More evidence of the lunacy of this bunch of sociopaths: Council tenants can buy homes at less than a third of market value So in a time of acute, going on chronic, shortage of affordable homes, Eric Pickles's answer is to increase the discount on Right to Buy from 60% to 70%. But it's OK, the money raised will be used to build more affordable homes. Now I'm no mathematician but if you've only got one third of ther money to build homes with then surely you can only build one third the number of homes to replace those sold. Wouldn't that then exacerbate the shortage of affordable homes?

More evidence of the lunacy of this bunch of sociopaths: Council tenants can buy homes at less than a third of market value So in a time of acute, going on chronic, shortage of affordable homes, Eric Pickles's answer is to increase the discount on Right to Buy from 60% to 70%. But it's OK, the money raised will be used to build more affordable homes. Now I'm no mathematician but if you've only got one third of ther money to build homes with then surely you can only build one third the number of homes to replace those sold. Wouldn't that then exacerbate the shortage of affordable homes?

cod'ead wrote:More evidence of the lunacy of this bunch of sociopaths: Council tenants can buy homes at less than a third of market value So in a time of acute, going on chronic, shortage of affordable homes, Eric Pickles's answer is to increase the discount on Right to Buy from 60% to 70%. But it's OK, the money raised will be used to build more affordable homes. Now I'm no mathematician but if you've only got one third of ther money to build homes with then surely you can only build one third the number of homes to replace those sold. Wouldn't that then exacerbate the shortage of affordable homes? I've no problems at all with Right to Buy. It was a great policy when Maggie introduced it, and helped many people get onto the property ladder. In my parents case, I was delighted to give them the money to buy their council house. It was in a nice street, in a good area, and they were surrounded by neighbours they had known for over 30 years. It also gave them security in their retirement years, and a few quid extra in the weekly budget. And their first investment as homeowners, was to replace the bog standard front door.....as did everyone else in the street who bought theirs! The only disappointment I have is that Cameron has not followed up on his pledge to build a new one, for every one sold.

cod'ead wrote:More evidence of the lunacy of this bunch of sociopaths: Council tenants can buy homes at less than a third of market value So in a time of acute, going on chronic, shortage of affordable homes, Eric Pickles's answer is to increase the discount on Right to Buy from 60% to 70%. But it's OK, the money raised will be used to build more affordable homes. Now I'm no mathematician but if you've only got one third of ther money to build homes with then surely you can only build one third the number of homes to replace those sold. Wouldn't that then exacerbate the shortage of affordable homes? I've no problems at all with Right to Buy. It was a great policy when Maggie introduced it, and helped many people get onto the property ladder. In my parents case, I was delighted to give them the money to buy their council house. It was in a nice street, in a good area, and they were surrounded by neighbours they had known for over 30 years. It also gave them security in their retirement years, and a few quid extra in the weekly budget. And their first investment as homeowners, was to replace the bog standard front door.....as did everyone else in the street who bought theirs! The only disappointment I have is that Cameron has not followed up on his pledge to build a new one, for every one sold.

On the same subject its all very well speaking of "top-up"insurance (private) at a fee of £20 a month but in reality that is utter bollax and a figure plucked out of thin air.

Does anyone REALLY know how much a top-up health insurance policy would cost them, the actual cost I mean not a guestimate ?

Because most of my normal insurance is now with Aviva they send me a sales email every month to try and get me to sign up to their own brand of private health insurance which of course is nothing more than a top-up to the NHS (as is ALL private health insurance in the UK and across Europe for that matter).

I'd write to them and ask them to stop quoting me other than the fact that I'm interested to see what the REAL cost of top-up health insurance actually is, one day I'll ask them to provide details of what they do and more importantly don't cover, but thats only when I can be arsed then fielding all their follow-up calls.

For now, for the record, for me alone (not family cover), a 57 year old normal fit male (health check last year, christ I sound like a vet describing a horse) with no pre-existing conditions and no visits of any importance to his GP in the past 30 years, my monthly Aviva private top-up health cover (its so much more convenient when you need an operation you know) is currently standing at £99.15 per month and it increases by approx £1 each birthday.

THIS is the reason why sometimes I get a bit annoyed when fekkwits start hammering the NHS.

So they didn't live in a large council estate in Westminster Council, London under the lovely Lady Porter. And when people bought with the right to buy were hit with very large bills when they spent millions doing the estate up cosmetically and removing the central heating that was part of the rent and made you have to pay for that yourself. Something that wasn't really told to the people who chose to buy.

Though the front door thing brings a smile to me as people did that. It was almost like a display of difference. "We're not council anymore!"

And of course you'll inherit it

But you're right, there would have been no problem at all if the money raised had been used to replace the housing stock which it could have done almost on a one-to-one basis as the rebuild cost is far, far less than the market price especially for social housing which can often be done on cheap brownfield or useless agricultural land - or land which the bloody council own already.

I'm perfectly happy thank you because all I wanted above all else, including the benefit (which I have paid my taxes and thats the way this country works) was for the government to acknowledge my illness and disability. I am more than happy with the amount I receive because I am just glad we live in a country that helps the most vunerable of its society. And it is a pittance compared to what I was earning before I had to give up work.

Ahhh Unum, a rogue company that are banned from 47 out of the 50 states in America and have been advertising on TV here.

Another "job for the boys" deal going on - get a million disabled people off ESA, then flog 'em health insurance! Good work Tories.

In which case, he's doing exactly what Thatcher did.

It will have been in the terms of their lease agreement, their own fault for not getting sound advice.