of small text ...ending Vote for the LD candidate X.
|
Three a week? We only dream of that. We get literally three or four a day. And we've had multiple actual paid for posted and addressed letters, individually and as a couple. All form the Lib Dems.
Just a few from everyone else but a snowstorm from them. I guess they have a chance here (South Cambs).
But at no point has anyone knocked on the door.
|
|
Here in North Norwich its the Labour party who are handing out the most leaflets and mailing the most letters. Its a Tory seat at the moment but they only have a 500 seat majority. No sign of the Tory candidate but the Labour one has a very high profile and seen her out and about. Got a call from a Labour councillor the other day and he was very well informed and interesting to talk to. Not seen a single Liberal poster and barely had anything from them.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 6 Dec 19 at 00:26
|
>> Today's offering printed on BLUE paper. In big bold " an important message from ....the
>> Conservative MP ( 1987-2010)
>> On the other side of the A4, a page of small text ...ending Vote for the LD candidate X.
>>
Now on line ( at 2.25 ) as the BBC came to wander round the expensive views.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2019-50672691/general-election-2019-dominic-raab-s-surrey-seat-under-threat
|
>> >> ...Anyone fancy a game of "where's Wally?" with Jacob Rees Mogg as the target?
>> >>
>>
>> Probably being kept out of the way in the same place as diane abbott.
>>
.....booked in somewhere remote as Mr & Mrs "Rees-Smith"....?
:-O
|
Daughter, who lives in a South Western trains commuter area, has informed me she had the labour candidate knocking on her door. He's a SW train driver!
|
>> Daughter, who lives in a South Western trains commuter area, has informed me she had
>> the labour candidate knocking on her door. He's a SW train driver!
Although drivers may be supportive it's guards who are striking.
|
>> Daughter, who lives in a South Western trains Railways
SWT was the previous franchise.
|
>Probably being kept out of the way in the same place as diane abbott.
Oh dear!
order-order.com/2019/12/03/james-abbott-charged-biting-police-officer/
(Rolled up copy of Telegraph needed to view artcle.)
|
"Oh dear!"
Are you sure this is true .......... I can't find anything about it in the Grauniad, and the Beeb hasn't mentioned it. There's a bit about it in the dreaded Mail, so there can't be any truth in the story.
|
>> Are you sure this is true .......... I can't find anything about it in the
>> Grauniad, and the Beeb hasn't mentioned it. There's a bit about it in the dreaded
>> Mail, so there can't be any truth in the story.
All over Google now - reports in Mail, Metro and Standard.
|
Labour's manifesto - sooty123
