What do you think are the rights and wrongs of this case: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445211 ... r-in-wages

What do you think are the rights and wrongs of this case: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445211 ... r-in-wages

I'd say the last line of that statement is about right with Nu Labour being far from blameless also.

That house is 30 years old?

The [iDiana Excess[/i is desperate.

And they accuse the left of the politics of envy...

Perhaps he should rent it out and do it the Tory way?



[urlhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338[/url

The only thing highlighted by the whole right-to-buy scheme is that it was very badly planned without any regard for the long term repercussions or indeed any planned replacement for the low cost rental sector.



Then again we're talking about five year term politicians.

I disagree.



There was never any intention of replacing low-cost housing. It was about creating a stimulus to the banking sector and creating a whole new phalanx of mortgage slaves. Once the low folk signed on the dotted line for a mortgage, they were far less likely to strike or cause other disruption that may result in them missing a mortgage payment.



The saddest thing is that New Labour never took the opportunity to encourage councils to build more affordable homes

Are governments allowed to say to councils, here's a certain amount of money, you will build low cost housing?

I blame it all on god.

If he hadn't whispered into Phoney's ear there would have been no need for that war on terror and everybody in need of social housing could practically have got a brand spanking new one.



Now wouldn't that have been more purposeful?

I'm sure Dubya's army could have gone and killed them hundreds of thousands of civilians off their own back.



just a thought like.

Its how it used to be, or seemed to be, but probably the other way around.



Local authorities had a requirement (as they still do) to provide social housing, housing for rent at what some would say was subsidised prices albeit that the ones who say it is subsidised are usually the ones who prefer to charge as high a price as possible in their own rental properties.



Anyhoo, back in the day when I was working in construction we would always tender to the local authorities on new developments or for refurbs so it was they who commissioned the sites and they who ultimately were the paymasters, presumably that money had come from central government in the first place so that they could fulfil their requirement to provide a certain level of affordable rental properties.



It all sounds very socialist now but Tory governments worked the same way too albeit that occasionally there was friction with some very far left councils, I seem to recall some Tory Minister mentioning that Derek Hattons Liverpool would be defeated by starving of investment but all in all I worked on many social housing schemes through at least the early years of Thatchers reign.

Quote Dally="Dally"What do you think are the rights and wrongs of this case: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445211 ... r-in-wages'" There is nothing wrong with it at all. Many people of my grandparents and parents generation started on low incomes in council houses but remained there all their lives despite eventually earning an income that would have afforded them a mortgage on a house elsewhere. This was quite normal and accepted as people were not expected to up-root if they hit a certain earning level. In fact one of the worst things a Labour government did was introduce restrictions and certain priorities on who qualified for a council house. That meant you ended up with council estates made up of mostly the less well off and needy thus introducing a kind of ghetto status to these places there never used to be. While not many would be on £145K people earning a good wage in council houses ought not to be such an exception. As to Crow, would the Daily Mail be happier if he bought it under right-to-buy thus reducing the social housing stock further?

Quote Dally="Dally"What do you think are the rights and wrongs of this case: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445211 ... r-in-wages'" There is nothing wrong with it at all. Many people of my grandparents and parents generation started on low incomes in council houses but remained there all their lives despite eventually earning an income that would have afforded them a mortgage on a house elsewhere. This was quite normal and accepted as people were not expected to up-root if they hit a certain earning level. In fact one of the worst things a Labour government did was introduce restrictions and certain priorities on who qualified for a council house. That meant you ended up with council estates made up of mostly the less well off and needy thus introducing a kind of ghetto status to these places there never used to be. While not many would be on £145K people earning a good wage in council houses ought not to be such an exception. As to Crow, would the Daily Mail be happier if he bought it under right-to-buy thus reducing the social housing stock further?